To Kill A Mockingbird Style Analysis: Circumlocution and Allegory

Chinese novelist Mo Yan once said the following: “One of the biggest problems in literature is the lack of subtlety.” But trends tend to prove otherwise. In Harper Lee’s novel “To Kill A Mockingbird”, which is often regard the best american novel ever written, subtlety is found rarely throughout. Whether it be in her characterization or allegory she fails to leave the reader with a shred of doubt about what or who she is talking about, through her incessant circumlocution, if it can be called that, she delivers a vivid and redundant recount of events through the eyes of a young Jean Louise “Scout” Finch. If a section of the story (which encompass numerous almost unrelated shorter stories) were to be taken and examined, The Trial (chapters 17-22) would prove the most fruitful, and so it will serve as the subject of this essay.
Initially, the readers are ladened pompously with symbolism and second “hidden” meanings that bear heartfelt morals, most of which are practically thrown at them. This blatant use of allegory comes off as if Lee is attempting to sell her book as a meaningful and important work of literature. The most obvious usage of allegory is in the case of Bob Ewell, who is one of the main focuses of the trial. He is racist, poor, irate, and manipulative; often referred to as white-trash. If the peruser were to take a moment and think on these traits, they would be greeted with thoughts of the Deep South and states like Alabama and Georgia. Mr. Ewell is Harper’s physical manifestation of the Deep South. Even the way he talks is strongly reinforced by hackneyed beliefs of the way southerners spoke then, saying things like “Wadn’t no need to,” and “What’s so interestin’,” to portray his own ineptness and accentuate his Sout...

... middle of paper ...

...erhaps the most overlooked. People look at it and see a book about a young girl learning not to judge people by the way they look or by rumors, but at another glance one might come across the the frail structure in which the book is laid out. Through tedious descriptions and manifest symbolism, Harper Lee creates a well put together illusion of a coherent book and then fortifies it with controversial issues that plague America. In no respect is she a bad author, nor is “To Kill A Mockingbird” a bad book, but the glaring lack of subtlety burrowed deep into the recesses of the book can be off putting at times, but can distract from the redundancy in it as well. As a whole, she creates a book that teaches children and adults alike the morality behind loving people for who they are and not what they look like or what people say. And that will always be a valuable lesson.