I have been keeping abreast of the developments surrounding Harper Lee's much discussed 'sequel' for 'To Kill a Mockingbird' and I have been struggling to come to terms with the situation in regards of what it means to me and for Atticus fans everywhere.
Firstly, a confession: I have only recently read To Kill Mockingbird within the last six months so for me it's not something I have carried with me for a vast portion of my life. That said, the impact of the book upon me was nothing short of profound. For me the greatest part of the book is down to one character - Atticus Finch. Taken from the perspective of when the book was written and the subject that carries the narrative forward I found myself impressed that he seemed to be not just a moral man with principles but probably one of the all-time great fathers in literature that I have encountered. If you need a quick refresher or a brief introduction to the mans wisdom and character- it's worth checking this page. He is a small town Lawyer in 1930's Alabama who defends Tom Robinson, a young black man wrongfully accused of raping a white girl.
"I put everything I had into it – all my feelings and everything I'd learned in 46 years of living, about family life and fathers and children. And my feelings about racial justice and inequality and opportunity".
Gregory Peck on playing Atticus.
From the the vast swathes of reports flooding in from various media we are now drenched with the knowledge that Atticus may not have been the progressive, understanding and honourable gentleman that we were given in Mockingbird but one tarnished with a more unsavoury view on race. It's hard to see how quotes from the new book like 'Do you want your children going to a school that’s been dragged down to accommodate Negro children?' can be viewed as anything but racist no matter the context. This and the fact that he joins a branch of Ku Klux Klan have caused general outcry as well as chilled my soul somewhat.
I now stand on the precipice of a monumental personal decision - do I read the new book, 'Go Set a Watchman' and have my view of this model father potentially tainted forever more (let's face it, a third book is a nigh on impossibility) or do I close my senses off from it, look at the decidedly suspect situation in which the book was found then released and let 'my' Atticus remain unspoiled?
I found the 'original' Atticus an inspiration and a fantastic figure to aspire to. In this day and age any motivation for betterment of ones self can only be a good thing, regardless of where the source comes from. I always find myself wanting to cover all the angles and each side of every argument but I'm not sure that my personal feelings towards besmirching such an epitome of patriarchal virtue will allow me to do so this time.
As an avid comic fan and general geek I have seen this kind of thing before. Over the many years there have been decisions with exceedingly well loved characters that have warped the essence of who they are and what they stand for for a myriad of reasons. Usually the reasons for such strange moments are simple - shock and awe tactics to boost sales and create a buzz about the character. The one good part about comics on a whole is that invariably, after a time, common sense prevails and things are reset (or to use the correct terminology 'retconned') back to the regular status quo.
It's these moments of madness where a character does something so unfitting to what has previously been established that it actually destroys part of what that character stands for and the true meaning behind their legends.
Among such gems are:
Spider-man (Peter Parker - Spoiler!) using the proportionate strength and speed of a spider to beat his wife, Mary Jane.
Want to know what makes this even more ludicrous? She's actually pregnant here as well. Class act and the 'Spwat' is just the sound of his last vestige of honour being slapped out of of the window. Along with his unborn baby girl.
Frank Millers 'All Star Batman & Robin' was a new (extra, super, mega) gritty take on the dynamic duo but had Batman actually kill people and pretty much psychologically torture his ward, Robin.This is before Batman won't give Robin any food and suggests he eats the rats in the Batcave... I kid you not.
Batman seems to be believing his own hype train... What a Batdouche.
Proving that strange decisions affecting heroes isn't confined to comics, Zack Snyders 'Man of Steel' Film had this very controversial finish with the main man snapping the bad dude Zod's neck much to the incredulity of fanboys everywhere. Er, more spoilers!
What's that Zod? Kal-El proving a pain in your neck... I'll get my coat...
Other questionable moments include:
- Superman makes a porno
- Wonder Woman's race of Amazons takes to getting pregnant by sailors, then killing them. Not so much blurring the lines between Feminism and Misandry but obliterating them. Girl Power to the max - take note for the reunion, Spice Girls.
Now there may be an argument to say that flaws add to character and that by showing the warts and all of otherwise 'ideal' characters it allows development. I agree to an extent but it does depend on the character. I don't think there are any problems with having a few ultimate examples to aspire to. I have previously blogged about asking myself 'what would Optimus Prime do?' In recent moments of personal reflection I have also posed 'what would Atticus do' too? In some ways this has provided me with a good alternative since Prime has a tendency to be physically awesome and imposing, jumping out of spacecrafts, off buildings and bringing a level of smack-down to the forces of evil throughout the universe that as a modern day regular human I struggle to live up too. Atticus gives me a slightly more realistic benchmark for day-to-day issues that don't involve planets getting eaten or arguments being settled with Ion Blasters or Energy Axes. Atticus provides someone noble, selfless and open minded who shows courage in not following the crowd and standing up for what he believes in. How could you not want to emulate that? To be smart, strong, understanding and compassionate - why would I want that aspiration tarnished?
It appears that I am not the only person to think this and the entire situation including the dubious nature of the manuscripts publication is discussed excellently here in the Irish Times.
I would imagine that the need for having to keep Atticus on that pedestal will prevent me from reading Go Set A Watchman and I openly apologise if that in itself is something, ironically that Atticus himself wouldn't do. As it stands I can believe that this new book is an alternate timeline, one that happened in a different reality to the steadfast, uplifting character that I found so engaging. That way I can accept it's existence without the completionist and collector in me feeling I have to read it.
If I need tragic, fallen idols I'm sure I can make do with the vast number that populate the actual world around me. I'd rather do without having to tear apart or dismantle the very few whose characters shine like beacons amidst the moral sea of murky greys.
I should make it clear that I am still interested in this situation and look forward to hearing what others think of the book and the developments of how it has come to light. I'm sure that there may be room for both versions of this man. I'm just intent on holding on to something that has become quite dear to me in a very short period of time. I'm going to stick with my Atticus for now.
