To read or not to read Go Set a Watchman??

[Jen]

As a bibliophile and English major, I feel compelled to read this. But should I?

[Ribal]

I just started it. I was feeling the same way, but then I thought I would always wonder where Scout ended up.
In addition, I read somewhere that although technically it is a sequel, this is was the very first edition of To Kill A Mockingbird. She wrote Go Set A Watchman (the original title of To Kill A Mockingbird) way back in time. It was only recently discovered.
I don't know if this helped, but I would recommend you read it.

[Petergiaquinta]

Read it is you are a great fan of Harper Lee and want to see how she took a pretty awful manuscript and with the help of her agent and editor shaped it into a great book.

But don't read it if you think you'll be finding a quality book here. It's rough; there are sentences that are just awful, and it's mostly all tell (the last third or more is a series of three or four lengthy conversations and that's it). It's also odd (and kind of fun) to discover entire paragraphs from Mockingbird suddenly popping into the book.

There are some hidden gems in it, mostly the memories of the adult Scout, and you can see how the editor found something there and encouraged the young writer to take a couple of years and rethink her approach.

But if you are motivated by ethics, you should ignore the whole thing. This unholy cash grab predicated on the abuse of the elderly author who for her entire life did not want this to be published makes Watchman feel dirty to me. Unfortunately, I'm too much of a hypocrite to have stayed away. I just had to know for myself, and if that's you, too, then give it a read.

[[deleted user]]

Read it as an early draft of the book you already know. Do not read it as a sequel. It is not one. If anything, the publishers are exploiting us by marketing a 'new novel' which is really a rejected manuscript.

In Go Set a Watchman you will note various interesting ways it connects with To Kill a Mockingbird and there are even passages that appear to be crude, early versions of parts of 'Mockingbird' (such as the Cunningham-Conningham court case comic anecdote which, in To Kill a Mockingbird is dismissed by Judge Taylor for the hilarious reason of "champterous connivance" - Go Set a Watchman has no comic punchline). These passages lack the warmth, humanity and comedy of Lee's first novel, as do the various characterisations of Atticus, Jean Louise, Alexandra and Uncle Jack. The Uncle Jack of To Kill a Mockingbird would never strike a woman. Ever. Likewise, the Atticus of To Kill a Mockingbird would be better able to explain himself to his daughter and would not stand mute beside a bigot in full, hate ranting, flow. The Atticus of Go Set a Watchman is just not the same character. He is a prototype.

So, it is worth reading. There are moments when it comes to life - Jean Louise's childhood anecdotes especially - but most of the time you will probably feel that there is something not quite right about it. Harper Lee figured that out for herself fifty years ago and put it right with the book she published then.

[[deleted user]]

I forgot to say - there is one major piece of evidence to prove that this book should not be regarded as a sequel. I won't spoil it for you by giving the details but it relates to a court case in the past involving a black man and a white girl. Neither of those characters or the details of the case are the same.

I can imagine an early editor or reader of this manuscript suggesting to Harper Lee that her work shines when she is evoking childhood and that they would really like to know more about that court case she mentions in passing. She should redraft this story, set it in the past. It would make a better book - less about politics; more about justice.

[Jen]

Cheers mates! This is great info. I've been reading articles/reviews about the controversy and grossly inappropriate advertising, because it's obviously not a sequel. HarperCollins has to sale those books and ride the money train, you know? Yet, it's difficult to pass up because it helps readers discover the process and molding of what would become the quintessence of required high school reading. But I also think, "I can live without this in my life." Thanks for these thoughts. If I find myself with the time, I might go ahead and give it a whirl.

[Lime]

The only thing I would add to the comments of Geoff and Peter above is that it's very short and only takes a few days to read (at most) and so it is not a big time investment. Otherwise their comments are just what I thought. Glad I read it for the flashback scene with Dill (only one appearance, sadly), and the school scenes with Scout, Jem and Hank.
P.S. I got it from the library so as to minimize the "money train" effect you spoke of...

[Carroll]

I can't recommend The beginning is strong. but the plot is lacking and disappointing. The Help by Kathryn Stockett had a better plot set in a similar time period.

[Kressel]

I loved it. The change in Atticus is terrible, but the whole point of the book is how Jean Louise reacts to it. If you love her, you'll love the book.

How does a reader fall in love with Scout/Jean Louise? By falling in love with Nelle Harper Lee. To do that, I recommend the following:

1. Read In Cold Blood, which she researched with Truman Capote
2. Watch the movies "Infamous," "Capote," and "Hey, Boo."
3. Read the biography Mockingbird: A Portrait of Harper Lee by Charles J. Shields

[Rapunzel]

I love Jean Louise, so I'm thinking I'll read it!

[Debra]

Jennifer wrote: "As a bibliophile and English major, I feel compelled to read this. But should I?

"

Jennifer wrote: "As a bibliophile and English major, I feel compelled to read this. But should I?

"

Read it as it should be read as a first time book writer which is what Harper Lee was at the time. Also read it without bias.

[Jen]

Lime wrote: "The only thing I would add to the comments of Geoff and Peter above is that it's very short and only takes a few days to read (at most) and so it is not a big time investment. Otherwise their comme..."

Yes, exactly! I work in a library, so I'm glad to have access to it ;) While the book is a pretty one, I don't think I can buy it and have money go towards this publishing giant.

[Lori]

Knowing this is the book the publisher did not want to publish, and knowing Harper Lee worked for at least two more years before "Mockingbird" came out, why would anyone expect this to be the classic "To Kill a Mockingbird" became?
However, that being said, the message of "Watchman" is quite relevant today, and provides more food for thought. I recommend reading it.

[Petergiaquinta]

I've read a number of similar statements on GoodReads regarding the "message" of Go Tell a Watchman being "quite relevant" today. But for the life of me, I'm not really sure what that "message" is of this muddled weak draft, and I don't think the author polished this manuscript enough to bring out a coherent or cohesive message, especially not one relevant today.

Mockingbird, a brilliant book that was labored over by the author, presents the reader with a number of powerful messages, and those messages are subtly and artistically woven into the fabric of the novel. Most of those messages are as relevant today as they were when the novel was published. I can clearly and concisely tell you (and I will if you like) what those messages are.

Pray tell, because I've given Watchman a great deal of thought and can't see this for myself, what is that relevant message in this book?

[CS]

I felt sullied by GSAW after I read it. It is an immature book with racist, unlikeable characters. Even Scout/Jean Louise is racist!

Read it for literary criticism with the understanding it is the first draft of TKAM. You can see many faults in GSAW in comparison to TKAM. Lee was working with an editor on TKAM and changed her mind about a lot of things.

I read TKAM again after GSAW. At first I was still bothered by GSAW, but then I got back into TKAM, and TKAM is still a great book. I think Atticus is a totally different character in TKAM.

Also, now there's proof that GSAW was the first draft of TKAM.
https://blogs.cul.columbia.edu/rbml/2...
Harper Lee's agents papers at Columbia U manuscripts library.
The publisher should be totally ashamed.

[Petergiaquinta]

Thank you for that link--it's fascinating to see those original documents.

[chloe]

It was a good book, but it was definitely crushing to see Atticus the way he was portrayed. It was still great writing, just very different from the childlike innocence of TKAM. A heartbreaking book, but I would say one worth reading.

[Sarah]

Yes read it, simply for the fact you are visiting old friends.

[Line]

I've read it... if I could go back in time, I would un-read it. It has pulled a shadow over TKAM.

I was very disappointed. And sorry to say I lost a bit of respect for Lee.

[chloe]

Line wrote: "I've read it... if I could go back in time, I would un-read it. It has pulled a shadow over TKAM.

I was very disappointed. And sorry to say I lost a bit of respect for Lee."

My only shred of hope is that the rumor that they didn't get her permission to publish it is true. No one pop that bubble, please.

[Annemarie]

I read it. The first time I rage-read it. But then I went back and re-read it, and I was glad I did. This was a well written book, with really beautiful exposition narration like TKM. And I enjoyed seeing the character in new light, even if they were saying ideas that I condemned. I think that made my connection to the book(s) stronger now. I would recommend it over all.

[[deleted user]]

Jennifer wrote: "As a bibliophile and English major, I feel compelled to read this. But should I?

" It's not a sequel,it was never meant to be a sequel. That's the way the media spun it to generate interest. It's a rejected manuscript. The term 'sequel' gives the novel undue expectation to the readers.

[Annemarie]

Emily - you're correct, it's not a sequel, but I can't unread TKM. I'll never be able to truly divorce these two texts in my head, and I'm wondering if there is an expectation in the publishers and author if I should? The experience feels like a sequel, and there's nothing we as readers can really do about it.

[Petergiaquinta]

The book feels like a sequel because it was packaged and presented to the reading public as a sequel. The dust jacket incorporates the iconic tree from TKM; the font used is the same; there on the back of the cover the mockingbird is flying away.

But it's not a sequel or a "redirect" (as you referred to it elsewhere), and I'm afraid the author had no real expectations for the novel as her participation in its release was noticeably absent. This book is merely an unprincipled money grab by unprincipled people. I'd call it elder abuse. Aunt Alexandra would call the lawyer here, Lee's agent, the publishers trying to make a buck on something they had nothing to do with 50 years after the fact, "climbers." Atticus would call them "trash," someone with power who takes advantage of a weaker person, because that's exactly what these people have done to Miss Lee here.

And the Atticus I'm talking about is the one from Mockingbird, the only Atticus the author intended for us to meet.

[Annemarie]

I just want to talk about the texts as they exist. They have both been published, and both now exist as part of the TKM universe. It's going to be interesting to watch the use/misuse/abuse of this as we move forward. TKM has been a Seminole text in HS/MS for so long and now there is another text that uses the characters. How that text came about is secondary to the fact that it is out there. It's difficult for me to unmarry the two texts... yeah I should have written divorce there.
I just think that it does open an interesting dialogue for American history about the course and direction of racism. Were the men and women who opposed the KKK in the thirties the members of Citizen's Councils thwarting desegregation?

OH! This is important, I can't for the life of me, figure out what Supreme Court Ruling Atticus referenced in the book. Does anyone know what they are talking about? I can't imagine it's Brown V. BOE as Jean said she "hated" the decision because "it was them telling us what to do". And it can't be the Act of Congress because that's legislation, and not SCJ decisions. Does anyone know? (trust me I used the google machine)

[Petergiaquinta]

I think it's Brown. Our Jean Louise of Watchman is both a states rightist and "color blind," as she puts it. It takes some mental juggling and it's not really morally defensible, but many would argue the two are not mutually exclusive. As CS points out, this draft is so poorly developed that its characters' viewpoints don't hold up well to intense scrutiny.

Why don't you think it's Brown? In my review I mentioned I wasn't clear it was Brown either, but I don't think it can be anything else. If it is Brown, though, Jean Louise is the wrong age if you think about these two books as occurring in the same universe. But there's the rub, eh? This isn't really the Scout or the Atticus of TKM, so I suppose her age is inconsequential. If the overarching morality of this world of Maycomb is so askew, then the timeline and the ages of our characters don't really matter, either.

[Annemarie]

I have two reservations against it being Brown. First I can't get a beat on where in time this book takes place. TKM gave us the year when she wrote "Maycomb had just been told it had nothing to fear but fear itself". Awesome, 1933. But I couldn't find a line that said definitely the book takes place at this particular time... you know, there was just no epoch and I was looking for one. If you found one, please point it out because I just couldn't find it. So I got that it was late 50s early to mid 60s. Scout mentions the advertising industry as being a Madison Avenue advent, this is a 60s creation along with the Black Building, which I believe she references. So if it's Brown then they are upset about something that happened at least 6 years in the past. Second, I can't imagine JL, with her arguments about how the treatment of African Americans is shameful and sergregation is a creation that keeps the two races at odds by disenfranchising one over another, would be against the ruling to take a step towards correcting this. My logic for this is that when Atticus (or possibly Hank) said something atrocious like "can you understand how low the standards would have to be if the school allowed the Negro children to go" and JL responds "The standards of that school can't possibly be any lower!" So she would not be against the segregation of schools. That's why I think it's not Brown. But you're correct, I can't imagine it's NOT Gideon V. Wainright! (LOL) It could be the Busing Boycott, but then that's 55 and that wasn't an actual hearing the SC just said "the lower court is correct, desegregate busses" (paraphrasing). And as you point out, Age, this really doesn't fit as Brown.

But I think I'm over thinking this. (not a surprise!) I'm still reading and discussing this book like it was a polished final copy blessed by the author. Which NONE of that is correct.

Yeah, I got a little weird when she said she was color blind but then later admits in the book that she thinks African Americans are inferior... eh... However I liked her argument that if there is an inequality, which she sees there is, it is a creation of the white race. What I thought was valuable of this book was that it hits against the "White People Ended Racism! Hooray for White People!" myth.

[Petergiaquinta]

I'm leaning toward Brown, and I think the storyline is supposed to take place in the summer of '54 right after the unanimous decision has been released in May of that year. There's an immediacy in Watchman to the conflicts raised by the Supreme Court decision, and the citizens councils have come into effect rapidly in response to it. Jean Louise and Atticus (as well as Hank and Uncle Jack) are all talking about this decision as happening recently, not six years in the past, and clearly there is a great deal of immediate concern on the part of the racist who is speaking at the courthouse.

Jean Louise is against the ruling because it is another example of the federal government attempting to bully the Southern states--issues of race don't come into the way she responds to the decision itself. In fact, I read her discussion about the local school as being more evidence that it is Brown; otherwise, why would school in particular be the topic of discussion? But here in the school discussion she shows her "color blind" attitude toward race despite her personal distaste with the ruling: this crappy school couldn't be any worse than it is even if the government forces Maycomb to allow blacks to attend. She seems to be acknowledging that blacks and whites should attend school together, but this is not something that should be forced on the local school by the federal government.

Madison Avenue is associated with advertising well before 1960...wikipedia says that connection goes back to the '20s, if you'll accept them as proof.

And the Watchman manuscript is written very early in 1957, thus conceived in 1956 or earlier. That timeline seems to allow for the decision to be Brown as well. Also, and I realize what I'm about to say isn't proof, but often a writer's earliest attempts at writing is colored a lot by personal biography, Harper Lee goes to New York in 1949 and this is Jean Louise's fifth annual trip home to Maycomb and Atticus in Watchman. If we conflate the two, that puts Jean Louise coming home in 1954.

This still isn't hard evidence like Atticus mentioning 1935 in his closing argument in Mockingbird, but it's the best I can offer.

[Annemarie]

@Peter - All good points. I got no beef with Wikipedia, and I don't think she actually mentions on the Black Building (but I could have sworn she referenced it somewhere because I have a friend who got hired there and they are a highly prestigious and famous lawfirm).
It's just crazy to think anyone would stand against Brown. And the fact that HL has JL go as far to say that the school district can't be hurt by this change does tie to the fact that she is for desegregation but against the Fed Govt telling them to do it.
I liked that she had JL admit that NYC (representative of "the North") was no less bigoted than the South.

[Jen]

Hi gang,

Here's something you may find interesting: a webinar with GSAW's editor speaking about the book. To view the recording, you'll have to provide your name and email.

http://home.edweb.net/harper-books-ed...

[Annemarie]

@Jennifer - thanks for this! :)

[CS]

@Jennifer
@Annemarie

Jonathan Burnham, the "editor" of GSAW (does GSAW read like it ever saw an editor?) sounds like the point man for getting GSAW into the schools. Annemarie, if you want a motive for publishing GSAW now, here it is: the millions of dollars that book sales could make in the schools. IMO, GSAW is a flawed and immature book that should be kept out of the schools, if anything; and it is highly questionable that Harper Lee ever wanted this book to be published.

[Annemarie]

@ CS - I'm not willing to call GWAS immature. This book, while flawed, was still better than many of the books that I've read this summer. Her expositional narration was brilliant (thinking the start of chapter three specifically).
I would never put this book in a school. I think that TKM has been over-used in schools to the point of making the text useless. I don't see this book moving into schools either. The current push in most schools is to include more non-fiction short pieces and combining them with contemporary pieces.

[Petergiaquinta]

Does Burnham really think Watchman has a chance at being embraced by America's schools? He's delusional.

If anything, publishing Watchman may ultimately have the opposite effect and result in our schools gradually pulling away from Mockingbird. This would be terribly unfortunate, as I believe the novel has done so much over the past 50 years to encourage racial tolerance and open-mindedness toward others. Mockingbird is a great book that gets kids to engage with literature and really think about themselves and the world around them. They read it at just the right moment in their lives and for many of them, it may be the book that leads to a lifetime of reading.

There's nothing in Watchman that could replicate that, and I'd argue the publication of this weak, poorly conceived draft will eventually tarnish the way we think about Lee and Mockingbird. It's not going to happen immediately, but over time I'd bet Watchman will impact the way Mockingbird is perceived in our public schools, and we may see it fall off the curriculum like Huck Finn. More than anything, this is what disturbs me about the publication of Watchman this summer.

[Petergiaquinta]

And if I wasn't clear, unlike Annemarie, I don't think Mockingbird is useless. I don't think there's another book being taught in our schools that can do what Mockingbird does for our students. Its message is as powerful today as it has ever been and its appeal remains undiminished.

[Annemarie]

@Peter - let me be clear. TKM has been over-taught. This means that the vast majority of students walking into the average high school already has an understanding of the plot (much like R&J). Normally this would not be a problem as the point of teaching lit is to teach the appreciation of language and not to follow the action. However most students have been exposed to the text, film or narrative so much that there is not an easy way to get them to engage in a meaningful way with the text. This is why, and I agree with the current trend, many teacher are removing texts that have been over-used, like TKM, R&J, HF, et al, and incorporating texts which the students have not been exposed to. This allows them to approach the text and language without a prejudice (meaning no opinion given to them) and they can create something of their own to say about it.

[CS]

@Annemarie, I should have been more specific. I thought the story in GSAW was immature, i.e., Jean Louise suddenly discovering her father is racist (why didn't she know already?). Then JL throws a hissy fit over it, only to have the resolution of her crisis hit her somewhat too literally. One reviewer said that racism was the wrong prop for the theme of the disillusioned daughter realizing her parent is human, not a god. I thought that was an insightful observation. When grown-up children do accept their parents are human, they usually forgive their parents for failings against them personally, e.g, drinking too much, or not spending enough time with them as children. The fault of racism was never directed at JL personally, but at others outside the family. JL finds the racism abhorrent to her politics, but it's not as though her father ever directed racism at her.

As a beginning writer HL showed a lovely, even compelling voice, although it still needed consistency and improvement. I was especially struck by her writer's eye for picking out things and symbols in the world to tell a story. In those two areas HL was already showing maturity. The book does show immaturity in how plot and characters were left undeveloped. But that is often a problem in the first efforts of a beginning writer.

@Petergiaquinta, I would also be sorry to see TKAM drop off the schools' reading lists. But I do think it is inevitable. Look at the reviews on this site and elsewhere, and how people link the two books, often as main book and sequel. The back story to the publication of GSAW is hard to keep straight, and many people don't even know it. They understandably interpret the books in chronological order of the story, with the result that Atticus has turned racist. Instead Atticus developed from the bigot in GSAW to the hero in TKAM as the character was rewritten and revised by HL. But what kind of reader keeps that straight? Most readers think they're reading a new novel, not the first draft of an already published book.

[Annemarie]

@ CS - I literally LOL'ed at JL's "hissy fit"... You are absolutely right! Love it! I think you just helped me see why I liked this book but somehow hated the main character so passionately! But I did like her final argument with Atticus although it was racist and paternalistic. But as you correctly point out, this is where Lee started from.

I also think that eventually this book will work its way out of the system. Just over taught. Also there are other books that speak about racism and the American identity which are newer to the students and do not talk from a white perspective.
Really good point about the reader's responsibility to keep the storylines separated and read these as two companion pieces in a metatextual way that reflects writer's process and not book one, book two. I think that since this book is taught in 9th grade it's too much to ask the average 14 year old to do that. I'm just hoping they get their "there, they're and their" straight! :)

[Petergiaquinta]

Annemarie wrote: I think that since this book is taught in 9th grade it's too much to ask the average 14 year old to do that. I'm just hoping they get their "there, they're and their" straight! :)

I agree, and that's why I don't understand why you think TKM is "over taught." Students don't know the book before they crack it open in class for the first time. They've never heard of it before. If you are teaching students who come to you as fourteen year olds with a working knowledge of R&J and TKM, then you are blessed, and you are not representative of teachers in America. (By the way, what's HF?)

I also think that one of the beauties of TKM is that it's not simply about race. It presents a message about tolerance and acceptance as an overarching philosophy throughout the book. And race is just a subset of that larger message. Mockingbird has a powerful message about racism, but it has an equally powerful one about class, culture, religion, gender, age...this is why it's in the curriculum. If it was limited to race, it would not be the powerful book it is.

[chloe]

Annemarie wrote: I think that since this book is taught in 9th grade it's too much to ask the average 14 year old to do that. I'm just hoping they get their "there, they're and their" straight! :)

This was an untrue generalization. I'm going into 9th grade and sure we don't have a class completely made up of geniuses, but we're not stupid. I read GSAW as a first draft, and given the way that we studied TKM last year, I'm sure the rest of my class could too.

If our class can study CMC then I'm sure we can study GSAW (not that I want it in schools but I'm just making a point that 9th graders aren't idiots.)

[Annemarie]

HF - Huck Finn.
It's actually better to get students who know nothing of the book you are going to read, or have a cultural understanding of the time represented. See here's the problem. Last year I taught TKM for the last time (my school shipped it off to the junior high which is an issue that I disagreed with but...). In the combined classes equaling 115 students 87 had read the book with a JR teacher. Of those 87 every single one had memorized the plot, and not a one truly understood Mayella's need to lie. They could parrot back what had been told to them in JR "She lied because he's black and she's white" and when asked what that meant they just stared. I honestly tried everything... and I mean EVERYTHING! to get them to drop the action of the book and look at the social justice impact, or the commentary on American Identity. Nothing worked because the well had been poisoned. In the 14 year old mind learning the plot is all. Because in JR high (for the most part, please middle school teachers do not attack) learning the plot is all. They knew the voc words but didn't really understand why it was important that Scout learn to respect Aunt Alexandra, or why Mrs. Dubose is actually a strong and admirable woman (racist slang aside). It's a curse when a kid knows the plot because then getting that student to focus on the literature is that much harder. And I know you are thinking "wow this person is a lazy teacher" it's crazy difficult to get the average 14 to not be lazy and give you plot summary as analysis.
Getting them with text they have never encountered before it a blessing. First it shows the student that we as teachers are always looking for new texts to challenge them with. This might seem small but it's a good tactic to get the student engaged. Many get excited when they aren't reading the same thing under each teacher. Then, and I teach in MA so I can't answer for any other state, what we do is ask the student to do something unique with the text. So, House on Mango Street, they have to come up with an original thesis and then argue it from the text (sort of reader response meets deconstructionism). While there are many thesis statements in TKM "Mrs. Dubose teaches Scout what bravery truly is", "Atticus puts his sense of social justice above the safety of his family" they have been done to death. I remember a professor saying there was just nothing original to say about SHX anymore, she was being glib but she's also kind of correct.
There are many more books that deal with all of the societal issues that TKM incorporates, but again we have the benefit of having non-white narrators now and as our classrooms change the texts must as well.
Think about it this way, Gatsby was regarded as the quintessential American text... yeah, if you were white and male. 42 Parallel is a much better text for making sure that many voices are included.
Sorry for the long reply, you asked a good question and good questions deserve good answers. And it's way too early for me! :)

[chloe]

Again I disagree with your statement that plot was everything. Our teacher really drove us to analysis.

[Jen]

I'm not at liberty to discuss the merits of these texts in relation to one another. One, I haven't read TKAM in years. Two, I haven't even read GSAW yet. So, continue on with your awesome discussions. I'm just going to throw this in...

If schools were to retire TKAM and focus on other books, I would be 100% okay with this. Why? Millennials and generation Z grew up in a different America. We're more diverse and often push for inclusion and greater diversity. Yet, as seen in recent events, we're still experiencing racial divides and institutionalized racism. We still need to talk about it, and in my humble opinion, kids these days are more willing to stand up and discuss the racial disparity they face. They're willing to push the boundaries. They won't stay silent on the issues.

While TKAM is a "stepping stone" of a book, I'd rather these kids have exposure to a different hero, someone other than Atticus Finch. A non-white hero. I think it's time we remove the white-washed books from the classroom and better incorporate books from non-white writers. Let's get kids reading Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, James Baldwin, Amiri Baraka, Langston Hughes, Zora Neal Hurston, Julia Alvarez, Sandra Cisneros, Junot Diaz, Leslie Marmon Silko etc etc. I know students read the works of these writers already, but why not put as much attention on them as we do TKAM?

[Petergiaquinta]

Very idealistic list of authors there, but all rather difficult to teach and while some of the very best in that list have much to offer older readers, none of them have something as rich as Mockingbird written at a level as accessible for a 14-year-old, which is the target audience we (well, Annemarie and I) have been discussing here.

And Atticus Finch isn't really the focus of discussion in the class, is he? Isn't the focus of Mockingbird what Scout and Jem are learning, especially for a younger reader? Atticus is flat. He's filled with wisdom, but he's not all that interesting to talk about besides as a secondary character in the novel. Atticus may be the "hero" in some ways, but he's not the protagonist, and I can't imagine teaching the book with a focus on him. The focus is on the kids and the issues, and again, I would reiterate, TKM is not primarily a book about race and that's why it's worth keeping in the curriculum. Books with a single narrow focus get old fast. And every chapter in TKM has something to offer young readers.

And sorry about your teaching experience there, Annemarie. In contrast, last year I had about 87 ninth graders and with maybe one or two failure repeats from earlier years it was a new, fresh read for all and they embraced it. They may not all be reading every page every day, but they are reading most days and discussing and thinking about it. And by time they graduate, many of them will call this their favorite novel read during the past four years. My school is overall lower middle class with a significant percentage of poverty and a highly diverse population with "whites" (whatever that means in a school like mine) in the overall minority. The book doesn't appeal to my white students any more than my non-white students. Most kids like it; some, a very small percentage, don't, but I have never seen student response to the novel falling along ethnic/racial/religious lines. Again, this is why I hope it stays and Watchman doesn't damage its place in the curriculum.

[Petergiaquinta]

And I take the hero comment back, after rereading my post...Atticus isn't the "hero" of the novel at all. There's nothing so obvious and simplistic as that in the novel. I think too many people this summer who are remembering the novel from their own school days are confusing the book's character with Gregory Peck.

[Annemarie]

@ Chloe, I'm glad that was your experience, but I teach the students who walk into my classroom.
@ Peter and Jennifer- I like that list of authors and many are taught in my school. Hurston was really well received by my classroom. It was a great relief to teach a book in which all characters (except the one doctor who had a single line) were black or African American. It's a goal to incorporate as much diversity in reading as possible and to encourage skeptical reading through more non-fiction.
I can't undo the teaching of another teacher. So taking a text they have already seen and grown tired of is an uphill battle that can, and often does, create an antagonism about reading.
Last year I started off with Shirley Jackson and watched eyes roll as they thought they were getting The Lottery. But I handed out The Possibility of Evil. They had never read this text. I gave them no background. Refused to discuss the text myself. Had them read it, break into teams and begin discussing what they had in front of them. The ideas they came up with were original, and (better still) defensible using the text as evidence. I chucked R&J and brought in HIVP1. Because they had no idea what this play was about, and had to use all of their knowledge to discern what was being said and why.
I'm glad you are a teacher as well so you know that we have to "over-turn" the stock too make sure that we are approaching it with a fresh idea and not getting married to what we've done. I love walking into a new text. I just got to teach Beowulf for the first time in about 10 years and it was grand! (senior honors class, not 9th).
I've always enjoyed teaching TKM as a book that's more than race it's about America and the way we were trying to define ourselves at that moment. This was always helpful because the students would then want to step out of the text to talk about the American Identity of today and what the watershed moments were that we experienced. It's a good text, but I think we can pack it away for a while. Do you wonder if people talked about the Scarlett Letter like this when that text got taken out of cannon? (Many schools stopped teaching it, and I'm at a school that uses it only for an elective)

[Annemarie]

@Jennifer - you make a really great point about how my students really did grow up in a vastly different America. I'm not even talking about the post-9/11 event but just the idea that they are more connected, yet more disconnected than any teen group before. I know when I was a teen advertisers were just starting to sell directly to the teen market as we were the only people with a 100% disposable income (generally speaking) and I wonder if that's changed, and if the ad targeting is more aggressive, and what affect it could have on adolescents. Just nerding out. I liked what you said it got me thinking!

[Jen]

@ Peter -

This is what you stated in your previous post:
"Most kids like it; some, a very small percentage, don't, but I have never seen student response to the novel falling along ethnic/racial/religious lines."

That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. TKAM is not accessible (accessible meaning not many will connect with a character who lived in the 1930s American south) to kids anymore, and they should read texts that engage their thoughts and force them to think critically of their social environments. I'd rather they read something and have a legitimate response to a novel "falling along ethnic/racial/religious lines." If we're going to talk about these issues, let's hear a voice that's from a non-white perspective. Now, these are just my personal thoughts coming from an activist background ingrained in community engagement. I guess I'm tired of seeing forced reading of white American/European texts onto youth who identify with a race other than Caucasian. I'm saying reading curriculum should change, while remaining fluid and inclusive. I know this is happening already. To suggest that any of the books by the "idealistic" list of writers above are not as rich and accessible to youth as TKAM is erroneous, and dare I say it, elitist. Sorry if that's harsh phrasing, but I want to use strong language to make my point.

As far as referring to Finch as a "hero," that's a conditioned phrase high school students think because TKAM has been revered for years and is often taught alongside the movie. This was the case of my personal learning experience in high school. My bad.

@ Annemarie -

Nerding out is good. It would be interesting to research the differences of consumer culture influences on teens throughout the decades. Better yet, let's discuss how youth are integrated into technology starting at a young age. Some kids have known social media all their lives. As far as social change, sharing information, and connecting communities, social media has altered all that for good. Youth keep up with social injustices and issues, and the Black Lives Matter movement has impacted a huge number of that youth. A couple months ago, Tumblr users organized a Black Out Day, encouraging others to post and share pictures representing people of color. Small things like this help youth to feel empowered. Empowered individuals go on to help and empower others. So why not give them books to read that help them feel good about themselves?

[Petergiaquinta]

You aren't reading what I've typed. These characters are meaningful to my diverse students. Most really enjoy the novel and its characters. You're selling our kids short if you think they need books with video games, cell phones and reality TV in them. And you're really confused about what kids need and like if you think they must have characters who reflect them exactly racially, ethnically and religiously. My point is that Jem, Scout and Dill do provide great connections for my kids, even if they are from the Deep South in the 1930s, two characteristics that I can't personally relate to, either, but I connect deeply to the universal themes of the book because I'm human.

And now it's time to put your money where your mouth is, so to say...tell me which book by which author of those you have listed above is as rich as TKM and which is as accessible to a 14-year-old in the public school setting. This isn't elitism. This is me knowing books, kids, and public schools. Go ahead when you are ready...

[Jen]

You're either angry or annoyed... so let's take a few steps back.

I believe you when you say you know your kids, books, and public schools. I believe you when you say the kids liked the book and thought critically about it. But is this because they haven't been exposed to anything else? Because it's all they know?

To give me a little authority and background, I work in a public library in a downtown location with a patron base that's diverse. That's just one of my jobs. Reader advisory is a crucial role for the librarian. A lot of times people come in and want to read African American fiction (or Latino fiction or Native American or etc), but have no idea where to start. They've heard of Shakespeare, Jane Austen, and others like Harper Lee, but they know so little about non-white writers. Hmm. Why is that?

I think we got worked up when reading each other's responses and failed to see each other's point. I never once suggested that kids need to read characters that reflect them exactly racially, ethnically, and religiously (- I'm a fan of that oxford comma). I'm suggesting all students, regardless of ethnicity, race, sexuality, or religion, should read texts by diverse writers with diverse characters representing a more diverse population, inclusive of race, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality.

What's so terrible about them reading books that have video games, cell phones, and reality TV? Why would it sell kids short? Ready Player One by Ernest Cline is an excellent example of this. It's accessible, engaging, and cleverly comments upon how society could change in the future if we were to continue down our path of capitalistic, destructive, and unsustainable methods of "living." The answer: we escape our terrible realities by spending our time in a Matrix-type video game. It's a book that encompasses all: social inequality, climate change, gender norms, lack of accessibility in "public" schools, and all that good stuff.

Now, that list of books you wanted. You're a teacher so you already know what the writers have written from that list I provided above. So, let me provide some alternatives:

1. Ms. Marvel - G. Willow Wilson
It's a comic book, so it can't be real "literature," right??? Pshhh, whatever. That's the kind of elitism I face in the library world, and I apologize if I falsely accused you of that earlier. However, it's rampant in the academia world, especially among scholars who study and write about literature. This book is about a young girl who's Muslim and a superhero. Is that the only reason why we should teach it? Why not? Reading this can open the world for youth to discuss gender roles in society (why do we not have many female superheros?), racism against Muslims past and present, inequality in low-income neighborhoods (that's a feature in it), and so on.

2. Sold - Patricia McCormick
It's written in accessible, poetic format. It's about a girl experiencing the harshness of forced prostitution in India. It will help students understand culture and generational poverty in other parts of the world. Good time to dive into India's history, discovering and learning about the consequences of colonialism. Great time to discuss history of privilege in America versus the rest of the world too.

3. Copper Sun - Sharon Draper
It's about Slavery. It's powerful. The story is compelling. Anything by Sharon Draper is guaranteed to be top-notch.

4. Darius & Twig - Walter Dean Myers
"Darius and Twig are an unlikely pair: Darius is a writer whose only escape is his alter ego, a peregrine falcon named Fury, and Twig is a middle-distance runner striving for athletic success. But they are drawn together in the struggle to overcome the obstacles that life in Harlem throws at them. The two friends must face down bullies, an abusive uncle, and the idea that they'll be stuck in the same place forever."

5. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian - Sherman Alexie
Everyone knows about this book. It's brilliant.

6. Gabi, a Girl in Pieces - Isabel Quintero

7. Any poetry by Nikki Giovanni. Most of her poetry collections read like books anyways.

8. Howl- Allen Ginsberg
It's a cult classic.

9. Le Baobab Fou - Ken Bugul
Because the only book by an African writer kids seem to know is "Things Fall Apart." Excellent book, but we can do better and encourage them to read more.

10. Why don't we read more by Willa Cather?? "O, Pioneers!"?? "My Antonia"??

11. Persepolis - Marjane Satrapi
A lot of schools are now including this in the curriculum. Good.

12. Breath, Eyes, Memory - Edwidge Danticat
I'm currently reading this so I'm biased.

13. Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe - Benjamin Alire Sáenz
Because sexuality is never as simple as we think.

14. The Silver Star - Jeannette Walls
"Jeannette Walls has written a deeply moving novel about triumph over adversity and about people who find a way to love each other and the world, despite its flaws and injustices."

15. The Darkest Child - Delores Phillips
"This is the story from an era when life’s possibilities for an African-American were unimaginably different."

Listen, this list can go on and on. It's my job to make lists like these, so I'm being sincere when I ask this: was this helpful? I'm trying not to make an ass of myself.