Unlike the heroic portrayal in the earlier book, the lawyer was now older, and was not taking a strong stance for civil rights - instead supporting a much slower, separation of races approach. All in all, the newer book was a much more nuanced exploration of the difficulties in society during such a big transition than the earlier and more "defensible" storyline of Mockingbird.
I was only recently introduced to "To Kill a Mockingbird", primarily through the press surrounding the "sequel" - "Go Set a Watchman", both by Harper Lee.
Mockingbird was a much more "positive" story, a white lawyer defending an innocent, but eventually "guilty" black defendant. "Go set a Watchman" was based 20 years later, during the '60s and was based on the civil rights struggle in the south.
Of the two, I liked Mockingbird better, but would not classify myself as a huge fan of either work. I can certainly understand the feeling of loss someone who really loved Mockingbird would have felt after "Watchman", but as my experience with both was recent, it certainly wasn't that strong or moving an experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment