Help with "To Kill A Mockingbird"

nps_marina & kathy, I criticized the book so much before I read it because of all the hype surrounding it. I hate hype and am convinced otherwise that the book can be any good. I wasn't totally satisfied by the finished product but I think it is a whole lot better than I thought it would be. My professor says that I am quite stubborn about the types of literature I like and thus I do not make room for others!
It is going to be the same way when I finally read Catch-22 but I think that will be a real good read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turk

I don't think it's a good novel, it's more like a collection of short stories which are related to each other.

---

I think someone needs to re-read the book! :D

To Scheherazade: I'm glad Harper Lee didn't see a critic pan her novel as a collection of short stories. Besides being such a moving novel, don't you think Gregory Peck had his second best role there? quasimodo1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quasimodo1

To Scheherazade: I'm glad Harper Lee didn't see a critic pan her novel as a collection of short stories. Besides being such a moving novel, don't you think Gregory Peck had his second best role there? quasimodo1

---

Couldn't agree more! :)

Which one is his best role in your opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I think someone needs to re-read the book! :D

---

Well i actually read it carefully. The book is good, stories are nice, style is warm and characters are good enough. But i don't think it's tehnically good novel; if it's technically a novel. It's more like a collection of short stories and relatively easy book to write compared to works of masters of novel such as Dostoievsky or Balzac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turk

Well i actually read it carefully. The book is good, stories are nice, style is warm and characters are good enough. But i don't think it's tehnically good novel; if it's technically a novel. It's more like a collection of short stories and relatively easy book to write compared to works of masters of novel such as Dostoievsky or Balzac.

---

I sort of have to agree with Turk on this one. There was no real flow to the novel and I did feel at times it was just a bunch of events pieced together to make a whole story. It may have been disjointed at times but saying that it was an easy read and was never as challenging as something by Joyce or Dostovesky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turk

Well i actually read it carefully. The book is good, stories are nice, style is warm and characters are good enough. But i don't think it's tehnically good novel; if it's technically a novel. It's more like a collection of short stories and relatively easy book to write compared to works of masters of novel such as Dostoievsky or Balzac.

---

Are you sure we are talking about the same novel? Not sure what you mean 'a collection of short stories' as in TKAM, the same story-line throughout the novel.

Winesburg, Ohio by Anderson, for example, might be considered a collection of short stories but not TKAM.

Yepp, i am talking about same book. Main theme of book is prejudices, it keeps going on all the book, but still events are mostly apart from each other. I think because novel has weak technic Truman Capote (was a friend of Harper Lee) didn't think the book would be successful. Also as i know Harper Lee was never able to write a 2. good book too, if she had the technic she would be able to continue writing.

TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD may appear flawed as a novel because it's overwhelmed by its flawless and impressive cinematic version. The novel lacks the poetry of the film, the depth of characterizations (Peck is magnificent), and the beauty of Elmer Bernstein's masterful score. I believe that when we think of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, the film and NEVER the novel will always come to mind. (This is similar to Capote's BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S next to that novel's film version...and so forth.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrayFoxDown

TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD may appear flawed as a novel because it's overwhelmed by its flawless and impressive cinematic version. The novel lacks the poetry of the film, the depth of characterizations (Peck is magnificent), and the beauty of Elmer Bernstein's masterful score. I believe that when we think of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, the film and NEVER the novel will always come to mind. (This is similar to Capote's BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S next to that novel's film version...and so forth.)

---

Plus they did cut out all the unnecessary bits from the novel when they made the film. :idea: :D

I haven't read either novel since I was a freshman in college (about 35 years ago!). However, in both cases (especially Breakfast) it's as if an entirely new story emerged in the film versions...for the better, I think.

To Scheherazade: Gregory Peck's best role=Captain Ahab. quasimodo1

Breakfast in Tiffany's also reminds me Chingiz Aytmatov's Jamila. Maybe Jamila inspired Capote to write Breakfast in Tiffany's.

TKAM is a very well structured novel and how anyone can see it as a collection of short stories beats me. The themes link everything, the motifs link everything, the narrative voice links everything, the developing characters of Jem and Scout link everything, the family relationships link everything, the plot structure built around the trial is there throughout. the dense local colour creates the feel of a fully imagined community built on a real place. There's hardly a flaw - unless it's the lack of complexity in Atticus. But as Atticus was based on Lee's own father whom she admired it wouldn't be likely that she was going to examine the wounds of isolated widowhood too closely.

Apparently Truman Capote wasn't thinking TKAM is a good structured novel too.