Harper Lee has died(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Harper Lee has died
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/arts/harper-lee-dies.html
175 comments
No one could so thoroughly eviscerate my favorite novel except Malcolm Gladwell. I take his point.
His criticism imagines a better hero, one who would righteously proclaim truth. But this is also unfair. Had A.F. done this, he would have lost his stature and surely everything he held precious. This is impossible for most, and it would be unrealistic to write the story in that way.
In my view, the work stands strong, as it has weathered many assaults, this latest included. Other favorites of mine have toppled.
His criticism imagines a better hero, one who would righteously proclaim truth. But this is also unfair. Had A.F. done this, he would have lost his stature and surely everything he held precious. This is impossible for most, and it would be unrealistic to write the story in that way.
In my view, the work stands strong, as it has weathered many assaults, this latest included. Other favorites of mine have toppled.
I don't actually take it as a critique of the novel. To me it makes the novel far deeper, since it portrays a realistic and historically plausible Atticus Finch, in both his virtues and his limitations. It makes the moral of the story more nuanced.
And the critique of Atticus Finch I don't even take as some kind of heavy-handed moral judgment. The article's byline isn't "Atticus Finch was a bad person," it's "Atticus Finch and the limits of Southern liberalism." A person trying to stand up for the right in this way can do some good (And Jim Folsom did some good). But an accommodating, non-confrontational approach like Atticus will have its limits.
I also don't feel that the article's conclusion implies that people should be 100% uncompromising in their principles all the time. Pragmatically speaking, that's unlikely to maximize the amount of justice in the world.
And the critique of Atticus Finch I don't even take as some kind of heavy-handed moral judgment. The article's byline isn't "Atticus Finch was a bad person," it's "Atticus Finch and the limits of Southern liberalism." A person trying to stand up for the right in this way can do some good (And Jim Folsom did some good). But an accommodating, non-confrontational approach like Atticus will have its limits.
I also don't feel that the article's conclusion implies that people should be 100% uncompromising in their principles all the time. Pragmatically speaking, that's unlikely to maximize the amount of justice in the world.
> Understand what? That her father and the Sheriff have decided to obstruct justice in the name of saving their beloved neighbor the burden of angel-food cake?
to which I reply
> Pirates are evil? The Marines are righteous? These terms have always changed throughout the course of history! Kids who have never seen peace and kids who have never seen war have different values! Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice! [0]
By appealing to "justice", Malcolm Gladwell is making a deontological appeal. But as a consequentialist, I don't find it very convincing. Additionally, the critique reminds me of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics: "Atticus did good, but not optimally good. Therefore, he was worse than Hitler."
Furthermore, I disagree that Atticus's impact on society was limited by his approach. Rather, his impact was inherently limited by the culture. I.e. I suspect that a lot of people imagine "if I had lived in the antebellum south, I'd have been more vocal than MLK jr". But realistically, there's only so much a single person can do to effect change. Almost by definition, the status quo has inertia. So given the circumstances, the "hearts and minds" approach may have very well been the most effective strategy. More than one history teacher has told me that we have to interpret people's behavior within the context of their own time period. This entails that it's misleading to judge the behavior of people from other cultures by modern standards.
(but thanks for sharing the article. It changed the way I think about "to kill a mockingbird" also.)
[0] http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Justice
to which I reply
> Pirates are evil? The Marines are righteous? These terms have always changed throughout the course of history! Kids who have never seen peace and kids who have never seen war have different values! Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice! [0]
By appealing to "justice", Malcolm Gladwell is making a deontological appeal. But as a consequentialist, I don't find it very convincing. Additionally, the critique reminds me of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics: "Atticus did good, but not optimally good. Therefore, he was worse than Hitler."
Furthermore, I disagree that Atticus's impact on society was limited by his approach. Rather, his impact was inherently limited by the culture. I.e. I suspect that a lot of people imagine "if I had lived in the antebellum south, I'd have been more vocal than MLK jr". But realistically, there's only so much a single person can do to effect change. Almost by definition, the status quo has inertia. So given the circumstances, the "hearts and minds" approach may have very well been the most effective strategy. More than one history teacher has told me that we have to interpret people's behavior within the context of their own time period. This entails that it's misleading to judge the behavior of people from other cultures by modern standards.
(but thanks for sharing the article. It changed the way I think about "to kill a mockingbird" also.)
[0] http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Justice
One Piece and Doflamingo FTW.
I agree with this; nothing I wrote is intended to contradict that or dispute it, didn't mean to convey it as such. Thanks for the link, it was very interesting.
I'm not sure I understand what Gladwell is getting at. The point of TKAM isn't to put Atticus Finch on a pedestal -- it's to paint a portrait of southern society in the 1930's. At this Harper Lee undoubtedly excels, to the extent that she reveals the prejudice of well-meaning men as well as racists. It's easy to criticize racism -- plenty of writers in the 30's did it. It's much harder to accurately pinpoint the flaws of well-meaning non-racists, and that's what makes TKAM an absolute jewel.
If Gladwell's point is that people are interpreting TKAM incorrectly, then I suppose I agree, but that's not what I'm getting out of this essay. What I'm getting is the distinct feeling that Gladwell wants to criticize Lee for pushing some sort of agenda... which is, well, bizarre.
If Gladwell's point is that people are interpreting TKAM incorrectly, then I suppose I agree, but that's not what I'm getting out of this essay. What I'm getting is the distinct feeling that Gladwell wants to criticize Lee for pushing some sort of agenda... which is, well, bizarre.
Hmm, from Gladwell's article I did perceive his aim was at the naive interpretation of the novel, not at the novel itself nor Lee. To me the article was very informing; when I read the novel I did see it's not just about what's right and wrong, but had a feeling that I didn't really grasp the nuances.
In that case, fair enough. I'd love nothing more than to be wrong about this :)
I suppose what bothers me most particularly is the appeal to legal expertise in the analysis. I think this is missing the point completely, and I fail to see how that can be a criticism of anything but the author. We learn that Lee isn't a legal expert, but this isn't a book about law per se. Rather, it's a book about society, so the moral and ethical contradictions in Finch's character constitute a feature, not a bug, and the legal narrative drives the story -- nothing more.
I suppose what bothers me most particularly is the appeal to legal expertise in the analysis. I think this is missing the point completely, and I fail to see how that can be a criticism of anything but the author. We learn that Lee isn't a legal expert, but this isn't a book about law per se. Rather, it's a book about society, so the moral and ethical contradictions in Finch's character constitute a feature, not a bug, and the legal narrative drives the story -- nothing more.
Is that the part describing Lubet's criticism? The Malcolm's main point seems to show "how badly the brand of Southern populism Finch represents has aged over the past fifty years", and the lengthy description is just to say it's naive to take Finch as legal hero. As a drama, actually having weak case is a juicy obstacle for the protagonist to make the story much more interesting. It's a good novel not "in spite of", but "because of", Finch's dubious legal standing.
>As a drama, actually having weak case is a juicy obstacle for the protagonist to make the story much more interesting. It's a good novel not "in spite of", but "because of", Finch's dubious legal standing.
Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying to make, so it seems as though we're in agreement. It also seems as though I may have read too fast or too far into Gladwell's editorial.
Color me satisfied :)
Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying to make, so it seems as though we're in agreement. It also seems as though I may have read too fast or too far into Gladwell's editorial.
Color me satisfied :)
Good conversation. Thanks.
Harper Lee eviscerates it herself in Go Set a Watchman.
However you approach her second novel, it's worth the read to understand her outlook on life in the South.
However you approach her second novel, it's worth the read to understand her outlook on life in the South.
Gladwell is attempting to make the point that systemic racism took more than hearts and minds to be changed.
I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, the only way you can change systemic problems is to convince the minds and hearts of people to change.
You cannot simply make new laws and expect everything to go smoothly if few people have changed their minds or hearts. How will you enforce the new laws?
And furthermore, he wasted a whole lot of his time and mine trying to reveal the disparity between the novel Harper Lee wrote and the one she should have written. Why?
I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, the only way you can change systemic problems is to convince the minds and hearts of people to change.
You cannot simply make new laws and expect everything to go smoothly if few people have changed their minds or hearts. How will you enforce the new laws?
And furthermore, he wasted a whole lot of his time and mine trying to reveal the disparity between the novel Harper Lee wrote and the one she should have written. Why?
I'm trying to be charitable in my reading of your comment, but your argument seems to imply that the Supreme Court should have delayed the Brown vs. Board of Education decision until white southerners had already been convinced to desegregate. Or that the Civil War should rather have been a Civil Conversation, or a Civil Plea.
Also I don't think it's meant as a criticism of the novel at all. It just means the novel is deeper than a simple morality play.
Also I don't think it's meant as a criticism of the novel at all. It just means the novel is deeper than a simple morality play.
Points taken.
On your first point, I don't think the law needs to wait on everyone to change their minds and hearts. But enough lawmakers and voters have to change their minds and hearts for the systemic problems to go away.
On the second point, you're probably right. But something about the way he says it seems critical of fictional character behaviors.
On your first point, I don't think the law needs to wait on everyone to change their minds and hearts. But enough lawmakers and voters have to change their minds and hearts for the systemic problems to go away.
On the second point, you're probably right. But something about the way he says it seems critical of fictional character behaviors.
For yet another perspective, consider how you and people you know react to animal rights activists who take an Atticus-like approach to their activism compared to those who take a more militant and hard-line approach. It seems to me that most people find the first group more persuasive and harder to write off.
In one episode of Veronica Mars, Veronica "infiltrates" an animal rights group where this guy gives a speech, ending witht the words, "people wearing fur coats are the target, not the enemy." [Wikipedia says it's episode 3x10, "Follow the monkey"]
It just makes sense. If you want to convince people, you don't want to antagonize them.
There are limits, of course. Some people are just so completely racist, homophobe, antisemitic, whatever, one can't reach them, certainly not charm them into becoming more decent.
But for most other people, the friendly approach is far more promising than the confrontational one. This goes for smaller issues, as well, and is well worth keeping in mind in day-to-day interactions with others.
It just makes sense. If you want to convince people, you don't want to antagonize them.
There are limits, of course. Some people are just so completely racist, homophobe, antisemitic, whatever, one can't reach them, certainly not charm them into becoming more decent.
But for most other people, the friendly approach is far more promising than the confrontational one. This goes for smaller issues, as well, and is well worth keeping in mind in day-to-day interactions with others.
Many have said To Kill A Mockingbird made Harper Lee a "one hit wonder"...but, wow...the hit was a home run...
Brilliant characterization--Scout, Jem, Dill, Atticus, Calpurnia, Boo Radley, the Ewells, Tom Robinson...
The setting...the Deep South, small town flavor, racial tensions...
This novel has it all...the Great American Novel, personified...
Sad news...great writer...
Brilliant characterization--Scout, Jem, Dill, Atticus, Calpurnia, Boo Radley, the Ewells, Tom Robinson...
The setting...the Deep South, small town flavor, racial tensions...
This novel has it all...the Great American Novel, personified...
Sad news...great writer...
Harper Lee was a "one hit wonder", but the "one hit" was more than enough in terms of contribution to American literature. Very sad news indeed.
> "If Finch were a civil-rights hero, he would be brimming with rage at the unjust verdict. But he isn’t. He’s not Thurgood Marshall looking for racial salvation through the law. He’s Jim Folsom, looking for racial salvation through hearts and minds."
One of these approaches persuaded people to come around to correct views. The other approach produced intellectual trench warfare and our current political gridlock. And Gladwell likes the second, not the first.
Does he have any idea what happens when you use force of arms to compel people to assent on the surface to beliefs they don't hold? The example of the Soviet Union should warn him that this is a bad idea. In particular, look at the Baltic states, which didn't really have a sense of national identity or distinction from Russia before Soviet rule, but are now fanatically nationalist and anti-Russian.
More to the point -- because they're culturally much more similar to the American South -- he should look at Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. Ireland shook off the Saxon yoke after its "Eight Hundred Years of Oppression", which did nothing to make the Irish into Englishmen; Scotland is close to recovering its freedom, reversing the verdict of the 1707 Acts of Union; Welsh nationalism is growing, and we'll probably see Welsh independence in our lifetimes -- even though Wales has been ruled by England since 1277.
The longer the American South is coerced instead of persuaded -- even if they're coerced to do the right thing -- the more they'll react like the other Celts over the water. (Especially the Lowland Scots, who are the people that most contemporary Southerners descend from. Donald Trump, for example, is a textbook Lowlander -- although admittedly he's not Southern.) I wonder what payoff the futures markets offer for Confederate secession in 200 years?
One of these approaches persuaded people to come around to correct views. The other approach produced intellectual trench warfare and our current political gridlock. And Gladwell likes the second, not the first.
Does he have any idea what happens when you use force of arms to compel people to assent on the surface to beliefs they don't hold? The example of the Soviet Union should warn him that this is a bad idea. In particular, look at the Baltic states, which didn't really have a sense of national identity or distinction from Russia before Soviet rule, but are now fanatically nationalist and anti-Russian.
More to the point -- because they're culturally much more similar to the American South -- he should look at Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. Ireland shook off the Saxon yoke after its "Eight Hundred Years of Oppression", which did nothing to make the Irish into Englishmen; Scotland is close to recovering its freedom, reversing the verdict of the 1707 Acts of Union; Welsh nationalism is growing, and we'll probably see Welsh independence in our lifetimes -- even though Wales has been ruled by England since 1277.
The longer the American South is coerced instead of persuaded -- even if they're coerced to do the right thing -- the more they'll react like the other Celts over the water. (Especially the Lowland Scots, who are the people that most contemporary Southerners descend from. Donald Trump, for example, is a textbook Lowlander -- although admittedly he's not Southern.) I wonder what payoff the futures markets offer for Confederate secession in 200 years?
“If you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you’ll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks,” Finch tells his daughter. “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”
Excellently put! All sides of the political spectrum should learn from this, if not to get along with the, to them, despicable other side, than to beat them. Case in point: Until we stop calling Trump backers idiots, racists, etc. (http://thedailybanter.com/2015/09/a-new-gop-poll-proves-trum...) we will be plagued by the likes of him.
Excellently put! All sides of the political spectrum should learn from this, if not to get along with the, to them, despicable other side, than to beat them. Case in point: Until we stop calling Trump backers idiots, racists, etc. (http://thedailybanter.com/2015/09/a-new-gop-poll-proves-trum...) we will be plagued by the likes of him.
What a great article. I specially liked this bit:
Orwell didn’t think that Dickens should have written different novels; he loved Dickens. But he understood that Dickens bore the ideological marks of his time and place. His class did not see the English social order as tyrannical, worthy of being overthrown. Dickens thought that large contradictions could be tamed through small moments of justice. He believed in the power of changing hearts, and that’s what you believe in, Orwell says, if you “do not wish to endanger the status quo.”
Orwell didn’t think that Dickens should have written different novels; he loved Dickens. But he understood that Dickens bore the ideological marks of his time and place. His class did not see the English social order as tyrannical, worthy of being overthrown. Dickens thought that large contradictions could be tamed through small moments of justice. He believed in the power of changing hearts, and that’s what you believe in, Orwell says, if you “do not wish to endanger the status quo.”
It's also the only practical thing to do if the status quo is against you.
I'm amazed that Gladwell didn't have more sense than that. Does he really think that someone who could fall for Communism could understand changing hearts and minds?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POUM)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POUM)
Isn't that essentially an ad hominem?
Against which party? I don't trust Orwell's judgement -- fighting for POUM, and making the argument above, weren't the only errors he made -- and I don't think Gladwell should have trusted it either.
(But then, Gladwell wrote a book called _The World is Flat_ in 2000, and it was about free trade, not fundamentalism; he's not exactly someone who I look to as a paragon of good judgement either.)
(But then, Gladwell wrote a book called _The World is Flat_ in 2000, and it was about free trade, not fundamentalism; he's not exactly someone who I look to as a paragon of good judgement either.)
POUM was anti-Fascist and anti-Stalinist. If you think it was an error to support such a party in Spain at that time, I'm afraid it says more about your judgement than Orwell's.
Anti-Stalinist isn't anti-Communist. (Sorry for the extremely late post, though.)
In addition to your misreading of Homage to Catalonia, you also misattributed -- the author you're looking for is Thomas Friedman.
I actually find that article is projecting quite a bit. The start of the criticism of the character of Finch begins with this: If Finch were a civil-rights hero, he would be brimming with rage at the unjust verdict. But he isn’t.
Finch isn't a Facebook-era observer who has just heard the story and the emotions are fresh. He's the victim's lawyer, who has been working hard on the case for months, all the time knowing that the jury would almost certainly declare for guilt. He leaves the court a tired, defeated man who tried hard to make it otherwise.
The author of the article declares that he should have been trembling with rage - perhaps the author should spend time in an actual courtroom observing how lawyers behave, rather than the ones on TV. The first time I saw an actual trial in progress, I was shocked - it was so boring. The lawyers didn't wander around the courtroom; lean over jurors to talk to them one-to-one; point accusatory fingers at the current witness...
Anyway, while the article is interesting, all through the article I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Finch is defending his client in the best ways he knows how, using tactics he think are most likely to work. He's not half-arsing the job, but working his best. But the article never drops the other shoe; never actually articulates what Finch should have done in the novel's context to make him the hero the article takes great pains to point out that he's not. As best as I can see, if Finch had've visibly shown he was miffed at the verdict, that would have been enough to turn him from "racial apologist" to "civil rights hero".
The disingenuity of the article is summed up at the end. Quoting the sheriff saying that he's not going to go public with the cause of Ewell's death, because Radley is a shy man who generally wants to be left alone, the author instead translates this as literally "the sheriff is stopping Radley from getting FREE CAKE!". Regardless of whether or not you agree with the actions of the sheriff, this is an atrociously bad reading of what was happening.
Finch isn't a Facebook-era observer who has just heard the story and the emotions are fresh. He's the victim's lawyer, who has been working hard on the case for months, all the time knowing that the jury would almost certainly declare for guilt. He leaves the court a tired, defeated man who tried hard to make it otherwise.
The author of the article declares that he should have been trembling with rage - perhaps the author should spend time in an actual courtroom observing how lawyers behave, rather than the ones on TV. The first time I saw an actual trial in progress, I was shocked - it was so boring. The lawyers didn't wander around the courtroom; lean over jurors to talk to them one-to-one; point accusatory fingers at the current witness...
Anyway, while the article is interesting, all through the article I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Finch is defending his client in the best ways he knows how, using tactics he think are most likely to work. He's not half-arsing the job, but working his best. But the article never drops the other shoe; never actually articulates what Finch should have done in the novel's context to make him the hero the article takes great pains to point out that he's not. As best as I can see, if Finch had've visibly shown he was miffed at the verdict, that would have been enough to turn him from "racial apologist" to "civil rights hero".
The disingenuity of the article is summed up at the end. Quoting the sheriff saying that he's not going to go public with the cause of Ewell's death, because Radley is a shy man who generally wants to be left alone, the author instead translates this as literally "the sheriff is stopping Radley from getting FREE CAKE!". Regardless of whether or not you agree with the actions of the sheriff, this is an atrociously bad reading of what was happening.
if this article makes you angry enough to reconsider re-reading TKAM to attack gladwells arguments point by point, save yourself some time and just read this instead: https://newrepublic.com/article/51326/what-malcolm-gladwell-...
Care to provide an abstract of that article?
warning spoilers for the book.
the tl;dr is:
The lawyer isn't really that good a role model. He gets a black man off of a rape charge mostly by attacking the alleged victim's character. He can't bring himself to hate a white man that wants to lynch that same black man, or indeed even Hitler. In the end he conspires with the sheriff to obstruct justice when a nice middle class white man kills a poor white man.
In this way he reflect the actual time and place, where people who could in some respects be seen as liberal and generous, like the governer at that time, weren't actually doing anything to achieve true equality (whether black/white, male/female, rich/poor) and when racial matters came to a head they got swept aside as the core issue was never dealt with from within and had a solution forced on them from outside.
I get the feeling the author was trying to be a little contrarian, but still brings up lots of interesting details and examples, particularly with hindsight from the present.
the tl;dr is:
The lawyer isn't really that good a role model. He gets a black man off of a rape charge mostly by attacking the alleged victim's character. He can't bring himself to hate a white man that wants to lynch that same black man, or indeed even Hitler. In the end he conspires with the sheriff to obstruct justice when a nice middle class white man kills a poor white man.
In this way he reflect the actual time and place, where people who could in some respects be seen as liberal and generous, like the governer at that time, weren't actually doing anything to achieve true equality (whether black/white, male/female, rich/poor) and when racial matters came to a head they got swept aside as the core issue was never dealt with from within and had a solution forced on them from outside.
I get the feeling the author was trying to be a little contrarian, but still brings up lots of interesting details and examples, particularly with hindsight from the present.
> He gets a black man off of a rape charge
No, he tries to get a black man off of a rape charge, but he fails. And, it is worth noting, the black man was (almost certainly) actually innocent, the alleged victim was actually the aggressor, and the black man is ultimately killed by a vigilante.
No, he tries to get a black man off of a rape charge, but he fails. And, it is worth noting, the black man was (almost certainly) actually innocent, the alleged victim was actually the aggressor, and the black man is ultimately killed by a vigilante.
> like the governer at that time, weren't actually doing anything to achieve true equality
I think that overstates the article's position. The article mentions several things the governor did to works towards equality:
> He worked to extend the vote to disenfranchised blacks. He wanted to equalize salaries between white and black schoolteachers. He routinely commuted the death sentences of blacks convicted in what he believed were less than fair trials. He made no attempt to segregate the crowd at his inaugural address. “Ya’ll come,” he would say to one and all, making a proud and lonely stand for racial justice.
I think that overstates the article's position. The article mentions several things the governor did to works towards equality:
> He worked to extend the vote to disenfranchised blacks. He wanted to equalize salaries between white and black schoolteachers. He routinely commuted the death sentences of blacks convicted in what he believed were less than fair trials. He made no attempt to segregate the crowd at his inaugural address. “Ya’ll come,” he would say to one and all, making a proud and lonely stand for racial justice.
People often miss the obstruction of justice at the end. Lee is brilliant in writing a novel about justice then sliding it past the reader as something we deem acceptable because of circumstance.
I feel like your view presupposes that the goal of the book, is that "justice should be the same, no matter who it's for". But (it's been a long time since I've read it) I feel like it's more about doing what is "right" than what is "legal".
The article explores the character of Atticus Finch by comparing him to a 1950s governor of Alabama, "James (Big Jim) Folsom. Both believed in the dignity of black people, and worked for justice on their behalf. But they both did so in a way that avoided directly confronting their peers or standing up to entrenched institutions like segregation.
A second and fascinating point deals with the trial in the book. I always read it as Atticus patiently but relentlessly exposing the obvious truth, which was that Bob Ewell beat up Mayella for daring to touch a black man. The article makes the case for a different interpretation, and offers historical support for it by citing scholars who have explored many historical cases of black-on-white rape.
I don't fully subscribe to every last conclusion of the article, but it did shift my thinking and expand my perspective about the book dramatically.
A second and fascinating point deals with the trial in the book. I always read it as Atticus patiently but relentlessly exposing the obvious truth, which was that Bob Ewell beat up Mayella for daring to touch a black man. The article makes the case for a different interpretation, and offers historical support for it by citing scholars who have explored many historical cases of black-on-white rape.
I don't fully subscribe to every last conclusion of the article, but it did shift my thinking and expand my perspective about the book dramatically.
Thanks for posting that link - I hadn't read it before. I can't find anything, but I wonder if Malcolm Gladwell's opinion changed because of Go Set a Watchman?? I've only read Go Set a Watchman once, but it seems to me like Gladwell's critique of To Kill sort of predicted its plot.
There are many things suspect about the "prequel", but at face value it demonstrates Harper had exactly Gladwell's critique of Atticus Finch in mind all along, and the jokes on the rest of us for propping Finch up as a saint.
Nothing blew my mind in the last few years like discovering how close Harper Lee and Truman Capote were, as they were both authors I idolized at different stages of my life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/books/harper-lee-and-truma...
And that Dill was partially based on her childhod friendship with Capote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_Lee#Early_life
This seems to be well established now in pop culture and art, but I was completely unaware when I first heard.
The fact the world has such inspired people, despite their stressful surroundings was a blessing to us all in the form of great art.
Goodbye, Harper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/books/harper-lee-and-truma...
And that Dill was partially based on her childhod friendship with Capote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_Lee#Early_life
This seems to be well established now in pop culture and art, but I was completely unaware when I first heard.
The fact the world has such inspired people, despite their stressful surroundings was a blessing to us all in the form of great art.
Goodbye, Harper.
Oh wow. I had no idea they were friends. Thank you for posting this article.
Although I'm extremely skeptical of the claims, there are theories that TKAMB was actually written by Capote. Interesting to read the evidence, but definitely on the less probable side of things.
Harper Lee (played by the great Catherine Keener) is a major supporting character in the film Capote.
They say an artist is never appreciated until they die, but I believe Harper Lee was one of the most rightfully appreciated authors of our time. Most of us have read To Kill a Mockingbird, at least, and for those of us who did, it was a powerful indictment of America's eternal and original sin of race and exploitation. A book or a death changes little in a broad cultural context, but it serves to remind us how we can and should all be better to each other. Rest in peace.
“Real courage is when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what.”
That is one of my favorite quotes of all times, specifically taking into account the setting of the book.
That is one of my favorite quotes of all times, specifically taking into account the setting of the book.
What does it mean to be 'licked'?
'Lick' is an old slang term for 'blow', in the a-blow-was-struck sense. That's why the title of the Rolling Stones' greatest-hits album https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_Licks is a three-way pun. 'Forty licks' is a proverbial term for a particular kind of corporal punishment: forty blows of the cane or whatever. Or see "The Return of Ulysses", the final chapter of The Wind in the Willows: http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/grol/grahame/wind12.htm
screwed, doomed, destined to fail.
Slang for "beaten".
To be defeated. Example, "They Can't Lick Our Dick" (Nixon campaign slogan).
Seriously?
Then there was this one:
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/357927/12493914/130695...
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/357927/12493914/130695...
That ... is easily the most unsual political ad I have seen in my life. To put it mildly. ;-)
I am tempted to think it was satire? I mean, this would not have been very appealing to Nixon's target audience, would it?
I am tempted to think it was satire? I mean, this would not have been very appealing to Nixon's target audience, would it?
As a former satirist, I am 99% sure that is satire. Certainly a majority like that wouldn't be silent for long! This looks exactly like the kind of stuff I was putting up around my college for George W. Bush.
Also, this sign has a great rhyme scheme; I almost feel like it needs "Burma Shave" at the bottom.
Also, this sign has a great rhyme scheme; I almost feel like it needs "Burma Shave" at the bottom.
> Certainly a majority like that wouldn't be silent for long!
Now I have an image stuck in my head of a crowd chanting the slogan on that poster... Please, make it stop! ;-)
Now I have an image stuck in my head of a crowd chanting the slogan on that poster... Please, make it stop! ;-)
I prefer George R.R. Martin
“Bran thought about it. 'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?' 'That is the only time a man can be brave,' his father told him.”
“Bran thought about it. 'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?' 'That is the only time a man can be brave,' his father told him.”
Not trying to be some literature snob, but GRRM can't hold a candle to the profound impact Harper Lee has had on American culture as a whole (not to mention that she won a Pulitzer and a Presidential Freedom Medal).
It's almost insulting even bringing up a quote from ASOIAF.
It's almost insulting even bringing up a quote from ASOIAF.
You are in fact being a huge literature snob saying that it's insulting to even compare the two. To Kill a Mockingbird was culture changing because it touched on such an important issue to American culture (race relations, etc.), while also being a well written book grounded in the human spirit. It is not objectively better written than ASOIAF, which has surprising depth and a keen understanding of the human spirit in conflict with itself.
ASOIAF has flaws, but so does TKAMB. Atticus could be argued to be quite a one dimensional character (not counting the sequel, which comes out of nowhere and is widely regarded to NOT be well written).
ASOIAF has flaws, but so does TKAMB. Atticus could be argued to be quite a one dimensional character (not counting the sequel, which comes out of nowhere and is widely regarded to NOT be well written).
If Atticus were a one-dimensional character, then a complex analysis like this one couldn't have been written:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/10/the-courthouse-...
He wasn't one-dimensional, he was very complex and real.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/10/the-courthouse-...
He wasn't one-dimensional, he was very complex and real.
I think it's fairly obvious that TKAMB is objectively better than ASOIAF.
What next? You'll tell me that Dante Alighieri's 'Divine Comedy' isn't objectively better than Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code'? Or that 'The Grapes of Wrath' isn't objectively better than 'Fifty Shades of Grey'?
I don't buy your bullshit relativism.
What next? You'll tell me that Dante Alighieri's 'Divine Comedy' isn't objectively better than Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code'? Or that 'The Grapes of Wrath' isn't objectively better than 'Fifty Shades of Grey'?
I don't buy your bullshit relativism.
"every rapper is somebody's favorite" Kanye West
Your arrogance of somehow equating your subjectivity with objectivity is concerning.
How do you define something being objectively better? Popular opinion? Does collective subjective opinion make something objective? Very obviously not.
Many people living probably enjoyed the Da Vinci Code more than Divine Comedy. The former likely is more relatable for a lot of people. That's the funny thing about creative subjective work -- it doesn't have a singular dimension by which to judge. Since judgment of a work is multi-dimensional, one has to determine the criteria by which to judge its total quality on some objective basis. Even if the criteria itself were 100% objective in some way, the method by which the results are compiled together is certainly not.
Your arrogance of somehow equating your subjectivity with objectivity is concerning.
How do you define something being objectively better? Popular opinion? Does collective subjective opinion make something objective? Very obviously not.
Many people living probably enjoyed the Da Vinci Code more than Divine Comedy. The former likely is more relatable for a lot of people. That's the funny thing about creative subjective work -- it doesn't have a singular dimension by which to judge. Since judgment of a work is multi-dimensional, one has to determine the criteria by which to judge its total quality on some objective basis. Even if the criteria itself were 100% objective in some way, the method by which the results are compiled together is certainly not.
Yeah, so again: I don't buy this kind of bullshit relativism. There's strong empirical evidence that certain things (so called subjective things: art, food, literature) are better than other things in the same arena.
As I suggested in my other comment, as I primer, I strongly suggest reading Hume's 'Of the Standard of Taste' and bringing forward some talking points instead of pretending like you're making some kind of profound argument. In other words, what you're saying isn't new. It's also very simplistic, naïve, and (I believe) probably wrong.
As I suggested in my other comment, as I primer, I strongly suggest reading Hume's 'Of the Standard of Taste' and bringing forward some talking points instead of pretending like you're making some kind of profound argument. In other words, what you're saying isn't new. It's also very simplistic, naïve, and (I believe) probably wrong.
Again with the snobbery.
You're the only one here who hasn't produced an argument. In all of your other comments you refuse to explain for reasons that your ideas are too complicated. That's the very definition of snobbery. Refute my points instead of emptily pointing out I'm wrong.
You're the only one here who hasn't produced an argument. In all of your other comments you refuse to explain for reasons that your ideas are too complicated. That's the very definition of snobbery. Refute my points instead of emptily pointing out I'm wrong.
I produced David Hume's arguments, which, I think, are a pretty good starting point. If you're not willing to familiarize yourself with them, that's a shame, because he's a pretty smart guy.
Nobody is going to read a book to reply to a forum comment. You should be articulate enough to explain what you mean without pointing, "there, that, that's what I mean."
I hope you realize how absurd you're being. If you asked me to explain what it means for a set to be "Henkin" I'd probably tell you to go read a logic book because it's way too hard for me to explain (and ensure you understand) the intricacies of a completeness proof -- a proof much simpler than Godel's, for that matter.
Similarly, the study of aesthetics is very rich and difficult. It's impossible to distill 2 or 3 bullet points from Hume's paper, much how it's impossible to distill 2 or 3 bullet points from this one: http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/historical-projects/Projects/complete... -- even I know and thoroughly understand both topics.
Similarly, the study of aesthetics is very rich and difficult. It's impossible to distill 2 or 3 bullet points from Hume's paper, much how it's impossible to distill 2 or 3 bullet points from this one: http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/historical-projects/Projects/complete... -- even I know and thoroughly understand both topics.
Standing a questionable comparison next to two others that are more clear-cut doesn't make the first more true.
One of these is an engrossing tale that gets richer on every read-through. The other has a character named Scout.
One of these is an engrossing tale that gets richer on every read-through. The other has a character named Scout.
While I agree with your assessment of the comparative merit of these works, in what sense is that assessment objective?
I believe TKAMB is worth advocating for, and even reflecting that worth in our institutions, for example by making one required reading instead of the other. But I can also imagine individual circumstances where ASOIAF is a more important and worthwhile experience for someone.
(Edit: Typo)
I believe TKAMB is worth advocating for, and even reflecting that worth in our institutions, for example by making one required reading instead of the other. But I can also imagine individual circumstances where ASOIAF is a more important and worthwhile experience for someone.
(Edit: Typo)
> in what sense is that assessment objective?
There's no easy way of answering that on this kind of medium (an Internet forum). I took two graduate seminars and wrote several papers on it :) But as a primer, I strongly suggest reading Hume's 'Of the standard of taste': http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL23.html
In that essay, he attempts to provide some clear-cut criteria for an objective judgment of art, food, and literature.
(Note that there ARE people that are relativists and they have a somewhat compelling argument. That's perfectly fine. I just don't buy it and I think they're wrong.)
There's no easy way of answering that on this kind of medium (an Internet forum). I took two graduate seminars and wrote several papers on it :) But as a primer, I strongly suggest reading Hume's 'Of the standard of taste': http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL23.html
In that essay, he attempts to provide some clear-cut criteria for an objective judgment of art, food, and literature.
(Note that there ARE people that are relativists and they have a somewhat compelling argument. That's perfectly fine. I just don't buy it and I think they're wrong.)
Instead of saying, "It's too complicated to explain", why don't you give it a shot?
Or simply give links to the papers?
I would submit that any attempt at "clear-cut criteria for an objective judgment of art, food, and literature" will be subject to the culture in which it is developed, and that when these criteria are transplanted into foreign cultures, they will or will not work to varying degrees.
You allude this this when you say "GRRM can't hold a candle to the profound impact Harper Lee has had on American culture as a whole". Obviously your own criteria includes how this work affected America. How objective can this be if it may be assessed entirely differently by a Chinese, Russian or African person, where it may have had little or no discernible influence on their culture?
Leaving that aside, the passages in comparison are actually saying different things. Regardless of who wrote them, 3minus1 should be free to prefer that slightly different definition of courage. The source is irrelevant.
You allude this this when you say "GRRM can't hold a candle to the profound impact Harper Lee has had on American culture as a whole". Obviously your own criteria includes how this work affected America. How objective can this be if it may be assessed entirely differently by a Chinese, Russian or African person, where it may have had little or no discernible influence on their culture?
Leaving that aside, the passages in comparison are actually saying different things. Regardless of who wrote them, 3minus1 should be free to prefer that slightly different definition of courage. The source is irrelevant.
Thanks for the recommendation! I will definitely read that. I've no formal education in this area, but have read Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding", and got quite a lot out of it.
It's a little absurd to compare a story with essentially 1 thesis and 1 antithesis, to a story full of theses and antitheses where the reader is constantly asking "Which thesis will prevail above which?" and ultimately, "Which thesis will prevail above all?" The authors are doing completely different things. The latter of which is objectively more difficult than the former, the latter of which is much more representative of the world in which we all live.
Your other examples are obvious. This one is not.
[deleted]
Well, to go further down your line of thought, reading Dante in any other language than Italian does not do it justice. Therefore anybody who has read a translation of 1984, for example, hasn't really read 1984, and thus could not possibly have really grasped it.
I think he's right. Harper Lee was supremely significant and impactful. GRRM is just entertaining. If they wrote exactly the same, it would still read better coming from her.
Atticus is one dimensional because he is described through the eyes of his adoring daughter. That's why I like the sequel, because it shows the daughter growing to understand that her father isn't perfect after all.
Creating "meaning" from words is a joint effort between the words on the page and the reader. It's not a joint effort between the words on the page, the reader, and the Pulitzer committee.
It is snobbish to attempt to subvert the impact that a piece of writing has had on someone because it's not good enough or important enough by some "objective" standard. People should be free to find "meaning" wherever they wish.
It is snobbish to attempt to subvert the impact that a piece of writing has had on someone because it's not good enough or important enough by some "objective" standard. People should be free to find "meaning" wherever they wish.
Not snobby in the slightest. A friend put it best: "George RR Martin is a great storyteller, but he's no great writer"
I find it odd that people would think a great story that's written down isn't by definition a great piece of writing.
Storytelling uses any avenue possible to express the story.
Shamans dance around a fire, play-actors get on stage, Film directors use CGI , actors, puppets, sets, and so on.
A writer writes. A good writer uses all of the tricks available to them that their language provides and is capable of doing so in a consistent manner to create their own written voice.
'To Kill a Mockingbird' was both well-written and a good story; the social impact it created reflects that.
I've read plenty of works that are either exclusively well-written, or exclusively a good story. It's not rare.
Shamans dance around a fire, play-actors get on stage, Film directors use CGI , actors, puppets, sets, and so on.
A writer writes. A good writer uses all of the tricks available to them that their language provides and is capable of doing so in a consistent manner to create their own written voice.
'To Kill a Mockingbird' was both well-written and a good story; the social impact it created reflects that.
I've read plenty of works that are either exclusively well-written, or exclusively a good story. It's not rare.
It may be a great story, but lack good characterization or dialog, overcoming those weaknesses through some other factors of the writing and storytelling. Hackneyed dialog, two-dimensional characters, but an intriguing setting and plot, for instance. A lot of pulpy novels are great, fun stories, but few are great pieces of writing as well.
Here's a hint: if it's science fiction or fantasy, it's probably not considered 'great literature'.
Having everyone die in the end is bonus points for 'great writing'.
Having everyone die in the end is bonus points for 'great writing'.
Well, GRRM did that one better and had everybody die in the beginning!
Haven't read those. I read about enough deaths in the news, to be honest, to be interested in having too many in my fiction.
[deleted]
I mean, it's only one example, but Lord of the Rings?
Do 'literature snob' kinds of people actually consider that to be good writing?
Nope.
I think such people are talking about different things. One is more coarse-grain, talking about the story, pacing and themes. The other is more fine-grain, talking about the individual word choices and language play.
You can have compelling characters and plot points but still do a shit job of writing them down. GRRM fits this description perfectly imo.
The concepts are completely different. Here are several examples:
- Imagine yourself writing down the story of The Shawshank Redemption (hey, this approach worked for Terry Brooks!). How much do you think people would like it? More or less than the version Stephen King wrote?
- Imagine yourself writing the same story -- in Mongolian. It's the same story, written down.
- Tolkien's The Silmarillion has several excellent stories in it, which people will be happy to hear you tell them about after you go through the laborious effort of reading it. It's not a coincidence that the material of The Silmarillion wasn't written for publication.
- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003X9775Q is an example of a fantasy novel with a fairly vanilla plot and some of the worst writing I've ever experienced.
- Pushing Daisies http://www.amazon.com/Pushing-Daisies-Season-Lee-Pace/dp/B00... is a comedic soap opera with superb writing and no particular plot.
- Imagine two people giving a lecture on the same topic. One of them is entertaining, one isn't. The first one had better writing for the same content.
- Imagine yourself playing Beethoven's fifth symphony as a one-man band. The music is widely acknowledged to be a great work. It turns out that the delivery matters. In the analogy, the music is the story, and the manner in which you actually produce it is the writing.
- Imagine yourself writing down the story of The Shawshank Redemption (hey, this approach worked for Terry Brooks!). How much do you think people would like it? More or less than the version Stephen King wrote?
- Imagine yourself writing the same story -- in Mongolian. It's the same story, written down.
- Tolkien's The Silmarillion has several excellent stories in it, which people will be happy to hear you tell them about after you go through the laborious effort of reading it. It's not a coincidence that the material of The Silmarillion wasn't written for publication.
- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003X9775Q is an example of a fantasy novel with a fairly vanilla plot and some of the worst writing I've ever experienced.
- Pushing Daisies http://www.amazon.com/Pushing-Daisies-Season-Lee-Pace/dp/B00... is a comedic soap opera with superb writing and no particular plot.
- Imagine two people giving a lecture on the same topic. One of them is entertaining, one isn't. The first one had better writing for the same content.
- Imagine yourself playing Beethoven's fifth symphony as a one-man band. The music is widely acknowledged to be a great work. It turns out that the delivery matters. In the analogy, the music is the story, and the manner in which you actually produce it is the writing.
Hmf, until friend has a Pulitzer, I can't be bothered to read their quote.
I think it's a bummer that all the popular fantasy is not the best writing. (I do quite enjoy GRRM and Abercrombie.)
Are there any, may lesser known, fantasy that is more literary?
Are there any, may lesser known, fantasy that is more literary?
Yeah, this is a common problem in genre fiction unfortunately. The best one I've read is "The Magicians" series by Lev Grossman. The writing is clean, concise, everything is shown and nothing told. The series is a great deconstruction of a lot of classic YA fantasy tropes and has a solid magic system. Can't recommend this series highly enough, both my literary and scifi/fantasy fan friends have all really enjoyed it.
I'd also recommend Ishiguro's The Buried Giant, very close to literary fiction.
It steps a little outside of the bounds of what we think of as "fantasy", but the magical realism genre has a lot of amazing pieces, and the genre is based around fantastical elements. My favorite example of this is "One Hundred Years of Solitude" by Gabriel García Márquez. "Invisible Cities" by Italo Calvino is another good one.
I'd also recommend Ishiguro's The Buried Giant, very close to literary fiction.
It steps a little outside of the bounds of what we think of as "fantasy", but the magical realism genre has a lot of amazing pieces, and the genre is based around fantastical elements. My favorite example of this is "One Hundred Years of Solitude" by Gabriel García Márquez. "Invisible Cities" by Italo Calvino is another good one.
I adore "The Magicians", and have added "The Buried Giant" to my stack based on your recommendation.
Gene Wolfe (Book of the New Sun) is great and a common recommendation along these lines.
Ishiguro's The Buried Giant from last year asks to be described as Literary Fiction with a fantasy setting.
But chasing down "If you liked Gene Wolfe you might like.." recommendations online would probably be fruitful.
Ishiguro's The Buried Giant from last year asks to be described as Literary Fiction with a fantasy setting.
But chasing down "If you liked Gene Wolfe you might like.." recommendations online would probably be fruitful.
I loved "Remains of the Day" and "Never Let Me Go", but didn't finish "The Buried Giant." The first two aren't fantasy, but IMHO they're much better Ishiguro.
As for "literature-y" fantasy, I'd agree with others here to look at magical realism, e.g. "One Hundred Years of Solitude." But my opinion is probably crap -- some of my fantasy favorites are Tolkien's "Silmarillion" and "Lost Tales," which probably don't qualify as "great literature," but show some amazingly thorough and vivid world-building.
As for "literature-y" fantasy, I'd agree with others here to look at magical realism, e.g. "One Hundred Years of Solitude." But my opinion is probably crap -- some of my fantasy favorites are Tolkien's "Silmarillion" and "Lost Tales," which probably don't qualify as "great literature," but show some amazingly thorough and vivid world-building.
Check out Guy Gavriel Kay. He's go a bit of a poet's background and writes utterly heart wrenching prose.
Can start most anywhere with him, but I'd recommend Tigana, Lions of al'Rassan, or Under Heaven as great starting points.
Can start most anywhere with him, but I'd recommend Tigana, Lions of al'Rassan, or Under Heaven as great starting points.
The canonical examples are J.R.R. Tolkien (Lord of the Rings) and C.S. Lewis (Chronicles of Narnia).
See Fantasy Classics at Goodreads: http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/318.Fantasy_Classics
See Fantasy Classics at Goodreads: http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/318.Fantasy_Classics
It's historical (medieval) fiction, not fantasy, but Hild (http://www.amazon.com/Hild-Novel-Nicola-Griffith/dp/12500560...) is one of the best written books I've read.
edit: Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell is up there http://www.amazon.com/Jonathan-Strange-Mr-Norrell-Novel/dp/0...
I find J G Keely's judgement aligned to my own: http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/06/suggested-r...
edit: Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell is up there http://www.amazon.com/Jonathan-Strange-Mr-Norrell-Novel/dp/0...
I find J G Keely's judgement aligned to my own: http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/06/suggested-r...
I second the Gene Wolf recommendation.
Huge fan of China Mieville, but that's closer to "new weird" than "fantasy". Mieville's books are complex and gripping.
Huge fan of China Mieville, but that's closer to "new weird" than "fantasy". Mieville's books are complex and gripping.
Cool. Listening to the Audible clip of "Perdido Street Station". Sounds the nicest of the suggestions so far :)
Pratchett was a genius when it came to knowing just the right phrase to conjure up an image, although reading all the Discworld novels in one go as I am at the moment reveals he's not quite so good at the storytelling side, often dragging on a few chapters too long.
Check out Robert E. Howard's Conan short stories. These are very well written and are in public domain.
Agreed...
Humans loves a narrative...
Great storytellers often succeed financially when writers of interpretive fiction--literature--barely scrape by...
Each type of author has a place...some readers want entertainment...other readers prefer entertainment coupled with edification...
I think the best novels provide both...Harper Lee did just that...
Humans loves a narrative...
Great storytellers often succeed financially when writers of interpretive fiction--literature--barely scrape by...
Each type of author has a place...some readers want entertainment...other readers prefer entertainment coupled with edification...
I think the best novels provide both...Harper Lee did just that...
Insulting to whom? He just likes the one quote more than the other. There's nothing more to be read into it.
You are not necessarily wrong, but I think it is important to try to understand what the comment meant. Perhaps some specific event in her life justifies her position.
In literally terms, certain authors are simply better than others. But this does not invalidate the idea that some people might find more popular authors to have a bigger impact to them.
In literally terms, certain authors are simply better than others. But this does not invalidate the idea that some people might find more popular authors to have a bigger impact to them.
>but GRRM can't hold a candle to the profound impact Harper Lee has had on American culture
Yes, but it has what, a 35 year head start? I don't think that your assertion being true is relevant to the literary merit of GRRM.
I've read Harper Lee (and a lot of literature in general), GRRM is fantastic. A more apt comparison might be to Dostoevsky, as the concepts Martin wants to explore are less related to our culture and more to do with fundamental issues mankind has wrestled with for much longer.
Yes, but it has what, a 35 year head start? I don't think that your assertion being true is relevant to the literary merit of GRRM.
I've read Harper Lee (and a lot of literature in general), GRRM is fantastic. A more apt comparison might be to Dostoevsky, as the concepts Martin wants to explore are less related to our culture and more to do with fundamental issues mankind has wrestled with for much longer.
Funny how people forget that the classics were once populist pieces.
Case in point, Shakespeare. Some people like to forget that he was a huge fan of sprinkling in dick jokes and clowns smacking each other over the head with inflated bladders to play to the groundlings.
I don't see anyone arguing he is a better writer or had more influence. Where did this come from?
philosophical insight, subversion of macho values, a picture of childish insecurity/fatherly guidance, and dramatic irony for those who know the ideals of the speaker will lead to his death.
all that in 2 lines and you don't think it's great writing.
all that in 2 lines and you don't think it's great writing.
A truly powerful statement is powerful regardless of the background of the person who wrote it.
Sometimes statements can be powerful because of who said it... but dismissing a quote just because someone has a certain background? I don't like an idea being discredited because of a person's impact of society.
I really appreciated reading both of these quotes. I'm glad they were contributed.
Sometimes statements can be powerful because of who said it... but dismissing a quote just because someone has a certain background? I don't like an idea being discredited because of a person's impact of society.
I really appreciated reading both of these quotes. I'm glad they were contributed.
[deleted]
This sounds like an armchair-philosopher platitude to me.
Taken out of context, it would be. In context though it's a very important part of the novel. Atticus is telling his son that the next door neighbor who he loathed actually had real courage, not the kind you have with a gun in your hand but courage to stick to your principles all the way to death. Jem and Scout had been hero-worshipping their father a bit since the incident with the rabid dog and he's telling them that here's a different kind of couragee and one he admires more. It also foreshadows Atticus's own upcoming battle to stick to his principles in an impossible situation where he's licked already - and can't use a gun either.
> Until last year, Lee had been something of a one-book literary wonder. To Kill a Mockingbird, her 1961 epic narrative about small-town lawyer Atticus Finch’s battle to save the life of a black resident threatened by a racist mob, sold more than 40 million copies around the world and earned her a Pulitzer prize.
That book by the "one-book literary wonder" was unforgettable for many things, including the fact that it was one of the first books I read twice. I'd say that that one work that stood strong for decades across generations should probably not be used to diminish the author using terms like "one-book wonder".
That book by the "one-book literary wonder" was unforgettable for many things, including the fact that it was one of the first books I read twice. I'd say that that one work that stood strong for decades across generations should probably not be used to diminish the author using terms like "one-book wonder".
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
This is sad news indeed.
This is sad news indeed.
I couldn't stand most of the books I had to read in high school, especially To Kill a Mockingbird. Others included The Great Gatsby, & Lord of the Flies. All awful books IMO, & still dreadfully awful. I can't believe American culture thought (still thinks?) those books were good. Luckily I read books that I liked on the side to make up for it.
I have to agree. I wonder if part of the general illiteracy is a reaction to the dreck that we are forced to read in school.
At least in high school English classes you get to read some legitimate literature. In middle school, I remember being subjected to an unending string of aggressively mediocre young-adult historical fiction and science fiction that featured teen-aged girls as protagonists by my all-female English teachers. Hard to summon much enthusiasm for that kind of thing when Arthur Clarke, Heinlein, Frank Herbert, Asimov, Ben Bova, Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum, Ken Follett, Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Conan Doyle, Tolkien, Robert Jordan and George RR Martin beckon.
At least in high school English classes you get to read some legitimate literature. In middle school, I remember being subjected to an unending string of aggressively mediocre young-adult historical fiction and science fiction that featured teen-aged girls as protagonists by my all-female English teachers. Hard to summon much enthusiasm for that kind of thing when Arthur Clarke, Heinlein, Frank Herbert, Asimov, Ben Bova, Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum, Ken Follett, Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Conan Doyle, Tolkien, Robert Jordan and George RR Martin beckon.
Tolkien is dreck. There I said it. It took my over a year to read Fellowship of the Ring because of how indescribably boring it is.
Dreck isn't really fair. Tolkien definitely isn't a great prose writer. But you only have to look at his imitators to see how much worse LOTR could have been without Tolkien's uniquely scholarly take on the elves+dwarves+dragons formula. (A formula which he partly invented.)
edit: I suppose I should add a note indicating that I'm aware of the absence of dragons in LOTR.
edit: I suppose I should add a note indicating that I'm aware of the absence of dragons in LOTR.
The Lord of the Rings was written over the course of 12 years, and IMO Tolkien's writing greatly improved as he gained experience. I almost gave up reading The Fellowship of the Ring because it was so boring, but I'm glad I didn't, because by The Return of the King the writing has become fast paced and exciting.
I feel like I'm in the minority when I say that I actually enjoy the long passages of scenery descriptions. I really like soaking in the atmosphere.
Can you suggest some readings, stuff you found especially enjoyable?
(I ask because you're my favorite writer on HN, and am curious as to what things influenced you)
(I ask because you're my favorite writer on HN, and am curious as to what things influenced you)
Appreciate the compliment! My favorite books are Candide, The Great Gatsby, and My Antonia. Dracula and Frankenstein are really good too.
Whose translation of Candide do you suggest?
Read the Great Gatsby last year, was shocked at how much I liked it. Will definitely give My Antonia a read.
Read the Great Gatsby last year, was shocked at how much I liked it. Will definitely give My Antonia a read.
Would you care to say what books you think are good?
It is some small comfort that her legacy cannot be further tarnished under the fiction of her consent.
Harper Lee's words: all I want to be is the Jane Austen of South Alabama.
To Kill A Mockingbird is still one of my all time favorite books and movies. Sad news.
Has anyone read the newly released book? Thoughts?
Has anyone read the newly released book? Thoughts?
If you want to understand the process she went through to get to Mockingbird, read Watchman.
She wrote it whilst being urged on by several friends and when she took it to her agent was told that she had some good ideas, but it was stronger in some parts than others. She should focus entirely on Scout's youth, and to deal with Atticus' battle with racial tensions in that town.
She went away, produced Mockingbird, the rest is history. You can see the process right there in Watchman.
If you try and read them as a pair, you will get annoyed: anecdotes repeated in both have key facts changed that change their meaning and the characters involved in them.
It's not as polished, tuned or as well paced as Mockingbird. It's a piece of work that pays testament to a talented writer finding her voice, but hasn't quite found it yet.
And for that, it's fine. But don't read it if you aren't interested in the writing process and just want a good story: just re-read Mockingbird instead.
She wrote it whilst being urged on by several friends and when she took it to her agent was told that she had some good ideas, but it was stronger in some parts than others. She should focus entirely on Scout's youth, and to deal with Atticus' battle with racial tensions in that town.
She went away, produced Mockingbird, the rest is history. You can see the process right there in Watchman.
If you try and read them as a pair, you will get annoyed: anecdotes repeated in both have key facts changed that change their meaning and the characters involved in them.
It's not as polished, tuned or as well paced as Mockingbird. It's a piece of work that pays testament to a talented writer finding her voice, but hasn't quite found it yet.
And for that, it's fine. But don't read it if you aren't interested in the writing process and just want a good story: just re-read Mockingbird instead.
The Onion was on point with Watchman:
http://www.theonion.com/article/harper-lee-announces-third-n...
http://www.theonion.com/article/harper-lee-announces-third-n...
I won't read it because it seems likely she didn't give permission for its publication.
She wrote one Great Novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" lets focus on the greatness of that work right now.
Atticus Finch is maybe the greatest character in American literature.
His courage in standing against racial injustice is notable, but the true depth of the character comes from his quiet strength and his unabashed dedication to his family and his fellow man.
He's always there for his children, tucking them in at night and encouraging them to be good to each other and their neighbors. He's always ready to impart wisdom and morality upon them in the most gentle manner.
But still there's that quiet strength, as in the scene when he shoots the rabid dog. Watching the scene through Scout's eyes, a powerful figure comes alive in the person of Atticus for the first time - showing us that a strong man is prepared to stand up both against moral and physical oppression.
As role models go, you could do a lot worse than Atticus Finch.
His courage in standing against racial injustice is notable, but the true depth of the character comes from his quiet strength and his unabashed dedication to his family and his fellow man.
He's always there for his children, tucking them in at night and encouraging them to be good to each other and their neighbors. He's always ready to impart wisdom and morality upon them in the most gentle manner.
But still there's that quiet strength, as in the scene when he shoots the rabid dog. Watching the scene through Scout's eyes, a powerful figure comes alive in the person of Atticus for the first time - showing us that a strong man is prepared to stand up both against moral and physical oppression.
As role models go, you could do a lot worse than Atticus Finch.
I take it you haven't read "Go Set a Watchman"...
Especially given the extremely shady way in which "Go Set a Watchman" was released, possibly against Harper Lee's desires, it would be fair to say that "Atticus Finch" should refer to the character in "To Kill a Mockingbird."
For sure. Having read a fair amount about the circumstances surrounding the release of Go Set a Watchman, it's sad to see that the widespread opinion is that it should be canon.
Sad news, but on a totally unrelated note: Why is the date in the URL set to tomorrow?
I'm assuming its to be published in the next edition of the NYT, which would be the 20th.
A quick check of the stories on the front page suggests this is the case; editorial content and news covering yesterday's events is all /19 (today) whereas today's news and online content (for tomorrow's paper) is all /20 (tomorrow).
[deleted]
It may be dated based on the expected print publication date.
Great book by a legendary author ---- I still remember I had to read the book during my secondary school days for my literature classes and we were tested on the material in the book during our finals. I really enjoyed the book (very poignant ending) and I would read the book multiple again and again during my free time.
A timeless storybook about bravery and courage in the face of blatant racism and discrimination. As a society, we should work towards ending racism and discrimination in all spheres and this book will surely play a part towards this goal ...
A timeless storybook about bravery and courage in the face of blatant racism and discrimination. As a society, we should work towards ending racism and discrimination in all spheres and this book will surely play a part towards this goal ...
"Shoot all the blue jays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
Harper Lee was one of my favorite authors when I was a child. A true legend.
sad news :(
While this is tragic news, this really doesn't feel at all correlated to HackerNews.
If people find the submission intellectually gratifying then it conforms to the spirit of Hacker News submission guidelines. Given the impact of Harper Lee's writing on US culture, it is not surprising if many people do.
I suppose the free form nature of HackerNews and the wide sprawling community make a lot of topics fair game. I recant my sentiment.
I hear that sentiment a lot. Personally I'm glad that we bring important cultural happenings and such in as topics of discussion. What is society if not the most complex project that we've ever feigned to attempt to grok on hacker news. These are the global variables that affect everything.
Author ONLY of "to kill a mockingbird" (seriously, she only ever wrote one book, weirdness)
She wrote other things as well as her latest book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_Lee#Works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_Lee#Works
[deleted]
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/10/the-courthouse-...