EVERYONE Has Read This but Me - The Catch-Up Book Club discussion

Hello all - starting up discussions for the DECEMBER 2017 BOTMs. This discussion is for the group's poll selection for the CLASSICS category: To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee.

This discussion will be FULL OF SPOILERS. If you have not read the book yet and don't want to ruin the ending, hop on over to the spoiler-free discussion HERE .

Happy reading!
Kasey

This really was a great read. It took a bit before I realised what the title meant but when I did it had me sniffling.

I reread this book earlier this year and it broke my heart just like it did when I was a freshman in high school. One of my all time favorites.

I’ll get eaten alive for this. But here goes. I just finished the book for the first time. I appreciate the attempt at an underlying message, but the celebration of the “white male savior” at the end inadvertently undermines all of the prior efforts. There’s a sour irony there and I wonder if this emphasis was intentional to create this irony or if it was a subconscious line of thought and an artifact of the era when TKAM was penned and was inadvertently interwoven into the narrative.

Abigail wrote: "I reread this book earlier this year and it broke my heart just like it did when I was a freshman in high school. One of my all time favorites."

I think it is not meant to be a general message, but a totally subjective perception of a little girl and how she sees her dad.

It is all put in perspective, I find, if you read the follow up "Go Set a Watchman even if it wasn't released that long ago.

Amber wrote: "I’ll get eaten alive for this. But here goes. I just finished the book for the first time. I appreciate the attempt at an underlying message, but the celebration of the “white male savior” at the e..."

You're not alone in feeling that way. I've heard it from other people. I think the problem is not in the book itself so much as in the way that it is taught.

TKAM is not a great book about racism. It was written by an upper class white lady and captures that perspective well. It rarely attempts to present an African American perspective. Calling it a white savior narrative strikes me as a little unfair because the Finches don't really succeed in saving anyone. Tom loses the trial, dies in a possibly suicidal escape attempt, and racism presumably continues as it was before. The only relative victory the Finches achieve is exposing Bob Ewell for molesting his daughter, and that doesn't really help race relations any.

To her credit, Harper Lee did not claim that TKAM was about race. She said it was about the Southern code of honor. Inferring from the text, I would say that this code of honor revolves around courage and loving your neighbor. If judged on how it presents those values, I think the book does quite well.

Markus wrote: "It is all put in perspective, I find, if you read the follow up "Go Set a Watchman even if it wasn't released that long ago."


I disagree about that. If you're on the fence about liking TKAM, then Go Set A Watchman will turn you flat against it. My notes on that topic:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Amber wrote: I appreciate the attempt at an underlying message, but the celebration of the “white male savior” at the end inadvertently undermines all of the prior efforts."

To me it seemed more that nobody wins or saves anything.
Tom dies, Helen gets a lot of crap she doesn't deserve to then be thrown in the #you'reoldnews section, Ewell doesn't get punished for what he did nor does his daughter and nothing changes for the coloured people in general.

This is completely personal of course, but for me the heartbreak over how senseless everything was and how little a lot of the town cared beyond gossip trumped everything else.

Markus wrote: "Abigail wrote: "I reread this book earlier this year and it broke my heart just like it did when I was a freshman in high school. One of my all time favorites."

I think it is not meant to be a gen..."

I liked Go Set A Watchman, but it also made me angry because it completely destroys the positive view you have of Atticus for TKAM. Obviously TKAM is bias, as you said, because it is seen from Scout's perspective, but I would rather have Atticus cast in a positive light than the negative one found in GSAW.

Jasmine wrote: "it also made me angry because it completely destroys the positive view you have of Atticus for TKAM.."

GSAW was marketed as a sequel to TKAM, but it was actually an early, discarded draft of TKAM. So the version of Atticus in GSAW is possibly not the same character as the Atticus in TKAM. They're both modeled after Harper Lee's dad, though.

Phil wrote: "Amber wrote: "I’ll get eaten alive for this. But here goes. I just finished the book for the first time. I appreciate the attempt at an underlying message, but the celebration of the “white male sa..."

Phil wrote: TKAM is not a great book about racism. It was written by an upper class white lady and captures that perspective well. It rarely attempts to present an African American perspective. Calling it a white savior narrative strikes me as a little unfair because the Finches don't really succeed in saving anyone.

Right, of course. What I meant to say in regards to the "underlying message" was that the book obviously tries to illustrate the injustices women and minorities faced during the era--between gossipy neighbors ridiculing a young girl for being a "tom-boy" and the absolutely heartbreaking plot surrounding the rape, where both the accused and the accuser face unforeseen tragedy--but it seemed strange that such an emphasis was placed on the good nature of Atticus Finch, a white man, in the face of those other struggles. What I mean by "celebration" of Atticus is that he was cast in a light that made him out to be a saintly character, despite not being able to be the victor in the trial.

I think I walked into this book with preconceptions on what it was supposed to be about, and ultimately it impacted my view on the book as a whole because--as you said--it is taught to be one thing when it is actually about something else entirely.

Amber wrote: "Phil wrote: "Amber wrote: "I’ll get eaten alive for this. But here goes. I just finished the book for the first time. I appreciate the attempt at an underlying message, but the celebration of the “..."

I think the treatment of Atticus would have been a problem if he had been the only white person fighting on behalf of Tom and his family. Atticus' views are readily apparent because the narrator is his daughter, but as she begins to grow up, she starts to see how other people might also be trying to address the problems in the town. The judge could have appointed a newly minted lawyer to defend Tom. Link Dees didn't have to hire Tom's widow or keep Ewell from trying to scare her. Could they have done more? Yes. But they were at least trying to do something even if by today's standards their attempts were half-hearted and tepid.

Mockingbird is one of the finest novels I have ever read. It is probably in my top 5. Everything about it is just great. I don't care to dissect it or over analyze it. Even if you take it as a simple coming of age story it is just a stellar book on that merit alone. I wish everyone in the world had the time to read it.

Nick wrote: "Mockingbird is one of the finest novels I have ever read. It is probably in my top 5. Everything about it is just great. I don't care to dissect it or over analyze it. Even if you take it as a simp..."
well said.

Nick wrote: "Mockingbird is one of the finest novels I have ever read. It is probably in my top 5. Everything about it is just great. I don't care to dissect it or over analyze it. Even if you take it as a simp..."

I agree SOOOO much with what you said. I just simply loved the book. I didn't read it in high school (or if I did I don't remember doing so), but I do know my class discussed it to death so I hesitated to ever read it. And once I read it I couldn't believe I'd waited so long to do so. I just loved the story and the writing! Simple as that!

Really enjoyed this second read (I have hardly any recollection of reading it in junior high), especially because Sissy Spacek's audio rendition really brought the story to life.

But I found the scene in which Heck Tate and Atticus are discussing the incident in the school yard very frustrating. I get that Atticus had a hang-up about people being held accountable, but he was hell-bent on believing that Jim killed Ewell. Scout's account did not prove at all that he did, and everyone seemed to totally forget the fact that Boo Radley was standing right there- why didn't he say anything?! After all he did for those kids, he was content to allow Atticus to think Jim killed a man? I had to listen to that scene twice, because it felt like some lines were missing. But it sounded to me like Boo killed Ewell, and Tate was covering *that* up. And Boo was OK with that? Even if he were going to deny it, I don't understand why they never ask him to recount him experience. That seemed unlikely, and didn't fit with the rest of the story.

Jennifer wrote: "Really enjoyed this second read (I have hardly any recollection of reading it in junior high), especially because Sissy Spacek's audio rendition really brought the story to life.

But I found the ..."

I am listening to Sissy Spacek read it this time around. I have probably read this book at least 10 times. I read it to my kids and they wanted me to read it every year. In school, I had to read it 3 or 4 times for different classes. I love it everytime.

Jennifer wrote: "Really enjoyed this second read (I have hardly any recollection of reading it in junior high), especially because Sissy Spacek's audio rendition really brought the story to life.

But I found the ..."

It's hard to tell what Atticus is thinking in that scene. One interpretation, that I think I got from the movie, is that Atticus genuinely thought Jem did the stabbing. Heck Tate makes a nudging comment partway through the scene and Atticus seems to suddenly realize that it was Boo.

I also have to agree with those who love this book, I don't think every book has to have a happy ending. This book just precisely describes 30's , it's breathtaking also the admiration of Scout for Atticus. He was not only for her but also for me kind of a hero fighting for what he finds right, even though he loses the fight. It's one of a top 5 books :) as it was said.

I adored TKAM in junior high. However, I made a fatal error in judgement - I read https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....

The rose-tinted memory of TKAM my 14-year-old self retained has been smashed like a valuable Ming vase into a thousand pieces.

I still think TKAM is a wonderful book - for teenagers, especially. But after reading ‘Watchman’, I think New York editors were responsible for Lee’s final published TKAM manuscript. Oh, yes, Lee could write (the first half of ‘Watchman’ proves that) and TKAM certainly depicted the South of 1935 in a manner to suit sensitive white literary readers. But if ‘Watchman’ was the first draft of TKAM, somehow Lee’s original chick-lit version became the nostalgic-sweet literary version of a childhood in a Southern town.

I am very conflicted now. On its own merit, the book is good.

Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg speech was good too, but I recently learned Lincoln worked on it for days, and advisors helped sharpen it up afterwords. The speech was not written in hours on a train trip on the back of an envelope by Lincoln alone. Does that mean his speech was not authentic? No. Did Harper Lee want to write a novel about the people of a small Southern town, warts and all, and include her father’s life to help explain Southern values? Yes.

I know most publishing industry novels are often made like sausages, but sometimes I wish I could unsee what I saw. ‘Watchman’ destroyed the character of Atticus for me, but I think ‘Watchman’s Atticus was the real man Lee knew. The Publishers said ‘Watchman’ was the sequel to TKAM, but that is a lie. Apparently it was the first draft of the novel which was rewritten until it became TKAM.

Amber wrote: "I’ll get eaten alive for this. But here goes. I just finished the book for the first time. I appreciate the attempt at an underlying message, but the celebration of the “white male savior” at the e..."


Amber this is one of my all time favorite books. I think I saw what you call the great whit savoir as how a child sees their father. A person without flaws, I saw my dad that way as a child.

I see him different as an adult. This book evoked those feelings I had as a child. It was a comfort for me. A book brings different feelings to each reader. I am glad I had my journey.

This is a book that I read many years ago and decided to reread. I liked it on a number of levels. Novels set in the 30's have that gritty feel to them and it is what I think of when I recall my mom's stories from the Great Depression. It is a simpler time where people were working hard to get by. Times were difficult.
The other aspect I like is that it is set in the south. The sense of the divide between people is absolutely present. The segregation aspect is difficult but part of history. The author does portray the sense that the white townspeople are struggling with the us against them mentality when they don't identify at all with Ewell.
I love that Scout is a strong female character. Often it is her innocence that resets the moral compass of others.
I appreciate that this family is a one parent family that works - strong relationships between father and children.
I could go on but I won't. This book, written in the early 60's, is still relevant 50+ years later.

Link to my review:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Lena wrote: "Nick wrote: I agree SOOOO much with what you said. I just simply loved the book. I didn't read it in high school (or if I did I don't remember doing so), but I do know my class discussed it to death so I hesitated to ever read it. And once I read it I couldn't believe I'd waited so long to do so. I just loved the story and the writing! Simple as that!

Me too. I just finished reading it for the first time and I absolutely love it. I wish I had read it earlier and not put it on hold for so long. This is definitely in my top 3 list.

Phil wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Really enjoyed this second read (I have hardly any recollection of reading it in junior high), especially because Sissy Spacek's audio rendition really brought the story to life.
..."

This is the theory that I go with. Atticus knew Heck was lying and trying to cover up the truth, which goes against everything Atticus has been trying to stand for and teach his children. He's got to be in some sort of shock from realizing that his children were almost killed that night and thus not thinking his clearest. Scout says it was Jem who pulled Ewell off of her and that is what Atticus' mind grabs hold of.

As to why they act as if Arthur isn't even there, I think on Heck's part it was a kindness since he knows Arthur's "shy ways" and on Atticus' it was an oversight of grief and shock - he was concerned for his children and had had something he fundamentally believed overturned. He honestly did not think Ewell would do more than vent because he overestimated Ewell as a person. People don't think the clearest when their children are in danger or have just been in danger; they can get a bit tunnel-visioned.

I am pretty sure this was my third reading of this book, and what I found most interesting was that I did not see Atticus as a Perfect Saint as he so often gets portrayed, and I think that made me respect him more. He is definitely a person adored by his children, but his strengths and his flaws are there as in any person, but it takes looking between the lines of Scout's observations and perceptions. Scout doesn't pay much attention to his faults because he is her Father and she loves him, he can do no wrong and makes everything right. She thinks his worst fault is just that he is old and so doesn't play football or go fishing or do things her classmates' dads do, but she still loves him with the innocent love of a child. Lee does an amazing job portraying the world through Scout's eyes.

The book take too long to start

I read this a few years ago and it didn’t really stick with me. This time it was much more poignant, but I wager with you, Amber. I think it’s mostly an artifact of the period in which it’s set and written,but there is a white savior element to Atticus that doesn’t always sit well with me. For what it is, it’s a good book but I think it’s important to look at it holistically and how it fits into modern culture and politics.

I had to read this for school last year, and I remember a lot of it surprisingly. I think that it is an important book because some themes in the book are the same in this day and age. It is interesting to be able to see racism through the eyes of a child, someone who is considered innocent and untarnished by the world. I will have to read "Go Set A Watchman" next and see what I think of that.

I never "had" to read this book, and I thank this group for getting me to read it now. I enjoyed it very much.

I listened to the audiobook earlier this year, and decided to buy the book after that. I think this book is one of those that's easy to impose our own time/place perspective upon. Sadly, I think at that time Atticus Finch was likely not seen by most readers as a "white savior" but as a more controversial figure. I think the buildup of sympathy for him in the first half of the book (especially re: his relationship with Jem and Scout) was intended to develop him as a character that couldn't be dismissed as simply right or wrong, good or bad, but rather one that was human, thoughtful and, especially, just. I love this book not just for the story, but for the characters and the dialogue.

I've tried to read it but I can't seem to get into it. I would love to appreciate it. Any help or suggestions. I must add that I'm a conceptual reader and would love to be able to read and, as people describe, see a movie in my head. If someone could let me know the 'trick' technique, I would really be happy.

Roslin wrote: "I've tried to read it but I can't seem to get into it. I would love to appreciate it. Any help or suggestions. I must add that I'm a conceptual reader and would love to be able to read and, as peop..."

Okay, here's some pointers:
1. The first chapter (and to some extent the second chapter) are a rough start. You have to push through. The thread to hand on to is the position of the Finch family relative to the the other social units in the town.
2. A lot of people make the error of thinking this is mainly about race. Large portions of the book are not about race. All of them are about courage, though, and many are about service to your neighbors. The book makes more sense when viewed through that lens.

Roslin wrote: "I've tried to read it but I can't seem to get into it. I would love to appreciate it. Any help or suggestions. I must add that I'm a conceptual reader and would love to be able to read and, as peop..."

I don't know if you were speaking metaphorically or literally, but I met a person who never saw movies or images in their head while reading, or even in conversation.

I belonged to an organization that recruited volunteers to teach adults how to read. One student I had, a married man of thirty, never learned to read despite having a high school diploma (you'd be surprised how many American kids are simply passed along from grade to grade in some schools). He was a construction foreman working for his dad's company and he wanted a new job away from his dad.

Besides discovering he was a very good father of two children and very nice, I accidentally learned during our lessons he was unable to see images or movies in his head. Literally. Once, I asked him to picture himself in a sports stadium....And he said how? I tried, "ok, imagine your wife's face..." And he said I don't know how that is done.

I thought he was kidding, but he wasn't. He was shocked by my shock, and we stopped the lesson to explore this phenomenon. He was unaware people saw images and movies in their imagination. I checked this out with a psychologist - it is a true condition. Some people cannot imagine images, scenes or movies.

First, I saw the movie before reading the book and I STILL had the misconception that the novel is about racism. It is funny how much mass opinion seeps into the subconscious. That being said, I like that this story is about life in the old south. You just can't read it with a modern mindset. While I can see the "white savior" complex to which some of you are referring, to me all of the characters are human and flawed. More importantly, reading this gave me some perspective on how times were when my grandparents grew up.

For example: Her parents owned a restaurant in Indiana and they would make brown-bag meals for the "coloreds" and pass them out the back door. Yep, they could have done a lot more, but in a town where doing that was dangerous...