[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.