Take a photo of a barcode or cover
frasersimons 's review for:
To Kill a Mockingbird
by Harper Lee
I suppose I need to give no summary for this one; unless you are brand new on this earth, anyway.
It’s a fairly contentious book these days, and I can see why.
Three things I think people seem to disregard that feels abundantly clear, but is worth saying: this is young adult written in the 60s and this is fiction. Some reviews seem to hold this to adult nonfiction standards. Which is a weird thing to do. And finally, it’s from the point of view of a child.
As I see it, I think where this book falls down is in its characterization of black characters and it’s overly simplistic, solipsistic, after-school-special conveyance of anti-racism and values.
I don’t actually think that means it’s got nothing to say, though. Because it’s situated as The anti-racist text of America and a part of their identity, it’s still a valuable text for understanding the cultural consciousness of eurocentrism. Both at the time of publication and now. Rather than an ideal to live by though, but something quintessential in white thinking, the white saviour trope, and a propagandist view of what racism is and how it should be dealt with or approached.
That’s why this is only three stars. I still think it has something to communicate as a classic. Just not what it’s usually lauded for. Fundamentally, I don’t think it succeeds it’s handling of primary themes. But it was written in the 60s and is from the first person perspective of a child, meaning the understanding about these things in the general intellect was poor, and some of its simplicity is because of the perspective - and it is unreliable, as every first person narration is. But most especially when the narrative is the recounting of a child.
Where I think it’s undeniably strong is the voice, prose, and coming-of-age plot beats and interactions therein. When it’s not overly preachy it’s actually pretty decent at forming a compelling narrative. It’s a pleasure to engage with the prose and I liked that Scout has no qualms kicking peoples’ asses as needed while also behaving in a believable way in conflicts. It only feels like an after school special when trying to convey very specific ‘lessons’. But again, some latitude should be given for the perspective and the fact that it’s young adult fiction.
I actually quite liked that the diction assumes more than average comprehension from young adult readers. I wish more did that. It’s undermined by the handling of themes and imparting of its preachy puritanical-esk values. But it’s not nothing that it has one of the most compelling and distinct voices in fiction. And I find it very weird that some negative reviews think the prose are bad. What are they reading, if this bad? Wild.
I rate things based on expectations and, more-or-less, with the pleasant surprise of an exceptional style and voice, it’s exactly as I expected it to be, based on how it’s situated in the general intellect these days. An after school special read in school? Shocking.
It’s a fairly contentious book these days, and I can see why.
Three things I think people seem to disregard that feels abundantly clear, but is worth saying: this is young adult written in the 60s and this is fiction. Some reviews seem to hold this to adult nonfiction standards. Which is a weird thing to do. And finally, it’s from the point of view of a child.
As I see it, I think where this book falls down is in its characterization of black characters and it’s overly simplistic, solipsistic, after-school-special conveyance of anti-racism and values.
I don’t actually think that means it’s got nothing to say, though. Because it’s situated as The anti-racist text of America and a part of their identity, it’s still a valuable text for understanding the cultural consciousness of eurocentrism. Both at the time of publication and now. Rather than an ideal to live by though, but something quintessential in white thinking, the white saviour trope, and a propagandist view of what racism is and how it should be dealt with or approached.
That’s why this is only three stars. I still think it has something to communicate as a classic. Just not what it’s usually lauded for. Fundamentally, I don’t think it succeeds it’s handling of primary themes. But it was written in the 60s and is from the first person perspective of a child, meaning the understanding about these things in the general intellect was poor, and some of its simplicity is because of the perspective - and it is unreliable, as every first person narration is. But most especially when the narrative is the recounting of a child.
Where I think it’s undeniably strong is the voice, prose, and coming-of-age plot beats and interactions therein. When it’s not overly preachy it’s actually pretty decent at forming a compelling narrative. It’s a pleasure to engage with the prose and I liked that Scout has no qualms kicking peoples’ asses as needed while also behaving in a believable way in conflicts. It only feels like an after school special when trying to convey very specific ‘lessons’. But again, some latitude should be given for the perspective and the fact that it’s young adult fiction.
I actually quite liked that the diction assumes more than average comprehension from young adult readers. I wish more did that. It’s undermined by the handling of themes and imparting of its preachy puritanical-esk values. But it’s not nothing that it has one of the most compelling and distinct voices in fiction. And I find it very weird that some negative reviews think the prose are bad. What are they reading, if this bad? Wild.
I rate things based on expectations and, more-or-less, with the pleasant surprise of an exceptional style and voice, it’s exactly as I expected it to be, based on how it’s situated in the general intellect these days. An after school special read in school? Shocking.