To Kill a Mockingbird

anarky · Post by **anarky** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:49 pm

This book is a classic.

Discuss.

Oh, and bite my ass, Negative Boy.

Negative Boy · Post by **Negative Boy** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:09 pm

The book is okay. I'm just waiting for this topic to devolve into discussing how good Gregory Peck was in the movie. It seems no one, including you, can discuss any book that wasn't made into a movie. And while we are discussing it, the "issues" in the book are a bit absurd. I don't think anyone would've taken serious concerns with the negro people in the book like the Fictional Atticus Finch does. And certainly no socially concious person would ever leave their children in the care of a negro woman the way he does. Completely absurd and unrealistic. If Atticus Finch were more like Mack Bolan he would have found whoever did the crime, whether it was a Nazi, Communist, or Muslim and done what needed to be done.

anarky · Post by **anarky** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:20 pm

Well, Gregory Peck was good in the movi--

I see what you're trying to do.

Go fuck yourself instead, 'kay?

kidhuman · Post by **kidhuman** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:41 pm

The movie sucked and so did the fuckin book. Fuck Boo Radley and Scout too.

Eternal Padawan · Post by **Eternal Padawan** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:18 pm

I think Boo Radley wanted to fuck Scout. or maybe it was the other way around. Did you know Boo Radley was played by a then unknown Robert Duvall? I found Gregory Peck's performance kind of wooden, actually...

...what?

Hey, this is in the movie section. I'm going to discuss the movie. Negative Boy can go fuck himself if he doesn't like it. If I wanted a forum with rules I'd be at the other place. So blow me.

Negative Boy · Post by **Negative Boy** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:07 am

You guys are just reinforcing my theory. Now clearly the debate could be made that a good book becomes a popular book and a popular book gets noticed by studio executives, directors, screenwriters, etc and therefore the liklihood of it getting adapted to the big screen becomes a higher probability than say, the latest harlequin romance. But on the other hand, you have to look at the staggering amount of books that have been written over the last how many centuries versus the amount of movies that have been made over the last hundred years. And what percentage of those films were actually original ideas, with no connection to previously published material. Even if we were in a generous mood and said only 50% (which you have to admit is a generous exaggeration) it leaves a very minute ratio of books to movie adaptations from books. And you all seem like intelligent well read individuals. So it strikes me as highly amusing that EVERY SINGLE BOOK you mention in your "literature" forum somehow illicits an eventual comment about a movie version of said book, and from that point on, the "book" thread becomes a defacto "movie" thread. You knobbery bobs! As for you, Eternal Padawan, you wouldn't know good literature if you were chained to a table in the Library of Congress, you old fart. ha ha! Carry on with your movie debate, turds.

jjreason · Post by **jjreason** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:01 pm

It's a fine book, replete with the endless hope and bitter disappointment of youth. ANYONE claiming otherwise can spend some quality time with a steel pipe of tremendous girth.