Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird/Archive 6

A response to Gandydancer's complaints and objections
Gandydancer and others:

After two busy weeks of a new term at school, I feel pleased to return to this discussion about my recent edits to the subject novel.

Bink has pointed out to me that Gandydancer is a woman rather than a man.

Of course, I regret my mistake, and I hope that neither Dancer nor anyone else has felt offended by that; if so, I’m sorry.

While literal gandy dancers still existed and still did the work of gandy dancing, those people uniformly were muscular men (because of the harsh physical demands of the nature of the work and the surroundings) – as seen in an image of a railway work site on Gandydancer’s user page – so, yes, I naïvely assumed that that user also is a man. Everyone is imperfect, and I make at least my fair share of mistakes.

By the way, Binksternet tells us on his user page that Bink is one of his nicknames in real life, so I take the liberty – appropriately, I think – to refer to him that way.

While I compose this response, I shall strictly keep it on an objective and unemotional plane and express it in a polite and respectful way, and I shall carefully avoid making negative personal comments or implications about anyone involved. [However, I shall relate some of the behavior of four other users (without commenting on any of the people themselves).]

Now let’s turn to the matter at hand:

Early this year I became interested again in TKaM, after first reading the book and watching the derivative movie (both in 1971).

While reading the book again I read also the articles at the Wikipedia about both the book and the flick. I concentrated on the page about the book, and I saw a number of points in the plot summary in need of improvement – several inaccuracies in the statements of fact, several errors in grammar, several mistakes in terminology, several word choices in need of tweaking, and several instances in need of increase in clarity and precision – despite the prior authorship of the article and despite the label (FA) attached to it.

As a person who has long worked as a writer, rewriter, ghostwriter, editor, and proofreader in real life (since 1953), as a professor who has taught grammar, composition, and communication at the college level (since 1977), as a user who has taken part at the Wikipedia (since 2008), and as one who created, owns, and continues to maintain and expand his own website, entitled Bluehounds and Redhounds (since 2010), I felt (and still feel) well qualified, by both formal training and practical experience, to make the requisite edits.

On 14 February 2014 I made a few changes to the first two paragraphs of the plot summary; on 16 and 17 March 2014 I returned to the article and made a larger number of edits. As I mentioned in a previous post, I acted entirely in good faith and with the highest of intentions.

Then, on 13 April 2014, Gandydancer started reverting much or most of my work. At first she did not discuss any specific point among her reversions; instead in an edit summary she categorically described my work as “very poorly written”; later she described it as “needlessly tortured and scrambled”.

On 17 and 18 April 2014, wanting to restore my improvements without directly challenging Dancer or engaging her in a contest, I made a series of small edits, using descriptive and explanatory edit summaries, trying to make it easy for her to follow, recognize, and understand the reasons for my changes. Whenever I ran out of space for an edit summary, then I posted that item and started the next one. That’s why I made a large number of small edits (rather than a small number of large edits).

Unfortunately, even then Dancer did not see the picture about the correctness of my changes; instead she continued carping and grumbling.

It’s helpful to pause here and to consider a significant circumstance: On 18 April 2014,  while seeking support or agreement from Binksternet, Gandydancer admitted, “I don’t write very well myself”, and, commenting on one particular point, she further said, “[T]his is just a guess, but I would guess” something about composition. On 24 April 2014 she described herself as “far from a grammar expert”. Further, Dancer truly reveals in her postings on talk pages that she really does not write well, for she fairly often makes mistakes in both spelling and grammar.

However, that’s OK; it’s OK for Dancer or anyone else to do something less than well; it’s not a sin or other mistake to do so; that’s OK.

Still, though, Dancer is not in a good position to sit in judgment on anyone else’s work in an area where she herself has not mastered the skills involved, and she’s not in a good position to recognize whether certain points of grammar and composition are right, helpful, constructive, or productive; more specifically, it’s not OK for her to label anyone else’s work as “very poorly written”, and it’s not OK for her to hassle or criticize anyone else who knows his stuff and does his work well. It’s also not OK for Dancer to try to win a contest or argument by throwing verbal spitballs – that is, by calling the other person a “perfectionist” who engages in “arrogant” behavior (instead of discussing the subject matter at hand).

It’s helpful also to note that Dancer, while chatting on Bink’s talk page, conceded that my changes “may … be technically correct”, and that she had begun to “fight a losing battle”; she’s also said that my work had “struck a nerve” with her, that she’s “had about enough”, and that she had begun “to get angry”, thereby emphasizing that her gripes are emotional ones about the fact of change rather than unemotional ones about the correctness and precision of the changes themselves.

Further, it’s useful to recognize that Dancer began her objections to my work – not by claiming that my edits were incorrect – but rather by complaining about what she called my “arrogance” for having dared to change – to make many changes – to a featured article – one by Moni, she said, as though her work were untouchable. For example, on 18 April 2014, when she contacted me directly on my talk page, she did not challenge the accuracy or correctness of my changes; instead she asked me whether I “should be making so many changes to a featured article”.

In response to Dancer’s attempt to enlist Bink on her side, Bink advised her to “step away”. He told her that my changes are “largely for the better”. He changed the spaced en dashes to unspaced em dashes, but he stated that he “otherwise [does not] have any adverse reaction to the grammar improvements”. He specifically wrote that he does not “see any harm done by [my] grammar improvements. He further commented that the article previously was “not [of] such high quality as the FA label would suggest”.

Bink expressly advised Dancer to “step away”, but she failed and refused to accept his advice. On 24 April 2014, after compiling and publishing a partial list of some of her objections to my edits, Dancer again contacted Bink, chided him somewhat, and expressed her surprise and displeasure about what he had written about my work.

On the 24th, in response to Dancer’s list, I assured her that I would make a full response as soon as my circumstances and other responsibilities allow.

To the credit of Dancer, she promptly acknowledged my note, and she said that she would not make any further edit until I take my next turn (which is, of course, this time). I truly appreciate her patience.

In a note on the 18th, after Dancer protested again that “it just seemed so arrogant that anyone would make so many changes in a featured article”, she made a revealing observation: She said that my edit summaries resemble what she “might have seen on one of [her] high-school English papers”.

She’s undoubtedly right, and there’s a reason for that. My edit summaries, explaining my improvements in the accuracy of the facts, in the errors in grammar, and in the clarity and precision – my edit summaries do indeed resemble the explanations which I might have placed on the term papers or exam papers of my students at the college level. [Among my present course assignments are both freshman composition and remedial English.]

On 10 May 2014 Dancer contacted another user, Eric Corbett, seeking to enlist his help, support, or agreement in her campaign against me and my changes to the article. She complained to him, as she had previously complained to Bink, merely that I had dared to change Moni’s untouchable plot summary, not that my edits are incorrect.

Since then Eric has read the article and has made a number of his own changes to it; however, most of his edits lie in the sections other than the plot summary, where I did my work.

He made just a small handful of edits to the plot summary, including only three reversions of the changes which I had made to it.

Eric also restored the essence (“one of Jem’s arms”) of one my edits (“Jem’s left arm”), of which Dancer has made much fun, and for which she has made fun of me.

Dancer has accused me of making changes to suit my “personal preferences”.

Well, she’s partly right; yes, I do indeed have and use certain preferences, albeit not personal ones. When I write a piece, rewrite one, ghostwrite one, or edit one, I prefer to strive for a high level of readable, understandable, polished prose, making accurate statements, using correct terminology and precise words and phrases, and following generally and historically accepted principles of grammar and composition.

That means in part that my written work, which is mostly expository nonfiction, is typically on a higher plane than everyday colloquial spoken language, which most often is careless, unguarded, and spontaneous.

Now let’s turn to the specific details of the individual changes, starting at the top:


 * “The story takes place during three years (1933-35) of the Great Depression”. Previously the text referred to “the main story”, and it failed to specify which particular three years.  The adjective “main” was superfluous, because the entire novel takes place during that time, so I deleted it.  Further, I supplied the specific years, 1933-35, which no previous user had inserted.   Details make differences.


 * After “Maycomb, Alabama,” I added “the seat of Maycomb County”. That helps to set the scene, implying the reason for which Sheriff Tate, the chief law-enforcement officer of the county (not the town), lives and works in Maycomb, along with the reason for which the courthouse stands in Maycomb, and for which Judge Taylor conducts the business of his court in Maycomb.  Also I added a couple of details about the location of Maycomb, “in the southwest corner of Alabama, roughly between Mobile and Montgomery”.  Dancer has objected to that geographic information, saying that she does not know where Mobile and Montgomery are, and that she feels no interest in such details.  Well, it’s OK for her not to care about details, but many other readers do care about details, because those facts add to the picture, and they allow readers to form a better understanding of the setting, near Mississippi and near Mobile Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.  Those details even allow readers to understand that, when Atticus, a member of the state legislature, drives to and from Montgomery, the state capital, he drives about 100 miles each way.  [By the way, in a humorous or whimsical touch, the fictional Maycomb is the seat of Maycomb County, just as Monroeville, Alabama, Harper Lee’s own hometown, is the seat of Monroe County.]


 * “Her older brother, Jem, and their widowed father, Atticus, a middle-aged lawyer”: Previously the text omitted the commas before and after “Jem” and the one before “Atticus”.  Here “Jem” and “Atticus” are nonrestrictive appositives, not restrictive ones, so they need commas to set off each of them.  I inserted the required punctuation, following one of the basic principles of high-school grammar.


 * “To stay with an aunt each summer”: Rachel may or may not be Dill’s only aunt; likely she’s not the only one.  However, “his aunt” implies that Rachel is Dill’s only aunt.  On the other hand, to avoid the assumption that she is the only one, I changed “his aunt” to “an aunt” (that is, one aunt among likely or possibly others).


 * “The three children are terrified of, and fascinated by, a neighbor, the reclusive “Boo” Radley”: Previously the text referred to Boo as “their” neighbor, which implies that he is their only neighbor.  The novel makes clear that Boo is not even remotely their only neighbor, and that he is “a” neighbor among others.  The careless speech of careless speakers is not precise enough for an article in an encyclopedia.


 * “The adults of Maycomb are hesitant to talk about Boo, and few have seen him in many years”: Previously the text lacked a required comma, and it contained a nonparallelism.  I supplied the required comma to separate two independent clauses from each other, and I made those two clauses parallel in structure to each other.  Fixing that problem includes moving the adverbial prepositional phrase to the end of the second clause.  While doing so I changed “for many years” to “in many years” because, as Web11 confirms, the preposition in is a more precise function word to indicate an inclusion of a concept within specified limits, including time limits, whereas for lacks such a connotation.  [By the way, Web11 is an abbreviation for the 11th edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, which serves as the standard reference dictionary throughout the entire publishing industry in the USA.]


 * “The children feed one another’s imagination”: Three children, not two – Scout, Jem, and Dill – are involved here, so I changed “each other” to “one another”.  Dancer has objected to that, quoting and relying on entries in the American Heritage Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster unabridged dictionary.  It’s helpful to recognize that dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive; that is, they describe how the members of the general population do speak and write, but they do not prescribe how we should speak and write.  Our dictionaries report how we actually do speak and write in our everyday activities, right or wrong, while our grammar books tell us how we can speak and write better and well and correctly by following the accepted and time-honored principles of grammar and composition.  The dictionaries report that many people no longer recognize many of the details in our native language – through the dumbing down of the educational process and the resultant dumbing down of a part of our population.  Many careless speakers and writers no longer understand the difference between “who” and “whom”, between “can” and “may”, between “will” and “shall”, between “its” and it’s”, between “your” and “you’re”, between “who’s” and “whose”, between “take” and “bring”, between “than” and “then”, between “advice” and “advise”, between “accept” and “except”, between “forward” and “foreword”, between “principal” and “principle”, among “their”, “there”, and “they’re”, among “cite”, “site”, and “sight”, between “between” and “among” – and between “each other” and “one another”.  Many years ago people understood – certainly educated speakers and writers understood – the difference between “each other” and “one another”.  Even while I was in grade school and high school, our textbooks and teachers told us, and we students learned, remembered, and accepted without question that “each other” refers to two items, and that “one another” refers to three or more items.  So what if many people no longer honor that difference?  We at the Wikipedia, along with all other writers, can make a choice between an unquestionably correct form and a relatively recently legitimated bastard application previously regarded as wrongly used.  Since we can easily choose the undeniably historically correct form, why should we not retain the right form?  Let’s do it the right way.


 * “After two summers of friendship”: According to Web11, after has a stronger time sense than does following.  The latter word first appeared in print as an alternative to after in 1926, which, in the history of our language, is recent.  There’s also one other good reason to choose after over following in this context.  The fog index, known also as the Gunning fog index, quantifies the readability of a piece of writing by taking into consideration the lengths of the words and the sentences.  Although that index is limited in its application, and although it has aroused several objections, it does at least make the point that, generally speaking, in the absence of a persuasive reason to do otherwise, shorter words are better than longer words – that a writer would do well to choose a shorter word over a longer word (as long as the two words are synonyms of each other).  [While I worked on my master’s degree, I came under the influence of a giant among writers and writing professors (who happened to be a woman with a PhD degree); from her I learned how to use the fog index and much more, greatly to my benefit.  She’s still one of my heroines, one of the largest and most significant influences on my work and career.]


 * “Someone leaves them small gifts”: “Is leaving” is a progressive form of the verb, which adds a progressive facet and thereby implies a continuous action; on the other hand “leaves” is a simple form, which indicates a repeated or habitual action.  Boo’s leaving trinkets is an occasionally repeated action, not a continuous one, so it’s correct and appropriate to say that someone “leaves them small gifts”.


 * “Several times the mysterious Boo makes gestures”: In the previous text the comma after “several times” was superfluous; it did not serve a useful purpose or meet a requirement, so I removed it.  “Several times” is an idiomatic expression standing in the place of a longer prepositional phrase, “on several occasions”.  Thus “several times” has an adverbial function, which does not call for a following comma.


 * “Boo makes gestures of fondness to the children”: Through fondness or affection?  Which one?  Although fondness and affection are synonymous, as is love, fondness is less intense than affection, just as affection is less intense than love, and fondness seems to be what Boo feels and shows toward Scout and Jem.  For example, if two cousins are not extremely close to each other, one of them, while closing a note or letter to the other, does not feel free to write “love” or even “affectionately” but may well feel comfortable about writing “fondly” instead.  This is a question of a degree of feeling or emotion, and the text of the novel appears to describe fondness (on the part of Boo) rather than affection.


 * “He never appears in person”: No rule or principle of grammar calls for the repetition of Boo as the subject of the second of the two independent clauses; however, purely as a matter of judgment, the modified verb never appears is so far removed from the first naming of Boo that it seems wise and helpful to insert the pronoun he, which clearly refers to the antecedent Boo.


 * “Judge Taylor appoints Atticus”: Previously the text said, “Atticus is appointed by the court”.  Here the active voice is strongly preferable to the passive voice.  Besides, since we know which judge sits on the bench in that court, let’s use his name.  A strong majority of style books, grammar books, and composition handbooks advise against the use of the passive voice, and a strong majority of professional writers and editors follow that advice.  Strunk and White, for example, tell us, “The habitual use of the active voice … makes for forcible writing”.  The generally accepted principle is that we should use the active voice rather than the passive voice unless there is a good and persuasive reason to use the passive voice instead.  There are certain limited situations where the passive voice is appropriate, but this is not one of those.  Yes, I know well that “everyone” uses the passive voice “all the time” in careless, unguarded, spontaneous speech; however, an article at the Wikipedia is not a casual, everyday, informal, ordinary conversation, using vernacular or colloquial language patterns.  The reason for the favor of the active voice over the passive voice is that the latter lacks – in the words of several of the standard reference books – the passive voice lacks force, strength, vigor, clarity, brevity, directness, simplicity, emphasis, precision, liveliness, and forthrightness.  Theodore Bernstein, a long-time and highly respected adjunct professor at the postgraduate level at Columbia University, invites us, in The Careful Writer, to compare “a good time was had by all” with “everyone had a good time” and to compare “our seas have been plundered by him” with “he has plundered our seas”.  With all that in mind I changed from the passive voice to the active voice.


 * “Atticus faces a group of men”: Previously the text used the prefatory prepositional phrase “for his part” in that sentence.  However, that expression does not here serve a useful purpose, and it’s trite and pointless, so I scratched it.


 * “Atticus wants them not to be present”: Previously the text said, “Atticus does not want them to be present”.  This matter is probably, among the general populace of those who usually do not bother themselves with the fine points of grammar and composition, the most controversial and the least understood of my edits to the plot summary.  Nonetheless the difference remains despite what anyone may like or dislike.  Those two expressions – “does not want them to be present” and “wants them not to be present” – do not convey exactly the same thought.  The previous words stated that Atticus does not want them to be present; they indicate merely a lack of a want.  However, those words do not express an opposition to their presence, whereas Atticus does indeed oppose their presence.  There lies the problem with the previous wording.  For that reason I changed the text to describe Atticus’s opposition, saying, “Atticus wants them not to be present”, because, according to the text of the novel, that’s how Atticus feels.  Yes, I know, “everybody” says it the other way “all the time”; however, an article at the Wikipedia is not a casual, everyday, informal, ordinary conversation, using vernacular or colloquial speech patterns.  Quite to the contrary, an article at the Wikipedia should use precise, carefully chosen words put together correctly and polished to a high degree of professionalism – or at least that’s supposed to be the ideal for which we strive.  Dancer says that that difference “does not make any sense at all” to her, and she refers to my wording as “needlessly tortured and scrambled”.  I regret that Dancer does not understand (or at least in the past has not understood) the logic involved in that.  However, if she does not understand such matters, then I suggest that she ought to proceed cautiously while quibbling or quarreling about what she does not understand.  This matter, reduced to its simplest terms, is really a question about a misplaced modifier; previously the negative adverb not modifies the wanting, whereas not should instead modify the attending.  That is, Atticus positively wants the kids not to attend; therefore the correct expression is “Atticus wants them not to be present”.  By the way, in case this point attracts too much negative attention, or if too many other users find it too difficult for them, another good alternative is to say, “Atticus prefers that they not attend the trial”, which conveys essentially the same thought as “Atticus wants them not to be present at the trial”.  Maybe later I’ll return and recast it that way.


 * “The trial of Tom”: Previously the text referred to “Tom Robinson’s trial”.  This is not a major point, but the terminology is somewhat off the mark.  The use of the possessive form implied possessiveness in one way or another, but the trial is not his; the trial belongs not to Tom but rather to the state and the people of Alabama.  On the other hand, one useful and fitting way is to describe the event as “the trial of Tom”.  “Tom’s trial” is not an idiomatic combination, but “the trial of Tom” is.  The difference here lies in the shades of meaning, but those shades of meaning provide a difference between a questionable expression and an expression right on the mark.  According to one old pithy albeit ungrammatical saying, “Close don’t count except in horseshoes and hand grenades”.


 * “Scout, Jem, and Dill watch from the colored balcony”: Previously the text declared, “Scout, Jem, and Dill watch in secret from the colored balcony”.  There’s nothing even slightly “secret” about the presence of the three kids in the balcony; that is, there’s nothing covert, clandestine, or obscure.  The kids sit in the balcony because, when they arrive at the courthouse, neither a seat nor standing room is available on the main floor, so the preacher kindly invites them to go with him to the balcony, and the other colored folk generously give them seats with the preacher.  The kids are in plain view, so Atticus looks up and promptly sees them there as soon as B.B. Underwood, the newspaperman, points them out to him (after Calpurnia arrives with the note from Alexandra).  Atticus and Alexandra have not known their whereabouts, but that lack of knowledge is not a result of anything even slightly secretive.  That’s why I removed the words “in secret”.  I also inserted a serial comma after “Jem”.


 * “Mayella and her father, Bob Ewell, have continued to lie”: Previously the text said that they “are lying”.  Let’s look at the words “are lying”.  That’s an instance of the progressive form of the present tense of the verb, which indicates that the lying takes place at the moment in question – that is, while Bob and Mayella in turn give their respective testimonies on the witness stand.  However, as the text of the novel describes, Atticus establishes not only that Bob and Mayella lie on the stand, but also that they have lied repeatedly, starting on the evening of the event in question, so I changed “are lying” to “have continued to lie”.


 * “Mayella made sexual advances toward Tom”: Previously the text said that she “was making” advances, and that she did so “towards” Tom.  Again we have a problem with the progressive form of a verb.  Mayella did not make a continuous action; instead she made isolated advances to Tom that one afternoon.  Further, according to Web11, towards is a secondary acceptable alternative, whereas toward is the primary preferable word in the USA.  So I made those two improvements in the same sentence.  [Toward is more common in American English, and towards is more common in British English; this is an American article on an American subject, so toward seems more appropriate.]  I also inserted not only a missing required comma after Tom, to separate two dependent clauses from each other, but also a repeated “that” to enhance clarity at the start of the second dependent clause.


 * “Despite much credible evidence of Tom’s innocence”: Previously the text described the evidence at trial as “significant”.  That adjective is not a bad one, but it includes a connotation of a predictability of an outcome or a numerical, statistical, or other mathematical sense.  However, another adjective, credible, goes to the heart of what a defense lawyer seeks to present to a jury; credible speaks of the believability of what Atticus places before the jury in an attempt to persuade the jury that the prosecutor has failed to sustain his burden of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”.  Credibility, rather than significance, lies at the crux of the task of Atticus or any other defense lawyer.  What matters here is what a defense lawyer seeks to persuade the jury to believe or disbelieve.  Another problem remains:  The sentence in question still does not quite ring true, so I may yet return and work on it a bit more; it misses the point of the nature of Atticus’s task and function.  The chore or duty of a defendant or a defense lawyer is not to prove the innocence of the defendant but rather to disprove guilt; that is, the task is to seek to persuade a jury that the prosecutor has failed to sustain the burden of proof of guilt by the required measure (in a criminal case, “beyond reasonable doubt”).


 * “Jem’s faith in justice becomes badly shaken”: Previously the text said that his faith in justice “is” badly shaken.  “Is shaken” expresses that thought in the passive voice, using the linking verb “is” plus the past participle “shaken”.  As I explained at length above in connection with an earlier edit, a strong majority of style books, grammar books, and composition handbooks advise against the use of the passive voice, and a strong majority of professional writers and editors follow that advice.  The generally accepted principle is that we should use the active voice rather than the passive voice unless there is a good and persuasive reason to use the passive voice instead.  For that reason I changed from the passive voice to the active voice.


 * “Atticus expresses deep regret”: No, the verdict of “guilty” does not shake Atticus’s faith in justice.  Many preceding passages in the novel make it obvious that Atticus fully expects that verdict, and that he accepts and understands how the segregated society works in Alabama in 1935, although he does not approve it or agree with it.  Atticus already felt displeasure with the injustice in this case, so his faith does not suddenly become shaken.  In chapter 22, when Atticus comforts and encourages Jem at home, the father further makes clear that he quietly accepts the fact of the way things are, despite his efforts to the contrary, and that he has not lost his faith.  For that reason I wrote instead, “Atticus expresses deep regret”.  Dancer has challenged me to “present a source for this change”.  Well, the source, undeniably a reliable and unimpeachable source, is the novel itself.  In chapter 23 Atticus chats with Jem at length about the trial and the surrounding circumstances, sharing his wisdom and experience with his son.  That conversation reaches its peak with these words:


 * “If you had been on that jury, son, and eleven other boys like you, Tom would be a free man,” said Atticus. “So far nothing in your life has interfered with your reasoning process.  Those are twelve reasonable men in everyday life, Tom’s jury, but you saw something come between them and reason.  You saw the same thing that night in front of the jail.  When that crew went away, they didn’t go as reasonable men; they went because we were there.  There’s something in our world that makes men lose their heads – they couldn’t be fair if they tried.  In our courts, when it’s a white man’s word against a black man’s, the white man always wins.  They’re ugly, but those are the facts of life.”


 * “Doesn’t make it right,” said Jem stolidly. He beat his fist softly on his knee.  “You just can’t convict a man on evidence like that – you can’t.”


 * “You couldn’t, but they could and did. The older you grow, the more of it you’ll see.  The one place where a man ought to get a square deal is in a courtroom, be he any color of the rainbow, but people have a way of carrying their resentments right into a jury box.  As you grow older, you’ll see white men cheat black men every day of your life, but let me tell you something and don’t you forget it – whenever a white man does that to a black man, no matter who he is, how rich he is, or how fine a family he comes from, that white man is trash.”


 * Atticus was speaking so quietly his last word crashed on our ears. I looked up, and his face was vehement.  “There’s nothing more sickening to me than a low-grade white man who’ll take advantage of a Negro’s ignorance.  Don’t fool yourselves – it’s all adding up and one of these days we’re going to pay the bill for it.  I hope it’s not in you children’s time.”


 * With all that in mind I wrote, “Atticus expresses deep regret”.


 * “The hapless Tom”: The correct article here is the definite one (the) rather than an indefinite one (a); Tom is “the” Tom Robinson, not “a” Tom.  Yes, I know, many careless speakers use an indefinite article, but that’s not only wrong and imprecise but also hackneyed.


 * “Tom is shot to death”: Previously the text said that he is “shot and killed”.  That compound-verb phrase implies a sequence consisting of two steps – first a shooting and then a killing.  A more precise statement is that Tom is “shot to death”, because the shooting results in his instantaneous death during a single event.  By the way, this is one of those relatively few situations where the passive voice is acceptable and appropriate because the shooting took place by an unknown number of anonymous guards who excessively put 17 rounds into Tom’s body.


 * “Despite the conviction of Tom”: Previously the text said, “Despite winning the case, Bob Ewell’s reputation …”.  That incorrect expression reveals a basic misunderstanding of the nature of criminal procedure.  Bob does not win the case, and the case is not Bob’s case at all.  Bob is not the plaintiff or prosecutor; Bob is instead merely a witness on behalf of the prosecution.   The State of Alabama wins the case by getting a conviction.  Again:  Bob does not win the case.  Therefore I changed the wording to “despite the conviction of Tom”.


 * “Bob Ewell is humiliated by the events of the trial”: Previously the text said, “Bob Ewell’s reputation is further ruined”.  Bob's reputation was already very bad, so it does not become any worse; however, the text of the novel makes clear that he feels humiliated by the public exposure of both his own perjury and Mayella's while they gave their testimony.  By the way, that sentence needlessly and unjustifiably uses the passive voice, and I mistakenly left it that way, so I may return later and recast it into the active voice.


 * “Atticus’s face”: Previously the text used the possessive form of Atticus as “Atticus’”, with an apostrophe but without a terminal s.  According to an article in the Wikipedia itself, “Many respected authorities recommend that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound [mainly s or z], have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation”.  Examples of those authorities include Strunk and White (in their famous rule 1), The Chicago Manual of Style, and the MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing.  In conformance to that guidance I changed “Atticus’” to “Atticus’s”.  Dancer accuses me of having made that change merely to satisfy my own personal preference, but I acted in compliance with the advice from the giants among the established authorities.


 * “He spits in Atticus’s face”: Previously the text specified “on the street”.  However, “on the street” does not serve a useful purpose, but, as a misplaced modifier, it does create a humorous near-ambiguity.  [Was his face on a street?]  If that prepositional phrase were helpful or needful, a better place for it would be at the start of the sentence, thus: “On a street he spits in Atticus’s face”.  By the way, the correct article here is an indefinite one, a, rather than the definite one, the, because Maycomb has more than one street.


 * “[Bob] tries to break into the judge’s house”: Previously the text referred to the “presiding” judge, but that adjectival present participle not only does not serve a useful purpose but further is inaccurate in this context.  Judge Taylor is the only judge mentioned anywhere in the entire novel, so that word is superfluous; that is, there’s no need to distinguish him from any other judge.  Further, since the judge does not do any presiding during the attempted or incomplete break-in, it’s imprecise and inappropriate to refer to him here as the “presiding” judge.


 * A serial comma is needed after the second element in the compound predicate of that same sentence, so I supplied the missing comma. [“He spits …, tries …, and menaces ….”]


 * “While they walk home on a dark night after the school Halloween pageant”: Previously the text used the adverbial conjunction as rather than while and the preposition from rather than after.  In the time sense as and while convey almost the same meaning but not quite exactly.  As implies a shorter action, even a momentary or instantaneous one or nearly so, but while implies a longer action.  Because of that difference, to increase the precision, I substituted while for as.  Further, the preposition from indicates only a spatial or directional factor away from the school building, whereas the preposition after indicates the important time dimension of the crucial scene on the vacant lot after the pageant – not just from the building but after the pageant and after the other people had already left the premises.  By the way, the pageant, along with the other activities on Halloween at the high school, was not a school event but rather a community event, which happened to take place at the school building, so I may return later and remove the word school from the sentence in question here.


 * “Amid the confusion someone rescues the children”: Previously the text contained a comma after the prepositional phrase “amid the confusion”, and it said that someone “comes to the children’s rescue”.  First, that comma is superfluous, for it serves no useful purpose and meets no requirement, because the preceding three words constitute an adverbial prepositional phrase; so I removed it.  Second, “comes to the … rescue” is unnecessarily wordy, and it indicates only that someone comes without stating whether anyone succeeds in rescuing, whereas “rescues the children” states directly and unequivocally that someone indeed rescues them.


 * “Jem’s left arm”: Previously the text spoke of “Jem’s arm”, which, strictly and literally speaking, implies that Jem has only one arm, which proposition, of course, is false and absurd; on the other hand, “Jem’s left arm” cures that absurdity, and it adds a desirable measure of precision and specificity about the particular arm with the fracture.  Yes, of course, again, I know, “everybody” says it the other way “all the time”; however, again, an article at the Wikipedia is not a casual, everyday, informal, ordinary conversation, using vernacular or colloquial language patterns.  Quite to the contrary, an article at the Wikipedia should use precise, carefully chosen words put together correctly and polished to a high degree of professionalism.


 * “Sheriff Tate”: Previously the text spoke of “Maycomb’s sheriff”.  Heck Tate is the sheriff of Maycomb County, not of the town of Maycomb.  Further, “Maycomb’s sheriff” is not an idiomatic expression in normal usage, whereas “Sheriff Tate” is.


 * “Sheriff Tate arrives, checks the scene, and finds …”: Previously the text said that the sheriff “arrives and discovers …”.  Where does the sheriff arrive?  At the Finch house or at the vacant lot?  Both places in order.  In the interest of precision, to plug a small hole in the description, I added a second element (“checks the scene”) to the compound predicate.  To raise the readability and lower the fog index a tiny bit, I also substituted a one-syllable Anglo-Saxon verb (finds) for a three-syllable Latin verb (discovers).


 * “Bob Ewell has died”: Previously the text used the passive voice, saying that Bob “has been killed”.  As I explained at length above in connection with an earlier edit, a strong majority of style books, grammar books, and composition handbooks advise against the use of the passive voice, and a strong majority of professional writers and editors follow that advice.  The generally accepted principle is that we should use the active voice rather than the passive voice unless there is a good and persuasive reason to use the passive voice instead.  For that reason I changed from the passive voice to the active voice.


 * “Bob Ewell has died during the fight”: Previously the text used the words “in the struggle”.  During conveys a stronger sense of a range or period of time within which an event occurs, whereas in connotes a specific time (such as in June, in daytime, or in 2008).  For example, Theodore Bernstein, described above in a discussion of another point, says, in Miss Thistlebottom’s Hobgoblins, “During is not only proper but indeed preferable to in when used in such a sentence”.  Further, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Synonyms, the noun fight is stronger than struggle; the former in this context emphasizes the notion of hand-to-hand combat rather than mere striving.  The struggle in the dark developed into a fight – a fight resulting in a death.  For those two reasons I changed “in the struggle” to “during the fight”.


 * “The prudence and ethics of charging Jem … or Boo”: Previously the text spoke of “holding” either Jem or Boo.  Atticus and the sheriff argue about charging, not merely “holding”, one of them.  Chapter 30 of the novel makes that clear.


 * “Jem (whom Atticus believes to be responsible) or Boo (whom Tate believes to be responsible)”: Previously the text described the two characters as “Jem (who Atticus believes to be responsible) or Boo (who is implied to have killed Mr. Ewell)”.  First, the correct form of the relative personal pronouns is “whom”, not “who”, because they are direct objects of verbs, so they must appear in the objective case rather than the nominative case.  That, by the way, is not only high-school grammar but also grade-school grammar.  Second, a previous participant cast the two parenthetical expressions into nonparallel structures.  The former expression, describing Jem, used the active voice plus the infinitive form of a linking verb with an adjective, whereas the latter one, describing Boo, used the passive voice and the infinitive form of a present-perfect verbal phrase.  Those two dissimilar constructions created a nonparallelism.  To cure that problem I describe Jem as the one “whom Atticus believes to be responsible”, and Boo as the one “whom Tate believes to be responsible”.


 * “Atticus eventually accepts the sheriff’s interpretation”: Previously the text spoke of the sheriff’s “story”.  According to Web11, the noun story in that context has the possible connotation of a fib, lie, or falsehood, whereas interpretation does not.  To avoid that possible connotation I changed “story” to “interpretation”.


 * “So she does”: Previously the text recited merely, “Boo asks Scout to walk him home”, thereby leaving an unplugged hole before the next thought, “and after she says goodbye to him at his front door, he disappears again”.  I filled that small but distinct hole by adding the concluding dependent clause “so she does”.  Besides, if I had not added that thought, the previous wording would have needed a comma between “and” and “after” to complete setting off the trailing dependent clause “after she says goodbye to him at his front door”.


 * “She regrets that they’ve never repaid him”: Previously the text said, “… they never repaid him”, using the simple past tense.  However, their not repaying him did not cease at some time in the past; instead their not repaying him has continued until the moment when Scout stands on the Radley porch and conceives that notion.  Therefore that continuance of the failure to repay calls for the past-perfect tense rather than the simple past tense.  While changing “never repaid” to “have never repaid”, I found it wise to repeat the subject of the verb “regrets” to avoid a stumbling block.  Previously the text also said, more fully, “Scout imagines life from Boo’s perspective and regrets that they never repaid him”.  The words “from Boo’s perspective and regrets” create a near-ambiguity.  Further, Scout’s imagining and her regretting are different enough from each other to call for two independent clauses rather than just a two-part compound-verb phrase.  To fix those problems I inserted a comma and the personal pronoun “she”, thus:  “Scout imagines life from Boo’s perspective, and she regrets that they’ve never repaid him for the gifts he had given them”.  That final sentence still contains a redundancy (“the gifts he had given”), so I may yet return and recast that slightly.

Gandydancer has repeatedly lambasted me for what she labels as acting on my personal preferences rather than relying on sound principles of grammar and composition.

On the other hand, however, I’ve now carefully and thoroughly explained the generally accepted principles on which I’ve based my work.

It’s important to recognize that Dancer’s main gripe, according to her own words, expressed to me and to others, in part while she has tried to enlist help, support, and agreement for what she calls “her side”, is not that my changes have been incorrect, but rather that I’ve dared to change Moni’s work – without regard to whether the article previously contained errors and other problems and therefore needed improvement.

Further, three other users (while discussing this general subject on other talk pages) have made several gratuitous unkind remarks about me and about college professors in general.

Dancer and those others have not shown me the grace (the Wikigrace?) of assuming good faith on my part or of considering the possibility that I just might really have the credentials and the real-world practical expertise and experience to enable me to do at a professional level what I’ve done here.

Dancer’s comments throughout contain a distinct tone of fussing, griping, grumbling, bickering, protesting, agitating, and finger-wagging.

Behavior like that is not good; more particularly, it’s not good for use during an open-minded discussion of competing ideas at the Wikipedia or anywhere else.

May we please keep this on an unemotional level without unkind personal implications?

If anyone wishes to discuss any of my explanations, please feel free to do so; I’ll gladly take part in a cordial, congenial, respectful, businesslike conversation.

In contrast with that, if anyone else wishes to make smart-mouthed, sarcastic, or otherwise ugly remarks, including juvenile comments or personal insults, please dump your trash elsewhere. [Unfortunately there seems to be a high rate of incidence of such antisocial behavior on the talk pages of the Wikipedia.]

In any event, as always, best wishes to all,

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Doc seems to miss the irony of calling my remarks immature carping, fussing, griping, grumbling, bickering, protesting, agitating, and finger-wagging and yet then ask, "May we please keep this on an unemotional level without unkind personal implications?"


 * I have been very short on time for Wikipedia lately and will need a few days to reply. For now I will, however, reply to the most egregious error that Doc has made where he seems to have missed the very essence of the plot of "To Kill a Mockingbird". I pointed this out earlier, but Doc has ignored it.  He explains his position here:


 * “Atticus eventually accepts the sheriff’s interpretation”: Previously the text spoke of the sheriff’s “story”.  According to Web11, the noun story in that context has the possible connotation of a fib, lie, or falsehood, whereas interpretation does not.  To avoid that possible connotation I changed “story” to “interpretation”.


 * Most of Doc's changes are changes to his preferred text but they don't change the overall message, but this one is different. A reading of chapter 30  in which the killing of a mockingbird is mentioned the second and only other time in the novel (the first being early into the story  when Atticus tells the children to never kill a mockingbird), clearly shows that sheriff Tate has made up a story to explain the killing, to avoid "killing a mockingbird".


 * This is all I have time for now, but I will get back to this as time permits.


 * BTW Doc, you stated that I have made a fairly large number of spelling errors as well. I'd really appreciate it if you could point them out to me so as that I can improve my writing. Gandydancer (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dancer:


 * When I commented on the tone of your postings and the nature of your words, I strictly limited my characterizations to your public verbal behavior – your behavior alone; at no time have I said anything about you as a person. Again: I've described your behavior but not you as a person.


 * Besides, when I urged all to “keep this on an unemotional level without unkind personal implications”, I had in mind not so much you as an unknown number of bystanders (other users who watch this talk page or happen to see it), because I'm acutely aware of the problem of unrestrained or undisciplined people at the Wikipedia who often make inappropriate and unproductive postings, including personal attacks, juvenile remarks, and other antisocial behavior.


 * In my next sentence I invited anyone to take part in a serious discussion of the subject matter at hand, then in the following paragraph I urged the vandals or bad actors to take their ugly conduct elsewhere.


 * No, Dancer, I've not missed the point about refraining from killing a mockingbird. I understood that point well in 1971, when I first read the book and watched the flick, and I still understand it well.


 * However, the choice between the words story and interpretation does not change, confirm, or deny anything about killing or not killing a mockingbird, either literally or metaphorically. If you truly believe otherwise, please describe your logic and explain it.


 * Aside from a connection or a lack of one between the word choice and the central notion about mockingbirds, it's entirely possible that story is better than interpretation; maybe I'm wrong about that. If so, as you believe, please present a logical argument in support of story, one rebutting my defense (above) of interpretation.  [Still, though, even if I'm wrong about that, I suggest that that error, if it's an error at all, is not as flagrant or conspicuous as you implied when you described it as “egregious”.]


 * You still persist in referring to my “preferred text”, so I remind you that my preferences, as I explained at length (above), are not my personal preferences but rather professional preferences for complying with and conforming to the historically and generally accepted principles of grammar, composition, and communication.


 * Sometime soon, as you asked, I'll send you a list of several misspelled words; to reduce your exposure to possible embarrassment, I'll place it on your own talk page rather than this one.


 * Dancer, I feel no need or wish to regard you as an enemy or an adverse party or to regard this matter as a personal war or contest. You opened this series of exchanges by raising a number of complaints and objections about some of my work, and I've responded to them.  I've tried hard to keep our disagreement on an objective and unemotional plane (even when I commented on your verbal behavior), and I've expressed myself to you and about you in a respectful, businesslike, and gentlemanly way.


 * Although we may continue to disagree with each other on some points, let's disagree, if we must, without behaving in a disagreeable way.


 * As always, smiles and best wishes,


 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

Climax
The article states that Sheriff Tate and Atticus disagree as to who is responsible for Bob Ewell's death : “Jem (whom Atticus believes to be responsible) or Boo (whom Tate believes to be responsible)” and that "Atticus eventually accepts the sheriff's story that Ewell simply fell on his own knife".

That summary of the climax seems ambivalent to me as it could be interpreted as meaning that Atticus and Sheriff Tate have a good-faith disagreement on the issue. In fact, the point of the author is that Atticus does indeed at first mistakenly believe Jem is responsible, but only until Sheriff Tate reveals (or at least intimates) that it is actually Boo who heroically came to the defense of Scout and Jem. At that point, Atticus understands full well that it was indeed Boo who killed Bob Ewell, but agrees -- somewhat against his nature as a truth-seeking attorney -- to sustain the "pious fraud" suggested by the Sherriff, i.e., that Bob Ewell fell on his own knife, since to do otherwise (i.e., tell the truth) would be to "kill a mockingbird", i.e., cause additional suffering to Boo Radley, who has already been abused in the past and is content to live out his life as a recluse.

Can someone try to rewrite the summary of the climax to make this clear?

Partnerfrance (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * PF:
 * Please feel free to compose such an alternative description.
 * Why not do it yourself?
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC).

Harper Lee Sues Agent Over ‘Mockingbird’ Royalties
Harper Lee Sues Agent Over ‘Mockingbird’ Royalties Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Capote's letter & more proof that Lee wrote her own darn book.
I have not read Don Noble's book nor seen the original letter, so I don't know if the following item is correct (it could even be that several letters Capote wrote in 1959 were donated in 2006). The item is a brief conversation on NPR (National Public Radio) between Melissa Block and Dr. Wayne Flynt where he says that the letter was written to the man's aunt while the WP article says it was to a neighbor. A small difference, if this is indeed the same letter, but I think it adds color - to whom he would have the most honest? Capote records reading the manuscript and calling Lee a great talent.

In addition to the letter, Flynt goes on to identify the possible origin of the Capote-writing myth as a misled Pearl Belle, discusses the difference in writing style of Lee and Capote, and points out how Capote's ego and burning desire to win a Pulitzer Prize would not have allowed him to stay silent if he had contributed to the book.

"Letter Puts End to Persistent 'Mockingbird' Rumor" - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5244492. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

History of the writing
The Wikipedia article is rather lacking on the history of how the book was written. It could really stand to include a bit of the info found at http://time.com/3947242/life-intro-go-set-a-watchman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.52.185 (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just read a review of Harper Lee's "sequel", Go Set a Watchman, set 20 years later. Atticus Finch has turned racist. It turns out that this was the original version of To Kill a Mockingbird. Lee's editor suggested that she tell the story of Scout as a child, and Lee rewrote the book. Lee's motivation is not clear, but there's sure to be a major flapdoodle. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2015
This sentence, alluding to an incident described in Chapter 12 (Lee, p 127), is inaccurate: "When Atticus is out of town, Jem locks a Sunday school classmate in the church basement with the furnace during a game of Shadrach."

First, Lee writes, "Calpurnia evidently remembered a rainy Sunday when we were both fatherless and teacherless. Left to its own devices, the class tied Eunice Ann Simpson to a chair and placed her in the furnace room.  We forgot about her, . . ." Jem (alone) did not "lock" her in the basement. Further, when Eunice Ann said "she didn't want to play Shadrach any more" she meant she didn't want to continue playing the role of Shadrach in a re-enactment of the biblical story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace (Daniel, chapter 3). "Shadrach" is not the name of a game.

Therefore, please change the sentence to something like this: "During an unsupervised Sunday school class, the children recreate a biblical story and leave a classmate tied up in the church furnace room."

LSeetoo (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Refused. As it is not within the Plot section, and its use in the article is to make a point, not describe in detail what happened, I would prefer to leave it as it is. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 08:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2015
I would like to add an accurate few words to this article

Parker015 (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 18:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

mistake in article regarding architectural descriptions
Please delete the phrase "to describe the architecture of Maycomb's courthouse and".

This appears to be a mistake. In Chapter 16 Lee writes that "the Maycomb County courthouse was early Victorian [...] when seen from the north. From the other side, however, Greek revival columns clashed with a big nineteenth-century clock tower [...]".

In the middle of Chapter 15 Lee does describe the Maycomb jail as "a miniature Gothic joke" but this hardly seems to bolster an argument for which genre the book belongs to. 173.228.58.41 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with deleting this phrase. Clearly Harper Lee called the courthouse Gothic as you pointed out. --Moni3 (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There doesn't seem to be consensus for this change. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Moni3, clearly Harper Lee did not call the courthouse Gothic, as pointed out above. Did you misread the request? 173.228.58.49 (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as above Mdann52 (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So this error is going to remain because nobody else but me can be bothered to look at the book, even after I've specifically pointed it out and included the direct quotations? (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please keep in mind that we're all volunteers here, and there's no particular rush. I don't have a copy of the book handy but am happy to take a look when I do. Just to be clear: are you drawing a distinction between the jail and the courthouse? Are they separate buildings? (It's been years since I picked up the book, and I'm afraid that images from the film have overridden anything of what I might remember from the text.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the jail and the courthouse are separate buildings. The jail is described as "a miniature Gothic joke" but the term is not used in connection with the courthouse. (I suppose you'll need a searchable copy of the book to verify that. I did.) (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:2E00:BAAC:6FFF:FE94:B4B (talk)

If I can add a word - none of us should write anything into an article that we don't believe is vital, and true. If an informed editor feels the reference to the Gothic Courthouse or whatever is both innaccurate and uneccessary, I think it should be removed until proven correct, not put on the back burner until proven wrong. The article is too long, and has far better fish to fry than the architectural classification of buildings in the novel...Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC) cheers

The argument above is sound. Consider: if the novel describing a building as “Gothic” makes the novel Gothic, then doesn't describing the novel as “Gothic” make the Wikipedia article Gothic? 2620:0:1000:1601:F074:18B4:D6E4:248B (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016
As you will note in many of the modern biographies of Nelle Harper Lee, Harper uses the principles of one of her favorite childhood authors, Robert F. Schulkers, and the Seckatary Hawkins children’s adventure series to illustrate her moral lesson. I am the grandson of the author, Robert F. Schulkers, but new to Wiki, so am not sure the proper protocol of adding information that is important to Harper Lee’s motivation in writing her novel To Kill a Mockingbird. Many teachers use grandpa's books in concerted study of Harper Lee. The justification or proof is printed as quotes on the final two pages of To Kill A Mockingbird, the following are quotes of Seckatary Hawkins books - Stoners Boy and The Gray Ghost: Atticus was reading “The Gray Ghost" by Seckatary Hawkins – Scout replied: “Heard every word you said,” I muttered”…wasn’t asleep at all, ‘s about a ship an’ Three Fingered Fred’n’ Stoner’s Boy…”. Later Scout ends with:  “An’ they chased him ‘n’ never could catch him ‘cause they didn’t know what he looked like, an’ Atticus, when they finally saw him, why he hadn’t done any of those things…Atticus, he was real nice…”—And Atticus replied, “Most people are, Scout, when you finally see them.” Seckatary Hawkins adventure stories were first published in 1918 newspapers in a weekly series fashion—and 3 years later some episodes began to be released as hard cover books.  National NBC radio serial Seckatary story shows increased participation with Fair & Square club chapters all over the USA with several million members signed up by 1932.  Harper Lee is a club member of long- standing. The club is still active today. The official website is www.seckatary.com A well done article was recently published by the Wall Street Journal. See it here: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/07/21/harper-lee-seckatary-hawkins/ SOME OTHER FACTS FYI: The Behringer/Crawford Museum in Covington, KY, displays much of the original artifacts and history of the author and the stories. The Ohio State University, Billy Ireland Comics Museum, exhibits the full assortment of the original comic strips of Seckatary Hawkins. Any further information may be requested from the author’s grandson, Randy Schulkers at Seckataryhawkins@aol.com. Thanks for any help you may give.

Seckatary (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   05:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Archiving is not automatic
Would some kind user please work out why this Talk page is not archiving automatically and correct it to function as edited at the top of the page. Thanks in anticipation. — Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh &#124; Buzzard &#124; 08:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have done some cleanup, particularly removing the code that told the bot to create user talk archives of this page, but it may take a few days for the bot to become active. Huon (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That was quick! Thank ! Hope you have a good week. — Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh &#124; Buzzard &#124; 12:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Middle Aged"
The plot summary claims "It focuses on six-year-old Jean Louise Finch (Scout), who lives with her older brother, Jem, and their widowed father, Atticus, a middle-aged lawyer". According to the book, Atticus is well over 50 years old, typically not considered middle aged. Should this be removed? Coin Collecting John (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * According to Web11, the 11th edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, which is generally regarded as the accepted standard in publishing in the USA, "middle age" is "the period of life from about 45 to about 64".


 * Yes, Atticus is middle-aged.


 * Web11 also says that the adjective middle-aged requires a hyphen.


 * As always, best wishes to all,
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC).

Truman Capote
I removed the section with the totally and completely debunked theory that Truman Capote wrote To Kill a Mockingbird. User:Kevinalewis reverted the change with the note "but relates to the history of the novel's treatment - even if itself untrue)" There is nothing in the article about any negative or positive treatment of the book due to the nonsense that it was written by Capote, this makes that comment WP:SYNTH though I don't doubt it could be in some source somewhere. Also, the first section of the reviews says "Despite her editors' warnings that the book might not sell well, it quickly became a sensation, bringing acclaim to Lee in literary circles, in her hometown of Monroeville, and throughout Alabama.[81] The book went through numerous subsequent printings and became widely available through its inclusion in the Book of the Month Club and editions released by Reader's Digest Condensed Books".  Also she won a "Pulitzer Prize for the book in 1961".  Obviously the Pulitzer people would have also looked into the books authorship and if there was any concern about plagiarism or a ghost writer, they would not have awarded the prize. This section is garbage and has undue weight. It should be removed as it perpetuates a nonsensical wish that someone other than an unknown woman wrote the book. No one credible believes it is true and it was never really a conspiracy theory until the book was already popular. At the very least give it due weight from the multitude of scholars who say the Capote theory is hogwash. Lipsquid (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I fully support the argument present above and, in order to provoke others to come to this discussion, shall undo rhe revision. — Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh &#124; Buzzard &#124;  15:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I would be fine with just an abundance of sources that refute the conspiracy. Lipsquid (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I strongly support keeping the info in the article. For example when I google it the first thing that comes up is:
 * Mar 3, 2006 - In the decades since Harper Lee published TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD in 1960, her novel has been shadowed by a persistent rumor. The speculation has been that Lee's long time friend Truman Capote either wrote or heavily edited the book, which would go on to be a bestseller and win the Pulitzer Prize. (from NPR). Whether or not it is true or false has nothing to do with keeping or not keeping it in the article.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I only suggested to make sure the fact that the theory is false has more weight as that is what the majority of reliable sources believe. The paragraph should start off by saying most sources think the theory is false including denials by Truman Capote, Harper Lee and her editor. Then say but persistent rumors exist of yada yada yada....  That seems more fair weighted. Lipsquid (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016
The genre is not a novel, a novel is a type of text. The genre is a Southern Gothic and a Bildungsroman

89.243.231.155 (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: - whilst I agree that novel is a form of literary work, rather than a genre, you will need to cite relaible sources defining the novel as Southern Gothic and/or Bildungsroman before these can be added - Arjayay (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I made the change, from my limited searching, as well as within this very same article, the genre is well sourced as a SG/BR novel. "Scholars have characterized To Kill a Mockingbird as both a Southern Gothic and coming-of-age or Bildungsroman novel."Sir Joseph (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The term "genre" is not very precise and usually is defined (as by Merriam-Webster) simply as "a particular type or category of literature or art." Thus, it's completely accurate to say that "novel" is a genre, in opposition to other genres: the short story, the play, etc. Wikipedia identifies the novel as genre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel), as does published scholarship (e.g. Maurice Z. Shroder, The Novel as a Genre, The Massachusetts Review Vol. 4, No. 2 (Winter, 1963), pp. 291-308 Jk180 (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)