Comment on Steven Lubet, Reconstructing Atticus Finch.

• Date: 01 May 1999
• Author: Atkinson, Rob

Professor Lubet has joined a growing list of revisionists who question Atticus's standing as the paragon of lawyerly virtue.(1) But Professor Lubet takes revisionism in a distinctly postmodern direction, if not to a radically new level. Atticus's previous critics have wondered how he could have overlooked, perhaps even condoned, the pervasive racism, sexism, and classism of the Depression-era South. They have even occasionally censured his paternalism toward his pro bono client, the working-class black rape defendant Tom Robinson. But they have never questioned either Tom's claim of innocence or the propriety of Atticus's advocacy of that claim. Professor Lubet questions both.

Early on, he asks, "What if Mayella Ewell [the accusing witness] was telling the truth? What if she really was raped (or nearly raped) by Tom Robinson? What do we think then of Atticus Finch?"(2) Professor Lubet suggests we may -- indeed, should -- interpret the story so that Mayella and her father are not so evil, nor Tom so pure, nor Atticus so wise as they appear to be -- as, indeed, both Scout, the narrator, and Lee, the author, would have us believe they are. He cites textual evidence in support of this admittedly novel reading,(3) but I can return no better than a Scots' verdict: not proved. Unreliable narrators and inconsistent perspectives are, of course, standard features of sophisticated fiction and film. But Lee gives...