# To Kill A Mockingbird - read it again



## Aurelio (Nov 15, 2005)

This is a book lots of people read when they are in high school.  I did, and I loved it back then, but I recently read it again.  It's as near to flawless as any book I've ever read.  It felt so alive and transported me completely.  The writing is brilliant on every level.

Sometimes those books we enjoyed as a kid are an even richer experience as an adult.  _To Kill A Mockingbird_ stunned me.  I recommend a reread.  You won't be disappointed.


----------



## Avarice (Nov 16, 2005)

i'm so sick of that book, its all she bloody wrote and now they make us read it in some irish schools, we cant read works by oscar wilde o noooo, lets read some garbage about racism as if we didnt all know it existed back then. I abhor and am so sick of people having orgasms about it. Yes thats my two fuking cents * throws them at u*


----------



## amusinglackoftalent (Nov 16, 2005)

*Goodness...*



			
				Avarice said:
			
		

> i'm so sick of that book, its all she bloody wrote and now they make us read it in some irish schools, we cant read works by oscar wilde o noooo, lets read some garbage about racism as if we didnt all know it existed back then. I abhor and am so sick of people having orgasms about it. Yes thats my two fuking cents * throws them at u*


 
Gee, Avarice, you really should stop being so obscure and try to express what you feel with a little less hesitancy.  Be more direct and open.  We enjoy Wilde quite a bit in the states but he's no Harper Lee.  (I'm kidding, he was a wonderful writer.)  Anyway, I recently read a paper that someone wrote on Lee.  (She's still quite popular here despite the nausea she obviously brings to some.)  "When you do it like that the first time why on earth would you want to try again?"  

I've recently been made aware of the glut of younger writers that surpass the brilliance and ability of yesterday's scribes with effortless abandon.  I can only assume from your aloof opinion that you breath this rarified literary air.  Perhaps Ms. Lee will one day indulge your work and feel the need to write you a most humble apology for her small accomplishment.  


"In its first year, _Mockingbird_ created one of the most extraordinary records in publishing history. It was chosen by three American book clubs: Reader's Digest Condensed Books, the Literary Guild and Book-of-the-Month Club. It sold more than two and a half million copies that first year and went through 14 printings. 
It was also chosen by the British Book Society and was published in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Czechoslovakia. It was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in Letters on May 1, 1961. On the second anniversary of its publication, _Mockingbird_had been on the best seller lists for 100 weeks and had sold more than five million copies in 13 countries."

I'm going to run downtown and see if I can find a comparable Oscar Wilde.


----------



## Jimmy_James (Nov 16, 2005)

This book while not appreciated by some of my classmates, inspired me to a level I can hardly describe, I went straight out and bought the movie...*drool* gregory peck...I also have a tattoo on my back based on the book. If anyone knows skater company slogans, the atticus clothing line used to have a broken heart sympol on all their clothes, now they've moved to dead mocking birds, but anyways the point is that heart to me is about no prejudice. And I find that that was what the book was about. Atticus Finch's feelings about racism were never brought into this story, it was his feelings that every man has the right to be judged properly, and that comes into the line of prejudice, judging a man based on creed or colour.


----------



## Drzava (Nov 16, 2005)

http://www.writingforums.com/showthread.php?t=37150


It's a bullshit waste of paper and ink just like every other American novel from the 20th century.  Writing from then is all so uninspired and plain, with such broad themes as "Racism is wrong" and "People were poor in the 30's" (But Steinbeck is a different topic).  It has no social impact, as racists won't change their mind, regular people already know it, and the book doesn't bring anything new to the table, it's just completely asinine.


----------



## amusinglackoftalent (Nov 17, 2005)

*Good Grief...*



			
				Drzava said:
			
		

> It's a bullshit waste of paper and ink just like every other American novel from the 20th century.


 
That's an amazing statement for any sort of person to make let alone a writer.  I suppose they should shut the forum down and we should all put our pens away... with the possible exception of you, Drzava.  Where do you people find your arrogance?  What lofty perch do you inhabit in the world of writing and expression that you can make such a statement as that?  Where is your Nobel prize winning creation as I write these words?  _To Kill a Mockingbird_ recently celebrated a 35th anniversary printing.  Does this accomplishment mean nothing to the naysayers?  Is it now 'trendy' to trash such works as these?  Do you enhance your opinion of yourself by doing so?  WTF is up with minds and hearts that work in such a way that statements like the one above can be made with such blatant and blissful stupidity?


----------



## Drzava (Nov 17, 2005)

You must be blissfully stupid to like that trash that is more suitable to feed a fire than it is to read.


----------



## amusinglackoftalent (Nov 17, 2005)

*bliss...*



			
				Drzava said:
			
		

> You must be blissfully stupid to like that trash that is more suitable to feed a fire than it is to read.


 
Yes, I am stupid.  Responding to your posts is proof of that.  I am also respectful of work that I can only hope to match as a lover of words and writing.  However, I lack the arrogance to make the sort of statements you made about work that still moves the minds and hearts of many to this very day.  I believe someone said it quite well on another thread when they invited an individual to 'get over herself'.  

This exchange will, probably already has, developed into a flaming contest and I detest encounters of that sort.  I apologize for calling you stupid, but it was no more arrogant than the statement you made about ink and paper with regard to Lee's work.  Can the same not be said of each word you write on this forum, Drzava?  Will the world ever know your attempts in the way that it knows Harper Lee's?


----------



## PipHobbit (Nov 20, 2005)

amusinglackoftalent: Completely agreed with you.

Drzava: Although _To Kill a Mockingbird_ was to you the same, repetitive drivel as "every other American novel from the 20th century," not all people have been exposed to this sort of literature and enjoy it. Just because you yourself did not like this novel, you have no reason to bash it and selfishly ruin everyone else's fun.


----------



## Jimmy_James (Nov 20, 2005)

I believe that jealousy has a large factor in the lives of some people on here


----------



## Aurelio (Nov 21, 2005)

Avarice and Drzava - all you two got out of this book was that it was about racism???  Egads.  Sorry, but you both don't seem to have much depth of thought.  Funny too, when you have to trash Harper Lee for your own inability to get her book.  Perhaps my advice to read it again is appropriate after all.

I also find it strange that you fellows view writing as a contest, like one particular writer is good so everyone else that doesn't write just like them is bad.  It's a pretty shallow view.

As to the movie version of _To Kill a Mockingbird_, it's one of the few films that really captured the feeling of the book.  Peck is amazing.


----------



## Drzava (Nov 21, 2005)

What more is to it?  It's just simplistic, like the works of Twain or Steinbeck or Fitzgerald.  That seems to be a big problem with American literature from 1850-1950, the themes are just dull and, frankly, quite boring.  Twain and Hemingway pull it off a bit better, however, Harper Lee just turned out one book that is about not judging others.  How profound.  Like that hasn't already been done 50000000 times before :roll:

And Jimmy, I doubt jealousy has anything to do with it.  Do you read a movie review and then just dismiss it "Oh he's jealous he could never direct something like that."  I wasn't saying I could write better (but in reality, who can't), but that the book is just dull (terrible) and it isn't as good as all the hype makes it out to be.


----------



## epone (Nov 21, 2005)

I saw a lovely daisy the other day in a field - it was beautiful. I felt relaxed and happy that I was alive.

Just thought I'd lighten the mood.

Anyone what to slag off 'Walkabout'. I read that at school and have just finished reading it again. I enjoyed it more this time round.


----------



## casperthesheet (Nov 22, 2005)

epone said:
			
		

> I saw a lovely daisy the other day in a field - it was beautiful. I felt relaxed and happy that I was alive.
> 
> Just thought I'd lighten the mood.
> 
> Anyone what to slag off 'Walkabout'. I read that at school and have just finished reading it again. I enjoyed it more this time round.


 
I wish I could see a daisy in a lush green field (yes, I did add on a bit) but snow is everywhere. 

Anyways, I thought it was a great book and was about to pick it up yesterday when I was Christmas shopping.


----------



## Aurelio (Nov 25, 2005)

> What more is to it? It's just simplistic, like the works of Twain or Steinbeck or Fitzgerald. That seems to be a big problem with American literature from 1850-1950, the themes are just dull and, frankly, quite boring. Twain and Hemingway pull it off a bit better, however, Harper Lee just turned out one book that is about not judging others. How profound. Like that hasn't already been done 50000000 times before
> 
> And Jimmy, I doubt jealousy has anything to do with it. Do you read a movie review and then just dismiss it "Oh he's jealous he could never direct something like that." I wasn't saying I could write better (but in reality, who can't), but that the book is just dull (terrible) and it isn't as good as all the hype makes it out to be.


LOL - Chill out, Drzava!  When I started this thread I wasn't trying to *force* anyone to read _To Kill a Mockingbird_.  So... you didn't like it?  Okay.  You don't really _need_ that blow torch and itchy trigger finger to express your opposing views, do you?

Someone needs to send you flowers to brighten your day.

:flower: :flower: :flower:


----------



## LA (Nov 26, 2005)

You, Drzava, are a closed door.


----------



## Aurelio (Nov 27, 2005)

It's funny/strange to me - the comments about this book being "about racism."  I keep coming back to it because is is so baffling.

That never entered my mind while reading _To Kill a Mockingbird_, because I enjoyed the interrelationships of the various characters so much, and to me this was the heart of Lee's tale.  The racism was only one part of the backdrop of the real story.  I mean, you wouldn't say Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is simply about the fall of the Roman empire, would you?

Harper Lee captured the feeling of being a kid, of rural life in a small town, of summers off, and growing up.  Her prose are clear and voice distinct.  I aspire to write that consummately.

And as to her writing only one book, *saywha?????*, what difference does that make?!  So a writer's ultimate objective is quantity above quality?  I really question the logic behind this particular criticism.


----------



## Verkleefd (Dec 10, 2005)

I do agree that Lee is not the best American writer, nor Hemingway was, neither Faulkner... I have some sympathy for Steinbeck, also for Sinclair Lewis and Edith Warton... But I think that Philip Roth and Joyce Carol Oates are much better... Faulkner's prose is a dreary ocean, as Hemingway's so-much boiled style; Lee bored me from page 2 with the style of To Kill A Mockingbird: it's a book that I put aside and then back into my study. I even enjoyed more Fowles' French Lieutenant Woman, a larger book with a dim setting...


----------



## ross (Dec 10, 2005)

I make no apology for liking this book very much. It's writing. It's an artform and by definition will mean differant things to differant people. To me it's a story about childhood.
Despite the suggestion that it's meaningless, it's sparked some lively debate here. So it must mean something to someone. Earth-shattering? I doubt it. I also doubt Harper Lee set out to change the world anyhow - that would be rather portentious all things considered.
I still think it's a good book. I like the characters, I like the plot, I think most of all I like the voice.


----------



## lisajane (Dec 23, 2005)

I gave this book a try when I was 12, 13 years old... managed to read half of it before it bored me. Never had to study it in school, and I can't imagine I'd try reading it again. I don't think it's a bad book though, just wasn't holding my attention because I like different genres.


----------



## Hodge (Dec 23, 2005)

S'alright. Not the best, not the worst, but definitely written more for teens.


----------



## ross (Dec 25, 2005)

Nope (and yes I realise I'm sticking me neck out here) still like it at 38!


----------

