posted
I was just reading the required reading thread, and I asked myself... Why do people catorigize "TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD" with great books? It really wasn't that great of a book. I didn't like it. Let alone love it. So what is this fasination? Harper Lee wasn't even all that talented. It was the only book she ever wrote and, obviouslty she had no imagination because it is based upon her childhood. so what is the deal? Posts: 197 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. I'd be more likely to argue that what one did with an idea was more important than where it came from. Everyone has ideas, be they from one's own childhood or what have you -- but the real grinding work is in the telling of that story.
For me, the beauty of TKAM was in the dialogue and in the unfolding of the plot from a child's perspective. Both are hard to do convincingly, and Harper Lee did well in both aspects.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:For me, the beauty of TKAM was in the dialogue and in the unfolding of the plot from a child's perspective. Both are hard to do convincingly, and Harper Lee did well in both aspects.
I totally agree, CT. TKAM is a beautiful story, well-told, and one of my favorites.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a lot of experience with that book, and in my opinion I wouldn't place it as one of the best books. From reading it in english and helping students from Argentina understand the book, I honestly can say that I didn't find a lot of depth to the book. And sense that is probably one the top thing that I look for in a book, I wouldn't be able to classify it as great.
I'm not saying that the story wasn't well told or intriguing, because it was. The character of Boo Radley(sp?) was interesting at the very least. But, in the end when I read again a couple of years ago, I noticed that it just couldn't hold my attention. John Locke's Second Treatise of Government held my attention far better than that, and so did Hobbes' Leviathan back in high school.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand what you mean about depth of the book, I thought so too. It was going all well, when then the thought came to me. The Robinson trial was it. That was the climax. It needed to develop more. The climax wasn't all that great, something was missing. I guess its just that the trial itself was just not a topic that could pass out as a climax...Trials in stories are just not strong enough to sustain all the events in the story unless its got a more important sense to it. If you think about it, humans are on trial for their life every day, you see that on TV and hear it on the radio, its not such a big deal to the world anymore. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter, but we really don't feel the absence of someone who died unless we knew her or him. And even though the reader did know Tom Robinson, he is still just a fictional character so naturally he's not that much of an impresion...
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
