Jessica’s review of Go Set a Watchman > Likes and Comments

WORDDDDDDDDDD -- I've never had a breaking news alert for a book! My book clubbers are so excited (we plan to re-read Mockingbird and then this!) GAHHHHH

I saw the headline and nearly burst into tears. I kind of just want to read Mockingbird over and over again until July. And I practically have the entire book committed to memory already.

You sound like me! Not sure if you ever heard about all the shady stuff she's been through with her agent? I read a Vanity Fair piece on it back in July 2013 and was SO pissed FOR her. This is a recap of the case (but if you could find the VF article, it's SO worth reading): http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-...

I read something about that a while back, but I should definitely check out the VF article. What a terrible story.

Eh, I'm not thaaaat concerned. Even if this book stinks--and it very well may--I don't think it'll take away from my love for the original. In most cases, I can usually maintain an intellectual division between "source material" that I love and the inferior subsequent material. Season 5 of The West Wing, for example, didn't keep me from waxing poetic on the wonder that was Season 2. I just pretend it got cancelled when the original creators left.

I could be wrong, but I'm choosing to be optimistic.

Thank you!

I ranted quite a bit about the dissolve of the character development in The West Wing during the last three seasons' original run, but now I can basically pretend none of it happened, except for the series finale :)

The only instance I can think of off the top of my head where the opposite is true is How I Met Your Mother. A year after that disingenuous finale and I still can't bring myself to watch repeats.

Given that, by all reports, Harper Lee wrote this before Mockingbird was published and that it is undoubtedly based on her real life in much the same way as Mockingbird was, I'm hopeful that the "essence of the characters," as they say, will ring at least somewhat true. I'm curious to see how they started out, if nothing else -- I know it's the story of the Finches later in life, but how they started out as characters being developed by a writer.

Jessica wrote: "I read something about that a while back, but I should definitely check out the VF article. What a terrible story."

I found it and started re-reading it and God, it's every bit as revealing and insane as I remember it: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/201...

Also, this: http://jezebel.com/be-suspicious-of-t...

I still plan on reading the new book, but man, the WHOLE thing is shady times a hundred.

I don't know, I don't want to just assume that this is all a nefarious plot to rip her off. I agree that it's probably not 100% on the up-and-up, but...was no one really left responsible for keeping an eye out for her affairs after her sister died? No provisions were made for when the 104-year-old lawyer passed away that would prevent the Pinkus thing from happening again? And I find it hard to believe that HarperCollins, at least, would rush to publish this if they might face another lawsuit like the one from two years ago. Yes, they stand to make a huge amount of money off this but would they want that kind of controversy and press? Wouldn't it be even more profitable and less legally tricky if they had just waited until after she has passed away? I understand why people think she's being taken advantage of, but I'm skeptical that it's as outright manipulative as Jezebel seems to suggest it is.

. . . ummm . . . maybe best not to let your honey see your opening comment ;)

Haha, yeah!

Your first line is what proves that you are truly a die hard reader. And it's a line that only other die hard readers will understand.

This is so wonderfully written and thought out. Excellent review!

I love your review!

So spot on! I can't form my opinion about this "book," and I too wish it wouldn't have been published as a book as such. I enjoyed hearing more about the exploits of Jem, Scout and Dill, but found myself perplexed by most everything else. And, the ending just confused me, honestly. Just what IS everyone saying and being okay with?

Atticus is my literary hero, and I am so, so disappointed this version of him. I *think* as a {Texas} southerner, I can kind of understand him a little bit, but I have to continue to mill him about it my mind. THANK GOD for the Atticus he became!!

And thanks for this. I have been desperate to read others' thoughts on the book!!

This is a lovely review.

Thank you, ladies. I had a hard time with this, because I feel like there were points she was trying to make that are important, but she failed to make them in a way that will resonate with people.

Growing up in a rural part of Ohio close to West Virginia and then moving to Philadelphia and DC, I can definitely relate to Scout's inner monologue about the ways that Maycombers and New Yorkers see each other. I do think that a lot of people in East Coast cities tend to think of themselves as more open-minded than what they see as hillbilly racist (and, today, homophobic) Southerners, but they're not being open-minded about those Southerners. And I think that leads to this conservative dialogue about what's "Real America" that rings outdated to those people who do not want to see Southern Values as anything but racist and homophobic.

This might be a silly example, but when the guy from Duck Dynasty got in trouble for saying homophobic things, a lot of my Facebook friends from the East Coast were saying "What should we expect from an uneducated redneck?" I wanted to scream, "No! He's not an uneducated redneck. He's a man with a master's degree who runs a multi-million dollar business. Just because he holds views that aren't progressive doesn't mean he's uneducated, and assuming so means that you are just as guilty of stereotyping and bigotry. I disagree with him, too, but you're not going to do any good unless you try to understand a little bit about where his views come from instead of writing him off as an uneducated redneck."

It reminds me a lot, too, of the recent conversations we’ve had over the Confederate Flag. Many of those same friends from the East Coast will automatically label anyone who flies the Confederate Flag as racist. I do agree that the Confederate Flag represents a history that is racist, but I also genuinely believe that many Southerners do see it as something that has nothing to do with race. They see it as this symbol of a heritage that is about fighting for state’s rights over big government, which is something they see as important not because it allows them to be racists but because they feel like the federal government does not have their interests at heart. I looooved the line about how FDR paving a section of road from the school in Maycomb laid the foundation for State’s Rights in Scout’s generation: the government paved this road and now kids can’t run on the road because they’ll skin their knees and therefore the government is interfering in their lives unnecessarily and without considering why they don’t want or need the road paved. It’s just unfortunate that the state’s rights point of view is so closely entwined with racist heritage because that prevents outsiders from seeing beyond the issue of segregation to the issue of street paving. Yes, the argument has been used to justify segregation and refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, but there is much more to the argument than just those issues. I also think that those same Southerners in turn fail to understand why people see their celebration of that heritage as treasonous because they're just looking at the street they didn't want paved.

I feel like maybe the end of this book wanted to express a “walk around in another man’s shoes” sentiment that was meant to bridge the disparate views of the North and South during the early post-integration/Civil Rights years. But I also think that it treads too closely to overlooking racism because people mean well or because people want to preserve a way of life. You’ve got Uncle Jim claiming that Atticus was only at the Klan meetings because he wants to know what’s going on there and you’ve got Hank pointing out that if he’s going to be welcomed into Maycomb as anything but white trash he has to go along with the majority of genteel citizens who are opposed to integration – don’t ruffle feathers and you’ll get along nicely. But Atticus is saying things about how it would be bad to let black children go to school with white children, and we are left with this kind of sentiment that Scout needs to accept that about her father because he’s her father and because he has done good things for his community that have nothing to do with race. I feel like we’re supposed to walk away with a sense that yes, racism is wrong but this whole North vs. South thing is more complex than that? It just doesn’t really present that point of view well, and it’s definitely going to be off-putting to sooooo many people.

Jessica, your reviews are always so thorough and eloquent but this one in particular captured my attention. I'm a third of the way through a re-read of TKAMB and my copy of Watchman is on its way. Both are my book club's reads for August and I feel like our discussion is going to be a fascinating one. I plan on sharing some of the sentiments you offered up here because I do think they are spot-on!

Like you, but especially so this time, as I re-read Mockingbird with more of a "writer's hat" on, I am just blown away at how Lee nails the construct (perhaps this is because I'm studying plot structure and using TKAMB as one of the books to examine it with).

At any rate, thanks again for putting so much thought into this! I'm sure it's going to be one of your most well-read reviews!

Thanks, Gail! It's been a few years since I last re-read Mockingbird but I definitely think I need to go back to it again now. Perhaps its brilliance is a testament to the importance of the editing processes of its time as much as it is a testament to Lee as an author. I did love seeing what got fleshed out from the origins of Watchman, and I really do want to get my hands on some different biographies of Harper Lee to maybe understand more context. We do have this mythology surrounding her, and it's kind of hard to wade through that to really see what's what.

Totally agree. This is an interesting literary artefact, a step on the road to Mockingbird, not a sequel.

I guess the reason they didn't do what your husband suggests is obvious - there are record sales in a 'new' Harper Lee novel, not so much in an appendix to Mockingbird.

Full marks to whoever said to Harper Lee 'You know what? Maybe it's Scout's childhood that is the really interesting angle on this ...'

Thanks, Steve. I totally get the business logic behind printing this as a separate book, but it still seems like a bit of a gray area to market this as "the sequel we've only dreamed of" just to sell a zillion and one copies. The backlash would have been a lot less intense with an appendix (though, of course, backlash often means more sales)

Tay Hohoff was the editor, according to Wikipedia. I can completely understand why she would look at this book and say, "This is not going to be well-received but it has some good ideas. Let's try another angle." Together they sweetened the story up a bit, made it more palatable, and tightened up the narrative. Harper Lee owes so much credit to Hohofff.

Jessica, your reviews are so thorough and just such a joy to read. The way in which you articulate yourself in reviews is just purely amazing! This is one of my most anticipated books for the year, and I am so glad that it didn't take away from your love for Mockingbird. Like you, it has always been close to my heart primarily because of Scout's coming-of-age story in the midst of the court trial. Loved your thoughts on it and I can't wait to read it myself. I will be sure to keep them separate in my mind as I read along. Fantastic review!

Thank you Charmi! I do hope you find this book a worthwhile read. It's doesn't really live up to Mockingbird, but I don't think it ought to take away from it either!

The theme of this book to me, a rural Southerner who lived during the early Civil Rights Era, is that change is best when it comes from within a society. I don't see Atticus as a bad character at all. While it is not politically correct to state issues in some of the statements in the book, I find the book to be an historically accurate assessment of the South at that time. Even the reasons in the end for Scout returning to Maycomb Co. are those of Atticus in the Citizens Council: change from within society is best. In the end it is "crazy" Uncle Jack who is able to see and explain the issues best.

This is a superb & thorough review.

Thank you, Errol!

I really like your take on it, Margaret. I didn't think Uncle Jack was really crazy, but I did think that his role as the Explainer was written a little heavyhandedly -- that could have easily been refined with editing. And Atticus's sentiments about state's rights seem to echo a lot of what we hear from the South even today.

Me to

Jessica, thank you for your thoughtful and insightful review and discussion. Having grown up in a small Southern town, I find the book and your comments to ring true in so many ways. Atticus reminds me a great deal of my father, a man of great character, integrity, education, and intelligence. But like Atticus, he was only a couple of generations removed from ancestors who owned slaves and fought for the Confederacy. My father (and Atticus) believed that it would take a great deal of time and patience to accomplish change in the South and that it could not be rushed forward by outside forces. Atticus in the 1950's was a product of his heritage, his community and his place in history.

Well said....well said indeed. Just finished the book....still processing, but thank you for the wonderful insight.

You've summed up how I feel about the book perfectly. Thank you, brilliant review

Thank you, Angelica and Jen.

Anne, the more I think about this book the more I appreciate the attempt to be both critical of and understanding of the way things are in the South. It can be frustrating how long it takes for meaningful change to occur, but simply forcing the change doesn't necessarily work. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance here that's both interesting and frustrating.

Thank you for this. Yes, I'm coming into reading Watchman with the full knowledge that I am reading a draft. The references to scenes that were eventually fleshed out into TKaM are quite interesting.

Your review was very thoughtful and precise and hit most of the points that I have tried to express to my friends.

Well said.

Thank you, Melissa and Ginger. I think looking at the book from the perspective of finding the elements that grew into the story we know and love was incredibly interesting.

Thank you! You said many of the things I was thinking but couldn't put into words. Well done!

Thanks, Allen!

I appreciate so much your realistic (and literature-based) viewpoint of the book. Applause to your clear critique.

Fantastic insight - you've captured my thoughts exactly

Thank you, Tia and Kathy! I really tried to approach this book as a separate entity, instead of a knee-jerk response to the fact that it didn't (and really couldn't) live up to expectations. I hope I succeeded.

Thanks, Paul. I understand completely why it's disappointing. You're right that the voice is there, but I suspect that the softening that happened between this and Mockingbird is due largely to her editor. Looking at it from a marketing perspective, the softer story is a lot more palatable and thus easier to sell to readers. People love reading feel-good books, which definitely describes Mockingbird and does not describe this at all. I suspect that the messages here might hew closer to Harper Lee’s true feelings, whereas Mockingbird is her writing the story she was told to write.

I like your point about "We used to try to help them," but I also feel like that might be an example of the sort of historical re-writing that happens when a culture wants to justify things that are wrong, as opposed to an intentional arc in the character development. There were still people in the first half of the 20th century who argued that slavery had been good for black people. Not that Alexandra would necessarily make an argument that extreme, but there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance that comes out of race relations in this country. I interpreted Alexandra's comments as trying to capture that.

THANK YOU!!!! I am so sick of everyone saying it's a sequel!!!! IT'S A DRAFT OF MOCKINGBIRD! Her editor liked the idea but suggested a major rewrite, and that gave us Mockingbird.

And unlike you, I did see Mockingbird as a strong example of racism, as well as coming of age, integrity, femininity, and community.

Thank you for confirming that I wasn't going crazy for thinking I was the only one who didn't think Atticus became a racist in his old age!

I liked the book and think it causes controversy because Harper had the courage to deal with the complexity of belief systems. We so like our heroes to be HEROES and not humans.

I have just finished GSAW and your review sums up many of my thoughts perfectly. Thank you for writing such an insightful piece. I think it is so important that this book is read as if it were a parallel world to the one we know and love in TKAMB and not as a sequel. It is a fascinating portrait of a small town in the American South in the 50s and an insight into the rewriting and editing that occurred to achieve the Pulitzer Prize winning book.

I agree with you Eleanor. There's a lot of complexity to Harper Lee's portrait of racism, and I definitely still see that complexity when it comes to modern-day issues of racism and homophobia and "state's rights." It's not as cut-and-dried as it became in Mockingbird, and that's maybe just a hard thing to embrace.

Thank you, Mrs. Harris! I don't think this was a great book -- it definitely needed some refining -- but I do think there is a lot of value to be found in reading it, on a lot of different levels.

I agree with everything you wrote, Jessica. Thanks for expressing in such exquisite detail what I was unable to do in my own short review.

Great review. You're a better writer than Lee was in 1957.

Oh, gosh, Amy. Thanks for the compliment, even though I'm not so sure about that :)

I really meant that sincerely. I wasn't being sarcastic. However, what was simply amazing was how Harper Lee grew to be this fantastic awesome writer. But yes, you were better than she when she wrote Watchman.

Jessica, you are such a good writer. Smart and informed and so meticulous. I picked this book as one of several I chose when the woman who leads my book group was giving them away. I had heard the negative buzz about it and was unsure if I wanted to read it right away, but reading your review has made me decide I will.

You captured in your review exactly what I thought about Watchman. I think readers have trouble understanding Atticus Finch as a man of his times - mostly because a lot of people see Atticus Finch as portrayed by Gregory Peck in the movie.