If Boo Is God...

Baddad wrote something truly wonderful and memorable in the
thread on "To Kill A Mockingbird:"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baddad

Words are power. Fifty years after this book is
released a poignant and relative discussion continues on this very
forum. Shock, dismay, confusion, and in someway a sense of
ugliness/evil, all stemming from the use of a single word, still
reverberate within those astute enough to strive for meaningful social
change. In an increasingly stubborn world I cheer to find thus-minded
souls. The author intended you to care, wanted to drag the ugliness
into to the light where it could be shamed and destroyed. This intent,
and its success, is one of the keys to this great piece of
literature.

---

The phrase "to drag the ugliness into the light" reminded me of:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plato

Leontius, the son of Aglaion, was going up from the Piraeus under the
outside of the North Wall when he noticed corpses lying by the public
executioner. He desired to look, but at the same time he was
disgusted and made himself turn away; and for a while he struggled
and covered his face. But finally, overpowered by the desire, he
opened his eyes wide, ran toward the corpses and said (to his own
eyes) 'LOOK, you damned wretches, take your fill of the fair sight.'

This certainly indicates that anger sometimes makes war against the
desires (within us) as one thing against something else.

Republic, 440a

---

Plato's comment about anger making war with other desires, within
us, reminds me of one verse from Psalm 4, which is more correctly
translated from the Greek Septuagint than from the King James:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psalm 4

Be angry, and sin not; feel compunction upon your beds (weep upon
your beds) for what you say in your heart

---

Ancient theologians point to such anger as a form of "righteous" anger
which has some positive moral value, as opposed to anger which is
simply a character flaw.

As a child, I carried to school a lunch box with a scene of a brave and
noble looking Davy Crockett confronting a sinister and evil looking
Indian with a knife. I still have that lunch box to this day, on my
bookshelf. Only years later, as and adult, did I understand that it was
Davy Crockett who was evil and sinister, a thief and murderer, and the
Indian who was nobly defending his home and family and livelihood.



I was most curious about the meaning of the novel's title, "To Kill a
Mockingbird."

To quote sparknotes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mockingbird

The title of To Kill a Mockingbird has very little literal connection to
the plot, but it carries a great deal of symbolic weight in the book. In
this story of innocents destroyed by evil, the “mockingbird” comes to
represent the idea of innocence. Thus, to kill a mockingbird is to
destroy innocence. Throughout the book, a number of characters
(Jem, Tom Robinson, Dill, Boo Radley, Mr. Raymond) can be identified
as mockingbirds—innocents who have been injured or destroyed
through contact with evil. This connection between the novel’s title
and its main theme is made explicit several times in the novel: after
Tom Robinson is shot, Mr. Underwood compares his death to “the
senseless slaughter of songbirds,” and at the end of the book Scout
thinks that hurting Boo Radley would be like “shootin’ a mockingbird.”
Most important, Miss Maudie explains to Scout: “Mockingbirds don’t
do one thing but . . . sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to
kill a mockingbird.” That Jem and Scout’s last name is Finch (another
type of small bird) indicates that they are particularly vulnerable in the
racist world of Maycomb, which often treats the fragile innocence of
childhood harshly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

As the novel progresses, the children’s changing attitude toward Boo
Radley is an important measurement of their development from
innocence toward a grown-up moral perspective. At the beginning of
the book, Boo is merely a source of childhood superstition. As he
leaves Jem, and Scout presents and mends Jem’s pants, he gradually
becomes increasingly and intriguingly real to them. At the end of the
novel, he becomes fully human to Scout, illustrating that she has
developed into a sympathetic and understanding individual. Boo, an
intelligent child ruined by a cruel father, is one of the book’s most
important mockingbirds; he is also an important symbol of the good
that exists within people. Despite the pain that Boo has suffered, the
purity of his heart rules his interaction with the children. In saving Jem
and Scout from Bob Ewell, Boo proves the ultimate symbol of good.

---

I was stunned by a sudden, most curious thought:

"What if Boo is God?"

Woody Allen has one hilarious scene where he is standing in a long
line outside of a theatre, arguing with someone about a statement
made by Marshall McLuhan. Suddenly, Woody Allen says "Oh,
yeah....well...." and he reaches over in the crowd and grabs the arm of
Marshall McLuhan, who steps up and defends Woody's position in the
argument.

Now, if I could grab hold of the arm of Harper Lee, and have her speak
up and say "Oh yes, why.... certainly, Boo IS God in my novel, and I am
pleased that someone has finally realized this and pointed it out!"
that would certainly be the end of any arguments about Boo.

But suppose Ms. Lee were to laugh at the notion that Boo is God?
Well, one might argue that it was her subconscious at work, or some
Jungian archetype expressing itself.

But what might lead me to suspect that Boo is God?

Well, no one ever sees Boo until the end of the book. The word "Boo"
is something which a ghost says. The Christian Trinity is comprised of
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The children are fascinated by a house
which they suspect is haunted, but haunted is just the flipside of the
coin we call numinous. They speculate about the existence of "Boo."
I am reminded of "Waiting For Godot."

But, here is one of three clinchers which I see. "Gifts" mysteriously
appear for the children in the hollow of a tree. There is a verse from
the Epistle of St. James which says: "Every GOOD gift and every
PERFECT give is from above and comes down from Thee, the Father of
Lights." Ancient theologians questioned, "what is the difference
between a GOOD gift and a PERFECT gift." Well, those ancient
theologians conclude that the good gifts are things like air, water,
health, while the perfect gifts are things like the Eucharist
(Communion of bread and wine.) To this day, Greek and Russian
Orthodox refer to the bread and wine as "the gifts."

The second "clincher" for me how "Boo" suddenly appears or
manifests in human form and puts himself at risk to save the children
and slay the evil one. This is like Christ appearing in human form and
suffering so that people may be delivered from evil.

The third "clincher" for me is the statement that the children finally
mature in their understanding of good and evil in the world once they
finally "know" Boo as a person, in a personal relationship.
Protestants are fond of speaking about a "personal relationship" with
Jesus.

It was actually the early Christians who contributed much to the "art"
of symbolic analysis, whether one chooses to call it "Eisagesis"
(reading a meaning into a passage which the author never meant to
convey) or exegesis (pointing out a concealed meaning which readers
are intended to find.) Obviously, during the first decades of the
Christianity, it was considered by both the Jews and the Pagans to be
a "new" innovation. Even in those time which, for us, are ancient
times, people gave more value and credence to that which they
perceived as ancient than to something new. Therefore, it was to the
theologians' advantage to "analyze" the ancient scriptures and myths
and demonstrate that Christianity was really most ancient, and
concealed and hidden in ancient prophecy.

We may take as the following analysis of the story of Samson as a
prime example of early Christian analytical techniques:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samson

Book of Judges Ch. 13

An angel appears to a barren woman and tells her she shall conceive
a son, Samson (Annunciation and Virgin Birth?).

The angel tells her that the child will be the deliverer of Israel
(Messiah?).

Samson encounters a lion which he slays as easily as a lamb or kid
(Lamb of God?).

And a few days later (3 days?), he comes to find 'honey in the carcass
of the lion" (Eucharist?).

But it is a "secret" (Mystery?) so he gives it to his family to eat but
does not tell them where it is really from.

Then he is betrayed (with a kiss?).

Then he is taken prisoner and mocked.

Then he "destroys the temple" so to speak with "his arms
outstretched" (Crucifixion?).

---

Well, what shall we say of my notion that "Boo is God?" One valid
subjective stance to take is that if Boo is God for me, then that is my
subjective experience, and it has a certain subjective validity.


When we read notions about Moby Dick being God for Melville, we
find such notions far more credible, since Melville seems to work very
hard making many allusions which would steer us in the direction of
such a notion.



http://mockingbird.chebucto.org/bio.html

It is interesting to note that: Truman Capote published "In Cold Blood"
with a dedication to Jack Dunphy and Harper Lee.

http://www.sulekha.com/chpost.asp?fo...=100396&show=0


(posted by "Heretic")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heretic

I have read "To kill a mocking bird", and while I did not think much about God, and the rest, I thought that the main message was how the society , steeped in a particular thought and tradition, does not see the injustice the culture brings to others under its thrall. Instead, they ,wanting to be "good and normal people" try to make excuses for the prejudices, and if anybody dares question them, is considered different(in this case-a 'n!gg@rlover'). Atticus is considered so only because he considered blacks to have the same rights as whites; instead of arguing about the strength or weakness of his argument, the community just brands him.


Here lies a lesson for all of us, especially Indians. Are we so much different from the people of Maycomb-indifferent to change, and covering their prejudices under the garb of religion and culture;in India any man questioning culture is eagerly branded a 'westerner' or 'pro-west' without meriting an argument; in many cases, that is the sole argument against his claims.


'To kill a mocking bird ' in the end is about an individual stressing his rights against society-the mocking bird might refer to the victims-they are actually serving as mirrors that show the society's prejudices and vices; so instead of pointing fingers and pushing them down, the society must try to question their traditions, otherwise they risk being in the dock for stifling freedom.


Remember-Socrates was condemned to die for 'encouraging the young men of Athens to question their ancient tradition'-sounds familiar to the way our society treats people who dare to question age-old practices?

Take care. Bye.



- Heretic

---

I just finished typing a reply but it got lost in the back alley's of the forum somehow! Will try again...
Sitaram,
I think I have read your post for the fifth time to make sure that I 'digest' it properly before I reply (that and the fact that I am by no means the sharpest tool in the box :rolleyes: )
'To Kill a Mockingbird' is my favorite book. I love it because it deals with, what I believe to be, very universal, humanitarian and timeless issues in a not-very-complex and pretentious way. I find children and adults alike can get a feel of what Lee is trying to convey although their level and depth of understanding might be different.
Reading your arguements about presence of a Christian God and religious element in it made me a little uneasy to say the least. It spoils the magic for me in some ways.
Having said that, I am intrigued enough to read the book again in the light of your arguments (Have been planning to re-read it again;got it from the library already and it is sitting on my to-read-shelf at home). Within next week or so, I will read it again and hope not to find the references you were making! :)
We can agree to disagree on certain things but still agree that it is a great book, right?

So nice to hear from you, Scheherazade. Perhaps I should mention that my own personal religious perspective is more Hindu and Buddhist than Judaeo-Christian. I mention that so you will not think that I have some ideological hidden agenda in what I post. I have spent the past 20 or more years reading and writing about all the various religious traditions of the world, comparing and contrasting them.

I have spend hundreds or perhaps thousands of hours over the past years on message boards and chat rooms, in yahoo and irc, and I note that many young people, especially those inclined to philosophy or science, are positively phobic about any mention of religion or a deity.

I hope to write more on this thread, and hear from others, in the coming weeks. I did some research into Truman Capote's dedication of his book to Harper Lee. Apparently, during Capote's life, he often hinted that he had in fact written large sections of "To Kill a Mockingbird." At least one editor of some reputation believed him. But then Capote seemed inclined to mendacity, alleging many and various things which were far-fetched.

Try to think of Christianity as a genre of literary analysis of the Old Testament. I think it was Augustine of the 4th century who said "The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed."

Of course, 2000 years of Jewish scholarship disagree with the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament as predicting a Messiah.

Well, I must post and close for now, as I have run out of time.

P.S. Perhaps the more profound question is not whether there is a real, palpable allusion to God in the novel, but why you feel so strongly about the matter. In the 1960s I read a delightful book by a professor of literature called "The Pooh Purplex" in which he demonstrated how "Winnie the Pooh" might be "interpreted" in so many different fashions, from Freudian Sexual to Humanitarian to Romantic to Existential.

Capote implied he had written parts of 'Mockingbird'??? Never heard that one before... I haven't read any Capote *hangs head* so cannot compare styles etc, but that is really interesting to know.

I am not phobic of religious ideas and suggestions. My belief in what I think this book stands for makes me unwilling to agree that there is a presence of Christian God and sentiment in this book. That, of course, does not nullify your arguement and as I said earlier, next time I read it, I will try to look at things in the light of this new point of view you bring in.

http://lendmesomesugar.blogs.com/boo...l_a_mocki.html

Harper Lee grew up and was close friends with
Truman Capote. He intimated in an interview that he
wrote (or at least rewrote) large portions of this
book. If true, that would explain why she turned
out to be a one hit wonder.

Whoever wrote it, one can't praise this book highly
enough. It's a gem.

http://www.fantasyfreaks.org/reviews/caleyna/tkamb.html

I did just hear an intersting rumor that Harper Lee
recieved a lot of help on this book from her
childhood friend who spent almost every summer with
her (a real life Dill). This person who helped her
write her one and only novel is Truman Capote.

Perhaps that explains a lot about why she only
wrote one book, but it was a great one.

http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/20030220harperlee5.asp

At 77, she refuses interviews and makes few public
appearances.

"I am still alive, though very quiet," she wrote in
1993 when asked to write a new introduction to "To
Kill a Mockingbird."

She refused. "Please spare 'Mockingbird' an
introduction. ... 'Mockingbird' still says what it
has to say; it has managed to survive without
preamble."

It has more than survived. Never out of print since
it appeared in 1960 and won the Pulitzer Prize,
Lee's only novel is a staple of school reading
lists.

http://www.shakespearefellowship.org...793/Main/16469

I glean from a biography of Truman Capote that there is speculation that he may have written *To Kill A Mockingbird* and let Harper Lee (his hometown neighbor who never wrote anything else?) take the credit. Maybe it's just the sinister glee at the thought that Truman Capote, a vicious monstrous adversary (to people who as far as I can tell deserved it) dismissed as a clown figure is behind a classic that most high school students in the US have to read, but my cognitive (and perhaps personality) disorder(s) thrill at
such illogical non-factoidism.


http://www.powells.com/review/2001_12_24

As a boy, Truman lived next door to Harper Lee, and
the two remained close friends and collaborators
throughout their lives. There has even been
speculation that Truman not only helped edit To
Kill a Mockingbird, but actually wrote much of the
book. This is no doubt mere rumor, but there is a
similarity between Lee's great novel and "The
Thanksgiving Visitor." Odd Henderson is reminiscent
of Mr. Ewell, though he turns out to be far more
sympathetic, and Truman, in his emotional
confusion, bears some resemblance to Scout. But it
is honest, decent Sook, who has the moral authority
to inform every aspect of this story like Atticus
Finch. And it is the intimate detail with which
Capote recreates the character of his friend that
lifts this story out of the realm of anecdote and
into the realm of art.

http://www.searchspaniel.com/index.php/Truman_Capote

Capote was a lifelong friend of Monroeville
neighbor Harper Lee, and was allegedly the
inspiration for the character of Dill in her
best-seller To Kill A Mockingbird. Capote
frequently implied that he himself had written a
considerable portion of her novel, and at least one
person - Pearl Kazin Bell, an editor at Harper's -
has gone on record as believing his assertions were
true.

Thank you very much for the links, Sitaram. I will have a look at them. I have a feeling I should start reading Capote. A I missing out much? Funny enough, 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' is one of my favorite movies.

I was utterly shocked about the Capote controversy. Initially, I began searching when I first learned that Capoted had dedicated "In Cold Blood" to Harper Lee. Then I read the rumors about Capote having written some of "To Kill A Mockingbird." It would REALLY be shocking if Capote did write a lot of it and there ARE the allusions to Christianity which I perceived, since Capote hardly strikes me as someone who would go in for that sort of thing.

So maybe there are NO allusions to Christianity afterall! ;)

Well, as rabbi Abraham Heschel, author of "The Prophets," wrote, "we must learn to understand what we see, and not simply see only what we understand."

I hope to begin a careful reading of "To Kill A Mockingbird" and I will very likely find certain tell-tale sentences and vocabulary if religious allusions were a conscious act on the author's part. If I do not find such signs, then I will assume it is simply coincidence that the narrative of "Boo Radley" accidentally resembles certain Christian themes. Do try to take a look at "The Pooh Purplex" if you can find it in print anywhere.

I was looking at the links you posted re.Capote and saw this:

"Finch is the maiden name of the author’s mother, and Cunningham is a name from her father’s side of the family. And etc." (http://www.shakespearefellowship.org...793/Main/16469)

So maybe it is only a coincidence that the family name is another small bird (re. Boo Radley's quote in your first post)

Good point, regarding the Finch family name, and coincidence! I was thinking today of "the man in the moon," the face which we see in the moon as a good example of "reading into things." Everyone seems to agree that there is a face there, but we all know it is pure coincidence that the craters create that illusion. Yet, though we know it is an artefact, yet, for us, there is a "man in the moon" and the concept enjoys some measure of reality.

I often feel and wonder the same thing... Sometimes things are just what just what we see... without hidden meanings behind them. When I listen some arguments, I do wonder if we as humanbeings are simply to desperate to give meanings to things;strive to make them 'meaningful' for our own sakes... end up reading too much into things.

You might take a look at my "Sanctity of Unity" post (if you have not already read it) which has to do with the very thing you mention, our urgency to impose meaning, order, unity, which I suppose is a form of control.

I did read some part of that thread... Will have another look at it now :)

I just went to that "Sanctity of Unity" thread, and I forgot you had posted there.

Here is what catches my eye:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sitaram

Think about "unity." We study the "UNI"verse in a "UNIV"ersity where
we constantly strive for a "G.U.T." (Grand Unifying Theory) Our various
religions stress "MONO"theism, or the "UNITY" of the Trinity. Our
government adopts the maxim "E Pluribus Unum" (From the many,
one.) We preach a creed of one God, one faith, one baptism, one wife, one husband, one nation under God, indivisible, and so forth. My very deployment of the word "one" with such frequency becomes onerous to the reader. We even make "top ten lists" of novels and many other things, which implies that there is a NUMBER ONE at the top of the list. We speak of "the great American novel" implying that there is one, and only one. It is amusing to note that, even though we have TWO eyes and TWO ears and TWO cerebral hemispheres, yet we experience only ONE unified field of vision and hear only ONE harmonious composition and have only ONE stream of consciousness. The number one seems to have a sanctity all its own. The sanctiy of unity give a new and different meaning to the one greatest prayer of Judaism, the Shema: "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is ONE." Numero Uno is a God for us in many ways.

---

Some authors (e.g. Melville & Milan Kundera) are sort of like easter bunnies, hiding esoteric treats in their writings for us to find. Other authors, like Trollope and Hardy, seem almost devoid of such symbolic connotative multivalent activity.

Of course, there is nothing at all wrong with a good story well told.

Some years ago there appeared a wonderful book entitled "An Exhultation of Larks."

James Lipton's "An Exaltation of Larks" is devoted to these collective nouns, many of which orignated as hunters' terms and have been in the language for centuries. Here's a gleaning from his book:

A covey of partridges
A murder of crows
A rafter of turkeys
A brood of hens
A fall of woodcocks
A dule of doves
A wedge of swans
A party of jays
A company of parrots
A colony of penguins
A cover of coots
A sord of mallards
A dissimulation of birds
A peep of chickens
A pitying of turtledoves
A paddling of ducks [on the water]
A siege of herons
A charm of finches
A skein of geese [in flight] a tidings of magpies
A cast of hawks
A deceit of lapwings
An ostentation of peacocks
A bouquet of pheasants
A congregation of plovers
An unkindness of ravens
A building of rooks
A host of sparrows
A descent of woodpeckers
A mustering of storks
A flight of swallows
A watch of nightingales
A murmuration of starlings
A spring of teal
A parliament of owls
An exaltation of larks


But, Mockingbirds are solitary.

http://placeforwildbirds.tripod.com/mock.html

Lee uses foreshadowing to insinuate that Boo Radley may be as much a mockingbird as Tom Robinson by having the children note that “in the darkness a solitary mocker poured out his repertoire in blissful unawareness” near the Radley house. The solitary figure of Boo Radley will save both children from death.

I did promise Sheherazade that I would read through "To Kill A Mockingbird" and look for the presence or absence of religious allusions, with special attention to my conjecter that "Boo is God."

Some of what I assert will be in the spirit of playfulness. When one canonizes a saint, there is always a "devil's advocate" who attempts to refute each allegation of sanctity.

Let us discuss some names which appear in the book. For now we shall discuss the name of the town Maycomb and then the surname of Boo Radley.

The Name Maycomb:

My first point is far fetched but fascinating, if only there might be some truth to it. In the Hebrew Torah (the Pentateuch or first five books of the Old Testament) there are various terms to denote God. The most frequent euphemism is "Ha Shem" (the name, the Holy name, unutterable, the tetragrammaton of four letters.) Another term for God is "makom" which means "place." The Kaballah has a special term, "tsimtsum," which means contraction or withdrawal, to describe how God makes a place for being, for the universe. It is believed that God is such a fullness, superabundance, plenum, that there is no "place" for the universe UNLESS God contracts and withdraws to make existence possible. That place is called "makom." The Talmud says, "God is not in the universe because God is the PLACE (makom) of the universe." How curious that makom, which is created by absence, withdrawal, should also denote that which is absent, contracted, withdrawn, like a pale penumbra. How curious that the word makom resembles the name of the town "Maycomb."

I have a number of observations to make as I read through Harper Lee's novel. I shall be adding to this post over the coming days, and will also post my comments to a page at my site.

An argument against my "makom" theory is that I do not find any connection with Judaism in the biographical information on Truman Capote. In fact, I did find one very anti-semetic remark made by Capote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capote

CAPOTE, TRUMAN, 20th century American, leftist writer: In an interview, he assailed "the Zionist mafia" monopolizing publishing today, and protested a tendency to suppress things that do not meet with Jewish approval. (Playboy magazine, March 1968).

---

http://partners.nytimes.com/books/97...pote-obit.html

An argument in favor of my "makom" theory is that the town of Maycomb is fictional.

http://mockingbird.chebucto.org/faq.html

Maycomb is a fictional representation of Monroeville, Alabama.


The Surname Radley:

The surname "Radley" has the root-word (pardon the pun) "rad" which
comes from the Latin word for "root." Notice that words like radish
and radical are built upon the etymological base of "rad."
Let us look at some of the definitions of the related word "radix:"

beginning, commencement, conception, derivation, genesis, head, inception, origin,original, origination, provenience, rise, root, rootstock, source, stem.

Here is a study of the names of Jesus:

http://www.parentalguide.com/Documen...s_of_jesus.htm

Below are those names which convey the notion of the root "rad" in

Boo Radley's name:

ROD OF THE STEM OF JESSE Isa 11:1
ROOT AND THE OFFSPRING OF DAVID Rev 22:16
ROOT OF DAVID Rev 5:5
ROOT OF JESSE Isa 11:10


Of course, we mentioned early on in this thread that the nickname "Boo" suggests a ghost which suggests the Holy Ghost.

Now let us look at the first sentence of the novel.

"When he was nearly thirteen, my brother Jem got his arm badly
broken at the elbow."

The first phrase we are presented with is "When he was nearly
thirteen." The author might have written "When he was twelve" and
most certainly Jem is still twelve when the injury occurs. It would
make sense to assume that Jem and the injury are at the forefront of
the thought which utters this sentence, and that the age is merely an
afterthought.

http://www.ahavat-israel.com/ahavat/torat/barmitzva.asp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by URL

"Bar Mitzvah" literally means "son of the commandment." Under

Jewish Law, children are not obligated to observe the
commandments, although they are encouraged to do so as much as
possible to learn the obligations they will have as adults. At the age of
13 (12 for girls), children become obligated to observe the
commandments.

Bar Mitzvah is not about being a full adult in every sense of the word,
ready to marry, go out on your own, earn a living and raise children.
The Torah makes this abundantly clear. In Pirkei Avot, it is said that
while 13 is the proper age for fulfillment of the Commandments, 18 is
the proper age for marriage and 20 is the proper age for earning a
livelihood.

---

If we count the sentences of this first page, we discover that it is in
the SEVENTH sentence that both Dill and Boo Radley are mentioned.
What is the significance of seven? Genesis says that God created the
world in six days and rested on the seventh.

(Note: I am also posting these additions to a page at my site

http://toosmallforsupernova.org/page032.htm

and if I have more to add than will fit comfrotably in a forum thread, then I shall post it there, and those who have some interest in this may visit and read.)

Sitaram,
I have also started re-reading 'Mockingbird' -only read a quarter of it yet- and I am first to admit humbly that my literary, religious and philosophical knowledge and understanding are non-existent compared to yours. I enjoy reading your posts on here -although not always able to appreciate them as they should be. I mostly favour a simpler approach -maybe an excuse to cover up my lack of knowledge and understanding. As I was reading your above post, I could not help but wonder if Lee really spent as much time to 'invent' town and family names or made sure certain names are mentioned at certain sentences on certain pages...
I agree with you that Boo Radley is one of the mockingbirds in the book along with Tom Robinson. And that the name Boo represents a ghostly sound -his real name Arthur is replaced by Boo probably after he was locked up in the house and all the weird stories about his acativities started circulating the town. However, as I said earlier, I am not really persuaded that if Lee's aim in writing this book was to bring the whole set of religious references into play. She could, surely, have chosen an easier and obvious way of doing so.
Your reference to the very first sentence of the book, I believe, shows how differently we look at things. That sentence makes me smile as it shows how sweet children are in their own ways. I spend a lot of time with children and if you have too, you must have noticed that children are never '5 years old' once they pass their 5th birthday but either '5 and a half' or 'almost 6' or 'nearly 6'... Scout's reference to Jem's age as 'nearly thirteen', to me, is a sweet expression of children's desire to grow up and wishing to show themselves a little older when possible. I really cannot see the religious reference in this.
As I read along, I am hoping to reply longer but at the moment I am in a hurry - I always say it is a shame the real life interferes with our cyber existance. I will finish with this anecdote:
My father is a real handy man. Takes pride in his work and enjoys every minute of it. Always fixing, upgrading, cleaning, maintaining something and he is very good at it too. One day our car broke down, making his day, as that gave him a real excuse to put his knowledge and abilities to test. So by Saturday morning, the car was lying in front of the house, his body wide open, guts ripped out... By Sunday afternoon, everything was lying in the same place as my father could NOT figure out what was wrong despite all the cleaning and oiling and replacing... Then, my brother, who was 15 at the time, solved the mystery... It was a loose screw causing the problem which could have been tightened without taking the engine out.
Have a nice day, Sitaram! :)
Looking forward to hearing from you soon!
Scher

So nice to hear from you! My theological analysis of "To Kill A Mockingbird" is somewhat "tongue in cheek." I have been trained over the years to analyze writings in this fashion, so this is something of a "devil's advocate" exercise. I should post here a link to my college essay from the late 1960's entitled something like "Prolegommena to Writing an Essay or Thesis upon a Work of Art (Literature)" in which I explore the validity of this type of analysis.

One of the links to my previous post is to a site of someone who actually knows Harper Lee slightly. At that site, in the FAQ, she give Ms. Lee's publishers address in answer to the frequently asked question, "How may one contact Harper Lee." I sent this person an e-mail with a link to my post "If Boo is God..." and I am thinking to print it out and mail it to Harper Lee, in care of her publisher. Perhaps nothing at all will happen, but one should always try when the worst thing one may hear is "No."

Someone once commented to me, "God answers every prayer, but sometimes the answer is NO" (quite in character for any parent, wouldn't you say?)

It is a good practise for a parent to give a reply to a child's questions... even though it is a 'no'... And the worst thing is the lack of any reply at all... the silence and not knowing on child's behalf! ;)

Just read this part in 'Mockingbird' and remember my post regarding parents' and answering children's questions Atticus to his brother Jack (when Jack tells Scout about Lord of Melbourne when she asks him what a 'whore-lady' is):

"Jack! When a child asks you something, answer him, for goodness sake. But don't make a production of it. Children are children, but they can spot an evasion quicker than adults, and evasion simply muddles 'em."

In Chapter 12, Atticus leaves for the State Legislature meeting:

'Besides, Cal, this isn't the first time Atticus has left us,' [Scout] protested.
'Yeah, but he makes certain your teacher's gonna be there. I didn't hear him say this time - reckon he forgot it.' Calpurnia scratched her head. Sudddenly she smiled. 'How'd you and Mister Jem like to come to church with me tomorrow?'

I cannot imagine Atticus forgetting something like this. Possible that he has done it on purpose, knowing that Cal wouldn't leave children alone and take them to the Church with herself? He, maybe, wanted to give children a chance to experience being within the Black community and get to know them better before the trial started... So that they would be prepared for what is coming and be able to take a view without prejudices?

As I read along, I am trying to keep an eye on the religious references but I am afraid (well not really;I am not afraid at all - I am quite happy about it actually :D) I don't see any references to support your argument Boo = God. I am more certain than ever that Lee was just trying to encourage us to be wary of any taken-for-granted/set-in-stone (Rosetta Stone?) view, no matter what they are and question them. And religion is the top philosophy which requires such devotion: you either accept it without any ado and questioning or you are not a true believer. So, she surely cannot be introducing God and religious references into her work unless she wanted to question its place, influence and demands on people?

I only have time this morning to quickly skim over your post. Thanks for writing. I am quite certain that, if I were able to ask the author, she would laugh and say she had no such notion that Boo is God (but it is a catchy title for a post or essay.)

However, there are an inordinate number of references to religion, which I shall gradually compile at my website, and post here as well. I am just doing this as an amusing and instructive exercise. It is far more likely, for example, that Melville intended to portray the whale as God and far less likely that Lee had any thought in the world to portray Boo as Jesus.

What impressed me with the notion of Boo as Jesus was when I glanced and the summary in sparknotes are saw that 1.) no one ever saw him, and conjectered if he is real, and what he is like, 2.) he only appears at the last minute to "deliver from evil," and 3.) it is only when the children "know him personally" (a personal relationship with Jesus) that they arrive at maturity with respect to the existence of good and evil in the world.

I agree with you that there are many references to religion in the story;it would be impossible for Lee to write her book credibly without any considering the times and place the story takes place. However, I cannot see her aiming to do this to present Christianity/God/Jesus in a sympathetic light. She does it just to open our eyes to the facts behind all the things done in the name of religion... Just to stir us and take another look at things...

I am reading Chapter 20(the court room scene) and one thing has struck me... Almost all the characters who were introduced as 'unpleasant' or 'evil' to us have been shown under a softer lighter again.
Boo - giving all those gifts, mending Jem's trousers and putting the blanket over Scout's shoulders
Miss Caroline - She is inexperienced and trying to introduced new methods
Mrs. Dubose - we find out about her addiction and cannot help feeling sorry for her
Mr. Walter Cunningham - Although he is part of the mob, he then encourages them to go home.
Mr. Dolphu Raymond - He is not a drunk man but only pretends to be so and helps Dill.
Mayella Ewell - At the end of her testimony, we realise that she is a lonely, abused young girl
(The list might go on;this is what I can remember right now)

Atticus puts it so nicely for Scout: 'You never really understand a person until you . . . climb into his skin and walk around in it.'. We are given a glimpse into the existence of these people and made realise that they are humanbeings with goods and bads, just like rest of us. The prejudice we develop for them initially is replaced by an understanding (maybe not an agreement)...

Is Lee trying to say that we are, in one way or another, all mockingbirds? Once we understand each other and see our human failings along with our human glories, it is impossible to be judgemental?

The Mocking Bird and The Painted Bird*
Birds of a feather
Do not always flock together


*(by Jerzy Kosinsky)

Can anybody please provide any online free text of the book "To Kill A Mockingbird"?

thanks

Due to copyright issues, I doubt if you can find a free online copy. How about your library? :nod:

After finishing the book, I have been thinking about Boo = God but I can gladly declare, I cannot find any traces of it -even in a tongue in cheek fashion. The way Lee mocks missionaries and so called Christian charity and double standards especially in the later chapters makes it impossible for me to agree to the existence of even a hint of that possiblity.

If Boo were God, what kind of deity is Lee presenting us with? One who is banished from the society, constantly ridiculed and subjected to horrible workings of human imagination... One who is powerless enough to break free from his oppressors and what is more, one who is unwilling to do so. One who is unable to stand up and bring justice for himself... One who, at the end, give in and accepts his fate. I don't think this a picture of the God which would impress the true Christians amongst us! ;)

We might argue that Lee is disappointed with the Church, its followers and the way the religion is interpreted;thus, drawing picture of a withdrawn God -but one who is still be there in times of true need?- but that would require a very devout believer, one who is equally disappointed with the state of Christianity is today despite having very strong convictions herself.
Which is why now, I will do some reading on Lee herself... Just to have a feel of her upbringing and life so that I can put my mind at ease :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

If Boo were God, what kind of deity is Lee presenting us with? One who is banished from the society, constantly ridiculed and subjected to horrible workings of human imagination... One who is powerless enough to break free from his oppressors and what is more, one who is unwilling to do so. One who is unable to stand up and bring justice for himself... One who, at the end, give in and accepts his fate. I don't think this a picture of the God which would impress the true Christians amongst us!

---

Your description of a "Boo" god above sounds very much like Jesus to me: banished, ridiculed, powerless to break free, unwilling to escape his fate. And the crowd jeers at him and says "Others he saved, himself he cannot save. Come down from the cross."

Well, I am late for work, but I promise to re-read this thread.

Boo = God = Jesus ?

Well Schery, that depends whether someone belief /consider Jesus as a God or just as a prophet..

Perhaps I should have been more explicit. One takes certain things for granted, living in a predominantly Christian society/culture (though bear in mind that my own personal beliefs are more Hindu/Buddhist). For the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and many Protestant denominations, Jesus is God incarnate. The notion of Jesus as an incarnation of God is analogous to the Hindu notion of an avatar (which means "having come down/descended"). I do not mean to be patronizing in this explanation, but there are members here from many different cultures I imagine, so I will mention that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, is that God is ONE, (Christians do not consider themselves to be polytheistic), but that ONE monotheistic God, has three persons (from the Latin word "persona" for the mask which actors wore on stage): the three persons of the trinity are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

When I chose the title for this thread, I felt "If Boo is God..." is more provocative than "if Boo is Jesus...", but certainly what I had in mind, when I first became aware of the role Boo plays in the novel, is that there are strong resemblences between Boo and Jesus.

I was quite startled when I saw that Scheherazade, in her more recent post, described Boo in almost the same language and tone that various passages (including Isaiah ch. 55 of the Old Testament ... or is that 53)... describe Jesus. Initially, I had not been struck by those similarities, but only by the fact that Boo is never seen... his existence and nature is only speculated upon... (the mysterious "gifts" appearing)... and only appearing at the end to deliver children from evil.... and the business about the children finally developing a "personal relationship" with Boo (just as Christians speak of a "personal relationship with Jesus."

Now, to address Sheherazade's most excellent question of "WHY would Harper Lee intentionally model Boo after Jesus." My notion is that Harper Lee saw the hypocrisy of a society which proclaims itself as Christian but treats others in a most un-Christ-like manner. What better way to "show up" the hypocrisy of such a society than to have a character such as Boo who would seem to be a misfit but who actually embodies the Christlike qualities of humility, compassion, self-sacrifice, perhaps forgiveness. There was a 4th century (C.E.) Bishop, Athanasius, who said "God became man so that man might become God." What the good bishop meant was that each Christian aspires to become as Christlike as possible. There is a verse from one of the Epistles of the New Testament which became a hymn sung at eastern orthodox baptisms, "All ye who have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ (as a garment)."

I am reminded, in "The Brothers Karamazov," of the dialogue between Alyosha, the monk, and his atheist brother, Ivan. Ivan has written a poem in which the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition meets the actual Jesus (who has returned to earth) and desires to banish Jesus as an enemy. The Inquisitor berates Jesus with accusation, and Jesus simply answers with a kiss. When Ivan finishes reading his poem, and askes Alyosha for his opinion, Alyosha simply mimics Christ and give Ivan a kiss. As I use the word "mimic" just now, it occurs to me how closely that word is related to the concept of a "Mockingbird" which MIMICS other things. There is a Christian spiritual work entitled "Imitation of Christ." What if the "mockers" (imitators) are the ones who are truly meek and Christlike, and ipso facto, because of their very nature, are persecuted.


Just now I was snooping around google.com, looking for the Isaiah passage, when I came across:

http://www.gloria-dei-belmont.org/se...004.03.03.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by From above link

Isaiah 53: "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." How true that was in Israel's history. The people of Jesus' day didn't want a humble Christ who washed their feet and died for their sins; they wanted a mighty Messiah who would get the Romans off their backs and restore Jerusalem to its former glory. Many of the Gentiles in the early church stumbled over the message that a man who died on the cross was not only their Savior but also their God. But this is exactly what Isaiah recorded, exactly what Jesus did, and exactly what you and I need.


(at this same link, notice in this next anecdote, how Peter the Great is IMITATING Jesus)

It is said that Peter the Great of Russia once laid aside his royal garments and traveled to Holland to learn the art of shipbuilding for his people. Dressed in working clothes like any other worker in the shipyard, he kept his identity a secret as he learned his trade and labored as a commoner for the eventual benefit of his people. He assumed the most menial tasks to preserve his anonymity and to learn the full measure of laborious toil. Obviously this example is still an imperfect illustration of Jesus' humility, but it does give us a little glimpse and insight into the depths of Jesus' humiliation. He assumed the most menial task and hid his divinity to bring about the greatest spiritual blessings of forgiveness, peace, and eternal life. This is the humility that Isaiah portrays for us.

---

If you visit THIS link:

http://www.internetpadre.com/cc_syllabus.html

and do a ctrl-F search for "mockingbird" you will notice that the movie "To Kill A Mockingbird" is one of the films listed, among many, for students to write about religious themes and symbolism.

BINGO! Search in google long enough and:

http://nancykeane.com/rl/288.htm

The above link is a long list of all the fictional characters which some people consider to be Christ-like figures... and it lists BOO RADLEY.

And, here are a few excerpts from AN ENTIRE SERMON based on "To Kill A Mockingbird:"

http://www.bradleyhillschurch.org/-1...1999574931.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A sermon on TKAM

As birds go, it is the story of the mockingbird and not the Order of the Phoenix that captures my attention. The species known for its song, named for its actual ability to imitate over forty sounds. Mockingbirds are not without magic! Legend has it that they not only taught the other birds to sing but gave the art of language to us non-feathered folk! As books go, it is the story that captured the imagination of the country in the fall of 1960 that has recaptured me this fall. To Kill a Mockingbird. Remember?

To Kill a Mockingbird is narrated by a girl who is six years old at the beginning of the story. Following a disastrous first day of school with her teacher and other students, her father offers some wisdom. “If you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you’ll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view … until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”

That “simple trick” is the basic ethic of Christian faith. It’s a trick in the sense that it requires some skill, takes some practice so that you can do it easily. So it finally comes almost naturally, until we can almost surprise ourselves by our seeing what we did not see before. Considering things from another’s point of view. Walking in somebody else’s shoes. And the Apostle Paul makes it even trickier, when he insists that “we regard no one from a human point of view” but try to see one another as Christ sees us, as new creatures, reconciled to God and given the ministry of reconciliation.

I don’t think that when I read To Kill a Mockingbird back in high school I ever understood the title. In the course of the story the inquisitive Scout, a.k.a. Jean Louise, asks her friend Miss Maudie why she’s heard it said that it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy,” is the response. “They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.” I think I get it now. Mockingbirds “sing their hearts out for us.” They are the ones that give themselves for us. Do no harm, do only gracious good. They mock our destructive ways. They imitate the grace of God, the goodness of Jesus Christ. There are persons in that story who are the mockingbirds. Tom Robinson, the black man whose kindness to a lonely white woman was fatal. Boo Radley, the white man whose reclusive vigilance of the Finch children saved their lives. It is a sin to kill a mockingbird. And it is our call to live that color blind kindness, goodness, empathy after the example and teaching of Jesus himself. To imitate the grace of God, the goodness of Jesus Christ.

How to learn this not-so- simple trick? One practice is to listen for the voice of Jesus in the stories of the world:

Atticus Finch was the attorney in Maycomb, Alabama appointed to defend an innocent black man against the charge of raping a white woman. To Kill a Mockingbird is a story where seemingly good white people can’t do the right thing. Where the churchgoing Methodists and Baptists and Presbyterians don’t do the Christian thing.

At the end of that particular story, the now nine-year old teller of it stands on the porch of the house she and the other children had feared and jeered. She has befriended the strange and hidden neighbor and taken him safely home. Blessed is he … Turning around, the girl realizes, “I had never seen our neighborhood from this angle.” Standing in front of his shuttered window, she saw what he had seen over seasons and years. “Atticus was right,” she says. “You never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them.”

---

A great irony has just occured to me!

As I search and sift through google.com for material on TKAM ("To Kill A Mockingbird") I encounter SO MANY of those pesky cheathouse places that sell essays.

So many highschool and college students are required to read TKAM and write papers. If all of us keep posting, reading, analyzing TKAM, we will wind up with the be-all-end-all SUMMA THEOLOGICA of Harper Lee's novel. Everyone will come here (or wherever all this winds up in the search engines) to find out more than they ever wanted to know about various opinions on TKAM.

[QUOTE=Sitaram]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sitaram

I was quite startled when I saw that Scheherazade, in her more recent post, described Boo in almost the same language and tone that various passages (including Isaiah ch. 55 of the Old Testament ... or is that 53)... describe Jesus.

Now, to address Sheherazade's most excellent question of "WHY would Harper Lee intentionally model Boo after Jesus."

---

I refuse to be shot by my own gun! :D :D :D

I will get back to you as soon as possible, Sir! ;)

:brickwall Bang! ========================> :angel:

I have read the posts -more than once;and have been doing some reading on Lee as well but I still cannot find any indication to say that she had the intention of making this novel a religious allegory. I can see why people would like to interpret things to suit their own convictions -we, afteral, even claim to see the face of a man on the moon. However, I don't think there is an indication from the author herself that she set out to give us all a very subtle lesson in Christianity and religion. Was she a pious person? Did she practise religion? Did she express any disappointment with Christianity?
If that was Lee's aim, i.e. to show the hypocrisy of the Christian world, why did she trouble herself to give a detailed account of an accused black man's fate? Why are there all the references to all the under priviliged groups, such as African Americans, women, children? Why did she include all the other 'mockingbirds' as I listed in one of my previous posts? Considering the times the books was written, when the civil rights movement was in its full swing, isn't it more likely that Lee actually aimed to write a book to support the movement?
Not so long ago, we were saying that we tend to read too much into things at times;is it possible that we might be doing the same here? :)

I didnt want to get into this, but, you see, the Holy Spirit totally took over the young Ms. Lee, and much of the writing was automatic. Ms. Lee writing TKAM is very similar to Muhammed's inspiration of the Surahs, and St. Paul being struck blind on the road to Damascus.

Once God had finished with Ms. Lee as an instrument of his righteousness, he cast her aside, like an old bananna peel, and the attending angels sang in chorus, "The prophetess has written the last page of TKAM. Let this be the seal of prophecy. No future messengers shall be sent to America. This book shall be the reading of all future highschool generations. And we hope this will teach you once and for all not to mess with colored people."

And then, the penitent sinner Truman Capote was annointed with the oil of compassion, and he lifted the stricken Ms. Lee, crushed by the divine weight of prophetic vision, and nursed her back to health. And she wept long and hard and said, "Oh, woe is me if the world finds out that I, the unworthy one, have served as mouthpiece for the Spirit of God." And the faithful sidekickTruman said, "Worry not, little Miss, for I shall shield thee, and tell the world a platonic Noble Lie, and drop hints on the Johnny Carson show that the book is really mine."

And God spoke to them from a cloud and said,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GodAlmighty

Fear not. Be of good cheer. You shall never write another book, and you must live in cloistered seclusion. But your one and only book shall win you a Pulitzer and a Nobel prize. And in the last days, when the people have grown listless and blasphemous and much addicted to cell phone usage, I shall raise up a righteous interpreter, and he shall be called "Sitaram" and he shall open the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf, and crush their cell phones under his mighty foot, and Lo! Scherezade, that great harlot of Babylon, shall be brought low and humbled. And all the people shall repent, and shall return to me, and shall don tee shirts which say "Boo is God..."

---

(how am I doing.... so far... any converts yet.... shhhhhhh)


Somehow, as I reread my post, I am reminded of that scifi story "Canticle for Leibowitz" (spelling?)

ROTFL! :lol:
You are doing great! Another passage like that and I don't think even I can refrain myself from converting!!!

and... I promoted you to the exalted status of "mighty harlot"....

As Kojac used to say, "Who loves ya, Baby?"

I know! :eek:
Maybe, I am the only one who is not blinded and who is brave enough to stand alone, refusing to join in this submissive frenzy! Maybe, I will never agree to sell my soul for a t-shirt and wear the badge. Maybe, I am nothing but a mockingbird.

(And maybe, Lee is having a good laugh at our expense)