Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I went into this book not knowing what to expect. I was optimistic; I figured that in the end, I would like it. I think. I am not sure. I should have written this down first.

I had seen the movie, one of my favorite movies with Gregory Peck, one of the best movies ever made. This is a case of, as great as the movie was, the book was better. I am not going to say what To Kill a Mockingbird is about; if you don't know that by now, go bury your head next to an ostrich. For the younger generation coming up, don't read it, you won't get it.

This book received more shelves than any other book I have read. It will go down as my favorite book. Maybe not my favorite story, but my favorite book. It was a fun read, as odd as that may sound. Harper was an excellent writer. She could give you the details without knowing you were being told the details. Now that is an excellent author.

However, at some point, the tone changes, and her writing style changes. The book changes. My wife, who has both read the book and seen the movie, said it is because the children are getting older. I disagree. After the trial, the book returns to its jolly old self, and her former writing style, found at the beginning of the book, returns. It is only the period leading up to the trial, the trial, and then it ends almost immediately after the trial. It is not until about two chapters later that we even realize that we are back to the old writing style.

My thoughts are this -

Harper was having difficulty within herself on how to tell the trial on the subject matter in the 30s, which would have been somewhat taboo still in the 50s. I am not talking black or white here, I am talking about rape. How does one in the 50s tell how it happened in a 30s court trial? Harper pulls it off, and afterwards, you feel the relief, and her old writing style returns. How does she pull it off? During the trial, when it comes to the details, the kids get sick and leave the courtroom. We don't know what was said. At first, I was angry with Harper for doing this; I wanted to hear the rest of the trial. However, when her old writing style returned, I understood why she did it, and I am glad she did it.

At one point, I felt Atticus's character was larger than life, and eventually, I found him unbelievable. The events of the end of the story make him human, and it all fits. You don't look back and see the perfect man anymore. You see a normal human being, conflicted.

There is a part with the Sheriff that they changed for the movie, and this is the only real significant difference between the book and the movie. Yes, there were differences, but this was critical. Now, since the movie came after the book, I have to say that how it happened in the book is how it would have happened, and how it happened in the movie is how it needed to happen to make a good movie. Both, in this case, were right.

There is not much else I can say about the book. It is spot on and a good read. It is about a time that will be no more. The book calls itself a "coming of age" book, and maybe it is, but it is so much more than that.

I'm done, but before you go ruining a good book (To Kill a Mockingbird) by reading "Go Set a Watchman", you should know a few things. One, it is the same book. Harper Lee wrote one manuscript, not two. Her final manuscript removed the Go Set a Watchman parts - in essence, To Kill a Mockingbird would have been a 500-page book called Go Set a Watchman. So, Go Set a Watchman was made into a second book, but it's really, if you think about it, all the parts, and the future, of where Harper Lee did not want the book to go. To Kill a Mockingbird ended as only it could and should have - to pick up on a book that Harper Lee never intended to publish and read it will indeed ruin a beautiful story.

Now I am done.