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

[CS]

Linda wrote: "The biggest regret in my long history of reading was reading this book."

I'm sorry, Linda. Did reading GSAW ruin TKAM for you? It helps to step back and realize that GSAW was a draft, and contained ideas and characterizations that were later discarded in TKAM. As another Goodreader said, everything in your first draft is usually crap. There's a reason why writers make sure that their unfinished or early efforts are kept away from the reading public, and not included in their artistic legacy.

I was talking with a novelist about GSAW. She said the publication of GSAW was like a wake-up call for her. She left clear instructions with her lawyer (including a codicil in her will) about how any unfinished or unpublished writing was to be handled in the event of her death or incapacity.

[Greg]

Shannon wrote: "I've a question....

Since when, in the 1950's, did people use the word "auditorium" to refer to one's church sanctuary? (Visions of Joel Olsteen are dancing through my head.)

"There’s nothing li..."
Shannon, great point. I grew up in the south, went to a Baptist church, but don't recall what we called the "auditorium." I think most small churches in small towns at that point in time had only one room and so one went to "church" and entered directly into the one room. But when these churches expanded, the main room had to be called something. I think we called ours the chapel, but not sure. I still go to that same church today and there isn't a specific name for it. So, Shannon, yes, at that time, in that small town, "church" was the right word. BTW, I thought GSAW the worst book I read last year, and I'm baffled by its popularity. I'm still reading these posts to find a reasonable argument as to why this book is so popular.

[Isriana]

I agree with most of you here , it is only the curiosity which brought me back to this book and ultimately it lacks the charisma of the first book .I guess I didn't like the stuff which the author made subtle and I think Scout's sense of betrayal was stretched quite a bit. Some character reactions were just too hard on the nose and also I feel certain instances were hammered beyond requirement . And as for a school read classic , it will take me convincing on whether this will be appropriate now for kids to read

[Liz]

I wish I could, but I can't un-read it. Very obvious it was released for the money and not the value of the Literature.

[Linda]

Liz wrote: "I wish I could, but I can't un-read it. Very obvious it was released for the money and not the value of the Literature."

I couldn't agree more!

[Maria]

I read it and loved it!!! So much complexity! So well written.
I loved her uncle!! I'm sad he was written out of To Kill a Mockingbird!

[Petergiaquinta]

So did you like the part at the end where Uncle Jack struck Scout in the face to make her wake up and pay attention to all the mansplainin' going on there at the end? It worked. She came right back to her senses, didn't she?

And isn't that just what know-it-all little girls going off to the big city and getting too big for their britches need when they come back home?

No, like most of the rest of the book, that scene needed to go away, and it did when Watchman became Mockingbird.

But Uncle Jack isn't written out of To Kill a Mockingbird. He's been scaled way back, but he's still there and he even hits the young Scout, although this time it becomes another part of the extended motif in the novel of prejudging instead of just a gratuitous punch in the face to a grown woman.

[Maria]

You are entitled to your opinion but you've totally misconstrued my comment. You can't apply the events of either book to today's world. Each of the books took place in a time of change for the nation.

The scene you are referring to; I FEEL was there for a dramatic effect. I'm not sure how that's translated to "all little girls going off to the big city and getting too big for their britches need when they come back home"

[Petergiaquinta]

I don't think hitting women as a way to bring them to their senses and make them see reason was a good method at any point in history...as much as I like Harper Lee, that was an awful idea and shows her immaturity as a writer.

Fortunately she had a good editor and agent to help guide her in her craft and turn that crappy manuscript into a great book. Unfortunately, thanks to the greed and immorality of her new handlers, we've been sold this weak manuscript and told it's a new book by our beloved author.

[CS]

M wrote: "...You can't apply the events of either book to today's world......The scene you are referring to; I FEEL was there for a dramatic effect."

GSAW takes place in 1954. Uncle Finch would have been the same age as my grandparents' generation. Jean Louise would have been the same age as my parents. From knowing them, I can speak about the norms of their generations. A man hitting a woman across the face was as unacceptable then as it is now.

I assume if the incident is in the book it's there for dramatic effect. That doesn't excuse what it is: violence against women. And you say you love the character of Uncle Finch??

[Maria]

WOW - this is amazing. Where/when did I say that hitting women was acceptable?

NONE of you think that uncle added an interesting element to the story. We are all just so hung up on on scene that we're missing out Uncle was the one who helped Scout reconcile with her father?

I loved that parent/children relationships were tested. I loved that Scout realized her father had been her conscious all these years. Seeing Atticus in a less then perfect light made the book all that much more believable for me. Often times children see parents as sort of a super hero and when that realization is questioned, a huge part our being is affected.

The novel explores growth as a people and as a nation.
Oh but wait - someone was slapped so lets just focus on that and not take away anything from the book. The prose is unapologetic and disturbing; no one has the gall to write like that today.

[Petergiaquinta]

The book is rather poorly written...long speech after long speech, a lot of really turgid prose, no real character development.

Have you read Mockingbird lately? Go take another read and see how a good editor can guide a young writer away from a bloated first effort into something really moving and well done.

If it weren't for the book we know as Mockingbird, there would be nothing to say about this so-called "new" novel. No one would have read it. You would have never heard of Harper Lee. We wouldn't be having this conversation today.

[CS]

M wrote: "WOW - this is amazing. Where/when did I say that hitting women was acceptable? NONE of you think that uncle added an interesting element to the story. We are all just so hung up on on scene...someone was slapped so lets just focus on that and not take away anything from the book. "

When someone says they "love" a character, it's reasonable to assume they admire or relate to that character, or find the character inspiring in some way. The fact that you "love" this character signals that you find this character and his actions acceptable.

No, hitting a woman to bring her into line was not an "interesting" element of the story to me, when Jean Louise's response was to accept this abuse as if she deserved it. This acceptance of violence against women is a flaw in this book.

Besides Finch's abuse of Jean Louise, I was also disturbed by his penny psychoanalysis of her. Finch's psychobabble resembles no accepted psychological theory that I recognize. At best I discern a description of a narcissistic parent-child relationship with codependence on the part of the child. But whatever Finch is saying, it is very distorted, backwards, misconstrued, and misapplied. Finch's psychoanalysis of Jean Louise is extremely questionable.

After he slaps Jean Louise and tells her what's what, Finch basically says that he and Atticus have deliberately induced emotional trauma in Jean Louise as a form of treatment, so that she can be her own person separate from her father. Their actions don't follow any acceptable psychological theory or practice that I know of, in 1954 or now. If Finch was a psychotherapist today, I'd file a complaint and bring him before his licensing board for this so-called "treatment." He's gone way out of bounds.

This book is weak for numerous reasons, not only with regard to Finch's abuse of Jean Louise. Harper Lee was a beginning writer when she drafted GSAW, and she was not yet working with the guidance of a good editor. The ideas and writing in GSAW are immature. I have posted other criticisms of this book upthread and elsewhere on GR.

[Maria]

You sound like a 15 yr old with a dictionary. There is only black and white in the world? If you love a character you've absolutely accepted everything? A character should be judged on his/her capabilities to move the story forward perform the role given to them. Which every character in the book does.

As for your calling bluff on his analysis... hmm if we only followed what was written and didn't explore we would never gro . Had Freud stuck to what was written he'd never discover anything.

Either way to each his own ...I enjoyed to book and refused to be bullied to changing my position.

Enjoy

[Maria]

It's sad that you aren't able to discuss an idea or try and see another angle. Your limiting yourself.

[Petergiaquinta]

Who's bullying? Me or CS? If any of this is "bullying," you've never been bullied, sweetie.

But I'm curious...the gall to write like what? What exactly do you see here that you think is missing in today's writing?

And what exactly do you love here? I've been fairly specific in what I've written, and I can go even more specific if you're up to it, but I don't really have a feel for what exactly you are loving here. Have you read Mockingbird? I don't sense a strong context for your comments, but I'm curious to know what you like about Watchman.

[CS]

M wrote: "You sound like a 15 yr old with a dictionary..."

I will ignore your insult, beyond noting it's inappropriate for this forum.

To cut to the chase, it doesn't matter to me what your opinion of the book is. I didn't expect you to change your mind. People in online discussions rarely do. I am responding to what you have written with opinions of my own. The purpose of this forum is discussion, yes?

M wrote: "A character should be judged on his/her capabilities to move the story forward perform the role given to them. Which every character in the book does. ..."

This is a very broad reason for "loving" a character, but if it's yours...

M wrote: "As for your calling bluff on his analysis... hmm if we only followed what was written and didn't explore we would never gro . Had Freud stuck to what was written he'd never discover anything."

I do criticize Finch for applying his harebrained theories of psychology on Jean Louise. There's a reason why psychotherapists are licensed. A psychotherapist can do damage to someone who is feeling vulnerable. Finch basically says he and Atticus deliberately induced emotional trauma in Jean Louise. That's unacceptable and unethical. Neither Freud nor any thoughtful psychologist would experiment on a patient in this way.

[Petergiaquinta]

Here's the "interesting element" Uncle Jack adds to the story for me...

Watchman at its core is about change and how difficult it is to accept the inevitability of change in our lives. Harper Lee doesn't do a very good job exploring this theme; her treatment of it is rather heavy handed, but there it is. When Scout is coming back on the train, she sees the familiar countryside, but what she finds at home isn't familiar to her any longer. She has changed during her time in Manhattan and she sees Maycomb through a very different lens now.

That change is everywhere and is there as soon as she gets off the train--instead of Atticus waiting for her, it's Hank. Finches Landing has been sold off. The house in town from Scout's childhood has been torn down and replaced by an ice cream stand. The Cunninghams have moved up in the world. Her older brother Jem has died. Atticus is sick and dying himself. Black folks are driving cars. Atticus isn't the father she thought he was. Calpurnia isn't the woman she remembers. The racist at the courthouse fears change. Atticus fears change. The Supreme Court has decided that Alabama is going to have to join the modern world whether it likes it or not. Change is inevitable; it's troubling, and just about every character in Watchman struggles with it.

Including Uncle Jack...but what change troubles him? Why, the governing body of the Methodist Church has had the nerve to change the doxology...shocking!

Uncle Jack is an old windbag who talks as if he walked off the pages of a poorly written Victorian novel. He's a rather comic figure and, with the exception of striking Scout, likeable enough despite his long windedness. But I don't know what there is to love about him.

[CS]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Uncle Jack is an old windbag who talks as if he walked off the pages of a poorly written Victorian novel. He's a rather comic figure and, with the exception of striking Scout, likeable enough despite his long windedness."

I assume you mean Uncle Finch in GSAW. Uncle Jack was in TKAM. Did Uncle Jack spank Scout in TKAM? I don't recall the circumstances.

It gives me a shudder to use the same characters' names from TKAM to GSAW. They are so different. I view TKAM and GSAW as books with different characters that--unfortunately--share the same names.

I like your analysis of the changed world perspective in GSAW. Wanna hear my theory about Uncle Finch?

Harper Lee once said she wanted to be the "Jane Austen of the South." I thought Uncle Finch was her experiment with a satiric character in the Jane Austen style.

Uncle Finch is a parody of an intellectual. Does he discuss any ideas with depth or originality? No. Does he throw out obscure and antiquated references to impress people? Yes. Uncle Finch is as poorly executed as the other characters in GSAW, so his satiric aspect is not that obvious. Also, his character is not consistently satiric, because he whacks Jean Louise to put her in her place. That is disturbing, not amusing as satire is supposed to be.

His nutty psychology could be an attempt at satire: Harper Lee may have met some psychoanalysts in NYC. But again, it's not amusing, it's disturbing, for some self-styled psychologist to provoke emotional trauma in a patient as "treatment."

[Petergiaquinta]

In Mockingbird, Uncle Jack spanks Scout on Christmas Day after she punches Cousin Francis in the mouth. Francis tells Jack that Scout called him a whore lady (untrue), and Jack has told Scout that if she continues to use bad language she will be punished. Scout accepts the punishment without protest because she has promised Atticus to hold her head up and keep her fists down and not fight when her peers antagonize her about the upcoming trial. This is exactly what her cousin has been doing and why she punches him.

Scout would rather take the unjust spanking than let her father know she has let him down.

Later that night she tells Uncle Jack he has been unfair. Atticus, she tells him, always hears her side of the story before punishing her. It becomes one more thread in the rich motif of the novel about not pre-judging.

[CS]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "In Mockingbird, Uncle Jack spanks Scout on Christmas Day after she punches Cousin Francis in the mouth..."

Two plots developed around a punch to the mouth. In GSAW, Jean Louise accepts her uncle's abusive "punishment" passively. Then just as passively she takes a shot of whiskey from him to feel better. Yup, it's really better to forget it all. It's as though JL doesn't know what to do. Which means, of course, that Harper Lee the writer didn't know what to do.

In TKAM, the incident illuminates Scout's loving respect for her father and her need to be good in his eyes. Scout the child--as compared to Jean Louise the adult--stands up for herself with her uncle and lets him know he was wrong. We the readers advance in understanding with her actions, and this is why we love the character of Scout.

In TKAM, the corporal punishment is appropriate for the actors. A child uses her fists to punish another child--she's impulsive. Kids batter each other, and we can understand that. Uncle Jack spanks her. That's appropriate also. None of this business of a man hitting a woman across the face, which is not only physically hurtful but denigrating as well, and then letting the story move on. Harper Lee the writer advanced light years from GSAW to TKAM.

[D.B.]

I enjoyed Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. I can't say the same for Go Set A Watchman.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
(And, yes, I do realize it is not a sequel.)

[Anne]

I think it's a "must read" for 3 reasons: 1) Harper Lee wrote it 2) it features many of the same characters that appeared in To Kill a Mockingbird and 3) it was written in the mid 20th century so provides a contemporary look at racism in the Old South. It's not a look back, it's a look at things as they appeared at the time.

[Michael]

Anne wrote: "I think it's a "must read" for 3 reasons: 1) Harper Lee wrote it 2) it features many of the same characters that appeared in To Kill a Mockingbird and 3) it was written in the mid 20th century so p..."

I agree, plus it's less than 300 pages.

[Jo Carol]

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

"Don't bother. it's really bad. I kept waiting for it to get better