Other Sellers on Amazon
+ Free Shipping
+ Free Shipping
To Kill a Mockingbird Mass Market Paperback – International Edition, October 1, 1989
|New from||Used from|
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
He repeats the same talking points, over and over. It got boring.
Note: Notice I didn't mention Robert Mueller as one of the conspirators. He's a ghost in this book.
The first four chapters (about a quarter of the book) put Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation on trial for harmless emails, a widely debunked conspiracy theory about Uranium One, and bogus pay-for-play rumors. It's like a summary of Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer. In other words, it consists of rumor, innuendo, gossip, bizarre conjecture, and legal mumbo jumbo. Complete trash. And, of course, it has nothing to do with the "Russia hoax," so it doesn't even belong in this book.
The rest of the book describes the "fraudulent" case against Donald Trump. Here are some of the nuggets:
- Sure, Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election, but they do that every election, so nobody cares. Well, former V.P. Dick Cheney cares. He said that Russia's interference in the 2016 election was a significant escalation in their election dirty tricks and it could be called "an act of war." Facebook estimates that 126 million people were served content from Russia-linked pages. The book Cyberwar by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor of communications at the University of Pennsylvania, persuasively argues that Russian trolls and hackers likely changed the outcome of the 2016 election.
- The "hoax" was manufactured by high-ranking officials with the FBI and the DOJ. Their motives, never revealed in the book, were "impure." But what were they? Jarrett never tells us, a departure from his usual approach: unsupported conjecture.
- When the FBI launched its investigation into the Trump campaign it had no legitimate basis for doing so. Really? The FBI determined that Russia hacked the DNC, and Trump campaign assistant George Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat in a London bar about the theft of the DNC emails and their upcoming publication. That's what kicked off the counterintelligence investigation. Dozens of indictments later, it's now a criminal investigation. What more was needed to make the investigation "legitimate"?
- "Collusion" is not a crime. Gee, who said it was? Of course, conspiracy to defraud the United States is a crime. So is espionage, campaign finance violations, money laundering, bribery, tax fraud, bank fraud, and racketeering. In fact, Manafort was charged with most of those crimes. Jarrett, a lawyer, knows this, but he's being disingenuous. Warning: If you quote Jarrett and say that "collusion is not a crime," people will mock you. Don't do it.
- It's not a crime to talk to a Russian. However, it is a crime to talk with a Russian about sanctions and then lie about that meeting under oath to Congress. Also, did Jarrett talk to any Russians? It appears not.
- The Steele dossier was a "preposterous collection of rumors, innuendos, supposition, and wild speculation." However, other than the story of Trump and prostitutes at the Ritz Carlton, the dossier's content was largely corroborated by U.S. intelligence.
- The Steele dossier was the sole pretext for the FBI's probe of Trump. That's simply not true. Again, it was Trump campaign's foreknowledge of leaks of Russian-hacked emails stolen from the DNC that caused the FBI to conduct an investigation.
- There was no reason to conduct surveillance of Carter Page, and DOJ officials may have violated several statutes. Actually, Carter Page had numerous contacts with Russian government officials, and he was either wittingly or unwittingly acting as a Russian agent. In a 2013 letter, Page called himself an “informal adviser” to Russia. U.S. intelligence services would have been negligent had they not surveilled Carter Page.
- Meeting with a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower and discussing Russian adoptions is not a crime. Well, why did Donald Trump Jr. lie about the meeting? Why did the president dictate a phony press release about the meeting? Why wasn't the meeting disclosed? What does Paul Manafort say happened in the meeting? When there are multiple accounts of what happened at a meeting, you can bet that someone is lying.
- National Security Advisor Michael Flynn committed no crimes. C'mon, he pleaded guilty to a felony, lying during an FBI interview about his conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He's been cooperating with the Mueller investigation for the past year, and his sentencing is scheduled for December.
- Attorney General Jeff Sessions mistakenly recused himself from the Trump-Russia investigation. I guess Jarrett is saying that had Sessions not recused himself, Mueller would never have been appointed as Special Prosecutor, and then Jarrett couldn't have cashed in with this book. Doh! Actually, Sessions had been caught lying about his Russian contacts multiple times. Other than resigning, recusal was his only option. He chose to recuse because he desperately wanted to be Attorney General.
- FBI Director James Comey should have been fired in July 2016 after he botched the announcement that Hillary Clinton would not be charged with a crime. Hey, I actually agree with this! This is the only thing Jarrett got right in the book.
- Firing Comey in 2017 was not obstruction. Actually, Trump told NBC's Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of the Trump-Russia thing. He admitted obstruction. But Jarrett argues that Trump also said Comey was incompetent, and that was his real reason for firing him. Whatever. Mueller has an abundant menu of obstruction to investigate: interference in the Flynn case, attempts to get Sessions to reverse his recusal, attempts to fire Mueller, attempts to fire Rosenstein, and dictation of a phony cover story to explain the Trump Tower meeting.
- Comey stole classified government records and leaked them to the press. Actually, the documents were unclassified, and his friend leaked them. He also wrote about the documents in a book that was cleared for publication by the government.
- The Mueller appointment was invalid. Jarrett says that when Mueller was appointed there was no actual crime to investigate. Huh? That's a mind-boggling assertion. Of course there was a crime: Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Everyone acknowledges this, even Putin. But Jarrett perhaps still believes it was a 400-pound man on a bed somewhere. Jarrett makes much of the fact that the Trump-Russia investigation began as a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation, so there was no need for a special prosecutor. Well, now it's a criminal investigation, and it's resulted in several convictions.
- Mueller had conflicts and should have recused himself. Actually, the DOJ granted Mueller an ethics waiver for possible conflicts. Surely Jarrett knows that. Anyone can google it.
- Rosenstein should have recused himself. Jarrett is on solid ground here. Yes, based on his being a fact witness to the Comey firing, Rosenstein should have recused himself. But he didn't. However, he said he would recuse if necessary. For instance, if Trump is indicted for obstruction.
In the epilogue, Jarrett explains that his book is not a defense of Trump. He wrote it as a defense of the rule of law. Ha! It's both a terrible defense of Trump and a terrible defense of the rule of law. It makes a mockery of law, distorting the law to make it sound like Trump is innocent but is being framed by evil, unscrupulous Democrats (and Republicans--Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller, for instance).
As a book purportedly about the "Russia hoax," there's very little information about Trump and Russia in it. Nothing about Trump's trip to Moscow, his ownership of the Miss Universe pageant, his attempts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, his relationships with Russian mobsters, his fawning and bootlicking behavior toward Putin, and his reliance on Russian money for the past two decades. Numerous other books have been written about the Trump-Russia story--most prominently Collusion by Luke Harding, Russian Roulette by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, and House of Trump, House of Putin by Craig Unger--so it's surprising that Jarrett doesn't at least acknowledge that other people have covered the same territory with more depth and accuracy.
What's most shocking about this book is that Jarrett provides no coverage of Mueller's actual investigation. The book was published in July 2018, so Jarrett went to press before Manafort's conviction and his subsequent plea agreement. Some of the arguments that Jarrett attempts were made at Manafort's trial (for example, his contention that the Mueller appointment was invalid), but they collapsed under scrutiny. Four Trump aides (Manafort, Gates, Flynn, and Papadopoulos) have been convicted, Richard Pinedo of California was convicted of providing Russians with stolen identities, and about two dozen Russians have been charged with election interference (including Russians employed by the Internet Research Agency and 12 members of Russian military intelligence, or GRU). In addition, Mueller's team also investigated Michael Cohen and Sam Patton but referred them to the DOJ for prosecution. Mueller is investigating several other people, including Roger Stone, Julian Assange, Eric Prince, Donald Trump Jr., and, of course, president Donald Trump.
The book is thin at 286 pages, and it feels padded. Jarrett includes several footnotes to pretend there's a factual basis for his unsupported conclusions, but there is none. In fact, the book routinely resorts to conjecture. Take these sentences:
- "It also appears to have been criminal."
- "It appears they buried the evidence from Congress..."
- "It appears that McCabe was a party to the suspected plot."
- "It appears to have been covered up."
- "It appears there was coordination between the White House, the CIA, and FBI at the outset of this investigation and it's troubling."
Unlike a real journalist, Jarrett doesn't back up any of these inferences with evidence. Maybe the book should have been called "It Appears."
At this point, it's absurd for anyone to claim that the Trump-Russia story is a hoax. Mueller's team has found evidence of serious crimes. To date he has indicted 36 individuals and 3 companies, and several people (Flynn, Gates, Manafort, Papadopoulos, Pinedo, and van der Zwaan) have already pleaded guilty. But there is still something we don't know: Did anyone in the U.S. coordinate with Russians in the conspiracy to install Trump in the White House? We'll have to wait a few more weeks to find out.
Top international reviews
But finally I had a chance of reading this and reading after this I felt like I would give more stars than possible .
The patience is utter key in the book. The way every character progress , the way harper Lee have developed each character it's real more than fiction.
Firstly, even though I was always an avid reader, when To Kill A Mockingbird was published it managed to pass me by. It wasn’t being read by my peers and any stir that the film had created was already dwindling by the time I reached the age group to which the book seemed to be appealing. Secondly, it is a book that seems to be better known these days for the film version than for its own merit, which is a shame. The 1962 film depiction, while creditable, is very narrow in its take on the story, focusing on the trial of Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a white woman. I’ll return to that later. Finally, of course, there are whole generations of people who will not have read the book (or seen the film) as it tends to be contemporary books that are read, while older works are mainly gathering dust on library shelves.
The plot covers many aspects of life in Alabama in the mid 1930s, as seen through the eyes of the protagonist Scout, or Jean Louise Finch to call her by her real name. The nickname is never explained. At the start of the story Scout is 6 years old, two years younger than Harper Lee would have been at this time. She is joined in her adventures by her older brother Jem (Jeremy) and a neighbour’s visiting nephew Dill (Charles Baker Harris). The book is not only a depiction of who two races see each other, it is also how different groups within the white race view each other and an early issue raised is about white poverty during the Depression.
It later emerged that Dill was loosely based on Harper Lee’s real life neighbour Truman Capote, another novelist also recently deceased.
Scout’s father is lawyer Atticus Finch who is also a member of the State Legislature and a much respected member of the community – at least at the start of the book. In real life Harper Lee grew up in Alabama and her father was a lawyer who became caught up in a rape case similar to that featured in the book. Harper Lee may also have been influenced by the trials, in Alabama, of the Scottsboro Boys, concerning the rape of two white women by nine black teenagers. The trials took place in 1931 the original trials are now generally regarded as significant miscarriages of justice.
We join Scout at the start of her schooling where we discover that she is a precocious child, already able to read and write. Some might describe her as old beyond her years. The story then takes us through three years of her life, including the period of the trial and its aftermath.
The use of Scout as the narrator is a very useful tool. As a child she is automatically considered to be naïve, which allows her to ask questions that no adult would think to ask, or maybe dare to ask. This is useful for the reader as the answers usually come from Atticus so we get to know him very well. They are more often avoided if asked of the other adult characters. We can feel Scout’s confusion as she is told by her first grade teacher not to read at home because she’s been taught to read “the wrong way”, which is one of the first narrow minded adult issues she has to deal with.
During the first half of the book black people are barely mentioned. Calpurnia, the Finch’s cook/housekeeper, is black but is very much a part of the Finch family, carrying much of the burden of Scout and Jem’s upbringing to that point. Scout’s mother died when she was quite young and was almost unknown to Scout. Apart from that we hear nothing much about the black community of Maycomb County, as though they are invisible. This is entirely intentional, of course. Black people and white people just didn’t mix. Scout lives in a white neighbourhood, so almost the only black people she ever sees are domestic servants such as Calpurnia and those such as Zeebo, the garbage truck driver, who has to come into the area as part of his duties. She never encounters the majority of the black community who work on the land.
Most of the first part of the story is about the three children and their adventures which, despite the passage of time, are not really any different from those that I enjoyed as a child and which many children still enjoy. In one sub-plot they are much taken by the mysterious figure of their reclusive neighbour, Boo Radley, and spend much of their time devising ways to tempt him from his house.
Later the story turns to the trial of Tom Robinson and we discover some things that the film doesn’t make clear. The first is that Atticus didn’t willingly take on Tom’s defence. He is appointed to it by the County Court judge. The judge’s choice is deliberate of course, he wants Tom to have the best defence possible and Atticus is the man who will deliver that, but we are left with the interesting question: “Would Atticus have taken the case of his own accord?”
The reason I ask this is because the film makes Atticus appear very liberal, almost a man of the future. I think the book shows us a different man. He was liberal by the standards of many of his peers, there is no doubt of that but would he, for example, have voted for John F Kennedy or Barak Obama? I’m not convinced. He believed in justice for all and the equality of all men before the law, but that is not the same as being liberal.
The film also omits some characters who have a considerable influence on Scout, those of Aunt Alexandra and Miss Dubose, for example. I can see the need for the Director of the film to be selective in what sections of the plot are included and which left out, but those decisions are what makes the book superior to the film. I actually rented the film to watch so that I could make those sorts of comparisons for this review.
In the run up to the trial the town is abuzz with gossip and divided in its attitude towards Atticus. Most people recognise that Atticus is just doing his job, but others regard his behaviour as showing favour to black people over white, which was unthinkable. Scout is regularly taunted at school over this matter and is not slow to take up arms in her father’s defence (be prepared for many uses of the “N” word).
This is where the story becomes so contentious, because white attitudes towards black people were just starting to be challenged openly in 1960 when the book was published. Rosa Parks took her famous bus ride in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955 and the book was published only 5 years before the civil rights marches protesting about black people not being allowed to register to vote in Alabama, despite it being their legal right to do so.
It is of course impossible for Tom Robinson to get a fair trial from an all-white jury in Alabama in the 1930s, so Tom is duly convicted despite there being more than a little doubt over the evidence presented by the two key prosecution witnesses, Bob Ewell and his daughter Mayella, the supposed victim of the rape. Indeed it is key to later events that the pair are shown up to be liars, but that isn’t enough to sway the jury. Indeed Tom is more than a little lucky not to have been lynched before the matter even got to trial.
It could be argued convincingly that it is still hard for a black person to get a fair trial in Alabama, even 80 years after the events depicted in this book, which makes the book as relevant today as it was then.
However, the period in which this book is set is crucial to the way it is told. The last surviving Alabama veteran of the Confederate Army still lived in the town. The parents of most of the characters and some of the older characters, such as Miss Dubose, will have grown up in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, which left two communities struggling to makes sense of what had happened to their way of life. This will have doubtless had a profound effect on the way the white community viewed the black, while the black community discovered that being free was not the same as being equal.
So, is this book still relevant in 2016? I would say it is.
Why have I only given this book four stars? After all, it was seen as one of the great works of the 20th century. Well, it is somewhat dated. I think that if Harper Lee were writing it today (if she were still alive to do so) she would take a whole new approach to get her message across. It is also a matter of expectations. We shouldn’t try to judge the past on the basis of our values in the present. As Atticus Finch himself says, if we want to know a person we have to put on his shoes and walk around in them for a while. If we wish to judge the present then we have a whole lot of new evidence available on which to base our opinions.
Do I recommend the book? Of course I do. My only regret is that I didn’t read it much earlier in my life.
It's written from a little girl's point of view but has amazing thoughts for everyone. Even after being written so many years ago, it still has some very relevant lessons for everyone, there is something for everyone in it! Definitely one of the #mustread books.
Here are some of my favourite #quotes from the book:
"You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view... Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it."
"People generally see what they look for, and hear what they listen for."
"There are just some kind of men who-who're so busy worrying about the next world they've never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results."
I quite enjoyed this book. I won't bother telling you what it's about, you either already know or have read some other reviews who have gone into detail about the story.
The cover is beautiful which is an added plus.
Side note: don't bother with Go Set A Watchman. It's not good and changes the opinion of Scout's dad. Plus Harper Lee was not in the position to publish another book. She wrote it before Mockingbird. It was turned down and that's when she made Mocking bird. The draft for Watchman was found by her lawyer and the money grabber published it. Harper Lee had previously (while she was able to) said she didn't want to publish Watchman and that Mockingbird was to be her only published book.
So by all means, enjoy this book but don't buy Watchman.
To Kill a Mockingbird focuses on that gut instinct of right and wrong, and distinguishes it from just following the law. Even the titular quote: "Shoot all the blue jays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird" is in itself an allegory for this message. Being in itself a generic message, the idea of 'doing what's right' obviously has a different meaning depending on when and where you're reading the book. If you take 1960, when the book was written, America was in a state of ethical development as social inequality was - very - gradually being overcome. Women's rights and black rights movements were beginning to emerge and some campaigned through violence. Would Atticus Finch condone this?
This hardcover edition is a single volume print, and l think the description refers to a paperback 3 volume version.
It is frustrating that there are so many versions and yet the reviews are all lumped together on the Amazon website.
Although disappointingly only one volume this is still not bad value for money. Size wise it is slightly easier to handle for reading than the single volume 1991 edition with the Alan Lee illustrations.
However, the print is smaller and some may find it too small to read comfortably, even though the book is attractively presented on white paper pages. There are only the original maps and in-text rune illustrations (some in red print) in this 50th anniversary special edition, ie no additional illustrations. The text has been emended in consultation with Christopher Tolkien to reflect his father's original wishes which were apparently sometimes over-ridden by the publishers!
In summary, might suit if you want a single volume hardcover edition and are not bothered by fairly small print or the lack of additional illustrations.
Otherwise, if looking for something easier to handle and read you may want to go for a 3 volume set, although a new 3 volume hardcover set will probably set you back considerably more than this edition.
Needless to say the book itself is a masterpiece which is well worth reading if you are not daunted by the length of it.
I never read To Kill A Mocking Bird at school so sort to right that wrong. It's regarded as a classic and fully deserves its credentials. It's at once a product of its time but also light years ahead of it.
The world has changed greatly since its firsy publication but the wrongs and attitudes within still sadly prevail.
This earth needs more people like Atticus Finch and I for one shall endeavour to follow on good footsteps.
I got the Kindle version because I think its based on the 1990s edition which has a few less typos than my hard copy books I got in the mid 1970s.
I have an audio version the BBC tapes (and CDs). Look, I am lost in this great story If you have not read it: try it.
Inside the packaging by Amazon, there's a cardboard box by Harper Collins that stores the book. The book is also protected by the slipcase, which is of good-quality plastic. The binding is very sturdy. The cover and back designs are beautiful, and the spine is a beauty to look at.
There are 50 illustrations by Alan Lee printed on high quality paper. In fact, the pages of the book feel very superior and letter size is perfect to read.
To anyone interested in buying this edition, go for it! You won't regret it one bit.
I am a reader who likes to come back to visit a book and over the years I have come to sit with Scout and Boo Radley. Each time I open the book and re-read the story I discover something new in the chapters, sometimes it is because of my maturity, what I have gained in experience in knowledge and an adult world has given me more insight into the world of the Finch family and how society was in that era and how it still is in today's world, sometimes it is because I am now a parent and can see Atticus's struggles to be a single parent and teach his children to understand how they needed to be true to themselves and not follow society like sheep.
When Harper Lee's new book was released and it came apparent that this book made Atticus into a racist man, I made the choice not to read it. The Atticus who I hero worshipped and respected could not represent Tom Robinson and be racially bigoted it would make a mockery of the 'To Kill A Mockingbird and this new book only came out when Harper Lee had passed away so I believe she never wanted it to be published
I have just re-visited the book once again and once again I have come away with more insight. This book educates the young, helping them understand that the world they are on the verge off is ugly and prejudiced and adults will act at times in behaviours that will disgust them. Adults who read this book will look through the eyes of a child and realise that they are not born with hate and bigotry it is placed there by influence and the world in general. Older adults can make sure that the lessons learnt from this book are as valued now as they were valued in eras before them. This book tells us that we can make changes, maybe small steps as Atticus quoted in the book, when I first read this book we were told being gay was something depraved and disgusting, now gay couples can legally marry. So this book still has the lessons to be learnt through the characters of this story and I will always treasure it.
I can't wait to introduce this book to my grandchildren one day, watch them fall in love with the characters like I did, and then keep the story alive by acknowledging all hatred, prejudice and bigotry must be stopped.
last thirty years. I opted for a Kindle version this time as it easier to handle (and read) than a relatively large volume
with very small print! I have been delighted with the experience, the narrative still draws me on, page after page,
and Tolkien's style and use of words remain a complete pleasure.
A edição é de muito boa qualidade, com capa flexível e revestida de material com textura agradável. O papel é amarelado e as folhas não são finas demais, o que deixa a leitura bem confortável.
Um ponto importante é que, embora seja uma edição americana (editora HMH), e não britânica, o texto está na sua forma original escrita por Tolkien (inglês britânico), sem adaptação da ortografia, o que eu acho muito bom. Assim, vemos a grafia “colour” e “grey”, em vez de “color” e “gray”, por exemplo.
O texto também incorpora a revisão feita para edição de aniversário de 50 anos da obra, em 2005, na qual muitos erros editoriais das versões anteriores foram corrigidos. Que eu saiba, só existe uma edição mais recente, que é a de 60 anos, mas a maioria das correções já tinha sido feita na de 2005.
Fiquei muito satisfeito com essa edição e acho que é a opção em inglês com o melhor custo-benefício.