(I know – not a very clever title – moving on)
This was an interesting read for me. It was not what I was expecting at all, and I was happily surprised by this book. I ended up really enjoying it for a few reasons. The biggest reason I believe I have already mentioned: it features genuinely good characters. Characters that you don’t hate out of the gate. Which is nice.
Atticus continues to be the ‘do-no-harm’ hero lawyer/father of the South, teaching his children that all men are equal and that even though you can shoot a gun it doesn’t mean you should shoot a gun. One thing I noticed is that even though Scout is our narrator, she was not the clear main character/antagonist for me. In fact, I don’t know that I can crown either with that title – it’s either her or Atticus…maybe both.
The back sleeve of the paperback version of TKAM informed me that Harper Lee didn’t intend to write a social commentary on racism, she thought she was writing ‘a simple love story’. To emulate the great Seth Meyers: Really, Harpee Lee, really?!? You wrote a book centered around the trial of a black man being unconstitutionally and wrongfully tried and convicted of rape in the 1930s South and you think you’re writing a love story, really? The closest relationships described in the story are between brother and sister – is that your love story? Really??
If we look through the book there are few relationships that I could describe as a ‘love story’ within TKAM. You could consider Dill and Scout, who are engaged the way only a 10 year old boy and girl can be (which is to say not really engaged at all). But their romantic relationship (if you can call it that) doesn’t have the opportunity to mature into a true love story in the time covered in the book. Maybe they end up getting married and have a beautiful life together – who knows – but that is not the story Harper Lee wrote.
Then you have Boo Radley and the kids – if that’s the love story it’s not one I want to read, and not one that Harpee Lee made apparent either…although she did make a point of alleging some pretty creepy voyeur fetishism in the man.
SIDE BAR: If you want to see a real love story check out the dramatic ups and downs of Tila Tequila and Brandi in A Shot of Love with Tila Tequila. Now there is some moving stuff!
So, by comparison, I’m sure we can all agree that what we have left in TKAM is no love story. TKAM can be described in the following ways – none of which involves two people falling in love:
- social commentary on racism
- coming of age story
- portrait of a small Southern town in the 1930s
- historiographical fiction reflecting on race relations
- the plight of the single father
You might say “You are being SO closed-minded GAWD don’t you know that ‘love’ doesn’t always have to mean romantic love?? REALLY!” And I would say: “Nice, I like how you turned the whole “Really?!?” thing around on me there, good move.” And you would go on to point out several loving relationships which are focal throughout the story line of TKAM which include (but are not limited to):
- Atticus and his children
- Atticus and his sister
- Scout and Jem
- Scout and Jem and Dill
- Calpurnia and the Finches
- Boo Radley and the Finch kids
To which I would say this: Denied!
“Love story” means romantic love and everyone knows it. If it is being used in any other context then it is explicitly stated. Or unless it’s being employed for the purposes of humour. Jokes are funny, so that’s cool.
LISTEN. When you finally put that book down, it doesn’t matter whether or not Harper Lee was aware of what she was writing. What matters is that the scuppernongs of Harper Lee’s labour is a great story with a lot of valuable, timeless lessons and values woven into it. TKAM was pleasant to read, and I can understand why it is included in many curricula (spell check and wikipedia just told me that the plural of “curriculum” is “curricula”…hmm, well how’s about them apples).
Jolly good show, Harper!