19 thoughts on “Harper Lee Is Releasing a Sequel to To Kill a Mockingbird”

  1. Sheer Superficiality Of Lee’s Work, “To Kill A Mockingbird,” Is Breath-Taking, Truly

    Well tiger, I went to see what the geek of geekritique had to say about the book, “To Kill a Mockingbird”–it was utterly empty of any substance, though he rather affects to “rave” about the book, but says very little, if anything, about it and substance of it–typical of the geek, I observe, for all I know.

    The geek insists in his hysterical, gushy manner the book is notable–for something; the geek doesn’t explain much preferring to rave and insist the book is sooooooooo . . . something, but surely notable.

    Geek explains “[i]f you can find me an American-born child who hasn’t read the book in school, I’d be impressed.” But of course there are lots of kids and people who haven’t read such a worthless book.

    Judging by the plot summaries one finds on Wikipedia, for book and movie, one quickly sees the work by Lee was mere propaganda item at the right time and place, wildly successful, for the 60s Jew S A. And one must admit the work was well-crafted, emotional thrill and exercise for the half-wit, “progressive”-style “liberals” of the time, so fashionable and addicted therewith, imagining they’re sooooooooo–“advanced,” as they crave so desperately to feeling. The sheer superficiality of the book and movie, to judge by the wiki entries, perfectly reflects the quality of the geek himself.

    Like

    1. I sometimes come back to articles/reviews of mine you’ve reblogged, a) to see your personal comments on my post, if any, and b) to see what apollonian has to offer about the quality of my writing.

      “I have a dream,” that one day I’ll be able to make this guy(?) content with my abilities as a blogger/writer/whatever.

      I still have a long way to go apparently. Perhaps if I flaunt and emphasize my more eloquent lexiconic in my writing I’d have a better chance. Or is it my overt appraisal that needs some tempering? Maybe I should avoid writing legitimate reviews and instead fill my posts with plot synopses – you know, things people actually want so they don’t have to read the real thing.

      One day though, mark my words. He’ll come around. 😆

      Like

      1. Yeah right, as if reading the “real thing” is the right thing or the best thing–or whatever. It doesn’t occur to u there ought to be a purpose to reading and that plot summaries make things economical. It doesn’t occur to u that there ought to be legitimate purpose to reading such work as “To Kill a Mockingbird”–but u can’t say why.

        And if u bother to take the time and effort to write, u ought to write straight-forwardly, like using nouns and verbs. And if “To Kill a Mockingbird” is really such a great work, u ought to be straight-forward and say why–but u don’t and can’t because it’s just propaganda and crap and u’re just one of the weaklings who’s impressed w. cheap propaganda and crap.

        So then u gush and start babbling, insisting, for example, that every kid in Jew S A has read such a moronic work (“To Kill a Mockingbird”)–when the fact is MOST kids never even hrd about the trash–’cause that’s all it really is, trash.

        Like

      2. The reason we read books, well – the reason I read books is to engage the mind. Same reason I would watch a movie or television series.

        I’m not entirely sure what you mean by it being propagandist literature (but then again, that’s probably because I read it). I actually don’t think any character in the novel is Jewish, come to think of it…

        I guess if you’re reading the book to find certain subliminal messages or stances, you’re going to find them regardless (whether intended or otherwise), so I can’t rightly say they don’t exist – but then again, after reading the novel I don’t see how one could even come to that conclusion.

        I review things all the time (books especially) giving my opinions on what I enjoyed and what I didn’t. I didn’t see the point with it in my review of TKAM. I felt I had nothing to critique – the purpose of my site – and thought best to just assume most have read it and agreed.

        But some haven’t taken the time I guess.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. And again, this is why I allow all views here- because we HAVE to direclty engage, and not allow censorship to replace debate. Bad ideas need composting, to suppress them is to encourage them in a perverse sort of way.

        I take Appollonian’s point that there IS a lot of propaganda in some literature, even some classic literature; but TKAM is NOT propaganda. It speaks too eloquently and it does NOT force the reader to take a viewpoint. It’s a genuine classic.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. To “engage the mind”?–this just begs the question–AGAIN. Why do u “engage the mind”? Isn’t the purpose of mind to processing info? For humans guide themselves by means of info, right? So if TKAM is significant info, then u ought to say why and how–but u can’t, because, evidently, u don’t understand info and how and why some info is significant.

    Who said any character in the book, TKAM, is Jew? That’s the problem w. weaklings and trendies like u, geek, u’re so easily taken w. impressions, fads, presumptions, and such superficialities. U can’t say why the book, TKAM, is significant or why it ought to be read–as u’re fundamentally lacking in basic substance urself, being a weakling as u obviously are, so taken by superficialities and cheap presumptions.

    But I do and did note the propaganda significance of TKAM–such crap and prop. has great impact for such empty-heads like urself–and there are lots of weaklings and fools in our culture, unfortunately–it’s why Jew S A is in such horrible trouble and doomed to even greater trouble, coming right up w. collapse of the currency, just to start with.

    Like

    1. Ad hominem againt Geekcritique isn’t appropriate, you’re better than that.

      TKAM has a lot of stuff in it- Dolphus Raymond for example is a character much imitated – the ratcatcher in the film Disturbing Behaviour, the leader of the Others in LOST – it’s worth taking the time to really understand the unfolding text.

      Like

      1. It’s not ad hominem to pt. out obvious failure of the geek to addressing substance of TKAM–he doesn’t and can’t say (a) what the book is about, and (b) why it’s significant. Then I speculate upon the reasons for the geek’s failure–weakness, superficiality, presumptuousness and being taken w. insignificant externals.

        Incidentally, same goes for u, tiger: u just assert and don’t substantiate for TKAM, insisting mindlessly that it’s “classic,” ho ho ho–sure, classic propaganda and trash, for sure.

        Like

      2. TKAM is a classical story using equally classical structure. It’s a story about a legal case, but it is also a set of character studies. I personally love it for the character studies.

        Ideological purity is all well and good but if your ideology is strong it can survive the challenge posed by reading (or watching or listening to) material that may confront one’s beliefs.

        Like

      3. To Kill a Mockingbird is the story about a young girl, Scout, and how she interprets the changing social and racial structure in her home town of Maycomb, Alabama during the years of the Great Depression.

        Harper Lee’s delivery of a convincing first person narrative in the voice of a child, while still maintaining a brilliant nonchalant eloquence in her writing style, is truly something to be commended. She tackles racism in a way that isn’t entirely shaming, but done in a tasteful manners. As a period piece it does an excessively fine job of placing you in the mindset of ones living in that place and age, without being overly showy in her prose. The significance of the title is symbolism at its finest. All this and more at a time when it was exceedingly relevant.

        The reason I didn’t put all of this and more in my review is because it’s a given. Anyone interested in reading said review, already knew it. It’s a classic. And I didn’t feel the need to bog it down with another redundant review, spewing out the same things others have been saying ad nauseam for 50+ years.

        Does that address my obvious failure (or weaknesses I guess hahaha) to refer more specifically to the substance/significance of a book written half a century ago?

        Like

      4. If my dedication to liberty and free speech means anything, it means being welcoming to all – Doctor Who and the Master, Daleks, Cybermen, Androzani drug smugglers n all 🙂

        “Iron sharpens iron”.

        Like

      5. Yeah, it’s okay. Interesting fellow. I love chatting with him. He’s great, in a ‘not afraid to shoot a man in the groin’ kinda way. I’ve never quite met a specimen like him, so I enjoy seeing the rise I get out of him, when I can.

        Like

  3. “TKAM is a classical story using equally classical structure. It’s a story about a legal case, but it is also a set of character studies. I personally love it for the character studies.”

    This, above, is just assertion and circular logic. And if the “character studies” are significant, u don’t say why or how.

    The geek imagines it’s “peaceable” to allow or agree with moronic assertions without substantiation.

    When I say TKAM is trash, I pt. out the emptiness of it, it’s utter lack of any substance. But I don’t deny TKAM is stylish trash, very successful propaganda, much loved by weaklings who are legion.

    Like

    1. I guess now I’m just curious to know what books are worthy of your attention. Lord of the Rings? Moby Dick? Mein Kampf? Huckleberry Finn? The Art of War?

      Like

  4. Geek: in reply to ur latest at 12:34 am, above, all u do is just repeat the same sort of empty assertions u’ve already given–why do u bother?–haven’t u already said it?

    So what’s significant about “scout’s” “interpretations”?–u don’t say. So Harper Lee’s “delivery” is to be “commended”?–u don’t say why, aside fm ur usual, typical assertions without substantiation.

    It doesn’t occur to an empty-head like urself that racism is (a) natural and (b) virtuous, esp. given the definition, loyalty–which also doesn’t even occur to u.

    And u just continue w. empty assertions in ur putrid presumption and pretension in all the rest of ur post, crap compounded upon propaganda and crap.

    So geek, be assured u’re a gross, pathetic failure–but it’s understandable that u won’t acknowledge and that u’re not even capable of grasping why/how u’re such a failure. All u do is throw-around empty cliché’s and platitudes, imagining u say anything of significance–for that’s all ur mentality is composed of–empty presumption, cliché’s, platitudes, and suchlike phraseology–pomp and circumstance, and sound and fury signifying not much if anything at all. U’re a legend in ur own mind–but maybe in the minds of a few others like urself too, eh?

    Like

    1. I am assured. Thank you for informing me. It’s certainly news to me that I’m a failure. And yes. It’ll take my feeble mind some time before I have the ability of grasping it, as I take most things you say with a grain of sodium chloride, but I will certainly take it into consideration, especially as I move forward with my blog, my writing, and my reviews.

      Thank you for your time. Don’t lose sleep over it out there in the UK.

      Like

      1. Well, I don’t like ur reviews, and I say why I don’t. And I consider it a good, informative thing that u know there are folks like me–that’s genuine info for u.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s