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.

This week, I have been perusing David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson’s Film Art, a book that is intended to help me with my analysis of the various films that I am using for my project. There are a few salient points that stood out to me:

Curiosity (p. 52) – This refers to the ability of the viewer “to frame hypotheses about prior events” – i.e., to speculate about what took place in the past. Many times, artists and filmmakers may depict a scene that asks us to make inferences about some earlier event.

This is particularly germane to the film Twelve Angry Men. In this film, we are not shown the trial of the accused. However, during the jury deliberations, there are numerous references to events that took place during the trial proceedings (for example, the testimony about the witnesses, which the viewer has not heard for himself, but rather he has to rely on the descriptions and recollections of the jury members).

I wonder why the filmmakers chose not to depict the actual trial, but rather compelled us to rely on the recollections of the jury members instead of letting us see and judge for ourselves.

Another example is in the film Inherit the Wind. Perhaps the viewer would be interested to see the actual classroom scene where the teacher taught the class about evolution (in violation of the law). Perhaps we would like to see how he spoke about it, his tone of voice, his mannerisms, etc. However, we are not given this information in the film, and we are forced to speculate about it and make our own inferences.

This is a film that portrays the Scopes Trial (the question of teaching Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools).

Last week, I wrote up a post about one of my recent academic failures – namely, the unfortunate experience of being placed on probation due to falling short of the 3.5 GPA required by Macaulay.

Today, I am going to attempt to cheer myself up by reflecting on a recent academic success. (I realize that not all successful experiences have to be academic, but since I am a Macaulay Honors student, most of my life is spent on academics and most of my successes are in that field.)

As I indicated in my bio, I graduated at the top of my class in high school and was honored with the tremendous privilege of delivering the valedictory address. I believe that this was really the high point, the pinnacle (if you will), of my academic career.

There is no way to recount how many sleepless nights I had while in high school or how many times I would wake up at dawn to finish that English paper or to study for that AP US History exam that I would be taking in a few hours.

It is also worth noting that I dropped two of my courses – physics and calculus – to ensure that I would, in fact, be valedictorian.  If I had taken those courses, they would likely have proven to be a formidable challenge that may have hindered my prospects of being valedictorian.

In any event, I was a real nerd back in high school, and I prepared my valedictory address as early as February (when graduation wasn’t until June). Being valedictorian was a goal that I had from the day that I began high school, and when I got my report cards and saw that 97% GPA (or, occasionally, G-d forbid, a 95%), I knew that the day would come when I would meet my goal. And indeed it did.

Just a quick research journal about a book that is very relevant to my topic of interest-

Approximately a year ago I read a book called Gideon’s Trumpet. This book deals with the issue of a defendant’s right to be provided with a lawyer if he cannot afford to get one on his own. I do not remember the exact details, but I know that the case was started by an indigent defendant who wrote a letter to the Supreme Court, claiming that he could not adequately defend himself without an attorney, and eventually the court ruled that indeed the State (meaning, the government) must provide defendants with a lawyer if necessary.

The case raises some interesting issues. Conservatives would argue that it is perhaps contrary to public policy that the taxpayers should have to pay for lawyers for all the criminals who demand to have them. True, the state/ prosecution has a lot of resources that the defendant doesn’t, but at the same time a person is in theory capable of defending himself without a lawyer, especially if he didn’t do the crime, so why should the taxpayers be responsible for paying for a lawyer for every single criminal defendant who insists on having one provided for him? It’s true that defendants have rights that need to be protected, but how far should those rights go – and at whose expense?

Besides, the lawyers that are provided by the State are not necessarily competent ones (e.g., public defenders who graduated from law school approximately two weeks ago and are already representing people who are accused of murder). That is another issue that needs to be taken into consideration.

If the defendant is capable of writing letters to the Supreme Court and standing up for his rights, then why isn’t he capable of defending himself in a courtroom setting? It’s true that having a lawyer can help, but I think that it’s important to consider both sides of the issue – both the position that a lawyer should be provided by the State, as well as the opposite position. In recent decades, there has been a trend to give defendants more and more rights (Miranda warnings, right to a lawyer, etc.) They are certainly entitled to some rights (after all, the United States is not – and should not be – a dictatorship), but we have to know where to draw the line. Otherwise, we will be giving the alleged criminals more rights than their alleged victims. It is a complex matter that needs to be decided not by bleeding-heart liberals or tough-on-crime conservatives, but rather by level-headed people on both sides of the ideological spectrum who should come together and decide what course of action is best for our society.

~Michael

http://macaulay.cuny.edu – Yes, that’s right, I think that the Macaulay site is a pretty effective one. For one thing, that’s where I go to find the information I need about Opportunities Funds (free money) and all the other great things that Macaulay has to offer.

It has conveniently arranged categories and drop-down menus at the top of the page.

It has a calendar of upcoming events on the left side of the page.

It has a search box where you can search for any key term (it’s always very important to have this option on any Web site, in my opinion, and indeed many good Web sites do have this feature).

And there are many more great things about our college’s Web site that I hope to point out in today’s class discussion.

Overall, my academic career has been a relatively good one. I had the great privilege and honor to graduate from high school at the top of my class. I had the good fortune to be accepted into the Macaulay Honors Program.  I had a perfect score on the Writing Section of the SAT. However, like all people, there have been times when I failed – when I didn’t do the best job I could, when I neglected to reach my full potential.

One such time was in Brooklyn College, when I took a course in Classical Cultures – a course that required me to read extensive amounts of Greek literature. Given the good academic fortune that I had enjoyed in the past, it seems that I became complacent with my schoolwork and my grades; I became overly satisfied and decided to slack off, a decision that I would sorely regret.

In that Classical Cultures class, I failed to do the required readings. Many times, I just skimmed over the tens of pages that I had been required to read. When it came time for midterms and finals, there was no way for me to make up all of the material that I had missed. Even though I had attended every class session religiously, my failure to do the assigned readings took a toll on my grades. I flunked the midterm, and my performance on the final wasn’t much better. In the end, the professor had mercy on me and gave me a C.

What happened next was even worse. My GPA sank below the required 3.5, and I was placed on academic probation and threatened that if I didn’t fix up my act, I would be expelled from Macaulay (Heaven forfend!). That accursed “C” had been a sorely needed wake-up call for me to cease being complacent and to start following along in the readings just like everybody else.

Alas, I had been thrown off my high horse. I had been toppled from the lofty status of high school valedictorian. Now, I was on probation, and it was pretty humiliating  that a person who had proudly delivered a valedictory address several years ago was now sitting in a room together with people who had been placed on probation – and I, too, was one of them.

A humiliating experience that, in the end, turned out well. After a series of probation meetings, I was able to re-focus on my studies and finally, this past semester, I brought my GPA to 3.52 and am no longer on academic probation. Let us hope and pray that it will stay that way.

In the meantime, however, my “failure” was a lesson in humility and caused me to have the stark realization that even a model student and a class valedictorian can fall, and fail, and be toppled from the pinnacle of his high school glory to the abyss of academic probation.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Arfm3HPYiXUwdHY3X0p4TXhrRzdkNkJSX3c1c1pncGc&output=html

This is my new e-portfolio. I will be posting news and information here periodically.