A review by laurenjpegler
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
1.0
I tried, and failed, to read To Kill a Mockingbird a few years ago. Despite the backdrop of the story being something utterly interesting, the narrative didn't pull me in. Unfortunately, it still didn't roughly six years later.
Through the young eyes of Scout and Jem Finch, Harper Lee explores 'the irrationality of adult attitudes to race and class in the Deep South of the 1930s' when Atticus, their father, defends a black man charged with the rape of a white girl. 'The conscience of a town steeped in prejudice, violence and hypocrisy is pricked by the stamina of one man's struggle for justice. But the weight of history will only tolerate so much'.
I think I've managed to whittle it down to the fact that I just don't like American classics all that much. I'm not sure, however, what it is about them I don't like. The spatial setting, the writing style, the lists goes on. I think with To Kill a Mockingbird it was the latter. The narrative didn't draw me in, and I found myself getting bored quite frequently. I didn't like the way it was written at all.
I do, however, like how Lee chose to write this through the eyes of two children. Despite their age, they are incredibly wise. Unlike their elders, they do not view people by their race, age, religion, and so on. Scout and Jem were likeable characters, and I think having them as our protagonists made the story special. It was more of a sensitive approach - one that may not have worked, but somehow did.
I didn't like how the main story line (that of Tom Robinson's trail for rape) was hardly mentioned. Considering it's what the blurb focuses on, the actual trial only lasted for two chapters or so. I didn't get to meet Robinson, or hear of his crime, until about 2/3 of the way in. I felt like the surrounding material - that of Jem and Scout at school, for example - was just waffle. Tying in to this, I don't really know what Boo Radley was doing? I feel like if you took him out, the story would still be the same?
A big disappointment.
Through the young eyes of Scout and Jem Finch, Harper Lee explores 'the irrationality of adult attitudes to race and class in the Deep South of the 1930s' when Atticus, their father, defends a black man charged with the rape of a white girl. 'The conscience of a town steeped in prejudice, violence and hypocrisy is pricked by the stamina of one man's struggle for justice. But the weight of history will only tolerate so much'.
I think I've managed to whittle it down to the fact that I just don't like American classics all that much. I'm not sure, however, what it is about them I don't like. The spatial setting, the writing style, the lists goes on. I think with To Kill a Mockingbird it was the latter. The narrative didn't draw me in, and I found myself getting bored quite frequently. I didn't like the way it was written at all.
I do, however, like how Lee chose to write this through the eyes of two children. Despite their age, they are incredibly wise. Unlike their elders, they do not view people by their race, age, religion, and so on. Scout and Jem were likeable characters, and I think having them as our protagonists made the story special. It was more of a sensitive approach - one that may not have worked, but somehow did.
I didn't like how the main story line (that of Tom Robinson's trail for rape) was hardly mentioned. Considering it's what the blurb focuses on, the actual trial only lasted for two chapters or so. I didn't get to meet Robinson, or hear of his crime, until about 2/3 of the way in. I felt like the surrounding material - that of Jem and Scout at school, for example - was just waffle. Tying in to this, I don't really know what Boo Radley was doing? I feel like if you took him out, the story would still be the same?
A big disappointment.