Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review To Kill a Mockingbird has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the To Kill a Mockingbird article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit)

Add external references.
Tasks you can do:


Contents

[edit] Two volumes

I believe Harper Lee originally wrote and intended to publish To Kill a bird as two separate volumes. Her agent or publisher persuaded her to combine the volumes into one. Atticus

I think I read somewhere that the book was originally a collection of short stories. AucamanTalk 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

To Kill a Mockingbird was in a collection of short stories that were sent back, however the publisher asked her to expand that story into a novel, which she did.

[edit] VfD

  • an essay. M123 06:28, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please see that page for justifications and discussion. Is "an essay" a justification? I'll transfer the text to the To Kill a Mockingbird page, where someone will hopefully work on it. Then you can go ahead and kill Prejudices in mockingbird. --KF 11:05, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, with particular attention to point 9. —Paul A 11:59, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • see To Kill a Mockingbird and take the trouble to read the essay. Then tell me why I should pay particular attention to point 9. -KF 12:06, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • #9: Wikipedia entries are not personal essays. Prejudices in mockingbird is a personal essay. Bits of it are even in first person: "I am going to be discussing this theme...", "Based on this essay and the research I have done, I can say..." I wouldn't have thought it was that difficult to grasp. —Paul A 12:31, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Ah, you seem to be on the right track. See, if you take out the bits you are referring to, it all of a sudden stops being a "personal" essay. Well then, taking out those half-sentences and creating some links is usually called wikifying, and that's exactly what I hope someone will be doing. But, as I stated above, I agree that this text should not have its own page. --KF 12:42, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, remove this--it's someone's class paper, not an encyclopedia article.Vicki Rosenzweig 14:11, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. The topic would be ok, but the article is not. --Zippy 04:40, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • In the meantime, someone has worked on the text a bit. I'll transfer it to Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird so this here can be deleted. --KF 18:53, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Some of the ideas in the text could be saved, but it reads like a school essay. It's not encyclopedia material -- Tarquin 12:34, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Note: The "essay" below was posted by G Prime in August 2003 on a separate page inadequately entitled Prejudices in mockingbird. To save it from deletion, I moved it to the end of the To Kill a Mockingbird article, hoping that someone would find pleasure in editing it. However, in a ridiculous move, it was deleted by an anonymous contributor (User:12.240.227.239). I'm posting it again, this time on the talk page and in a slightly edited version. --KF 19:10, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Prejudices in mockingbird

One of the most prominent themes in To Kill a Mockingbird is prejudice. There is a great deal of prejudice towards Tom. There are also other prejudices against other characters but it is most prominent against Tom due to the hatred of Negroes.

The dictionary (http://dictionary.com) defines prejudice as "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion". It can be said that in To Kill a Mockingbird that prejudice is based upon the hatred of a low and subordinate group. White people felt that Negroes were the worst things that could happen to earth. Prejudice is the manifestation of the negative thoughts of a group or race. A specific example of this is on page 73 when Jem and Scout are making a snowman. Scout says to Jem, “Whoever heard of a nigger snowman,” If this manifestation gets to out of control then it could result in a holocaust. This manifestation could be the cause of The Holocaust. Some people but not everyone believed that they needed to segregate Negroes until they would simply disappear. White people thought that if they could eradicate Negroes they could create a perfect world. This could be reflected on the KKK. The KKK believes that for the earth to be purified they need to.

The dictionary (http://dictionary.com) also defines racism as the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Based on this I can say that white people thought that Negroes were animals. Racism can be thought of as something similar to prejudice but racism is the hatred of a particular race. Similar to racism is xenophobia. Xenophobia is the fear of anyone who is not from the same country as you are.

To Kill a Mockingbird is a story full of racial prejudices. Some of these prejudices could be when Tom was on trial they did not take his word and all the other opposing evidence; the jury simply believed Mayella. They did not believe Tom, not because Mayella had all the opposing evidence that could have convicted Tom, but because it was it went against the mores of Southern Americans to believe a black man over a white woman or anyone who was white during that last century and prior.

To Kill a Mockingbird is a story with prejudices towards Tom Robinson. Another example of these prejudices is that when Tom is at the jailhouse the ‘Mob’ demands that Atticus let Tom out so that the ‘Mob’ could do as they would to him. In a perfect society as the white people wanted, Tom, along with every single other Negro, would have been lynched. Personally, I think that those white people who were being prejudiced towards Negroes were a reflection of themselves. They simply could not understand that all races are equal. That there is no perfect race, they didn’t understand that nothing is perfect despite the fact that the white people of the 20th century (and previous) thought that white people are the perfect race. White people believed that white supremacy is the only way to get a race to be perfect.

To Kill a Mockingbird is based upon the fact that white people did not like Negroes. White people thought Negroes to be of an extremely lower class. Negroes in a way also had there own class system. However, the Negro class as a whole was as far down on the white person’s class system as anyone could possibly be.

The social and historical contexts of To Kill a Mockingbird is during the 1930s in the United States of America. Being set in the 1930s you could expect to have seen some prejudice. White Americans of the 1930s did not like anyone who was not white. This could be a reflection on the white peoples inhibitions and fears of Negroes. White people must have felt that Negroes should not have been involved in anything that white people were involved in.

To Kill a Mockingbird’s prejudice is based upon the basis of white supremacy. White supremacy in To Kill a Mockingbird is very prominent. Everyone thought that Negroes were trash and that the best that they could have done is to have gone and lived in a rubbish tip. Mr. Ewell was the one exception to the white supremacy theory. Apart from being white he had, at the time, been considered a lower class white man, but even this was not as low as a Negro had been considered. He lived at the tip, had many children, was a single parent and lastly he could afford nothing.

Prejudice against age is probably the most uncommon form of prejudice but it is still there. People of the 1930s considered the perfect age to be twenty-one – twenty-nine. Anyone who was older or younger than this would have been considered to be non pure. If you were considered non pure, in the view of people of the 1930s, you were a Negro, but we all know that this is wrong. Age prejudice is not as common as gender prejudice but it is still common.

The second most common form of prejudice would have to be a person’s gender. Men were always considered superior to women. Moreover, to some extent they still are. Men thought that women could not do anything except for domestic duties, such as cooking, cleaning and looking after children. Today’s society still generally views women as weak feeble creatures because there are still numerous jobs that women can't do. For example, in the army there are numerous jobs that they will not let women do. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout is not thought of as a lady. Alexandra tries to make her into a lady. This can be seen on page 142 when Alexandra was talking to Atticus about the way that Scout talks. Jem says, “Aunty better watch how she (Scout) talks, scratch most folks in Maycomb and their kin to us.” Gender prejudice will probably be around for a long time.

White people always saw someone with a disability to be of lesser humanity or importance. Anyone who had a disability would be considered non-human, almost like they were a mutant. Just because of something, that was probably not their fault. In today’s modern western society prejudice against disabled people is still present. You can see this when you walk past an ACTIV shop and people are teasing the workers. ACTIV is a place where disabled people can go to work, when employers will not employ them.

Based on this essay and the research I have done, I can say what is considered the lowest class possible. As before on the basis of my essay and my research I can say that if you were an elderly Negro woman who had a very poor background, with a disability of some sort or another, you would be considered the lowest form or life, but no one should be thinking this.

Despite the fact that prejudice means that you do not like another group or race, there is in fact some sort of relationship there. If there were no relationship whatsoever then the two groups would not know that the other one even existed. In To Kill a Mockingbird Jem and Scout, begin not liking the Radley’s because Jem and Scout think that there is a freak living inside. During the novel Jem and Scout, begin to like Boo as they begin taking his gifts out of the tree.

Until the Civil War, Negroes had almost no rights. They could be treated however anyone wanted to treat them. When the civil war ended, segregation laws were implemented. This meant that Negroes had to be treated with respect and they had to be treated as if they were white, but this in itself is a prejudiced remark. There was no more having to get up off a seat on the bus to let a white person sit down (Rosa Parks). Negroes were beginning to get the rights they deserve. It was still a long and arduous road but it was a step in the right direction.

The prejudices in To Kill a Mockingbird and prejudice in any form, be it in a book, or even in real life, can be described as totally inhumane and pusillanimous. People have changed since the time that prejudice of Negroes was a common practice. We have discovered that everyone is equal. Just because your skin is black, olive, or purple, everyone is equal. The content of To Kill a Mockingbird can be described as one huge prejudice. There was prejudice against Tom and there was even some prejudice against the three main characters, Atticus, Jem and Scout. It shows that no matter who you are there will always be some prejudice against one or more people, or even you!

While the above is not encyclopedic and doesn't belong neither as a part of the To Kill a Mockingbird article nor as an article of its own, I hope that someone can bring in published sources talking about this theme. The overwhelming theme of the novel is about the destructive nature of prejudice – not solely racial prejudice, everyone after all is prejudiced against the "spooky" Boo Radley, but especially racial predjudice. After all, the main plot of the novel is centered around the charge made by Tom Ewell about the purported "rape" of his daughter. The Ewells are no-account "white trash" and everyone in Maycomb knows this. The only thing that the Ewells have going for them in 1930s Southern society is the fact that they are not black. Ewell must help foster the racial predjudice of his time and place or the only thing maintaining his separation and seeming "superiorty" to blacks will be destroyed and he will then find himself on the local society's lowest, rather than second-lowest, rung. Therefore his daughter must not have been attacted to a black man, even though in reality she was, and any contact that he had with her had to have been forced, even though it really was not. Note that the widest divide in the rural Southern society of the time was the racial one – the jurors chose to take the meaningless word of a lying, lowlife scoundrel over that of a reputable working man solely because the accuser was white and the accused black. The jurors were not really evil, just functioning under the evil conventions of their society and unwilling to stand against them because of the very real potential consequences, which ranged from ostracism to lynching, which they would face had they chosen to have done so. Sentiements like this belong in the article, once they can be found in verifiable sources rather than just from me or another Wikipedian. Rlquall 20:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scout, not a major character?

Scout isn't included in the major character analysis, she is the protagonist and many of the themes in the book Scout is included in; Prejudice, Coming of Age, Courage etc. Personally i think she should be included? Anyone against the idea? Blaaarg

  • I was wondering about this as well. Why isn't her character included in the main characters analysis? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Scout, being the narrator certainly deserves her own bio.--LukeSurl 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. She is after all the narrator of the story! I'm glad that someone commented before me, otherwise a wrong would've been let go. Scout is a major character and she too deserves a bio!!

On the Bio Page, Why does it say Scout is a 6 year old? Is it not clarrified that she BEGINS as a 6 year old, and at ten end of ten book, is 9? Should the age really be included for Scout's Bio? And Scout does deserve her own bio, I mean, she IS the narroter! -Ell

[edit] Incorrect information

The first line of the summary of the book states that Atticus Finch is a freed slave; nothing could be further from the truth. Atticus Finch is a prominent white lawyer. Someone should correct this immediately as it undermines the entire premise of the novel.

- Agreed. She should definitely be included in the major characters section.- Orion

[edit] Mayella Ewell

the article refers to mayella as a waitress, which is untrue. she is unemployed. I could correct it, but am not sure exactly how to refer to her.

Perhpas We should add Bob and Mayella to the major characters section? it's odd that the article doesn't explain their "white trash" status or the circumstances that lead to the trial.

in the mean time, i'll fix the reference at the beginning.- Orion

I recall from may english gcse days that maya is the greek godess of change, Mayella was chosen because her attitudes towards that guy.., were different and denoted change

[edit] Two Separate Articles?

I believe that articles on the movie and the book belong in two different article, or at least with the movie as a subsection of the novel atricle. This article is kind of a confused mess right now. Also, doesn't the remark about Truman Capote belong either in the trivia section or deeper into the article? I believe the point it trivial as there is no real proof of it.

I agree. The movie is no greater than the book. And in my opinion, the book is better (disregrading however cliche that is).
I totally agree, and I actually just came here to write the same thing. The book is one of the greatest books ever, the movie is considered a classic too. I really don't see why they should have the same article. Morshem 04:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree also, but could someone do it, as I don't have the time. When writing it, (since this is how i got to the page in the first place) please be sure to state that Scout Finch received the award of being the 24th Best Character in Fiction Since 1900 as according to this page. Thanks to the person who does this! --Jared [T]/[+] 23:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree also, however I'm reading the book at this moment, so I haven't read this whole article. I don't want to read any spoilers. Erwin85 09:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
They really do need to be split. --Falcorian (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

They do need to be split. It would be useful to those people who need info about the film, and those who need information about the book Dracion 19:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support a splitting. The book is a seminal work of english lit, and deserves an article which isn't so confused.--LukeSurl 15:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, they deserve two separate articles as they are two separarte entities. Harry Potter has separate pages for films and books, why not Mockingbird?81.129.116.224 08:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Separate, the film and book are very different. Philip Stevens 08:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears a consensus has been reached, but we need someone to do it now. I'm out sorry, I've read the book but not seen the film. I could help tidy up any article on the book--LukeSurl 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, article is now split. See To Kill a Mockingbird (film). Estrose 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last two trivia items are too fluffy

Despite the movie's title, no mockingbirds are actually killed in the movie.

Silly and redundant statement, once again it detracts from the legitmacy of the article,I am removing it

1980s Rock band The Bangles wrote their hit single Walk Like An Egyptian after being inspired by a scene in the film where Jem is trying to teach his little sister Scout how to "walk like an Egyptian".

There is no proof of the Bangles ever confirming this in any source that I have ever found,I am removing it, if someone can provide a source lets put it back


Im sorry bu these are just lame additions to the article, "fluffy" was the best word I could come up with to describe them, anyone think they should not have been removed?

Yeah, taht is kinda lame.... But oh well. They should stay down! -Ell

[edit] Wow....

Plot synopsis/summary? We're reading it in my english class within two months or so and I wanted to see what it was about. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking about. A novel this famous should have a plot synopsis in its article. Could someone please write one? - Quirk 08:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The caption of the picture says "The second-edition cover art for the novel." However, the picture is of an audiobook version. This should be corrected. 207.10.126.30 16:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ, we are reading it in my English class, and that is the cover, I can look at my book again to see the edition if you would like...

[edit] Bias

I would like to say that the author of the second paragraph of the 'To Kill a Mockingbird' page appears to be highly biased about who wrote the book. I would recommend that it be changed to sound more objective


[edit] The Trivia is not about the book

There are plenty of trivia bits that discuss the movie.

pretty sure I got 'em, thanks =) MBlume 07:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scout Incest?

Many times in the book it mentions Scout wanting to marry Jem, is this incestrous or just pure childishness. (i.e Scout says here and jem want to have a snow baby, " If I marry Jem that emans I'll be second coousins with Dill", and many times Scout doesn;t like being away from Jem and would cry whenever he told her to go away.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.92.85 (talk • contribs) .

Normal childish behaviour = "incest" is your personal interpretation that doesn't belong in the article. See Wikipedia:No original research. -- Stbalbach 14:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's funny you bring that up, Actually their is clear evidence in the book of incest such Bob Ewell and Mayella and the fact that Dill is Scout's cousin.

Dill is not Scout's cousin, Bob did not have sexual relations with Mayella, and Scout was only a child. Where did you get these ideas? bibliomaniac15 00:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where in the book that says Scout and Dill (which would subsequently mean Dill and Jem also) are cousins. However, there are plenty of references about Dill and Scout marrying one another in the future and their obvious acceptance of that possibility. Also, the reference you make about Scout talking about marrying Jem was in relation to her attempting to figure out some comment Atticus makes towards her. Thus, I don't see how that's incestious. Likewise, Scout acts (IMO) like a pretty typical younger sister and Jem like a pretty typical older brother of their respective ages. They are, by books end, something like 13 and 9. Lastly, I do agree that it is pretty clear that Bob and Mayella Ewell had incestuous relations - I don't recall whose testimony it is, but I believe Tom Robinson testifies that Mayella, while seducing him, says something like "I want a real man, and not what my daddy does to me..." Obviously correct me if I've misquoted or am straight up wrong, but I remember reading it that way. Anyways, hope that clears up some stuff about the incest. And no, I don't think that should be a section that is part of the article.

Scout is Dill's cousin - I'm pretty sure of this as it is mentioned in the book several times. Furthermore, Bob Ewell did have sexual relations with Mayella. This is demonstrated when Tom Robinson says that Mayella said she has "never kissed a grown man before" and that she "says what her papa do to her don't count." Also, the fact that Bob Ewell was prepared to beat and 'possibly rape'(it is not concluded) Mayella for kissing and hugging Tom implies that he has done it before - he certainly has the character and history of being drunk and violent (Mayella nods at Atticus's question that Bob is not tolerable when he has been drinking). Scout does not seriously consider incest - she is simply trying to work out how somebody could have a double first cousin (as the Cunninghams are incestuous), so it is a cute childish episode of humour in the book. Scout crying when Jem tells her to go away is understandable - she's a young girl and being shouted at by your older brother (especially when you get on well with him) is not a nice thing. Scout and Dill do agree to be married and Dill says "Let's get us a baby", but again this is a cute childish episode which shows their innocence and purity - they haven't got the foggiest what they're on about. I have read this book and analysed it thoroughly in the past, so I should hope I know what I am on about! Hope this clears things up. Shrub of power 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

There's a sentence in the Boo Radley section that, literally parsed, sounds like Boo's dad was involved in a petty gang. I'm not sure how to put the sentence right, but if anyone can take a crack at it, that'd be great.

Boo Radley. Arthur Radley. Arthur "Boo" Radley. I think we need some sort of consensus on where in the article we use these.

There's a note about the article being a Bildungsroman right at the end of the Tom Robinson paragraph - should that go somewhere else? I'm not sure what to do with that. MBlume 01:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Fire

Shouldn't the plot mention somewhere that there is a fire? I mean, that is a pretty big part, isn't it? It is where Boo Radey gives her the blanket, so it does show that he is a kind man.

[edit] Dubose and her stereotypes

Dubose has many stereotypes that were common during the time period.

do we mean that Dubose *holds* many of these stereotypes, or do we mean that she represents, that she typifies many of these stereotypes? MBlume 19:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dill's a cousin

Dill is more than just Scout and Jem's friend, he's their cousin. This should be in the article IMO. Rlquall 02:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does it state that he is their cousin?

  • Just about nowhere. 71.48.71.74 00:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scout's Five Classes of People in the World

Somehow I think that this could be worked into the article. I remember how struck I was by Scout's breaking the world up into five types of people, namely:

  • 1) Rich people
  • 2) Middle-class people like themselves (although, in reality, the family of a prominent attorney in a small Southern town of the 1930s was likely regarded by the majority of its inhabitants as belonging in the first category)
  • 3) Poor whites as exemplified by the Cunninghams, who were socially inferior due to their ignorant and backward ways but still somewhat respected as a. they did did important, albeit menial, work and b. they were white
  • 4) White trash like the Ewells, who did as little work as possible and lived off of handouts (which working poor whites like the Cunninghams always refused on principle) and illegal activity and were the lowest status whites, and
  • 5) blacks (yes, Scout refers to them as "niggers", but only to show that she is a product of her time and place, as she not only doesn't practice racism, but, due to a combination of her upbringing and her childish innocence, she doesn't even understand it)

Jem shoots Scout's worldview down immediately, at least to his satisfaction, by reminding her that she has left several types of people out, citing Cajuns and Creoles as an example. Scout rejects his rebuke, reminding him that neither group lives in Maycomb, which was the "world" to which she was referring. I'm certainly not saying that all of this belongs in the article verbatim nor proposing to put it there, but rather that at least an allusion to it would be nice.

If my memory serves me correctly, Jem was the one who tried to break people into different groups (at least, I think that was what happened in the book. The movie might have been different). Scout offered the opinion that "there's only one kind of folks- folks." (Of course, I could be wrong. It's been a while since I read that section of the book.)--Tally Solleni 03:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Scout thinks that folks are folks and Jem is the one who devides into those groups... see page 226 (of my copy, anyway) for this passge.

[edit] Analysis and Characters sections could use some more development

These sections are rather pedestrian in their analyses, focusing on symbolism and concrete references to mockingbirds ("[Atticus] represents morality and kindness," "Arthur 'Boo' Radley symbolizes destroyed innocence," "Tom Robinson represents the 'mockingbird,'" etc). This focus on symbolism reduces characters to dry abstractions or archetypes. Many seasoned readers praise TKAM for the way that Harper Lee brought the characters to life. That Harper Lee's own family circumstances were similar to Scout Finch's is also well known. How much of the novel is thinly-veiled autobiography is speculative, but to limit one's understanding of the characters to symbolic stand-ins for abstract ideas suggests that one doesn't even appreciate the basic storyteller's art so masterfully displayed by Harper Lee. --BAW 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aunt Alexandra

Her views on Atticus' decision to have a "negro" in the house are made clear as she asks Atticus to 'get rid of her'. Atticus responds to her by kicking her out instead. I don't seem to recall Atticus kicking out Aunt Alexandra. Can somebody give me the appropriate quotes from the book? Ramnath R. Iyer 09:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought this while reading the article - I don't recall her being kicked out ever - and I finished reading the book only a week ago, with very thorough analysis from an English teacher. If somebody finds a quote, I stand corrected. 80.41.137.25 19:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think she was kicked out. In fact, she stays long after the anti-Calpurnia incident. 149.167.214.242 07:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she stays with the Finch family till the end, as does Calpurnia, and their fight hadoccured during the previous year.

Aunt Alexandra was never kicked out. She and Calpurnia stayed until the end of the book.

[edit] Dolphus

While Dill says that Dolphus was drinking out of a sack, Scout then says that he is drinking out of a brown paper bag. I think this should be edited. 149.167.214.242 07:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Baker 'Dill' Harris

Shouldn't somebody put in who Dill stays with in the summer? Also, who does he stay with when he runs away to Maycombe? 149.167.214.242 07:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sparknotes plot summary

The plot overview on Sparknotes is identical to the summary in the article: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/mocking/summary.html I would imagine that they took it from Wikipedia, but if not this has been copied from a website without permission, right? Excuse my ignorance over this matter x_x;; I just thought I should point it out, just in case. Tozoku 20:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC) --

[edit] Mrs. Dubose

Requesting revision, may not be racist, could have been a fit from the morphine. (read the book, you wil understand) ONX 18:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC) (this comment was copied from article body by Fvasconcellos 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC). This may or may not constitute original research.)

She did have racists, but its not all form the morphine. -Ell

[edit] Article Promotion

This looks like a good article to me. I got rid of the infobox for novels and rated it an A. Should have been done long ago in my opinion. b_cubed 03:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This definitely is not A-class. There are *no* external literature references, something absolutely required for A-class. In fact, this is also the reason nomination for Good Article would fail. I agree that in its current state Start-class would be too low. I've rerated as B-class. Errabee 02:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heck tate

Why isn't he included in the "other characters" part??? Superdude99 15:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's odd - he's a more prominent character than Zeebo and plays a fairly big part in the novel. I'll add him in. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 15:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] very nice article

I think it should be mentioned that this is basically Lee's only novel, which is an amazing fact, because she created such a genius of a masterpiece and then secluded . Quite similar to J.D. Salinger and it's a sort of a category of writers (loosely depicted by Sean Connerey in a later movie). Amoruso 00:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boo killed Mr. Ewell?

I thought that Atticus said Heck Tate was trying to protect his son, not Boo, by saying Mr. Ewell accidentally stabbed himself.

Also, this article doesn't thouroughly explain the title and how it relates to the book.

the common interpretation is that because Boo wouldn't want to expose himself in the court and all that, the incident was hushed and it seems that Boo really was the one who killed, though it's between the lines no doubt. Amoruso 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had to explain it to some of my friends who are in my Literature class. Boo Radley saved the children when he stabbed Bob Ewell. Thsi is why he tried to explain Atticus that he tripped on his knife. Boo did nothing wrong, and had to endure horrible rumers when he actually was a very wonderful and kind man. He watned to protect him from the outside world he was so frightened of. Its OK if you didn't understand. I was like one of the few that did. -Ell

Boo didn't kill Bob Ewell. What happened was when Jem broke his arm, Boo caught him and somewhere along the line Bob tripped and fell on his knife. Boo didn't stab him, Heck Tate proved it.

Tate "proved" it only to make a point to Atticus. Atticus was sure that Jem stabbed Ewel. But then Tate states "I ain't worried about Jem" proving that he is worried about the only other person who could've stabbed Ewel, Boo. Like Ell said, if Boo was known as a hero to the people of Maycomb (for killing Ewel and saving the children) he would attract attention, one thing Boo seems to have avoided. Then Scout points out, that revealing the truth to the town that Boo killed Ewel (and thus giving him attention) "would be sort of like killing a mockingbird" -- Psi edit 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 8 Simple Rules

I think that it should be mentioned that an episode 8 Simple Rules featured Rory reading this book as part of a school assingment, Yes No?Monkey2619 22:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No. This is an article about To Kill a Mockingbird. Its contents should provide information and insight into it ... not mention every trivial instance it is referenced in popular culture. --Swift 23:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White or Black?

Is Scout, Jem, and Atticus white or black?

They are white. bibliomaniac15 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

White. -Ell

[edit] What things did Jem and Scout find in the Radley tree?

Can someone please tell me

A broken stopwatch, 2 soap figures of themselves, good luck pennies, and gum that Scout eats. Is that them all? I think it is... -Ell

It is acually a broken Pocket Watch not a broken stopwatch. There is also A full pack of gum a medal from a spelling contest, yarn, and an aluminium knife attached to the watch. --| Captain Montgomery

[edit] Conjecture in Plot Summary?

This line jumped out at me when reading the plot summary:

"The innocent Tom later tries to escape from prison and is shot to death (though it might be that he tried to escape so he could get shot deliberately because he wanted to die looking like a hero. However, in the book, it is said that he could've escaped if he had two good arms instead of one)."

Is this at all implied in the novel? Admittedly, it's been some time since I read it, but I'm trying to figure out why Tom would have effectively committed suicide so he could look like a 'hero' (an odd choice of words, I think, when describing a prison escapee).

Yes, I noticed that. Honestly, this author sounds like a two-year old writing! Tom does not do this to look like a hero, he instead does it to try to ecscape prison. he hates it there, because he knows he didn't do the crime to get him there. -Ell

You're absolutely right. I've removed that portion. Tozoku 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eminem

How come there is a picture of Eminem's Mockingbird CD there??? Realg187 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture From Theater Production

I am not sure this is appropriate as this article is on the book not the play, any comment. Daniel J. Leivick 01:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • To my knowledge, a picture of a character's actor is the only way to show what said character looks like.

[edit] Split character section

I'm suggesting this because:

An alternative would be to merge the entire thing into the text, which would make it not a summary, but a lecture. bibliomaniac15 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the characters section should be split into a new article.
Tyson Moore 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I will go ahead and split it now.
Tyson Moore 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I put the primary characters back into the article. I agree that not every character needs to be mentioned but I don't think it would be entirely proper to leave out a synopsis of the characters. Which leads me to my next point. I put the character info into the article however, I plan on going through the article within the next week or so and trimming down as much of the information as I can. I quickly glanced at some of the information and I don't think this will be too hard to do. If people reading the article want to read more about characters the character page is still up, and i feel that they can check that out. b_cubed 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eminem reference

Are you sure he's talking about the book? There's a children's lullaby about a man buying things for his daughter and one of the lines is: "And if that mockingbird don't sing, Papa's gonna buy you a diamond ring" 204.9.9.159 09:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some important topics not stressed on the main page

Hello! I am in 8th grade and i just finished reading To Kill a Mockingbird. I have some important topics that I believe are quite valuable to the way the book is percieved. First of all, the part in the story where Tim Johnson, the mad dog, comes to the Finch's street, represents all sorts of predjuce. Atticus represents the "hero" who is "defeating" predjuce, because he kills the dog and the dog represents predjuce and how it is affecting the town. Second, the character descripiton on the To Kill a Mockingbird page explains that Jem and Scout do not call Atticus "dad" or any other name because it is "horrific". Actually, in the beginning to the novel, Scout refers to Atticus as "satisfactory". She does not call him "dad" because she believes that he is not a real dad. Towards the end of the book, though, she sees him more as a father. Also, Scout did have mother figures: Calpurnia, Miss Maudie and in a way, Aunt Alexandra. And Atticus taught Scout to read, not Calpurnia. I am wondering why there were no symbolism, or figurative annalysis section on the Mockingbird page. There is so much symbolism and figurative meaning to the entire book. Many primary characters are not listed in the primary characters section: Miss Maudie, Miss Stephanie, Aunt Alexandra, Dill, Mr. Avery, Mrs. Dubose and Miss Caroline. Yet, some characters that are only in the trial are considered "primary", such as Mayella Ewell. I will post more later on more symbolism and figurative meanings.

- An Up-and-Comming Writer


Symbolism is such a subjective thing. In fact, the instances you mention there about Tim Johnson and why the children don't call Atticus dad I disagree with. So your teacher's example of symbolism I think is taken out of context. But that doesn't mean you're wrong and I'm right. It just means I think what I do because of how I see the characters and the story. I see Tim Johnson as one more beautiful thing, "the pet of Maycomb" that had to be harmed for reasons beyond his poor control. And Atticus had to do it. And I think Harper Lee is wonderfully laconic and dry in her prose, so she states, as a child who wasn't too thrilled to have a boring old dad like Atticus, as "satisfactory". Recall that Scout goes on a quest to find something Atticus is good at doing - which culminates in his killing Tim Johnson. The discussion of perceived symbolism is probably better had back here on the Talk page.Moni3 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I agree with Moni3's comments regarding symbolism, but I also think it's true that there are some important themes in the book which are not captured in the novel: Scout's and Jem's coming-of-age, and social morals of the South to name two.
In general I think this article could be greatly improved by:
  • Rewriting the Themes section: in addition to the additions mentioned above the section suffers from poor writing, shallow analysis, and excessive listiness.
  • Adding sections for Characters and Quotes. (There is currently a proposal to merge the Atticus Finch page into this one.)
  • Eliminating obscure pop culture references and film-related information from the Trivia section
UPDATE: Look what I found in Theme (literature):
Examples of themes in To Kill a Mockingbird are: Importance of Education, Bravery and Cowardice, Racism and Acceptance, Role of Women, Maturity, Friendship Social class structure and Inequality, Sacrifice, Prejudice, Code of Conduct, Loss of Innocence.
--Meyer 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the update, I don't see what is significant about that as you are referencing another wikipedia page; an unreferenced one at that. Cheers b_cubed 20:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sparknotes

Why is it that the summary is the same on sparknotes.com? Who copied this from sparknotes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SuperGerbil (talk • contribs) 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Genre reassigned: Southern Gothic

After much thought I have reassigned Mockingbird's genre to Southern Gothic. The original assignment to Historical novel was false, and the modifiers "Social, racial and judicial Issues" neither recognized literary genres nor completely accurate.

Genre-like classifications that I would have liked to used but rejected because they are not currently found in the literary genre hierarchy: coming-of-age story, family drama (but not a saga), courtroom drama (but definitely not a thriller; also, I have reservations about putting legal or political labels on the book because a lot of reviewers over-emphasize this aspect due to domination of the film by the Robinson trial).

While the setting and the Boo Radley character fit the genre, and Mockingbird is claimed as an example on Southern Gothic, I still don't feel Southern Gothic is a perfect fit. It's just the closest thing I could find among acknowledged genres.

--Meyer 11:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a perfect fit because until it was published it was unlike anything ever written. It still defies categorization. Moni3 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Moni3
It occurs to me that part of the problem may be that we wikipedists are more obsessed with categorization that many authors are. While some set out to write a mystery novel or a science fiction novel, etc., many others, perhaps like Harper Lee, just sit down to write a story without regard to literary genre. Part of me thinks Novel is the best "genre" for Mockingbird. --Meyer 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aunt Alexandra Outraged??

A newer edit claims that Aunt Alexandra was outraged at her Missionary Circle's racist attitudes. Not only did I not ever notice this, but I noted the opposite. As a hostess, she refuses to dishonor her guests, so she allows them all their idiosyncracies, including the gossip about the "Mrunas" and the pastor's wife. She does grieve for her brother's sadness in private, but I never noted any outrage.Moni3 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Moni3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC).


I agree. I just finished reading the book (again) today and do not recall Aunt Alexandra ever expressing outrage towards overt racism in her Missionary Circle. There is a moment where I believe Miss Stephanie talks about "them" and how "a certain someone" is getting a "rise" out of "them," but then Miss Maudie makes a comment to her which shuts her up and which Aunt Alexandra gives Miss Maudie a "thank you" look. That is as close as I can find to an example of what the edit could be talking about, or maybe I'm just reading an "old" edit.

[edit] Cleaning up the article

This page is under serious need of cleaning up. I just edited out a lot of extra information as well as some stubs that someone had placed into the article. On the one hand, although I appreciate someone's clear efforts to help the information presented on this page, the article is only managing to look sloppy in the process. There is still more work to be done just to make this page look half presentable. b_cubed 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the sentiment, but dumping together three sections defined in the template WP:NOVEL/ArticleTemplate (headline, non-spoiler plot introduction, awards and nominations) makes the article less readable, not more. --Meyer 23:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I will have to disagree with you on several points. First, the template which you cite is not valid (as far as it is a broken link). Secondly, even if it is a valid way of writing a literary article, if you look at all the literary articles which are considered Featured Articles, or Good Articles for that matter, none of them follow this template as you have described. Surely, if this template was that important the FA and GA comittees would have taken it into consideration when awarding these articles their proper statuses. Lastly, if readability is what you are concerned about, having one liners interspersed here and there does nothing to help. Every wikipedia must have a proper introduction. A one-liner about the it being a southern gothic novel does not suffice. b_cubed 06:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I apologize for not checking the link. The template is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate. While it is true that the template does not appear to be used in current featured or good articles about novels, this is probably due to the template being relatively new (Jan. 2006). Whether or not you think a one-sentence lede is sufficient, it satisfies the guidlines in WP:Lead_section, and it is my opinion that the one-line lede and separate plot introduction section improves the article's clarity. Adopting project-developed (WP:NOVELS in this case) templates whereever possible improves the consistency, readability, and usability of articles in a given field. --Meyer 07:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • First, not to be rude, but have you actually read the article on what a lead section consists of? here's a brief citation that encapsulates the most important idea:

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article."

        • Can you see now why one sentence is insufficient? Furthermore, the awards are usually mentioned in the intro if there are significant ones such as a pulitzer prize in order to "encourage [the reader] to read the rest of the article." By the way, speaking as a member of the novels Wikiproject I don't believe that what it considers to be a proper article layout should be used as a "trump card". b_cubed 08:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
          • While the template's one-sentence lede fails to explain why the subject novel is notable, it does provide a minimal overview and context. --Meyer 08:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate is not meant to superceed the need for a good Lead Paragraph. I have augmented the existing paragraph with more information from the rest of the article, making it more a of "summary" of the whole, which is more the intention of the "Lead". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Understanding the intent behind the templates lede, I think Kevin's version is a good summary of the article. The lede should summarize the article but not the plot, which belongs in the plot introduction section. --Meyer 09:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this book banned?

Somewhere I've heard it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.125.68.136 (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Google lists several reports of Mockingbird being 'challenged' or 'removed from reading lists'. I'll add a report to the article. --Meyer 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've completed a first cut on a report on Mockingbird bannings and put it under a reinstated "Literary significance & criticism" section since that seemed the best fit among sections existing or in the article template (ultimately, I think there should be more literary criticism in this section than ban information). There are many mentions that Mockingbird is frequently banned to be found, but details on specific cases are harder to find. I originally intented to list notable banning cases, ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom seems to be the best source, and I suspect it is the original source for much of the specific case information currently circulating on the Internet. The Muskogee High School case has better non-ALA support than other cases, so I have retained it. Since the ALA case list seems fairly comprehensive, I don't think listing any more specific cases here would be valuable. --Meyer 10:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The American Library Association lists To Kill A Mockingbird as #41 on the list of the 100 Most Challenged Books in schools and public libraries. Read the entire list here.Moni3 17:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Moni3

[edit] How Does No Original Research Apply To Novels?

The entire Themes section was deleted recently with the reason described as "No Original Research".

With such a subjective nature as novel interpretation, how does No Original Research apply? Can there be a Themes section to any novel or interpretation of symbolism in novels if editors are to adhere to this?

Moni3 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Moni3

WP:NOR excludes original interpretations by Wikipedists. Therefore, for the 'Major themes' section we should stick to material explicit in the novel itself or references to the opinions of citable authorities. While it doesn't do TKaM justice, I think our current themes section is comprised mostly of the former. It's a tough standard, but WP isn't supposed to be a repository for AP English essays. --Meyer 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last lines of book

This isn't important, just wondering if anyone else has any viewpoints on this matter. At the end of the book, Atticus says, in response to Scout's words on how nice Boo Radley was even though she was previously prejudiced against him, "Most people are, Scout, when you finally see them."

I just find it odd and peculiar that in a book that is against prejudice (apart from extreme cases like Bob Ewell), the last line should be this. I think Lee should have written, "Most people are, Scout, when you finally get to know them." This would demonstrate that understanding your fellow human beings and revealing the goodness of human nature within is better than judging them on other factors: skin colour, social status, wealth, ancestry etc. and believing malicious gossip, as spread by people like Miss Stephanie Crawford.

Maybe it's just me, but this seemed to contradict stuff previously in the book, and it gets me really worked up. It could be just colloquial language, or another innocuous explanation, but I'd like any other viewpoints possible - I love the book and I am extremely interested in it. Any thoughts? Shrub of power 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into the word choice of the final line. The line means the same as the book as a whole (which you pointed out), that one should only judge another person after seeing who they truly are as a person and not judging based on appearance (as the jury did in believing a white man's story over a black's) or imagined attributes (as the children judged Boo). -- Meyer 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying - I think that's the most likely explanation for it. Great book though! Shrub of power 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the plot part of the page?

Did it get removed because of the ALA ban? Kenny Sullivan 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It and everything following got removed because of a technical glitch on one of my edits yesterday. I've reverted to the last complete version and will now try to incorporate edits made since the glitch. Please hold off editing the page until I'm done (will update here and remove the inuse template from the article). Very sorry for the mess. --Meyer 00:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm done now. I think I've reincorporated every meaningful and accurate (Bufsabres2007, I couldn't verify your edit of the release date to July 13, 1960 so have left it at July 11 (which agrees with the source [1])) edit made since my disaster at 15:06 March 27. Anyone who's edited the article since then, please read over the current version and add back in anything worthwhile that I've missed. Sorry again for the mess. I promise to never again edit more than a section at a time with the limited-edit-buffer browser on my PDA. --Meyer 01:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character list

Should the "Characters" section include all characters, only notable ones, just the main characters, or what? I think it could be separated into "major" and "minor", although that is subjective to viewpoint. As it links to the main article List of characters in To Kill a Mockingbird, is it necessary to have all characters? Interested to get some feedback on this. Shrub of power 21:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was the one that made the list of characters article. Way back on January 7th I had put into the main article a few characters I thought should be considered "major". I'm not sure I'd still agree with the selection I made back then. Furthermore, I ended up just copying and pasting information from the "list article". In retrospect I think that a few 3-5 terse sentences on the main characters we include would be sufficient. From what I can remember from reading the book, these are the characters I would probably list as major characters: Scout, Jem, Atticus, Dill, Bob Ewell, Mayella Ewell, Tom Robinson, Boo Radley. For the rest I think it would be sufficient to just make mention that additional characters can be found at the List of characters in To Kill a Mockingbird. b_cubed 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/_/Talk%7ETo_Kill_a_Mockingbird_0bf6.html"