Added: July 26, 2014 – Last updated: May 16, 2015


Author: Rob Atkinson

Title: Comment on Steven Lubet, Reconstructing Atticus Finch

Subtitle: -

Journal: Michigan Law Review

Volume: 97

Issue: 6

Year: May 1999

Pages: 1370-1372

ISSN: 0026-2234 – Find a Library: WordCat

Language: English

Keywords: 20th Century | U.S. History | Representations: Literature / Harper Lee


Link: EBSCOhost (Restricted Access)

Link: HeinOnline (Restricted Access)

Link: JSTOR (Restricted Access)

Link: ProQuest (Restricted Access)


Abstract: »A response to Reconstructing Atticus Finch, by Steven Lubet, is presented. To Kill a Mockingbird, Pulitzer Prize and Academy Awards notwithstanding, is no Rashomon. Contrary to Lubet's suggestion, there are not 3 accounts (Scout's, Tom's and Mayella's), each plausibly vying for the reader's credence. There are only 2, Tom's truth and Mayella's lie, each revealed for precisely what it is by a virtually omniscient, firm but fair father through the eyes of an innocent child, all in open court.« (Source: ProQuest)

Note: Lubet, Steven. »Reconstructing Atticus Finch.« Michigan Law Review 97 (1999): 1339-1362.

Wikipedia: Harper Lee: Atticus Finch, To Kill a Mockingbird