Go Set a Watchman

[sr71plt]

Harper Lee’s chronological sequel to To Kill a Mockingbird (although written earlier), Go Set a Watchman, was released yesterday and is already a 2015 best-seller. The critics who read advance copies have been mixed in assessing it, with its detractors saying not only is it controversial (because it does paint an entirely different picture of Atticus Finch), but also that it isn’t written as well.

The Guardian’s book review (http://www.theguardian.com/books/20...chman-review-harper-lee-to-kill-a-mockingbird) supports the worth of its writing, but notes a valid criticism that, “This is not so much due to literary inferiority, but because Go Set a Watchman is a much less likable and school-teachable book.” It also indicates the book has less punch than Mockingbird does because it’s set in the third person rather than Scout’s compelling first person.

So, since this release is probably going to be the literary event of the year, it would be interesting to know what others think. I’ll wait for it to come out in paperback before I read it.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I wasn't particularly anxious to read it, but there was an interesting discussion of it on CBC-1's flagship radio show, Q, this morning that's given me some thought of reconsideration.

 

[PennLady]

I think I would like to read it, not sure when I'll get to it. I've been kind of amused about how everyone's upset that "Atticus is racist." As noted, this isn't exactly a sequel. Atticus was *originally* a racist, and then he wasn't, in the story that Lee published.

It does make me wonder if Ms. Lee really is -- or could be -- on board with releasing this.

At any rate, I would read it just for the curiosity of seeing how a writer starts with an idea, and then changes it. In this case the change was at the recommendation of the editor, but people can change things for other reasons as well. I think it would be a neat learning experience.

 

[LadyVer]

I read the free chapter. My feeling is that Mockingbird received much more intensive editing and rewriting by an experienced, knowledgeable editor. Other than that, it's hard to have an opinion about Watchman after reading one chapter. I'll probably read the book when I get a chance.

 

[sr71plt]

Truman Capote worked To Kill a Mockingbird over (some say he actually wrote it), and you would be hard pressed to find a better content editor than that.

 

[LadyVer]

Possibly, although I was recently reading about Lee's editor in the Mockingbird process. Capote wasn't mentioned.

 

[MagicaPractica]

I think another thing to consider is that most people get better as they write if they work at their craft so it makes sense that To Kill a Mockingbird, the second book she actually wrote, would be somewhat better.

 

[sr71plt]

I think another thing to consider is that most people get better as they write if they work at their craft so it makes sense that To Kill a Mockingbird, the second book she actually wrote, would be somewhat better.

That doesn't really excuse a discrepancy in the published version. It's more likely that she took editorial advice and reworking on Mockingbird that she wouldn't/didn't take on the new book (the Tom Clancy syndrome), to the detriment of the book. My understanding is that she's not fully "with us," which probably made an editor's job almost impossible to perform with her involvement.

 

[PennLady]

That doesn't really excuse a discrepancy in the published version. It's more likely that she took editorial advice and reworking on Mockingbird that she wouldn't/didn't take on the new book (the Tom Clancy syndrome), to the detriment of the book. My understanding is that she's not fully "with us," which probably made an editor's job almost impossible to perform with her involvement.

Wait I'm confused. Everything I've read said that Lee wrote "Go Set a Watchman" first, gave it to the publisher, who recommended that she focus on Scout's early life, and the end result of that was "To Kill a Mockingbird."

What is the discrepancy? Atticus being a racist in GSaW and not TKaM? Or just the quality of writing? Is GSaW the "new" book you're referring to?

Of possible interest: an article at Salon.com, taking a different view of the TKaM and Atticus Finch. http://www.salon.com/2015/07/15/att...e_how_to_talk_about_race_and_it_did_so_badly/

 

[lovecraft68]

What's funny and sad at the same time is that all that will be focused on is "he's racist!" because of how PC has over run everything. At this pace we will be in full censorship mode in a couple of years and not be allowed to read or purchase any old books deemed racist

Had this been released even 10 years ago people would be more focused on the book.

I'm not surprised the writing is being touted as inferior, it was pushed to the side for Mockingbird and let's face it, right now this was released as a cash cow.

As mentioned on another thread they waited until her sister was out of the picture to get Lee to publish this and she is not really in her right mind.

I'll read it eventually, probably before the year is out.

 

[sr71plt]

Wait I'm confused. Everything I've read said that Lee wrote "Go Set a Watchman" first, gave it to the publisher, who recommended that she focus on Scout's early life, and the end result of that was "To Kill a Mockingbird."

What is the discrepancy? Atticus being a racist in GSaW and not TKaM? Or just the quality of writing? Is GSaW the "new" book you're referring to?

Of possible interest: an article at Salon.com, taking a different view of the TKaM and Atticus Finch. http://www.salon.com/2015/07/15/att...e_how_to_talk_about_race_and_it_did_so_badly/

What was being discussed was the writing quality of the finished product--and the polishing that went into it. Not the content of either.

 

[PennLady]

What was being discussed was the writing quality of the finished product--and the polishing that went into it. Not the content of either.

Ah. Well then it makes sense that Mockingbird is better, right? Because that was the second one, and had more editorial oversight.

 

[PennLady]

What's funny and sad at the same time is that all that will be focused on is "he's racist!" because of how PC has over run everything. At this pace we will be in full censorship mode in a couple of years and not be allowed to read or purchase any old books deemed racist

The focus is on Atticus' racism in Watchman because the character -- perhaps more from the movie than the book -- is seen as an icon of fairness, tolerance, etc. A white lawyer defending a black man in the pre-Civil Rights South? That's big. (Although for a different take, see the link in my previous post.)

This has nothing to do with PC-ism and everything to do with the perceived changing of a beloved, recognized fictional character into something else. Except that since Watchman was written first, then Mockingbird, it appears that originally, Atticus was a racist.

Had this been released even 10 years ago people would be more focused on the book.

No, I don't think so. Even ten years ago, Atticus Finch was a revered character, an icon of tolerance, as I said. You'd be seeing these same arguments, think-pieces, etc. And there is focus on the book, the quality of writing, etc.

I'm not surprised the writing is being touted as inferior, it was pushed to the side for Mockingbird and let's face it, right now this was released as a cash cow.

As mentioned on another thread they waited until her sister was out of the picture to get Lee to publish this and she is not really in her right mind.

It wasn't "pushed to the side." Lee wrote Watchman *first*, sent it to her publisher, and they advised her to redo it, with the focus on Scout's early life. She did and it became "To Kill a Mockingbird." It's been decades, and presumably if Lee had wanted to publish Watchman, she could have at some point, and could have fixed the writing quality. Why she didn't I don't know.

But I agree that it's questionable, at best, that Lee is "all here" so to speak, and I do agree that this was released solely to make some money.

However, that doesn't mean it's not worth reading for various reasons.

 

[sr71plt]

Ah. Well then it makes sense that Mockingbird is better, right? Because that was the second one, and had more editorial oversight.

My take is that Watchman has gotten less and lighter editorial work than Mockingbird got mostly on the Tom Clancy model--the writer has become fixed as an icon and therefore less questioning and suggesting is done (and tolerated) at the editorial level than on the first (which reportedly was heavily shaped by Truman Capote. What's she going to balk at on her first published manuscript when guided by the likes of Truman Capote?). Also, as she reportedly isn't "completely with us" anymore, less detailed editorial work can be done with her--and they can't just willy-nilly make independent changes in the manuscript of a now-literary icon. It's a guaranteed best-seller, so from the publisher's view, why make waves with the author in a detailed scrub of the work?

 

[sr71plt]

It's been decades, and presumably if Lee had wanted to publish Watchman, she could have at some point, and could have fixed the writing quality. Why she didn't I don't know.

The answer to that is said to be in her sister, Alice, who lived with her and was her gatekeeper from the world (and some say controller). Alice no doubt considered that Watchman would taint the world view of Mockingbird (and it certainly has turned it upside down) and she blocked any consideration of publishing Watchman (it's known that she did block it). Well, she's dead (last November), so . . .

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The focus is on Atticus' racism in Watchman because the character -- perhaps more from the movie than the book -- is seen as an icon of fairness, tolerance, etc. A white lawyer defending a black man in the pre-Civil Rights South? That's big. (Although for a different take, see the link in my previous post.)

This has nothing to do with PC-ism and everything to do with the perceived changing of a beloved, recognized fictional character into something else. Except that since Watchman was written first, then Mockingbird, it appears that originally, Atticus was a racist.



No, I don't think so. Even ten years ago, Atticus Finch was a revered character, an icon of tolerance, as I said. You'd be seeing these same arguments, think-pieces, etc. And there is focus on the book, the quality of writing, etc.



It wasn't "pushed to the side." Lee wrote Watchman *first*, sent it to her publisher, and they advised her to redo it, with the focus on Scout's early life. She did and it became "To Kill a Mockingbird." It's been decades, and presumably if Lee had wanted to publish Watchman, she could have at some point, and could have fixed the writing quality. Why she didn't I don't know.

But I agree that it's questionable, at best, that Lee is "all here" so to speak, and I do agree that this was released solely to make some money.

However, that doesn't mean it's not worth reading for various reasons.

Because Truman Capote is dead, is why.

Be interesting to see how Atticus was in the original MOCKINGBIRD, before Capote fixed it. I'll wager the ending was different.

 

[PennLady]

The answer to that is said to be in her sister, Alice, who lived with her and was her gatekeeper from the world (and some say controller). Alice no doubt considered that Watchman would taint the world view of Mockingbird (and it certainly has turned it upside down) and she blocked any consideration of publishing Watchman (it's known that she did block it). Well, she's dead (last November), so . . .

True. I hadn't exactly forgotten about her sister, but you're right, she likely played a part in keeping this story off the market.

At any rate, I do find it interesting that the first version of Atticus was racist, and the revised version was not, in the story that was published.