To Kill A Mockingbird Perspective Essay
The Perspective Changes It All
Imagine reading an engrossing book, then the reader is told that there is one thing they can change from the book. They have so many options, the plot, title, main character, well...maybe the perspective? They would want to change the perspective! To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee, is told by a young girl, Scout. Although Scout gave an interesting perspective, she should not be the one to tell the story because it would have been more significant if it was written by another character and to understand their feelings on events throughout the book.
Atticus’ perspective would have been more captivating to the story, than Scout’s. Some may say that if Atticus told the story, the audience would not have understood …show more content…
it like Scout. Not as many details would be explained the way she asked, and Atticus’ perspective would have been more intelligent, so it might have been harder to understand. Scout, talking about Atticus during the court case, said, “Atticus seemed to know what he was doing but it seemed to me that he had gone frog-sticking without a light. Never, never, never, on cross-examination ask a witness a question you don’t already know the answer to” (Lee 177). If Atticus was the one to explain this, it would have been more detailed. For example, rather than Scout saying that he “seemed to know what he was doing”, the reader would be more aware of what his thoughts were. He might have gone more in depth of why the witness is not supposed to be asked a question that no one knows the answer to. Another example of a point in the book where Atticus’ perspective would be interesting, Scout told us that Atticus said, “Mrs. Dubose was a morphine addict” (Lee 111). Atticus saying that, was a surprise to everyone, including Scout, so if Atticus was the storyteller, the reader would have known more about how he knew about her addiction and how he felt about it. Atticus might have told the reader how he felt about telling the kids and how he planned to do it. However, Scout telling the story, didn’t allow the reader know any of this. Atticus’ perspective would have greatly enhanced the captivity in this book, but other characters, like Cal, would have improved it in another way.
Calpurnia’s perspective would have seemed to be the most appealing of all the characters. People would disagree with that statement, saying that Cal would have made the story more about how unfairly blacks were treated, rather than kept the focus on the court case and Maycomb. On the other hand, Cal also would have been able to give the readers more insight about how she felt about others being mistreated and let the reader know about other events she knew. Cal, after Scout said Walter Cunningham wasn’t real company, said, “Hush your mouth! Don’t matter who they are, anybody who sets foot in this house’s yo’ comp’ny and you don’t let me catch you remarkin’ on their ways like you was so high and mighty!” (Lee 24). Calpurnia’s perspective would have been helpful in the story, because at this point in time, the reader would have understood why she felt so strongly about this. On the contrary, in Scout’s perspective, the reader might feel as though to side with Cal, but Scout will give the readers her thoughts, rather than Cal’s thoughts. Right before the church service, after Lulu confronted Cal, Scout stated, “They (Cal’s arms) seemed to be drawing closer to us, but when I looked up at Calpurnia there was an amusement in her eyes” (Lee 119). Calpurnia's perspective is vital to this part of the story because the reader would have a better understanding of how she would handle the way she felt, replacing the way Scout summarized the incident. To Kill a Mockingbird would have been more appealing to the audience in Cal’s perspective than in Scout’s, however others would have made the story different, too.
The story would have been remarkable written in the 3rd person omniscient perspective because all of the characters perspectives are essential to the story.
Others might say the story written with everyone’s perspectives would have made the story misleading and would make it confusing. On the other hand, it might have made the story more interesting. For example, Scout, when her and Jem were being attacked, said, “‘Jem?’ There was no answer but the man’s heavy breathing. ‘Jem?’ Jem didn’t answer” (Lee 262). In this scenario, Jem’s perspective would have made more sense because the readers would understand what was going on, they would understand why Jem was not answering, they would have understood how Jem felt, rather than Scout, being almost oblivious of the situation. Jem telling this part of the story might have made the reader infer more about the plot, but with Scout telling it, the reader just wants to know what is happening. Another example of a different perspective would be when Scout was talking about early in the school year when it was a rough day, she said, “Miss Caroline had learned several things herself. She had learned not to hand something to a Cunningham, for one thing…” (Lee 30). At this point, Miss Caroline’s perspective would be interesting because the reader would understand how she felt about what she learned and her thoughts on the lessons, rather than Scout just saying what she learned. The reader might have been as frustrated with the situation
more and put themselves in Miss Caroline’s shoes. The storyline would have been impacted greatly, if it was written in multiple perspectives.
In conclusion, the book should not have been written in Scout’s perspective. Even though some may see it as beneficial to see it from an innocent point of view, Scout’s perspective leaves out how the other characters felt about certain events. The story might have improved if it was written in Atticus, Calpurnia, or even the 3rd person omniscient perspective for many reasons. Now, if a reader gets to change one thing about To Kill a Mockingbird, will they consider changing the perspective?
Imagine reading an engrossing book, then the reader is told that there is one thing they can change from the book. They have so many options, the plot, title, main character, well...maybe the perspective? They would want to change the perspective! To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee, is told by a young girl, Scout. Although Scout gave an interesting perspective, she should not be the one to tell the story because it would have been more significant if it was written by another character and to understand their feelings on events throughout the book.
Atticus’ perspective would have been more captivating to the story, than Scout’s. Some may say that if Atticus told the story, the audience would not have understood …show more content…
it like Scout. Not as many details would be explained the way she asked, and Atticus’ perspective would have been more intelligent, so it might have been harder to understand. Scout, talking about Atticus during the court case, said, “Atticus seemed to know what he was doing but it seemed to me that he had gone frog-sticking without a light. Never, never, never, on cross-examination ask a witness a question you don’t already know the answer to” (Lee 177). If Atticus was the one to explain this, it would have been more detailed. For example, rather than Scout saying that he “seemed to know what he was doing”, the reader would be more aware of what his thoughts were. He might have gone more in depth of why the witness is not supposed to be asked a question that no one knows the answer to. Another example of a point in the book where Atticus’ perspective would be interesting, Scout told us that Atticus said, “Mrs. Dubose was a morphine addict” (Lee 111). Atticus saying that, was a surprise to everyone, including Scout, so if Atticus was the storyteller, the reader would have known more about how he knew about her addiction and how he felt about it. Atticus might have told the reader how he felt about telling the kids and how he planned to do it. However, Scout telling the story, didn’t allow the reader know any of this. Atticus’ perspective would have greatly enhanced the captivity in this book, but other characters, like Cal, would have improved it in another way.
Calpurnia’s perspective would have seemed to be the most appealing of all the characters. People would disagree with that statement, saying that Cal would have made the story more about how unfairly blacks were treated, rather than kept the focus on the court case and Maycomb. On the other hand, Cal also would have been able to give the readers more insight about how she felt about others being mistreated and let the reader know about other events she knew. Cal, after Scout said Walter Cunningham wasn’t real company, said, “Hush your mouth! Don’t matter who they are, anybody who sets foot in this house’s yo’ comp’ny and you don’t let me catch you remarkin’ on their ways like you was so high and mighty!” (Lee 24). Calpurnia’s perspective would have been helpful in the story, because at this point in time, the reader would have understood why she felt so strongly about this. On the contrary, in Scout’s perspective, the reader might feel as though to side with Cal, but Scout will give the readers her thoughts, rather than Cal’s thoughts. Right before the church service, after Lulu confronted Cal, Scout stated, “They (Cal’s arms) seemed to be drawing closer to us, but when I looked up at Calpurnia there was an amusement in her eyes” (Lee 119). Calpurnia's perspective is vital to this part of the story because the reader would have a better understanding of how she would handle the way she felt, replacing the way Scout summarized the incident. To Kill a Mockingbird would have been more appealing to the audience in Cal’s perspective than in Scout’s, however others would have made the story different, too.
The story would have been remarkable written in the 3rd person omniscient perspective because all of the characters perspectives are essential to the story.
Others might say the story written with everyone’s perspectives would have made the story misleading and would make it confusing. On the other hand, it might have made the story more interesting. For example, Scout, when her and Jem were being attacked, said, “‘Jem?’ There was no answer but the man’s heavy breathing. ‘Jem?’ Jem didn’t answer” (Lee 262). In this scenario, Jem’s perspective would have made more sense because the readers would understand what was going on, they would understand why Jem was not answering, they would have understood how Jem felt, rather than Scout, being almost oblivious of the situation. Jem telling this part of the story might have made the reader infer more about the plot, but with Scout telling it, the reader just wants to know what is happening. Another example of a different perspective would be when Scout was talking about early in the school year when it was a rough day, she said, “Miss Caroline had learned several things herself. She had learned not to hand something to a Cunningham, for one thing…” (Lee 30). At this point, Miss Caroline’s perspective would be interesting because the reader would understand how she felt about what she learned and her thoughts on the lessons, rather than Scout just saying what she learned. The reader might have been as frustrated with the situation
more and put themselves in Miss Caroline’s shoes. The storyline would have been impacted greatly, if it was written in multiple perspectives.
In conclusion, the book should not have been written in Scout’s perspective. Even though some may see it as beneficial to see it from an innocent point of view, Scout’s perspective leaves out how the other characters felt about certain events. The story might have improved if it was written in Atticus, Calpurnia, or even the 3rd person omniscient perspective for many reasons. Now, if a reader gets to change one thing about To Kill a Mockingbird, will they consider changing the perspective?