Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Harper Lee's novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" (1960) is commonly understood as a coming-of-age story that addresses the topic of racial discrimination in the American South during the Great Depression. A careful examination of the novel reveals many ambiguities that contradict this broad reading of the text. Indeed, the novel is constructed in contradictory terms from the ground up, with many stereotypes and prejudicial portrayals of scenes and characters working in opposition to the traditional reading of the novel. The contradictory ideas in the novel are based on a sense of unreality that hangs over the novel's setting, plot, and dialogue. This unreality is best understood as a kind of willful naivety that imposes a childish vision of events on action and paints an equally childish image of moral and social realities. Jennifer Murray examines the novel's ambiguous underpinnings in her article "More Than One Way to (Mis)Read a Mockingbird" (2010). In the article, Murray rejects many traditional critical readings of the novel as based on a superficial understanding of the text. To explain the novel's thematic contradictions, Murray explores the novel's evolution from its first incarnation as a series of disjointed short stories. One of the first mainstream ideas that Murray rejects is the idea that the novel is somehow Scout's coming-of-age story. Murray notes that Scout, unlike Jem, never makes the transition from childhood to adolescence in the novel. It is only through the framing of the story in flashback that Scout's maturity is conveyed. In the very action of the story, Scout remains rooted in childhood. As Murray notes, "Scout, in passing from six to nine years of age, does not undergo radical transformations, does not pass from childhood to adolescence, does not, in fact, 'come of age'" (Murray), so the novel is not actually the story of his coming of age. Scout is instead a narrative device through which the various stories are integrated into the novel. This technique gives rise to most of the resulting contradictions on the subject. The contradictory visions contained in Scout's narrative are the result of a fantastical experience of the world. The fact that Scout never “comes of age” in the novel is an indication that her daughter's vision remains intact in shaping her narrative. Scout is therefore an unreliable narrator who presents an unreal vision of her experiences and memories. Murray's analysis of the novel's contradictions is based largely on the premise that Lee's narrative technique was expedient rather than elegant. She notes that: “The text embodies contradictory impulses in the thematic fields of race, gender, patriarchy, class, and narrative structure; these contradictions, which belong to history, mark the text with the same certainty with which the repressed produces symptoms” (Murray). Murray's assessment of the novel is that it expresses Lee's limitations as a novelist in thinking outside of cultural and racial stereotypes. However, what is more likely and more supportable by critics is the idea that the contradictions in the novel represent Scout's limitations as an unreliable narrator and that the unreal and childish elements of the narrative are a deliberate choice made by Lee to underline her theme . of lost innocence and racial discrimination. Once again, it is worth remembering that traditional interpretations of the novel are usually straightforward and tend to overlook important ambiguities that reveal the story's deeper subtext. For example, DeanShackelford points out in "The Female Voice in 'To Kill a Mockingbird': Narrative Strategies in Film and Novel" (1996) that the film version diverges from the predominantly female point of view that is intrinsic to the novel. Shackelford's interpretation of the novel is that it "represents a young girl's love for her father and brother and the experience of childhood during the Great Depression in a racist, segregated society that uses superficial, materialistic values ​​to judge others strangers, including the powerful character Boo Radley." ." A careful examination of each statement reveals that most, if not all, of Shackelford's assumptions are untenable. Even topics as rudimentary as femininity or racial equality are subject to ambiguity when the text is examined carefully. For example, the character of Calpurnia is commonly considered a representation of racial integration. She is considered a member of the Finch family and appears to be presented as such in the novel, as Murray points out, Calpurnia's actual status is that of an overworked servant Murray writes “ Calpurnia is the housekeeper, the cook, and the babysitter, but there is no clear indication of when her workday begins or ends or how much she is paid for her services” (Murray). Calpurnia in the novel unfortunately conveys prejudicial stereotypes against minorities for both racial and gender reasons. Calpurnia's status as a servant corresponds to other stereotypes that are embedded in the basic foundation of the novel. The central character of Atticus Finch, for example, is the embodiment of idealized patriarchal power. Throughout the novel he is described as the quintessential father who prioritizes compassion and wisdom over violence and power. This conception of Atticus is almost necessary for the novel's plot to succeed. However, Atticus' true nature is much less tolerant and practical than it might seem at first glance. Murray claims that Atticus is, in fact, a strangely ineffectual character whose benighted attachment to unspecified moral principles renders him incapable of acting with relevance or force. Murray notes that “Atticus, in his rigid morals, is also plagued by an inability to appreciate danger. Her leitmotif is "it's not time to worry yet", a way of reassuring her children that things will always be fine, but obviously that's not the case." (Murray). Once again, as with the character of Calpurnia, Atticus's basis in the stereotype is obvious, but his relationship to the novel's deeper thematic contradictions is only apparent upon careful reading. A similar dynamic is present regarding the novel's generally assumed status as Scout's coming-of-age story. As previously mentioned, very little in the novel suggests Scout's development into adulthood. Instead, it is Jem who undergoes the transformation from childhood to adolescence. According to Murray, it is Jem's, rather than Scout's, growth. which must be considered the focal point The novel's coming of age theme Murray notes that "To conclude the issue of To Kill a Mockingbird as a Bildungsroman, it is sufficient to say that examples focusing on Jem's emotional growth could be multiplied ". Murray offers a further conclusion that Jem's coming-of-age story effectively gives the novel multiple protagonists. If the novel has more than one protagonist, the question arises as to which of the two protagonists is central. Murray notes that “To Kill a Mockingbird is a novel without a clear protagonist, settling instead for a dual-perspective first-person narrator,” (Murray). However, there is a very clear distinction between the twoprotagonists: Jem is the only one of the two whose transition from child to adolescent is shown to the reader The fact of Scout's development to puberty and beyond to maturity is implied but is never dramatized. This means that Scout's character is effectively left in a state of perpetual innocence while Jem is clearly shown being initiated into the cynical reality of young adulthood. Jem's painful loss of evidence is presented dramatically after experiencing the verdict against Tom in Robinson's trial. Lee writes, “It was Jem's turn to cry,” and as Jem walks away from the courtroom he verbally expresses his disillusionment: “It's not fair,” he murmured” (Lee 215). The guilty verdict is synonymous with Jem's abandonment .the comfortable innocence of her childhood illusions. Scout's innocence is not shown to be destroyed during this scene. The fact that Jem is the vehicle of the coming of age theme in the novel means that Scout's contrasting innocence is brought into play. prominence in the story due to the fact that the narrative is told exclusively in her voice Shackelford emphasizes that Scout's status as the only narrator of the novel ensures that "the reader sees all events through the eyes of a little girl" (Shackelford) This statement is of enormous significance because it is connected to the ambiguities and thematic contradictions previously explored. Scout is the main protagonist of the story and its sole narrator. As such, everything in the novel must be considered seen through Scout's perspective. Scout's perpetual naivety is indicated by the fact that her coming of age is not revealed to the reader. Therefore the ambiguities and contradictions that affect the themes of the novel are the result of a childish simplification of reality. This is why, for example, Calpurnia's slave status is buried in the text under a veneer of familiar inclusion. Such a patina reflects Scout's perpetual innocence. The naivety that colors Scout's perspective is clear from the ambiguities discussed above. However, there is another structural detail, perhaps even more fundamental, which shows how this perpetual innocence fuels a sense of unreality in the novel. Chura's essay in Understanding To Kill a Mockingbird: A Student Casebook to Issues, Sources, and Historic Documents (1994) presents the case that the novel conflates two periods of American history. Although the ostensible setting of the novel is during the Great Depression, Chura argues that many of the details of Tom Robinson's fictionalized trial are drawn from Emmet Till's real-life trial which took place in 1955. Chura states that a presence in The Dark Beyond the hedge is the structural and ideological detail of the 1955 Emmett Till trial…The mid-1950s/beginning of the civil rights era is therefore the context from which the novel can best be understood” (Chura). This strange mixing of eras is part of the way Lee's narrative strategy presents a story steeped in unreality and fantasy. Cura goes further in analyzing the historical context of the novel. According to Chura, "Lee's historical background of the 1930s, although developed in some detail, should not obscure the actual conditions that governed the production of the text in the years 1955 to 1959" (Chura). In other words, Scout's recollection of events in the context of the narrative itself is an act of story-bending by inserting the social themes and ideas of the mid-1950s into a fictional setting based on the 1930s. If the historical inaccuracies and thematic ambiguities of To Kill a Mockingbird are simply considered weaknesses in Lee's technique or thinking, one aspectimportant aspect of the novel, perhaps the most important aspect, is likely to be overlooked. This is the fact that the intended effect of these apparent "mistakes" is to show the entire narrative through the eyes of a child. This narrative strategy actually makes the novel display a unified theme despite its apparent ambiguities and inconsistencies. The unification lies in the implicit loss of innocence that Scout experiences through her voice in the novel, but which is never directly shown to the reader. The perpetual sense of fantasy and unreality is intended to express the collective social denial of the reality of racism and its crimes. It is through the loss of our innocence that each of us, as readers, feels the tragic consequence of Tom Robinson's experience of conviction and murder. We must shatter the fantasy world built by Scout's childhood vision. Jem's painful initiation into adulthood is intended to encourage a tragic and even bitter reading of the events of Tom Robinson's trial. In contrast, the absence of Scout's “on-screen” transition to maturity allows each reader to subjectively experience this loss of innocence. This is a complicated narrative approach but it is supported by a careful reading of the text. For example, in chapter 25 Scout is amazed by Jem's reluctance to let her squash a bug. Jem, having been initiated into a world of experience, is incapable of killing, while Scout, in contrast, remains in a state of childish naivety in which killing a "chubby" has few moral consequences. Scout reveals that she is aware of both Jem's transition into adulthood and his uninitiated status. He thinks to himself that ""It was probably part of the phase he was going through, and I wish he would hurry up and get over it" (Lee 242). In Scout's mind, all that is needed is for Jem to "get over" whatever he disturbed their otherwise undisturbed sense of innocence and security. Previously, Boo Radley's invented danger was the only perceived threat to their sense of security. After Tom Robinson's conviction, Jem no longer believes in a safe world it is based on anger and sadness. In contrast, Scout just begins to suspect that something is wrong and experiences this threat primarily through Jem's personality changes Annie Kasper in the article “General Semantics in to Kill a Mockingbird” (2006) refers to the concept of "values ​​of infinity". . While Jem's loss of innocence allows him to begin to see a world based on the values ​​of the infinite, Scout remains rooted in a naïve perspective that promotes stereotypes and dramatic distinctions. Kasper connects the concept of infinity values ​​directly to the way Boo Radley reveals himself to the world. reader. Kasper writes “Boo Radley is labeled creepy and strange because he never ventures out of his house. The townspeople associate this strangeness with evil and foster a prejudice against Boo" (Kasper). The same kind of prejudice is, of course, directed against Tom Robinson on the basis of race. When Jem and Scout come to understand Boo Radley on one level more personal At this level, their fear dissipates. This story arc is often cited as evidence of the novel's anti-discrimination theme. This statement is valid, but a careful reading of the text reveals that Radley's character is never fully liberated from his initial status of “other.” Despite the fact that Radley saves the children and kills Bob Ewell, his status remains essentially unchanged Murray notes that.. 2015.