Theme in To Kill a Mockingbird

Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird is a timeless classic that has been regarded as a staple of American literature since its first publication in 1960. Discussing hard-hitting topics such as bigotry, good and evil, social inequality, and the law with a warm and occasionally humorous tone, it has accomplished reform in the legal community and propelled the civil rights movement, even in the tumultuous time that it was released in. Today, these themes are what make the work of literature an integral piece of English education in the United States. One of the bigger themes it deals with is prejudice, and perhaps more importantly, understanding others despite differences. Lee incorporates dialogue and symbolism to demonstrate the significance of understanding others who may seem rather eccentric or unconventional.

On the surface, what is likely one of the simplest ways Lee expresses her directive is through the words of the characters she has created. The dialogue of characters such as Atticus Finch, an exceptionally talented and intellectual man, is compelling and also deemed credible by the reader, and are valuable assets for the author to use to deliver their messages to their audience. For example, early in the novel, Scout experiences a terrible first day at school and tries to blame others for the less-than-stellar experience she had. Atticus tells Scout that one can “‘never really understand a person until [they] consider things from his point of view… until [they] climb into his skin and walk around in it’” (Lee 30). While the sentence may have been directed towards Scout’s views on her teacher and classmates in the context, it is, in fact, one of the most important phrases presented in To Kill a Mockingbird, applying to many aspects of the story and its meaning. The concept of ‘walking in someone’s skin’, which indubitably is a metaphor for attempting to understand a person from their perspective, turns out to be a very powerful tool that proves to be a trait that separates who chooses right and wrong as the novel progresses. Beginning with the example of Tom Robinson and his predicament, the audience sees that the issue essentially boils down to the battle between two schools of thought: the true story of Tom Robinson, a black man with exceptional character; and the story of Mayella Ewell, a white girl who has little dignity and respect for others and whose tale is filled with many holes and inconsistencies. Even though the prosecution has little evidence to back up their very serious claims and to refute the powerful testimony of the defendant, the jury nevertheless votes to convict Tom Robinson on the charge. The citizens on the all-white jury were faced with a decision; to select the ‘truth’ that was easier to believe, which was the white woman being abused by a colored man, or rather to understand the black man’s view of things. The jury’s unwillingness to understand others made them incapable of seeing Tom as a human with a wife, children, and a solid set of morals but instead prompted their minds to approach the simpler conclusion by looking at him as a creature or monster which was different from them and would stop at nothing to commit evil. In addition to the horrible situation Tom Robinson finds himself in, there is a quieter struggle and injustice happening down the street from Scout’s own house. Arthur Radley, or more commonly referred derogatorily as Boo, is a recluse living in the confines of the Radley house down the street. Due to the great sense of community of Maycomb, this is exceptionally unusual and leads to many rumors about him and his place of residence. Some say it is haunted, and others make the assumption that Boo is a murderer or danger to society. Boo receives tremendous hate from his community and is blamed for many events completely out of his own control, such as a deranged man killing animals around Maycomb. Although this never has been a serious problem for him, Scout begins the novel in a mindset looking at the Radleys suspiciously. As the events of the story progress on and she sees the small acts of kindness conducted by Arthur, as well as the horror of the trial, she begins to empathize with Boo more and seem to see people as more similar to each herself and each other. This comes to a head when, during a discussion with Jem in which he has been trying to split the world into simple groups of people, Scout interjects and makes the rather bold statement that “‘there’s just one kind of folks. Folks”’ (Lee 277). This dialogue demonstrates Scout’s flexibility of mind in that she can understand nearly everyone to the point where she is able to see them all in the same way, as one collective group of individuals. This frame of mind is cemented after the traumatic ending events of the story on Halloween after Arthur saves the Finch children’s lives from the attacking Bob Ewell. The aftermath of this event, at the Finch house, marks Boo’s first time outside with others in an extremely long stretch of time. When Scout walks Arthur home, she stands on the front doorstep and looks out at the neighborhood, viewing the land she was raised on. In the most literal sense possible, Scout looks out at everything she has ever known from another perspective. Speaking directly to the reader, Scout reflects back on Atticus’s words at the beginning of the book, saying “Atticus was right. [He said] you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them. Just standing on the Radley porch was enough”, thus bringing the thematic journey of the tale full circle in the very final pages (Lee 279). The character change of Scout is clear at this point, and it is almost difficult that the same person who, two years before, was raving about how one boy was “trash” because of his poverty is now making deep connections about how people at the core are just the same. As the story is told from her point of view, the reader has also been taken on this emotional roller coaster which stretches the elasticity of the human mind to its limits, leaving them with many questions but also a fresh pair of eyes for seeing those who they may not always relate with.

Moving on from the definite world of dialogue, the amorphous realm of symbolism proves to contain a cache of cues for the theme of the narrative at hand. As much as the living characters in Maycomb might be used to convey Lee’s opinions, the clever use of the inanimate objects and pawns in the story may end up representing things exceedingly above the extent above their usual consequence. For instance, the usage of mockingbirds. Although the creatures are mentioned only twice in the story, their use merits them a spot in the title of the work, and for good reasons. The first time they are mentioned is after Atticus gives Scout and Jem their rifles and is telling them of proper conduct with them. He knows that the children will try to shoot birds, so he tells his children that they may “‘[s]hoot all the bluejays [they] want… but [to also] remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird’” (Lee 90). This quote is followed by a conversation with Miss Maudie in which she explains Atticus’s reasoning behind his words, which is that mockingbirds are gentle creatures who only bring good music to the world and should not be harmed. The mockingbird remains a symbol of innocence and goodness throughout the novel in the absence of its mention, and the harm of it would be ‘killing a mockingbird’. One character who can be easily identified as a ‘mockingbird’ is Tom Robinson. The man is a good person inside and out and has done nothing but kind and good things for the people who have the pleasure of knowing him. This is evidenced by the passionate words shared by his employer, Mr. Link Deas, at the trial, who interrupts the proceedings to shout out how Tom was one of his best workers who had never caused any trouble. In addition, Tom felt sorry for the horrible situation Mayella Ewell was in and the household she lived in, so he did hard manual labor for her free of charge. His willingness to do good because of what felt right and not what was beneficial to him in any way demonstrates his status as a mockingbird, as he does nothing but contribute positively to society. However, he pays the price for that weakness and finds himself in one of the most hopeless and heartbreaking situations a man could ever see themselves in. The concept of institutionalized racism took one of Earth’s gems and took it for its own, removing a carat from the beauty of humanity. The name of the publication describes exactly what is happening; a mockingbird is being killed. It is being strangled by the grimy hands of the greedy. Tom Robinson is not the only mockingbird. There is another character whose innocence and generosity provide for others but at the expense of their entire reputation. Boo Radley is always doing what he can do good for the community while maintaining his eerie and seemingly threatening distance from other people. From leaving gifts for the children to stitching up Jem’s pants after they are torn, the man is always doing good but his unconventional choice of lifestyle leaves him seen in a dark light by the rest of society. This initially includes Jem and Scout. As the tale progresses, though, and Arthur begins revealing his true colors, they begin to realize what really goes on in the mind of the man down the street. At the culmination of the story, after Scout has walked Arthur home, she is standing on his doorstep. In awe, Scout remarks that she “had never seen our neighborhood from this angle. There was Miss Maudie’s [house], Miss Stephanie’s—there was [The Finch’s] house, [she] could see the porch swing—Miss Rachel’s house was beyond [her], plainly visible. [Scout] could even see Mrs. Dubose’s” (Lee 279). Lee is not portraying the neighborhood in immaculate detail for no reason; she is using this construct to represent something much larger entirely. She continues on to recount the events of the story in snapshots, progressing from when the tale began two years prior to the terrifying events of the hour previously. Through all of this, she sees everything from the vantage point of the Radleys’ doorstep. The neighborhood is a clear representation of everything that happened throughout the novel, and Scout, using the physical aid of the Radleys’ doorstep, can understand everything instantly from how Arthur saw it. He never was a psychopath, nor ignorant of anything outside of his own house. He was always watching, and when he was needed, he did what was necessary of him. The doorstep is the physical object linked to the theoretical notion of Boo’s thoughts, logic, and view of the world. Anyone who reaches this level of understanding and empathy for him, as Scout did, can look at Boo and see only the prominent characteristics of innocence and humility emanating from him. The use of these objects to speak for occasionally nearly unfathomable concepts is a talent that Lee is able to use shrewdly, and accomplishes a tough task which few have honed as well as to create anything like what is contained within the pages of To Kill a Mockingbird.

Lee is able to portray her message of understanding others who are different through strong usage of dialogue and symbolism, a craft she mastered incredibly well such that it earned her the Pulitzer Prize in 1961, even despite the controversial themes it discussed at the time. Creating characters more authoritative than herself who would spread her words and constructing parallels between the framework of her plot and the matter of her prose are incredibly dynamic means to convince which Harper Lee wields exceptionally well, used as weapons forged in darkness. Where some see a pen, Lee carries a harpoon.

Roald Dahl may be well known for his quirky, sometimes rebellious children's novels, yet many are uninformed about his darker tales for adults. In these short stories, Roald Dahl makes his stories very suspenseful and interesting to the reader, keeping them hooked. He does this using a variety of literary devices. Above all, foreshadowing and situational irony stand out as the most important of these.

Dahl uses foreshadowing to build suspense in his short stories “Lamb to the Slaughter” and “The Landlady” by making the reader infer what will happen next, yet not specifying it so that the audience is kept interested, essentially taunting them with information. For instance, this is shown in “Lamb to the Slaughter” when Patrick Maloney has come home from his job as a police detective and meets his wife, Mary. Generally, Patrick has a very specific routine that he follows at this time every day. It is said that “as he spoke, he did an unusual thing. He lifted his glass and drained it in one swallow although there was still half of it left. He got up and went slowly over to fetch himself another… When he came back, [Mary] noticed that the new drink was dark amber with the quantity of whiskey in it” (Dahl) As given by his abnormal behavior, Patrick is evidently uneasy and nervous about something. This makes the reader think that Patrick has something sad or important to tell Mary, like the fact that he is having an affair or that he wants a divorce. Dahl never says this, though, but he suggests it, employing foreshadowing. The readers catch on to this immediately and think they know what Patrick will say. However, they do not know for certain, because Dahl has not made it completely obvious. This makes the reader hooked, wanting to know what comes next, which guarantees Dahl that his audience will not stop reading here. As a matter of fact, Patrick never explicitly says he will divorce Mary in the whole story, even though it is strongly implied a few paragraphs later by Patrick saying that Mary will be looked after. Even after this is revealed, the audience is engaged, anticipating the coming events but still unsure, as Mary has been established as a character who lives for this man, and her reaction to this decision by Patrick is unforeseeable. In addition to creating suspense with foreshadowing in “Lamb to the Slaughter”, he does it again in “The Landlady”. In the story, Billy Weaver is a young man on a business trip when he decides not to stay at the hotel he had been told to stay at, and instead decides to stay at a house with a sign in the window that says “Bed and Breakfast”. He enters, and a landlady takes him in and tells him to sign a guest book, on which there are two names: Christopher Mulholland and Gregory Temple. When Weaver signs the guest book, he says “‘Now wait a minute, wait just a minute. Mulholland ... Christopher Mulholland... wasn’t that the name of the Eton schoolboy who was on a walking-tour through the West Country, and then all of a sudden …’” (Dahl 67). Clearly, Billy has remembered something significant and profound about the name, and by the connotation of Billy’s words, it does not sound like things ended well for Mulholland. We do not hear the rest of what Billy was going to say, because the landlady interrupts him and says “‘Eton schoolboy? Oh no, my dear, that can’t possibly be right because my Mr. Mulholland was certainly not an Eton schoolboy when he came to me’” (Dahl 67). There are a couple of unsettling things in this quote that makes the reader skeptical about the landlady. For one, she refers to Mr. Mulholland as her Mr. Mulholland, as if she owns him, which slightly disturbs the readers. Then, when Billy brings up whether the two men, who had arrived years before, had ever left, the landlady says “‘“Left?... But my dear boy, he never left. He’s still here. Mr. Temple is also here. They’re on the third floor, both of them together’” (Dahl 68). This is the point where the reader begins to have some serious doubts about the landlady and her intentions with Billy. For one, she says that Temple and Mulholland are both there, in the house, but on page 67, she refers to them in the past tense, like one would when speaking of those who have left or died. The readers begin to think that both men might be deceased, with their bodies hidden on the third floor. However, just like in “Lamb to the Slaughter”, Dahl never tells us whether this is true. Still, it leaves the reader hanging, wanting to know what happened to Temple and Mulholland and what Billy’s fate will be, and secures Dahl their attention for the rest of the story. Through this use of foreshadowing in “Lamb to the Slaughter” and “The Landlady”, Dahl is able to make his stories hugely suspenseful and exciting for the reader. Foreshadowing is just one of the techniques that he uses to create suspense, though.

In addition to foreshadowing, Dahl also uses irony to hook his readers in the very same short stories as before. In “The Landlady”, the only real reason that Billy decides to stay at the landlady’s place and not the hotel where he was supposed to stay was because “[o]n the carpet in front of the fire, a pretty little dachshund was curled up asleep with its nose tucked into its belly… in one corner he spotted a large parrot in a cage. Animals were usually a good sign in a place like this, Billy told himself” (Dahl 63). Unknown to Billy, however, these animals are not animals at all. As the landlady herself said, “‘I stuff all my little pets myself when they pass away’” (Dahl 69). When Billy is looking through the window, this is situational irony because he and the reader assume that the creatures are alive, but they are not. This builds more suspense because when the lady reveals that the animals are dead, Billy has lost his only reason for being there and trusting the place he is at. The house and its sole inhabitant are beginning to reveal their true colors, and it makes the reader want to find out what happened next. This also implies that Mulholland and Temple have also been stuffed, hidden away on the third floor of the house. One can only assume what this lady means to do with Billy. At this point, the audience is so hooked that they will not want to stop reading and figure out what happens to Billy, which Dahl never reveals, ensuring their attention for the rest of the story through the use of situational irony. In “Lamb to the Slaughter”, on the other hand, dramatic irony is used to keep the reader hooked until the very end of the story. After Patrick tells Mary that they must separate, Mary becomes enraged and takes the frozen leg of lamb that she intended to serve for dinner and kills Patrick with it. After this, the detectives come over to her house to investigate, and they immediately begin to comb the house for the murder weapon. The detectives “kept asking her a lot of questions. They always treated her kindly… They searched the house… [They] told her that her husband had been killed by a blow to the back of the head. They were looking for the weapon” (Dahl). Dramatic irony is obvious here because the cops do not know who killed Patrick and the object used to kill him, while the readers know that Mary killed him with the leg of lamb. In fact, the detectives immediately dismiss her as a suspect. During this portion of the story, the meat is in the oven, but the detectives also dismiss that as a possible murder weapon. However, the audience does not know whether the detectives will figure out that Mary committed the crime and how she did it later on. That possibility still exists, and the dramatic irony only builds the tension. The readers are at the edge of their seats, waiting to see what will happen next and whether Mary will walk free. This section of the story is dripping with suspense, so the audience cannot stop reading.

Dahl is able to create suspense in his adult short stories by using foreshadowing and irony in two of his short stories, “The Landlady” and “Lamb to the Slaughter”. In the former, Dahl hints the reader at the fate of Billy and tricks them by making them assume that the animals in the house are real. In “Lamb to the Slaughter”, he makes the readers know that Patrick wants a divorce without ever explicitly saying it, and keeps the audience on their toes by letting Mary barely walk free from her crime. Dahl was an extremely talented writer who could use dark thoughts and masterful writing to make his stories scary and suspenseful for adults, or colorful words and a fun imagination to make them whimsy and playful for young boys and girls.

Works Cited

Dahl, Roald. “Lamb to the Slaughter.” 4.files.edl.io,

https://4.files.edl.io/4a65/10/23/18/235824-cd055462-e062-467c-a8ae-492f46d8caad.pdf. Accessed 9 October, 2019.

Dahl, Roald. “The Landlady.” Holt Literature and Language Arts, Second Course, pg. 62.