|
Post by zacksciallo on Jul 18, 2016 4:10:33 GMT
So just to start, I am fully aware that To Kill a Mockingbird is supposed to be accurate to the time period, but still. So in this "literary classic" we see Atticus make several valid points during the trial that prove that Tom, the defendant is innocent. One of the best examples that goes unheeded by the jury is the piece of evidence that proves Tom could not have given the "Victim" Mayella a black eye, or more or less even rape her. "Reverend Sykes leaned across me and whispered to Jem. 'He got it caught in a
cotton gin, caught it in Mr. Dolphus Raymond’s cotton gin when he was a boy…
like to bled to death… tore all the muscles loose from his bones—' Atticus said, “Is this the man who raped you?”
'It most certainly is.'" (189, Lee) So, here is the question I propose, Wouldn't this book be so much better and mean a lot more if Harper Lee made the choice to show human morality and over come racism in the trial? The book would actually have depth instead of the whole trial being about stereotypical racist hicks. Honestly, I feel like the book would feel more complete if Lee had shown us this.
|
|
isaacthompson
New Member
“Until I feared I would lose it, I never loved to read. One does not love breathing.” ― Harper Lee
Posts: 11
|
Post by isaacthompson on Jul 20, 2016 14:33:45 GMT
Harper Lee leads us to believe that human morality will overcome racism, because the good guy always wins, right? Lee kind of makes a twist on a twist, because she tries to show us that maybe Tom will walk free, but that just isn't how it works. She keeps all of the characters on the jury in their character, as you said, "racist hicks." The book is more complete this way because it shows that life isn't fair, and sometimes innocent people get accused for things they didn't do, and sometimes innocent people get hurt for doing the right thing. Just look at Martin Luther King Jr., Malala Yousafzai, or Mahatma Gandhi. All of these people were doing the right thing, and were shot for it. Sometimes life isn't fair, and Harper Lee knows that, and shows it in the book To Kill a Mockingbird.
|
|
|
Post by justinott on Jul 21, 2016 16:55:39 GMT
I agree with Isaac that this book is really to show that life isn't fair all the time, however the fact that the jury took so long to decide and the amount of people that showed up shows that perhaps, with the help of other people and proof, ideals can be changed and made more fair which is what I believe Harper Lee is telling us in the book, that through time and work even the worst things like slavery can be changed.
|
|
|
Post by zacksciallo on Jul 30, 2016 3:54:37 GMT
Harper Lee leads us to believe that human morality will overcome racism, because the good guy always wins, right? Lee kind of makes a twist on a twist, because she tries to show us that maybe Tom will walk free, but that just isn't how it works. She keeps all of the characters on the jury in their character, as you said, "racist hicks." The book is more complete this way because it shows that life isn't fair, and sometimes innocent people get accused for things they didn't do, and sometimes innocent people get hurt for doing the right thing. Just look at Martin Luther King Jr., Malala Yousafzai, or Mahatma Gandhi. All of these people were doing the right thing, and were shot for it. Sometimes life isn't fair, and Harper Lee knows that, and shows it in the book To Kill a Mockingbird. I think you are right actually, the point of the book is in a sense to portray a reality instead of a fairy tale. The book was written in 1960 after all so it is very possible Harper Lee was trying to shine light on Racism or any other type of discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by juliecallan on Jul 30, 2016 17:04:25 GMT
This book, To Kill A Mockingbird (it won't let me italicize or underline), did a great job to sticking with it's time period. It would have made less sense to have Robinson go free because back then almost everyone believed that they weren't people; that they were just things you could use to get some work done, or even frame... as Bob Ewell did. The author, Harper Lee, did a great job in expressing that. The right person always win isn't true when it has to deal with racists who can't grasp the concept that we were all created equal.
|
|
|
Post by ryleabaumberger on Jul 30, 2016 23:21:04 GMT
I disagree with your view on the book. I think that what made this book complete is that Harper Lee did not overcome the racism, because in this time period that it was written in, that is how in reality the story would have turned out. When reading this today, it shows us that life is not fair, people are not always nice, and that we have to find for ourselves who we are, and who we can trust. Although it would have been nice for Tom Robinson to win his trial, it would not have made the point clear about what I think the author is trying to get us to see. Although times eventually did change, and many more people accept black's today, Harper Lee did not know if that would ever happen so that is why she most likely had Tom Robinson's case end that way. So in all, no I personally do not think that the book would be better if Harper Lee changed the outcome of the trial.
|
|
|
Post by Noah Durrance on Aug 6, 2016 22:01:49 GMT
I completely disagree with this assessment of the book. You were correct when you said To Kill a Mockingbird is supposed to be accurate to the time period, and that is exactly what it is. Remember, the 1960's were a time when African-Americans could not go to the same school, eat in the same restaurants, ride in the same section of a bus, and essentially not exist with their Caucasian brethren. It was a period where police officers used fire hoses to peel the skin from the backs of African-American protesters in order to disperse them. It was a point in history where the leader of civil equality was murdered because of his pleas for justice. Therefore, I believe there is nothing wrong in Harper Lee exposing the discrimination and prejudice these peopled endured, and cleverly doing so by putting it in literature. It is shameful to admit, but a society that allowed their "fair" legal system to convict someone like Tom Robinson, in your own words, was full of "stereotypical racist hicks". When Atticus is asked about why he lost the trial, he responds with "I don't know, but they did. They've done it before, they did it tonight, and they'll do it again". He also states that "There's something in our world that makes men lose their heads-they couldn't be fair if they tried. In our courts, when it's a white man's word against a blacks's, the white man always wins. They're ugly, but those are the facts of life." The novel is powerful and relevant the way it is because it shows that human morality does not always overcome hatred and racism, and that simply is just a realistic look at the world, especially how it was when the book was written. It still stands up today, however, as it quite bluntly gives insight into the nightmarish conditions that were offered to a minority, and how our country can never be allowed to return to that dark place in history.
|
|
|
Post by miasells on Aug 12, 2016 4:21:32 GMT
Racism was significantly evident in the 1960's. To Kill a Mockingbird gives us insight to our history and helps us to better understand the past views on racism versus how racism is today. The book is a work of art. Perhaps, it was even written ahead of its time due to the fact that discussions on racism have always been so taboo. If the outcome of the trial had been any different, it probably would have not made the impact that it has.
|
|
|
Post by sierrameisner on Aug 15, 2016 1:48:33 GMT
I believe that the whole reason the trial was made to be unfair was to highlight the fact that the 1930's in the South were particularly not racially equal. In fact, this book was loosely based on Lee's life so no, I do not believe that it would be better if he made it seem equal in the trial.
|
|
|
Post by anikahagen on Aug 15, 2016 5:42:05 GMT
I agree with what many of the things these people are saying. Life is not fair, no matter how many times we have heard that we still want to believe that it is, but it most definitely is not. There is racism, there is sexism, there is homophobia, the list of things that make life unfair goes on and on. I believe a major reason Lee made the verdict guilty was to prove that even though the defendant could have been innocent, racism caused the man to be guilty. Even though she could have made the verdict not guilty, it would have been less true to the 1930s. It was a racist time period, so life was not fair.
|
|