Sunday, September 30, 2012
Question: Why do you think Atticus never let on that he was an expert marksman?
Atticus never told his children that he is an expert marksmen, because raising civilized, peace-minded children while he engages in activities potentially so brutal, is hypocritical. When Atticus says that he "hasn't shot a gun in thirty years" (127), he is trying to avoid shooting even though he knows he is capable, so that his children won't discover his potentially hypocritical ability. However, when Scout and Jem witness Atticus shooting and killing a mad dog with one bullet, they are surprised because Scout and Jem have always viewed their father as a pacifist.
Setting a good example for his children has always been a priority for Atticus, and he has taught them to be open-minded. After hearing talk about the case Atticus has taken, Scout asks why he would take a case like this. He answers her question by saying, "'...if I didn't I couldn't hold up my head in town, I couldn't represent this country in the legislature, I couldn't even tell you or Jem not to do something again."'(100) By taking on a case with a black defendant, despite possible ridicule for doing so, Atticus is teaching by example. Likewise, Atticus wouldn't set a very good example if he killed every animal he saw and still told Scout and Jem the importance of staying calm or being passive. Being a gentle man and trying to raise gentle children, and teaching those children to stand up for what is right, even when facing possible ridicule, are of the utmost importance to Atticus.
How will the knowledge of Atticus's skill change his children's views of their father? Do you think it was necessary for Atticus to hide his talents? Will Atticus's firing of the gun give Scout the idea that she can get away with fighting?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do not think that it was necessary for Atticus to hide his talents. He could have built a stronger, more father-like relationship with his children if he had only shown them how to shoot the air rifles, and told them the rules for using them. I believe that that would be very beneficial to the family if Atticus did little things like that and took on the role of a more fatherly individual. That is really something every child needs. It must be hard enough on the children to have no motherly figure to look up to in their lives other than Calpurnia, who they don't seem particularly fond of.
ReplyDeleteDo you think Atticus has become more or less of a fatherly figure through out the story?
Personally, I think it was very necessary for Atticus to hide his skill, and not share it with his children. I don’t believe that he needs to be skilled at shooting things to connect with Jem and Scout, and I don’t believe that it would have made him more of a father figure. He knew they would have treated him differently, and whether it was in a positive way or a negative way, it was clear that he didn’t want them to. When Atticus was telling Mr. Tate that he hasn’t “shot a gun in thirty years,” (127) it was evident that it wasn’t really fear stopping him from shooting Tim Johnson. Atticus new that his children were watching him, and once he as much walked towards the dog with a gun in his hand, his relationship with his children would be different. While telling Scout not to fight with other students at her school, because it would make her more grown up, killing, or fighting, with a dog would be clearly contradictory to his statement, and Scout would believe it was okay to remain violent. When he had children, Atticus wanted them to value not the gun-shooting side of him, but the one that solves problems with words, and is more of a role model. I do not think that Atticus has become more or less of a fatherly figure towards Jem and Scout. He has remained the same, although it clear that he teaches his children more and more everyday.
DeleteHow do you think Jem is going to treat Atticus from now on to the end of the story?
I think it was necessary for Atticus to hide his talents. The children always viewed Atticus as a peacemaker, rather than a fighter. Children aspire to be like their parents, as they have no other role models yet. Atticus would much rather his children be pacifists rather than fighters.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this changes anything of the children's views. Jem most likely understands why his father hid his talents, but Scout not so much. What Scout understands is that her father was a good shot, and that maybe she is too. No rules have changed, nothing has changed except she might think she's a better shot than she is.
Atticus is more characterized, but his fatherly figureness, pardon my phrase, has not changed. We learn more about him, but that doesn't change who he is. He is always trying to get Scout and Jem to use words rather than fists to settle fights.
There is still one question on my mind: What type of person do you think Atticus was when he was younger?
In reply to you question Jeffery, I'm guessing that when Atticus was younger, he probably was very naive. I'm imagining him as a very wild kid much like Jem is now. When I look back at myself a few years ago it is the opposite of what I am now, which is what I think also happened to Atticus. Atticus probably had a event that really made him reflect on his life when he was younger, which made him into a very responsible person like he is now.
DeleteDo you think there was a life turning event for Atticus?
If so, what was it?