I really think it is his desire to believe the best of people. Even if he thought Bob capable of violence, his predisposition to charity assumes it would be violence against him (which his stoicism could manage) rather than innocent children.
Does he really believe “the best” of the Ewells, and Bob in particular? I don’t think so. And he knows Bob Ewell is capable of violence - he says if he (Atticus) saves Mayella from one more beating he’s happy to take it. So yes, maybe he thinks it would be directed at him and not the kids, which he could take. But no one else is blind to the possibility (somebody tells them to “stay in the yard” at one point) So it’s his stoicism that blinds him? Would Christianity make it easier for him to see the evil in Bob Ewell? That’s a little mind-twisty 😂
Sean, thanks so much for posting your thoughts! Discussions are hard online but they are impossible via podcast 😂 so I am grateful for the chance to work out a question. Yes, I understood the relative use of “best”. But early in the book - when Atticus tells Scout to climb into another’s skin and walk around in it - Scout also tells us that he says “The Ewells had been the disgrace of Maycomb for three generations” and “They were people, but they lived like animals.” If Atticus thinks “the best” of Bob Ewell, he’s still set the bar super low…and yet not low enough. On the porch with Heck Tate, Atticus is incredulous, but Heck points out that Bob would never have attacked Atticus for real - he will “pester a poor colored woman” or Judge Taylor “when he thought no one was home, so do you think he’da met you to your face in daylight?” It’s just such a glaring oversight on Atticus’ part. I guess the Stoicism explains it. But I keep coming back to the idea that Atticus is nearly blind in one eye. I think Lee wants us to see this as a real flaw - a blind spot - that indicts Atticus a bit. Maybe that’s not news to anyone else😂 It just hit me hard on this read through.
“The best,” here is relative—i.e. the best Bob is capable of, not the best St. Benedict is capable of. Bob is obviously capable of violence, but Atticus claims (after the spitting incident) that he doesn’t think Bob capable of harming him. Nevertheless, the stoic “I’ll take it when it comes“ attitude and his strong commitment to non-violence would likely look exactly like this sort of non-precaution.
As Chesterton says, original sin is the most easily verifiable of all dogma, and is uniquely Christian, so yes, Christianity would certainly give him a better grasp on sin than stoicism (which tends to believe in something more like an un-fallen will where an unimpaired reason chooses good or evil with few complicating factors)—no mind-bending required.
Okay, the question about the birds and the mentionn of the blog post inspired me. I always include a poem in my Goodreads reviews, and when I heard this part of the discussion, I knew what it had to be.(This is why I love Close Reads.)
The Huck Finn reference has me wondering: do European and other traditions have comparable novels, ones dealing with adult themes through the eyes and the mind of a child? There are plenty of examples of the bildungsroman elsewhere, but this species of literature seems to be relatively unique to America. Am I wrong?
All ya all joke like triplets wouldn’t happen to Sean. I had 4 boys, then boom, triplets! I can happen to anyone!
If anyone is still listening here:
Why is Atticus blind to the thread posed by Bob Ewell?
I really think it is his desire to believe the best of people. Even if he thought Bob capable of violence, his predisposition to charity assumes it would be violence against him (which his stoicism could manage) rather than innocent children.
Does he really believe “the best” of the Ewells, and Bob in particular? I don’t think so. And he knows Bob Ewell is capable of violence - he says if he (Atticus) saves Mayella from one more beating he’s happy to take it. So yes, maybe he thinks it would be directed at him and not the kids, which he could take. But no one else is blind to the possibility (somebody tells them to “stay in the yard” at one point) So it’s his stoicism that blinds him? Would Christianity make it easier for him to see the evil in Bob Ewell? That’s a little mind-twisty 😂
Sean, thanks so much for posting your thoughts! Discussions are hard online but they are impossible via podcast 😂 so I am grateful for the chance to work out a question. Yes, I understood the relative use of “best”. But early in the book - when Atticus tells Scout to climb into another’s skin and walk around in it - Scout also tells us that he says “The Ewells had been the disgrace of Maycomb for three generations” and “They were people, but they lived like animals.” If Atticus thinks “the best” of Bob Ewell, he’s still set the bar super low…and yet not low enough. On the porch with Heck Tate, Atticus is incredulous, but Heck points out that Bob would never have attacked Atticus for real - he will “pester a poor colored woman” or Judge Taylor “when he thought no one was home, so do you think he’da met you to your face in daylight?” It’s just such a glaring oversight on Atticus’ part. I guess the Stoicism explains it. But I keep coming back to the idea that Atticus is nearly blind in one eye. I think Lee wants us to see this as a real flaw - a blind spot - that indicts Atticus a bit. Maybe that’s not news to anyone else😂 It just hit me hard on this read through.
“The best,” here is relative—i.e. the best Bob is capable of, not the best St. Benedict is capable of. Bob is obviously capable of violence, but Atticus claims (after the spitting incident) that he doesn’t think Bob capable of harming him. Nevertheless, the stoic “I’ll take it when it comes“ attitude and his strong commitment to non-violence would likely look exactly like this sort of non-precaution.
As Chesterton says, original sin is the most easily verifiable of all dogma, and is uniquely Christian, so yes, Christianity would certainly give him a better grasp on sin than stoicism (which tends to believe in something more like an un-fallen will where an unimpaired reason chooses good or evil with few complicating factors)—no mind-bending required.
What in the world? In the opening minutes Heidi mentions pets’ heads falling off??? What did I miss in the chat or in the news??? 🫣
😅 that’s a “Dumb and Dumber” reference
😂 It’s been a LONG time since I’ve seen that!
Okay, the question about the birds and the mentionn of the blog post inspired me. I always include a poem in my Goodreads reviews, and when I heard this part of the discussion, I knew what it had to be.(This is why I love Close Reads.)
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2657.To_Kill_a_Mockingbird
The Huck Finn reference has me wondering: do European and other traditions have comparable novels, ones dealing with adult themes through the eyes and the mind of a child? There are plenty of examples of the bildungsroman elsewhere, but this species of literature seems to be relatively unique to America. Am I wrong?