rainman312
rice-eater extraordinaire
Although I've read it previously, once in middle school and once earlier in high school (not assigned, just to re-read), I didn't read To Kill a Mockingbird in a critical fashion until just recently, when it was assigned as a novel to be read for my wonderful English II class, in which we read a staggering three short novels in a 180-day school year. Anyway, education system rants aside, I've found upon rereading it that what was once something I considered to be one of the best novels I've ever read is really...not all that great. As you who've read it know, the novel has two subplots: there's the one in which Scout and Jem run around Maycomb during the (primarily) summertime, having small adventures and doing things that kids during that setting did. There's also the one in which Atticus defends Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a white woman. I should've put this earlier, but this will certainly have spoilers in it (although I haven't spoiled anything yet, for those who've read this far). I personally consider the first subplot to be vastly superior to the second one, which I find stale, clichéd (more on this later), and somewhat "obvious". I put that in quotes due to the odd fashion in which I'm using it; it's obvious in that it portrays a theme and a set of morals which I find to be pretty much second-nature, things such as not being racist, not judging people superficially, using (or at least, attempting to use) empathy, etc. Now, at this point, some of you are probably thinking, "Sure, they're obvious now, but fifty years ago when the novel was written, they deviated significantly from the norm." Still, times change, and our view of the novel will obviously change with them. It seems ridiculous to insist that a novel is a literary masterpiece because it has a theme which was unique, non-conformist, or even revolutionary for its time period (not sure I would even give it all three of those adjectives, honestly), despite being commonplace thinking now. On my copy of TKAM, it has a printed banner across the top of the novel that says something along the lines of "The timeless classic which unites us all," or some such nonsense. I'd challenge that, at least for the second subplot of the novel. The first one is timeless in that many of the ideals are still things that people today have yet to learn (empathy, keeping a cool head as Atticus does, etc.), and also in that it describes the mischievous and adventurous habits of children, which have remained very similar for many, many years.
Do I think To Kill a Mockingbird is a terrible, or even bad novel? Absolutely not. I still hold it in relatively high esteem, despite criticisms of it, but to call it an amazing or excellent book, let alone the best book of all time (which I've seen frequently) is a vast overrating of its quality. I also completely disagree with English classes telling you which books to read specifically, but that's another rant for another time. Still, a bit more freedom when it comes to choosing which books to read would be nice.
A bit more on the timelessness of novels: While I'm not completely sure that this is entirely possible, there are certainly books written decades or even centuries ago that are still relevant, amazing, or incredibly interesting books today. One could say that TKAM may no longer be as relevant, and by including books that are no longer relevant but still interesting I'm being hypocritical, but there's a clear distinction: TKAM isn't really all that interesting of a novel. It's borderline insanely boring at certain points of the novel. I personally don't get any kicks out of reading about a bunch of racist southern ladies drink tea and talk about the town gossip, and that was far from being one of the most boring parts of the novel. There are certainly novels out there that are both excellently written and contemporarily relevant, such as 1984, Catch-22, and Dune (which is insanely good, if you haven't read it).
Anyway, that's my ~0.23 Botswanan pula on the matter.
Do I think To Kill a Mockingbird is a terrible, or even bad novel? Absolutely not. I still hold it in relatively high esteem, despite criticisms of it, but to call it an amazing or excellent book, let alone the best book of all time (which I've seen frequently) is a vast overrating of its quality. I also completely disagree with English classes telling you which books to read specifically, but that's another rant for another time. Still, a bit more freedom when it comes to choosing which books to read would be nice.
A bit more on the timelessness of novels: While I'm not completely sure that this is entirely possible, there are certainly books written decades or even centuries ago that are still relevant, amazing, or incredibly interesting books today. One could say that TKAM may no longer be as relevant, and by including books that are no longer relevant but still interesting I'm being hypocritical, but there's a clear distinction: TKAM isn't really all that interesting of a novel. It's borderline insanely boring at certain points of the novel. I personally don't get any kicks out of reading about a bunch of racist southern ladies drink tea and talk about the town gossip, and that was far from being one of the most boring parts of the novel. There are certainly novels out there that are both excellently written and contemporarily relevant, such as 1984, Catch-22, and Dune (which is insanely good, if you haven't read it).
Anyway, that's my ~0.23 Botswanan pula on the matter.
