Add BookmarkConversations
-
The Ending
Who was satisfied with this ending??? I thought that it fully wrapped up Boo and everything...I don't know...
Olivia Foley about 1 year ago
Advertisement
More Stuff
About Us
LivingSocial.com is a social discovery and cataloging network that allows people to review and share their favorite movies, books, games, music, restaurants and beer
I think the ending would have been better if Atticus would have turned up and shot Bob Ewell.. Then 'Boo' Radley witnessed the murder (as he was in the area).. but no one would believe him because he wa insane and a social outcast..
If Atticus went to trial, he would be acquitted, even if he did admit to the killing and then Boo would have been assassinated...
Oh God..
This is turning into a right crime story now lol
Facebook-gebruiker about 1 year agoI think the ending is perfect, considering the social circumstances that existed when the book was set. I think over complicating the ending with killing and another trial would have ruined one of the best books of all time. I believe it takes an amazing writer to pull together a heavy and poignant book without unnecessary complications.
Facebook-gebruiker about 1 year agoI wasn't being serious, I was just using my imagination.
Facebook-gebruiker about 1 year agoI think that Bob Ewell attacking the Finch children ruined the book for me. It portrays the message that all racists are bad people (I know that there are other accounts of racism from people who aren't 'bad', but the book paints the picture that those people where just 'swept up in the mob') and the fact that Boo Radley saves the day was a huge sell-out from Lee. This begs the question, 'Mockingbird" certainly was an insightful book on racism, but is it OK to be intolerant towards bigots?
Jack Stapleton about 1 year agoI see the point you are raising, but i think in order for the book to be truly effective in tackling the issue of racism it needed to be strongly anti bigot. A compromise suggesting that actually racist people are not 100% evil would make the book far less effective.
Jack Pitt about 1 year agoGood point, but is the belief that bigots can only be 'defeated' by strong anti-bigotism repeated throughout the book? The book itself seems to preach that Atticus' life is an example for all of us, and I agree as he is a very moral and enlightened character, but he wouldn't seem the type to 'attack' a bigot with either words or action.
Jack Stapleton about 1 year agoBut in a way he does attack the bigots. He takes them on in the court in the most sensible way. He alone could not attack every bigot in the world, but by making others think about the issue, and support him, he could be far more effective. Its also important to consider the context in which the book was written and when it was set, they also affect views reperesented towards bigotry.
Jack Pitt about 1 year agoI think its great that she finally gets to see Boo because it shows that you shouldn't pre judge people and he turned out to be a nice person and that he saved their lives. Also i think that the ending was great but the last paragraph was not satisfying i would have done something different but other than that it was an amazing book!!
Lindsey Redfern about 1 year agoAt first I thought what you said was dumb. Of course racism is bad. But then I realized you said "racists." And then it made sense.
Racists aren't necessarily bad people - they're people with a necessarily bad idea. There's no question that racism is intellectually lazy and doesn't stand up to reason. But to suggest that racists are all homicidal assholes seems pretty lazy too.
Then again, the old lady - the addict, I forgot her name - she was a racist who was painted in a pretty sympathetic light, even though Scout, her brother, Atticus, and most likely Lee couldn't stand some of her ideals. So I don't think the author dealt with racists categorically. You can't fight a dehumanizing doctrine by denying humanity to the racist. And I don't think Lee did that.
Excellent point, though. Made me think.
Joshua M. Gordon about 1 year agoI see your point, but i think you have to draw the line somewhere. If you are going to label some people as 'good' and others as 'bad' you have to start somewhere. Otherwise no one would be bad, they just mght have a bad idea.In the extreme this could excuse people who just are generally not very good people.
I think sometimes racism is more brought about by lazinss, or ill education, but that doesnt make it excusable, or any less wrong either.
Jack Pitt about 1 year agoInteresting spelling of laziness there.
Jack Pitt about 1 year agoRacism isn't excusable, you're right. But it's not necessarily a racist's fault for being that way.
Take my parents, for example. They are largely uneducated, blue-collar people living in rural New York. They're also old school racists, due to a lack of education, a racist upbringing, and a social setting that never challenged any of those ideas. It's not their fault, really - how could they know anything but racism? But while it's not their fault, you don't have to forgive people like that for being racist. It's a stupid idea, a real impediment to social progress, and it should be annihilated. But I would argue that the good qualities of my parents (they're my mom and dad, for God's sake) outweigh the bad, so they're not bad people.
Racism does judge people as good or bad based on a single quality. It reduces people to binaries, good/bad, when they are much more complicated and generally more worthwhile than that. Racism is an idea that exchanges a complicated humanity for an easy judgment. I would argue that we don't need to draw the line anywhere. We can call ideas good or bad, but doing that to people is dangerous - it's too easy to throw people into a category without considering them on a whole or from a wider perspective. And once you start tagging people as one thing or another, it's a lot easier to see them as things, rather than moral beings deserving of compassion.
But, like I said, people shouldn't be excused for holding certain ideals. That's what education is for. My parents could and should be criticized for not educating themselves, for not using their minds for anything other than blue-collar work and easy judgments. That's a fair criticism.
So it's a little of both: people aren't necessarily bad for subscribing to a bad idea, especially when that idea is a feature of their environment, but they also can't be excused for not demanding more, intellectually.
I think that was the other poster's problem with the book, that Lee casts a character as the embodiment of racism, denying him a complex makeup. And that's just as simple as saying, 'that guy's bad cause he's black,' and does nothing to rectify the problem.
And the extreme (that is, 'excusing people who just are generally not very good people') already exists philosophically: Christianity, for example, would say that, while everyone does bad things, they are inherently valuable and excusable. Determinists and cultural relativists could and do say the same thing.
Whadya think?
Joshua M. Gordon about 1 year agoMy last post was supposed to have paragraph breaks, so it looks longer and more boring than - no, wait, it's still long and boring.
Joshua M. Gordon about 1 year agoYeah i pretty much would agree with all of that, i mean it inevitable some people will be considered good or bad, but that doesnt make it right.
And i see the criticism of casting a character as the embodiment of racism, and how that denys a complex makeup, and how that in a way can make things less realistic, but personallyi think the book wouldnt be half as effective as a criticism of racist views if he had have written it any differently.
As for people being inherently valuable, i think thats true for the most part, and people learn to be bad and are conditioned into it. But its also hard to beleive that at times people arent just born 'bad', although that might be down to mental issues or a whole load of other things. e.g. i dont know how you could be conditioned into being a serial killer.
Jack Pitt about 1 year agoThe compelling thing about Ewell attacking the Finch children is that it exposed Atticus's weakness: an excessive faith in human goodness. Atticus is the hero and remains so, for his quiet strength and goodness, but even he has to grow up and learn that just treating people with dignity isn't necessarily going to bring out their "better lights." Just as Scout learns how misplaced her fear of Boo Radley was, and how decent he was, Atticus learns how misplaced his faith in Ewell was.
About the message that "all racists are bad people," almost everyone in the book except for Atticus and the guy with the black mistress and children are racists. That is the point that is made to Dill when he cries during the - only the children are moved to tears; everyone else should be. The book has plenty say about good people being racist on some level.
Sharon Campbell Knox about 1 year agothe ending of the novel, to kill a mockingbird, was perfect for me because it basically speaks the end of a childhood fantasy scout had that involved boo radley and it also signifies that reality is fast catching up with these kids and they have no choice but to accept it as it is and grow and learn from it.
bob ewell's attack against the finch children was inevitable due to the former's violent and disturbing nature and him dying on his knife was for me, a great way to represent karma, in its most literal form.
the ending was bittersweet in a way that scout would probably never again see maycomb or its folks the way it was before and growing up means letting go of the things that you once passionately cared about.
i think i'm gonna read this again.
:D
Julie Ann Ensomo 4 months agoI think the drinking made Bob Ewel bad and homicidal. not the racism.
The addict was Mrs. DuBose.
Lynette Shaw-Smith 3 months ago