Aunt Alexandra, Atticus’s sister, is upset with his parenting style, particularly towards Scout. She believes that the children need a woman’s touch since their mother died when they were young. Aunt Alexandra believes that Atticus should have taught the children what it meant to be a Finch and that he should have taught them how to live up to their family name.
Atticus’s approach to parenting is seen as over-indulgent and inappropriate for his children’s age. Aunt Alexandra is rigid and judgmental, contrasting with Miss Maudie, her neighbor and friend of Atticus Finch. She tries to make up for Atticus by pretending to be nice and living up to her family name. Aunt Alexandra also opposes Atticus’s defense of Tom Robinson, acknowledging that his children should learn on their own to deal with conflicts.
Atticus’s unconventional parenting style exposes his children to mature societal issues such as racism and injustice. Aunt Alexandra favors traditional methods and views Atticus’s approach as over-indulgent and inappropriate for their age. Aunt Alexandra is judgmental, prone to gossip, racist, proper, and pretentious, and loves her family but believes they should act according to her ideas.
Atticus responds to Aunt Alexandra’s criticism by saying that this is their home, sister. Aunt Alexandra believes that Atticus needs a wife who can keep control of his unruly self-aware children. Atticus wants his children to know that people are people and that the color of their skin does not factor into anything. Aunt Alexandra views black people as inferior and believes that their race should not be a factor in their lives.
In summary, Aunt Alexandra is upset with Atticus’s parenting style and believes that he should have taught his children the importance of being a Finch and living up to their family name.
📹 Race, Class, and Gender in To Kill a Mockingbird: Crash Course Literature 211
In which John Green teaches you MORE about To Kill a Mockingbird. In this installment, John teaches you about race, class, and …
What does Aunt Alexandra want Atticus to teach the children?
Aunt Alexandra persuades Atticus that Scout requires a female role model and that she is conferring a benefit upon him by volunteering for a position, while also portraying the children’s behavior as if they hail from a wealthy family.
What is the relationship between Atticus and Aunt Alexandra?
Aunt Alexandra, Atticus’s sister, arrives in Maycomb to guide the Finch children towards a more traditional way of life. She is concerned about Scout’s tomboyish behavior and tries to take on the role of a mother figure, joining Calpurnia and Miss Maudie as influential women in the children’s lives. Aunt Alexandra’s approach focuses on notions of tradition, reputation, and family identity, adhering to a strict definition of femininity and supporting the race- and class-driven hierarchy of Maycomb. She also has a distinct interest in heredity, emphasizing the notion that certain traits, or “streaks”, inevitably run in every family.
Aunt Alexandra’s sense of history and endurance puts her at odds with Scout, who yearns to maintain her own way of life, and Atticus, who struggles to reinforce the limits his sister places on his children’s freedom. This tension within the Finch family serves as a microcosm for the broader conflict in Maycomb regarding Atticus’s role in Tom Robinson’s trial. Aunt Alexandra’s strict perspective and domineering attitude make her seem cold-hearted, but she occasionally expresses concern and sympathy for others. These moments, such as her worry for Atticus’s safety and the care she provides Jem and Scout after Bob Ewell attacks them, teach Scout that even the toughest can have a soft side.
What can you tell about Atticus’s parenting style?
Atticus Finch, a small town lawyer and widower, is considered the greatest father in fiction. He raises his son Jem and sister Scout with a calm demeanor, a progressive approach, and a strong belief in truthful answers. Atticus’s parenting philosophy and the plot of the novel are influenced by his own behavior. Harper Lee’s classic tale offers five valuable lessons in parenting, making them both palatable and enjoyable.
Atticus’s code of living by his conscience is emphasized, as he takes on the case of a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. Scout believes most people in the town think it’s wrong to defend the accused man, but Atticus argues that a person’s conscience is the only thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule. If he didn’t take the case, Atticus would never ask Scout to mind him again.
What did Aunt Alexandra say about Atticus?
In Chapter 24, Alexandra articulates her disapproval of Atticus’ actions towards Maudie, which precipitates a breakdown in her emotional state and prompts her to reflect on the conclusion of their relationship, resulting in significant distress for her brother.
Why does Aunt Alexandra think Atticus is disgracing the family?
Aunt Alexandra is upset with her brother Atticus for raising his children, particularly Scout, who she believes needs a woman’s touch. She believes Atticus should have taught the children the honor of being a Finch and how to carry on in a manner that complements the Finch name. Aunt Alexandra’s biggest problem with Atticus is Scout’s behavior, which she believes should be a lesson in being a woman.
Aunt Alexandra is fanatical about Scout’s appearance, believing that she should be a ray of sunshine in her father’s lonely life. Aunt Alexandra is worried about how the case of Tom Robinson will reflect on the family name and initially opposes Atticus taking the case. Scout overhears them arguing one night about it.
Why does Aunt Alexandra stay with Atticus family?
In the opening passages of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, the narrative shifts to Chapter 13, where Aunt Alexandra, Atticus Finch’s sister, arrives to instruct his children, Jem and Scout, on the significance of proper attire and conduct as they mature.
Why does Aunt Alexandra get angry with Atticus?
Aunt Alexandra expresses displeasure with Atticus for a remark he makes in the presence of Calpurnia. The remark concerns Braxton Underwood, the proprietor of the local newspaper, and Atticus’s assertion that Underwood holds an unfavorable view of African Americans and would not tolerate one in his vicinity.
How do Aunt Alexandra’s traditional viewpoints contrast with Atticus’s parenting style?
Aunt Alexandra offers a critique of Atticus’s child-rearing practices, asserting that he is unduly lenient and permitting Scout to exhibit behaviors typically associated with a “tomboy.” Additionally, she believes that Atticus should foster a greater sense of pride in their family heritage.
How does Aunt Alexandra think Atticus has failed as a parent?
In To Kill a Mockingbird, Aunt Alexandra critiques Atticus’s unconventional parenting style, arguing that it exposes his children to societal issues like racism and injustice. She deems it over-indulgent and inappropriate for their age.
What concerns does Aunt Alexandra have about the way Atticus is raising his children?
Alexandra articulates apprehension regarding the absence of conventional gender roles and a certain wildness among the children, while Scout concedes that her inquiry was not as circumspect as it might have been.
Does Aunt Alexandra disapprove of the way Atticus is raising his children?
Aunt Alexandra’s disapproval of Atticus’s parenting style is evident in various instances in To Kill a Mockingbird, indicating her differing views on upbringing and societal expectations.
📹 10 Child Celebs Who Aged Badly!
Contents of this video▭ 00:00 – Introduction 00:08 – Macaulay Culkin 00:50 – Lark Voorhies 01:28 – Jeremy Miller 01:56 – Haley …
So once upon a time we were in literature class and I tap my friend and say, “I need a phrase that describes the way Atticus’ goes ahead with the trial with full enthusiasm even though he knows he’s going to lose.” Without losing a beat that smart bastard spits out, “fatalistic resignation”. I haven’t forgotten it in 20 years.
My favorite thing my 11th grade teacher pointed out to us was the women who were trying to ‘save’ those Africans, saying how uncivilized they were, how they didn’t know the fathers of the children so the whole village raised them. My teacher said if the people of Maycomb raised the children together as the ‘uncivilized Africans’ did, the Ewell children wouldn’t be dirty, covered in lice and uneducated. It wouldn’t have taken Mayella weeks to gather a few nickles just to get the kids ice cream. She said every society is uncivilized in its own way and the abandoning of the Ewell children was one example of Maycomb’s uncivil-ness.
I’m surprised you didn’t talk about the scene where Scout does become comfortable with the notion of femininity and that it is not inherently bad, only different. And that the women around her, including Calpurnia, do give her insight to what it means to be ‘ladylike’ without actually telling her, and she can do that when she’s good and ready for it (because let’s face it, she puts her overalls back on and runs around with the boys again anyway.) If you’re going to talk about gender, it’s a pretty important scene.
In my opinion, Atticus was the mockingbird. If you research mockingbirds, you’ll find that they are docile creatures until their neat is threatened. When I found that, I could only think of Atticus. If it was up to him, he wouldn’t harm a fly, but if Jem and Scout are in danger, he would do whatever it takes. Take the scene with Tim Johnson for example. Atticus didn’t take pride in his shooting skills because he believed he was more than just a good shooter, so he decided to hide it. However, when he fears his neighborhood may get hurt, he steps up to the plate. Over all, Atticus is just an amazingly well written character and will forever be one of my favorites.
For me, the most touching scene in the movie adaptation was when the Blacks stood up when Atticus Finch left the courtroom. For me, it was not the respect that they paid that touched me but the manner in which Atticus Finch left the room. It tells me that he felt guilty and ashamed that, he could not save that innocent man’s life. I guess it appeals to me because although humans have gone so far in issues like slavery and discrimination against race, religion, gender and sexual preferences, we still have so far to go. For instance. The killing and torture of animals for food. The destruction of their natural habitats and probably many other issues that I am still too naive to see. The guilt and shame I felt for being part of it allows me to empathize with the moment Atticus Finch left the room. The mocking bird in the title to me represents Atticus Finch. He is the man who who sings the ”truth”. To try to live his life in the right way in an unjust society but instead of being rewarded, he put his loved ones lives in danger. Since to kill his children’s life is to kill him, thus the title ”to kill a mocking bird.” Society’s punishment for people who speak up for what is right in a society does wrong.
In English class we discussed how Mayella could also be seen as a mockingbird. While she does ultimately do harm, all she really wants is affection, and she is “shot” by unfortunate circumstances and her abusive father, for which there is no justification. She is a victim – not quite an innocent victim, but a victim nonetheless.
This novel was a major part of my life. I remember distinctively my mother sitting on the couch next to me perusal the film version. She always watches old movies so I didn’t pay attention the first half hour. But when the court scene came up, I closed my computer and paid full attention on how elegantly and courageously Atticus Finch delivered his speech. I was blown away, and honestly it’s what started my adventure towards classic novels. Also what started my fascination with society, and led me to my love of psychology.
What if killing the mockingbird isn’t literal, so much as figurative? Maybe it’s not literally killing, but causing needless pain, whether for your amusement or otherwise. Take how the children treated Arthur Radley, mocking and taunting him because of their fear of him, and how close they (and Atticus) were to putting him in the limelight of the town. Maybe the sin is tormenting the man who has done nothing but try his hardest to protect them throughout the book.
Finally! Someone is talking about Calpurnia. I don’t think that one can have an adequate discussion of “To Kill a Mockingbird” without bringing in Calpurnia. She is the mother figure to Atticus’ father figure and we can’t understand where Scout is coming from with out seeing Calpurnia’s influence over her and Jem.
I read To Kill a Mockingbird in 8th grade, and I completely overlooked everything about it. I don’t know, it’s not that I didn’t like it, but I didn’t really understand the plot, or I didn’t appreciate it at the time, because I had to read it for my English class (I didn’t read it for pleasure.) But now, 2 years later, perusal this article gives me new insights. I think I might read it again. Thanks Crash Course!!
this is so especially helpful for incoming freshman who can benefit from someone explaining the themes of the story that require background. i have to write reports on different areas in this novel and i found it quite inspiring to watch this and the other tkam article to find discussion topics to write about. when you explained different things about the novel and talked about them, it got my own ideas and opinions flowing and i was able to write down what i thought about the things you were talking about. for that i’d like to thank you. creative/writing inspiration is the greatest gift that i could receive from anyone or anything.
I never thought that any one person in the book was ‘the mockingbird’ rather it is about the act itself. To kill a mockingbird is an act of spite that harms many people and profits no one and I think there are several in the book. Its that bewildered felling of why would anyone do such a thing. Compared say to Atticus shooting the dog which is also sad but necessary.
ftr, there are multiple plausible ways to hit someone on the right side of the face with your left arm and vice verse. For example, turn your head to the side (now back to read this), if someone had just hit you with either hand it would be on the side facing the computer – that is assuming your opponent was a computer.
In which John Green teaches you MORE about To Kill a Mockingbird. In this installment, John teaches you about race, class, and gender in the American south, as seen through the eyes of Scout and Harper Lee. John will talk about how Scout learns about these aspects of the social order as she interacts with the people of the town, learns from Calpurnia, watches the trial of Tom Robinson, and endures the attack of Bob Ewell. You’ll also learn a little bit about Demi Moore and Mila Kunis, and John will ask just who is the Mockingbird, anyway? Not that he’ll answer that, but he’ll ask it. Race, Class, and Gender in To Kill a Mockingbird: Crash Course Literature 211
I read this book already, but thank you so much for doing it. When I read this book in English class it helped me understand other people, the influences of them and the lives they lead. And when you talk about these stories so passionately, it renews that spirit of reading. These articles should seriously get more views
Isn’t this how everyone lives their lives? I mean with a double identity? I’m Nigerian American and I know how I should act with Africans, how I should act with blacks and how to act with whites. I kinda just thought that’s how it is. Humans are mirror animals and have schemas that categorize things so if they categorize a thing in a certain way they will mirror that thing. I’ve always just thought that’s what it was. I’m not saying that that is good because it sucks having that many identities because like Selena’s father says in the movie Selena “We have to be more Mexican than the Mexicans and more American than the Americans, both at the same time! It’s exhausting!”
I read To kill a mocking bird after my teacher recommended it to me in the sixth grade. She wanted me to be in her higher level language arts class but my school wouldn’t let me until the next year so she told me to read it as a way to help me not be behind. It is still one of the most interesting books I have ever read. I’ve read it more than once and I always find it as riveting as the first time I read it.
Feminism is ridiculous, go home, raise your kids, don’t race mix, and be a good wife. Its not hard, its not oppressive, its what you are biologically inclined to do. Women can make great contributions to the world, their first great impression should be raising healthy, loving, intelligent, and caring children!
The book is so brilliant, it reveals the world only a child can see! The book is still iconic because the world it depicts is in such technicolour detail. All its words, situations and experiences are wonderfully realistic for any child that grew up in a world of social divide, unwritten rules and rank hypocrisy. Place it in Alabama or Mumbai, Mombassa or Medellin, and people who grew up there can still relate to it.
Hi CC – I don’t know if you’ll see this comment, but I thought you should know that your subtitles are actually broken on this article! The subtitles are for the first “To Kill A Mockingbird” article, not this one, which makes it very hard for people like me who rely on them even a little to enjoy and follow this article. 🙁
My mind exploded when I finally realized the same man who got me through AP geography and who makes me laugh every week is the same man who wrote a book that made me cry the entire 8th period. And im serious. I got to the heartbreaking chapters at thr beginning of the period and finished a few minutes before the bell. ;-; im really scared to watch the movie, as it’ll most likely invoke more tears. Thanks John Green. Thanks
Morning Edition announced today (2/3/2015) that the sequel (!!) to To Kill A Mockingbird will be published this summer! The new book will pick up Scout’s life 20 years after Tom Robinson’s trial. To Kill A Mockingbird is now revealed to have been a prequel (if that’s a real word) to a manuscript Ms. Lee wrote first, and shelved. Now 88 years old and, yes, living, she’s decided to publish it as her second novel after a gap of 55 years. I’m floored.
Atticus Finch was named the number one best movie hero by AFI a while back. He beat out Superman, Indiana Jones, and all the other action heroes. I remember telling my Shakespeare teacher in high school that they named him number one, and she beamed. She saw her dad as the real life version of Atticus, and knowing that Atticus was AFI’s best example of a hero made it feel like a personal victory. Can we also say that the scene after the trial was a powerful scene in the movie as well as the book? Atticus still failed to get Tom off of the charges, and he was defeated, but as he walks out, the entire colored balcony, including Jem and Scout, are standing and quietly perusal Atticus leave, as if to say “Thank you for being our voice. For once, we have been heard.” It’s all wrapped together with the line, “Miss Jean Louise, stand up. Your father’s passin’.”
I think a lot of the simplicity comes from seeing the world through a child’s eyes. But the complexity is definitely there. Atticus has empathy for Bob Ewell because he understands that Bob is a product of his circumstances. Bob is the poorest of the poor, has nothing (no money, no education, no respectability) except the societal expectation that he will support a large family, which he doesn’t have the means to do. So Bob desperately clings to what shred of power he does have, his superiority over blacks in his racist society, his superiority over Mayella in his sexist society, and the physical power that he can assert over others. In my childhood when I read this book, the character of Bob really helped me to understand why racism and sexism endure.
Have you thought about a review of The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck? It has themes of culture and place in time that seem to be in keeping with similar books you have talked about. It is also a very good read, longer than some but very interesting, and not something that is necessarily run into by accident or by requirements in school.
A note on film adaptions: as an overly confident wannabe filmmaker, I think the problem with most adaptions is that they choose fidelity to the book’s plot, as opposed to its story. The exact events of a book when transcribed to film will rarely make even a coherent story, let alone a compelling one. Most books are inherently internal, dealing directly with the thoughts and motivations of characters. Characters on film can (and in a good film, do) have internal struggles as well, but the filmmaker has to find a way to subtly yet unambiguously make those internal struggles external, via dialogue and body language. Often, a point that is all to apparent in a book due to the presence of an unobtrusive narrator will be lost in film, unless the filmmaker finds another way to make it known. Voice over narration can do this, but it feels more heavy handed in film (where it is an addition) than in literature (where it is inherent in the structure of storytelling). And so, in a film adaption, it may be necessary to add or alter scenes and characters in order to maintain the story of the book, even though it means sacrificing the plot.
I’d say the Grapes of Wrath is in the top ranks of my fave movie adaptations. I also managed to read The Fault in our Stars just before seeing the movie, and I can honestly say that was a great adaptation. One scene I wish was done better were the dinner scene in Amsterdam, but that would be impractical to film. The only one I thought was just a far miss was the downplayed defiance of the authors assistant. Her witnessing and objecting to his treatment of the kids seemed to hone in the feeling more for the scene in the book, that being absent in the movie made it seem more shallow and passing.
I think this was a good discussion, but I was a bit surprised that there isn’t a short discussion on how Atticus captures the essence of American Liberalism. Just by reading “The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience” and “…in this country, our courts are the great levelers. In our courts, all men are created equal” I feel that I finally understand American liberalism.
While listening to your Things Fall Apart and To Kill a Mockingbird courses, I couldn’t stop thinking about Burmese Days from George Orwell. I value this particular story more than 1984 or Animal Farm, even though it seems to end on a pretty big down note: that even being aware of and somewhat opposed to the not so princely gift of civilization, you inevitably as a product of it, tend to be stuck in a cycle of supporting it, even in moments where you meekly speak out, as Orwell’s main character does/fails to do. Any chance it’s hiding out as a future CC?
“To Kill a Mockingbird” is a good book. I particularly liked how scout sounded like a young girl in the way she thought rather than sounding like an adult remembering childhood. Scout’s perspective is unusually well done. Yet, I do not think “To Kill a Mockingbird” was over-the-top amazing. In Stephen King’s “On Writing,” King classifies writers as poor, competent, good, great, and genius. He places Harper Lee in the “great” category. Reading between the lines, King seemed to be itching to place himself in the “great” category also. However, he avoided categorizing himself, probably to avoid criticism. King and other modern writers typically face more literary criticism than did Harper Lee. Harper Lee was bolstered by political correctness at the time her work was published. Critics were afraid to criticize her work. They were afraid of being accused of supporting racial segregation if they found fault in her writing. Even though the current PC winds are blowing Harper Lee’s sails in the opposite direction recently, I still don’t like free tickets to greatness.
Don’t forget that with a book, there’s not a fantastically large cost to make it. To publish and distribute it, yes, but just to make it no. Only the writer (and the editor of course) puts in the work to make the text. Movies, conversely, are fairly expensive to produce. You need to pay actors, stuntmen, camera and lighting crews, riggers, editors, post production guys, costumers, makeup artists, and special effects wizards. There’s equipment costs, location costs, prop costs. A whole lot of work and money goes into creating a film compared to a novel (not that writers don’t work hard, they just don’t work as hard as the dozens/hundreds who collectively produce a film). When that much capitol goes into any production, the producers at the top are going to have a few words about what the film can be about. And when it comes to adapting a literary work, changes are insisted upon to ensure enough people watch it to return the investment. Sometimes those changes are for the better, and sometimes they’re for the worse. Funnily enough, book-to-film adaptations are probably the most successful adaptations, with the largest ratio of hits to misses. At least literature shares a linear storytelling style with film. I’m looking at you, article game adaptations.
By the end of this article I had the thought that to kill a mocking bird could be summed up with that one song about empathy (Empathy, empathy, put yourself in the place of me) but I got kinda disgusted with my oversimplification of it. I am still not quite sure if that disgust was necessary or that my perception of these articles are that I should try to keep things at least slightly complex for fear that I wont feel smart enough while learning and thinking about this, then again I am perusal a article that makes me think this much and this deeply….
thanks for this. I grew up at the height of a violent appartheid South Africa. attending a Christian National education whites only school. in the late 60s to 70s. We were given this book as a setwork. Someone clearly slipped up since even Black Beauty had been banned because of the title (true or maybe myth). Thank you for this analysis …i think our teacher managed to skillfully skip over any actual message or meaning emerging from the text.
Quote about black people having a sense of “two-ness” makes me wonder whether calling black American people “African-American” is a good idea. We don’t call white Americans “European-Americans” or “Caucasian-Americans” – we just call them “American” – without any description of their heritage. It’s taken for granted that people from the USA are white unless stated otherwise. Maybe adding a descriptor such as “African” or “Hispanic” or “Asian” before the word “American” subconsciously marks those people out as being “other” and reinforces perceived differences or barriers between those types of people. I’m not saying the UK is perfect, but it seems to me that race is far less of an issue here in comparison to the USA. In the USA, de facto segregation still goes on, mainly due to minorities not being able to afford housing in the more affluent areas of the country. Living in a poor area means attending a poor school, as less tax revenue is generated, which equates to less funding being available to invest in local education, leading to lower grades being attained by the pupils who attend them. I’ve even heard of churches in the USA being described as “black” or “white” churches – as if God cares about your skin colour! In the UK, children of different races go to school together, we worship together (especially Christian churches), work alongside each other and no-one thinks anything of it.
On the subject of who’s the eponymous mockingbird, I’d like to argue that it’s all of them. This book is not about just one sin, one system of oppression or injustice- it’s about each, and the interconnectedness of them. In the oppressive society of the mid-20th century South, everyone is a mockingbird- even Bob Ewell, who in his frustration and rage about his own poverty turns to violence, both racial and domestic.
If you go into a movie thinking it’s going to be the book of course you will be disappointed. Screenwriters and novelists have different intentions, means, and audiences for their work. Novelists can write whole chapters on what the royal family ate for dinner to demonstrate the luxuriousness of their lifestyle, but put that onscreen and it takes 2 seconds to pan across a banquet table full of food. The full action of a book might take 9 hours to adapt to screen, so they have to choose which action will tell the story to their audience – both the book purists and the new audience. Yes, some book-to-movie adaptations are bad, but it should be more about finding the message in both and seeing if they align than whether they stuck 100% to the book’s original map. I actually care deeply about this subject, so I think painting all movie adaptations with a broad brush and saying they all suck is narrowing and incorrect. I run a book club with my friends where we read a book then watch its adaptation and talk about what changed, what worked, what we might have done differently but I try not to let the discussion get to one or the other being “better.” We’re actually (re-)reading your book next month, John, and going to see the movie when it comes out. I’m excited that you’re so excited about it, and am looking forward to seeing how it translates to the screen.
In my opinion, I find the two part literature articles a bit much. I still enjoy them, but it seems a little stretched out over two articles. And yes, I know you can spend entire courses on these books, however I don’t feel this works well in a Crash Course format. It feels repetitive to me. I imagine they have enough books in their backlog to do it. John reads a LOT, and I doubt the production would be much harder.
I love John Green’s Crash Courses and I love To Kill a Mockingbird, but I can’t help but notice how John is very careful to say “possibly” when referring to how Bob Ewell may or may not have raped and/or molested Mayella. In the book, I fail to find any sort of evidence that he had sexually assaulted his daughter (and believe me, I’m not trying to defend him!). Am I missing something? Did I skip something in the book?