|infinite zest |
Makes sense to me.. this seems like the people who later read that their superman was kind of a dick, but forgot that George Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP at one point. Atticus is a superhero to many, including myself, but if he doesn't have his flaws than what is he? That's what storytelling is about.
But I like Thug Notes Guy: Question though, why the fuck you gotta bleep your shit out?
Atticus was always racist; not a cross-burning lynch mob type or anything, but the type who today would make nice with the soft-spoken black valet at his country club even while privately insisting that Mike Brown was asking for it. Atticus was fine defending an aw-shucks yes-suh no-suh "good negro" in the original novel, but that doesn't mean he saw him as his equal. He even holds up the founder of the KKK as a standard of a reasonable man at one point in Mockingbird. Of course he'd grow less tolerant of black people after they began demanding human dignity later in his life.
Most importantly, Mockingbird is told from the POV of a little girl who is still at the point in life where she idolizes her dad, whereas Watchman's POV is omniscient. So in 'Bird, you get the idealized Atticus, with hints of the flawed human underneath peeking out; in Watchman, you get the whole ugly picture. It's actually a pretty smart progression, especially for a "sequel" that was never intended as such.
I can't wait until book this gets greenlit as a movie so every shitty entertainment blog can write, "WHO WATCHES THE 'WATCHMAN?' YOU WILL, NEXT SUMMER WITH LENA DUNHAM AS SCOUT AND PAUL BLART AS ATTICUS."
Hey now Paul Blart Racist Cop is already in the works. Can't be a lawyer and a cop, I've seen people try but there's a line that cannot be crossed. We need David Spade on this one.
PAUL BLART 3: BLART LIVES MATTER
Of course he was racist. He was a product of the place and time he lived. Which, while he was way WAY less racist than his neighbors, is still outstandingly racist compared to the standards of today.
While I do think it's unfair to judge characters, real or fictional, from earlier epochs by the mores and morals of today it is pefectly fair and even just to the judge the era itself that produced them.
That second part was very well put.
Judging the era is how we learn from history.
Judging the individuals is how we place ourselves above history so we can avoid learning from it.
|Binro the Heretic |
I always kind of thought Atticus only took on Robinson's case out of a sense of duty to the law, not because he particularly cared about Robinson or even justice. He seemed almost relieved when the man was shot while "trying to escape" since it meant he wouldn't have to deal with the appeals. At any rate, he didn't seem too outraged or broken up about Robinson's death.
I kind of want to read the book, even though most critics are saying it's sub-par compared to Lee's original masterpiece. I'm still wary, though. I'm still not entirely sure whether Lee was behind the publication or if it's a money-grab by a bunch of greedy assholes.
Yeah it kinda sucks that it's being spoiled in this way. Would you spoil a movie saying that darth vader was the dad the whole time? As I said above I don't care what Atticus Finch does. He's as real as Batman. Like I said he means a lot to me personally but I prefer the compelling side to things vs. ATTICUS SAVED 'EM AGAIN type of bullshit. Like I'm sure somewhere there's a screenplay around that's called "To Kill Another Mockingbird" that wanted to cash in on this. Fine, Atticus, you're racist. So's Hulk Hogan. Two fictional characters in one week.
People are really overthinking this book.
It's clear that it is not a novel Lee intended for the public to see, but rather just a shitty money grab for a lot of agents, editors, and other corporate folk. Contrary to what the media has been sensationalizing, the book was never "lost", Lee simply stored it away, knew where it was, but never wanted it published and never brought the subject up. There is ample evidence that the book was never actually finished and what has been published is basically a cleaned up first-draft copy of what Lee had been submitting to publishers back in the 1960s.
Harper Collins has been swearing up and down that she gave her blessing to the release, but she's really old, mostly blind, and is reportedly suffering from mild dementia. I have a really, really hard time believing she made a very conscious, artistic choice to release this book, especially when it was only in 2007 that some shyster lawyer managed to trick her into signing over the rights to everything having to do with Mockingbird (which was overturned later via lawsuit).
She clearly preferred the portrayal of these characters in Mockingbird and was happy to let it stand as is. As far as I'm concerned, this is Lee tacitly approving of the popular opinion of this story and its characters and that she was fully aware the characterization of Finch as an anti-racist white man in a community of racists was the one that readers everywhere accepted.
It's a shame this book is being published as anything more than a curiosity or footnote to Mockingbird, but we live in an age when seemingly nothing is sacred.
My dad wrote three novels for Harper Collins. They are owned by Rupert Murdoch and they comport themselves that way. They are not the sophisticated outfit they once were. Searching for the next attractive reboot of Dan Brown and that's about it.
Cosby, Finch, Hogan. Do these recent revelations retroactively alter what they have done in the past? It reminds me of the controversy surrounding Doug TenNapel. Does liking what he's made, drawn and written make you a bigot by association? And even more divisively, if you gave money to either of his Kickstarters, were you funding hatred?
|Sanest Man Alive |
Whosoever's name is written in the Thug Note will become a lyrical gangsta
| Register or login To Post a Comment|