Annotated Bibliography

Lubat, Steven. “Reconstructing Atticus Finch.” Michigan Law Review 97.6 (1999): 1339-62.

This article presents criticism of To Kill a Mockingbird – and, in particular, the character of Atticus Finch. Lubat characterizes Harper Lee’s novel as an overly simplistic story that portrays reality in absolute terms, with no shades of grey. For example, Atticus is a hero who can do no wrong, while Mayella and Bob are “absolute trash” (p. 134). Harper Lee feeds us the interpretation that Tom Robinson is innocent and does not leave any room for the possibility that he could have been guilty. Lubet also attacks Atticus Finch’s condescending manner of cross-examining Mayella Ewell, as well as Atticus’ suggestion that her father, Bob Ewell, committed incest. Atticus is insensitive and sexist for suggesting that Mayella actually wanted to have relations with Tom Robinson. Furthermore, Atticus Finch is part of “the system” of racial oppression: he is a state legislator in a racist society who defends Tom Robinson only because he was appointed to do so by the court, and not of his own free will or because he felt that it was the right thing to do.

Atticus Finch is a sexist: When asked why Alabama law prohibits women from serving on a jury, Atticus replies: “I guess it’s to protect our frail ladies from sordid cases like Tom’s. Besides … I doubt if we’d ever get a complete case tried – the ladies [would] be interrupting to ask questions” (p. 234). Atticus is a racist who refers to the Ku Klux Klan as a “political” organization, and seems to be amused by it.

Chura, Patrick. “Prolepsis and Anachronism: Emmet Till and the Historicity of To Kill a Mockingbird.” The Southern Literary Journal 32.2 (2000): 1-26.

This article helps us to understand the historical background of To Kill a Mockingbird. The novel was set in the Depression era (1935), as well as the civil rights era, and it was published in 1960, shortly after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Chura writes that To Kill a Mockingbird participates in, and is a commentary on, the national debate on race and civil rights that took place in 1950s America. The novel “participat[es] in racial and social ideology that characterized … the early civil rights era” (Chura 1).

During the 1950s, race relations in the Deep South were defined and dominated by the Brown decision, which annulled the doctrine of “separate but equal” (which, since Plessy v. Ferguson, had been the basis for the South’s segregated way of life) (ibid).

Brown exacerbated the white southerner’s fear of racial mixing, and many white southerners sought to preserve “white patriarchy” and resist the slightest iota of change. Above all, many white southerners feared the prospect of interracial sex, which is precisely what we see in the trial of Tom Robinson, who stands accused of having relations with a white woman. Thus, the trial of Tom Robinson represents the larger Southern fear of black male sexuality and an attempt to “put the Negro in his place” and keep him far, far away from any white woman. As a result of societal changes brought on by Brown [and other racial reforms that were taking place in the South during the early civil rights era], the white woman [Mayella Ewell] is now “vulnerable” and more easily seduced by the “black rapist” [Tom Robinson]. Tom Robinson must be convicted and executed to protect all the innocent white women from black rapists, who have been let loose as a result of the liberal changes in Southern society and culture.

Thus, Atticus Finch defends Maycomb and Southern society from its own self-destructive urges (Chura 20).

Harvard Law Review Association. “Being Atticus Finch: The Professional Role of Empathy in To Kill a Mockingbird.” Harvard Law Review 117.5 (2004): 1682-702.

This article presents additional criticism of the character of Atticus Finch. For example, Atticus encourages his children to empathize with the plight of the Ewells, but he himself does not do so. Atticus has a condescending attitude (indeed, utter contempt!) towards the Ewells.

In addition, Atticus lacks true empathy even for his client – he takes on the case with Tom Robinson only because he wants to be a “noble gentleman,” not out of a genuine concern for Tom and his family.

Atticus’ personality is best characterized as one of “cool, reasoned detachment.”Even when (brutally) cross-examining Mayella, Atticus speaks in “an arid, detached professional voice”(187).

Murray, Jennifer. “More Than One Way to (Mis)Read a ‘Mockingbird.’”The Southern Literary Journal 43.1 (2000): 75-91.

This article also addresses, as well as presents, criticism of To Kill a Mockingbird. We see the contempt that Atticus has for the Ewell family, whom he refers to as “the disgrace of Maycomb for three generations”(30) who “were people, but they lived like animals” (ibid)

In addition, we see a certain degree of indifference towards the fate of Tom Robinson on the part of Aunt Alexandra. Upon learning of Tom’s violent death, her response is rather nonchalant (237), as if it does not really make a difference to her or to her ladies’ missionary society. It seems that Tom Robinson’s death is of little consequence.

The article makes an interesting historical connection (page 82): Scout points out to Jem the contradiction of her teacher condemning Hitler, but at the same time saying that the conviction of Tom Robinson was justified. Thus, we see that there is a certain ideological hypocrisy: people may condemn Hitler and his acts of genocide abroad, but do not have any problem with the racism in their own country (and indeed praise that racism).

Fine, Laura. Reviewed Work: “Mockingbird Passing: Closeted Traditions and Sexual Curiosities in Harper Lee’s Novel by Holly Blackford.” South Atlantic Review 76.2 (2011): 143-146.

This article discusses the Influence of post-WWII Southern writers on Harper Lee.

A few interesting points: When Lee names the defendant Tom Robinson, this is really a reference to “Uncle Tom” – the “cultural icon” of the stereotypical African-American man. Lee treats racial conflict with melodrama, which is wrong because melodrama cannot capture the real depth of the racial issues at hand.

Also of interest is that Atticus and the “male authority figures” see to it that Boo Radley is silenced. [The possible homosexuality of certain characters in the novel is discussed, but I will not go into it here.]

Dare, Tim. “Lawyers, Ethics, and To Kill a Mockingbird.” Philosophy and Literature 25.1 (2001): 127-141.

Certain parts of this article article support my thesis (overall, this is one of the most helpful articles): According to Monroe Freedman, Atticus is part of “the system” and is a passive participant in racial oppression by virtue of being a state legislator and community leader in a segregated society. Atticus says he hoped to get through life without having to deal with a case like that of Tom Robinson (98). Atticus excuses the leader of a lynch mob as someone who is “basically a good man” (173). Atticus says that “one of these days we’re going to pay the bill” for racism, but hopes that payment (and, with it, justice for African-Americans) will not come during his children’s life times (pp. 243-44). Atticus lied about the killing of Bob Ewell to defend and protect the murderer Boo Radley. (He said that Mr. Ewell simply “fell on his knife” – since Atticus’s attitude is that “reason must prevail when law violates reason.” On occasion, the law must be overridden in order for true justice to be done.)

Stephens, Robert O. “The Law and the Code in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. ” Southern Cultures 1.2 (1995), 215-227.

There is a conflict, or a clash, between what the law requires and what the code in society (Maycomb County) dictates – in particular, as far as race is concerned. There is a “[d]ifference between the order of law and the darkness people make of their lives through the code” (Stephens 218).

Atticus is “the embodiment of the law” (ibid.), but at the same time he challenges the tacit code of Maycomb County by attacking a white woman’s word and standing up for a black man who is allegedly a rapist.

Johnson, Claudia. “The Secret Courts of Men’s Hearts: Code and Law in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird.” Studies in American Fiction 19:2 (1991), 129-139.

This article also discusses how the law of the land (“all men are created equal”) clashes with “the secret courts of men’s hearts” (what the jury members think and how those thoughts influence their verdict).

To Kill a Mockingbird shows that “the forces that motivate society are not consonant with the democratic ideals embedded in its legal system and that the disjunction between the codes men and women profess and those they live by threatens to unravel individual lives as well as the social fabric” (Johnson 129)

Barra, Allen. “What To Kill a Mockingbird Isn’t.” Wall Street Journal (June 24, 2010). http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703561604575283354059763326

Atticus actually seems to believe the fairy tale about the Ku Klux Klan that he tells Scout: “Way back about nineteen-twenty, there was a Klan, but it was a political organization more than anything. Besides, they couldn’t find anyone to scare.” This is obviously not true: Atticus seems to be defending the KKK as a “political” organization, instead of a terrorist organization.

“At the end of the book, we know exactly what we knew at the beginning: that Atticus Finch is a good man, that Tom Robinson was an innocent victim of racism, and that lynching is bad. “The novel doesn’t really teach us anything, other than to say that Atticus can do no wrong.