[etep]

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.

[haberman]

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.

[Double_Cast]

> 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

[Donwangugi]

One Piece and Doflamingo FTW.

[etep]

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.

[omginternets]

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.

[shiro]

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.

[omginternets]

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.

[shiro]

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.

[omginternets]

>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 :)

[shiro]

Good conversation. Thanks.

[printering]

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.