I am having such a difficult time with this review. I have a lot of strong emotions about this book, but I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts in an organized and cogent manner.

I understand that this book is beloved by millions. I also understand that, in many ways, it is a product of its time and that there are many people who excuse the content within it as being just that--a product of the time and environment in which it was written. And I can even buy that, to an extent.

However, I also think it's valid to critique a work of art (and yes, I consider literature an art form) for its shortcomings regardless of the time in which it was written.

So that brings me to my feelings about TKAM. If I had to use one word to describe it, I would probably have to say 'conflicted'. There were things I absolutely adored about this book, and other things that I found very worthy of criticism and couldn't excuse. So let's get to it.

Spoilers ahead for this 60-year old book. If you read this and get angry that you're being spoiled, I don't know what to tell you...

What I liked:

1. The rich setting. I, unlike Harper Lee, did not grow up in the South, much less the South during the 1930s. However, reading this book made me feel like I'd been there and actually experienced childhood in the Deep South.

2. The structure. This book is told in almost a vignette style. It covers a couple of years of time and jumps ahead at different points. There is an overarching story that we keep tying into, but it very much feels like we are being shown little snapshots into the life of this family. This is much more a character-driven story than plot-driven, so I think the style lends itself to that.

3. The audiobook. Sissy Spacek is the voice actor narrating this audiobook and she is FANTASTIC. I could listen to her narrate my to-do list and I'd end up feeling like my life was a lot more interesting than it actually is.

What I didn't like:

Oh man, here we go...gonna upset a bunch of people in 3...2...1...

1. Atticus Finch. *Runs and hides in a corner*
Look, I get it. He's held up as this paragon of virtue. We're told so many times, over and over again, what a magnanimous, saintly man he is. Jem and Scout go to church with their maid Calpurnia and are told by the Reverand 'this church has no better friend than your daddy.' There are several other characters who extol his virtues as well. Of course, there is the other side of the coin, with many people calling him a ___lover (I don't feel the need to fill in the blank. You get the idea) for defending a local black man accused of a crime he didn't commit. Does he denounce these racist bigots? Oh no, not the wonderful and perfect Atticus. Actually, he tells Scout:

"___lover is just one of those terms that don't mean anything--like snot-nose. It's hard to explain--ignorant, trashy people use it when they think somebody's favoring black people over and above themselves."

Um, nope. Nope, nope, nope. Way to downplay flat-out racism. Wow.

There's another scene where Scout is talking to her father asking him why he's chosen to defend Tom Robinson, and Atticus says he feels like it's his duty and wouldn't be able to hold his head up if he didn't. Scout says that many people in town think he's wrong for doing it and Atticus says:

"They're certainly entitled to think that, and they're entitled to full respect for their opinions."

After Mrs. Dubose passes away, he says something similar:

"She had her own views about things, a lot different from mine, maybe...According to her views, she died beholden to nothing and nobody. She was the bravest person I ever knew."

These two excerpts were Atticus referring to people who are full-on racist pieces of garbage who called him some truly vile things. And I...no. I'm sure there are people who get all warm and fuzzy seeing Atticus take the high road and not be affected by all of this, but there's nothing wrong with calling out someone for their disgusting behavior. And there are so many times throughout this book that someone will say or do something awful to Scout, Jem, or Atticus, and Atticus is just like: *shrugs*
Scout and Jem (rightly) question the behavior of the townspeople, and Atticus makes excuse after excuse for them. How is this literary figure held up as a champion for the downtrodden? I don't get it.
The kicker for me that cemented my distaste for his character is a speech by Atticus that happens in Chapter 23. It is after Tom Robinson is convicted of a rape that everyone knows he didn't actually commit. Atticus is talking about how, in theory, a courtroom in the United States is somewhere a man should expect to be treated fairly, but obviously Tom's race was a factor. He says:

"As you grow older, you'll see white men cheat black men every day of your life. But let me tell you something and don't you forget it--whenever a white man does that to a black man, no matter who he is, how rich he is, or how fine a family he comes from, that white man is trash...There's nothing more sickening to me than a low-grade white man who'll take advantage of a Negro's ignorance."

I just...can't believe this is supposed to be a hero of the story. He's saying that white men shouldn't take advantage of black men not because, oh I don't know, they're HUMAN BEINGS, but because white men should know better and black men are too ignorant to know they're being taken advantage of. Wow. It's obvious in this and a couple other passages that while Atticus isn't the worst of what the 1930s Deep South has to offer, he's not as enlightened as people want to make him out to be. He absolutely believes that white men are superior to black men. That's racist.

I've actually seen reviews saying that this book isn't racist because it was written in 1955...um...sorry?! Just because it's a 'product of its time' doesn't mean it's not racist...in fact, that's WHY some people may look at it as being racist...BECAUSE it's a product of its (racist AF) time.

There are people who would say that just because Harper Lee wrote these characters and this story doesn't mean that she herself was racist. The views of an author's characters don't necessarily reflect the views of the author. And that is very true. For example, I don't think that every author who writes psychological thrillers is a sociopath. That being said, there is a certain style that is struck each time a character (usually Atticus) begins to pontificate about race and philosophy that is so different from the rest of the language in the book that it makes it feel like the author is trying to make a point. And in those cases, I do, whether it's accurate or not, take those sections as the author's own outlook. Also, in doing a little research into her upbringing and her first draft of TKAM (which was released just months prior to her death as Go Set a Watchmen and marketed as a sequel), it feels like the white-superiority moments that were present in TKAM were even more prevalent in her first draft. I have no interest in reading GSAM, but in reading some reviews from people who loved TKAM and hated GSAM, the problem I had with the former run rampant in the latter. That makes me wonder how much of TKAM was the result of brilliant editing.

I know there are going to be people who will be incensed by my review. They'll say I missed the point of the novel, which is (in their opinion) one of the greatest classics ever written. They'll say I'm projecting my progressive 21st century ideals onto a book written over half a century ago about a time almost a century ago and that it's 'not fair' to do that. To that, I'll just say I respectfully disagree. I think it's perfectly acceptable to look at a work and see if it holds up under re-evaluation. It's not just appropriate, but also important, to do so, especially when you look around at the social climate we're living in today in the United States. And just one last note...It's okay to call out injustice, intolerance, and racism when you see it instead of ignoring it and writing it off as 'differing views'.

At the end of the day, I understand why this book is beloved. I know that at the time it was written, it was considered a very important and groundbreaking book in terms of what it had to say about race and injustice. Honestly, the fact that it WAS so highly regarded for those reasons just goes to show how far society still needed to go at that time. The fact that it's still thought of so highly maybe shows that we haven't come as far as we like to think we have.