I'm not sure I understand what Gladwell is getting at. The point of TKAM isn't to put Atticus Finch on a pedestal -- it's to paint a portrait of southern society in the 1930's. At this Harper Lee undoubtedly excels, to the extent that she reveals the prejudice of well-meaning men as well as racists. It's easy to criticize racism -- plenty of writers in the 30's did it. It's much harder to accurately pinpoint the flaws of well-meaning non-racists, and that's what makes TKAM an absolute jewel.
If Gladwell's point is that people are interpreting TKAM incorrectly, then I suppose I agree, but that's not what I'm getting out of this essay. What I'm getting is the distinct feeling that Gladwell wants to criticize Lee for pushing some sort of agenda... which is, well, bizarre.
Hmm, from Gladwell's article I did perceive his aim was at the naive interpretation of the novel, not at the novel itself nor Lee. To me the article was very informing; when I read the novel I did see it's not just about what's right and wrong, but had a feeling that I didn't really grasp the nuances.
In that case, fair enough. I'd love nothing more than to be wrong about this :)
I suppose what bothers me most particularly is the appeal to legal expertise in the analysis. I think this is missing the point completely, and I fail to see how that can be a criticism of anything but the author. We learn that Lee isn't a legal expert, but this isn't a book about law per se. Rather, it's a book about society, so the moral and ethical contradictions in Finch's character constitute a feature, not a bug, and the legal narrative drives the story -- nothing more.
Is that the part describing Lubet's criticism? The Malcolm's main point seems to show "how badly the brand of Southern populism Finch represents has aged over the past fifty years", and the lengthy description is just to say it's naive to take Finch as legal hero. As a drama, actually having weak case is a juicy obstacle for the protagonist to make the story much more interesting. It's a good novel not "in spite of", but "because of", Finch's dubious legal standing.
>As a drama, actually having weak case is a juicy obstacle for the protagonist to make the story much more interesting. It's a good novel not "in spite of", but "because of", Finch's dubious legal standing.
Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying to make, so it seems as though we're in agreement. It also seems as though I may have read too fast or too far into Gladwell's editorial.
If Gladwell's point is that people are interpreting TKAM incorrectly, then I suppose I agree, but that's not what I'm getting out of this essay. What I'm getting is the distinct feeling that Gladwell wants to criticize Lee for pushing some sort of agenda... which is, well, bizarre.