This sequence could be a parable of my now life:
I read TKAM to my daughter art bedtime - it was her favorite book.
Now, 20 years later, that she has grown into her own young woman, and I too have lost the hero status.
It hurts.
I read TKAM to my daughter art bedtime - it was her favorite book.
Now, 20 years later, that she has grown into her own young woman, and I too have lost the hero status.
It hurts.
10
These are works of fiction. Moby Dick was not a real whale, and Santiago did not catch a big fish. Atticus Finch is what you want to make of him; saint or sinner or both. You can analyze motes and navels ad nauseam, but they are just motes and navels.
8
I believe this publication was for financial gain and in no way serves the story of the original which is a treasured American masterpiece. It's like Thomas Wolfe suddenly deciding he can go home after all or James Joyce deciding the Catholic church is okay for him. I do not intend to read this book because I do not want to forever spoil the other one.
14
I wish this was more truly a review of a novel and less a commentary on why it may have come into being or what a different novel means to us. What is the structure of the novel? Is the language nuanced and engaging? Are the characters fully realized? Does it add to our understanding of that era? What was the author striving to accomplish and did she fulfill that ambition? I learned almost nothing about Watchman here and that feels like a missed opportunity. Yes, a comparison is unavoidable. But it shouldn't overwhelm the review itself.
19
It's good to have an honest, genuine discussion of racism in the Old South (& contrast it to today & recent events (such as the souring of the Confederate flag).
But I fear that ultimately, Harper Lee's last years & eventual obituary will dwell upon whether "Go Set A Watchman" was as good of a novel" as "To Kill A Watchman", with all of the social & real literary merits being an afterthought.
There is the persistent logic that "To Kill A Mockingbird" would have best left to the ages without this book being published. Likewise, I suppose that racism itself has thrived on the logic of leaving well enough alone ...
But I fear that ultimately, Harper Lee's last years & eventual obituary will dwell upon whether "Go Set A Watchman" was as good of a novel" as "To Kill A Watchman", with all of the social & real literary merits being an afterthought.
There is the persistent logic that "To Kill A Mockingbird" would have best left to the ages without this book being published. Likewise, I suppose that racism itself has thrived on the logic of leaving well enough alone ...
4
Maybe the view of Atticus in TKAM is simply that of a daughter who grows up to see her parent through a more objective lens - as we all do. I don't recall the point of view of the narrator in TKAM but regardless, it appears that Watchman asks us to question both how much the characters may have changed and how much perceptions of them have changed.
4
My mother, Clarissa W. Atkinson, was a recent college grad in 1955-1959 and working in J.B. Lippincott's NYC office, and has some interesting observations about Harper Lee's legendary editor, Tay Hohoff, and this (initial, rejected!) manuscript and its early days here: http://oldestvocation.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/mockingbird-years/ and http://oldestvocation.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/once-upon-a-time/ By all accounts, her sister Alice fiercely guarded Lee and it was mere months after Alice passed that the lawyer and publisher decided they could release (and profit hugely from) the first draft what had already become "Mockingbird." That is, a "new book" made of the original manuscript and completely ABSENT the guiding eyes and hands of Lee's editor, Tay Hohoff: http://oldestvocation.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/mockingbird-years/ Definitely seems exploitative to me.
16
At one point, Atticus was the highest version of himself. To us, he became the highest version of ourselves. Why do we believe our heroes can't be human? What need of ours are we projecting on to them? And Ms Kakutani, does Atticus have a "dark side"... let's be careful about the language we use, shall we? Why does "dark" mean "bad"?
4
FALLEN ANGEL The original premise for Mockingbird was to convey not what Ms. Lee had observed in her hometown, but in the context of Watchman, is a message to its citizens of how they could change their beliefs to become more fair and kinder. The editor who advised her to change the perspective of Watchman to that of Mockingbird was, indeed, prescient, seeing the potential for an expression of hope arising out of the darkness of the earlier book. I think that the timing of the publication of Watchman holds the potential for also being prescient, as we direly need to hold up a mirror and see ourselves and the ruinous political landscape that's been created in this country since 1980, the point in time when greed and self-serving actions were set on a pedestal, where earlier they had been shameful. Not all secrets are shameful, while not all public displays are worthy of praise either. With the publication of Watchman, Ms. Lee has given us the opportunity to see ourselves reflected, the baby boomers, many world weary, wondering where our lives have gone and how we have strayed from the ideals of our youth. Seeing the darkness in Atticus in Watchman holds the promise of bringing more light into our own souls. If we will open ourselves to it. Dare we raise our voices and join in the song of the protestors, calling for freedom, and say, We Shall Overcome? What path will we follow as we walk toward that good night, and the dying of the light?
4
"At times, it also alarmingly suggests that the civil rights movement roiled things up, making people who 'used to trust each other' now 'watch each other like hawks.' ”
Alarmingly? Is the implication of the reviewer that this is an untruth, or if true, should not be revealed by the author? The American Revolution, the French Revolution...indeed virtually all revolutions, "roil things up"-- of necessity. The status quo is never disturbed without disturbing consequences. This is the stuff of which social movements are made. The ends almost invariably justify the means... and most certainly in the case of the civil rights movement.
Alarmingly? Is the implication of the reviewer that this is an untruth, or if true, should not be revealed by the author? The American Revolution, the French Revolution...indeed virtually all revolutions, "roil things up"-- of necessity. The status quo is never disturbed without disturbing consequences. This is the stuff of which social movements are made. The ends almost invariably justify the means... and most certainly in the case of the civil rights movement.
5
It is silly but predictable that people talk as though Atticus was a real person and this second book tells us the truth about him. It is also silly to say that Mockingbird only gives a child's idealized version--there are too many details of his saintliness. It's also silly to say that he was too good, as though it were impossible that anyone could be that good. What was wrong about the first novel was the fact that so many of the leading white citizens in Macomb were all non-racists. The second novel might give a more realistic depiction of what the South was like, but unless she explains how the Atticus of the second novel came to be the way he is, she has failed as a novelist if she wants us to see the two different characters as the same person.
1
I believe in Jesus Christ, and I believe in Lee's Atticus Finch. We all should aspire to be/do better.
3
I am dismayed by all these comments. why can't we have a literary hero. We all need to have hope and Atticus have us hope that there could be, and we know there were, heros in the South who stood up for their beliefs. The glee at seeing Atticus knocked down in this book is sad. The world has become so cynical. We need Atticus Finch now more than ever. It is hard to believe that Atticus would turn into a racist. I ordered it but now I am not sure I want o read it. TKAM is my favorite book of all time.
3
What we are seeing here is what the split-personality side of a conscientious defense lawyer like Finch appears to be. Duty comes first, and it is this strong sense of duty that takes precedence in his actions. However, his efforts do not achieve their intended result, unlike those of the real-life attorneys of William K. Smith, tried for rape and battery in 1991.
I heard RR Martin, author of Game of Thrones, say recently Hitler like dogs therefore he was not all bad. We live in a world with a generation of Baby Boomers and Gen Xers who, because of the violent and drug addicted worlds they grew up in, have through apathy begun to accept and fashion a Shade of Gray World. Its built on the premise that sex, drugs, and decadence is ok as long as you either dont get caught or have the social acumen to know when its acceptable. And from this they have been able to tell us Black is White, good is evil, etc.
Ms Lee's novel fits perfectly well in that Shade of Gray world and I think she and all of us sense that, too. But its not the world our grandparents fought for where evil is a line thats crossed, a label, and a choice. Its not a gray world in fact. Racism is still evil no matter what the form or context its used in. Its just we have allowed the gray world we live in today to rationalize it as a byproduct. Im not criticizing Lee's book but I think it feels less inspired by its grayness. And we should all question how a generation moved us from Civil Rights 50 years ago to the gray world today where Republicans still demonize minorities and our President for the color of his skin.
Ms Lee's novel fits perfectly well in that Shade of Gray world and I think she and all of us sense that, too. But its not the world our grandparents fought for where evil is a line thats crossed, a label, and a choice. Its not a gray world in fact. Racism is still evil no matter what the form or context its used in. Its just we have allowed the gray world we live in today to rationalize it as a byproduct. Im not criticizing Lee's book but I think it feels less inspired by its grayness. And we should all question how a generation moved us from Civil Rights 50 years ago to the gray world today where Republicans still demonize minorities and our President for the color of his skin.
1
The split-personality side of a defense lawyer deeply committed to his professional duties. His efforts did not achieve their intended result, unlike the real-life attorneys of Kennedy's nephew, tried for rape and battery in 1991.
Isn't it about time we stopped perseverating about whether or not a character in a novel set in the South 80 years ago is believably racist and turned our attentions instead to the racism that affects every aspect of our society today?
4
Atticus Finch is one of the most pleasant little fantasies that we have in this nation. I refuse to read anything that would diminish that fantasy. I wonder if "Watchman" is the book originally written by Harper Lee who gave it to Truman Capote to review, and Capote came up with "Mockingbird." Just a random thought. But I think we really do have keep Atticus up there in the pantheon with Obi-Wan Kenobi.
1
It seems to me that the aspiration for a decent person to rise above small town prejudice was what motivated Lee and that struck a deep chord in our national psyche. The reality of who her father was in retrospect simply motivated her desire to write down what she wanted him to be. This reminds me of Woody Allen's play about how he wanted his romance to turn out in "Annie Hall" after he chronicled the reality in the movie. He turned to the camera and said "you're always trying to get things perfect in art because it's difficult in life".
4
What's so weird is that everyone knows that Black families are smarter, work harder, and support their children more. Everyone. Know. That.
1
No one to date has ever explained why Mrs. Lee's benifactor back in 1956 was a front man for the head of the ultra right winged Jacksonville, Florida conservative group called "The Pork Chop Gang" that routed homosexuals or tagged homosexuals off of college campuses then extorted them to go under cover for their agenda and wrote her book under their steerage or of the rumors of her contact with David Ferrie when working for the airlines. Clay Shaw was also a playright connected to the same people in Florida who were connected to the CIA through our stepfather as was E. Howard Hunt who was in contact in a CIA Field office NOC Station and Safe house in Orlando Florida through a lumber company called Mac Don Lumber. Our stepfather was also a home town friend of Clay Shaw's. George Bush had a office in Jacksonville and Orlando in the mid 1950s and in contact with our stepfather. This supposed new book either has an agenda or a work of suspect. Possibly there is another piece of work hidden by Truman and Lee on a follow up of "In Cold Blood". Addison's Disease is one of only a few diseases contracted by canines, aka dog's that become sick. That crayola mockingbird sure looks like a turkey to me.
I think we are going to find out pretty soon that Harper Lee had very little to do with this publication. This feels like a money grab by those around her. If she had wanted it published I think the opportunity would have come up in the last 50 years. If the Times wants to do some proper reporting, they should uncover the sad and greedy machinations that led to this book being released.
6
Hooray for Harper Lee! How many of us have visited an aging parent or teacher and found them not to be the hero we thought they were, often due to racist attitudes. As one comment mentioned, TKAM offered a way for white people to believe they were tolerant, good people since they saw people of other colors and beliefs as having some rights. Some is the critical word. Not the same rights as people of European descent, mind you, but having rights such as not being physically harmed or falsely accused. However, it is still is an implicit, unspoken belief (yes. by liberals too) that 'those people' should stay out of 'our' neighborhoods and schools.
TKAM was taught when I trained as a middle school teacher as a Black Studies unit. As a student teacher, I taught it to a group of privileged, white, honor students in Washington State who thought they were completely open-minded. These kids would eagerly grasp onto the seemingly great advances in race relations -- after all, MLK's Dream had come true. No. These tacitly agreed-upon views help white Americans feel good about themselves. The reality was/is something different.
"Go Set a Watchman" couldn't be coming out at a better time. We should all squarely look at ourselves as being influenced by prejudice and stereo-typing in so many areas of life. Then we can really do something about our views and actions in an honest manner, rather than hold a sugar-coated, touchy-feely belief system so we feel good (and ignorant).
TKAM was taught when I trained as a middle school teacher as a Black Studies unit. As a student teacher, I taught it to a group of privileged, white, honor students in Washington State who thought they were completely open-minded. These kids would eagerly grasp onto the seemingly great advances in race relations -- after all, MLK's Dream had come true. No. These tacitly agreed-upon views help white Americans feel good about themselves. The reality was/is something different.
"Go Set a Watchman" couldn't be coming out at a better time. We should all squarely look at ourselves as being influenced by prejudice and stereo-typing in so many areas of life. Then we can really do something about our views and actions in an honest manner, rather than hold a sugar-coated, touchy-feely belief system so we feel good (and ignorant).
12
As you write, we should all squarely look at ourselves as being influenced by prejudice. I suggest you start the parade by finding the nearest mirror. It seems you have plenty of stereo-typing and prejudicial tendencies to overcome.
1
One commenter here noted that Harper Lee's sister passed away last year. Given that the Watchman, perhaps more than Mockingbird, is heavily based on their father, I could be that Harper Lee waited until her sister was gone to publish a work that might prove painful for her, however true a reflection. Was Harper Lee's decision to publish Watchman as it was originally submitted made because she wanted to make a more insightful comment on race relations? To share writing that was apparently much closer to her own views than the heavily reworked version published as Mockingbird? I would like to believe she published this in her lifetime for reasons of Truth, social and personal, rather than senility manipulated for money. Yes- in Watchman, if the writing isn't as textured or if Atticus isn't as heroic, might that make it more valuable than Mockingbird in this country now? Isn't naked Truth, in all its imperfection, better than a well-dressed lie?
10
"Go Set a Watchman" does not "recast" Atticus Finch as a racist, does not give him a dark side. "To Kill a Mockingbird" recasted him as a better man, and mutes his dark side. Remember which of these books was written first!
12
Paraphrasing Aldous Huxley a bit... "Editors, I perceive, cover a multitude of sins".
9
My thoughts are that is is similar to the white-washing of Abraham Lincoln whose views on blacks and integration were not so different from the "new" Atticus. Or in reverse, the vilification of Robert E. Lee whose efforts on emancipation of inherited slaves and integration after the Civil War. Lee wrote, "I think slavery a greater evil to the white than the black race, and while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa. While we see the course of abolition is onward, and we give it the aid of our prayers. . . we must leave the progress in the hands of him to whom two thousand years are but as a single day." and "I will issue free papers as soon as I can and see that they can get a support. Any who want to leave can do so. The men could no doubt find hires, but what are the women and children to do? As regards Mr. Collins (the overseer) he must remain and take care of the people until I can dispose of them in some way. I want to do what is right for the people."
5
Now we know why she hid that first draft in a drawer.
7
I believe Ms. Lee knew what she was doing when she decided to release this book -- it's the work she had originally wanted to publish. Yet I'm also sure the book could have still used a good editor.
5
I had read "To Kill a Mockingbird" previously this year and had enjoyed the book. It's interesting to think of the transition of the "saintly Atticus" to "Atticus the bigot". What could have caused a complete 180 on Atticus' views and beliefs on 'civil wrights' and 'segregation'? Is it tied into Jem's death? Does Dill ever make an appearance in "Go Set a Watchman"? What happened to Calpurnia? Not only am I itching to find out what happens, I'm also excited to see the outcome of the book.
1
Perhaps Atticus didn't change. Perhaps it's only that Scout perceives him differently when she is an adult than when she is a child.
4
What I feel badly about is simply this: Lippincott rejected this draft nearly 60 years ago but bought the idea and assigned Nelle Harper Lee a wonderful editor. And together they re-envisioned "Go Set a Watchman" into "To Kill a Mockingbird," set in the 1930s and with one of America's iconic fathers and attorneys. Now "Watchman"'s Atticus, the bigot, will hover like a ghost over the Atticus we have come to love. However, writers will benefit from seeing how much redrafting Harper Lee did to achieve what Oprah calls "our national novel." I will be reading "Watchman" as though it is a draft and pretend it really didn't get published. Which, of course, won't really work!
7
For all lamenting the deconstruction of Finch in this book, and pining for good old Gregory Peck to come to the rescue, I remind you that if you look into it you will find that as Peck himself aged, he became a flaming right-wing ultraconservative. It bothers you when it happens in a book? Well clearly it happens in life.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
You are wrong about Peck. According to Wikipedia, he remained a solid liberal throughout his life. Thank goodness.
5
If you think Peck became a right winger you are the only person I can find who does.
1
I wonder if she purposely waited until Gregory Peck and Brock Peters had passed to publish?
Passed? Do you mean died? If so, why not say "died"?
1
We saw what teachers wanted to see within Atticus.
We've been trained by our public school History texts to see things about the South that never existed, to miss heinous acts that did happen.
So we took that suspension of disbelief, that deliberately inculcated naivete, from History class, straight into English Lit. class in high school.
Voila! Our Atticus bubble's popped.
We've been trained by our public school History texts to see things about the South that never existed, to miss heinous acts that did happen.
So we took that suspension of disbelief, that deliberately inculcated naivete, from History class, straight into English Lit. class in high school.
Voila! Our Atticus bubble's popped.
3
My only exposure to and knowledge of Atticus is via the film featuring Gregory Peck's memorable, inexorable portrayal of the character -- and there is simply no way that this Atticus and the one from the formerly unpublished mss could be one and the same. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a draft of a novel is just a draft.
6
Atticus - His bigotry a result of human nature and influences of ignorance coming from the mob mentality who wave the bible but practice selfishness & hate.
Not much different from today's America.
Did someone just say, "Donald Trump"?
Not much different from today's America.
Did someone just say, "Donald Trump"?
1
Sorry, there is no ignorance presented as the reason behind those bigoted views found in the book. Harper Lee presented an unfiltered and unsympathic view of a way of life from which Atticus' views came. Without a belief that these "Others" are truly different and inferior, less capable of expressing the attributes of being human, there is no "rational" basis for White Supremacy and no way to accept without guilt the privileges conferred on one group and denied the other.
Apparently the unedited Ms. Lee managed to tap into a strain in American culture that is as alive today as it was when she wrote this book. Maybe this time American Arts and Letters will wrestle with what Ms. Lee wanted to say all those years ago: The bigot is indeed disgusting but to turn away from him an impossibility so will his bigotry be the true legacy he leaves us with or will we be someone, something better and different as a result of being disgusted with him?
Apparently the unedited Ms. Lee managed to tap into a strain in American culture that is as alive today as it was when she wrote this book. Maybe this time American Arts and Letters will wrestle with what Ms. Lee wanted to say all those years ago: The bigot is indeed disgusting but to turn away from him an impossibility so will his bigotry be the true legacy he leaves us with or will we be someone, something better and different as a result of being disgusted with him?
Atticus had a stroke, perhaps?
In TKAM, Atticus was a genuine hero. Not a hero in the modern sense in which "heroes" seem to be a dime a dozen ("you're ALL heroes"). He was a character of principle and of honor.
Yet, as I read through the comments, many people seem quite pleased that the image of Atticus has been torn down. Why is that? Has our society become so cynical, so jaded, so mistrustful that we can't permit a true hero (even fictional) in our midst? As I've commented before, it seems that cynicism and mistrust have become equated with intelligence. I find that to be sad commentary on our society.
What's so wrong with a few heroes now and then? Don't true heroes possess many of the qualities that many us would like to have ourselves. Frequently these days, we read of a hero or simply a good person who isn't perfect. He or she is shown to be human. Then begins the almost gleeful "piling on".
what's at the root of all of the cynicism? Maybe the root is jealousy. Many of us are jealous of those who are basically better than we are.
Yet, as I read through the comments, many people seem quite pleased that the image of Atticus has been torn down. Why is that? Has our society become so cynical, so jaded, so mistrustful that we can't permit a true hero (even fictional) in our midst? As I've commented before, it seems that cynicism and mistrust have become equated with intelligence. I find that to be sad commentary on our society.
What's so wrong with a few heroes now and then? Don't true heroes possess many of the qualities that many us would like to have ourselves. Frequently these days, we read of a hero or simply a good person who isn't perfect. He or she is shown to be human. Then begins the almost gleeful "piling on".
what's at the root of all of the cynicism? Maybe the root is jealousy. Many of us are jealous of those who are basically better than we are.
13
I have often described my grandfather as "a real-life Atticus Finch. " He was a doctor in a small farming town who made house calls in his VW bug. We had to convince him it was time to retire when he was 84. When he died, a former patient wrote that when he arrived at her house when she was sick, "I immediately felt better, just knowing he was there." Real Heroes do indeed exist and I am more glad than ever before that I was fortunate to know one.
1
The publication of Watchman is absolutely fascinating and a turning point in literature. It is interesting to learn than an editor, in the era of squeaky clean “Father Knows Best” and other such 1950s programming, encouraged Lee to rewrite her novel -- apparently to fit in with programming themes of the times and of course, to sell books. She did that obligingly but now, with the publication of Watchman, we have an opportunity to compare story A (Mockingbird) with story B (Watchman), which is apparently closer to reality. Very interesting and very timely. It’s a great time to be a student of literature today. Hooray to Harper Lee for prodding us to have a very real conversation about race for once.
7
Is it true that in John Stienbecks first draft of the "Grapes of Wrath", Tom Joad ran a Hedge Fund?
8
John Stienbeck didn't write that, but John Steinbeck did.
Thank God Salinger's dead. Otherwise, we might end up with a new novel where Holden Caulfield sells out and becomes a New York City stockbroker who throws rocks at the ducks in Central Park during his spare time.
Some classics are best left alone.
Some classics are best left alone.
8
We already had that book. It was the autobiography of the late Jerry Rubin.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
2
I wrote earlier that, because of editorial interference with Mockingbird when Lee was a young, unknown writer, I considered Atticus's too-good-to-be-true portrayal in TKAM to be a "lie," while Watchman is "the truth" as the author saw it.
I have to take that back, because having read further, I now see the making of Watchman is a lot more complicated than I'd initially thought. I'd put myself in a media-blackout for the past year to finish a novel, and so I didn't know the part about Lee having suffered cognitive decline, and perhaps having been strong-armed into bringing the book out in the form it is now.
And I have to wonder: If Lee had wanted to publish this book later, why didn't she do so when she was at the height of her literary fame and power? Perhaps not at first, because she was still seeing how Mockingbird would stand the test of time, but why didn't she do it so, say, about 20-30 years later?
It's possible that Watchman is the lie, Mockingbird the truth, or (perhaps most likely) that *both* are lies -- fairy tales that the literary gatekeepers of each time/place/culture wanted to tell, and that some readers of each time/place/culture wanted to hear.
What's now fascinating to me is the *non-fiction* tale of Harper Lee and what's been going on in her life. What I need to read? Not Watchman (not yet, anyway), but biography, news and analysis relating to Lee & the publication process of these two books. And I'll be reading it critically and thoughtfully.
I have to take that back, because having read further, I now see the making of Watchman is a lot more complicated than I'd initially thought. I'd put myself in a media-blackout for the past year to finish a novel, and so I didn't know the part about Lee having suffered cognitive decline, and perhaps having been strong-armed into bringing the book out in the form it is now.
And I have to wonder: If Lee had wanted to publish this book later, why didn't she do so when she was at the height of her literary fame and power? Perhaps not at first, because she was still seeing how Mockingbird would stand the test of time, but why didn't she do it so, say, about 20-30 years later?
It's possible that Watchman is the lie, Mockingbird the truth, or (perhaps most likely) that *both* are lies -- fairy tales that the literary gatekeepers of each time/place/culture wanted to tell, and that some readers of each time/place/culture wanted to hear.
What's now fascinating to me is the *non-fiction* tale of Harper Lee and what's been going on in her life. What I need to read? Not Watchman (not yet, anyway), but biography, news and analysis relating to Lee & the publication process of these two books. And I'll be reading it critically and thoughtfully.
5
Having not read the book, but the book review: Aticuss's transformation, while profoundly sad, is not very surprising Observers of human nature know that most of us lean more heavily on the status quo as we age. But most importantly, Atticus continued to live in the community he had defied; he had defied the tenants of white supremacy and in the aftermath of Emmett Till, crossing the "color line" became more dangerous.
Like many of our heroes, Atticus had clay feet. Scout led Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird. Atticus should have continued to follow Scout---North.
Like many of our heroes, Atticus had clay feet. Scout led Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird. Atticus should have continued to follow Scout---North.
4
Well, I am sorry I started reading your review. Have you ever heard of a spoiler alert? I didn't finish the review and don't intend to do so. I would have preferred to discover the information in the your first paragraph of your review myself. You should have had a warning. Not all of us want details of the book before we read it.
4
This book should never have been published. To Kill a Mockingbird is a classic & the publication of this novel diminishes any value it ever had. We can thank corporate greed for its publication.
10
I have not read "Go Set a Watchman" but ... judging from the this review, a book that was rejected by the publisher should not now be cast into the light of day to besmirch "To Kill a Mockingbird" for the sake of profit. There are many fans of "To Kill a Mockingbird" who were suspicious of the newly found manuscript suddenly appearing and, ignoring its previous rejected status, being hyped into an instant best seller. That's publishing in the USA—it is all about money and nothing to do with lasting value. I feel Harper Lee was taken advantage by her lawyer and her publisher by making money at the expense of despoiling high art. Atticus Finch as been destroyed and I feel someone should answer for that dastardly deed.
8
"How did a lumpy tale about a young woman’s grief over her discovery of her father’s bigoted views evolve into a classic coming-of-age story about two children and their devoted widower father? "
This is probably how Truman Capote saw it. The "same" novel 180 degrees apart. Pretty amazing for a 1-novel author.
This is probably how Truman Capote saw it. The "same" novel 180 degrees apart. Pretty amazing for a 1-novel author.
5
It's clear that "Watchman" is simply an early version of "Mockingbird". Therefore, trying to jive the characters between the two novels is pointless. Watchman was the early draft, Mickingbird is the masterpiece.
7
With all due respect to Times reviewer, Michiko Kakutani, the reviewer seems to have missed the most critical factor of all in this "new" Harper Lee release. The publisher's motivation to collect a profit riding on the iconic name of Ms. Lee. This is not, as the reviewer writes, a new novel but the first draft of what became one of America's most iconic human interest novel - To Kill a Mockingbird. The reviewer does not consider that it is highly likely that the first novel was heavily edited based on the rough draft now titled "Go Set a Watchman." While second and third novels by other legendary novelists are eagerly awaited and satisfying as they come to the market, this feels like marketing trickery. I don't doubt that Ms. Lee is capable of new work, but why re-trench and regurgitate what did not need to be re-done. I'd love editors to encourage Ms. Lee to pick up in her present moment. @johannaclear
3
She cannot write ones because of her cognitive decline.
I don"t plan to read the book. TKAM broke the mold permanently and no prequel or sequel can tell a better story. I think this new book is a money grab even if Miss Lee wrote it herself.
9
I think this whole thing is so freakin awesome - the decades of a universally taught and profoundly admired icon with children named after him, the author who never published any novel before or after, the insane buzz of the prequel after 55 years, and then just few days before the publication, it had to be Michiko Kakutani who sets fire on the 55-year old American legacy and broadsides the entire nation. LOVE IT
But seriously, if GSaW and Atticus Finch are really like what Ms.Kakutani wrote, this will be possibly the single most dramatic and incredible experiment for American literature - like a collective eye-opening / coming-of-age of millions of people after five decades, achived by a single book and a character. Life and literature mingling and generating countless discussions all over, forever. Again, LOVE IT.
But seriously, if GSaW and Atticus Finch are really like what Ms.Kakutani wrote, this will be possibly the single most dramatic and incredible experiment for American literature - like a collective eye-opening / coming-of-age of millions of people after five decades, achived by a single book and a character. Life and literature mingling and generating countless discussions all over, forever. Again, LOVE IT.
5
This is not a book review. It is a comparison between two books with different story lines, fair to neither book nor to the author.
A proper review should have dealt with 'Go Set a Watchman' on its own merits before launching into a comparison. Instead, the whole first paragraph treats "To Kill a Mockingbird," with only the second paragraph beginning "Shockingly" as its first descriptor of the newly discovered manuscript.
The overriding impression left after reading this comparison is a diminishment of Harper Lee's incredible contribution to world literature with "To Kill a Mockingbird."
A proper review should have dealt with 'Go Set a Watchman' on its own merits before launching into a comparison. Instead, the whole first paragraph treats "To Kill a Mockingbird," with only the second paragraph beginning "Shockingly" as its first descriptor of the newly discovered manuscript.
The overriding impression left after reading this comparison is a diminishment of Harper Lee's incredible contribution to world literature with "To Kill a Mockingbird."
3
“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view.” It is this wisdom from Atticus the Left seems incapable of internalizing. The Left never seeks to understand - much less accommodate - views with which it does not agree. Instead the reaction is to ban a flag, burn a book, or shutter a mom and pop business. Controlling this totalitarian instinct is more difficult for a Leftist than giving up heroin is for a drug addict.
4
I've read about 25 comments and this seems to be stirring up what a lot of us have forgotten or laid to rest: we really didn't think the book, the characters were all that great, and did Truman Capote ghost write this after all? He is the "editor" that softened this a bit? I wonder if the diehards will hate that this ever came to be.
2
I’m sitting here...hating every minute that I am living here in the South. (Only two more months!)
I’m angry about the white police killing our black brothers and pusjing 15 y/o black girls face down in the dirt at a pool party.
I hate the news as we see the confederate battle flag revered by most of the South. The hatred in Texas as it rolls out more egregious voter ID laws and attempts to close down every abortion clinic...for the poor.
This is just too much. WHY was it necessary to publish this book? Can’t I have just ONE good memory? Why can’t I just remember Scout and Atticus in Mockingbird?
Must EVERYTHING be hateful...even it it is?
I’m angry about the white police killing our black brothers and pusjing 15 y/o black girls face down in the dirt at a pool party.
I hate the news as we see the confederate battle flag revered by most of the South. The hatred in Texas as it rolls out more egregious voter ID laws and attempts to close down every abortion clinic...for the poor.
This is just too much. WHY was it necessary to publish this book? Can’t I have just ONE good memory? Why can’t I just remember Scout and Atticus in Mockingbird?
Must EVERYTHING be hateful...even it it is?
5
I only lived in the South - in SC - for about a year when I was 7. My mom was a New Englander and my dad was from Southern Colorado. We were in Greenville because my dad was the general manager for the local pro baseball team. I didn't undestand why the busses were divided, why the baseball stands were divided and why the kids from across the street ran up and down in front of our house with their Confederate flag screaming, go home, Yankees! My mom loathed being there and Dad almost got fired for scheduling an exhibition game against a team with black players on it. So, Nuschler, your comment resonated.
4
@Nuschler. Yes... well those in the North East are just such loving, fair, accepting, non bigoted people. You can tell that by what so many of them write about the South and Southerners en mass in the comment sections of this paper.
Try selling real estate to an ex-New Yorker moving down South for relocation or retirement. Take it from me, there are no bigger bigots anywhere, including in the deep south.
Try selling real estate to an ex-New Yorker moving down South for relocation or retirement. Take it from me, there are no bigger bigots anywhere, including in the deep south.
3
@BAV
I am 66 y/o. I lived 34 years in the North and 30 years in Hawai’i.
I am an ER MD so I got to see humans at their very worst...that’s my job to care for my brethren.
But I have NEVER worked with more bigoted people than here in Georgia....and Alabama. Just my opinion.
I am 66 y/o. I lived 34 years in the North and 30 years in Hawai’i.
I am an ER MD so I got to see humans at their very worst...that’s my job to care for my brethren.
But I have NEVER worked with more bigoted people than here in Georgia....and Alabama. Just my opinion.
3
I'd really be interested in a third book making a trilogy - to see how these complex characters evolve again through time. That seems more complete. It's too bad that it's not to be.
3
The first step toward fixing racism in this country is admitting we have a problem. Maybe Ms Lee admission of Aditicus' racism will be a conduit for others? Likely not.
2
Now we know for sure Atticus was both decent and racist, we can grasp a deep meaning to the original book, a more subtle analysis of his character and his society, and a great appreciation for Harper Lee's achievement. But wasn't the racism in a sense always there, just filtered through the eyes of a worshipful child?
2
A fair and compelling review that I hope does not alter what "Mockingbird" created in our society, our schools of learning by suggesting perhaps Atticus's profile in "Watchman" will diminish or dissolve the importance of the civil rights movement. A note: As a companion summer reading to both "Watchman" and "Mockingbird", may I suggest "The Sum of His Worth," a recently released Southern 1950's era novel in a Jim Crow town as told by a white boy whose character is much the same as Scott's rambunctious and fair nature.
1
I haven't read the new book, but... as someone who along with millions of other schoolchildren read this book in school and found it sanctimonious even in the 1970s... I say... GOOD! As others have said, Atticus Finch is not a real person. He is a fictional character sprung from the mind of Harper Lee. It's fascinating to think that this was the first draft. And fascinating to think of how and why she was persuaded to completely rewrite the book (resulting in TKAM) and show only part of the original character she had in mind.
2
Thanks for clarifying that you haven't read the new book, Jen. I guess it would be sort of impossible since the book isn't available till July 14th. Sounds like you didn't really read the article you're commenting on as it was clearly stated that the release date is July 14th. Maybe you simply "skimmed" the article. Your point's not valid that she showed only part of the original character she had in mind. Scout, the narrator of To Kill A Mockingbird (or TKAM as your "skim" personality would have it), was a 6-year-old child, and Lee wrote Atticus through the eyes of her 6-year-old narrator. Her dad was perfect to that little girl. She couldn't see his flaws, and maybe he hid these flaws from his beloved child. She wrote the full personality of Atticus that 6-year-old Scout witnessed. Maybe a younger Atticus wanted to stop injustice when he saw a victim in need of help, but didn't like it when a group of people tried to assert their rights. Maybe he thought a black man should not be imprisoned for the crime of being black, but that same black man should also know his place. Maybe these 2 complex feelings could exist in 1 human being, especially a white man in the south. The Atticus in 1932 may have thought, "We (whites) are going too far. This is not just." And the Atticus of 1957 may have thought, "They (blacks) are going too far. This is not just."
2
@David: "Scout, the narrator of To Kill A Mockingbird ... was a 6-year-old child ..."
You need to read more closely. The narrator is an adult reminiscing about her childhood. See the second paragraph: "When enough years had gone by to enable us to look back on them, ...".
You need to read more closely. The narrator is an adult reminiscing about her childhood. See the second paragraph: "When enough years had gone by to enable us to look back on them, ...".
I prefer to think of this in comparison to, for instance, Jenny Horne's teary impassioned speech in Charleston SC as well as other similar reactions. JH, as a descendent of Jefferson Davis, was moved to strongly make her case for taking down the Confederate flag in her state under the influence of her strong emotions.
The Governor, Nikki Haley is another example.
I'm sure this wouldn't have happened if the AME church massacre hadn't happened before it.
No one, including Atticus Finch, was depicted as a saint in TKAM and I certainly know that I'm not, by a long shot.
I think we all need to grow up no matter how old we are, and be thankful that we have the capacity to change!
The Governor, Nikki Haley is another example.
I'm sure this wouldn't have happened if the AME church massacre hadn't happened before it.
No one, including Atticus Finch, was depicted as a saint in TKAM and I certainly know that I'm not, by a long shot.
I think we all need to grow up no matter how old we are, and be thankful that we have the capacity to change!
To paraphrase a well-know line (so you don't think I'm plagiarizing it) : "What we have here is an attempt to communicate."
An attempt to convey, through fictional characters that, in their time, resembled REAL living people, what wouldn't be spoken in public, or on camera, or on radio, or be "quoted" in the media. This is a DRAFT, that as one commentator has already made clear could not have been published at the time. Of course, it could have, but had it been then we probably, in retrospect, would be looking at it as "the NOVEL that caused riots" and not as "a literary classic" that the subsequent draft(s), published as they were, have become. I've always considered "comparative literature" complete nonsense, however, here we have a specific example of one author's life's work; a draft, unpublished until now, where the characters we know so well play different roles. If every there was a contrast. My feeling is that Lee wanted to publish something along these characters, but turned the story into a whitewashed (pun not intended), typical southern injustice story where emotions could not erupt in opposition to what was published.
An attempt to convey, through fictional characters that, in their time, resembled REAL living people, what wouldn't be spoken in public, or on camera, or on radio, or be "quoted" in the media. This is a DRAFT, that as one commentator has already made clear could not have been published at the time. Of course, it could have, but had it been then we probably, in retrospect, would be looking at it as "the NOVEL that caused riots" and not as "a literary classic" that the subsequent draft(s), published as they were, have become. I've always considered "comparative literature" complete nonsense, however, here we have a specific example of one author's life's work; a draft, unpublished until now, where the characters we know so well play different roles. If every there was a contrast. My feeling is that Lee wanted to publish something along these characters, but turned the story into a whitewashed (pun not intended), typical southern injustice story where emotions could not erupt in opposition to what was published.
More than a few commenters have noted the idealized portrayal of Atticus that they looked up to as children, and how over time they have realized the character is just that: an ideal.
This mirrors the POV of the narrator, Scout, and her own perception of her father. As a young girl growing up without a mother, she idealizes Atticus, and we come to know him through her. In literature, one must always be aware of narrative bias, especially when the narrator is a character in the story, and in Mockingbird our young narrator be cannot be expected to provide an unbiased portrayal of her father, because children tend to see only the good in those they love. Besides, there is clearly much to admire about the Atticus of Mockingbird.
When a grown-up Scout returns home after living in New York, we cannot assume that her description of her father presents a more complete and accurate picture than when she was a child. Most children come to see the faults in their parents as they mature, and that this can be a devastating process. Considering that Scout is coming from New York City back to small-town Alabama during the nascent civil rights movement, the culture-shock of going from a place of fairly progressive racial views to one of bigotry and intolerance must be jarring. For her to see that her father — who taught her so much about justice and equality in Mockingbird — is not as tolerant as she once believed must have an impact on how she sees him and, thus, how we see him.
This mirrors the POV of the narrator, Scout, and her own perception of her father. As a young girl growing up without a mother, she idealizes Atticus, and we come to know him through her. In literature, one must always be aware of narrative bias, especially when the narrator is a character in the story, and in Mockingbird our young narrator be cannot be expected to provide an unbiased portrayal of her father, because children tend to see only the good in those they love. Besides, there is clearly much to admire about the Atticus of Mockingbird.
When a grown-up Scout returns home after living in New York, we cannot assume that her description of her father presents a more complete and accurate picture than when she was a child. Most children come to see the faults in their parents as they mature, and that this can be a devastating process. Considering that Scout is coming from New York City back to small-town Alabama during the nascent civil rights movement, the culture-shock of going from a place of fairly progressive racial views to one of bigotry and intolerance must be jarring. For her to see that her father — who taught her so much about justice and equality in Mockingbird — is not as tolerant as she once believed must have an impact on how she sees him and, thus, how we see him.
11
@Justin: "... in Mockingbird our young narrator ..."
The narrator is an adult reminiscing about her childhood. See the first page, second paragraph: "When enough years had gone by to enable us to look back on them, ...".
The narrator is an adult reminiscing about her childhood. See the first page, second paragraph: "When enough years had gone by to enable us to look back on them, ...".
Your insight is spot on -it is similar to reading a book and reading it again years later and realizing one's perspective of the book has changed due to more life experience (and wisdom). Gone With the Wind is an example of a book that mesmerized me, when I read it as a child, with the opulence and graceful living of the pre-civil war period (for some white families), but when I read it again as a young adult, after exposure to more history books, I knew that the "opulence & graceful living" was created by the blood, sweat and tears of black slaves. What may be glorified during youth often shifts when seen through more mature, educated eyes.
1
Harper Lee humanized Atticus, a product of his time and his immediate community (as such, he is above the rest); she did not canonized him (the media and literary critics did this for us). A courageous man for his time. I believe that Atticus in human matters evolved, unlike some of his contemporaries
3
He really did not "evolve" in the strict sense because this was actually written before TKM. This was how he was portrayed prior to her masterpiece. I wonder what he would look like after her masterpiece--had she really written about him after TKM was published.
Seems in line with the current time: our obsession with demystifying our national heroes so we don't have to listen to what they say: Cosby, Jefferson, Atticus--the parents of our country who are telling us to go to bed, but we want to stay up and have fun!
2
So Atticus isn't up on a pedestal but an all white jury can be persuaded to transcend their prejudice and acquit a black man. Sounds like a more balanced, more realistic novel. I've seen the movie several times (it's a favorite of my better-half) and have always found it rather pat and sugar-coated. And Gregory Peck's southern accent is only sporadic. He seems more like a northerner who has picked up a bit of a twang but has held onto his enlightened views.
3
If this book is half as entertaining as the comments on these pages, it will be a delight. But I'm troubled that we may have prejudged it, as I believe this may spoil the reading for many; perhaps me. I no longer will rush to the book store. Instead, I will let the excitement pass and perhaps read it before a fire this fall with the crackling sounds of hardwoods burning and a roast slowly cooking in the oven. This will set the stage for the mindset that I will want to settle into and forget the opinions of others for a spell.
1
It sounds like from the review it is what most people thought... Someone conned an old woman into releasing something that should never have been released so they could make a buck.
7
What is so wrong with an idealized Atticus? Are we not to aspire?
5
I plan on reading this. One question - does Boo Radley show up? That's what I want to know.
1
In reading the review I thought about the sham of culture and how easily for some anyway it disappears as we age - too much energy and too little time to waste... how sad.
It's really pretty hilarious, hundreds of comments, many extremely impassioned, on a book no one commenting has actually read - unless some of you are actually employed by the publisher, or are actually members of Harper Lee's inner circle, posting incognito ...
I've usually got a lot to say myself, and this development certainly raises some hot potato issues ... but even I want to say could we perhaps put the brakes on this and discuss again after we've READ the book? Don't you guys think it's going to take not only scholars but the general public quite some time to truly digest whatever comparisons and contrasts can be made between the two books, and study the history behind the writing and editing of the two - and this has not even yet gotten started because we haven't, er ... read the book yet.
Yet there are literally dozens of commenters summing up for us exactly what it all means and how we should judge the two books!!
I've usually got a lot to say myself, and this development certainly raises some hot potato issues ... but even I want to say could we perhaps put the brakes on this and discuss again after we've READ the book? Don't you guys think it's going to take not only scholars but the general public quite some time to truly digest whatever comparisons and contrasts can be made between the two books, and study the history behind the writing and editing of the two - and this has not even yet gotten started because we haven't, er ... read the book yet.
Yet there are literally dozens of commenters summing up for us exactly what it all means and how we should judge the two books!!
6
I look forward to to the movie. A pity Gregory Peck can't reprise his role.
1
Ben Affleck would make a good replacement.
1
If Atticus is racist, what chance do we have?
1
Ben Affleck?
As a fiction writer (tho of horror novels), one who has cherished To Kill a Mockingbird since I was a child (at 9, I even named one of our Golden Retriever pups "Atticus"), I find it amusing & heartbreaking to see how much an EDITOR'S interference gave us Mockingbird, while the "author's cut" is Watchman.
In short, that Mockingbird is a romanticized lie, while Watchman is the truth as the author perceived it.
I loved Atticus & Scout as a child (really fell in love with them, the way one can fall in love only with fictional characters), and fell in love all over again when I saw the movie in college. But as an adult looking back, I realized with some dismay that Atticus was perfect. That he was Good -- as Good as the cliche of a "knight in shining armor" or the hero of any formula action flick. That he wasn't human, but an ideal, bearing as little connection to real life as a Platonic form.
That he was a lie.
I'll keep the framed poster of Mockingbird on the wall of my study, thanks. I STILL love Atticus, even tho I've understood for many years now that he's too good to be true. I love him AS an ideal.
But I also welcome the belated publication of the truth. I find the revelation that the character who risked all to defend an innocent black man ALSO was a creature of his time and place. The complexity is real, human and fascinating.
Yes, Watchman will alter Lee's legacy, and for the better. The two books standing side by side and up to something brilliant.
In short, that Mockingbird is a romanticized lie, while Watchman is the truth as the author perceived it.
I loved Atticus & Scout as a child (really fell in love with them, the way one can fall in love only with fictional characters), and fell in love all over again when I saw the movie in college. But as an adult looking back, I realized with some dismay that Atticus was perfect. That he was Good -- as Good as the cliche of a "knight in shining armor" or the hero of any formula action flick. That he wasn't human, but an ideal, bearing as little connection to real life as a Platonic form.
That he was a lie.
I'll keep the framed poster of Mockingbird on the wall of my study, thanks. I STILL love Atticus, even tho I've understood for many years now that he's too good to be true. I love him AS an ideal.
But I also welcome the belated publication of the truth. I find the revelation that the character who risked all to defend an innocent black man ALSO was a creature of his time and place. The complexity is real, human and fascinating.
Yes, Watchman will alter Lee's legacy, and for the better. The two books standing side by side and up to something brilliant.
10
Yes, you are right in all aspects of your comment.
Perhaps what people "remember" most about the Kill a Mockingbird book is in reality the film, which is an entirely different animal.
6
Maybe one novel is enough for some authors. How awful would it be if they forced a sequel to Gone With the Wind...oh wait...
At least Catcher in the Rye is safe
At least Catcher in the Rye is safe
1
Maybe Harper Lee started out as a young writer trying to describe her world, and grew into an understanding of her capacity to shape it.
9
Harper Lee shouldn't have allowed "Go Set a Watchman" to be published. It was a draft of what, two years later, would become "To Kill a Mockingbird," one of the most loved novels ever published. We love "To Kill a Mockingbird" for the integrity and steadfastness of its anti-racist character, Atticus Finch. "Go Set a Watchman" destroys our faith in Atticus. Harper Lee has seriously damaged her legacy.
5
How about waiting to read the book? After all, this article is a review. If this book is well written, then why should we assume her legacy has been diminished? It may add more complexity and nuance to Atticus's character, which might be a good thing, even though this was written first.
Note that Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation owns HarperCollins - does anyone else question the decision to publish the "lost manuscript"?
While we're talking cynicism, how's this: Why now? While it's important to challenge symbols, why choose to "re-envision" a text that has so positively and powerfully inspired so many Americans of all colors and walks of life, offering hope, even as it documented our deep flaws?
What else can Mr. Murdoch do to reduce American culture to its most cynical and divisive, while also making as much money as possible off of us? I'm sure he and his team will think of something. Stay tuned!
While we're talking cynicism, how's this: Why now? While it's important to challenge symbols, why choose to "re-envision" a text that has so positively and powerfully inspired so many Americans of all colors and walks of life, offering hope, even as it documented our deep flaws?
What else can Mr. Murdoch do to reduce American culture to its most cynical and divisive, while also making as much money as possible off of us? I'm sure he and his team will think of something. Stay tuned!
3
If one had read " The Novel" by James Michener will enjoy and appreciate reading the original version of " Mockingbird" in the form of " Watchman". Mr. James Michener beautifully narrates in " The Novel" how the original transcript transforms into a totally different, mostly better and sell-able, version after a grinding and skillful cooperation between the author and the editor.
1
This showcases the power of the editor, the invisible hand shaping novels and writers behind the scenes, in ages past. Imagine how different American literature might be if the author had insisted on self-publishing her first novel over the editor's rejection, as they would nowadays, instead of following the editor's advice and writing a better, second book.
1
It isn't that authors insist on publishing their novels today, it's that editors no longer read submissions by unpublished authors. Without an agent, your book will not be read. The envelope will not be opened. The publishing business has changed utterly since Harper Lee sent in her manuscript.
Thank God for self-publishing.
Thank God for self-publishing.
2
It's a sign of our times. Even in fiction we will not allow an Atticus Finch.
When, come to think of it, he was not a saint, nor unbelievable. He was what a human being should be- a human being.
When, come to think of it, he was not a saint, nor unbelievable. He was what a human being should be- a human being.
1
I look forward to reading "Watchman" with approximately equal measures of dread and anticipation. Coming so closely on the heels of South Carolina's Confederate Flag confrontation, will this book peel back the thin film of civility that today's racists-who-deny-they-are-racists believe makes them not racist? I find it impossible to believe anyone can be so willfully self-blinded to their true beliefs that they actually believe their excuses of honor and tradition. They can't be racist, they adamantly proclaim; look how long it has been since "strange fruit" swung in the breeze! What more do you want?
By removing cover of self-delusion blanketing so many, will "Watchman" stir the wind and fan the smoldering racism in this country to open flame? Unlikely, but, with blatantly racist remarks by one considered by many a viable candidate for the highest office in the nation going not just unchallenged but cheered, frighteningly possible.
By removing cover of self-delusion blanketing so many, will "Watchman" stir the wind and fan the smoldering racism in this country to open flame? Unlikely, but, with blatantly racist remarks by one considered by many a viable candidate for the highest office in the nation going not just unchallenged but cheered, frighteningly possible.
I think this now "fuller" story of Atticus and his family is achingly true for more than Ms. Lee's fictional characters. Young children are often inspired by the good they see in parents, only to become disappointed when they learn later in life that their parents were not perfect, and occasionally very disappointingly so. I suppose it was too much to expect of the Atticus character -- a product of his time -- to be a true social egalitarian. Exposing this truth -- that more lurks below the surface than might appear -- couldn't come at a better time for America.
3
I read To Kill A Mockingbird over and over again....and recently, the first chapter of Go Set A Watchman was published in the Huffington Post as a teaser for it.
It was jarring to find out that Jem was dead. In a nearly perfunctory manner. Suddenly and without any explanation. And since was only four years older than Scout, his death would have been prematurely tragic. But there is no context except to assume he died of the same heart ailment that killed their own mother at an early age.
Obviously the children were close, even in their conflicts with each other. But Jem was barely a footnote in the telling.
I want to read the book fully without judgement. But my analytic nature can't help but speculate strongly on several things at this point.
It was jarring to find out that Jem was dead. In a nearly perfunctory manner. Suddenly and without any explanation. And since was only four years older than Scout, his death would have been prematurely tragic. But there is no context except to assume he died of the same heart ailment that killed their own mother at an early age.
Obviously the children were close, even in their conflicts with each other. But Jem was barely a footnote in the telling.
I want to read the book fully without judgement. But my analytic nature can't help but speculate strongly on several things at this point.
2
I read TKAM when it was brand new; my English teacher lived in the same building as Harper Lee, and told us how surprised she was that this non-descript woman whom she used to see picking up her mail had actual written this best-selling book. Once I had finished TKAM, which I enjoyed at the time, I never wanted to read it again; its sentimentality didn't really interest me. And once I noticed how it became required high school reading, and was in fact the one novel most American 16-year-olds finished, my atttiude was confirmed: something was too simple about this book.
And so I am gladdened to learn that this newly-published but earlier book has so much edge and honesty and (so it seems from the review) lacks sentimentality.
Especially in the context of so many tragic events of the past year, it will be salutary for high school students to read this one too.
And so I am gladdened to learn that this newly-published but earlier book has so much edge and honesty and (so it seems from the review) lacks sentimentality.
Especially in the context of so many tragic events of the past year, it will be salutary for high school students to read this one too.
4
I am reading many of the comments here and I am a bit dismayed at the lack of any attention to the idea that this blatant move by Harper Collins is a tad sleazy. Maybe it's because I am a writer, but clearly, this version was not meant to be published and the author, old, 90% deaf and in a nursing home, was clearly taken advantage of once her lawyer older sister, Alice, died a few years ago. Alice was still a practicing lawyer in her 100's. For years, she protected Nelle from these potentially exploitative moves from dubious lawyers, agents, publishers. Question is: why in the heck did Lee keep this thing at all? Was it for some future display in a protected setting like an archive or something? I am appalled at the sleaze of the people involved in this and embarrassed for the author, who clearly followed some very wise instructions from the editor and made a far better story. This is clearly about the money, folks.
6
I consider this book sheer exploitation of a beloved author by greed heads.
This, clearly, is a book that should have been published, with academic apparatus, by a university press. If it truly meant anything to Ms. Lee, she would have revised it, long ago, so that it served as a sequel. That would not have meant radically changing Atticus into Gandhi (who also had his hideous warts), but it would have meant hard work of the sort that made Mockingbird a classic.
This, clearly, is a book that should have been published, with academic apparatus, by a university press. If it truly meant anything to Ms. Lee, she would have revised it, long ago, so that it served as a sequel. That would not have meant radically changing Atticus into Gandhi (who also had his hideous warts), but it would have meant hard work of the sort that made Mockingbird a classic.
4
For those who missed it: Atticus Finch is not real. This is like trying to 'understand' how the Easter Bunny can lay eggs. Atticus can do, become, and morph into anything the author wishes. They are basically two different books that share some common elements. Even though the characters have the same names the stories are not about the same people at all. Again, fictional people.
If anything qualifies as much ado about nothing, this imaginary conflict does.
If anything qualifies as much ado about nothing, this imaginary conflict does.
3
Perfect timing when one considers the recent discussions in SC over the Confederate flag How did a flag that for 60 years was seen as an object to honor fallen soldiers for their service to the south turn into such an emblem of hate starting in the late 1940s
Since I first understood this "first draft" was to be published, I have had a sense that it was a mistake. This, I thought, could only diminish the legendary "Mockingbird" and from what I have read here, my worst fears have been realized. The same characters take on much different characteristics and story lines are muddled. I don't think I shall read it. It should have been used for scholarly research and not been sold as a new novel. Yes, anyone wonders what a first draft looks like. Well, now you have it. I'll stay with the final draft.
3
I grew up in a rural town in the South during the 1950s. I welcome this book as it seems that Ms. Lee addresses the every-day banality of 1950s racism. I never knew anyone Caucasian who was remotely like Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird. There was no divide between good and bad people on the topic of racism; everday, otherwise upright, citizens were deeply racist. And, it was far worse than this article indicates. Somehow, this book says more to me about the evils of racism than the heroism of To Kill a Mockingbird.
8
I suppose in some way, this updated portrayal of Atticus Finch is akin to Harper Lee metaphorically putting the Confederate flag back atop any statehouse in the south. My hope is the release of this novel will further compel a much needed honest and frank national dialogue on race in this country.
1
Any girl/woman who does not change her view of her father between six and thirty either lost him while she was very young, or is wearing rose-colored glasses. Scout grew up - it happens to all of us. Not all of us learn to see our fathers are they are seen by others, and it's a very rare soul who actually sees the real man. I look forward to "Watchman" with great anticipation - and a bit of trepidation.
9
I haven't read this new book, nor will I because I do not believe Lee's consent is genuine. But if this review is accurate, the new book makes a rather disappointing sequel. This is obviously not the same Atticus -- because the one in TKaM hadn't been imagined yet. Scout's (or Jean Louise's) maturation simply does not explain these changes in Atticus's character, unless her version of events in TKaM wildly distorts the facts. The Atticus who faces down a lynch mob and whose children are almost murdered by white racists would not himself turn out into a racist creep a mere couple of decades later. That isn't psychological realism; it is simply a different character with the same name.
On its own terms, rather than as a sequel, this book sounds both more believable and more banal. It is certainly true that this new (old?) version of Atticus seems more consistent with the now-trending view that racism is "in our DNA." But TKaM was never meant to be believable in a journalistic sort of way; it has always worked as something closer to myth. Some may find that myth outdated or even insulting, but it has proven deeply meaningful to millions of people. It would be a sad irony if this long-awaited new book served only to sour readers on its predecessor.
On its own terms, rather than as a sequel, this book sounds both more believable and more banal. It is certainly true that this new (old?) version of Atticus seems more consistent with the now-trending view that racism is "in our DNA." But TKaM was never meant to be believable in a journalistic sort of way; it has always worked as something closer to myth. Some may find that myth outdated or even insulting, but it has proven deeply meaningful to millions of people. It would be a sad irony if this long-awaited new book served only to sour readers on its predecessor.
46
It seems clear, both from the review and from previous commentary, that this is not a sequel. The fact that the story occurs after that in "Mockingbird" is perhaps suggestive of that, but a just happens to be precursor (not to be confused with a "prequel") set in the 1950's. So evaluating it on "its own terms" is like evaluating someone's life based on their behavior as a child, long after he or she has grown to adulthood and established a reputation.
Any criticism should be reserved for those who suggested that this be published as a standalone novel at all. Its real interest is to scholars alone.
Any criticism should be reserved for those who suggested that this be published as a standalone novel at all. Its real interest is to scholars alone.
1
Yes! Thank you, I completely agree. This book isn't a sequel so much as a prequel/sequel (sprequel?) It's a rough draft of a young, angry writer's disillusionment with her childhood. Both books are semi-autobiographical. If Ms. Lee was so upset by her editor's request to rewrite her initial book, perhaps she should have written something completely different, rather than keep quiet for half a century, then unleash this (deliberately) oppositional bombshell nearly 60 years later.
Is it more real? Possibly. Is it more timeless? Somehow I doubt it. There are plenty of antiheroes, amoral heroes, and ethically questionable heroes in literature. What made To Kill a Mockingbird so special was that it had a genuinely admirable hero who was actually believable. There were principled white people in the South, even in the 1930s. That To Kill a Mockingbird happened to include one shouldn't be a drawback.
Is it more real? Possibly. Is it more timeless? Somehow I doubt it. There are plenty of antiheroes, amoral heroes, and ethically questionable heroes in literature. What made To Kill a Mockingbird so special was that it had a genuinely admirable hero who was actually believable. There were principled white people in the South, even in the 1930s. That To Kill a Mockingbird happened to include one shouldn't be a drawback.
The book is NOT a sequel. It is a draft of what became TKaM. If you are worried that it will "sour" you, don't read it.
Upon reflection, it seems to me that 'Watchman' is the book Harper Lee wrote, 'Mockingbird' the one her editor (essentially) did.
It also seems to me that after 'Mockingbird's' reception and its embedding in the American consciousness and canon, Ms. Lee's sister, and Harper herself, understood that 'Watchman' could not be published.
Both women knew that what has followed surely would.
To suggest Harper Lee has been taken advantage of in her infirmity and old age with this publication is to fail to give her credit for perhaps wanting to see her 'real' work published before she's left this Earth.
Interesting that the book has seen its light of day after the death of her sister.
Comparing characters in both books is futile for they aren't the same......either the characters or the story.
I believe both Lee sisters knew this very well. It surely explains the decades of 'caginess' about whether there was, or was not, a 'second' novel.
Indeed, there was a 'first,' and only.
It also seems to me that after 'Mockingbird's' reception and its embedding in the American consciousness and canon, Ms. Lee's sister, and Harper herself, understood that 'Watchman' could not be published.
Both women knew that what has followed surely would.
To suggest Harper Lee has been taken advantage of in her infirmity and old age with this publication is to fail to give her credit for perhaps wanting to see her 'real' work published before she's left this Earth.
Interesting that the book has seen its light of day after the death of her sister.
Comparing characters in both books is futile for they aren't the same......either the characters or the story.
I believe both Lee sisters knew this very well. It surely explains the decades of 'caginess' about whether there was, or was not, a 'second' novel.
Indeed, there was a 'first,' and only.
3
People who look different mistrusting each other appears to be human nature, unfortunately, regardless of one's race/ethnicity and perhaps as a vestige of times that were more violent because resources were scarce and there were no safety nets. The best that we can do may be to practice mindfulness about being open-minded. The recently reported sleep-therapy-to-eliminate-racism idea is intriguing, though.
These books are novels. The power of "To Kill a Mockingbird" was this: "he was the perfect man — the ideal father and a principled idealist, an enlightened, almost saintly believer in justice and fairness. In real life, people named their children after Atticus. People went to law school and became lawyers because of Atticus." He was also a lawyer, bound by his profession to represent both sides of a crime. "To Kill a Watchman" sounds much more realistic for those times - in small southern towns if you wanted to succeed professionally you fell in line with the other people who "owned" the town and they wanted to suppress blacks through fear and economic strangulation. Yesterday, when South Carolina finally took the confederate war flag down from the state capitol, shows us that America, as a country, WILL DEMAND that we move ahead and leave the idea of racism, anger, violence and fear behind.
I don't agree that Atticus was all that perfect. The orbit of the entire story was his stubborn insistence on adherence to the rules. In the final scene, he actually is offering up his son and Boo as murder suspects -- because of his fixation on the rules. The sheriff -- the same man whose cops killed Tom -- had to overrule Atticus and squelch the whole absurd idea.
Atticus was a complete contrast to Scout, whose personal story is her growing inability to understand or accept rules that are embedded with contradictions.
I think that almost 60 years of reading this story as the fable of Tom and Mae Ella may have distracted us from the fact that Scout's childhood wrestling with her father's overpowering idiosyncrasy was the actual plotline.
Atticus was a complete contrast to Scout, whose personal story is her growing inability to understand or accept rules that are embedded with contradictions.
I think that almost 60 years of reading this story as the fable of Tom and Mae Ella may have distracted us from the fact that Scout's childhood wrestling with her father's overpowering idiosyncrasy was the actual plotline.
2
In another 100 years?
The earth should survive so long!
The earth should survive so long!
It's not a sequel, it's a different story using the same character names. There's no reason to grieve that Atticus is not the man he was in Mockingbird. That one didn't grow into this one. They are differently imagined characters with the same name.
23
I have read many of the comments in this forum and your succinct comment is the best analysis of these two novels. Consider the chicken or egg dilemma - "Watchman" would be the egg because it came first; TKAM would be the chicken having similar genes but a whole different character and personality especially where Atticus is concerned. Thank you for your comment.
1
Kakutani presents a good reaction to the new publication: confusion.
Confusion that two completely different characters ar the same "character." The complete 180 seems inconstant if you are thinking of GSAW as a "sequel. It's not.
The publication, as lucrative as it may be, brings up too many problems--most of all the idea of what we should be (hero myth) vs what we are (flawed)
Confusion that two completely different characters ar the same "character." The complete 180 seems inconstant if you are thinking of GSAW as a "sequel. It's not.
The publication, as lucrative as it may be, brings up too many problems--most of all the idea of what we should be (hero myth) vs what we are (flawed)
5
A good man seen through the eyes of his 9 year old daughter. The same man seen through the eyes of same daughter yet 20 years later. Is the contrast in his character truly that unusual considering what societal changes make of us all and how we conceive and judge one another in the times where we find ourselves?
7
The whites who supported and participated in slavery projected or "saw" their own worst moral failings on blacks. They saw blacks as violent (whites were violent), deceitful (whites were deceitful), lazy (whites were lazy), and all the other racial stereotypes that cling to our society today. Psychological projection can be conscious or unconscious or both. It's a way of defending oneself in one's own self-perception as a good person, and this projection can surely cause evil actions. It's the defensive and rationalizing mechanism behind scapegoating.
Why did whites in the South need so badly to defend themselves as good people? Because they supported slavery with its dehumanizing evils, and they knew their own deep guilt, perhaps more severely than they could even admit to themselves. Thus the vicious circle comes round. Why do white racists need to keep being racist? To push the guilt of slavery and Jim Crow off of themselves, onto blacks.
Yes, Atticus Finch is both kindly lawyer and raving racist. That makes sense to me. This is the convoluted racism we need to get past. As a white person born in South Carolina, I have recently explored this paradox in my family memoir, "Into the Briar Patch."
Why did whites in the South need so badly to defend themselves as good people? Because they supported slavery with its dehumanizing evils, and they knew their own deep guilt, perhaps more severely than they could even admit to themselves. Thus the vicious circle comes round. Why do white racists need to keep being racist? To push the guilt of slavery and Jim Crow off of themselves, onto blacks.
Yes, Atticus Finch is both kindly lawyer and raving racist. That makes sense to me. This is the convoluted racism we need to get past. As a white person born in South Carolina, I have recently explored this paradox in my family memoir, "Into the Briar Patch."
11
Oddly, this book sounds more interesting than its rewritten fairy-tale incarnation of what is essentially a children's book. Presumably, in "Mockingbird" Harper Lee seems to have re-imagined the South's racial bigotry from a Southern point of view, as if to engage readers like the people in her own home town with a sense of what was good in their own experience - a childish lack of prejudice toward other classes and races - and to register a child's shock at adult hatred and injustice. Faulkner managed to capture both this willingness to see people as individuals, and his culture's racist stereotypes, and perhaps Ms. Lee was trying for the same thing in "Watchman" - to register both an insider's understanding of what makes her townspeople bigoted, and an outsider's shock at the bigotry. Her subsequent, more indirect approach succeeded in being more persuasive in nudging Southerners away from their prejudices, by reminding them of the innocent children they had once been, before bigotry claimed them in the process of growing up.
6
Neither book nor movie rang true as a story but the dialogue among the kids was good. The film was a set-piece for Gregory Peck and a high point of righteous propaganda ably conveyed--only to be sneered at a few years later.
The new book sounds good. But will there be a movie? Perhaps Anthony Hopkins will play Atticus.
The new book sounds good. But will there be a movie? Perhaps Anthony Hopkins will play Atticus.
2
And to think we maybe would never have seen or lived another side of Atticus Finch. Sort of unimaginable of our hero.
"Do you want Negroes....in our world?" Oh really?
With so much political vying these days in the name of diversity, or what should be in the name of diversity, ironic this book is released at this time.
Wonder if Harper Lee will ever understand the impact of not only "To Kill a Mockingbird" but also of "Go Set a Watchman" in yet today's world, where yes, we want "Negroes" and everyone else no matter color or creed.
Get ready teachers, this will be your new task. You are the ones who introduced many of us to "Mockingbird" and so glad you did. Now let our kids and grandkids be able to draw their conclusions with "Watchman" also.
And let us be there with gentle guidance.
"Do you want Negroes....in our world?" Oh really?
With so much political vying these days in the name of diversity, or what should be in the name of diversity, ironic this book is released at this time.
Wonder if Harper Lee will ever understand the impact of not only "To Kill a Mockingbird" but also of "Go Set a Watchman" in yet today's world, where yes, we want "Negroes" and everyone else no matter color or creed.
Get ready teachers, this will be your new task. You are the ones who introduced many of us to "Mockingbird" and so glad you did. Now let our kids and grandkids be able to draw their conclusions with "Watchman" also.
And let us be there with gentle guidance.
4
The perfect storm: an absent old woman, a political moment, and the convergence of marketing and editing, all with the purpose of denigrating the image of the "saintly white man." I wonder if there is a backstory behind all of this.
Even if TKAM is a myth, there is a purpose of that--to elevate the consciousness and create heroes and villains, from Luke Sywalker to Jesus.
Is Atticus redeemed in he end?
Yes real life is more murky, but thats an authors choice. I just wonder who here is making those decisions.
Even if TKAM is a myth, there is a purpose of that--to elevate the consciousness and create heroes and villains, from Luke Sywalker to Jesus.
Is Atticus redeemed in he end?
Yes real life is more murky, but thats an authors choice. I just wonder who here is making those decisions.
9
I found this review "curious". You never mention "Watchman" without "Mockingbird". Why can't you review this novel on it's own merits?
8
Because no one would be paying any attention to GTAW if it hadn't been written by the beloved author of TKAM.
1
Reviews frequently make comparisons to other books - both those by the same authors and touchstone classics that the reader is likely to be familiar with - in order to highlight the qualities and deficiencies of the book under review. Such comparisons help the reader understand what the reviewer is saying about the book under review, and give him or her a better idea of whether they are likely to want to read it. A good review is equal parts description and evaluation; comparisons help accomplish both of these functions.
1
Note that some authors--like Alice Munro--make literary hay by reworking and previously-published stories. It's a great way of not wasting a scrap...
I'm a little confused by all the debate here. A draft was written; a fine editor saw its flaws but the potential for a great story; the writer had the sense to trust the editor and find the essential heart of her story and lay flesh around it; an opportunist got her hands on that early draft and has entered into marketing paradise.
Many, many writers have ideas that endure difficult and painful gestations. Many writers with a commercial success then sell every scrap of paper they can, not concerned about merit but only about money...
I suspect Harper Lee was indeed not competent to deal with the enormous pressure from Tonja Carter regarding this manuscript. A team has assembled it.
It's too bad that Lee didn't go back to this three decades ago, and refine it into a genuine sequel instead of what it is, a first draft of a different story.
I'm a little confused by all the debate here. A draft was written; a fine editor saw its flaws but the potential for a great story; the writer had the sense to trust the editor and find the essential heart of her story and lay flesh around it; an opportunist got her hands on that early draft and has entered into marketing paradise.
Many, many writers have ideas that endure difficult and painful gestations. Many writers with a commercial success then sell every scrap of paper they can, not concerned about merit but only about money...
I suspect Harper Lee was indeed not competent to deal with the enormous pressure from Tonja Carter regarding this manuscript. A team has assembled it.
It's too bad that Lee didn't go back to this three decades ago, and refine it into a genuine sequel instead of what it is, a first draft of a different story.
9
The PBS "American Masters" episode on Harper Lee featured Anna Quindlen who said, as a young reader, she was a collector of strong female characters. She listed three: Anne of Green Gables, Jo in Little Women, and Scout. Obviously racial issues are central to To Kill a Mockingbird and as a young reader myself, I was very attuned to those. Two years before I read the novel, I had spent my fifth grade year in Alabama (military family) and was traumatized by what I experienced in school there and the names I was called (I am white). TKM helped me reflect on that experience.
However, my primary response to TKM was similar to that of Quindlen and many of my women friends. Scout was forever a role model for me, and I still love the novel for its hope offered to me as a 12-year-old girl in 1962 who had her own ideas and who didn't want to be a "girly girl" and be a "lady" (as my family advised me). That aspect of the novel will never change, and the review indicates that Jean Louise is still thinking for herself in Go Set a Watchman.
However, my primary response to TKM was similar to that of Quindlen and many of my women friends. Scout was forever a role model for me, and I still love the novel for its hope offered to me as a 12-year-old girl in 1962 who had her own ideas and who didn't want to be a "girly girl" and be a "lady" (as my family advised me). That aspect of the novel will never change, and the review indicates that Jean Louise is still thinking for herself in Go Set a Watchman.
7
I can't wait to read it.
2
People do realize that this is a fictitious character, right?
11
Atticus Finch a segregationist and Klan member?
Reddit is bigoted and racist?
American Psychological Association sold pop psychology on torture?
OK.. I am slowly but surely loosing my faith in humanity.
Reddit is bigoted and racist?
American Psychological Association sold pop psychology on torture?
OK.. I am slowly but surely loosing my faith in humanity.
5
Actually the review makes this book sound quite interesting, although that may not have been the shocked reviewer's intent. To me "Mockingbird" is an ok novel. Aren't dark characters more interesting?
3
I can’t wait to read this book now, whether intended or not this sequel or prequel now has the potential to be a huge literary event and more relevant to our times than the original novel. Of course, the Atticus of the thirties would have thought things were going too far in the fifties and Scout’s adored parent would turn out to have feet of clay. I hope the novel will be about how the adult Scout reconciles her two Atticuses and I look forward to seeing how we do it. Already the childish have spoken out on social media, the ones who will not accept that the early Atticus and the later one could exist in the same person and now feel betrayed by the author. We live in a world that rejects nuance for the comfort of absolutes.
Our politics especially our racial politics are simplistic and superficial; we can’t accept the complexity of human nature today, people have to be either all bad or all good. That’s how a flustered principle who says something even remotely racist at a graduation ceremony can lose her job over it. I think most people today will not accept that the two Atticuses can coexist in the same person, that either the second one is an aberration that wasn’t suppose to see the light of day, or that the first was the illusion of a child. There is a real resistance to truth today. We should be grateful for novelist like Harper Lee who keep pointing it out for us.
Our politics especially our racial politics are simplistic and superficial; we can’t accept the complexity of human nature today, people have to be either all bad or all good. That’s how a flustered principle who says something even remotely racist at a graduation ceremony can lose her job over it. I think most people today will not accept that the two Atticuses can coexist in the same person, that either the second one is an aberration that wasn’t suppose to see the light of day, or that the first was the illusion of a child. There is a real resistance to truth today. We should be grateful for novelist like Harper Lee who keep pointing it out for us.
10
To understand this novel, one must first read carefully the history of the South, from the time that World War II began to bring an end to the crushing effects of the Great Depression, to the halcyon times of the 50's...at least for those living in the booming cities of the Northeast and West Coast. Reading that history, one can better relate to the use of Segregation as a political tool, in the battle between North and South...that goes on until this day.
1
When written The Mockingbird - 1961 had relevance but to day and as with this new book it does not.
Mockingbird still has relevance and I think will for a long time. My kids were assigned this as summer reading and we already had a nice copy (a gift from their grandparents). We had many discussions about this book and evidently they also had them at school. It covers many ideas and is really universal.
4
It sounds like you have two different books that use characters with the same name but are not the same people.
Atticus was not a real person. He was a fictional character in Mockingbird and he is, apparently, a different fictional character in Watchman. Trying to understand the two representations as either being a child like view of the first and an adult view of the second completely misses the point.
It is interesting from an understanding the making of a novel to see these two books as versions of the same story, told in different ways, but to make more of it than that, as if there is a real Atticus somewhere, makes no sense.
Atticus was not a real person. He was a fictional character in Mockingbird and he is, apparently, a different fictional character in Watchman. Trying to understand the two representations as either being a child like view of the first and an adult view of the second completely misses the point.
It is interesting from an understanding the making of a novel to see these two books as versions of the same story, told in different ways, but to make more of it than that, as if there is a real Atticus somewhere, makes no sense.
5
First draft "Watchman" is a great example of the importance of editors and publishers and shows what "literature" will come to when it's all left to Jeff Bezos and Amazon. Bezos has said he doesn't believe publishers matter, which conveniently fits his business model of his making a fortune off self publishing. "Mockingbird" would never have existed if a wise editor had not seen the jewel hidden beneath "Watchman."
9
What a mark of genius. She has held the story alive for 50 years and now surprises us with the conclusion. Brilliance.
I see. It's a rough draft, not a sequel. It will be fascinating to read once we've recovered from the shock.I just wish we could have more from Ms.Lee about the process by which it went from the draft to the great American novel.
1
More than before, I'm looking forward to reading "Watchman" to see both Jean Louise's town and her father through adult eyes. Perhaps the Atticus of Watchman will turn out to be a living, breathing human -- just as, for example, Lincoln and King were, before they were turned into saints carved into statues.
4
Now more than ever I'm highly suspicious of this publishing endeavor. If Ms. Lee, decades ago and unambiguously in full possession of her faculties, had wanted to present this story following (and despite) the success of Mockingbird, I imagine she could have. I can't help suspecting that Watchman is being published not due to an author's free choice but rather to enrich others.
10
Well, I can see why Ms. Lee never published that book until now. That editor who told her to rewrite "Watchman" may have done Harper Lee, literature, and America the greatest service ever done by a book editor.
I prefer to think that the two books are entirely unrelated. Lee used the same names and small town, but the people are entirely different. The Atticus of "Mockingbird" and the Atticus of "Watchman" are two different people with the same name. I prefer to think that the Atticus of "Mockingbird" aged and mellowed approving of the changes in race relations for which he helped to lay the groundwork. Perhaps he even found love again.
Ironically, given Ms. Lee's own age, the story could have been about the decline and degeneration of an aging Atticus. It is not so unusual for a person to grow old, lonely, and bitter. He never remarried after the death of his first wife. His son died. His daughter moved to the big city. Old men grow more conservative and are sometimes unable to deal with major social changes. That could have been Atticus.
I prefer to think that the two books are entirely unrelated. Lee used the same names and small town, but the people are entirely different. The Atticus of "Mockingbird" and the Atticus of "Watchman" are two different people with the same name. I prefer to think that the Atticus of "Mockingbird" aged and mellowed approving of the changes in race relations for which he helped to lay the groundwork. Perhaps he even found love again.
Ironically, given Ms. Lee's own age, the story could have been about the decline and degeneration of an aging Atticus. It is not so unusual for a person to grow old, lonely, and bitter. He never remarried after the death of his first wife. His son died. His daughter moved to the big city. Old men grow more conservative and are sometimes unable to deal with major social changes. That could have been Atticus.
9
It sounds like Watchman presents a more accurate portrait of racism amongst ordinary citizens in the South during the 1950s. In this regard the novel may have merit. However, having read the reviews and the first chapter of Watchman, it does not seem consistent with the fictional universe established in To Kill a Mockingbird (TKAM) - thus I take issue with the decision to include some of the same characters, town, etc. For example, the cursory and uncaring statement about her brother having "dropped dead" (he's not even referred to by name) at 14, a year after the events in TKAM, is inconsistent with the adult Scout's caring narrative in TKAM, and what is in large part her beloved brother Jem's coming of age story in the face of the horrific injustice to Tom Robinson. An Atticus who speaks with such racism (as he does in the review), is not consistent with the Atticus in TKAM. Of course, not even the Atticus in TKAM is a 2015 progressive, but he was a progressive for his time and circumstance, and the Atticus described in this review of Watchman is not. As a writer, I understand that novels - and characters - can change immensely during the revision process, often resulting in a final work that's inconsistent with earlier drafts. But when that happens, most writers view the earlier versions as moot - and is likely why this remained in a vault all these years - or they change the characters names, etc., and publish a genuinely new story.
4
Watchman was written first.
4
I know it was drafted first, that is the point. Watchman is an earlier draft that was rewritten to create (or scrapped to make room for) To Kill a Mockingbird; once To Kill Mockingbird was published, Watchman was no longer consistent with the fictional universe created by TKAM. For example, the Atticus of To Kill a Mockingbird is not the Atticus of Watchman. Writers rewrite material all the time, and often, as was my point, the rewrites render the earlier versions moot.
PS And Watchman was published second. Prior to publication, she/her editor should have changed the names of the characters, the town, etc., before publishing this book, to eliminate its inconsistency with the fictional world created for readers when TKAM was published.
Curiously, and based on the descriptions of Watchman, her original story is a representation of reality insofar as it describes real people, in real circumstances, as they are, as they really are (or were).
Mockingbird is, in comparison, a revision, a restructuring and a revision of the original manuscript under the tutelage of an editor. Put another way TKAM is the Politically Correct version. And if this is so it is also a 'pious lie'. TKAM can then be seen as a projection, or an idealisation, or the desire to twist reality to conform to what, at that time, was a 'necessary' version. It certainly fits in to the early 60s in this sense.
What is curious indeed is that WE do this: we revise history, we revise our own history, we engineer and reengineer the past. I would not call this dishonest, I would rather say that it seems to be the way that idealism functions.
If there is an alternative, it is a troubling one.
My impression of the general psychological state of the US right now (to speak very generally---a danger I admit) is that revisionist idealism has taken hold of the general psyche like a dangerous drug and similar to mass-hysteria.
Idealism of this sort will cause people, en masse, to challenge or attack symbols, and it will proceed to other symbolical representations of what is seen as unsavory in our history. I suggest this activity has very little to do with the use of 'reason' and much more to do with emotionalism and mass psychology.
Mockingbird is, in comparison, a revision, a restructuring and a revision of the original manuscript under the tutelage of an editor. Put another way TKAM is the Politically Correct version. And if this is so it is also a 'pious lie'. TKAM can then be seen as a projection, or an idealisation, or the desire to twist reality to conform to what, at that time, was a 'necessary' version. It certainly fits in to the early 60s in this sense.
What is curious indeed is that WE do this: we revise history, we revise our own history, we engineer and reengineer the past. I would not call this dishonest, I would rather say that it seems to be the way that idealism functions.
If there is an alternative, it is a troubling one.
My impression of the general psychological state of the US right now (to speak very generally---a danger I admit) is that revisionist idealism has taken hold of the general psyche like a dangerous drug and similar to mass-hysteria.
Idealism of this sort will cause people, en masse, to challenge or attack symbols, and it will proceed to other symbolical representations of what is seen as unsavory in our history. I suggest this activity has very little to do with the use of 'reason' and much more to do with emotionalism and mass psychology.
5
"Lets face it, Mockingbird presents the dignified white savior image white people want and need to believe about themselves..... Sounds like Watchman is closer to the truth." One reader commented.
I see why GSAW is being published--the tone of today (which editors probably convinced an old woman of, I'm guessing they are female for GSAW and male for TKAM) prefers to look for the faults of man -- which are plenty, while presenting a saintly female critic of this, ignoring that they too are implicated. Harper Lee, or scout, perhaps have the luxury of running away to Truman Capote and NYC and being disenchanted but everyone else has to live in the imperfect world.
I see why GSAW is being published--the tone of today (which editors probably convinced an old woman of, I'm guessing they are female for GSAW and male for TKAM) prefers to look for the faults of man -- which are plenty, while presenting a saintly female critic of this, ignoring that they too are implicated. Harper Lee, or scout, perhaps have the luxury of running away to Truman Capote and NYC and being disenchanted but everyone else has to live in the imperfect world.
1
What bothers me is that I cannot believe that the publishers, the lawyer and others involved were intellectually stimulated by the idea that this Atticus would work in today's world, and therefore felt the need to release this gem. I don't think they even read it. The editors and marketing people at Harper-Collins (now owned by Murdoch) should be polled and asked what their strategy was in releasing this mess upon the world. Until I hear Nelle Harper Lee herself say that she was tired of carrying the burden of presenting a false picture of Atticus to the world, and that this was the work she originally was inspired to write, I feel the entire enterprise is fishy and that no one at Harper-Collins and that lawyer read this draft (it's not a book). At this point in time, I have no faith in the intelligence of people who work in publishing. The lawyer sounds non-too bright.
1
The final line of "to Kill a Mockingbird" always struck me as particularly evocative: "Atticus would be there all night and he would be there when Jem waked up in the morning." I'm sure even the "new" or as the case may be "old" flawed, bigoted Atticus would still be there in the morning. I will read Watchman, but I really did love Atticus. I guess the test will be if I will be able to love Atticus 2.0. And whether that is a reflection of my character or his.
5
So GSAW is a "lumpy tale" and fodder for writers who want to see how to turn first drafts into classics? Is that how Harper Collins sold publication of this manuscript to Ms Lee? I highly doubt it. Did Ms. Lee even get a chance to re-read her own work and suggest changes before it was published? Most writers will find something to twerk in a first draft written eons ago. From the sound of news reports on this transaction it appears that this was rushed to print and that Ms. Lee did not participate in that process beyond making statements and I think that is very unfair to her.
3
Thanks to the excerpts, I will read the book. It begins to look more like a finished work rather than a shallow first draft. Atticus asks his daughter: “Do you want Negroes by the carload in our schools and churches and theaters? Do you want them in our world?” That considered question from the time was answered yes by many of us white daughters. All these years later, the one place some of my admired Black friends deftly skipped were the white churches, where the spirit seems asleep or heavily sedated.
2
Beyond ironic that Watchman, written before Mockingbird, may be more relevant to race relations today that its successor. Public schools are more segregated now than before Brown in '54, the shootings of unarmed young black men (played out video after video), the virulent racism launched by the confederate flag debate and shootings in S.C...it is, indeed, the mid-50's all over again. Even the reactions to this review..."how dare she", "she's crazy", 'Truman Capote did it", "it's all about money." Laughable.
Like others, I had no interest in reading Watchman when it was announced, having always found Mockingbird a kind of white savior, Baby Boomer fantasy version of civil rights. But the idea of Scout going through a quarter-life crisis in her mid 20's, returning south from NYC, seeing things as they really are, rather than through the idealized lens of childhood? Doesn't that square with where Ms. Lee was at the time she wrote it?
I read the first chapter the other night at the Guardian's site and it was great. For all you angry folks out there canceling your pre-orders, I'll be happy to pick up a copy in your place Tuesday.
Like others, I had no interest in reading Watchman when it was announced, having always found Mockingbird a kind of white savior, Baby Boomer fantasy version of civil rights. But the idea of Scout going through a quarter-life crisis in her mid 20's, returning south from NYC, seeing things as they really are, rather than through the idealized lens of childhood? Doesn't that square with where Ms. Lee was at the time she wrote it?
I read the first chapter the other night at the Guardian's site and it was great. For all you angry folks out there canceling your pre-orders, I'll be happy to pick up a copy in your place Tuesday.
6
I think reading this book is a violation. Ms. Lee CLEARLY did not want this book released and it is her greedy handlers that have brought it forward. Now I know why.
Shameful and dispicable. A person's intellectual property should remain so......
This didn't just muddy the waters for Atticus Finch--this is muddied waters for the publishers of this travesty.
Shameful and dispicable. A person's intellectual property should remain so......
This didn't just muddy the waters for Atticus Finch--this is muddied waters for the publishers of this travesty.
4
I was raised by both parents to respect people of all colors. I have always been grateful and considered my Mother to be an enlightened individual (Dad died when I was a teenager). When two dear friends became my crowd’s first inter racial couple in the 1970’s, Mom and I attended their wedding with bells on. Imagine my surprise when Mom, at 88 and near death, was appalled a the thought of “a colored man in the White House”. How we see our parents when we are children is almost never who they really are. Harper Lee is just telling us that truth.
10
Have any of the intelligent readers of the Times ever really loved a music group and listened to their songs and albums for years at home and on the radio and then decades later listened to a compilation of outtakes where the songs they have loved for years are played differently. What you loved as a fast paced song was originally a slow dirge or the musician you thought so serious who can be heard in early recording sessions turning out to be a buffoon. Think about why those sessions that were never meant for the public to hear were released. This is the situation we are in with the release of Ms. Lee's book. It should be looked upon as an amusing insight as to the direction the author wanted as opposed to the fine work we have appreciated for decades.
7
Today I read in Today's AGE, and noted with interest that the paper has devoted several articles to Harper Lee’s new novel. As I read Go Set a Watchman I groaned at how awful it was. The prose flat and full of corny clichés. Feisty and precocious Scout has been reduced to a bland overly cautious adult, old before her and time trying to appear intelligent and engaging.
I was surprised that others were similarly unimpressed with the sequel. I expected that with all the hype readers would gush. Given how popular To Kill a Mockingbird still is, it’s not surprising that readers would be curious about the character’s lives ten even twenty lives later.
I was shouted down online when I dared mention the famous rumour that Harper Lee’s childhood friend Truman Capote wrote TKAM or at least contributed to the novel. I said this as a teacher who has taught the text for many years, as part of English faculty discussions about texts in general, but more importantly because I am familiar with Truman Capote’s work. After reading the extract of the long awaited sequel I have more faith in this rumour.
Apart from clichés, such as, ‘bat out of hell’ and ‘green envy’ the writing is lifeless. For example, ‘he found something so intensely feminine about her that he fell in love.’ This reads as like E L James. Given the extract that I’ve read, I’m not tempted to go to Lax Lasry and the 5 other discuss more on Go Set a Watchman, Melbourne. I’d rather re-read and enjoy TKAM.
I was surprised that others were similarly unimpressed with the sequel. I expected that with all the hype readers would gush. Given how popular To Kill a Mockingbird still is, it’s not surprising that readers would be curious about the character’s lives ten even twenty lives later.
I was shouted down online when I dared mention the famous rumour that Harper Lee’s childhood friend Truman Capote wrote TKAM or at least contributed to the novel. I said this as a teacher who has taught the text for many years, as part of English faculty discussions about texts in general, but more importantly because I am familiar with Truman Capote’s work. After reading the extract of the long awaited sequel I have more faith in this rumour.
Apart from clichés, such as, ‘bat out of hell’ and ‘green envy’ the writing is lifeless. For example, ‘he found something so intensely feminine about her that he fell in love.’ This reads as like E L James. Given the extract that I’ve read, I’m not tempted to go to Lax Lasry and the 5 other discuss more on Go Set a Watchman, Melbourne. I’d rather re-read and enjoy TKAM.
4
What a lot of folks here, even the reviewer, are missing is that To Kill A Mockingbird is a YOUNG ADULT novel. It is certainly enjoyable to adults, as is the film, but it was INTENDED for an audience about 12-16 years of age -- not unlike The Hunger Games series. Or Harry Potter. That adults like these books TOO does not mean that they were not written (and edited and molded) to be for young readers.
What Ms. Lee and her editors did 55 years ago was to take an adult novel and not only re-envision it, but to do it from the POV of a young girl, so that it would be a YOUNG ADULT novel -- to do this, you must take out a lot of complexity and ambiguity that one might have in an adult novel.
A cynical, racist father can be understood in context of an adult novel; in a book for teens and adolescents, this is far too negative. Kids tend to see things as morally simple, good or bad (sadly, so do some adults). They cannot at 12 or 14 understand that Atticus was a good father, but a man with flaws (flaws not unusual for the era in which he grew up and lived).
I plan to read this; I think it will serve as an interesting look at the writing process that went into a classic. (Who would not want to read an earlier version of Gone With The Wind? or The Great Gatsby?)
But as others have noted: this is NOT A SEQUEL. Our society has "sequelitis", anything popular has several sequels, usually of far lower quality than the original and cheapening it. This is an early draft. Read it that way.
What Ms. Lee and her editors did 55 years ago was to take an adult novel and not only re-envision it, but to do it from the POV of a young girl, so that it would be a YOUNG ADULT novel -- to do this, you must take out a lot of complexity and ambiguity that one might have in an adult novel.
A cynical, racist father can be understood in context of an adult novel; in a book for teens and adolescents, this is far too negative. Kids tend to see things as morally simple, good or bad (sadly, so do some adults). They cannot at 12 or 14 understand that Atticus was a good father, but a man with flaws (flaws not unusual for the era in which he grew up and lived).
I plan to read this; I think it will serve as an interesting look at the writing process that went into a classic. (Who would not want to read an earlier version of Gone With The Wind? or The Great Gatsby?)
But as others have noted: this is NOT A SEQUEL. Our society has "sequelitis", anything popular has several sequels, usually of far lower quality than the original and cheapening it. This is an early draft. Read it that way.
3
I think you are wrong about the facts. “Mockingbird” was written for adults and was NOT intended to be a book for teenagers. Marja Mills, a journalist from the Chicago Tribune, who befriended Lee years later, quoted her as saying that she was fortunate the book was published when it was because it had been much later, it might have been classified as young adult fiction and would not have reached such a wide audience.
That does not mean, however, that it lacks complexity and ambiguity (as you point out), which would be a criticism of a novel intended for adults and an explanation of why it is so popular with children.
That does not mean, however, that it lacks complexity and ambiguity (as you point out), which would be a criticism of a novel intended for adults and an explanation of why it is so popular with children.
I have read and saw the movie The Mockingbird which I greatly enjoyed. It is interesting that a previously rejected novel is now being issued. Obviously it has only to do with the Money and nothing to do with the quality of the work. Of course if this version was published initially, we would have never have seen the true masterpiece because the book would have bombed.
4
The quote of Ms. Lee, from 1963, might very well explain her decision between the two Atticuses.
Of Mockingbird,“The book is not an indictment so much as a plea for something, a reminder to people at home.”
Thus, once Watchman was completed, and amidst the charge of resetting the time in Scout's lie, with the benefit of hindsight, she may have recognized Watchman to be more of an indictment, and thus refined and crafted Mockingbird into a plea.
The later idealized Atticus could be the result of Ms. Lee refining her approach with more or less the idea that, 'You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar,'
Of Mockingbird,“The book is not an indictment so much as a plea for something, a reminder to people at home.”
Thus, once Watchman was completed, and amidst the charge of resetting the time in Scout's lie, with the benefit of hindsight, she may have recognized Watchman to be more of an indictment, and thus refined and crafted Mockingbird into a plea.
The later idealized Atticus could be the result of Ms. Lee refining her approach with more or less the idea that, 'You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar,'
1
As the second draft of Watchman, Mockingbird represents a reworking of the difficult emotions of a young woman who left her hometown in anger and disgust. It is a more finished literary work, with more refined characters and deeper insights into the human condition. It does not actually represent the Atticus from Mockingbird as he would have been twenty years later. That Atticus was written out of the story. Furthermore, if Watchman would have been published as it was, it probably would not even be remembered now.
4
Now, we understand why Lee never wrote another word. She had so changed her work to get it published that she'd turned someone she had come to despise into "the hero" of American literature. While she might live with herself as such an amazing success, she couldn't live with herself if she did something so despicable again.
And she would definitely be pushed to do so by money-and-ambition drivers...
And she would definitely be pushed to do so by money-and-ambition drivers...
1
If the reports of the plot and characters and the reviews are accurate, GSAW will be one of the all-time literary disasters and the quintessential example of what happens when the writing of a legend is published only for profit. Very sad and even more disappointing.
4
I'm afraid to read it now! I don't want it to change my love for Mockingbird or for Atticus.
2
I am looking forward to reading the new novel.
The difference, I suspect, between the two books is that one is written at a distance of 30 years or so while the other is written in a contemporaneous mode. What I also suspect is that both novels are about the 1950's, but Lee did with Mockingbird a very deft and artful thing. She was able to channel her dismay at what she saw in the 1950's from the blunt reality of disillusionment in Watchman into the elegant expression of hope in Mockingbird.
Often times one cannot tell the truth about a time during the time, but if an author can weave a story about a different time and place removed from her audience, she can shine light on truths that might otherwise be to difficult to face. For this reason, I believe Mockingbird, at least the Tom Robinson sequence, is best understood as an American parable.
The difference, I suspect, between the two books is that one is written at a distance of 30 years or so while the other is written in a contemporaneous mode. What I also suspect is that both novels are about the 1950's, but Lee did with Mockingbird a very deft and artful thing. She was able to channel her dismay at what she saw in the 1950's from the blunt reality of disillusionment in Watchman into the elegant expression of hope in Mockingbird.
Often times one cannot tell the truth about a time during the time, but if an author can weave a story about a different time and place removed from her audience, she can shine light on truths that might otherwise be to difficult to face. For this reason, I believe Mockingbird, at least the Tom Robinson sequence, is best understood as an American parable.
2
This may come off as anathema, but in the age of ipads and phones, even nearing 30, I have not actually sat down and read "To Kill a Mocking Bird."
1
I envy you a great joy of discovery that I cannot have, since one can only read something for the first time once.
Not anathema, but still very sad.
Last night's "American Masters" series on PBS honoring Harper Lee tells a different story of "Go Set A Watchman" corroborated by her sister, now 95. "To Tell A Mockingbird" thankfully found a publisher after ten rejections and took two years of rewriting and editing before it was published. Yet we are now told that an earlier novel was polished enough to be published now without any editing and rewriting.
Harper Lee's sister also reealed Truman Capote was so jealous that Harper had won the Pulitzer prize while "In Cold Blood" did not, that he spent years claiming he had a part in writing it. But, she adds, when Harper agreed to join him in Kansas to do research for his novel, Capote first saw the galleys of Harper's novel which was about to be published.
Harper Lee's sister also reealed Truman Capote was so jealous that Harper had won the Pulitzer prize while "In Cold Blood" did not, that he spent years claiming he had a part in writing it. But, she adds, when Harper agreed to join him in Kansas to do research for his novel, Capote first saw the galleys of Harper's novel which was about to be published.
2
When I read TKAM, I realized that the character Boo Radley wasn't much more than Scout's savior from being attacked and killed by Bob Ewell. Then I reflected on what might have happened had Boo not existed and Scout had been killed.
Would Atticus try to understand the motives of Ewell by walking in his skin? Or would he more likely go insane with grief, accusing the town of abetting his daughter's death by its overt racism and, in particular, the jury's finding finding Ms. Ewell believable and in condemning Tom Robinson?
Would it have been possible for the town to be so ridden with guilt that many of its introspective citizens residents moved away and the town lost whatever kindness it had allowed itself that itself had allowed an Atticus Finch to practice law there?
I believe that To Kill a Mockingbird might have used such a tragic ending to achieve a much more potent effect on race and its continuing existence in our country, placed as it was in the early 30's and written by a Southern writer, rather than the (well, everything turned out okay) ending it provided us.
Would Atticus try to understand the motives of Ewell by walking in his skin? Or would he more likely go insane with grief, accusing the town of abetting his daughter's death by its overt racism and, in particular, the jury's finding finding Ms. Ewell believable and in condemning Tom Robinson?
Would it have been possible for the town to be so ridden with guilt that many of its introspective citizens residents moved away and the town lost whatever kindness it had allowed itself that itself had allowed an Atticus Finch to practice law there?
I believe that To Kill a Mockingbird might have used such a tragic ending to achieve a much more potent effect on race and its continuing existence in our country, placed as it was in the early 30's and written by a Southern writer, rather than the (well, everything turned out okay) ending it provided us.
2
Having only read the Review, I am reminded of 2 life experiences that relate directly to the book. First is when my brother and I cared for my 90-something father. He seemed so different than when we were younger, with our constant refrain: Who is this guy? Then my wife said to me one day that we see our parents differently than if we met them for the first time on the street. They were guidance counselors and disciplinarians. Would we, as an adult, choose them as a friend if we met them on a street? Second, is when my niece, who lived with me for years, went West to live on her own and eventually school. Our relationship changed, as she was no longer the little girl seeking fatherly (uncle-ly) advice that I knew would be unquestionably taken. I realized, eventually, that she had changed, she had grown up. I also know her perception of me had changed as well.
2
I confess I have not read To Kill a Mockingbird (saw the movie). I read many books but tend to stay away from works some folks characterize as "beloved." Back in 1958, three years before Mockingbird was published, Lee wrote her friend Joy Brown her plans for further books: "I have my work cut out for me for the next fifteen years:
(1) Race Novel
(2) Victorian Novel
(3) What Mr Graham Greene calls An Entertainment
(4) I'm gonna tear Monroeville to pieces (1958 Monroeville)
(5) A Novel of The United Nations
(6) India, 1910"
Perhaps the overwhelming success of Mockingbird intimidated Miss Lee and spared us these future efforts.
(1) Race Novel
(2) Victorian Novel
(3) What Mr Graham Greene calls An Entertainment
(4) I'm gonna tear Monroeville to pieces (1958 Monroeville)
(5) A Novel of The United Nations
(6) India, 1910"
Perhaps the overwhelming success of Mockingbird intimidated Miss Lee and spared us these future efforts.
4
Guys, gals, it's a piece of historic fiction, based on the times. To Kill a Mockingbird, I think, is a breathtakingly beautiful story, a narrative as told by a child. It makes perfect sense that the narrative changes as that girl, Scout, grows older and becomes more keen on the ugly adult realities. As for Atticus' racist perspectives? Such would be in step with many of the most educated whites of the time.
Are we to rewrite history?
Are we to rewrite history?
2
Liberal disillusionment, that old bugbear of Times readers, sets in with a virulence.
4
Whaaaaat?
Flannery O'Connor wrote in a letter that To Kill a Mockingbird was "a children's book." I read the book when I was twelve and used it with success with middle school students (for whom the teacher's lack of understanding about their lives certainly resonates). I resisted O'Connor's dismissal and chalked it up to understandable jealousy that Lee's story should have become an instant classic when O'Connor's work was often misunderstood. But later, I realized that this was the clear-eyed, unsentimental assessment typical of O'Connor. I do not think that this in any way diminishes the novel, and as a writer, I find it fascinating and will be interested to see why Lee made the choices she did: was it to protect her father, who might very easily have been all these things, a product of his place and time, but also aware at another level of the injustice that prevailed? Was it, as some suggest, that an editor took a heavy hand in the novel's final shape? Her own ambivalence about publishing the book might suggest that she had to wait until those she loved were dead, but also that Lee herself had some of the same feelings as her young protagonist: the adoration of a girl for her brilliant father and the disillusionment that comes at about the age she decided to become a writer, when she realizes that he has clay feet.
5
My opinion is that the PR mavens at Harper had a problem. Here was a lumpy, rough, first-draft that had market potential but just wasn't all that good, as a literary work. Hmmm, it could be a sales blockbuster but could tarnish poor Harper Lee's legacy. What to do? The answer: position the book as a "real" analysis of life down there, in synch with the terror and trauma of this moment in time. Voila! The book, an imperfect first draft, will fly off the shelves, Lee's legacy intact. Harper Collins makes their numbers (hooray for Rupert), the booksellers get incremental store traffic, and book clubs around the world have grist for many a meeting. Now, let's ask Ms. Lee if she ever, really, intended for this early work to be published. Oh, that's not possible? Yeah, I thought so.
44
Too much conjecture. Ms. Lee was in her prime and was around for years (in a fairly lucid state of mind) after Mockingbird was published to make comments and/or react to whether this early work was entirely her doing or not. As a strong Southern woman with a feisty personality, I don't see her simply allowing her literary work to be handled and made over by the PR powers that be without voicing some kind of opinion in all the ensuing years that followed. At this point, there is too much conjecture going around without speaking to the author herself.
1
Skippy, since we are in the world of pure conjectural fiction in your comment, here is an alternate possibility: "PR mavens at Harper had a problem. Here was a lumpy, rough, first-draft that had market potential but..." would have caused outrage and regional protests had it been published. Not wanting to risk bad publicity, but sensing a seller, they asked the author to rewrite using the patina of nostalgia and the shimmer of childhood love to smooth over the rough edges of the race problem. The author becomes a mega celebrity, but, alas, can never bring herself to write another book. Perhaps feeling the weight of her first success, but perhaps also suffering from false consciousness her whole life from peddling a myth, she couldn't open her mouth. Now she has, by publishing her original text, warts on everyone and all. We'll see what happens.
You are totally right, Skippy! This manuscript was never intended to be published. It was the original draft of To Kill A Mockingbird and then heavily rewritten and published. For years, Harper has had no intent of publishing are having any kind of fame, and her older sister, a lawyer who practiced till she died last year at age 100, always looked out for her and protected her privacy. Harper Lee has not been in her right mind for some years, and her agent for many years had been manipulating her and having her sign things over to her, etc. This person is the one who was 1) waiting for the sister to die and 2) getting with the publishers to try to get this unedited book out there. This manipulator, I think, has power of attorney and most likely has worked their contract to benefit from any success of this book. Shame on the publishers and this person who are going against Harper Lee's wishes.
I ordered the book from the library. Looking forward to reading it.
The review destroys the myth of sainthood as an all encompassing trait, while opening the reader to a more nuanced view of of the evil that "lurks in the hearts of men".
1
It is funny how upsetting it is for so many people to have the myths about themselves shattered. From the Civil War was about state rights to the idea that small Jim Crow towns were a battleground between racist Boo Radleys and sainted Atticus Finches.
2
Excellent perceptive review. And for me, the Atticus character is even more profound, for despite his racist views which grew out of his culture of that time, Atticus still is on the side of justice and uses his legal skill to call out wrongdoing against an innocent man. Both novels should be read together.
1
Who was that editor?!! This person apparently played a pivotal role in the creation of a classic!
1
Mockingbird has been revered almost to the status of the Bible. Anything written since then will probably be viewed as disappointing or flat.
I am eager to read for myself how things have changed since 1962 in Maycomb, Alabama. I am not looking for another reference guide on how to understand the South, I am just looking for a good and entertaining summer read.
I am eager to read for myself how things have changed since 1962 in Maycomb, Alabama. I am not looking for another reference guide on how to understand the South, I am just looking for a good and entertaining summer read.
1
In answer to all of those complaining that there's very little reviewing in what reads more like an essay, in fairness to Ms. Kakutani, unless she found very, very bad, she couldn't really review this like another book.
Like it or not, this is considered one of the major 20th century American works of fiction. Such things are not reviewable.
Like it or not, this is considered one of the major 20th century American works of fiction. Such things are not reviewable.
A beautiful review of two fascinating works by one of America's great authors. On a subject which merits the attention of each and everyone of us. And now it makes sense why Harper Lee decided not to publish it, after Mockingbird. Also, it turns out to be an incredible moment in American life --for when to publish it.
I would like to know why no one in the press has asked Harper why she changed her mind and allowed the release of this novel which she was adamantly against doing her whole life after the publication of book I. It's a question that needs to be answered.
4
"It seems to want to document the worst in Maycomb in terms of racial and class prejudice, the people’s enmity and hypocrisy and small-mindedness."
It seems to mirror today just as the story mirrors yesterday, reflecting the mean-spiritedness of the Tea Party republicans created as well as the likes of Donald Trump etc. According to how Atticus is portrayed in this 'new' novel, he would have been the perfect southerner Richard Nixon would have included in his racist Southern Strategy.
It seems to mirror today just as the story mirrors yesterday, reflecting the mean-spiritedness of the Tea Party republicans created as well as the likes of Donald Trump etc. According to how Atticus is portrayed in this 'new' novel, he would have been the perfect southerner Richard Nixon would have included in his racist Southern Strategy.
Brava Ms Harper!
Makes total sense to me...at the time of Mockingbird, the Blacks still 'knew their place' and it was easier to feel sorry for them.
By the time of the civil rights movement, they had become "uppity" and someone like Atticus, who had been used to a "civilized" way of doing things and might quite naturally have been against the cross-burnings and lynchings as much for the civil unrest as for the injustice, could quite possibly have changed into someone angry that the old quiet towns would never be the same.
Reminds me of a lot of supposedly decent people who became Republicans - hating every civil rights change that came along...because it meant they could no longer live the uncomplicated lives of their childhoods. To understand where Ms Harper has taken this story, one only has to think of the quiet, humble 'politesse' of Tom Robinson as opposed to some foul-mouthed, violent Panther or rapper. Atticus' whole image was one of gentility... but later on, the upsetting of such gentility in his Southern context might very well have changed him into what he becomes in Watchman.
Fascinating. Time for another Pulitzer, perhaps?
Makes total sense to me...at the time of Mockingbird, the Blacks still 'knew their place' and it was easier to feel sorry for them.
By the time of the civil rights movement, they had become "uppity" and someone like Atticus, who had been used to a "civilized" way of doing things and might quite naturally have been against the cross-burnings and lynchings as much for the civil unrest as for the injustice, could quite possibly have changed into someone angry that the old quiet towns would never be the same.
Reminds me of a lot of supposedly decent people who became Republicans - hating every civil rights change that came along...because it meant they could no longer live the uncomplicated lives of their childhoods. To understand where Ms Harper has taken this story, one only has to think of the quiet, humble 'politesse' of Tom Robinson as opposed to some foul-mouthed, violent Panther or rapper. Atticus' whole image was one of gentility... but later on, the upsetting of such gentility in his Southern context might very well have changed him into what he becomes in Watchman.
Fascinating. Time for another Pulitzer, perhaps?
4
There may be others who noticed, with dismay, this same trend in their own parents - who were Kennedy Democrats in their youth - now,sadly, rabid anti-Obamites in their seniority. I think Harper Lee might have hit on something here - the tendency we all might have to adopt conservative, anti-change POV -- the idea that the younguns are destroying the perfect society they created. The anger at perceived loss of relevance.
But not me! I'm not gonna change! Or, will I?
But not me! I'm not gonna change! Or, will I?
2
How can one (myself) reconcile the two Atticus's? I don't think I could do it, if there are indeed two. Maybe the new, hateful Atticus was there all the time and just not brought out?
Huh. I am not a critical reader.
Huh. I am not a critical reader.
The amazing reception the release of the first chapter of this book has received just strengthens my belief that Lee never wanted it published and she is being exploited by those who stand to make a LOT of money...
3
Looking forward to receiving my copy next week. I remind myself and readers: while there are real life analogs, it is a work of fiction.
2
The alleged contradiction between Tom's verdicts in TKAM and GSAW doesn't strike me as a problem.
In TKAM, Atticus was filing an appeal when Tom was killed while fleeing. I have always "resolved" that ambiguity for myself with the conclusion that it wasn't over. I can imagine many possible reasons why that verdict might have been vacated, and lots of unsatisfactory implications for Scout and the theme had it not.
In TKAM, Atticus was filing an appeal when Tom was killed while fleeing. I have always "resolved" that ambiguity for myself with the conclusion that it wasn't over. I can imagine many possible reasons why that verdict might have been vacated, and lots of unsatisfactory implications for Scout and the theme had it not.
1
It is not the case, of course that the Atticus Finch of Mockingbird becomes the Atticus Finch of Watchman. Rather, Harper Lee disassembled the older Atticus to create his younger self. It is only now that she or others have decided to publish her previous draft that the appearance of a transformation must be explained. The change can make no sense because it was never a part of Ms. Lee's plot.
From a personal point of view, I read Mockingbird as a young teenager living through the death throes of Jim Crow and desperately searching for heroes among the older generations and those in authority. Atticus Finch not only inspired admiration, but energized the demand for reform. Were it not for my wife's good sense, my older child would have borne his name a decade later. It still seems to me that there are a sufficient number of bigoted, self-righteous people in the world that we do not need to morph an icon of tolerance and justice into their ranks. Perhaps Ms. Lee's reluctance to publish Watchman reflected her days of better judgment.
From a personal point of view, I read Mockingbird as a young teenager living through the death throes of Jim Crow and desperately searching for heroes among the older generations and those in authority. Atticus Finch not only inspired admiration, but energized the demand for reform. Were it not for my wife's good sense, my older child would have borne his name a decade later. It still seems to me that there are a sufficient number of bigoted, self-righteous people in the world that we do not need to morph an icon of tolerance and justice into their ranks. Perhaps Ms. Lee's reluctance to publish Watchman reflected her days of better judgment.
3
Two things:
First, we have to remember that this book was not meant to be a sequel, and that there may be some narrative discontinuities because of that. We have to read it, to some extent, as a separate entity. I do, however, find it plausible that Atticus wasn't a saintly figure all along, and that Scout idealized the father she remembered from her youth.
Also, I've noticed some people here dismissing Harper Lee by saying that Capote wrote To Kill a Mockingbird anyway. There's evidence that Capote didn't write it: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5244492. It appears mean-spirited in context to keep making that assumption without providing any substantial reasoning behind why one would think that. To Set a Watchman was originally not meant to be published, and minimal editing was done by Harper Lee before publication. So, of course it probably isn't up to par with To Kill a Mockingbird.
First, we have to remember that this book was not meant to be a sequel, and that there may be some narrative discontinuities because of that. We have to read it, to some extent, as a separate entity. I do, however, find it plausible that Atticus wasn't a saintly figure all along, and that Scout idealized the father she remembered from her youth.
Also, I've noticed some people here dismissing Harper Lee by saying that Capote wrote To Kill a Mockingbird anyway. There's evidence that Capote didn't write it: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5244492. It appears mean-spirited in context to keep making that assumption without providing any substantial reasoning behind why one would think that. To Set a Watchman was originally not meant to be published, and minimal editing was done by Harper Lee before publication. So, of course it probably isn't up to par with To Kill a Mockingbird.
3
I've noticed those Comments about Capote as well. There is a school of thought that Harper Lee was a contributor, and not credited, for Capote's work on "In Cold Blood". I have read that they had a falling out in their relationship after the books were published. I think they were two incredible writers who, unbelievably, grew up next to each other in a small town in Alabama.
1
From what I can tell Atticus would have been born about 1880.
15 years after the Civil War and the end of Slavery.
As such I do not think it is correct to call Atticus a Bigot
as much a product of the society he grew up in.
Unless you treat every human being you have ever met with complete
fairness and justice - you are a bigot. [ Your bigotry may just be that
you favour yourself more than any other human. ]
We treat the poor, the "ugly", those with less than normal IQ's with extreme
prejudice in this country and so we have a society that is bigoted toward them.
Perhaps Atticus had a stroke that Miss Finch did not notice.
Perhaps he is too old and set in his ways to accept all the NAACP
was demanding. Perhaps he is more like us than we care to admit
and Miss Lee failed to understand the faults of her father, faults we all have.
15 years after the Civil War and the end of Slavery.
As such I do not think it is correct to call Atticus a Bigot
as much a product of the society he grew up in.
Unless you treat every human being you have ever met with complete
fairness and justice - you are a bigot. [ Your bigotry may just be that
you favour yourself more than any other human. ]
We treat the poor, the "ugly", those with less than normal IQ's with extreme
prejudice in this country and so we have a society that is bigoted toward them.
Perhaps Atticus had a stroke that Miss Finch did not notice.
Perhaps he is too old and set in his ways to accept all the NAACP
was demanding. Perhaps he is more like us than we care to admit
and Miss Lee failed to understand the faults of her father, faults we all have.
5
As a journalist in Alabama from 1959 to 1979, I knew to a small degree the "real" Atticus Finch. His name was Amasa Lee, Nelle Harper Lee's father and, in addition to being a lawyer, was editor of the weekly newspaper in Monroeville (Maycomb), Alabama.
He was a moderate on the race issue, which is to say a segregationist but no violent lunatic. But then virtually all white Alabamians were segregationists at the time.
But the one person who came closer to being the "real" Atticus Finch was a man named Clifford J. Durr, the lawyer who got Rosa Parks out of jail when she was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on the Montgomery bus in 1955.
Needless to say, this cost him his law practice, but by the end of his life in 1975 he had grown into a towering figure, the absolute embodiment of courage and integrity without the slightest trace of self-righteousness.
Those of us who were fortunate enough to know him came to have a kind of quiet second conscience. Whenever confronted, as all we are in life, with a moral dilemma, and are tempted to take on the protective coloration of the landscape, we still hear a small voice asking: "But what would Cliff Durr think?"
Atticus lived -- and lives -- as Cliff Durr. I should add that all of what I say about Cliff applies equally to his remarkable wife, Virginia Foster Durr.
He was a moderate on the race issue, which is to say a segregationist but no violent lunatic. But then virtually all white Alabamians were segregationists at the time.
But the one person who came closer to being the "real" Atticus Finch was a man named Clifford J. Durr, the lawyer who got Rosa Parks out of jail when she was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on the Montgomery bus in 1955.
Needless to say, this cost him his law practice, but by the end of his life in 1975 he had grown into a towering figure, the absolute embodiment of courage and integrity without the slightest trace of self-righteousness.
Those of us who were fortunate enough to know him came to have a kind of quiet second conscience. Whenever confronted, as all we are in life, with a moral dilemma, and are tempted to take on the protective coloration of the landscape, we still hear a small voice asking: "But what would Cliff Durr think?"
Atticus lived -- and lives -- as Cliff Durr. I should add that all of what I say about Cliff applies equally to his remarkable wife, Virginia Foster Durr.
43
Thank you for your comment introducing us to Clifford and Virginia Durr. Followed up and read about them with appreciation.
1
Dear Mr. Jenkins, thank you for your comments about the "real" Atticus Finch and Cliff Durr and his wife, Virginia. As I read these comments I was beginning to believe my idealism and belief that courageous individuals did and do stand up for others and fight for justice was misplaced. Well, not quite it seems. I have through the Civil Rights era (seeing it from afar from where I lived in the Far West) and have always hoped that Black and White could live together, learn together, work together and understand one another and stand up for one another. I guess that is naive but at age 69 that's where I am.
I think way too many people are looking at this through Gregory Peck-tinted glasses. Although I think the movie version of TKAM is great, I always preferred the novel because it presented a more complete portrait of all the characters. As has been noted the novel focused much more on Scout, Jem and Dill while the movie focused on Tom Robinson's trial. Atticus defended a black man, yes, but he was hardly portrayed as regularly keeping company with black people. In the novel he makes a remark that Calpurnia "never indulged [the children] like most colored nurses," "colored" being a term that comes up frequently. Is that a word you'd expect an enlightened man to use? For me Atticus' defense of Tom Robinson seems to come more from his sense of justice rather than out of need to see some racial equality.
2
Fascinating. I wasn't planning on reading this book (I don't necessarily agree with reading something someone didn't want to publish, and I was worried it would be really disappointing as a novel), but of course, Lee did originally want to publish this, and its perspective rings very true to me. My father-in-law is like this - he has big ideas about respect, he thinks he treats everyone with respect, and taught his children important lessons about respect and difference, but he's also terribly racist. His approach to others is to always notice how they are different from him (darker skin color, foreign-sounding last name), and then to make a judgment of them based wholly on this information. If he's telling a story, he always mentions - very unnecessarily - the ethnicity or skin color of the people involved, as if that were essential information in every situation. He often talks about people as large groups, what Hispanics are like, what Blacks are like, what Jews are like. And he treats anyone with darker skin, anyone foreign, and anyone female with an extreme paternalism that is really uncomfortable to be around. But in his small community, he is known as someone who stands up for people who need it and who always does the "right thing." He is a doctor and provides good treatment to all patients. He really does try to do the right thing, but that doesn't stop him from being racist. People are complicated. This book seems to complicate TKAM in a really welcome way.
10
Sounds like Watchman was never a sequel to Mockingbird and you can see why Harper Lee never published it. Watchman was simply rewritten to include a more likable empathetic set of characters. My guess is the reason Harper Lee never published is she knew too well that Watchman would not pass for a sequel and she could not explain away the character differences. I wonder if Harper Lee today, even remembers these changes she made in Atticus and the others?!
1
It sounds like an interesting addition.
The not-actually-that-shocking revelation seems to be that people are always of a place, even good people. Atticus Finch probably only makes sense in the first book because he's seen through a small daughter's eyes.
It's utterly reasonable to conjecture that, having grown up and joined a more progressive community, she would see her father and community with an altered basis of comparison. It would make less sense if he stayed a saint into her adulthood, at least based on just about everybody's life ever.
The not-actually-that-shocking revelation seems to be that people are always of a place, even good people. Atticus Finch probably only makes sense in the first book because he's seen through a small daughter's eyes.
It's utterly reasonable to conjecture that, having grown up and joined a more progressive community, she would see her father and community with an altered basis of comparison. It would make less sense if he stayed a saint into her adulthood, at least based on just about everybody's life ever.
76
Sorry for parents who named their baby Atticus this year.
Why would anyone be surprised to learn that an early draft of a book was not as smooth as the eventually published version? I always loved From Here to Eternity and read it maybe four or five times. When the early draft was released a few years ago, it was very different from the polished, trimmed down, focused final version.
Those who love To Kill a Mockingbird should not be annoyed to learn that its characters were harsher and its message less soothing before reworking toned them down. Instead, be thankful for the author's willingness to continue working on the book until she got it right.
Those who love To Kill a Mockingbird should not be annoyed to learn that its characters were harsher and its message less soothing before reworking toned them down. Instead, be thankful for the author's willingness to continue working on the book until she got it right.
3
The way I look at it it is a Novel after all and was written by Harper Lee.
Thanks for the review and now reading it I decided not to read it. "To Kill a Mockingbird" is my all time favorite book and Gregory Peck was Atticus the widowed lawyer we are so addicted to love and admire.
"Go Set a Watchman" fits today's world perfectly without looking at it through colorful glass..it is all black and white and I choose not to read it.
Thanks for the review and now reading it I decided not to read it. "To Kill a Mockingbird" is my all time favorite book and Gregory Peck was Atticus the widowed lawyer we are so addicted to love and admire.
"Go Set a Watchman" fits today's world perfectly without looking at it through colorful glass..it is all black and white and I choose not to read it.
2
I'm beginning to understand now why - for decades - there was only one copy of Mockingbird in the public library in Monroeville, Alabama. Even then, I guess it hit way too close to home for comfort.
I've read other comments critical of Mockingbird for being paternalistic and an expression of liberal naivete. I disagree. Its impact on our society was immense - a historical parallel would be Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin in her day.
I have already read the first chapter of Watchman and look forward to the rest, even as I puzzle about how and way Miss Lee changed the moral protagonist of her story later on.
I've read other comments critical of Mockingbird for being paternalistic and an expression of liberal naivete. I disagree. Its impact on our society was immense - a historical parallel would be Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin in her day.
I have already read the first chapter of Watchman and look forward to the rest, even as I puzzle about how and way Miss Lee changed the moral protagonist of her story later on.
1
Man, I'm getting more out of these comments than I could hope for out of a book. Thanks.
3
I appreciate Michiko Kakutani's balanced review and have only one quibble: she flubs her last line. Kakutani closes by writing that “Mockingbird” suggests "we should have compassion for outsiders like Boo and Tom Robinson, while “Watchman” asks us to have understanding for a bigot named Atticus." Although perhaps more subtly, "Mockingbird" also encourages us to have empathy for bigots. We are led to feel sorry for Mayella Ewell's miserable circumstances and observe moral center Atticus not judging her cruel father. As readers, most of us feel compassion for Tom and Boo, but we ignore the challenge of walking in the boots of Bob Ewell.
3
The plot and reaction to it are irrelevant to the reality that Harper Lee clearly didn't want this novel published. How convenient that the manuscript was magically "discovered" not long after the death of Ms. Lee's sister - the same sister who had been the monolithic protector of her legacy from just this sort of manipulation of an elderly person.
Reviews will not be based on the book itself, but on its connection to what should have been her one and only book: To Kill A Mockingbird. That readers and fans are not lodging a greater protest at this money grab is nearly as egregious as the fact that the supposed representatives of Ms. Lee are taking so blatant advantage of a 90-year-old woman.
Reviews will not be based on the book itself, but on its connection to what should have been her one and only book: To Kill A Mockingbird. That readers and fans are not lodging a greater protest at this money grab is nearly as egregious as the fact that the supposed representatives of Ms. Lee are taking so blatant advantage of a 90-year-old woman.
5
Finch's description of the NAACP fits like a glove in my lifetime (born 1982). Having said that there are two other point:
1) Why do so many of these books describe black men "falsely being accused of raping a white woman"? I find it hard to believe white women cried wolf as often as claimed. It also goes against the feminist ideology that false rape claims are rare. When did this epidemic of white woman false accusing black males of rape cease?
2) I loved To Kill a Mockingbird and still do. I read it when I was young. Since then I notice how the left loves to place people in boxes. Fitch because the archetype of the "good white man" when it came to race in this country. I see power hungry attention mongers like Tim Wise trying to fulfill the same role and playing to a crowd in ways that seem intended to unnecessarily be divisive, dishonest and intended to incite unnecessarily. Likewise many black leaders were (and still are) put on a pedestal who were really very disreputable (Huey Newton, Al Shapton, Jesse Jackson, Malcolm X). Maybe Fitch being taken off his pedestal will lead America to taking a good look at our need to see people as being either good or bad in the struggles in this country. And that some the left labeled good are not much different than those they labeled bad.
1) Why do so many of these books describe black men "falsely being accused of raping a white woman"? I find it hard to believe white women cried wolf as often as claimed. It also goes against the feminist ideology that false rape claims are rare. When did this epidemic of white woman false accusing black males of rape cease?
2) I loved To Kill a Mockingbird and still do. I read it when I was young. Since then I notice how the left loves to place people in boxes. Fitch because the archetype of the "good white man" when it came to race in this country. I see power hungry attention mongers like Tim Wise trying to fulfill the same role and playing to a crowd in ways that seem intended to unnecessarily be divisive, dishonest and intended to incite unnecessarily. Likewise many black leaders were (and still are) put on a pedestal who were really very disreputable (Huey Newton, Al Shapton, Jesse Jackson, Malcolm X). Maybe Fitch being taken off his pedestal will lead America to taking a good look at our need to see people as being either good or bad in the struggles in this country. And that some the left labeled good are not much different than those they labeled bad.
2
Where to even begin?
1
By labeling a large and surely diverse group of people the "left," are you not guilty of placing them in a "box"?
2
I cannot believe the number of commenters who are upset about how Atticus "has evolved into the racist" of "the second novel". For god sakes, TKAM was the rewrite, the final draft. There's no narrative sequence connecting them. It's not a serialization. After having taught TKAM several times, there is a calculation behind the writing that diminishes it for me. There is also a confusion, a conflation, of the movie and the novel that readers end up making, that again, diminishes the integrity of the novel, almost like the book is a novelization of the movie. It sounds like the first version just being released rings more truly and is more unflinching. The best writing, for my money, on race and class in the white conscience, will always be Huck Finn.
4
Thank you for saying what should be obvious to everybody: GSAW is an early draft of what became TKAM. Anyone approaching this "new" book should keep that in mind.
Idols have feet of clay.
2
Atticus is s cardboard character in Mockingbird: the noble intellectual who can shoot. Mockingbird is a romantic coming of age story made a classic by its competent writing and its condemnation of American racism Southern style. The Atticus of Watchman underscores how romanticized and unlikely the Atticus of Mockingbird was. Many like to see themselves as an Atticus and the South as a backward island of bigotry. More romanticism. These are American novels.
1
So, it's true, Ms. Lee's mind has been in decline for a while, and those around her with the power have likely made an attempt to grab as much money as possible while she is still alive.
The heroic Atticus Finch in "Mockingbird", could never have become the typical southern, "redneck" purportedly depicted in its prior written/prequel, "Watchman" any more than, for example, Hubert Humphrey could have degenerated into an everyday whie racist.
The publication of "Watchman" now establishes the Atticus of "Mockingbird" as no more likely a presence in the real world than, say, Frodo Baggins of Bag End.
Clearly, Ms. Lee's, unpublished for more than a half century, "Watchman" was written before "Mockingbird" and never intended for publication; as it was never re-written, and edited after "Mockingbird" was published. Leaving us with two different Atticus Finches. Would Ian Fleming, again for example, ever turn the character of James Bond into just another everyday member of his nemesis organizations, Smersh, or Spectre?
At least within, "The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the character of Frodo evolves consistently, and remains recognizable from beginning to end, no doubt, in part, because the author J.R.R, Tolkien, in possession of all his senses, intended every volume for publication.
That said, it seems probable apologists for this new publication might drag out every marketing and huckstering ploy ever devised to argue otherwise.
For shame.
The heroic Atticus Finch in "Mockingbird", could never have become the typical southern, "redneck" purportedly depicted in its prior written/prequel, "Watchman" any more than, for example, Hubert Humphrey could have degenerated into an everyday whie racist.
The publication of "Watchman" now establishes the Atticus of "Mockingbird" as no more likely a presence in the real world than, say, Frodo Baggins of Bag End.
Clearly, Ms. Lee's, unpublished for more than a half century, "Watchman" was written before "Mockingbird" and never intended for publication; as it was never re-written, and edited after "Mockingbird" was published. Leaving us with two different Atticus Finches. Would Ian Fleming, again for example, ever turn the character of James Bond into just another everyday member of his nemesis organizations, Smersh, or Spectre?
At least within, "The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the character of Frodo evolves consistently, and remains recognizable from beginning to end, no doubt, in part, because the author J.R.R, Tolkien, in possession of all his senses, intended every volume for publication.
That said, it seems probable apologists for this new publication might drag out every marketing and huckstering ploy ever devised to argue otherwise.
For shame.
6
I see it just time setting of her novel, she describes the situation of fifties. The most important thing, she finished her work in her old age. She is really inspiring author to me. I thank Harper Lee.
Atticus Finch is a fictional character. How will the race baiters get even with this guy? Maybe we should refuse to read any more books by Lee.
1
I thank Harper Lee, she is really an inspiring author to me.
As a lover of complex and real characters in literature, I'm kind of excited about this; as a southern liberal idealist who just named his child after Atticus, this is a disaster.
3
Not only do people change as they age, but so do children's perceptions of their parents. Atticus may not have been the paragon Scout perceived, and he may not have been quite as hypocritical as Jean Louise saw either. We tend to judge our parents most harshly when we're young adults wanting to break free. Perhaps a middle-aged Ms. Finch would have told yet another story.
5
This review actually makes me want to read the book. I've always been ambivalent about Mockingbird, where the good characters are really, really good, and the bad really, really bad. This sounds much more nuanced, and perhaps a more actual reflection of some Southern whites' responses to changing times.
73
I think you're right, but I think it's important to note (as others have) that the difference is one of perspective - first of an adoring 5 year old, then of a young woman who has experienced a wider world. I think the niggling of sadness I feel about the perceived differences in Atticus are precisely parallel to the sadness I felt when I realized (all those decades ago) that my parents weren't perfect.
1
Atticus Finch is an emotional patent. Nobody- not even the author- can violate it.
This review by Ms. Kakutani adds fuel to a fire she chose to avoid:
Is "Go Set a Watchman" a novel written by Harper Lee?
Ms. Kakutani, though indirectly, makes a case for saying it is not by telling us how diametrically opposed to Ms. Lee's Pulitzer prize winning first novel, "To Kill a Mockingbird", the new "Watchman" prequel/sequel is from it. This is not to say that the same author could not write two related novels from completely opposite perspectives. The better question: is how come an author would do such a thing?
Many of the astute NY Times commenters here give their own reasons how come she might have chosen to do this, but like all of us, they are guessing at her motives. But there are at least 3 alternate perspective possible here: a) Ms. Lee isn't the author of "Go Set a Watchman", or b) Ms. Lee isn't the author of "To Kill a Mockingbird". She may have written both, or she may have written one, or the other, or she may not have written either one. Some believe "Mockingbird" was written by Truman Capote as a gift to Ms. Lee.
I believe there is fraud involved in Ms. Lee's literary career, but I don't know whether it happened in the late 1950s, or whether it just happened with "Watchman". Forensic analyses would be needed to shed light on these matters.
2
Mr. Robin P Little: You leave out the obvious, and simpler, explanation that Ms. Lee never intended, "Watchman" for publication, and that it was rushed into print out of greed by those who control her fortunes after her mental faculties declined.
Without reading Lee's newest work it is impossible to have a considered opinion about the relationship between these two books. Unless one is Harper Lee, it is unlikely that you have any insight worth sharing about the artistic decisions that were made in creating her second novel - the prequel, To Kill a Mockingbird - or this newly published earlier work. Ms. Kakutani's review does a fine job of treading the minefield of a much beloved, albeit childlike view of the workings of the world and, perhaps, a more nuanced view from an adult perspective. When I read this second novel I will be able to judge for myself. What is intriguing to me, however, is how so many devotee's of Lee's work are willing to make judgements without all the facts; something that the younger Atticus Finch would never approve of. Perhaps the older Atticus of this newly published work still has something to teach us about the difference between our ideal and our real selves.
I'll check "Watchman" out from the library, Michael. If I have time. I'm certainly not going to spend money directly on it. I'll leave that to devotees of HarperCollins publishing empire.
Mockingbird elevates. Atticus Finch demonstrates our better angels. He models an ideal enlightened compassionate wise way to think and be in the world. That's what we need more of. We already know how to be divisive and racist. Like others, I plan to hold onto the warm positive uplifting Atticus characteristics and forgo replacement with decidedly disturbing ones. That would be analogous to re erecting the Confederate flag in South Carolina.
2
The ethics of Atticus were raised in To Kill A Mockingbird when he accepted the sheriff's version of the cause of death of Bob Ewell. The fact that he acquiesced in the sheriff's improbable story to protect Boo Radley show his ethics were not as clear as many of us imposed on his character.
1
I'll make up my own mind after I read the book by myself...
1
I think it's fascinating that this "new" novel is likely the version that Harper Lee originally intended to be published. And that she was advised to do an extensive re-write to make it more commercially attractive. I'm looking forward to reading this novel. I think it will be illuminating and perhaps more legitimate regarding the author's desired portrayal of race and prejudice.
4
Part of the magic of Mockingbird is that the entity perceiving those events is trying to keep from drowning in her own incomprehension. The plotline at times becomes mere background to the helter-skelter consciousness of the narrator.
The apparent randomness of even the cruelest contradiction is the painful mystery that keeps the reader in sync with, if not fused with, the awestruck narrator.
If it worked once, I expect it can work again. Can't wait to find out.
The apparent randomness of even the cruelest contradiction is the painful mystery that keeps the reader in sync with, if not fused with, the awestruck narrator.
If it worked once, I expect it can work again. Can't wait to find out.
1
Neither can the marketing department at HarperCollins wait for you to buy it, uh, Sequel.
So, did Truman Capote heavily edit Ms. Lee's second literary effort, "To Kill a Mockingbird"?
What a strange society we are. We freed the slaves but today we incarnate more people of color that we ever had as slaves.
Maybe someday we will really address racism when we begin to see both sides of the issue. This will include the feelings blacks also have against black white relationships.
Maybe someday we will really address racism when we begin to see both sides of the issue. This will include the feelings blacks also have against black white relationships.
1
Watchman seems to present a much more nuanced and realistic view of racism than Mockingbird. Atticus in Watchman is a man who shares many of the racist beliefs and prejudices of his times and his community, yet he still believes he has a duty to take the criminal case of an innocent black man and to use all his legal skills to defend his black client even if this makes him unpopular among his white neighbors. It also presents a more nuanced and realistic view of the father-daughter relationship, where the adult daughter who has spent her adult life in the north no longer hero worships her father and can evaluate him from a broader perspective.
4
"Watchman" should not be compared to "Mockingbird." To do so is both erroneous and superficial. They are independent and stand-alone with both informing the reader of a Harper Lee perceived truth through story with "Watchman" being Lee's "brothers Grimm" darker version and "Mockingbird" being the editor's influenced "Disney fairytale" lighter version.
2
Without having read either book (I did see the film "To Kill a Mockingbird"), I can indeed imagine the "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) type of scenario. A racist lawyer can afford to be generous when he doesn't feel an immediate threat, as in the case of defending a black man wrongly accused of rape. But that same lawyer suddenly becomes uncomfortable by the prospect that blacks no longer "know their place" and will be treated as equals to whites. I did read the first half of Uncle Tom's Cabin, which advocated for the abolition of slavery while portraying black characters in a manner that was stereotypical and downright insulting. Would Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, have felt comfortable sending her kids to an integrated school? Racism is complex and works on many levels.
2
Remember TKAM features Atticus telling his children women are sub- human compared to men, unable to be on juries because of the flaws of their sex.
And the story relies on the crudest stereotypes of poor whites to make the elites seem ethical, while they were the prime movers enforcing zegregation and racism.
And the town does nothing about the rape of Mayella Ewell by her father.
Not so touching in retrospect.
And the story relies on the crudest stereotypes of poor whites to make the elites seem ethical, while they were the prime movers enforcing zegregation and racism.
And the town does nothing about the rape of Mayella Ewell by her father.
Not so touching in retrospect.
1
There is another point about Atticus Finch in TKAM: his "virtue" puts his children at risk. If not for Boo Radley, they would both be killed walking home from the school show. This follows Bob Ewell circling the car in the driveway, so clearly Atticus knows, or should know, how dangerous the man is. Mockingbird is a child's naive adoration of her father, who actually is a "tolerably" good parent, according to his daughter. He is neither as handsome nor perfect as the lovely Gregory Peck. But none of that takes away from the charm of that novel.
1
Is this Harper Lee finally able to come out of the closet about race and racism? To me, there has been so much sanctimony decrying her cognitive ability to make the decision to publish this novel. Clearly, this was the novel she originally chose to write. Kudos to her that she managed to publish something else that suited then-current tastes. But I for one am glad her original intent, with a far different tone, has been allowed to voice itself.
73
Fascinating to read of people's disorientation and disappointment with the (apparently) different types of Atticus. As if a child's view and an adult's view should be the same. And as if we somehow know the purely literary character as a real person--who perhaps for many of us walks in black and white with Gregory Peck's face. It says a lot about the power of narrative and perhaps even literature. (Could we say -- with a straight face -- something like, "I don't know, Chewbacca just seemed distant in the second Star Wars."?)
33
the pervasive note of mourning that we are hearing in these comments is a necessary phase of response to this startling new development. but a generation or so from now, things will be different: younger readers coming to GSAW will not bring to it the expectations today's readers of TKAM brought with them -- in the future, readers will be able to take in all the material [including the famous film of TKAM] as part of a single elaborate process. literary scholars will study the two harper lee books side by side to observe how the material was developed and altered; and the details of their publication history will be interpreted as indices of the shifting zeitgeist that made each text publishable at a particular point in time.
too, this july 10th kakutani review of GSAW will doubtless be contextualized along with the momentous removal -- on the same day -- of the confederate flag from the SC state house.
too, this july 10th kakutani review of GSAW will doubtless be contextualized along with the momentous removal -- on the same day -- of the confederate flag from the SC state house.
When I see how many people eagerly swallow and repeat the whole "Truman Capote wrote it" gibberish, I get insight into the continuing financial health of things like the JFK conspiracy theory industry.
True believers simply never let go.
I am betting that neither of these books were the work of Lee or Capote. Ancient Aliens wrote them.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
True believers simply never let go.
I am betting that neither of these books were the work of Lee or Capote. Ancient Aliens wrote them.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
When has the mundane truth ever been favored over spurious speculation? The former sells hundreds of copies and the latter sells billions.
Perhaps the time has come to put the 1930s Atticus Finch back on the shelf and hold up instead as an example of prescient moral rectitude and tolerance the early ‘60s dad, attorney and eventually A.G. played in the series “I’ll Fly Away” by Sam Waterston. He was doubtless inspired by the only face of Atticus Finch available at the time. At least the finale of the series had Waterston’s character maintaining his benevolence and integrity--and the black housekeeper whose rights he championed in microcosm eventually become his professional equal as an author and educator.
2
A wonderful review. We have used To Kill a Mockingbird as required summer reading and orientation discussion for our first year law students. But we refused to let them rest comfortably in paradigm of Atticus the honorable hero. We challenged them to think about the lawyer's role in a broken system. We asked them about Atticus's complacency in the outcome of Tom Robinson's trial. We asked them, what had Atticus done to change a society in which a white lawyer was seen as a god by the black population? Mockingbird may be seen as a story about the conflict between the black population and the class of "poor white trash." In that context, Atticus becomes a lawyer who defends a black man in that conflict, not a lawyer who works to overcome the Jim Crow system.
1
Wow.
It seems that Lee has completed the circle from a sugar-coated fantasy world which we so much want to live in that we suspend disbelief of what reality really is and, instead, wallow in our own beatific glorification to ... well, reality.
God bless her as this may finally force a conversation of how we delude ourselves with pretty, comforting stories to finally confront the truth of what makes us tick -- tribalism, judgment and fear/hatred of the "other."
But probably not.
It seems that Lee has completed the circle from a sugar-coated fantasy world which we so much want to live in that we suspend disbelief of what reality really is and, instead, wallow in our own beatific glorification to ... well, reality.
God bless her as this may finally force a conversation of how we delude ourselves with pretty, comforting stories to finally confront the truth of what makes us tick -- tribalism, judgment and fear/hatred of the "other."
But probably not.
1
I would feel better about GSAW if I truly believed that Harper Lee consciously decided to publish this as a separate work. It seems all too likely that she was subjected to undue influence by those around her who wanted to make a quick buck by slapping a book cover on something that was never meant for publication.
7
Isn't it peculiar, Pat, that unlike any other author of a work with a 2 million copy first printing, Ms. Lee is doing no publicity, or engaging in any book tour? Would it be too much to suggest she never wanted it published when she was in full command of all her faculties?
If you're trying to wrap your head around the meaning of this draft, forget about it. All you need to know is at the bottom of the article: "Harper. $27.99"
7
Bravo, Tom. And how many comments to this review seem like they're marketing copy for an effort with a 2,000,000 copy first printing?
A nice comparison, but not a review of the book, suggests to me, not to buy it.
I've often wondered why those who object to the teaching of "Huckleberry Finn" are not twice as outraged by "To Kill a Mockingbird." We should be grateful to both Twain and Lee for giving us some insight into what it is like to grow up in a society in which racism is so strongly ingrained. So why do some of us revere Lee for doing it and condemn Twain?
I wonder if it's because Huckleberry Finn is so much more radical than the kindly Atticus Finch. When you stop to think about it, so much of "To Kill a Mockinbird" is about defending the status quo. When Burris Ewell shows up on the first day of school and it's accepted that he won't come back, Scout wants to know why she can't do the same. Atticus tells her that sometimes it's OK to bend the law, but not for her. For whom, then? The uneducated, ignorant people whose children will not get educated, perpetuating the status quo? And how about Walter Cunningham, who won't accept a free lunch and whose family is respected because of that. The status quo of poverty is fine, as long as the poor can hold up their heads with pride. Even Boo Radley's situation is about accepting the stautus quo, about not investigating the possible abuse he may be suffering or the state of his mental health. Why rock the boat when you can live with things the way they are? It's so much more comfortable than setting out on a raft in the river.
"Go Set a Watchman" will probably be an uncomfortable read, but I'm ready to get on the raft.
I wonder if it's because Huckleberry Finn is so much more radical than the kindly Atticus Finch. When you stop to think about it, so much of "To Kill a Mockinbird" is about defending the status quo. When Burris Ewell shows up on the first day of school and it's accepted that he won't come back, Scout wants to know why she can't do the same. Atticus tells her that sometimes it's OK to bend the law, but not for her. For whom, then? The uneducated, ignorant people whose children will not get educated, perpetuating the status quo? And how about Walter Cunningham, who won't accept a free lunch and whose family is respected because of that. The status quo of poverty is fine, as long as the poor can hold up their heads with pride. Even Boo Radley's situation is about accepting the stautus quo, about not investigating the possible abuse he may be suffering or the state of his mental health. Why rock the boat when you can live with things the way they are? It's so much more comfortable than setting out on a raft in the river.
"Go Set a Watchman" will probably be an uncomfortable read, but I'm ready to get on the raft.
11
There are many people labeled civil rights/anti-racism activists who have been caught saying things as bigoted (and sometimes worse) then what Finch is quotes as saying. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jerimiah Wright, Andrew Young, and Malcom X are a few of many. The only difference is the people listed above actually exist. Why is it forgivable for blacks who exist but not whites who are fictional characters?
7
If Michelangelo had carved a statue of an out-of-shape, middle aged man, then responding to notes, carved "David", would seeing the original sculpture make "David" any less magnificent? The former may not have the perfection of the latter, but maybe it holds more truth. At the very least, it demonstrates the artistic process. Art is derived from human beings. Stop treating it like a precious gift from above.
94
Lets face it, Mockingbird presents the dignified white savior image white people want and need to believe about themselves. Self-delusion is key to the psyche of individuals and society's, that is, until they grow up and learn to face the truth. Sounds like Watchman is closer to the truth.
145
In the context of the book: AF was presented as one standing against almost everyone in town, so HL obviously recognized that racists were in the majority.
In the context of history and as someone who grew up in a Southern town: racists were the rule but there were brave white people of conscious who stood with black people.
To admit the existence of people like AF does not deny the existence of the millions of black people who endured the shackles of prejudice and then broke free with enormous courage.
In the context of history and as someone who grew up in a Southern town: racists were the rule but there were brave white people of conscious who stood with black people.
To admit the existence of people like AF does not deny the existence of the millions of black people who endured the shackles of prejudice and then broke free with enormous courage.
Lot's of hype for a VERY mediocre writer !
1
Write your review after you have read Watchman, not before.
1
I think we should all slam the brakes here, take a step back, and do the responsible thing: Get "Watchman" and read it, then commence an immediate re-read of "Mocjingbird." Maybe then we won't rely on the Michiko Kakutanis of the world to tell us what's what. Let's all calm down for a few days. Atticus Finch is just a literary character, not a flag-bearer for civil rights or desegregation. World history has not been revised. If anything, this seems like it will be a fascinating look at story evolution from rough conception to polished final draft.
110
Finally a sane voice. Yes, everyone should read the book first.
1
great comment!
1
It is telling that the "characters" are still very much alive and well in the "deep south". They are probate judges, county clerks, parishioners, and just your average Republican voter in Alabama and the rest of those "deep south" states. They have not changed, they have been passing down their deeply held religious beliefs to their children and if it was up to them that Dixie flag would still be flying high over the state house in South Carolina, gay couples would and are still being denied marriage licenses by these upstanding Christians, and they'd keep all the "illigals" and "coloreds" (they use much nastier derogatory language) out of their states and away from their lunch counters and voting booths. Have you been to Mississippi lately and stopped at a local diner or bar? It has not changed at all since 1950. The same evil people are still sitting at those lunch counters stewing in their hatred and bigotry. And voting voting voting to keep their "southern heritage" in power.
6
When Will the North Face Its Racism?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/when-will-the-north-fac...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/when-will-the-north-fac...
When Will the North Face Its Racism?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/when-will-the-north-fac...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/when-will-the-north-fac...
It's hard to fathom the anger this book will set off amongst baby boomers who give a hoot. Us younger people could not care less. Neither the spectrum they view this book from whether it be past or present will matter not. The media sets the tone today whether something has literary quality or not. The present political correctness is all that matters. Political correctness is all that matters.
2
Atticus changing from a deeply principled man to a bigot does not make any sense to me. It only leads me to be suspicious of how Watchman came about. Is this really Harper Lee's writing?
2
Yes it's hers. Give up the CT.
If you followed the arc of the original novel as this reviewer explains it, the bigger question is how a deeply bigoted white Southerner changed into a deeply principled man.
Atticus Finch is a paternalistic, perhaps benevolent bigot in TKAM, who has is kinder than others to the black citizens of his community, and advocates for a reasoned consideration of an unfairly accused man, but he isn't a proponent of the values that later (in the book's timeline) fueled the Civil Rights movement. His anger at the disruption that the movement brought to his town is not only predictable, but very common. It makes perfect sense to anyone who grew up in the South of the 1950's and '60's, but I can understand others might be disillusioned. The hard truth is that people are complicated and few are unadulturated saints throughout their lives.
The timing of GSAW is perfect. We need to confront head on the corrosive effects of slavery, bigotry and Jim Crow on blacks in this country. We are still heaping misery on blacks like our president and longing to protect a symbol of treason and glorification of human trafficking which is the Confederate flag. In pockets of this country black lives are better. But in the rural South or big cities, opportunity is still elusive.
7
What about me?!
Sounds like Harper Lee may have turned to writing science fiction in "Go Set a Watchman?"
1
Um, no. It sounds as if - in both instances - she wrote the reality with which she grew up and on which she reflected from a different vantage point after leaving Alabama for New York.
I actually think this sounds fascinating. The Atticus of Mockingbird might simply have been acting as a lawyer--as a man committed to the idea that everyone, including black people deserve a fair hearing and defense.
And young Scout may have seen this version of her father--Atticus the lawyer--as his entirety. There may have been no time or place when his other less appealing qualities emerged.
But she moves away, and integration comes to the South, and when she comes back, she sees her father not as a lawyer, but as an elderly white man confronting changes he does not understand or like. And she is repelled by his attitudes.
I don't see these as contradictory at all. They are pictures of different times, of people in different circumstances. Of whole people, not saints.
And young Scout may have seen this version of her father--Atticus the lawyer--as his entirety. There may have been no time or place when his other less appealing qualities emerged.
But she moves away, and integration comes to the South, and when she comes back, she sees her father not as a lawyer, but as an elderly white man confronting changes he does not understand or like. And she is repelled by his attitudes.
I don't see these as contradictory at all. They are pictures of different times, of people in different circumstances. Of whole people, not saints.
54
Do people who compare the two books hear the same voice? And is it Harper Lee's voice? I used to re-read Mockingbird every fall and saved up quotes to recall later. It leaves a distinctive impression -- one wonders if the new book brings that same unique flare?
4
I wonder if Lee is noticing the same thing in her peers that many younger people might notice in their older parents; that as they age, they start giving into persuasive bigotry. I have noticed it my family - my father especially has slid from moderately progressive to believing Fox News-level lies on race, including entirely discredited statements like welfare queens. I wonder if she feels the same hopelessness, embarrassment and fear that that might be all our fates.
49
People often give in to bigotry because of life experiences that cause it. You don't connect the dots much when you are a child. 50 years of life experience and you can often recognize patterns.
4
I was thinking the same thing, SaintStryfe. One of the saddest things I've ever seen is a formerly empathetic, open-minded, and idealistic young adult age into a comfortable elitist grown long in the tooth and quite content to judge from afar rather than live among. The heartbreak I feel in hearing Atticus has matured in just such a way feels pretty true to life.
I watched that happen in my brother, who was madly liberal as a 20-year-old and an entrenched, sanctimonious establishment fuddy-duddy before the age of 40. (He was sanctimonious as a liberal also, not meaning to disparage the conservative point of view.)
Harper Lee is a very overrated author and neither of her books is worthy of their exalted place in American Lit.
Let's face it, Truman Capote had talent, she didn't.
Get over it.
Let's face it, Truman Capote had talent, she didn't.
Get over it.
13
Can't speak to this new release, but beg to differ on "Mockingbird."
1
Actually there are those who think HL had a big hand in In Cold Blood.
1
There are many reasons an author and s book take a place in the pantheon of literature.
Also, perhaps in terms of the juxtaposition with Capote, it would be more appropriate to compare each of the authors first novel, and in the case Ms. Lee, her only one, if one feels compelled to do so.
Also, perhaps in terms of the juxtaposition with Capote, it would be more appropriate to compare each of the authors first novel, and in the case Ms. Lee, her only one, if one feels compelled to do so.
1
The tragic thing about both novels is that they were written so very long ago and yet the South has changed so very little, where race is concerned. Please, don't give examples of "progress". The events in Charleston in the last month and the outright defiance and racist indignities that have occurred since President Obama's election in 2008, are as bad or worse than the events depicted in both of Ms. Lee's novels.
108
Ferguson. Baltimore. Look at a map.
2
it is utter nonsense to argue that the south "has changed so very little" since the 1950s and 60s "where race is concerned." anyone who lived in the south during that era -- almost three generations ago -- knows better.
3
The South has changed plenty. As has the entire nation. Witness just the action of the South Carolina Legislature in recent days in relegating their Confederate battle flag to a museum. Largely because of the murder of black Christians by a godless, white supremacist.
Or do you also think, judgeroybean, that the Presidency of Barack Obama would have been possible in 1960?
Or do you also think, judgeroybean, that the Presidency of Barack Obama would have been possible in 1960?
4
This book was clearly never meant to be published. Why would Harper Lee not have published it years ago? Once Lee's sister died, all bets were off since there was so much money to be made by those who now had access to the manuscript. What a shame.
31
I would like to complain about all the comments complaining that Michiko Kakutani did not review the book. She certainly did, and very ably, too, but as an experienced reviewer, she knows that it would be impossible to review this book the way one would any other first novel, that the characters from Lee's classic are indelible in people's minds. This certainly is a book review, not just a "report," a "summary," or a new story or whatever the complainers call it. Ms. Kakutani has written a well-crafted review. I often vehemently disagree with her views, but really, folks, give this reviewer a break.
38
The second book, offers evidence of what I always suspected. Harper Lee didn't write, To Kill a Mockingbird....Truman Capote did.
9
This is nonsense. It's been a rumor forever, but has been debunked over and over again and there's no evidence for it. Ask yourself: was Truman Capote the type ever not to take credit for what he wrote? It's ludicrous.
8
No, there is A LOT of proof that she did in fact write "Mockingbird." You can find that proof with not much effort.
3
Wrong. The character Dill in the book is based on Truman Capote. Your comment is also sexist.
5
This is very sad! Obviously, this is the early draft that was rejected, with helpful directions from editors to rewrite the story from a younger perspective --- which lead to the novel that is so dear to many civil rights activists and aspiring lawyers. It feels like such a betrayal to turn the clocks of time backwards and now re-introduce Atticus as a racist embarrassment to his daughter. DID HARPER LEE NEED THE MONEY? I will NOT BUY IT!
9
Yes, reality is always less marketable than illusion.
1
It's clear that "Watchman" was rewritten in order to have more commercial appeal by perpetuating the myth that the future of blacks lay in the hands of liberal whites. This was the feeling of the time that prevailed among the book-reading public which was mainly female, Northern. and white. Thus the rewritten version ("Mockingbird") presented an idealized version of Atticus Finch that appealed to this core audience. The original version of the character was more realistic and represented Scout's mature thinking. Her father was rightly no longer her hero. What is amazing is that the NYT reviewer still does not get it but acts as if the sanitized version of Atticus is a hero lost. He never was a hero in the first place but one whose essential falseness as a literary invention has at last been exposed with the publication of this earlier version of the work.
52
Who had the power to help blacks in the early days of the civil rights movement but whites. The Panthers weren't going to get anywhere nor was the Muslim Brotherhood. It shows how desperate the situation was. The whole country could have resisted the civil rights movement and we could have been South Africa.
1
There were lots of white people -- perhaps, though, not as many as you'd like -- who struggled on behalf of equality. They were lawyers, rabbis, ministers, and others, many of whom rode buses and some of whom were murdered for their actions.
Just cancelled my digital pre-ordered copy on Amazon.
5
Why, may I ask, did you cancel it?
I've been very irritated with the sappy, cringe-inducing overhype from Oprah, the PBS doc, the publisher. This review made me howl with laughter. Why would they even publish it? It sounds like a review from The Onion.The film version would make a great black comedy. Calling Jack Nicholson as the old Atticus.
6
I see Scout adoring her father and his wisdom in a time when colors didn't mix and it was easier and acceptable to have compassion from afar.
I see Jean-Louise disallusioned with Atticus, in a time of civil unrest, after having been exposed to different and broader views the big city.
Perhaps neither version is entirely accurate; Scout only remembering the wise and gentle, and Jean-Louise only willing to see the perplexing and ignoble. Atticus' reconciliation lies somewhere in the middle of a child's and an adult's recollection.
I see Jean-Louise disallusioned with Atticus, in a time of civil unrest, after having been exposed to different and broader views the big city.
Perhaps neither version is entirely accurate; Scout only remembering the wise and gentle, and Jean-Louise only willing to see the perplexing and ignoble. Atticus' reconciliation lies somewhere in the middle of a child's and an adult's recollection.
27
Agree. Two very different perspectives at play.
Yes @Laura I agree that the books may work as companions. I see it as two different views, one through a child's eyes influenced by an adored parent's words, "do as I say and not as I do" and then through the unclouded eyes of maturity.
Who among us is after all perfect?
Who among us is after all perfect?
This isn't a review at all. So little is said of the new novel, except for character differences between it and Mockingbird, that it's impossible to tell what the reviewer actually thought of the book as a novel that stands by itself. What Kakutani apparently wanted was a book that gave her a feel-good glow of nostalgia for Mockingbird. Too shocked by what she got, she seems barely able to form an opinion.
13
When I was a kid and reading TKAM I was expecting that at some point Atticus would be revealed to be a member of Klan and not the unblemished stalwart hero of justice he appeared on the surface as that would have been far more realistic for a white man of his standing in Alabama of the 1930s south (remember its senator then, Hugo Black, who would go on to become a Supreme Court justice had been a member of the Klan). I guess Ms. Lee was thinking along the same lines.
13
I've not yet read GSAW but based on the review it strikes me as not impossible to reconcile the two Atticuses. In Mockingbird, Atticus is fighting against what is to him an abstract concept of ensuring a fair trial to a unjustly accused black man. While he certainly sympathized with Tom Robinson, Atticus's world would go on more or less unchanged no matter what the verdict.
But the Atticus in GSAW is faced with changes in civil rights that will upset and overturn his world order - school integration, black voters not only voting but maybe even being elected to office, etc. In other words, racial justice is now personal to him and Atticus's commitment to it can only exist in the abstract. And Jean Louise the adult sees the man her younger self idolized as a child, tested and failing.
That being said, the fact that this novel was an early draft of TKAM not a deliberate sequel troubles me in reading too much into the apparent changes in the characters.
But the Atticus in GSAW is faced with changes in civil rights that will upset and overturn his world order - school integration, black voters not only voting but maybe even being elected to office, etc. In other words, racial justice is now personal to him and Atticus's commitment to it can only exist in the abstract. And Jean Louise the adult sees the man her younger self idolized as a child, tested and failing.
That being said, the fact that this novel was an early draft of TKAM not a deliberate sequel troubles me in reading too much into the apparent changes in the characters.
40
So, you are saying, kate, a hero seeking justice under law can relegate his black client to the ash bin of a racist society because, in time, his client goes on to be treated like a equal human being out side a court room?
Why ignore the elephant in the room? The fact Ms. Lee's health has been in decline, and the likelihood that those around her with control might be grabbing for the big bucks before she passes away?
Why ignore the elephant in the room? The fact Ms. Lee's health has been in decline, and the likelihood that those around her with control might be grabbing for the big bucks before she passes away?
Ms. Kakutani is (in my viewthe finest book reviewer the times has. I always look to her for prescient , insightful commentary and consider it to be gospel.
In this review, I find her uncharacteristically standing back from her own commentary , almost like she doesn't quite know how to wrap her hands around this conundrum. Something doesn't ring true about this . Why would someone with great writing skills, publish something so many years later that essentially bursts everyones balloons to such an extent as this later years Atticus seems to suggest? What is the intention behind such a work? Until I know more about this reasoning, I think I will skip Watchman ! Enough bubbles bursting of late, and even some roses blooming as well when it comes to issues of race.
In this review, I find her uncharacteristically standing back from her own commentary , almost like she doesn't quite know how to wrap her hands around this conundrum. Something doesn't ring true about this . Why would someone with great writing skills, publish something so many years later that essentially bursts everyones balloons to such an extent as this later years Atticus seems to suggest? What is the intention behind such a work? Until I know more about this reasoning, I think I will skip Watchman ! Enough bubbles bursting of late, and even some roses blooming as well when it comes to issues of race.
10
There has been some chatter in the media that Ms. Lee is not the driving force behind publishing Watchman, that the main driver appears to be her lawyer. Some of the speculation is that at her advanced age, she does not fully comprehend what is going on. That may explain some of Ms. Kakutani's seeming reluctance to give a full-on critique.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/books/harper-lee-lawyer-offers-more-de...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/books/harper-lee-lawyer-offers-more-de...
12
Can't wait to read it. To Kill A Mockingbird was a literary marvel wrought out of some confluence of magic combining the lyrical, gentle sensibility and gifts of Ms. Lee with a sprinkling of blessings from above allowing it transcend to the level of a national, and at times universal, iconic treasure. Go Set A Watchman may offer its own unique contribution by being a direct contrast to all that we, as the reading public, were so ready to hold dear and accept as truth.
10
...and sprinklings of Truman Capote...
1
i'm hearing that all over the place, i don't know if i buy it, harper lee's voice is still all over that novel.
This is a review that is afraid to be a review. Michiko is fearful of saying anything beyond citing the contrasts between the two novels. Based on those contrasts GSAW seems like the more accurate, for better or worse, portrait of America.
10
I am not sure how or if, the two books in question can be bridged. GSAW is a very different book, apparently. I'm not even sure how the original editor saw TKAM in this present book, IF this was the book he saw.
I've no doubt that this is the original work of Harper Lee, but it is a much different book and does not follow from TKAM. Someone should be held accountable for the massive pre-sales as many readers were under the assumption we were going to see a more mature Jem and Scout.
There may be a bridge between the two books as others here suggest but I don't see it. Hopefully there will be scholarly discussion about the two books and some discussion of the ethics involved in publishing this second book.
I've no doubt that this is the original work of Harper Lee, but it is a much different book and does not follow from TKAM. Someone should be held accountable for the massive pre-sales as many readers were under the assumption we were going to see a more mature Jem and Scout.
There may be a bridge between the two books as others here suggest but I don't see it. Hopefully there will be scholarly discussion about the two books and some discussion of the ethics involved in publishing this second book.
11
Sadly, it appears Ms. Lee is caught in the mania of revisionist and stereotyped thinking.
As someone who grew up in the south during the Jim Crow era, it is remarkable that Ms. Lee chooses to pander to the northern and liberal notion that if you were a white person who grew up in that era you were deeply and overly racist toward blacks.
Granted, Ms. Lee's pandering seems like a perfect formula to sell her novel in a time in which there is a mania for hunting down real and imaginary white racist demons in our society.
Still, the real truth is that many good white men and women who grew up in the south during the era of segregation clearly had biases towards blacks, but did not reduce blacks to objects of hate.
Of course, this reality does not fit the popular liberal notion nor would it be controversial enough to sell one's novel, would it?
As someone who grew up in the south during the Jim Crow era, it is remarkable that Ms. Lee chooses to pander to the northern and liberal notion that if you were a white person who grew up in that era you were deeply and overly racist toward blacks.
Granted, Ms. Lee's pandering seems like a perfect formula to sell her novel in a time in which there is a mania for hunting down real and imaginary white racist demons in our society.
Still, the real truth is that many good white men and women who grew up in the south during the era of segregation clearly had biases towards blacks, but did not reduce blacks to objects of hate.
Of course, this reality does not fit the popular liberal notion nor would it be controversial enough to sell one's novel, would it?
10
Well, the novel was written in the 1950s, contemporary to the times she describes in the novel, not from a "revisionist" standpoint from our own times. So your criticism seems rather silly.
19
See, now that just goes to show how differently two people can see things. When I read this review I also saw it as revisionist, but in the "we were doing just fine until outside agitators cam in and riled everyone up", style of apologia.
It seems that Ms. Harper is falling into the mindset of those who believe that racism will magically disappear if we don't discuss it, and that white people down south were treating people of color just fine until northerners started telling them what to do so it was their fault race relations deteriorated. This liberal will not be reading or buying this book either. I'm a little tired of revisionist history myself.
It seems that Ms. Harper is falling into the mindset of those who believe that racism will magically disappear if we don't discuss it, and that white people down south were treating people of color just fine until northerners started telling them what to do so it was their fault race relations deteriorated. This liberal will not be reading or buying this book either. I'm a little tired of revisionist history myself.
5
Harper Lee was born in Monroeville, AL, in 1926 (facts easily available online). I expect she has her own experience to rely on.
As for those "good white men and women," what were they doing when their white neighbors rode out at night to slaughter their black ones, hang their bodies from trees, and take grinning pictures in front of them? What kind of goodness was that?
As for those "good white men and women," what were they doing when their white neighbors rode out at night to slaughter their black ones, hang their bodies from trees, and take grinning pictures in front of them? What kind of goodness was that?
17
I don't know if I was really enamored with the character Atticus in Mockingbird, or if it was just Gregory Peck I was in love with. He made the movie. He made Atticus. He could have never played Atticus in this sequel/prequel.
24
As I was reading the book for the first time a few months after it came out, I thought that if they ever made the book into a movie there was nobody but Gregory Peck who could play Atticus Finch. It was like he was born for the part. I don't know what he would make of this other side of Atticus but I don't think he'd like it a bit.
This will come as news to whoever nominated him for a Golden Globe Award for Best Actor in "The Boys from Brazil." And it's an insult to his range as an actor. Personally, I would have paid good money to see him make the attempt.
Lost novels and plays by famous authors have been published many times before (Hemingway's Garden of Eden, anyone?), and their reputations have remained what they were. That Mockingbird is a very, very beloved book is no reason whatsoever not to publish Watchman. Kakutani does not go as far as to say that (as some of the commentators do), but there is a dismissive tone in her review that echos a lot of the moaning over Lee's reputation that occurred when the publication of Watchman was announced. Time to let go of the burden. We need not "protect" Lee. Mockingbird (and Watchman) will be fine.
4
Not hsving read the book yet, I can't say much. What it contributes, I would think, is a sense of Atticus as a complex character, as we all are. In "Mockingbird" he didn't, as I remember, have any black friends. As a character he was a product of his upbringing and locality. Yet he had a basic idea of fairness, and did the right thing, took risks to defend someone who was obviously innocent. We, the readers, went on to imagine him as some sort of saint, with the image of Gregory Peck in our minds. "Watchman" will make a contribution to our understanding of the South at that time, of there being some decent people who coudn't, in the long run, transcend their upbringings but were making an effort to be fair and just. And anything written by Harper Lee deserves a reading. Would she had written more!
5
"How did a lumpy tale about a young woman’s grief over her discovery of her father’s bigoted views evolve into a classic coming-of-age story about two children and their devoted widower father?"
The answer is simple:
Watchman was written by Harper Lee.
Mockingbird was written by Truman Capote.
The answer is simple:
Watchman was written by Harper Lee.
Mockingbird was written by Truman Capote.
4
Wrong. The evidence shows that Lee did far more for Capote's writing (at least ICB) than he did for hers. They did however support one another in their mutual desire to become writers.
7
A very old canard.
Amazed at pedestrian, quick-to-judge comments made about Lee's audacity to turn Atticus into flawed character before yall've read book or learned how it came to see light of day and why. All conjecture about 'surprise manuscript found' & why it was scrapped for Mock is gossip. We may never know story, yet we definitely can't say what it is until we read Watch. If you can't handle your literary hero as a bigot, fine don't read it. But don't presume Lee chose poorly in portraying another side of a rather one sided paternalistic stock character. Crossing fingers Lee told the more nuanced, complex story we can't palate; the one we need to hear. US loves ferry tales. Southern folk love convincing each other that Battle Flag represents an honorable heritage that gallant men fought & died defending from invaders hungry to tread on rights. Remarkably they still preach same doctrine in '15 and it's still effective. & what have we done to stop em? What pure Atticus among us made a dent in tearing that flag down? Who among us has sought a real solution to stymying Southern legislators' antiquated agenda? Who among us has dealt w/our own forms of racism & segregation here in NYC? 9 blacks shot in a church in 2015. We applaud a flag being pulled down--an action long overdue. Yippee. Who is willing to look in mirror & make a change instead of blowing smoke about an author whose IQ & wisdom likely surpasses the length of your neutrality.
12
Love it. I wish I could be in your book club.
Small quibble about the flag would be that freedom of expression (perhaps a flag?)/freedom of speech (vs protected classes/hate speech) and all such issues are very complex. So important not to throw away freedoms when those we disagree with exercise them. Up to the local voters to hold feet to the fire as done here and of course to get out and VOTE. I agree with your ironic "yippee" too. I hate to see this governor now lauded when she walked under that ridiculous flag all this time and did nothing. Hopefully this incident starts a groundswell where ever these insulting, degrading flags fly and the people act to have them removed and precious freedoms remain intact because self-regulation and democratic processes prevailed.
Again, loved your comments about the book and the brou-ha-ha here.
Small quibble about the flag would be that freedom of expression (perhaps a flag?)/freedom of speech (vs protected classes/hate speech) and all such issues are very complex. So important not to throw away freedoms when those we disagree with exercise them. Up to the local voters to hold feet to the fire as done here and of course to get out and VOTE. I agree with your ironic "yippee" too. I hate to see this governor now lauded when she walked under that ridiculous flag all this time and did nothing. Hopefully this incident starts a groundswell where ever these insulting, degrading flags fly and the people act to have them removed and precious freedoms remain intact because self-regulation and democratic processes prevailed.
Again, loved your comments about the book and the brou-ha-ha here.
4
Whew! Thank you for your intelligent and honest comment.
"Who among us has sought a real solution...?" Obviously, not nearly enough. But we know how to express all the fine stuff we'd like to believe about ourselves. We walk across the bridge at Selma as tourists and take "selfies," but don't seem to be there when needed.
"Who among us has sought a real solution...?" Obviously, not nearly enough. But we know how to express all the fine stuff we'd like to believe about ourselves. We walk across the bridge at Selma as tourists and take "selfies," but don't seem to be there when needed.
Lee didn't turn Atticus into a flawed character, because GTAW is not a sequel; it is an early draft. On the advice of her editor, Harper Lee rewrote the novel over a period of two years. TKAM was the finished and published product. The Atticus Finch of TKAM is the only Atticus there is or ever will be. Why people are calling GTAW a sequel is mystifying. A true sequel would pick up somewhere in time following the parent novel; a sequel is not an earlier, discarded draft which is published over 50 years later.
I really hope, this new book is a commercial rip off; just like the second Woodstock concert was.
1
Why do all these comments use the term "evolve" or a "change in Atticus" etc? GTAW is not a sequel, it's an early draft. Atticus didn't change or evolve into a racist. The author's editors did't think they could sell the racist Atticus, so she made him less so. The interesting thing is that the black people of the time would have seen GTAW as a true representative of how things were, so was it the editor's goal to lessen the discomfort of white readers who would have to face someone just like them and say "yeah, that's my kind of guy" or reject his thinking and wonder why they didn't have the guts to speak out against it?
15
I'm with you. I don't think Atticus "evolved" into a racist; he always was one, as were most white people in this country in the mid-1900s, not only in the South but also in the North and West. His code of justice made him defend a black man falsely accused of rape because he knew the man was innocent. But he had no problem with the abysmal way blacks in his town were forced to live. Aside from trying to give Tom Robinson justice, he didn't seem to have any interest in helping to improve black people's lives through better schools, jobs, etc. Racism was as entrenched in him as it was in every other white person in Alabama; we just didn't see that side of him in the first book. People need to grow up and realize that everybody has a dark side, whether or not they choose to recognize it.
You can read and listen to part of the first chapter here:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2015/jul/10/go-set-a-wat...
I'm ready to read more an not just freak out over one review.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2015/jul/10/go-set-a-wat...
I'm ready to read more an not just freak out over one review.
4
The dark side is in evidence in daylight, every day. Human nature is not pretty.
Prejudice is but one of our sins. Racism is the guts of this one.
Mendacity is right up there.
Denial is where it all starts.
Aristotle said we all strive for the good... in every action.
What about those that strive for the evil?
Prejudice is but one of our sins. Racism is the guts of this one.
Mendacity is right up there.
Denial is where it all starts.
Aristotle said we all strive for the good... in every action.
What about those that strive for the evil?
2
HarperCollins sure pulled the long con on this one. Nice work, boys and girls. High fives to the marketing department.
2
What a quintessential commentary on this time where concepts of race are dragging in the rot that is Southern POV. Enough! When we know better, we do better.
After reading Michiko Kakutini's review of Harper Lee's 'Go Set a Watchman", I couldn't help but feel a sense of worry and sadness about the Atticus Finch the book holds inside its pages.
As a native of Alabama, I've held up Atticus in my own mind as a sort redemptive figure, a symbol of hope, a hero who was brave enough to fight for what is right despite the poisonous and dangerous pools of racism long associated with deep southern whites. He was a symbol of the good that I desperately wanted to believe was around me as a child growing up in the late 1960's and 70's near Birmingham. But the reality was often times more complicated, in fact, ugly that the idealistic Mockingbird world.
That said, when Mockingbird was published in 1960, the south, The United States and the entire world needed the heroic story of Atticus Finch.
But, over the past 50 years, we've witnessed struggle, strife and most of all, unprecidented triumph. Now, in 2015, although my Atticus bubble may be burst, I'll simply have to handle it. I can't wait to read Watchman.
As a native of Alabama, I've held up Atticus in my own mind as a sort redemptive figure, a symbol of hope, a hero who was brave enough to fight for what is right despite the poisonous and dangerous pools of racism long associated with deep southern whites. He was a symbol of the good that I desperately wanted to believe was around me as a child growing up in the late 1960's and 70's near Birmingham. But the reality was often times more complicated, in fact, ugly that the idealistic Mockingbird world.
That said, when Mockingbird was published in 1960, the south, The United States and the entire world needed the heroic story of Atticus Finch.
But, over the past 50 years, we've witnessed struggle, strife and most of all, unprecidented triumph. Now, in 2015, although my Atticus bubble may be burst, I'll simply have to handle it. I can't wait to read Watchman.
14
I'm afraid. For so long I have adored, no idolized, Atticus Finch. I don't think I can bear seeing him as less than I have imagined. To me, he was the proof of learned and humane men in the south.
2
Now everyone is a Southerner.
5
Harper Lee did not write this book. Harper Lee could not have written this book.
6
Ok I haven't read the book. But based on what I know about To Kill A Mockingbird it seems to be almost a non sequitur- an experiment rightly discarded by Lee when she was of sound mind and not under the control of money grabbing charlatans. There was a reason that her sister protected her all those years and why the book wasn't published.
To Kill is a work of art that is among the finest in American letters and speaks to our better angels. I say blah blah blah to all the benighted amateur critics in the NYT picks who would try to diminish the former by reconciling it with the latter.
Something's rotten in Denmark.
To Kill is a work of art that is among the finest in American letters and speaks to our better angels. I say blah blah blah to all the benighted amateur critics in the NYT picks who would try to diminish the former by reconciling it with the latter.
Something's rotten in Denmark.
11
I was as surprised as the next person to learn that the characterization of Atticus is so different in this book. But it makes sense.
When originally revising what is now released as “Watchman” to become “Mockingbird,” Harper Lee seems to have changed the dominant narrative voice and point of view from that of an adult to that of a child. Children’s visions (especially of their parents) are different. They are, in short, childish, immature—entirely appropriate for children, of course, but more problematic if we never outgrow them.
I think perhaps what so many of us (myself, anyway) find so shocking and uncomfortable is that the review of “Watchman” makes us consider how childish our own visions may have been. And a little foolish not to have realized that before. That’s uncomfortable, to be sure. But I also say it’s very good.
Thanks, Ms. Lee, for agreeing to try to coax us out of our own childishness.
When originally revising what is now released as “Watchman” to become “Mockingbird,” Harper Lee seems to have changed the dominant narrative voice and point of view from that of an adult to that of a child. Children’s visions (especially of their parents) are different. They are, in short, childish, immature—entirely appropriate for children, of course, but more problematic if we never outgrow them.
I think perhaps what so many of us (myself, anyway) find so shocking and uncomfortable is that the review of “Watchman” makes us consider how childish our own visions may have been. And a little foolish not to have realized that before. That’s uncomfortable, to be sure. But I also say it’s very good.
Thanks, Ms. Lee, for agreeing to try to coax us out of our own childishness.
167
So insightful. This is the best and most useful comment in this thread.
1
As a child of the American South I read "To Kill a Mockingbird". I wanted to be a lawyer before I read about Atticus, but I admired Atticus and the tenacity with which he defended his client. The next time I land in South Carolina, the Confederate Battle Flag will not be flying at the state capitol. What would Atticus say? Likely nothing. I had nightmares when I visited my grandparents the summer Emmett Till was killed. I divided white Southerners into to groups: Those who didn't like me and those who wanted to kill me. White jurist like Hugo Black, a former KKK member and Frank Johnson moved the South in the direction of justice, but hey had evolved over a period of time. Despite my youth in the 60's I knew Atticus was too good to be true. An earlier book that gave him time to evolve would have helped. "To Set a Watchman" does not do that.
12
I've always believed that Truman Capote wrote or at least re-wrote "Mockingbird". That this first novel, now published second, lacks the lyricism we expected just indicates that not everything should be published. This novel arrives too late, and something feels wrong.
7
Truman Capote was one of the narcissistic writers of all time. There is no way he would have ever let anyone take credit for his work. To go further his "In Cold Blood" would gave been DOA because she was the one who befriended the people in Kansas.
5
Frankly, I'm rather relieved to learn that Atticus Finch has lost his halo. He was almost wooden in his saintliness. Are we to conclude that Harper Lee got cold feet when her editor sent her back to the woodshed? The most realistic adult in TKAM was Sheriff Tate, who saw things clearly and had a practical, spirit-of-the-law sense of justice, as demonstrated when he declares that Bob Ewell "fell on his knife," rather than letting it be known that Boo Radley rid the town of the guy. I look forward to spending time with a 3-D version of Atticus, warts and all.
6
Like many great novels, this one had a rough start and benefitted from an empathetic editor's advice. This earlier draft belongs in an archive, to be read and studied by those interested in Lee's development as an artist. It does not have the makings of a blockbuster and has to be taken in context, because it cannot rival the much superior version the public knows. But it doesn't so much matter, because in a few years it will be remaindeedr as a curiosity, seldom read, of no transcendent importance to Lee's legacy or for our collective love of her greatest achievement as a writer.
10
How could identical characters have radically different personas in two novels? Possibly because the old rumor that Truman Capote was the actual author of To Kill a Mockingbird is probably true.
4
Capote didn't have the heart to write Mockingbird. He was much more interested in brutal true crime.
Capote was such an egotistical little twerp that if he had written Mockinbird, his name would be on the book jacket.
Really looking forward to reading it!
1
Reading a book where Atticus Finch is a racist is like reading a book about Santa Claus killing reindeer. Who wold want to do that?
Greed is not good. There was no reason to publish this "book". It was already, long ago, rewritten into the masterpiece it was supposed to be. Cannot believe Ms. Lee is fully able to grasp the implications of it all.
Greed is not good. There was no reason to publish this "book". It was already, long ago, rewritten into the masterpiece it was supposed to be. Cannot believe Ms. Lee is fully able to grasp the implications of it all.
18
After reading the very lackluster first chapter and now hearing the essential plot of this book, I'd just like to give a big shout out to the publishing industry for wasting our time--and money. Rather than tell Ms. Lee that her book lacks merit and needs a really good editing job to boot, the publisher (Harper) raced to publish it, with all the attendant hype it could muster, just to make a buck (or million) off her. It's a real shame. What's worse, if Harper had turned it down, another eager exploiter would have grabbed it up anyway. Our only recourse, as potential readers, is simply to refuse to buy it.
13
For me, this is a good lesson in "Caveat Emptor."
The advantage to pre-ordering? Profit!
The advantage to pre-ordering? Profit!
4
I suppose I'll have to read it myself, as the reviewer seems to have fainted.
13
I confess to being a bit disappointed. To call this a review is a very generous assessment. It's more a comparison of two stories told from different portions of the author's remembrances.
I can only assume by the lack of literary criticism or engagement that it is... not up to what we have come to expect from Ms. Lee.
I've found lately that anything from film to nearly everything but theatre gets the soft soap treatment if it's less than stellar. Rather than review we get a plot description.
My instincts say to pass. And I'm sorry for that.
I can only assume by the lack of literary criticism or engagement that it is... not up to what we have come to expect from Ms. Lee.
I've found lately that anything from film to nearly everything but theatre gets the soft soap treatment if it's less than stellar. Rather than review we get a plot description.
My instincts say to pass. And I'm sorry for that.
4
Do you know if the book jacket is original? It looks very much like my dad's (deceased) work.
This change in Atticus reminds of the real end to the career of Clarence Darrow. He abandoned working on the case against the Scottsboro Nine for a large amount of money represent the wealthy murderers in the Massie Affair in Hawaii, using a defense of how pure white women had to be protected from the savagery and lusts of native Hawaiians. "Honor Killing" by David Stannard is an excellent book about it.
2
Clarence Darrow and Arthur Garfield Hays agreed to defend the accused on behalf of the NAACP. However, the Communist Party through its legal branch, the International Labor Defense (ILD), wanted to use the case as propaganda to discredit the United States which setup a battle between the NAACP and the ILD to see who would represent the defendants. The defendants, intimidated and fearing for the lives, asserted that they wanted the ILD to represent them. The ILD told Darrow and Hays they could participate in the defense but they had to repudiate the NAACP and abide by the ILD?s legal strategy. Darrow and Hays refused these conditions and withdrew from the case. According to one of his biographers, it was the only case Darrow withdrew from in his career. Credit: Michigan State University
As a teacher who brought the themes of empathy and innocence to hundreds of 9th graders, I am saddened that the heroic Atticus could be recast in this way. Had Miss Lee intended to publish this novel in its own time, the contradictions of character would have had to have been reconciled. Since it was a closed rehearsal of the theme of racism, and not a designated prequel, it is hard to accept the novel all these years later with the enthusiasm readers endow to novels in a series. Since TKAM was told from the point of view of an adult Scout looking back on her childhood, the character of Atticus could not have been drawn as he appears in Watchman.
I can envision my former students looking to recreate the magnificence of Scout's journey to the Radley porch, and feeling disappointed, as if to remind us that we can't turn back time except in memory.
I can envision my former students looking to recreate the magnificence of Scout's journey to the Radley porch, and feeling disappointed, as if to remind us that we can't turn back time except in memory.
6
"As a teacher who brought the themes of empathy and innocence to hundreds of 9th graders, I am saddened that the heroic Atticus could be recast in this way."
9th graders are reaching the age where they can make more complex judgments of character and morality. Looking at a character through two different lenses rather than a flat and flattering hagiography is sure to enhance their analytical skills. Folks ought to teach the two books side by side, as the foundation for a tough but valuable discussion.
9th graders are reaching the age where they can make more complex judgments of character and morality. Looking at a character through two different lenses rather than a flat and flattering hagiography is sure to enhance their analytical skills. Folks ought to teach the two books side by side, as the foundation for a tough but valuable discussion.
3
On the aesthetic side, assuming these two books were not offered as two parts of a single whole, it is unremarkable that an author might play with different moral variations of a character while drafting different books. But even assuming that “Atticus” is the same character in both books, the inconsistency is also unremarkable. Human identity is rarely that coherent. I grew up in inner city New Orleans, and nearly every white and black person I knew had a jumble of idealist/anti-racist notions and racist notions in the various compartments of the brain. That’s why I’m always surprised when people compare racism to pregnancy (either you are or you aren’t) – it always makes them sound like they’ve lived in an ivory tower where they never had to meet actual people.
23
Yes--real life is often messier than fiction--got it. For those of us who live in this still imperfect South--some with seriously flawed or absent fathers, Atticus provided lots of Scouts and Jems with hope for what might be.
I'll stick with the classic not the lawyer-published first draft.
I'll stick with the classic not the lawyer-published first draft.
8
The editor who asked her to re-write the story thru the eyes of a child was probably the reason 'To Kill A Mockingbird' became a classic, and not 'The Watchman.'
The innocence of children (Mockingbird) as opposed to the worldly jadedness of adults (Watchman).
The innocence of children (Mockingbird) as opposed to the worldly jadedness of adults (Watchman).
14
Yes, yes. In writing my own novel of a racially mixed neighborhood struggling to find its identity, I found that I had to first forget about racial politics. From my liberal friends, I’m damned either way. If (as a white writer) I don’t include black voices struggling with the issue, I’m marginalizing or silencing the black community. If I do include black characters who engage the issue, I’m appropriating the African-American voice. From my conservative friends, I’m equally damned, since the whole hidden strand of the novel is to find and exorcise the demonic center of the “good old days” mythology that holds up the status quo. So I figured I’d have to jettison racial politics (in all current forms) and approach the issue armed with only the human heart and human imagination. Having kids play some of the protagonist parts helped, as kids have the heart and have the imagination but haven’t yet been trained into this or that posture of political belligerence.
It's difficult to view GSAW through a lens polished 55 years ago. The prime mover in Atticus' world was always judicial equality, not racial equality.
4
unlike most commenters, the review makes me want to read the book. atticus as described is far more realistic and compelling than the wise hero of mockingbird. even though her first try , the watchman is a far more complicated premise. , ms lee is a truly gifted writer and perhaps she more than any writer can write this story. it seems to me, atticus could be generous and eloquent when defending an innocent man. but, his compassion toward victim tom robinson is not the same as his children attending the same schools as blacks, a few decades after the civil war. AND dictated by the dreaded yankees. the forces of reconstruction were horrifying, strong and lasting. i will be interested to learn if scout was able to accept atticus' reality and love him still. a good man over taken by forces of blind hate from heritage and community. life is never all black or all white.
6
It does seem like the time is ripe for GSAW. We seem to have given up hope in racial reconciliation. The era of hope in TKAM has been replaced with greedy publishers, hate mangers and exploitation
4
All it took was the death of Harper Lee's sister and protector Alice and the "miraculous" discovery of this decades old manuscript weeks later by a lawyer to destroy our memory of a Atticus Finch. And greed wins again!
5
Am I wrong here? This is fiction, right? BOTH books are fiction. And we're acting like we've discovered something about some hero . . . in real life. Step into the real world, folks.
8
Ah, but isn't a vividly real character or cast of characters the mark of a piece of literature that transcends and endures. This may not be "real life," but the themes within are quite real and the controversy surrounding GSAW and Ms. Lee is very much a part of "real life."
Pretty amazing that THIS book comes out at THIS moment, when the zombie of American racism has come back to lethal undead life. Nobody planned that.
4
I grew up in the South, and after reading "To Kill a Mockingbird" fell in love with the morality of Atticus Finch. It helped me in making the decision to go to law school. However, I never thought for a minute that he was really what many commenters seem to have been led to believe. I have just left the South Carolina statehouse, where the Battle flag of the Confederate States was just lowered. I will drive to my grandparent's farmhouse in Upstate Cowpens. I will stop to purchase petrol before dropping my rental car off at the Charlotte, NC airport, at gas stations. I will encounter white people who do not like me one iota more than they did before the flag came down.
I will read "To Set a Watchman", but my view of who I thought Atticus Finch was cannot be changed.
As a college student I signed on as research assistant for a project that involved me going to court houses & public offices in Virginia in an attempt to determine the number of Black slaves who had enlisted in the Confederate Army. I found none. I found slaves who were taken to battlefields as valets of white slave owners, but I found no black volunteers in the Army of Northern Virginia.
I divided the white people I knew as a child in South Carolina into two groups. Those who didn't like me and those who wanted to kill me. Some whites evolved. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black had been KKK member. Fed. Court Judge Frank Johnson was my hero, but he was rare. I survived the South. Many like Emmet Till did not
I will read "To Set a Watchman", but my view of who I thought Atticus Finch was cannot be changed.
As a college student I signed on as research assistant for a project that involved me going to court houses & public offices in Virginia in an attempt to determine the number of Black slaves who had enlisted in the Confederate Army. I found none. I found slaves who were taken to battlefields as valets of white slave owners, but I found no black volunteers in the Army of Northern Virginia.
I divided the white people I knew as a child in South Carolina into two groups. Those who didn't like me and those who wanted to kill me. Some whites evolved. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black had been KKK member. Fed. Court Judge Frank Johnson was my hero, but he was rare. I survived the South. Many like Emmet Till did not
48
I have felt for a long time that Atticus was not a very good lawyer. By putting Tom Robinson on the stand, he turned the trial into a case of "Do you believe the white accusers or the black accused?" It would have been smarter to make it "Do you believe the accusers or the evidence?" Now the possibility is raised that maybe he wanted Tom Robinson convicted and knew the best way to do it. I loved TKAM and have no desire to read this new one. I'd rather see Atticus as a bumbler than a racist.
4
One of the most curious facts I discovered while preparing a lecture on both of Ms. Lee’s books is that far more commentary has been published of TKAM from the legal point of view than the literary. A significant issue made in these legal examinations is that Atticus Finch did not press Mayella sufficiently when she was being cross-examined.
It seems like Ms Lee beautifully captured an experience that I share with her.
My mother did her best to raise us to be fair- and open-minded. She taught us that Jews were the apple of God’s eye and must always be respected for this, forbade the use of the N-word (even in our thoughts, if possible), took Korean war brides under her social protection, and welcomed people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds into our home as friends, as guests, and (through marriages and births) as members of the family.
Once we were old enough to be spoken to as adults, the nastier truths came to light. And yes, I was shocked. And, despite how she raised us, she was a little surprised when her adult children challenged her comments about racial stereotypes. Maybe she assumed that we would figure out that she was teaching public (not private behavior), never realizing that her self-disciplined example at home did not allow us to understand that hypocrisy was expected.
Maybe it is also true that our opinions ossify over time, if we allow them to. Perhaps Atticus was a better man in his earlier adult years, and maybe my mother was less judgmental when she was younger.
I am very much looking forward to reading Watchman for myself to see how this astute observer of human nature illustrates how our morals evolve throughout of lives, as we are shaped by outside events, cultural pressures, and the strength of our own characters.
My mother did her best to raise us to be fair- and open-minded. She taught us that Jews were the apple of God’s eye and must always be respected for this, forbade the use of the N-word (even in our thoughts, if possible), took Korean war brides under her social protection, and welcomed people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds into our home as friends, as guests, and (through marriages and births) as members of the family.
Once we were old enough to be spoken to as adults, the nastier truths came to light. And yes, I was shocked. And, despite how she raised us, she was a little surprised when her adult children challenged her comments about racial stereotypes. Maybe she assumed that we would figure out that she was teaching public (not private behavior), never realizing that her self-disciplined example at home did not allow us to understand that hypocrisy was expected.
Maybe it is also true that our opinions ossify over time, if we allow them to. Perhaps Atticus was a better man in his earlier adult years, and maybe my mother was less judgmental when she was younger.
I am very much looking forward to reading Watchman for myself to see how this astute observer of human nature illustrates how our morals evolve throughout of lives, as we are shaped by outside events, cultural pressures, and the strength of our own characters.
11
My grandmother, born in the 1890's, was the heroine figure in my childhood. I learned so many important lessons from her and til this day, 40 years after her passing, I stop and ask myself, what would Grandmother do? At age 13, though, her halo lost its luster when she ranted about the TV show "Roots". "I can't believe there is a show about the nigras on television!" She accused our lovely housekeeper of stealing her amethyst ring, later found in a mayonnaise jar. "The Help" is really a movie version of my childhood in the South. In so many ways, she was remarkable: her fearlessness, her generosity to others, her ability to live all across this country and make friends wherever she went, her wise remonstrations I shall never forget. It is still hard to reconcile the grandmother I revered as a child with the one I saw as a teenager. Likely most people in the South had to revisit their estimations of a beloved person when confronted with disturbing racist views. Scout and I love our people, what do you do when those you trust reveal their deep, deep flaws? I commend Harper Lee for being honest and not taking the easy way out.
2
It's worth remembering that Atticus was very much based on her own father, an attorney who unsuccessfully defended a black father and son accused of murdering a storekeeper. Both of them were hanged, and he never tried another criminal case.
Mr. Lee was a far more complex character of Atticus in Mockingbird, though, and it sounds like this book reflects that. He believed in segregation and once told his pastor, "Get off the ‘social justice’ and get back on the Gospel." Later, though, he changed many of his views about civil rights.
Perhaps, as the reviewer states, Lee found her return home from NYC as a shock in values and wrote Watchman out of a sense of that injustice. And then, in Mockingbird, reflected back and wrote of how she'd seen her father as a child.
Mr. Lee was a far more complex character of Atticus in Mockingbird, though, and it sounds like this book reflects that. He believed in segregation and once told his pastor, "Get off the ‘social justice’ and get back on the Gospel." Later, though, he changed many of his views about civil rights.
Perhaps, as the reviewer states, Lee found her return home from NYC as a shock in values and wrote Watchman out of a sense of that injustice. And then, in Mockingbird, reflected back and wrote of how she'd seen her father as a child.
17
Another case of be careful what you wish for.
3
I suggest Ms Lee owns how to describe her characters, however she losses the talent of her characters with this useless book. It goes, in progress, nowhere.
In the end, a novel is a work of imagination. I think these two works reveal as much about Ms. Lee's duality as Huckleberry Finn does to Mark Twain. Maybe our own duality. An American duality. In the end, I hope it points us towards our better angels.
3
Duality between what and what?
I'm intrigued by your reference to Mark Twain's "duality" Can you elaborate?
It is now clear that TKAMB does not simply tell a story; it also answers a question, i.e., the questions raised to the editors by Ms. Lee's draft of GSAW. The context offered by GSAW makes TKAMB just that much more profound.
3
Maybe the Atticus of 'Mockingbird' was never a saint, or the voice of modern-day racial enlightenment transported to the small-town South of the 1930s. Maybe he was just a fairly progressive guy for his time and place.
It doesn't seem odd to me that a 50-year-old progressive in the '30s could turn into a 70-year-old conservative in the '50s. The implications or racial equality had become clearer. Atticus' lofty talk in 'Mockingbird' was somewhat theoretical; but by the time of 'Watchman' those ideas really did mean "Negroes ... in our schools and churches." I suspect the views of many real-life Southerners evolved along similar lines.
At any rate, I think 'Mockingbird' is one of the ten greatest novels of all time. 'Watchman' is one of the first novels to come along in a while that I feel absolutely compelled to read.
It doesn't seem odd to me that a 50-year-old progressive in the '30s could turn into a 70-year-old conservative in the '50s. The implications or racial equality had become clearer. Atticus' lofty talk in 'Mockingbird' was somewhat theoretical; but by the time of 'Watchman' those ideas really did mean "Negroes ... in our schools and churches." I suspect the views of many real-life Southerners evolved along similar lines.
At any rate, I think 'Mockingbird' is one of the ten greatest novels of all time. 'Watchman' is one of the first novels to come along in a while that I feel absolutely compelled to read.
5
The difference between the two books is the universal difference between being a child and being a teenager or adult. Everyone, revisited with the tincture of time, eventually reveals their true nature. It is up to us to build on the good lessons they taught while keeping in mind that every one of us has failings. I still love my grandmother, but she is no longer the Atticus of my childhood.
Sounds like she killed off the persona of Atticus. That's too bad.
4
"How could the saintly Atticus — described early in the book in much the same terms as he is in “Mockingbird” — suddenly emerge as a bigot?"
It would be interesting to know the answer to this question - or more specifically, why did Harper Lee change Atticus Finch from a typical Southern racist into the man of decency and integrity of To Kill A Mockingbird?
It doesn't seem possible that the good Atticus of TKAM - and, apparently, the early part of GSAW - could become such a racist. This change in chatacter is not believable.
I think what we see is a smart editor helping a young writer turn a good but flawed novel into one of the great classics of American literature. Go Set A Watchman may be of interest for various reasons, but it should not be read as a follow-up to TKAM. Harper Lee (wisely) did not in fact write a "sequel" to her classic.
It's a shame GSAW was published - and to such great fanfare. Hopefully it will not tarnish the greatness of TKAM, and the goodness of Atticus Finch in America's consciousness. He's a literary hero whose reputation should remain intact.
Just as the sequel to Gone With The Wind was unnecessary and not comparable to the original, GSAW was best left as an untouched manuscript - of interest to academics and students of literature, but not as a published novel.
Classics stand alone. Perhaps after the publisher and other parties involved make their money, GSAW will fade into obscurity, and become a literary footnote and nothing more.
It would be interesting to know the answer to this question - or more specifically, why did Harper Lee change Atticus Finch from a typical Southern racist into the man of decency and integrity of To Kill A Mockingbird?
It doesn't seem possible that the good Atticus of TKAM - and, apparently, the early part of GSAW - could become such a racist. This change in chatacter is not believable.
I think what we see is a smart editor helping a young writer turn a good but flawed novel into one of the great classics of American literature. Go Set A Watchman may be of interest for various reasons, but it should not be read as a follow-up to TKAM. Harper Lee (wisely) did not in fact write a "sequel" to her classic.
It's a shame GSAW was published - and to such great fanfare. Hopefully it will not tarnish the greatness of TKAM, and the goodness of Atticus Finch in America's consciousness. He's a literary hero whose reputation should remain intact.
Just as the sequel to Gone With The Wind was unnecessary and not comparable to the original, GSAW was best left as an untouched manuscript - of interest to academics and students of literature, but not as a published novel.
Classics stand alone. Perhaps after the publisher and other parties involved make their money, GSAW will fade into obscurity, and become a literary footnote and nothing more.
8
The sequel to GWTW was just awful -- but it was a cynical attempt to "cash in" and was not written by Margaret Mitchell.
This is not a sequel (GSAW) but an earlier draft. And it was written by the AUTHOR Harper Lee. It is authentic; the sequel to GWTW was not.
This is not a sequel (GSAW) but an earlier draft. And it was written by the AUTHOR Harper Lee. It is authentic; the sequel to GWTW was not.
1
I wish Michiko Kakutani had written an actual review. Given that Harper Lee was sent away by that nameless editor to rewrite "Watchman," it may ultimately become no more than a footnote when taken on its merits.
At least I hope so. What grieves me more than anything is that children discovering "Mockingbird" for the first time will now always have an alternate Atticus casting a shadow over the experience. The real utility of "Watchman" may eventually be as an object lesson in contrasts -- a poor first draft vs. a gem that won the Pulitzer Prize.
At least I hope so. What grieves me more than anything is that children discovering "Mockingbird" for the first time will now always have an alternate Atticus casting a shadow over the experience. The real utility of "Watchman" may eventually be as an object lesson in contrasts -- a poor first draft vs. a gem that won the Pulitzer Prize.
7
I remember reading in school when I lived in the US years ago. I never really connected with any of the characters, which could be as a result of being African American, but it always felt overly idealistic. This one to me sounds more authentic to what may have been felt by many during the time, and I may have a go at it. I have learned by experience, that one person's interpretation of literary work, is never the interpretation of all. So, I will have to form my own opinion.
3
It was necessary to provide a small amount of explanation as to what distinguishes TKAM from Watchman, because of the momentousness of the publication of the latter work and the fame of the earlier one...but I'm disappointed in this article. It's not so much a review as an exercise in literary comparison. It gave me too much information about the tone and plot of the new book, and not enough about the writing itself. A lot of the pleasure of reading a book is being surprised by what happens. I don't want to know what to expect when I start a book, but now I feel like I know way too much.
1
I had been extremely skeptical about this newly re-found book.
But, based upon this review, I will read it.
Sadly and unfortunately, it rings very true to my family's experience during the early 1960s in a small eastern Virginia town. My father was superintendent of schools and began to integrate them. We were ostracized, called names, endured threats from the KKK, eventually had to leave. And an 'academy' opened (and is still there).
But my Dad - he did the right thing, and I'll always be proud of him for that.
But, based upon this review, I will read it.
Sadly and unfortunately, it rings very true to my family's experience during the early 1960s in a small eastern Virginia town. My father was superintendent of schools and began to integrate them. We were ostracized, called names, endured threats from the KKK, eventually had to leave. And an 'academy' opened (and is still there).
But my Dad - he did the right thing, and I'll always be proud of him for that.
29
It would be useful to know the editors' primary reason(s) for requesting a complete rewrite of the earlier work. I'm finding it a little hard to believe that the editors would put Ms. Lee through that much effort solely, or even primarily, for the purpose of modifying the character of Atticus Finch, particularly since Atticus did not exist in the public mind at the time of the rewrite. Much easier to believe the decision was based on questions of literary strength. It would also be interesting to know how extensively "Go Tell a Watchman" was revised for the current publication.
3
Don't touch my Atticus please. My hero.
5
Yes, Atticus evolved, and most expect someone who has evolved to become better, wiser, stronger. But, with the civil rights movement, and the federal government trumping of states' rights to achieve those civil rights, his world was turned upside down.
I do not believe Atticus was a bigot, I believe he was a good man who could not accept the loss of the entire Southern culture and system he knew and loved.
I do not believe Atticus was a bigot, I believe he was a good man who could not accept the loss of the entire Southern culture and system he knew and loved.
2
Many children have an idealized view of their parents until they grow up and discover that their parents are only human; and sometimes very flawed humans. C'est la vie.
4
I grew up in the 50's in Alabama and Ms. Lee captured the life of middle class children in small south Alabama towns in a way so brilliant that it is hard for me to describe. When I read TKAM as a young adult in the 60's it hit me right in the heart. I have puzzled over all the recent news about GSAW, but after reading this article I think I understand because I was there. It seems to me that Ms Lee wrote the truth that her editor thought (and was probably right) that no one would read at that time. So she sweetened it by gong back to her childhood and wrote one of the greatest books ever written. BUT, I wonder what would have happened if GSAW was published back then.
We needed to hear what she had to say so let's listen now.
maybe GSAW could have been that also. In any ase, Harper Lee has
We needed to hear what she had to say so let's listen now.
maybe GSAW could have been that also. In any ase, Harper Lee has
7
Your comment has really helped me reconcile my sad feelings about the publication of this book. You really sum it all up: "We needed to hear what she had to say so let's listen now." That's it. The last thing we need is more racial negativity, but perhaps these latest battle scars have strengthened us so that we have the maturity to face up to the real Atticus instead of the softened version. Thank you for your remarks.
1
I think Lee's editor at the time did not want a novel from an obviously gifted writer to be rejected because she was discussing attitudes that in the 50's were erupting but had not reached the groundswell of the 60's Civil Rights movement. Thus Lee was told to take the story back 20 years, to the depression and the viewpoint of a young girl. TKAMB became our hearts yearning for both justice and simplicity. When I was young growing up in Texas and Oklahoma, I thought my parents and family were tolerant and liberal. We were expected to be respectful to all and never use denigrating words about people of different races. Then the sixties came, school were integrated and all of a sudden some folks were uppity or outside agitators. I was shocked and ashamed. I became the adult Scout of "Watchman." And unfortunately the news of today reflects how very little we have moved as a society since then.
15
So it turns out that the real Atticus was Harper Lee herself! Or the young Jem Scout?
4
This is one of the lamest things ever published in the NYT -- I say things because what is it? A book report? And, by the way, lots of fiction has unlikable characters and characters with which we do not agree or cannot even really understand. What is so shocking about that? I find is fascinating to see the evolution over time of these characters and, in spite of this lame reviewer really ruining the book with her Cliff Notes of the story, I look forward to reading a provocative piece about disillusionment of children with their parents -- remember the first book was told from the children's perspective and also the evolution of a man and his thinking. By the way, just to remind people, this is a fictional character. Calm down.
4
It's weird, but at least half the posts here (and to a lesser degree, the review -- which I agree is more of a book report) act as if Atticus Finch was a real person, and one who looked & sounded precisely like a young Gregory Peck.
This kind of identification with fiction and actors and Hollywood is actually kinda scary....it's like media and image and memory now substitute for ACTUALLY READING A BOOK.
This kind of identification with fiction and actors and Hollywood is actually kinda scary....it's like media and image and memory now substitute for ACTUALLY READING A BOOK.
1
I do not know if I will read the book. I have my doubts about the author's intention to have it published. It is odd that the publication date is the same date on which that dreadful flag finally was removed.
5
At 70, I've seen case after case where male friends who were suitably "liberal" in the civil rights era of our youth have become angry and intolerant over time. I think it's part of aging. If Atticus Finch is 72 in "Watchman", this could have been part of Lee's thinking, though of course we're all at a disadvantage not having read it.
7
Having learned the backstory, I can only say I'm so grateful Lee's editor told her to go back to the drawing board and come up with a different version. "Watchman" is ordinary, while "Mockingbird" is inspirational. It will always be one of my favorites.
6
I wouln't like to read the first draft of "Pride and Prejudice." Or peruse Gatsby in embryonic form, or Eudora Welty's "The Optimist's Daughter" or anything by Faulkner.
Writing is an arduous, complex, organic process. The final product may be very different from the author's original concept.
An editor saw promise in writing the novel from Scout's point of view as a child, during a tumultuous and frightening time in the life of her family, her neighbors, and her hometown.
She rewrote the novel based on that advice.It's not narrated by a child. Scout is an adult, recollecting and recreating a specific, traumatic time in her childhood.
Atticus is idealized in her memory. But the reader knows he is a father unable to tell his sister, Alexandra, to get out of his house, even though she tortures Scout, and makes his life uncomfortable. ("Sister, I do the best I can with them.") He's a father who doesn't apprehend the life threatening danger to his children. Boo Radley saves their lives while Atticus is at home reading the paper, certain Bob Ewell is a danger only to him. He's not just perfection and wisdom.
TKAM is transcendant because Harper Lee knew her people perfectly. From Calpurnia to Maudie Atkinson, Heck Tate and Bob Ewell, Scout, Jem, Dill, and Boo; daily lives versus the currents of race, class and hate that define southern lives -- shame on those who dismiss the book as some sanitized pap written simply to sell.
As for "Watchman" -- first drafts should stay buried.
Writing is an arduous, complex, organic process. The final product may be very different from the author's original concept.
An editor saw promise in writing the novel from Scout's point of view as a child, during a tumultuous and frightening time in the life of her family, her neighbors, and her hometown.
She rewrote the novel based on that advice.It's not narrated by a child. Scout is an adult, recollecting and recreating a specific, traumatic time in her childhood.
Atticus is idealized in her memory. But the reader knows he is a father unable to tell his sister, Alexandra, to get out of his house, even though she tortures Scout, and makes his life uncomfortable. ("Sister, I do the best I can with them.") He's a father who doesn't apprehend the life threatening danger to his children. Boo Radley saves their lives while Atticus is at home reading the paper, certain Bob Ewell is a danger only to him. He's not just perfection and wisdom.
TKAM is transcendant because Harper Lee knew her people perfectly. From Calpurnia to Maudie Atkinson, Heck Tate and Bob Ewell, Scout, Jem, Dill, and Boo; daily lives versus the currents of race, class and hate that define southern lives -- shame on those who dismiss the book as some sanitized pap written simply to sell.
As for "Watchman" -- first drafts should stay buried.
17
You certainly can read an earlier draft of "The Great Gatsby". It's called "Trimalchio in West Egg" (really!). I have read it online.
1
I was born (1963) and raised in AL and growing up regarded Atticus as the hero my life experience had never introduced me to.
I worked for a summer in Lee's hometown of Monroeville and as I passed her home I was awestruck with the thought that a man such as Atticus (based on her father as I understood at the time) had lived there.
It turns out that he, Atticus, Mockingbird version, probably only existed as the ideal of the editor whom sensed the country's need for an image of a fully evolved Southern white man willing to take on his own.
I worked for a summer in Lee's hometown of Monroeville and as I passed her home I was awestruck with the thought that a man such as Atticus (based on her father as I understood at the time) had lived there.
It turns out that he, Atticus, Mockingbird version, probably only existed as the ideal of the editor whom sensed the country's need for an image of a fully evolved Southern white man willing to take on his own.
6
Gee, NYT, thanks a million for the book report and all the detail therein. Not much point in even reading it now but at least you got your "scoop" and a chance to be florid and theatrical about how everyone should feel if they do bother to read it even though you've already spoiled the enjoyment of the story unfolding. The art of literary criticism is totally dead and replaced by Cliff Notes of material which writers spend sometimes decades creating and honing. Well, at least the erudite NYT readers can be "first" to chat about it at cocktails this weekend without having to break the spine of the book, if they even bother to buy one. I avoid almost all reviews now because they all spoil the material and I am sick of every reviewer pushing his or her "I" and "me" on me. I thought since this was such a special book and situation the NYT might be more circumspect and respectful of the material (and those of us who actually read books). But no. "Shocking" is the headline. Shocking is the article. Sigh.
6
Atticus has been put on a pedestal by his daughter and generations of readers. But no human is is good or bad; we are all a mix a both. Go Set A Watchman sounds like it will also be a coming of age story, but the kind where you realize that your heroes are not always saints. The fact that this book is being released so long after TKM was published sets the reader up to be extremely empathetic toward Scout. We know as much as she does about her childhood. We are Scout. And we are about to discover a man we love, who taught us to show compassion to everyone, is also deeply flawed.
Certainly more realistic than the portrait of Atticus than Ms. Lee painted in TKM.
And obviously I haven't read it yet, but it seems as though Go Set a Watchman has the potential to discuss a point which is so often ignored when we talk about race and racism in America: good people can be horribly racist. There seems to be this idea, especially now in the era of "colorblindness" that only the most evil of people are racists. Not true. Part of living in a systemically racist country (and world) means that everyone has some sort of subconscious racist view, whether or not you display it outwardly.
But GSW could have the potential to teach or force readers to consider that even people who preach empathy and compassion for all can hold racist views.
This could be a book that doesn't let anyone off the hook, even one of American literature's most beloved figures.
Certainly more realistic than the portrait of Atticus than Ms. Lee painted in TKM.
And obviously I haven't read it yet, but it seems as though Go Set a Watchman has the potential to discuss a point which is so often ignored when we talk about race and racism in America: good people can be horribly racist. There seems to be this idea, especially now in the era of "colorblindness" that only the most evil of people are racists. Not true. Part of living in a systemically racist country (and world) means that everyone has some sort of subconscious racist view, whether or not you display it outwardly.
But GSW could have the potential to teach or force readers to consider that even people who preach empathy and compassion for all can hold racist views.
This could be a book that doesn't let anyone off the hook, even one of American literature's most beloved figures.
10
Now we get to see how Mockingbird came about. After vetting rage and distress in Watchman Harper Lee calmed down and wrote a classic. It is unfair to be too critical. Mockingbird is a promise an idealist dream accept it as intended. Watchman is darker and close to the world we live in.
7
I never understood how Atticus Finch was so lionized after Mockingbird. He did just as the community expected and wanted. He knew from the beginning that his defense of Tom was doomed, but that the town needed a stand-up guy for Tom's defense so that it could feel justified in convicting an innocent man. Atticus wasn't a paragon of virtue in Mockingbird. He helped the town pretend that justice was served. I have never understood all these lawyers down here who want to emulate him, except that perhaps they wanted to play his role, as reluctant administrator of a deeply flawed social system, where the three groups--blacks, upper class whites and lower class whites (like Tom's accuser) had no trust for each other, but in any conflict hewed close to their racial allegiances, meaning blacks always lost.
Tom was convicted because, just like in the Civil War, mainly fought by whites who didn't own slaves, when it came down to it, the verdict was purely racial. Atticus knew as much in the trial and played his role well, which was to give the white community someone to point to as a non-biased arbiter of justice.
But most Northerners didn't get any of that because they didn't, and still don't, understand the South.
So, bully for "Watchman" if it takes a bit of the sheen off Atticus. He didn't deserve the approbation anyway.
Tom was convicted because, just like in the Civil War, mainly fought by whites who didn't own slaves, when it came down to it, the verdict was purely racial. Atticus knew as much in the trial and played his role well, which was to give the white community someone to point to as a non-biased arbiter of justice.
But most Northerners didn't get any of that because they didn't, and still don't, understand the South.
So, bully for "Watchman" if it takes a bit of the sheen off Atticus. He didn't deserve the approbation anyway.
214
I'm not sure you and I read the same book. The Atticus you describe is not how I remember him but perhaps I have been overly influenced by the movie.
As to us northerners not understanding the South, my take on southern racism is as follows: The South (and most northerners) needed to treat black people as subhuman in order to justify slavery. Southerners were allowed to pretend that they should be proud of trying to destroy the country and precipitating a war that took the lives of three-quarters of a million Americans. Jim Crow was the only way the South could sustain their fiction, and craven, indifferent northern politicians turned a blind eye to it. The South, indeed all Americans, should be as ashamed of slavery and Jim Crow as Germans are of their Nazi heritage. Slavery and Jim Crow, along with the genocide perpetrated against the American Indians, are our national shame, only the South has been very slow to admit it.
As to us northerners not understanding the South, my take on southern racism is as follows: The South (and most northerners) needed to treat black people as subhuman in order to justify slavery. Southerners were allowed to pretend that they should be proud of trying to destroy the country and precipitating a war that took the lives of three-quarters of a million Americans. Jim Crow was the only way the South could sustain their fiction, and craven, indifferent northern politicians turned a blind eye to it. The South, indeed all Americans, should be as ashamed of slavery and Jim Crow as Germans are of their Nazi heritage. Slavery and Jim Crow, along with the genocide perpetrated against the American Indians, are our national shame, only the South has been very slow to admit it.
4
What you're saying, while nicely written, is a pretty basic understanding of Atticus's societal role that no good reader could miss. Your analysis, though, gives no credit to the complexity and depth of his character.
1
@Jim: except the NORTH was equally complicit -- who do you think brought slaves over in ships? Who bought that southern cotton and milled it into fabric? It was all Northerners. The South could not have existed without the North.
Even worse, today racism and segregation are WORSE in the North than the South -- NYC has the most segregated schools in the nation. In comparison, Mississippi or Alabama are models of racial integration!
The worst thing I see is the snotty sense of moral superiority that a lot of lefty liberals have -- and often they spout this from homes in majority white neighborhoods, or send their kids to all-white private schools -- and yet pat themselves on the back, that THEY are not "those awful racist Southerners!".
Even worse, today racism and segregation are WORSE in the North than the South -- NYC has the most segregated schools in the nation. In comparison, Mississippi or Alabama are models of racial integration!
The worst thing I see is the snotty sense of moral superiority that a lot of lefty liberals have -- and often they spout this from homes in majority white neighborhoods, or send their kids to all-white private schools -- and yet pat themselves on the back, that THEY are not "those awful racist Southerners!".
1
There was always something too kind, too ideal, too "perfect," about Atticus Finch, especially in the film. Now it's clear that Lee gave us a portrait of what a 6 year old would think about daddy, a man without "warts and all." It seemed to me that Lee was describing a man she wished was her father, rather than the real thing. Now to find that Lee's first thought was to let the adult, mature and educated Lee give us both views -- the child's idealization of daddy, and the adult's realization that her father was actually a product of his culture, and not noble Roman tribune (that name!) dropped into the deep South to light the darkness.
Too bad Ms. Lee did not have an editor with courage to tell both tales in one book, the beautiful ideal and the sad reality, the way it was written. Instead, the editor helped Lee create a formula that would sell.
Too bad Ms. Lee did not have an editor with courage to tell both tales in one book, the beautiful ideal and the sad reality, the way it was written. Instead, the editor helped Lee create a formula that would sell.
6
But look at how people LOVE that character. It's amazing. They seem to think he is real. It's not unlike how some folks come to believe their favorite soap opera characters are "real" -- even writing to them or sending them presents.
Some of it is the movie role played by the very handsome and charismatic Gregory Peck. They see that face and hear that voice. They have imbued the character (and novel) with layers and layers of meaning, some of which were never there.
Some of it is the movie role played by the very handsome and charismatic Gregory Peck. They see that face and hear that voice. They have imbued the character (and novel) with layers and layers of meaning, some of which were never there.
1
This is a great article, but I think the author misses the point about Atticus. It's possible that the two views of Atticus are not inconsistent -- there are people who have a strong sense of social justice, who on the surface are not bigoted, but who still harbor covert prejudices when things move "into their own backyard." It's not implausible that the Atticus in the 1930's who defended Tom Robinson also could not come to grips with actual desegregation during the 1950's.
This book will be a lesser book than TKAM because it sounds like the Boo Radley storyline is completely absent. The Boo Radley storyline is the heart of TKAM -- Scout learns from the lesson of Boo Radley that she is not without her own prejudices and assumptions that were completely off-base and wrong. The Boo Radley storyline in my opinion is what makes TKAM a touchstone book for adults and children. That story is an analogy about how everyone, even the most kindhearted and openminded, can make assumptions about people that are ugly and untrue, and that part of growing up is learning that everything you believed to be true about someone is often false.
This book will be a lesser book than TKAM because it sounds like the Boo Radley storyline is completely absent. The Boo Radley storyline is the heart of TKAM -- Scout learns from the lesson of Boo Radley that she is not without her own prejudices and assumptions that were completely off-base and wrong. The Boo Radley storyline in my opinion is what makes TKAM a touchstone book for adults and children. That story is an analogy about how everyone, even the most kindhearted and openminded, can make assumptions about people that are ugly and untrue, and that part of growing up is learning that everything you believed to be true about someone is often false.
21
Based on this review I find that the contradictions in Watchman and Mockingbird make no sense. It brings up for me the long- time rumor that Lee was not, in fact, the author of Mockingbird - that it was written by Truman Capote. I look forward to further investigation into that charge.
3
Could Atticus 1 & 2 be the same person? Perhaps he is someone who believes in and will stand for Justice, but who shares other contemporary 1930s cultural norms. A 'good' bigot. I like that complexity, particularly because I am not willing to dismiss small time Southern white men as 'bad' people, just as I'm a lile suspicious of the idea that we're morally superior now.
3
The 'worst of racial and class prejudice, the people’s enmity and hypocrisy and small-mindedness' was 'roiled up by the civil rights movement roiled things up, making people who “used to trust each other” now “watch each other like hawks.” Middle-class whites in the South took put second mortgages to pay their daughters tuition and fees at an unaccredited all-whits acadamy. Blacks lost their credit and their jobs.
Generations later, emnity is lessened and politics are more segregated. Good folks moved or kept quiet in the 60's. Perhaps Atticus moved his speech to the dark side to maintain any communcation of tolerance or prevent murders.
It was an uncertain time for conscience, the 60's in he South
Generations later, emnity is lessened and politics are more segregated. Good folks moved or kept quiet in the 60's. Perhaps Atticus moved his speech to the dark side to maintain any communcation of tolerance or prevent murders.
It was an uncertain time for conscience, the 60's in he South
1
Why is everyone, including the NYT so obsessed with this novel? Front page in large font book review the moment it is available? Greatest, most anticipated work ever?
I don't think I'll be reading "Watchman." It essentially was a prequel to Harper Lee's classic - one of my favorite books and my favorite movie. I prefer to keep my head in the sand and continue to love both the movie and the book..
She did spend two years rewriting "Watchman." And I'm very glad she did. Watchman sounds too depressing for words.
She did spend two years rewriting "Watchman." And I'm very glad she did. Watchman sounds too depressing for words.
2
Wow, if you can't believe in Atticus Finch anymore, who's left? Wonder if there was a Confederate battle flag hanging from the front porch.
5
I wonder how fair it is to analyze the two books, both works of fiction, as if Atticus Finch was actually a real person. It is curious and attractive to look at the two "versions" of Atticus in a real life, even humane manner, in that we are all capable of good and bad. The possible lessons from that are positive---often it's through our closest relatives and friends that we are confronted with the light and dark of humanity. This confrontation can lead us to have more compassion, acceptance and maybe even love in our hearts. However, I am still stuck with the fact that Harper Lee, as author, made changes to the a fictional man that possibly can't be reconciled. And I am ok with that. Mockingbird is a gift. I can't wait to read Watchman and not matter what, I will remain thankful for both Atticus Finches, and even more so, for two Scouts!
3
What fascinates me most, is the fact that a national conversation
is taking place over a work of fiction. I think that’s great, as lover
books, literature, and as a writer!
is taking place over a work of fiction. I think that’s great, as lover
books, literature, and as a writer!
29
The "vultures standing around" are the people who forced the publication of this first draft. But they finally made their money.
6
Kudos to NYT readers. Your comments have added so much to this review and discussion. I just skimmed the comments of NYT facebook posting of the review. Those readers clearly read no more than review title and first line and have replied with gasps of "I'll never read it." "Atticus was so sweet."
4
But isn't your own assessment premature - I presume you haven't read it yet.
Not much actually about the quality of the book or the writing in this review.
5
As I navigate my early 60s, I am observing a strange phenomenon among my contemporaries. Many are reverting to the prejudices and stereotypes that were so prevalent when we were children. And I wonder if I ever really knew people I have known most of my life.
7
The reviewer, Michiko Kakutani, doesn't seem to know much of Alabama's history. For Atticus Finch to turn into a polar opposite of his portrayal in To Kill A Mockingbird is not all that hard to understand. An example? George Wallace was actually a progressive in his early political career. Yes, believe it or not -- George Wallace was once a liberal progressive. It was only with the onset of the civil rights movement that he changed his tone in order to survive politically. He was wrong. It was awful ... but, it happened. Watchman, taken in that context. makes a lot of sense ... and Scout's disappointment with her father is not too different from what some people here felt about many politicians of that time ... as well as some of their parents and grandparents during the 50s and 60s, too. Taken as a historical warning, we can almost see the same thing happening with today's more understanding millennials and the politicians (and perhaps their parents) of today. Think about it -- what will today's open, accepting & thoughtful millennials be thinking of the 'grown ups' of today in about 20 years? Of course, I don't have the benefit that Kakutani has, since I have yet to read the entire book. I do look forward to Tuesday and the opportunity to read it all.
8
This is a fine review of "Go Set a Watchman" and of something bigger - how we judge our fellow human beings. I see a disturbing trend in discussions about race in this country, especially among liberals, which seems analogous to Socialist Realism in the old Soviet Union. Atticus Finch is sort of the American version of the heroic Bolshevik who sacrifices all (or almost all) for the Revolution, but who 20 years later is an overweight Commissar with a taste for imported Scotch whiskey. Not permissible! the censor would say. We want our heroes simple and not paradoxical. Real life rarely gives us that kind of hero and Harper Lee seems to have brought us closer to real life in "Go Set a Watchman."
8
If this version had been published instead of the one the editor insisted on the book would have probably sunk like a stone. At most, a minor work lost among other books.
5
Very good review. The revelations regarding Atticus seem quite reasonable. As we age we see the flaws in those we idealized as children.
4
I never read Mockingbird. But I hated the movie when I first saw it as a child; its dismal creepiness gave me nightmares. When I saw the movie as an adult, I hated it again, this time for the way it made African American lives and suffering a backdrop to the drama of white conscience. Solicitude for the white conscience — how can we be the good people we so desperately want to be in light of a history of collective criminality? — has always been central the question of race in America. I can easily image that Lee’s canny editor understood this and suggested such a shift in focus. And it worked — the novel, the movie and Gregory Peck’s Atticus all became “beloved.” There is nothing shocking in the idea that professional and personal integrity can coexist with a comfortable acquiescence to, or even vigorous defense of, a social order built on racial hierarchy. I certainly hope that “Watchman" contributes to a conversation on this question — and, more importantly, on the ongoing, real life impacts of racial hierarchy in America.
21
Imagining Atticus Finch as a bigot is like trying to understand Bill Cosby as a degenerate. Strange and sad at the same time.
18
Feels like the day we learned there was no Santa Claus and no magic. Now I am old and have to suffer the brutal truth that there is no Atticus Finch.
Ms Lee may have intended in this first writing a juxtaposition of her idealized youthful vision of how she saw Atticus as a child and how she saw him as an adult but I do not want to grow up to that nightmare. As they say in the south , this is sorry.
Ms Lee may have intended in this first writing a juxtaposition of her idealized youthful vision of how she saw Atticus as a child and how she saw him as an adult but I do not want to grow up to that nightmare. As they say in the south , this is sorry.
3
Agree with earlier commenter who posits that it would be wise to consider these as two very different books, rather than related in any way. In any event, It is a fact that GSAW is a draft. And after she followed her editor's advice and reworked it to become TKAM, I tend to believe that Ms.Lee concluded that she did not want the previous draft to ever be published.
3
"Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat up people's gardens, don't nest in corncribs, they don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird." -- Miss Maudie
To Kill a Mockingbird, then, is a mockingbird. It would be a sin if this new novel kills it.
To Kill a Mockingbird, then, is a mockingbird. It would be a sin if this new novel kills it.
11
If you lived among the mockingbirds down here you'd know that's rubbish. Mockingbirds are noisy, aggressive birds that will harass anyone or anything that comes too close to their territory--dogs, cats or people or other birds--it doesn't matter. The mockingbird song is actually a warning to stay away. And if you'd been awakened every morning at four am by a mockingbird "sing[ing] out its heart for us" outside your bedroom window, you'd understand that the title of Lee's book makes no sense and never did. Sometimes it is a right blessed thing when a mockingbird dies.
1
Hmmm. Gregory peck would not have approved.
1
Wow, it is a good thing the great Gregory Peck (Atticus in the movie) is no longer with us. He would be so dismayed to discover what he became twenty years later.
5
Gregory Peck was an ACTOR. He made dozens of movies and played many roles. He is not Atticus Finch.
Atticus Finch is not a real person. He is a totally fictional character. He isn't even really based on Harper Lee's actual father, even though Scout is (more or less) a fictionalized Harper at age 9.
It's funny how much people have attached the very handsome Gregory Peck to this role -- very possibly his most famous, out of a fine career with many good roles -- and simply can't see Atticus anymore as he was written, or imagine another actor playing the part.
Atticus Finch is not a real person. He is a totally fictional character. He isn't even really based on Harper Lee's actual father, even though Scout is (more or less) a fictionalized Harper at age 9.
It's funny how much people have attached the very handsome Gregory Peck to this role -- very possibly his most famous, out of a fine career with many good roles -- and simply can't see Atticus anymore as he was written, or imagine another actor playing the part.
1
This will cause a great deal of pain for true fans, a lot of controversy and speculation, and of course a fortune in book sales. I don't know who's to blame for the exploitation and whether Ms. Lee actually approved the decision, but I have to say: This is disrespectful to her.
"Go Set a Watchman" is neither prequel nor sequel. It is a first draft. With canny editorial advisement, Ms. Lee started from scratch; she began all over again, and the actual novel - the "final draft" - was "To Kill a Mockingbird."
Readers who love that book (and/or movie) ought to boycott this one. I shudder to think of reading first drafts of my favorite novels. Is that the wave of the future? Please: Let's not encourage those in publishing to go digging up first drafts. That's ALL this is.
"Go Set a Watchman" is neither prequel nor sequel. It is a first draft. With canny editorial advisement, Ms. Lee started from scratch; she began all over again, and the actual novel - the "final draft" - was "To Kill a Mockingbird."
Readers who love that book (and/or movie) ought to boycott this one. I shudder to think of reading first drafts of my favorite novels. Is that the wave of the future? Please: Let's not encourage those in publishing to go digging up first drafts. That's ALL this is.
10
As a writer, you are told time and again, "we cannot sell this" when you try to submit a novel to publishers or agents. Time and again, publishers find a way to milk the latent work of people like Lee and Nabokov, calling it a refreshing new discovery. Somehow, it does seem like this was the earlier draft of the beloved novel, for reasons many here have already enumerated, left in the drawer. Well, if nothing else, it give me hope for the four novels I have written that I've been told won't sell.
4
Some people did overcome racism -- their own racism. My (white) aunt, born in 1903, was raised to have fear and loathing of black people, about whom she used the n-word; and a serious crime in her neighborhood worsened the feelings. My grandmother was a good influence -- she sneaked pies to a wrongly-accused black man; my grandpa never knew! During the 1930s my aunt taught young people sewing skills through the National Youth Administration, and learned to see black women as individuals. When she was old, she accepted and welcomed black clergy in her church to the extent that she was a primary force in making them feel welcome. She told me the story of this aspect of her life (race relations) when she was dying of cancer. The story was much more complex and colorful than I am telling here, and it was interesting to note that as she relived the early 20th century, the N-word was prominent, but when she described her later attitudes and experiences, her language was respectful and supportive. I felt and still feel that she told me all this as a kind of confession.
215
Character development is the keystone of Western Religion. Your Aunt experienced life and her soul expanded and developed. It is the great hope of our people that we can improve ourselves so that we can put aside our hatreds and embrace a love of our fellows.
2
There is a novel in the narrative of your aunt’s story, perhaps as an antidote to the bitter disappointment so many of us feel over the revelation of Atticus’ “de-evolution” during the years between the era of “Mockingbird” and “Watchman.” I feel duped--even though we were warned months ago that “Watchman” was not “Mockingbird’s” sequel but rather that “Mockingbird” was written after the fact as the only narrative Lee’s publisher was willing to have see the light of day. What is disillusioning and confusing is that prequels are usually meant as expository setups to help us better understand the characters in works written first but set later in time--the plots and characters usually evolve. This situation, however, seems as if Margaret Mitchell had been told “nobody, especially up North, will accept a selfish and shallow protagonist like Scarlett O’Hara,” ordered to revisit Scarlett’s early life and create a presumably warm and race-neutral relationship with her family’s slaves and her mother (who in the new version doesn’t die young), and informed that “GWTW” as written would be published only over her dead body.
I bought “Watchman” in its Kindle form (and I read “Mockingbird” several times during my childhood before and after the movie was released). I regret this purchase deeply and don’t think I will be able to enjoy or even tolerate “Watchman” knowing its premise and lack of a satisfying resolution. I think at this point I would much rather read YOUR family’s history.
I bought “Watchman” in its Kindle form (and I read “Mockingbird” several times during my childhood before and after the movie was released). I regret this purchase deeply and don’t think I will be able to enjoy or even tolerate “Watchman” knowing its premise and lack of a satisfying resolution. I think at this point I would much rather read YOUR family’s history.
If you haven't already, I hope that one day you will share the full story of your family. Your short summary has that rarest of qualities: powerful and graceful at once.
Did Ms. Lee changed her views on Racism? It is hard to imagine that she was so driving by a strong moral conviction of justice and would later change her views. A good example of how difficult it is to think outside the box. A good example of social pressures. Ms. Lee Appear to have understood this very well and endowed the main character with these human frailties.
2
These are fictional characters and do not reflect the author's beliefs. Who said she was ever driven by any strong moral conviction? Mockingbird was a story told by a 9 year old from her own point of view. They are characters in books. For example someone writes a book about an axe murderer or a pedophile. Does that make the author one? Why should anyone think that any idea in either of these books reflects the author's views on Racism? It's not a personal essay or confession.
1
This rings familiar with Stanley Kubrick's last work. Lots of anticipation and then disappointment. It's like the finale' of Seinfield or the Sopranos; nothing will satisfy the demand!
1
As a young teen reader, I loved "To Kill A Mockingbird,' because it presented a perspective that I was hungry for. "Watchman," seems (from the reviews) to be more truthful about attitudes which I, as a youngster, wanted to escape. This is going to be a difficult read for me, but I have pre-ordered it and I will read it.
7
Bad literature is full of saintly character "To Kill a Mockingbird" is a masterpiece, among other reasons, because the main characters are so finely drawn and three-dimensional; Atticus is not perfect; Scout, at one point, reflects on the limitations to his understanding. I'm curious to find out if Atticus in "Go Set a Watchman" has similar depth, or if he is just a bigot, and no more.
But in any case, we know that even the best of humans, in all societies, have flaws -- pathogenic belief systems, rage, jealousy. One can lose oneself in universals, but it would also be a shame if all we take from this novel, or all there to take, is that the small-town South was a nasty place in the 1850s.
But in any case, we know that even the best of humans, in all societies, have flaws -- pathogenic belief systems, rage, jealousy. One can lose oneself in universals, but it would also be a shame if all we take from this novel, or all there to take, is that the small-town South was a nasty place in the 1850s.
5
I wonder how much influence Truman Capote had on Ms. Lee's writing? They were next door neighbors and good friends. He knew Atticus. He knew the history. He himself was a victim of hatred in that town when he was a child, but he also was a shrewd developer of his craft. Perhaps he, as well as a canny editor, turned her away from the brutal truth of GSAW to the evolving "in hindsight" narrative that became TKAM. I would love to know more about their discussions of their childhood in Monroeville and their insights into the burgeoning civil rights movement.
5
So Atticus isn't perfect after all. This alone opens the possibility that Watchman may actually be a more interesting and rewarding novel than Mockingbird, even if it is judged by readers and critics to be not as good.
I always found the worship of Mockingbird to be overdone and even a bit annoying. It is a book almost completely lacking in ambiguity - especially in the character of Atticus Finch. He is almost Christ-like - unfailingly gentle, decent, courageous and perfect in his morals as a man, a lawyer, a father and a citizen. He is without any apparent flaw. I always wished Atticus was a secret drunk or a womanizer, so that his defense of Tom Robinson might have involved some personal struggle or a nugget of self-knowledge. But Atticus at the end of the book is the same man he was at the beginning. He is an admirable protagonist, but was never anything but admirable to begin with. Mockingbird would have been a better story with a flawed central character.
The trouble with Mockingbird as a moral tale is that the reader knows on every page where the line between good and evil lies, who is good and who is bad. Harper Lee effectively rewards her readers with the knowledge that they are unambiguously on the side of good - they are always shoulder-to-shoulder with Atticus, Scout and Tom Robinson, never with those nasty, no-account white-trash Ewells. This sop to the readers' ego is a big part of Mockingbird's enduring appeal.
I always found the worship of Mockingbird to be overdone and even a bit annoying. It is a book almost completely lacking in ambiguity - especially in the character of Atticus Finch. He is almost Christ-like - unfailingly gentle, decent, courageous and perfect in his morals as a man, a lawyer, a father and a citizen. He is without any apparent flaw. I always wished Atticus was a secret drunk or a womanizer, so that his defense of Tom Robinson might have involved some personal struggle or a nugget of self-knowledge. But Atticus at the end of the book is the same man he was at the beginning. He is an admirable protagonist, but was never anything but admirable to begin with. Mockingbird would have been a better story with a flawed central character.
The trouble with Mockingbird as a moral tale is that the reader knows on every page where the line between good and evil lies, who is good and who is bad. Harper Lee effectively rewards her readers with the knowledge that they are unambiguously on the side of good - they are always shoulder-to-shoulder with Atticus, Scout and Tom Robinson, never with those nasty, no-account white-trash Ewells. This sop to the readers' ego is a big part of Mockingbird's enduring appeal.
28
Excellent points! The lack of depth in "Mockingbird" is one reason why I think it is a kind of classic, liberal "Socialist Realism." (see comment, above)
I agree. While the novel has its charm, its central point of empathy breaks down when we consider those who lynched thousands of black men, or pushed millions into gas chambers. I don't need empathy for those people, just justice.
It's a book for adolescents -- and in the late 50s/early 60s, you just did not have "morally ambiguous" parents. Parents were still held up as role models. Divorce was rare. Children did not get books (back then) about parents who were gay or who beat their spouses or were drunks.
It was a simpler era, and some ways, better than the present day. It certainly produced a lot of classic books, that are still read. Will people still be reading Harry Potter or The Hunger Games -- in 2065?
It was a simpler era, and some ways, better than the present day. It certainly produced a lot of classic books, that are still read. Will people still be reading Harry Potter or The Hunger Games -- in 2065?
Anyone who pays more than $1.99 for this should be forced to read the unedited version of Look Homeward, Angel. Harper Collins knows the old saw: there's a sucker born every minute, and it expects 2 million of them to pick up this garbage for 25 bucks a copy. There's a reason the original editor rejected it and sent it back.
5
I was waiting for the "review" part of the review. This was a synopsis not a review. I wanted to hear from Michiko Kakutani a review. Was it well written? Did this piece of fiction stand alone regardless of whether it was written by Harper Lee? If To Kill A Mockingbird never existed is this a good book? Imagine that this was the first book by an unknown author Harper Lee. How does it read? This was not a review. I want a literary review!
31
I think you can find your answer in the fact that this first draft was rejected by the publisher.
No Jem? No, thanks.
4
I won't read it. Atticus will remain in my imagination as the perfect father, and a hero.
2
One of the things I've always hated about TKAM is the falseness of Scout's voice. The book has always felt contrived to me, too much like an oversimplifed marketing effort to indoctrinate teen readers against the evil of racism, and for that reason it has always smelled insincere to me as narrative. I'm wondering if this "real" novel Lee drafted before her editor manipulated things will ring truer about both the society at the time and Lee as an author. Novels shouldn't be written to hit home moral lessons. Their first job is to hold a light up to experience in the truest way possible., and the right/wrong of human action will shine through from there with the actual subtlety of life. If an author's or publisher's agenda is too transparent, and honesty takes a back seat to it, the work fails as art, no matter how popular it is.
109
No, no. To Kill a Mockingbird is about childhood innocence. Scout and Jem cannot see Atticus as anything but heroic, just as they can't see the lying Dill as anything but curious. The honesty is there but it is the honesty of a 6 year old.
4
Your analysis here and that of many other commentators could explain why Harper Lee was blocked from future writing. I also wonder when looking at the movie, Harper Lee and hearing the euphemism tom boy to describe the androgynous scout whether Harper Lee was struggling with civil rights concerns now under the umbrella of LGBT.
1
Boomer: wow there is some political correctness! Scout is "androgynous"? Really? I guess today her dad would be trying to give her hormone blockers, so she could realize herself as a transsexual adult.
Scout is just a sanitized version of Harper herself as a child. There is no evidence that Harper Lee was "androgynous" in life.
Lots of little girls are "tomboys" and love to play outside, play with boys, get dirty, etc. Not all of them are indoors playing at "princess". It doesn't make you less feminine or less of a young woman. Geez.
Scout is just a sanitized version of Harper herself as a child. There is no evidence that Harper Lee was "androgynous" in life.
Lots of little girls are "tomboys" and love to play outside, play with boys, get dirty, etc. Not all of them are indoors playing at "princess". It doesn't make you less feminine or less of a young woman. Geez.
2
For many who read the prior (or, actually, the subsequent) book, this will be a disappointing turn of events. On the other hand, both the overall story and the way it was produced now come closer to real life. Harper Lee, her editor and her characters will certainly now reach a higher peak of literary interest than before.
1
Too bad her elder sister wasn't alive to advise Miss Lee not to publish this book. Hope she gets her fair share of the profits, along with the "ambitious" people who convinced her to publish it.
3
I'm surprised and saddened at those trying to bury their head in the sand, who bristle at the idea of a changed Atticus, and who think that this book diminishes Lee's work in "Mockingbird". The change in Atticus in no way outlandish; I'm experiencing it first hand myself as I watch a woman who raised me to respect all people turn to posting pro-Confederate Flag comments about "those people" on Facebook. It can happen, it does happen - and I hope that "To Set a Watchman" will help us understand *why* it happens, and work towards positive change.
357
Thank you , Jeff. It must be painful for you to deal with and I appreciate your willingness to speak out. The light of truth makes us all think and become a better people.
1
There is a lesson to be learned but I'm not sure what one. Throw away what you don't want to come out of the woodwork?
Thank god Gregory Peck is dead?
Who will play Atticus in the new movie? Too bad orson Welles is dead
Thank god Gregory Peck is dead?
Who will play Atticus in the new movie? Too bad orson Welles is dead
2
Did you know that the original version of Annie Hall which Allen shot was a murder mystery? Allen slowly discovered the final Annie Hall. Watchman's Atticus is not the "real" Atticus unless you think Annie Hall is "really" a murder mystery. Another parallel for TKAM will be, I think, with the first edition of Oliver Twist, in which Fagin is routinely called "the Jew." (Then the Jew, turning to Oliver, said… But the Jew only smiled… etc.) Dickens later rewrote the whole edition so that you've read "Fagin said," and not "the Jew said." Watchman should be read only as an insight into how writers work. The only "real" Atticus is the figure Ms. Lee finally sculpted, not the marble block she worked on.
5
In the original version of Gone With The Wind, the character of Scarlett O'Hara is named....Pansy.
The only reason we know her as Scarlett today, is Margaret Mitchell had a last minute (literal last minute!) change of heart, and went through the manuscript by hand and changed the characters name.
Would the book have been as popular and influential, if the heroine had been named "Pansy O'Hara"? Who nows?
"Pansy...frankly, I don't give a damn". I don't know. Just isn't working for me.
BTW: Margaret Mitchell ALSO only wrote one book -- a super megablockbuster -- but only the one. I'd give anything to read an earlier draft of it, Pansy and all.
The only reason we know her as Scarlett today, is Margaret Mitchell had a last minute (literal last minute!) change of heart, and went through the manuscript by hand and changed the characters name.
Would the book have been as popular and influential, if the heroine had been named "Pansy O'Hara"? Who nows?
"Pansy...frankly, I don't give a damn". I don't know. Just isn't working for me.
BTW: Margaret Mitchell ALSO only wrote one book -- a super megablockbuster -- but only the one. I'd give anything to read an earlier draft of it, Pansy and all.
1
The answer to Michiko's pervasive question in her review is: Truman Capote. Read his bio. He helped revise the book, maybe drafted some of it. Others who know more of this story please weigh in.
4
Seems like "Watchman," the original version, was closer to the truth, whereas "Mockingbird" gives a more palatable version of "noble" white southerners. I am so glad this book was published. It enriches the original and makes us look at the myths we wanted to believe, but were never reality.
80
Don't act like all southerners were racists many stood up to the racism and bigotry of the Jim Crow era just like Atticus, for example the NAACP was founded by both blacks and whites. Mark Twain was an ardent abolitionist and a devoted advocate for black rights during the reconstruction. Men like Atticus were not a myth there were many that advocated for and stood up for those that had no rights. And not just to racism in the south, for example during the Holocaust there was Schindler. The book takes a what if stance and points out that many people no matter how good they are are men of their time.
1
Is your thesis that there were/are no men like Mockingbird's Atticus? If so it's a poverty-stricken one, and an ugly one at that.
I'm shocked by the comments. Atticus is a fictional character, not a founding father and there are way too many "I'm your biggest fan" and how dare you kill my hero comments.
The book sounds fascinating, like flipping the same subject on it's side and looking at it from a different angle.
The book sounds fascinating, like flipping the same subject on it's side and looking at it from a different angle.
16
I read and taught "To Kill a Mockingbird" at least five times in my career as a teacher. When I read the story as an adult, I saw how trite and outdated the message was, and recognized in it the sort of latent, quiet racism that leads white people to say things like, "I don't see color." I found it hard to suspend my disbelief that Atticus to face down a lynch mob, or that Maycomb didn't really have a KKK, especially after being born in the Mobile, Alabama of the 1970s. It became hard and harder for me to want to teach the book to 14-year-olds, as they were really only ready to see themselves as enlightened, post-racial individuals, though they were adamant that black people were naturally better dancers than white people. After years of wrestling with these insights, I finally gave up on teaching it. I have come to believe that its place in the curriculum is at the university level as an artifact of mid-twentieth-century liberal naivete, and that high school students are better off learning about racial attitudes from other texts. It does not surprise me at all that the Atticus of this new book expresses racist attitudes, neither does it seem inconsistent to me. Atticus plays a paternalistic role in TKAM, and the "kindnesses" that Maycomb extends to its black citizens in that book are also paternalistic. I can only hope that the publication of this book will put its predecessor in its rightful place in American life.
473
As a teacher required to use TKM with sophomore students, I had much the same experience. I began teaching in a nearly all-Black school in Richmond, where I never saw a copy of the book. But in the nearly all--White school in the Shenandoah Valley it was revered. That reverence revealed more about the teachers than the object of the reverence. I continued using it but in a new way. I assigned the book, knowing most students would finish it in lightning speed and knowing that they would love it. Then we examined it from both an historical and literary angle. We looked up facts, for instance, including the one that bothered me the most: the absence of literacy in Maycomb's Black community. Of course, this examination made them uncomfortable; education should do that. It also made them empowered.
Later in the year, when we read Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon, they could do so with a deeper understanding.
In too many schools TKM is the entire canon regarding racism. The ultimate irony.
Later in the year, when we read Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon, they could do so with a deeper understanding.
In too many schools TKM is the entire canon regarding racism. The ultimate irony.
6
It's a good book. It is also a book written for the Young Adult market -- kids maybe 12 through 16 -- and in 1960. It reflects its era in young adult literature. This was a period of MANY fine books, in my opinion due to the fact that everything had not yet gone over to sex and bad language (ala Judy Blume). But what you find in YA books of this era is a lot of stuff about racial justice and equality that is very naive -- at least our jaded selves in 2015.
On top of this: a VERY popular movie was made out of this book and only a couple of years after it was published. The movie streamlines the book (though it is mostly faithful) and has very attractive, popular actors in the lead roles. So the image of handsome Gregory Peck just overwhelms the character of Atticus -- it was be a rare person who could see this movie, and then read the book, and NOT envision Gregory Peck (or his deep, mellow speaking voice) in the part.
Ditto for the character of Scout, who was played by a very charming, tomboyish young actress (Mary Badham). I don't think she made any other films, and I only caught in one other thing -- the last episode (of all things!) of the original Twilight Zone -- and darned, if she didn't play a tomboyish young Southern girl named Scout. Seriously. Talk about type casting.
On top of this: a VERY popular movie was made out of this book and only a couple of years after it was published. The movie streamlines the book (though it is mostly faithful) and has very attractive, popular actors in the lead roles. So the image of handsome Gregory Peck just overwhelms the character of Atticus -- it was be a rare person who could see this movie, and then read the book, and NOT envision Gregory Peck (or his deep, mellow speaking voice) in the part.
Ditto for the character of Scout, who was played by a very charming, tomboyish young actress (Mary Badham). I don't think she made any other films, and I only caught in one other thing -- the last episode (of all things!) of the original Twilight Zone -- and darned, if she didn't play a tomboyish young Southern girl named Scout. Seriously. Talk about type casting.
2
Thank you for your comments. The book made me uncomfortable, and the movie even more so, but always thought I was the only one. You articulated my thoughts.
2
Sad that those who read this will lose an American symbol or empathy and integrity. Maybe I missed it in the review -but is the book well written?
3
I have always found Atticus in "The Kill A Mockingbird" as having a shade of paternalism. As a son of the South, I have seen many Atticus's when I was a child. They were perfectly able to have empathy for the mistreated blacks in the community as long as they didn't relinquish their power. That Atticus has evolved in "Watchman" is not surprising. In fact, I would argue that it's not so much an evolution as an exposure of what his paternalism is made of. I'm am excited to read this new book and then read "Mockingbird" again.
12
I think you are mistaking "Go Set a Watchman" as the revision of "To Kill a Mockingbird" (that is, Atticus "evolved" into the character we see in the revision, which was "To Kill a Mockingbird." "Go Set a Watchman" was a draft.
I agree that Atticus is somewhat paternalistic, but I have known a few men and women who stood up to racists as he did, so I don't find him so difficult to believe in as a character.
I agree that Atticus is somewhat paternalistic, but I have known a few men and women who stood up to racists as he did, so I don't find him so difficult to believe in as a character.
1
Oh, I agree with you completely. This is actually a conversation I've had with a number of people over the years whose fathers were decent and stood up to racists in the 30s in the small TN town I'm from, but in no way did they agree with the Civil Rights Movement and with African Americans being on equal footing with them. There was a difference back then, especially for those who were adults in the 30s and who tried to be decent and protect African Americans who were being cheated and abused.
One other thing to remember is that Mockingbird is being told from a 6-year-old's perspective. She idolizes her father and cannot really untangle the complexity of Jim Crow. Atticus can't help but be portrayed as heroic from this context and perspective. Nevertheless, there was a tinge of paternalism, rightly or wrongly.
Yes, It's ironic that Watchman was written before Mockingbird. It also reveal just how complex Lee's view of racism in the South was at the time. She really understood that people "evolve" in different ways depending on how much they feel threatened by the march of time.
One other thing to remember is that Mockingbird is being told from a 6-year-old's perspective. She idolizes her father and cannot really untangle the complexity of Jim Crow. Atticus can't help but be portrayed as heroic from this context and perspective. Nevertheless, there was a tinge of paternalism, rightly or wrongly.
Yes, It's ironic that Watchman was written before Mockingbird. It also reveal just how complex Lee's view of racism in the South was at the time. She really understood that people "evolve" in different ways depending on how much they feel threatened by the march of time.
It's called "editing.' And professional wisdom. What a concept. If only half the people who carry on about "To Kill a Mockingbird" as a revelation, a book by an author who could not write another, understood the implications. Perhaps this episode will, against the odds and hype, cause some reconsideration.
5
The "contrasts" in Atticus are surely the reality of most peoples' lives. What one "stands for" and believes in, good or bad, are not always practiced or the same thing, but at best parallels. Much like the young Democrat becoming a staunch, middle-aged Republican, we don't always notice the changes and hypocrisy in ourselves. Maybe it's just too painful to admit to one's self. There is the image we convey to the public and the one we keep secret to ourselves. How many people harbor racist or other unacceptable views but never act on or reveal them? Life is full of such imbalance. Then take as an example the stark contrast in ideology of the clergyman who molests children or violates in some other random way the theology purportedly represented. Knowing the difference between right and wrong and following it is nearly impossible. Sometimes we cannot accept our own truths. We always make secret concessions to ourselves and hope no one notices. We despise it when we see this reality of bigotry in others and yet we are fascinated by it all the same. This is what it's like to be human, to be flawed.
161
Gerrit Smith, the famous and rabid abolitionist who helped fund the raid on Harper's Ferry, turned into quite the vocal racist in his later years. These changes in perspective happen to real people too.
I do not agree that doing what is right "is nearly impossible," especially in the case of clergymen molesting children. Is it your view that they should be excused? It's disturbing to me that 121 people recommended your comment, Very disturbing.
Among longtime friends, who have exchanged silences, and unguarded opinions over years and years, "the contrasts" from the inside, become, or already are more logical, face-saving psychological adaptations for social comfort with our neighbors, and the ones we spend time day after day, year after year with. No one that I know likes to be the odd nail that sticks up. Sticking up may have some advnatages of sight towards, and at the true horizion, yet it is also a point to attack, safely. One gives way, gradually.
I always thought "mockingbird" was too nice. I think I'll like this one better.
3
Sounds like Harper Lee's sister should have lived longer and not allowed "Watchman" to ever be published. I loved Atticus and certainly never dreamed that under that facade of honor, fairness and justice was just another southern bigot. The editors at Harper must be thrilled with your review....I, for one, now have no interest in reading it. I have no curiosity in a sullied Atticus. Lee's lucky "Mockingbird" was published first.
4
So what is the proper order to read them now?
4
Go Set a Watchman is an early draft, and in my mind, it's only interesting so far as to see what an early version of To Kill a Mockingbird looked like.
1
First read "To Kill a Mockingbird" then stop.
Perhaps we are also misremembering the "original" Atticus--who had to be coerced into defending Tom Robinson, who left Tom Robinson with little hope for an appeal, who didn't go to his kids' school play and left them to walk back alone in the dark. And who collaborated in the covering up of a crime at novel's end.
15
Most people here, I swear, I remember the movie -- I'm not saying they did not READ the book (in school, most likely, complete with a "reader's guide") but they did watch the film.
Movies are all images, and our brains work in imagery, so a film version of something will always be more influential. And this was a very good film -- it stuck to the story, has skilled actors and was beautifully filmed.
In many ways, when people talk about TKAMB, they are really talking about the movie.
Movies are all images, and our brains work in imagery, so a film version of something will always be more influential. And this was a very good film -- it stuck to the story, has skilled actors and was beautifully filmed.
In many ways, when people talk about TKAMB, they are really talking about the movie.
1
Those who hold "Mockingbird" close to their hearts do, so I fearfully submit, from the point of view of the magnificent film. The actual book is altogether a very difficult read, a laborious stepping through the dense undergrowth of childhood and human hates. I re-read the book recently, two years ago, and I must confess that, as I read about Atticus, I was thinking of Gregory Peck. When I first read the book, in 1963, before the film was released to the theaters, there was no Gregory Peck as Atticus (or Atticus as Gregory Peck). As faithfully as I can remember, the story was about Jem and Scout who were about to come of age in the Jim Crow South. I was more interested in them and how they would negotiate the labyrinthine mazes of their culture than I was in their father. This "Set A Watchman" looks back (or forward) to the 1950's and a Civil Rights movement that did not exist in the 1930's. Reading this will be a jarring reminder that what we thought we knew, and had grown comfortable with, was illusory, much like a child's expectations of an innocence with no end.
6
Gregory Peck was a HUGE movie star in the 50s and 60s, and this is his most famous and popular role.
He was very handsome, and nearly always was cast as hero-types or at least "morally conflicted" good guys. I can't think of a single film where he played a villain or a cad.
You'd have to be rare person, to have read TKAMB by this time (55 years on) and NEVER have caught the film version, either in school or on late night TV. It's pretty ubiquitous and it's been shown on TV since at least the 70s if not earlier.
The problem is that a lot of people now have the book & movie entirely mixed up in their minds. Once you see a film, it is next to impossible to go BACK to a book, and see it with entirely fresh eyes. You can't help but envision the ACTORS in those parts. You don't come up with your own images and faces. That's one of the problems with Hollywood (though I love movies, they are inherently so different than books).
Nothing in TKAMB describes Atticus being as handsome and charismatic as the actor Gregory Peck was. I wonder if the commenters here would see things differently if Peck's role had been played by someone else -- an actor more ambivalent and less strikingly handsome.
He was very handsome, and nearly always was cast as hero-types or at least "morally conflicted" good guys. I can't think of a single film where he played a villain or a cad.
You'd have to be rare person, to have read TKAMB by this time (55 years on) and NEVER have caught the film version, either in school or on late night TV. It's pretty ubiquitous and it's been shown on TV since at least the 70s if not earlier.
The problem is that a lot of people now have the book & movie entirely mixed up in their minds. Once you see a film, it is next to impossible to go BACK to a book, and see it with entirely fresh eyes. You can't help but envision the ACTORS in those parts. You don't come up with your own images and faces. That's one of the problems with Hollywood (though I love movies, they are inherently so different than books).
Nothing in TKAMB describes Atticus being as handsome and charismatic as the actor Gregory Peck was. I wonder if the commenters here would see things differently if Peck's role had been played by someone else -- an actor more ambivalent and less strikingly handsome.
1
I was ambivalent about reading "Watchman" until this review; now I must read it soon as it hits the shelves. Scout grows up, moves away, and returns with eyes opened to the reality of her father and hometown--an entirely believable premise. Atticus may be like the "compassionate" slaveowner, "kind" to the slaves yet believing they're inherently inferior and must be controlled like children. 1930s America hadn't yet revolted against the Southern hierarchy; so did Atticus feel safe demonstrating a genuine altruism for blacks until the civil rights movement upended his culture, which some sociologists say "loved black people as individuals but hated them as a group"? Atticus risked his and his children's lives defending Tom Robinson, trusted and depended on his housekeeper Calpurnia, yet in the 1950s he opposes freeing the black community from the same terrible oppression that destroyed Robinson. I hope the book is as brilliant as it sounds!
11
I can read the book myself, thank you very much. I stopped reading the review but unfortunately not before getting too much information about what happens and what the characters are like.
2
How dare the author write something that offends the sensibilities of 21st Century society. Her work should be boycotted and her estate sued. Burn the books!
4
I take this comment as it was meant. She has written about the perceptions of a child and those of an adult who -sees- the truth of her ( and our countries) racial struggles. I can appreciate BOTH, TKAM and Watchman as perceptions changed by time and age.
Lefty liberals have long adored this book, because it reflects their own morals and beliefs about the Jim Crow era -- right down to having "one of their own", the Saintly Atticus Finch, as the moral hero of the piece.
But it's just a book. And fiction. None of it really happened (though some of the characters reflect Harper Lee and her childhood). There is no Atticus Finch. He isn't/wasn't real.
I haven't read Watchman, but I think it is very interesting to look at early drafts of famous books, and I'd certainly do with an open mind.
But it's just a book. And fiction. None of it really happened (though some of the characters reflect Harper Lee and her childhood). There is no Atticus Finch. He isn't/wasn't real.
I haven't read Watchman, but I think it is very interesting to look at early drafts of famous books, and I'd certainly do with an open mind.
1
Could it be that the publishers of the submitted, "Go Tell..." thought this honest view of the South was way too potent for the times and actually suggested a softer version? That's what it looks like to me. Even on this board people are whining about the white-washed version they love being told truthfully.
16
If Michiko Kakutani can be believed, then Harper Lee underwent a seismic shift in intent.
She was made (by her editors) to see that realism -- or naturalism, if you wish to call it that -- can go just so far, and readers need something bigger to hold onto; otherwise, what you have is not literature but a polemic and a sort of moral hectoring.
"Mockingbird" is just what the United States needed in 1961. It is a book that shows the depravity of both "white trash" and the town ladies whose racism is no less virulent -- just, perhaps, more genteel. But it points to the light -- that life can be better, and that there are people in the South who do know, and do, better.
From what this reviewer says, no one would have come away from "Watchman" with a desire to make things right in the world -- or even the hope that it could happen.
Now that I know that "Watchman" is a rejected manuscript -- rejected, in part, evidently, because it is so negative -- and not just an insufficient first effort, I am more inclined to read it.
She was made (by her editors) to see that realism -- or naturalism, if you wish to call it that -- can go just so far, and readers need something bigger to hold onto; otherwise, what you have is not literature but a polemic and a sort of moral hectoring.
"Mockingbird" is just what the United States needed in 1961. It is a book that shows the depravity of both "white trash" and the town ladies whose racism is no less virulent -- just, perhaps, more genteel. But it points to the light -- that life can be better, and that there are people in the South who do know, and do, better.
From what this reviewer says, no one would have come away from "Watchman" with a desire to make things right in the world -- or even the hope that it could happen.
Now that I know that "Watchman" is a rejected manuscript -- rejected, in part, evidently, because it is so negative -- and not just an insufficient first effort, I am more inclined to read it.
2
"How did ... How did ... How could the saintly Atticus — described in early sections of the book in much the same terms as he is in 'Mockingbird' — suddenly emerge as a bigot? ... ..."
Easy - this is not a sequel, prequel, or parallel story - it's the first draft of what was over two years reworked into TKAM.
It's of course fair game for scholars to pick this apart, tracing the development of Mockingbird, but for the publisher to promote this as a major literary event is unfair to Ms. Lee, her original artistic vision, and the general readership.
Shame on HarperCollins and everyone involved in promoting this as somehow a finished work on an equal footing with the original; this simply appears to be an exercise in greed riding the coattails of an iconic work.
Easy - this is not a sequel, prequel, or parallel story - it's the first draft of what was over two years reworked into TKAM.
It's of course fair game for scholars to pick this apart, tracing the development of Mockingbird, but for the publisher to promote this as a major literary event is unfair to Ms. Lee, her original artistic vision, and the general readership.
Shame on HarperCollins and everyone involved in promoting this as somehow a finished work on an equal footing with the original; this simply appears to be an exercise in greed riding the coattails of an iconic work.
7
I'll stick with the one and only To Kill A Mockingbird, thanks very much, and keep that Atticus in my mind. I'm already disillusioned enough.
3
This is distressing. I demand that we remove "To Kill A Mockingbird" from the literary canon ASAP and entomb it in that museum where they put South Carolina's Confederate battle flag.
1
Read the first chapter, but it didn't move me. It doesn't read as smoothly as TKAM, or as least as I remember it.
Have to question how much of a hand did Truman Capote have in the streamlining of Harper's earlier novel. Also, why was this book released without any editing AT ALL because it needs it. The first chapter meanders quite a bit, and there's a huge SPOILER smack dab in the middle which might be more effective appearing later in the novel.
Didn't find this to be much of a review, but from what I've read already am not interested in pursuing the rest of the book. Perhaps as a quite mature "city slicker," am no longer receptive to the slow pace of small town Southern style and the abundance of description.
Have to question how much of a hand did Truman Capote have in the streamlining of Harper's earlier novel. Also, why was this book released without any editing AT ALL because it needs it. The first chapter meanders quite a bit, and there's a huge SPOILER smack dab in the middle which might be more effective appearing later in the novel.
Didn't find this to be much of a review, but from what I've read already am not interested in pursuing the rest of the book. Perhaps as a quite mature "city slicker," am no longer receptive to the slow pace of small town Southern style and the abundance of description.
1
Remember that the "spoiler" you refer to (I read Chapter 1 today too) is only in the hindsight of reading To Kill A Mockingbird. Keep in mind that this novel was written first, so there was really nothing to spoil as far as the intended audience was concerned.
Ok I'm going to pretend that this like Closing Time (the sequel to Catch 22), Catriona (the sequel to Kidnapped) Alien 3 and 4, Terminator 3,4,5 etc. just dont exist. As far as I'm concerned they are all non canonical and in my universe To Kill A Mockingbird is all there is and Atticus is and always has been a perfect role model for the rest of us.
3
Let's not forget those Star Wars prequels: 1, 2, and 3.
Jar Jar Binks...OY!
Jar Jar Binks...OY!
1
Having read the first chapter of the "new" novel online, I can tell you that the writing itself is just not as good as Mockingbird. Perhaps it was the shift from third to first person that helped Harper Lee find her voice in producing the beautiful prose that told her story so well.
I just know that reading the rest of Watchman would spoil my opinion of her forever. I wish the book was never found.
I just know that reading the rest of Watchman would spoil my opinion of her forever. I wish the book was never found.
Clearly there was a reason Harper Lee never consented to this being published, and I cannot bear the thought of reading it.
4
The word "racist" has been redefined so broadly as to render the term meaningless. It is no longer a pejorative among thinking people.
1
Interesting comment. It's true that even who are today hailed for their "proper" attitudes on these subjects were at one time or another either genuinely conflicted in their feelings (rightly or wrongly) or had changes of heart. It all goes to show that the human soul is a complex thing.
Well why dont you just stab every american in the heart and burn down the statue of liberty while you're at it, Ms Lee?
Might as well tell us superman was working for Stalin the whole time.
Might as well tell us superman was working for Stalin the whole time.
1
you should read Superman Red Son by Mark Millar in which Superman crash lands one hour earlier right in the middle of Stalin's Russia instead of Kansas...it's fascinating...
Hard to envision good old Gregory Peck as an older racist.
Disconcerting!
But it made me think.
First, everyone has been and is judgemental, prejudiced about various things, experiences, people.
And if one is human and has the above traits (you do), then, it is undoubted that one has racist, judgemental thoughts or actions at times. For most of us very subtle.
For Donald Trump… well.
So, poor Aticus.
He's gone to a bad place, more overtly than most.
Don't know how it comes out but I do know that there were hardened bigots during the height of the civil rights movement whose hearts were changed by the beautiful teaching and action of the blessed, gentle foot soldiers of that time.
The clergyman, Clementa Pinckney, killed in SC two weeks ago was an example of such an angel for he moved the hearts of others in life and now from the beyond.
There's hope for Aticus and for all us.
There's no end to love's power.
I don't know if I can read the book however!
Disconcerting!
But it made me think.
First, everyone has been and is judgemental, prejudiced about various things, experiences, people.
And if one is human and has the above traits (you do), then, it is undoubted that one has racist, judgemental thoughts or actions at times. For most of us very subtle.
For Donald Trump… well.
So, poor Aticus.
He's gone to a bad place, more overtly than most.
Don't know how it comes out but I do know that there were hardened bigots during the height of the civil rights movement whose hearts were changed by the beautiful teaching and action of the blessed, gentle foot soldiers of that time.
The clergyman, Clementa Pinckney, killed in SC two weeks ago was an example of such an angel for he moved the hearts of others in life and now from the beyond.
There's hope for Aticus and for all us.
There's no end to love's power.
I don't know if I can read the book however!
2
My wife and I loved the Atticus character in Mockingbird so much we named our son after him - I hope this will remain a good decision!
It occurs to me that we have become a society so sensitive to any hint of racism that even the slightest insinuation that a person might be conflicted about race is anathema. This review seems to suggest that the issue of race is a simple thing that can and must be dealt with in a morally unambiguous way. Anything less appears "disturbing" to the article's writer.
The thing is, life is rarely simple. Complexity largely defines human existence. The same complexity holds true for people's motives and actions. Race is no exception. Atticus may be a bigot in Lee's new novel. And yes bigotry is wrong. But rarely is a person Bigoted with a capital B. Humans are complex beings with complex motives. If we define everyone by their worst behavior we're all damned.
The thing is, life is rarely simple. Complexity largely defines human existence. The same complexity holds true for people's motives and actions. Race is no exception. Atticus may be a bigot in Lee's new novel. And yes bigotry is wrong. But rarely is a person Bigoted with a capital B. Humans are complex beings with complex motives. If we define everyone by their worst behavior we're all damned.
8
Just a reminder that Go Set a Watchman is not a new novel. It is the first draft of the book that came to be To Kill a Mockingbird. Lee rethought the point of view, along with the main events, etc., and ended up with To Kill a Mockingbird.
Maybe this is timely. TKAM was a wonderful book, but sweetened, softened by a savvy editor to sell and I always thought a bit unreal with it's heroic Atticus, such an much-needed but really unlikely Southern character in those times. It worked then.
If this one is meaner on the citizens of that town and better represents the angry young author who repudiated its ugliness without such tender touches, then good. In the light of recent events that might be a bit tonic. It was once easy to sentimentalize racism and imagine wonderful white saviors. We should be over that now.
If this one is meaner on the citizens of that town and better represents the angry young author who repudiated its ugliness without such tender touches, then good. In the light of recent events that might be a bit tonic. It was once easy to sentimentalize racism and imagine wonderful white saviors. We should be over that now.
241
Amen.
2
Dang! Amen brother!!!!!
This certainly casts a sizable shadow on the earlier book, i.e. who exactly is Atticus Finch? In the real world, racial biases tend to be tempered over time especially in the period that elapses between the two novels. To have the opposite occur here would seem to render either "Mockingbird" or "Watchman" at worst, duplicitous and, at best, a much less believable representation of the character.
3
Atticus Finch is the Atticus Finch of To Kill a Mockingbird. The Atticus Finch of Go Set a Watchman was a "test" character. The only reason this book has been published is to make money for Harper Collins. If Ms. Lee's sister had been alive, the manuscript would never have seen the light of day. People will buy it as a curiosity and make Harper a lot of money.
1
Why should Harper Lee's SISTER have any say so at all about what Harper Lee writes or publishes?
1
"Alarming" that the Civil Rights Movement caused distress and distrust between the South's blacks and whites? Of course it did! I grew up in the South in the 1940s. In the 1960s, during the Civil Rights era, our small town was ripped to shreds by the two "sides," which were poles apart. Most cross-divide good feelings evaporated. Relationships disintegrated. If that is not too cute a term. My doctor father refused to support the Private Academy that our county developed in order to sidestep the integration of schools. He was ostracized by his erstwhile admiring patients. His Methodist missionary sister came to town to teach the school-less black children in one of the black churches. At the same time, that brave father was performing hysterectomies on young black women without their consent. And that brave aunt said she was supporting the Supreme Court, however she felt about her the capacities of her black neighbors. Those of us, black and white, growing up in those years were trying to find balance in an emotionally bombed-out zone. I moved away as soon as I could, and lived in the integrated Midwest and East, returning 20 years later only to support a loved black woman in her old age. The place was still an emotional - and economic - battlefield. The book Lee wrote could not have been published then. She sweetened the tale and we have the lovely "Mockingbird." But "Watchman" is the truth that could not be told until now.
611
Curious where you lived? Sounds a lot like Farmville Virginia.
Hallelujah. You as a Southerner are empowered to articulate the issues of TKAM--the false sweetness of it--far better than I, a native Chicagoan. I've always felt this about the book as much as I have been entranced by the Boo Radley narrative, but i never felt I had the platform to declare what you just did.
2
Thank you for sharing.
1
Whatever the representations in the book it still deserves to be read if Ms Lee wishes it.. Books with unique stories behind them always offer SOMETHING of value. Only time will be the real judge.
1
hopefully I can cancel my preorder. Sounds dreadful
3
I have a neighbor here in NH with a young son named Atticus…How do you explain this to a child when he asks about his name?
I'm sad that Atticus was a racist.
To be a fly on the wall during the discussions to publish this book-50 years ago and now !
I'm sad that Atticus was a racist.
To be a fly on the wall during the discussions to publish this book-50 years ago and now !
2
There's every indication that Harper Lee's good judgement in leaving this work unpublished has been overridden by "friends" with an agenda of their own, now that she is too frail to assert her will.
Now we know why she never thought it worthy of publication. I just wish she had burned the manuscript while she was still strong enough to do so.
Now we know why she never thought it worthy of publication. I just wish she had burned the manuscript while she was still strong enough to do so.
7
Why isn't this work "worthy" of publication? Have you read the book? Are all these comments trying to say that fictional characters, and from the past, no less, must ascribe to present day mores and morality or else they should not exist and and manuscript with fictional characters who are bigots or racists should be burned? What exactly is going on here? These things happened in real life and even if they didn't this is a work of fiction. I feel like fiction and fact are being confused. Too much reality tv I guess.
1
Ms. Kakutani writes "it also alarmingly suggests that the civil rights movement roiled things up..."
Say it ain't so, Scout. So terribly inconvenient that a revered author who actually lived through the period punctures a contemporary progressive's fantasy world by offering...reality.
Say it ain't so, Scout. So terribly inconvenient that a revered author who actually lived through the period punctures a contemporary progressive's fantasy world by offering...reality.
26
I'm sure the concept of Atticus Finch, hateful racist, will be a bitter pill to swallow for the millions who grew up idolizing him as a character -- admittedly helped in considerable part by Gregory Peck's on-screen portrayal of him. Nonetheless, I hope -- once folks get past the shock of it all -- to see some analysis about precisely why such a paragon of virtue grew angry and prejudiced in his senior years.
On a conceptual level this idea is not only not a difficult one to grasp, but arguably even commonplace: at this point it's accepted conventional wisdom that people tend to grow more conservative with age, once they lose the idealism of their youth. No, this certainly isn't a universal truth, but in the context of "Go Set A Watchman," the circumstances behind Atticus' personal evolution absolutely merit fervent critical analysis.
In any event, I'm at the very least relieved that Ms. Lee didn't attempt to give Atticus some sort of "happy ending" that rings terribly false. While such a turn may have made the book much more commercially popular, it would have come at the expense of intellectual honesty. Dreams fade; love dies; and even the most perfect among us are flawed, sometimes deeply so.
On a conceptual level this idea is not only not a difficult one to grasp, but arguably even commonplace: at this point it's accepted conventional wisdom that people tend to grow more conservative with age, once they lose the idealism of their youth. No, this certainly isn't a universal truth, but in the context of "Go Set A Watchman," the circumstances behind Atticus' personal evolution absolutely merit fervent critical analysis.
In any event, I'm at the very least relieved that Ms. Lee didn't attempt to give Atticus some sort of "happy ending" that rings terribly false. While such a turn may have made the book much more commercially popular, it would have come at the expense of intellectual honesty. Dreams fade; love dies; and even the most perfect among us are flawed, sometimes deeply so.
It seems that Jean Louise wasn't the only one to fail at becoming her own person. Harper Lee may have been similarly afficted. for she has led a strange, disoriented, mentally shifting life and is still doing so. I have to question who had input into the book. As a writer I know that the suggestions Lee had from her editor were huge and not the norm. Perhaps Lee felt discouraged that her original "tell it like it is" book, "Watchman," was so disapproved of that most of it had to be rewritten. And perhaps the more ennobling, uplifting book, "Mockingbird" ended up being a disappointment to her, something not of her, creatively. There's more to this story than the story.
7
The whole story (of the writer) is interesting and odd. She only wrote the ONE book (before now), and that was 55 years ago. Unlike most authors of only one slender YA book, she is extremely famous -- and because the books sells millions of copies (mostly to schools), she is a multi-millionaire many times over. (Harper Lee gets about $2 million A YEAR in residuals.) How many books are selling like that after more than HALF A CENTURY? It's beyond amazing.
That isn't even counting the perennially popular film, either. And Lee has lived ever since in a very reclusive way, rarely giving any interviews.
In my experience, having your first book be a mega-blockbuster success like this is absolutely paralyzing -- what could you for an encore? Anything would be a disappointment and people would say "oh, it's not as good as TKAMB!"
Look at the comments HERE, about a book that is merely an earlier draft -- they are literally ANGRY that their hero Atticus is not portrayed PRECISELY as in the finished YA book. Who would want to face that down creatively? I know I couldn't.
So I am not surprised at Lee's actions. She couldn't write a second book, so all she had left was this early draft -- with people literally slavering to read it. She's old. She's very rich. She has nothing to lose now.
That isn't even counting the perennially popular film, either. And Lee has lived ever since in a very reclusive way, rarely giving any interviews.
In my experience, having your first book be a mega-blockbuster success like this is absolutely paralyzing -- what could you for an encore? Anything would be a disappointment and people would say "oh, it's not as good as TKAMB!"
Look at the comments HERE, about a book that is merely an earlier draft -- they are literally ANGRY that their hero Atticus is not portrayed PRECISELY as in the finished YA book. Who would want to face that down creatively? I know I couldn't.
So I am not surprised at Lee's actions. She couldn't write a second book, so all she had left was this early draft -- with people literally slavering to read it. She's old. She's very rich. She has nothing to lose now.
1
Actually, this has made the book more interesting for me. Lots of people change as they get older. As their minds weaken, many of the 'ornery' and reprehensible instincts emerge. So it is quite believable that a younger Atticus, in full possession of his faculties, was perhaps ashamed of and suppressed his childhood indoctrinations and instincts. These instincts then emerged in his later life, all the more stronger and fouler.
Just like young liberals turn into old conservatives.
Just like young liberals turn into old conservatives.
30
I think a lot of persons will feel angry and cheated at the shattering of their illusions.
4
Tay Hohoff wasn't an anonymous editor. She's just been conveniently "edited out" of the story of the book.
2
Just what one might have thought: To Kill A Mockingbird is a lasting tribute to the interaction of a writer with a skilled editor. The "new" novel is a first draft that might better have been left in an archive for scholars to contemplate rather than exploited by a publisher, agent, and, quite possibly a lawyer who failed to account fully for the discovery of the manuscript.
5
There has never been a more inspirational father or lawyer than Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird. For a half century of fans of the novel and film, reading of Atticus Finch as a bigot is akin to learning that Santa Claus is actually a pedophile.
2
Nothing is written...everything worth reading is a rewrite. And...Mockingbird, after two years of hard rewrite, is a better book than Watchman. Surprise.
But, the posts here--thanking the NYT for warning them off Watchman, because Atticus has not yet been drawn fully...well, I guess you dodged a bullet. You won't have to subject yourselves to a less than perfect work. It would be like reading an early piece of Shakespeare. Who'd want to waste their time on that?
And, thank you NYT for sharing your judgement of this book before the public has had an opportunity to read and make up it's own mind about this book.
But, the posts here--thanking the NYT for warning them off Watchman, because Atticus has not yet been drawn fully...well, I guess you dodged a bullet. You won't have to subject yourselves to a less than perfect work. It would be like reading an early piece of Shakespeare. Who'd want to waste their time on that?
And, thank you NYT for sharing your judgement of this book before the public has had an opportunity to read and make up it's own mind about this book.
5
This new release is not a real Harper Lee novel but a rewrite by others of a draft written decades ago.
1
On Atticus Finch: "[H]e denounces the Supreme Court, says he wants his home state 'to be left alone to keep house without advice from the NAACP'"
Mike Huckabee on the Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage: "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat"
Mike Huckabee on the Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage: "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat"
3
"To Kill a Mockingbird" was a story that took place during the Great Depression, while "Go Get a Watchman" takes place during the beginning of the civil rights movements. Two different periods of time, with a different set of issues. Based upon this review, "Go Get a Watchman" captures the 1950s south perfectly. Honestly, we still see this played out in the south of today.
As an ex-New Yorker, moved to Dallas, in the 1980s, I had the same feeling of bewilderment as Jean Louise. While prejudice existed up north, moving to Dallas revealed that maybe the Civil War ended 120 years before, and the Civil Rights Act was nearly 20 years old, people had their "place". Dallas, was still more or less segregated (by geography) and that the attitudes about African Americans still exit as those in the time of "Go Get a Watchman". Another element of Dallas also applied these attitudes to people of Hispanic descent.
So, "Go Get A Watchman", like "to Kill a Mockingbird" are both a commentary of southern America. As we painfully saw in Charleston, both books are as important today, as the times these stories take place.
As fro Atticus Finch, many people's view of Atticus come from great acting by Gregory Peck. Mr. Finch lived in the south and was exposed to attitudes about African Americans. While he did not openly express those attitudes to his growing children; he certainly expressed them to his grown up daughter.
This is a filed day for comparative American literature. Pure genius.
As an ex-New Yorker, moved to Dallas, in the 1980s, I had the same feeling of bewilderment as Jean Louise. While prejudice existed up north, moving to Dallas revealed that maybe the Civil War ended 120 years before, and the Civil Rights Act was nearly 20 years old, people had their "place". Dallas, was still more or less segregated (by geography) and that the attitudes about African Americans still exit as those in the time of "Go Get a Watchman". Another element of Dallas also applied these attitudes to people of Hispanic descent.
So, "Go Get A Watchman", like "to Kill a Mockingbird" are both a commentary of southern America. As we painfully saw in Charleston, both books are as important today, as the times these stories take place.
As fro Atticus Finch, many people's view of Atticus come from great acting by Gregory Peck. Mr. Finch lived in the south and was exposed to attitudes about African Americans. While he did not openly express those attitudes to his growing children; he certainly expressed them to his grown up daughter.
This is a filed day for comparative American literature. Pure genius.
11
More uncomfortable revisionism for the South. Well, what is good literature if not challenging?
11
Incomprehensible title and graphics that look like John Lennon. I guess I don't care. Her great work was a great read and I hope she makes a $million.
I guess I have 3 strands of reaction. First, I wonder how well Harper Lee (now -- perhaps it would have been different for her earlier in her life) anticipated how this book would read to people who read "Mockingbird" without knowing this book's contents. Then I wonder how consistent with one another the books are meant to be. And third, I am reminded of people I knew well, over decades, like a second family to me, who rejected my black children, and how I struggled with wondering how well I really knew them all that time.
33
"Then I wonder how consistent with one another the books are meant to be."
Lee wrote "Watchman," and the editors told her to rework it -- it just wouldn't do as it was. So she did and produced "Mockingbird." I don't think the two books are "meant" to be consistent with each other. We'll see parallels, and we'll see where they're dissimilar, and in tone they'll be very different, I imagine.
Lee wrote "Watchman," and the editors told her to rework it -- it just wouldn't do as it was. So she did and produced "Mockingbird." I don't think the two books are "meant" to be consistent with each other. We'll see parallels, and we'll see where they're dissimilar, and in tone they'll be very different, I imagine.
A gracious response, just as I was cringing, thinking, "Don't fool with an icon." You gave it perspective. But, even as I have always believed, "Scratch very deeply on anyone and you will find some racism," I prefer to think that Atticus Finch was the figure of dignity and decency and courage that Mockingbird portrays. It's strange to think that Lee transcended that perception with Mockingbird yet yielded to a publisher's invitation to portray (and maybe demolish) the icon with Watchman. How do English teachers now introduce Mockingbird?
Maybe the lost manuscript should have stayed lost and never be found. I haven't read the new book (obviously), and I'm not sure if I want to read Lee's (long lost) new book. Yes, Atticus has been one of my all-time-favorite characters, of all books that I've read, and I'm not ready to read a 20-years-later tale of him being an actual bigot. (Yes, back in the days, I've considered naming my second child Atticus too, though the baby turns out to be a girl, and we never have Atticus in our family.)
7
I won't be reading this 'newly discovered' novel, which I view as an early, rejected manuscript for "To Kill A Mockingbird." The revelation that Watchman's Atticus is now portrayed as a closeted racist and segregationist only further reinforces the idea that Harper Lee never really intended for it to be published.
27
I can only deal with so much cynicism myself and have to believe that the publisher who capitalized on a book that an editor in 1960 rejected (and thereby produced an American icon of human decency and justice) has been replaced by a profit-motivated publisher willing to demolish the Atticus Finch icon, the reputation of an iconic author, and the story that tapped the best of what we are, with wisdom and compassion. I bleed for Jem and Scout, myself and my students from all those years past. Too dramatic? Scout was already the product of humanity and the decency of her guiding principle--Atticus. Atticus was real, as real as any literary character I can think of. Leave it there.
As long as Murdoch's publishing division makes its money, who cares if an old woman is exploited and her legacy soiled?
17
Having seen an excellent production of TKAM onstage recently at Hope Summer Repertory Theater in Holland, MI, I'm especially interested in reading this new release. (Or new-old, perhaps.) I suspect there will be endless psychoanalysis regarding the differences between both stories and their characters, as well as Ms. Lee herself.
I wish I could go back in time, however, and meet that wise editor who suggested she change course and reimagine the same essential story. Is this Atticus more realistic and as an adult might've seen him all along, or close to it? Did Scout idealize him and portray him heroically while also viewing him the same way?
I suspect "this" Atticus has the nuance many literary characters can lack....but I mourn more than a little for the Atticus of so many hearts and imaginations - the Atticus who inspired and moved several generations.
I wish I could go back in time, however, and meet that wise editor who suggested she change course and reimagine the same essential story. Is this Atticus more realistic and as an adult might've seen him all along, or close to it? Did Scout idealize him and portray him heroically while also viewing him the same way?
I suspect "this" Atticus has the nuance many literary characters can lack....but I mourn more than a little for the Atticus of so many hearts and imaginations - the Atticus who inspired and moved several generations.
6
This sounds brilliant. I think most people can identify with justice for a wrongly accused man (the topic for the first book). Yet, feelings in the South about blacks were much more complicated than that. Brilliant, and evokes greater thinking.
21
Now we know why "Watchman" was stashed away for 55 years. The decision to publish was not a bright idea—except, of course, financially.
10
That is my question. Why take what is a transcendent novel and drag it down to earth with what in essence is an original draft?
And I guess Ben Affleck will star in the inevitable screen adaptation. Thank you, but no thank you. I will just revel in my memories. Idealized or not, there is a reason why some works of art are considered classics, and should ultimately be left alone.
14
Mockingbird wasn't completely "whitewashed," if you will. I re-read it recently in preparation for Watchman and flinched when Lee described "the warm bittersweet smell of clean Negro" that greeted Scout and Jem when Calpurnia took them to her church. Ouch.
22
I think that is actually a beautiful line. White people and black people smell categorically different. I have rather intimate knowledge of this. My wife is mostly African. It's not differences in diet or lotions used. It's a difference in scent from the skin. I didn't realize that to be a right-thinking person we had to deny all differences exist. Must we contend that black people and white people look the same, too?
1
This review makes me want to read the book. It sounds like peeling away the onion of small town southern life, a topic very much in the news these days and a topic of curiosity to Northern and Western urbanites who have been spoon fed Andy Griffith and a host of indelible media images over the years.
18
This is depressing. I realize both are fiction based on reality but I loved "Mockingbird" and the idea that Atticus is a racist jerk hurts. I'm sure her first transcript was much more real but her second was what she had wished for in her life. Given that she is a bad state of health, maybe publishing her first draft was not the best idea.
15
That's "manuscript" (not "transcript"); but anyway, I can see now, how her editor at the time was right to have her re-write the MS she turned in that was ...Watchman, it's crass, crude, rather flat, uninspiring and it reflected the way things really were, at the time, rather than attempting to shape a narrative of what could be if there were more so-called "grown-ups" who haven't given up their "youthful idealism" by the time they reach middle age.
Like the other commenter, I have trouble believing that Harper Lee really, truly wanted ...Watchman, in all its mirror-image reflection of the ugly, bigoted south that existed in the most blatant, in-your-face ways, especially in the 1950s and '60s as a reaction to the burgeoning civil rights movement, which, like the aboltitionists of a century earlier, were threatening the southern white way of life and, in both cases, these backwards, white southerners had to deal with the new reality. At 1st, they were basically free to impose an apartheid system, no different from South Africa's former regime or Rhodesia's white-supremacist (minority)rule that eventually blew up and fomented a revolution out of which Zimbabwe emerged & Robert Mugabe, who, although given a bad rap in the media today, was seen as a force for positive change. I strongly believe Lee was manipulated into letting this book be published, strictly for the $ gain it'd make, not because it has any real liteary value. That's the way it goes today, though.
Like the other commenter, I have trouble believing that Harper Lee really, truly wanted ...Watchman, in all its mirror-image reflection of the ugly, bigoted south that existed in the most blatant, in-your-face ways, especially in the 1950s and '60s as a reaction to the burgeoning civil rights movement, which, like the aboltitionists of a century earlier, were threatening the southern white way of life and, in both cases, these backwards, white southerners had to deal with the new reality. At 1st, they were basically free to impose an apartheid system, no different from South Africa's former regime or Rhodesia's white-supremacist (minority)rule that eventually blew up and fomented a revolution out of which Zimbabwe emerged & Robert Mugabe, who, although given a bad rap in the media today, was seen as a force for positive change. I strongly believe Lee was manipulated into letting this book be published, strictly for the $ gain it'd make, not because it has any real liteary value. That's the way it goes today, though.
The writer of the article is asking the wrong questions. Atticus did NOT evolve from the loving and reasonable father we know into somebody who is a racist. "Go Set a Watchman" was wirtten FIRST. It's all about how Ms. Lee chose to change Atticus from a bigotted character into the one we all know. As "To Kill a Mockingbird" is the product of refinement in Ms. Lee's work, the admirable Atticus as we see in this book will always be the REAL Atticus.
52
There is no "real" Atticus. This is a work of fiction. So was Mockingbird. If you hurry, you can still make the last day of Comic-Con.
Never turn deaf ears on what an editor has to say.
That said, I liked what I read of the first chapter published today in the WSJ.
The enduring mystery continues...why did Ms. Lee stop writing?
That said, I liked what I read of the first chapter published today in the WSJ.
The enduring mystery continues...why did Ms. Lee stop writing?
7
Because Truman was no longer around to help her?
I just cancelled my pre-order of Go Set a Watchman. I would rather live in a world where a person like Atticus of TKAMB is possible than in a world where there are no good southern gentlemen who fought for equality. Because, even if the minority fight long and hard for their rights, they cannot get equality without like minded allies from a moral subset of the majority.
There is enough cynicism in this world, I dont need one more story to add to it. I now believe that Harper Lee would not have agreed to publish this book and I can understand why. Long live Jem.
There is enough cynicism in this world, I dont need one more story to add to it. I now believe that Harper Lee would not have agreed to publish this book and I can understand why. Long live Jem.
36
Yes, it's hard to see our heroes display their unattractive warts, but. moving beyond the shock, I believe Atticus gains rather than loses in his fall from perfection. Those of us who aspire to being part of the "moral subset" need only do the best we can.
Amen!
And yet she did.
I am not sure I see this as "shocking" (unless one is easily shocked). Perhaps we now ought to destroy all copies of TKAMB as well as the movie? Go Away. As for how "Watchman" evolved into TKAMB, that's easy. She took Watchman to her publisher. They said "No" and gave her some advice. "Watchman" might not have sold very well in the 50s and any movie made from it would have probably tanked. But, we will go through the "analysis paralysis" anyway, won't we? What turned me on in the 50s and 60s were books of Richard Wright, et al, that looked at the segregation problem through the eyes of the Blacks and books like TKAMB. Books painting the South as bigoted racists didn't sell. End of analysis. I loved TKAMB and Gregory Peck's portrayal of Atticus was brilliant. We WANTED to read and see uplifting stories and movies (despite the painting of the entire 1950s and 60s population by today's "enlightened" as bigots. The real truth is that, despite the riots, if a significant number of Whites had not been FOR the Civil Rights movement, it would have eventually fizzled. The media "sees" what it wants to see and what they think will sell - period. I will buy "Watchman" but only because I want to read what Harper Lee had to say (NOT because I want to go through the analysis paralysis the media will put it through).
18
It would have been very interesting if Atticus were 'bigoted' in that Scout had matured far beyond his version of progressivism, and realized how insensitive he actually was in some respects. (Not everyone today necessarily thinks that Atticus has perfect philosophies as far as race is concerned, anyway.)
But it seems that Harper Lee revised a lot of fundamentals between this book and 'Mockingbird' and I'm not sure whether we should regard it as a straight sequel.
But it seems that Harper Lee revised a lot of fundamentals between this book and 'Mockingbird' and I'm not sure whether we should regard it as a straight sequel.
7
Not a sequel at all. Remember, "Watchman" was written before "Mockingbird."
It sounds from your review like we're going to learn much more about "Mockingbird", and appreciate it even more, than "Watchman", per se. It's fascinating to find other versions, earlier in this case, of works you thought you knew. There are alternate versions of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony that show what he was thinking on the way to the work we know today. Perhaps we're getting a clue as to why Harper Lee set it aside so many years ago. In seeking to develop the backstory of Watchman, it appears that she greatly transcended its boundaries, and gave us its beautiful offspring we will now know much better.
19
So glad this novel seems poised to bring the deeper issues of racial hatred swiftly and forcefully to the fore, at the exact time they need to be.
85
Oh yes, racial tension in the USA is never a topic of national conversation, nope. I think it's been at least 10 nanoseconds since I've heard somebody screaming about it. Too long.
1
The truth is, you can never go 'home', which is a central theme of Watchman.
33
A tip of the hat to Thomas Wolfe in other words...
1
A very well written review. One small cavil: Unlike Boo Radley, Tom Robinson is not an "outsider" in his society. He's a victim of conniving and racial injustice. The society depended on the labor and counted on the acquiescence of black men like Tom Robinson. That's precisely why Atticus defends him -- because he's done nothing wrong. He belongs within the society. But when someone is needed for blaming, having a black skin can do the trick. Belonging and being reviled are not mutually exclusive. That in essence is the American Dilemma.
260
Kakutani did not describe Robinson as an outsider, but as an innocent. See paragraph nine.
To creepingdoubt: When I started reading your comment, I thought to myself - here we go, another PC comment. In fact, I think your point is startlingly instructive and I will cite you in my work as a social and cultural psychiatrist. We recently hosted an ongoing series of seminars on belonging and your comment is very pertinent and sadly true - "belonging being reviled are not mutually exclusive." Along with other astute comments here about Atticus being a sometimes or generally (my qualifiers) good man and father (in spite of some moral lapses in judgement and behaviour), this is indeed an American (and human) dilemma. Kakutani's review wants us to believe not in human dilemmas but polarized dichotomies - Atticus in Mockingbird as hero versus her reading of Atticus in Watchman as bigot. Her review actually increased my interest in reading Watchman because together, these two versions of a southern tale come closer to a truth just like stereoscopic vision (with two eyes spaced apart) creates a greater perception of depth.
"... The society depended on the labor and counted on the acquiescence of black men...."
That pretty much sums up the ante-bellum South. States rights? Meh!
That pretty much sums up the ante-bellum South. States rights? Meh!
Bats in the Atticus, too,
Producing his bigoted view,
Aging of the brain
Makes the intellect wane?
Or is Atticus acting on cue?
Producing his bigoted view,
Aging of the brain
Makes the intellect wane?
Or is Atticus acting on cue?
12
Actually, not shocking at all. Atticus defended a black man because he knew the man was innocent. He treated black people decently, compared to most of his fellow townspeople. But he had no problem at all with his children attending segregated schools or with Calpurnia entering the house through the back door. Atticus was a decent man and a good father. But Lee never said he was a saint. It was her readers who sanctified him, not Lee.
641
I haven't picked up "Mockingbird" in years, but I was thinking the same thing as I read this article. I never thought of Atticus as a racial equalitarian in any sense other than in terms of the law and abstract justice. That was what was touchingly flawed and human about him, and what did set him apart from the others of his depicted time and place; their racism was so virulent they'd let an innocent man suffer without any qualms. Atticus defended Tom Robinson because it was the right thing to do, but I never got the feeling he'd have invited him over for dinner or gone to a movie with him.
4
This sounds right but actually isn't. Atticus is the paragon of morality, taking a case he needn't take, guarding Tom Robinson's cell, alienating his neighbors (no small thing in a small town). For what? Not just to defend an innocent man. To defend an innocent *black* man against the prejudices which reside within the human heart. He puts his reputation--and his family--at risk for a cause, and that cause is justice, yes, but also truth. He recognizes hat this is his moment, and that he must be the truth-teller come what may. He recognizes that this is the moment which will define him, that this is the moment his children will look to when they remember him, and he doesn't shirk from its demands. No, he could not solve every societal issue at once; perhaps Cal still entered through the back door. But Atticus fought in public for her right to enter through the front door, her right to the dignity all human beings possess.
1
No, Atticus defended Robinson not because he was innocent, but because he was entitled to a defense.
I await my copy with bated dread.
9
Yes. Keep that dread in check.
Well of course it does....Ms. Harper Lee is telling the truth. Clearly, law and racism have absolutely nothing to do with each other....she wised up. Thanks Ms. Lee. Next....?
4
This is really more a news story than a book review -- given the importance of Mockingbird, it's not a surprise that this first story focuses on the radically different view of Atticus. But is the Times going to get around to reviewing the literary merit, if any, of the book?
14
Agreed. I have no idea whether the book is good on its own merits. It's a surprisingly flat "compare and contrast" two books -- like we did in 7th grade.
5
Re: " I have no idea whether the book is good on its own merits."
Its "own merits"? It isn't even a book on its own. It's an early draft of a very well-known book published sixty-five years ago.
Its "own merits"? It isn't even a book on its own. It's an early draft of a very well-known book published sixty-five years ago.
3
What an abhorrent thing for profit-obsessed publishers to do one of the greatest authors of all time.
12
I wonder just what Harper Lee's attorney and agent hoped to achieve by having this manuscript published. More money for her estate, I suppose, to which said attorney will no doubt take a hefty chunk.
4
I knew this was a bad idea but I feel punched in the gut now.
9
From this review, it sounds as if they are different novels in which the characters are different; no surprise there. Watchman would hardly be the first, or last, novel in which a native Southerner (especially one who has lived away for a while) reflects on his or her ambivalent feelings about the place.
9
This review feels like a review of bad TKAM fan fiction. Except it's not fan fiction, it's an earlier draft of TKAM, which I was excited to read until now. I'm pretty sure I'll read my copy when it comes out because I cannot resist any more than most people can resist looking at train wrecks, but my guess is it will be pretty jarring to read Atticus in this light. * whimper *
8
To bad, I definitely won't read it.
7
The contrast with Mocking bird is an excellent example of the true scope, talent and imagination capable of an editor. Who'd have thunk it.
19
Is it really necessary to have Atticus portrayed as a white supremist? To take a beloved character and tarnish him? Of course it is just a fictional character and is her character to do with as she wishes. And of course in real life there were precious few Atticus Finches.
But alter his image in our minds for what purpose? To make a book interesting? Absolutely unnecessary. Guess what? Harper Lee has now tarnished her image just as much, and has lost much of the respect afforded to her. She falls in prestige along with her character.
But alter his image in our minds for what purpose? To make a book interesting? Absolutely unnecessary. Guess what? Harper Lee has now tarnished her image just as much, and has lost much of the respect afforded to her. She falls in prestige along with her character.
7
Why not read the book before concluding that Harper Lee's image is now tarnished?
White supremacist doesn't have to mean a thug in jackboots. In TKAM, Atticus Finch defends Tom Robinson as a believer in justice; he's kind to everyone because he's a kind and decent person. Yet he could still believe that the white race is superior and better suited to inhabit elite positions in society. He might become quite angry later in life and show himself to be quite the bigot as times and the South change.
Wow!
If Harper Lee secured her place in the pantheon of American writers of the 20th Century with "Mockingbird," she has just put her position on steroids!
Any number of reasons, but here's the one that will have the most traction in terms of legacy.
The Lit Crit people, who control what goes on in terms of legacies, will go absolutely bonkers over the opportunity to apply the latest and greatest Theory to interpreting how these two novels do -- or do not -- fit together.
And Lee appears to have thrown them such a curve that they'll be doing this FOREVER.
The NYRB will be replete with essays and letters where one esteemed critic starts saying mean things about the mother of another esteemed critic with whom she disagrees.
There will be the feminist interpretation of the disjunct between the novels, the Marxist interpretation, the theological interpretation, the LGBT interpretation, the crass commercial interpretation (she changed it to make money and scored big time on a Leave it to Beaver public), the Heideggerian interpretation, and, of course, 16-18 different flavors of the Left Bank interpretation, from deconstructionism, to post-modern, to post-post-modern, to post-post-post modern.
Alongside what Lee has done, what Lawrence Durrell tried to do in the Alexandria Quartet, or what John Fowles did at the end of the French Lieutenant's Woman, will look like hapless amateurish efforts.
Harper Lee has just started an industry.
The Harper Lee Industry.
God bless!
If Harper Lee secured her place in the pantheon of American writers of the 20th Century with "Mockingbird," she has just put her position on steroids!
Any number of reasons, but here's the one that will have the most traction in terms of legacy.
The Lit Crit people, who control what goes on in terms of legacies, will go absolutely bonkers over the opportunity to apply the latest and greatest Theory to interpreting how these two novels do -- or do not -- fit together.
And Lee appears to have thrown them such a curve that they'll be doing this FOREVER.
The NYRB will be replete with essays and letters where one esteemed critic starts saying mean things about the mother of another esteemed critic with whom she disagrees.
There will be the feminist interpretation of the disjunct between the novels, the Marxist interpretation, the theological interpretation, the LGBT interpretation, the crass commercial interpretation (she changed it to make money and scored big time on a Leave it to Beaver public), the Heideggerian interpretation, and, of course, 16-18 different flavors of the Left Bank interpretation, from deconstructionism, to post-modern, to post-post-modern, to post-post-post modern.
Alongside what Lee has done, what Lawrence Durrell tried to do in the Alexandria Quartet, or what John Fowles did at the end of the French Lieutenant's Woman, will look like hapless amateurish efforts.
Harper Lee has just started an industry.
The Harper Lee Industry.
God bless!
88
Here-Here.
Terrific timing for the publisher and author. The power of bigoted Southern culture is evidently revealed in the story and even exceptional people are forever flawed. Just what the GOP needs is another Robert Penn Warren type Southern culture truism nailed to the hides of the gentile. Artistically, Ms. Lee might have a blockbuster even though early critics foreshadowed a superficial effort.
7
Both versions of Atticus Finch certainly existed when these novels were written. That is the wonderful thing about fiction - its real life.
21
Is it? Or is it just a matter of us being unable to distinguish between fact and fiction, anymore?
Surely it's more than avarice that compelled the publishers and, I sincerely hope, Ms. Lee, to go ahead and publish "Go Set a Watchman"?
3
Hmm. Maybe we can now understand why she didn't publish it. I thought the news reports questioning her ability to understand and consent were gossipy and seemed unfair. Now one has to wonder whether she would intentionally destroy what Atticus represented. To Kill a Mockingbird, indeed.
74
You are missing the fact that this was written before Mockingbird. This was the original story which was re-written to please the publishers editor
1
That is correct. The question is why did she not publish it after Mockingbird and before now.
2
Maybe this is the best we could hope for? No one could have expected a novel on par with Mockingbird. And there was a reason it was never published. Perhaps that reason was due to the harsher characterization of Atticus. Why undermine the moral integrity of a literary creation so immediately beloved? The fact that the reviewer doesn't find it to be a blatant retread (or pretread, as the case may be) of Mockingbird is at least good news.
As for the elderly Atticus versus the middle aged Atticus, I love the point made by Mr. Thomason in the comments, that it's also wholly fair to consider the differences in parental judgment made by a 6 year old or a 26 year old. Throw in the context of the times, and the relocation from Alabama to NYC to Alabama in the 1950s, and it's not outlandish at all that Atticus might come across as a different character.
I grew up in Alabama in the 1970s. I heard my grandparents, even my father, say things that shocked me, though not until I was much older and realized why they shocked me. If this novel captures that kind of disconnect -- and I can only imagine living in Alabama two decades earlier -- then it may be better than imagined. And it may be more honest than many, who rightfully don't want to think of Atticus anyway but upstanding admirable, will want to admit.
As for the elderly Atticus versus the middle aged Atticus, I love the point made by Mr. Thomason in the comments, that it's also wholly fair to consider the differences in parental judgment made by a 6 year old or a 26 year old. Throw in the context of the times, and the relocation from Alabama to NYC to Alabama in the 1950s, and it's not outlandish at all that Atticus might come across as a different character.
I grew up in Alabama in the 1970s. I heard my grandparents, even my father, say things that shocked me, though not until I was much older and realized why they shocked me. If this novel captures that kind of disconnect -- and I can only imagine living in Alabama two decades earlier -- then it may be better than imagined. And it may be more honest than many, who rightfully don't want to think of Atticus anyway but upstanding admirable, will want to admit.
105
I love your comment! It makes me wonder, though. Can a person who serves as a source of inspiration to many (particularly) in their early life as a person who fights against social justice, become a bigot later in life? Was the earlier life a farse? Did something lead Atticus to become bigoted? Was he bigoted all along? If so, then why represent Mr. Robinson? I look forward to reading Watchmen, but it makes me wonder if this sort of evolution of a person really possible?
This sounds pretty shocking, but then I imagine the shock of readers around the world will likely parallel the shock that Scout is meant to experience in the plot of the book. Perhaps this will be the deeply meaningful "sequel" we always needed -- morality and uprightness in one era reveals its unseen flaws with the passage of time and progress. Atticus is not just Scout's hero, but our collective American hero as well. This book will likely be difficult for my heart to handle, but hopefully that difficulty only underscores how important this kind of narrative might be for us today, fifty years later.
28
Is it wrong to consider these two different books with Atticus being a similar but different person? Can the GSAW version of Atticus be one archetype that teaches us about race in the South while the TKIM version of Atticus is a different archetype with different lessons? I think so.
5
I think so, too. They're both two different books with the same characters, those characters having been developed two different times for two separate purposes. It'll be great to read Wathcman and then re-read Mockingbird, knowing what we now know. This is basically a writer's dream come true.
3
Re: "Is it wrong to consider these two different books with Atticus being a similar but different person?"
Yes. They're two different DRAFTS of the SAME book.
Yes. They're two different DRAFTS of the SAME book.
1
I've never seen a review with so many spoilers in it. No reason left to read the novel.
2
yes I stopped reading pretty quick, the mental emergency brake went on!
It sounds like a book that anyone interested in the first drafts of great novels and how novels are revised and polished. I would be interested in also seeing the notes of the editor or any revisions between this book and the final version.
171
My thoughts exactly. Potentially most valuable in the teaching of writing/editing.
2
I'm not sure we're supposed to think the Atticus in "Watchman" is the same Atticus as in "Mockingbird." We're told that Harper Lee abandoned this first (or at least early) draft of something called "Watchman" to write what we now know as "Mockingbird" the book. Doesn't seem that she ever went back to really develop the younger Atticus into the older Atticus. So while comparisons are interesting and possibly fruitful, to review it as a true sequel is not fair.
5
Yes but who actually revised it? And can an Edsel really be polished into a Lexus?
"To Kill a Mockingbird" was written and edited to sell books and make money. Mission accomplished.
7
I agree, but this doesn't mean that there were no other, far more important, reasons this novel was written. To suggest otherwise is just loony.
2
If this is true, at this point in our national struggle with racial issues, I am terribly sorry the book has been found and published.
15
This is actually coming at a perfect time in our national awareness-raising about racial issues and perceptions. It holds that people can be deeply caring about prejudice and injustice, yet subject to the norms in their community. A lawyer's job is to defend the innocent. This goes much deeper, it appears. And we all need to hear it.
10
A lawyer's job is to defend anyone - guilty or innocent.
4
Love that Scout was a "wicked smart girl." In Boston, she would be "wicked smaht."
18
I think the point is made...THE EDITOR. I think of how in Hem's case it took a real wrangler to tame and cut his rambling ways with passing time, though Papa's ability to see the big canvas, and to use newsprint Depeche style to make the small touches great never left, Hem needed Perkins to produce his masterworks...Perkins gone...Islands in the Stream & First Light.
Clearly a NY editor knew what the better Harper tale for the market of the burgeoning 60s should be...even if playing off a Father Knows Best riff...
Clearly a NY editor knew what the better Harper tale for the market of the burgeoning 60s should be...even if playing off a Father Knows Best riff...
9
No, HEMINGWAY gone: "Islands in the Stream" and "First Light". These were both published posthumously. You can cull bad books from the daily jottings of any great writer.
1
Weird. Thanks for the heads up, I think I'll keep my pleasant memories of "To Kill a Mockingbird" by never reading this.
108
Amen. I lived through that period and it was painful enough at the time. I m not much of a fiction reader, preferring biography and history. However, I know "Mockingbird" only from there movie. I think I would like to read its text now.
2
You can probably do both, keep your pleasant memories AND read something with a different and unsettling perspective.
6
Right there with you. A first draft that destroys one of the great characters in literary history? No interest. Appreciate the warning in this review.
3
No wonder it was never published...
39
In light of media punditry always suggesting that Obama and discussion of race are ruining "post-racial America," I'm looking forward to reading Lee's imagining of the impact of the CRM on this fictional town. When the writer states, "it also alarmingly suggests that the civil rights movement roiled things up, making people who “used to trust each other” now “watch each other like hawks," I think Ms. Lee might help us time travel to more accurately see what's happening to us today.
42
Atticus is a racist...
Can only wonder if this is the reason Alice, according to some, squelched the existence of the work. She knew what it would destroy.
Can only wonder if this is the reason Alice, according to some, squelched the existence of the work. She knew what it would destroy.
45
Best understood, then, as a remarkable lesson in the craft of writing and editing?
Also -- a clear reminder that the art and science of editing, as it used to be practiced, played a huge role shaping the 20th century American canon.
As for the anonymous Lippincott editor who encouraged Lee to rewrite the book from Scout's POV, that person seriously deserves to be named for posterity.
Also -- a clear reminder that the art and science of editing, as it used to be practiced, played a huge role shaping the 20th century American canon.
As for the anonymous Lippincott editor who encouraged Lee to rewrite the book from Scout's POV, that person seriously deserves to be named for posterity.
215
And remember, the original editor apparently didn't like this book, if they suggested a complete rewrite.
4
That's a story which needs to be told. Was truman Capote involved?
3
Tay Hohoff, I believe
3
I am so looking forward to reading this book. And I am so very delighted (!) that Nelle Harper has triumphed. How I would love to see the sparkle in her eye as we 'get it.'
Thank you, Harper Lee! No wonder there are people who did not want this published.
Thank you, Harper Lee! No wonder there are people who did not want this published.
10
I mean this with total seriousness, not snark - what do you mean by the sparkle in Lee's eye as we "get it?"
4
That people are not always who they seem to be. That white privilege is real. That heroes sometimes have clay feet. That seeing Atticus in a new light might force us to reexamine our own attitudes toward race.
All the outrage and offense expressed in the comment sections of Watchman stories indicates to me that people are refusing to read the new story because they might see themselves reflected in Atticus and they are afraid of what they might find. It is the story Harper Lee originally wanted to tell. Watchman was written first. Harper Lee already knew the 'end' of the story before she wrote the 'beginning.' She knew the ugliness underneath Atticus' polished veneer. The reviews indicate Jean Louise/Scout's distress regarding her father's views, something she could only see after leaving home and returning.
We needed Scout in 1962, but we weren't ready for Jean Louise. We need Jean Louise now, in 2015, as much as we needed Scout then. We have to address the reality of our own contradictions about race. We have to look beneath our own veneer and confront our own flaws when it comes to race.
Clearly that makes people uncomfortable. That just makes the new book all that more important.
And I think Harper Lee knows that and rightfully enjoys the discomfort.
All the outrage and offense expressed in the comment sections of Watchman stories indicates to me that people are refusing to read the new story because they might see themselves reflected in Atticus and they are afraid of what they might find. It is the story Harper Lee originally wanted to tell. Watchman was written first. Harper Lee already knew the 'end' of the story before she wrote the 'beginning.' She knew the ugliness underneath Atticus' polished veneer. The reviews indicate Jean Louise/Scout's distress regarding her father's views, something she could only see after leaving home and returning.
We needed Scout in 1962, but we weren't ready for Jean Louise. We need Jean Louise now, in 2015, as much as we needed Scout then. We have to address the reality of our own contradictions about race. We have to look beneath our own veneer and confront our own flaws when it comes to race.
Clearly that makes people uncomfortable. That just makes the new book all that more important.
And I think Harper Lee knows that and rightfully enjoys the discomfort.
1
It seems Atticus rose above himself raising his young children and performing his profession.
That would mean he knew better all along. His bigoted behavior is then not just human weakness, but knowing human weakness, doing it anyway despite knowing it is wrong. That is a very real, very fair description of a lot of people I've known. It rings true.
Coming of age to see a parent as he really is rings true too, since my kids are reaching that age of independent truly adult judgments.
Atticus through the eyes of a child was a bit of a Gary Stu character, which was more acceptable in literature awhile back. I will read this more complex, flawed character with great interest. I could be an even better book, even if the Gary Stu loses his political correctness in a modern readers eyes.
That would mean he knew better all along. His bigoted behavior is then not just human weakness, but knowing human weakness, doing it anyway despite knowing it is wrong. That is a very real, very fair description of a lot of people I've known. It rings true.
Coming of age to see a parent as he really is rings true too, since my kids are reaching that age of independent truly adult judgments.
Atticus through the eyes of a child was a bit of a Gary Stu character, which was more acceptable in literature awhile back. I will read this more complex, flawed character with great interest. I could be an even better book, even if the Gary Stu loses his political correctness in a modern readers eyes.
71
What the heck is a Gary Stu?
12
A Gary Stu is a male Mary Sue. That means a fictional character who is too perfect, without flaws.
It is generally considered a characteristic of poor writing, though obviously To Kill A Mockingbird rose above that challenge.
It is generally considered a characteristic of poor writing, though obviously To Kill A Mockingbird rose above that challenge.
6
It sounds like the characters were much flatter in the first draft of the book (Go Set a Watchman), if the writer first documented "the worst in Maycomb in terms of racial and class prejudice." Atticus seems much more nuanced of a character in To Kill a Mockingbird. It is Scout who rises above her father's bigotry, judging from the review.
1
I look forward to reading this book, but it sounds, at least from Michiko Kakutani's description, like Harper Lee originally wrote a novel much more truthful about racism and white supremacy in the South, and was urged to sweeten it, shift to a child's perspective, and make things redemptive so that the Southern white father looked much better. (The writing apparently improved as well.)
Why is this surprising? We still get this sort of thing today! Instead of the truth about racism and white supremacy, we still get pablum about how we're all treated equally under the law, taking down a vile state flag means racism has ended, and other such nonsense. I don't think African American readers would have had a problem with Lee's original novel, since it so closely reflected reality, so ask yourself, who would have?
Why is this surprising? We still get this sort of thing today! Instead of the truth about racism and white supremacy, we still get pablum about how we're all treated equally under the law, taking down a vile state flag means racism has ended, and other such nonsense. I don't think African American readers would have had a problem with Lee's original novel, since it so closely reflected reality, so ask yourself, who would have?
309
One is optimistic and the other is realistic (and depressing). Guess what Americans in general prefer?
--Ram
--Ram
4
No one remains the same throughout life, not if they're really human. I don't know that I want to read this book, but I do know "Mockingbird" cannot and should not be judged through our self-righteous 21st century lenses any more than Twain's, Bierce's or other 19th century authors' work should be. They wrote of their times, and anyone who expects some degree of greater enlightenment to be magically lifted like a veil to suit our delicate sensibilities needs to stick to current pop authors who, too, will be judged more harshly by our scornful descendants in decades to come.
8
Your comment implies not a single southern white man at that time worked for justice which isn't just wrong it's absurd. There were people at that time working tirelessly against all odds for justice, and Atticus was supposed to represent those people. Your viewpoint that all people in the south were (are?) racists is very damaging to attempts at dialogue about the very topics you seem to rally for.
7
Call it To Kill a Mockingbird: Genisys, I suppose, since it sounds like an alternate timeline.
15
Obviously TKIM is told from the perspective of idealism of a child toward their parent(s) whereas Watchman is told from cynicism and truth that one sees as an adult.
199
Except... TKAM is told from the perspective of an adult Scout looking back on events from her childhood. Seems to me that Atticus in this novel is a different Atticus.
20
That's what I wondered, too. Maybe Atticus in GSAW is a completely different character than Atticus in TKAM. Maybe the characters developed so much in the two years of rewrites that they just became different characters, but kept their names. I guess I should read GSAW and see for myself.
3
Say it ain't so, Atticus.
114
yeah, say it ain't so.
3
Say it ain't so, Harper.
3
Scout and her brother Jem witness Atticus become someone they never thought he could be — an expert marksman who fells a rabid dog and a hero of sorts who expertly defends a black man by cleverly exposing Bob Ewell's and his daughter Mayella Violet Ewell's scandalous web of lies. They never thought their "elderly" father had it in him.
Scout also sees that Dolphus Raymond, the notorious town drunk, is nothing of the sort. He sips Coca Cola from the bottle hidden in his brown paper bag. And the insufferable Mrs. Dubose is suffering from an addiction.
The revelations continue when her father delivers the bad news to the grief-stricken — and very human — Helen Robinson. Contrasted with the way Scout chafed so violently when called a "n - lover," her new-found empathy is striking and uplifting.
Scout's understanding grows when she sees at last the humanity in the misjudged neighborhood outcast, Boo Radley, the real hero of the book who saves Jem's and Scout's lives.
Judging only by the review of "Go Set A Watchman," it seems Ms. Lee has lifted yet another veil, one fashioned for Atticus Finch by her adoring readers and her own artistic might.
And how perfectly in keeping with the theme of TKMB — that our surface knowledge of people, even our heroes, is seldom the full story.