On the Southern Literary Trail discussion
This topic is about
Go Set a Watchman
Group Reads archive
>
Go Set a Watchman, Final Impressions_August 2015
date
newest »
newest »
message 101:
by
Diane, "Miss Scarlett"
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Aug 16, 2015 05:29AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Diane wrote: "My feelings exactly Jane." I so wanted it to be something it could never be , because TKAM was all of that :0 if that makes any sense *laughing*
Mod
My bottom line is that, although it was an unimpressive novel on its own, Watchman added to my understanding and appreciation for TKaM. Without that, I would have probably given it 2 stars.
Really interesting insights and observations, y'all! Let me ask you this - do you think if we, or perhaps the general reading public, would gauge Watchman much differently had it been "discovered" and then published in the mid 60s? In particular, Im curious to how people currently view the character of Atticus and the readers' discussions about what it means to be bigoted or not. Today, he definitely comes across as racist, but would he 50 years ago? We read that Atticus believed "the right to vote must be earned" by way of acquiring an education beforehand and that he believed blacks, because they'd collectively been denied quality education up til then, should not yet vote. "Not yet" being the qualifier here.
I think that Watchman might have been a better book in 1965 (five years after TKAM) even if it had been published precisely as it has been now in 2015. The general population was not as enlightened as it is today, where we often judge racism in binary fashion, a yes/no decision. Atticus, in the 1940s, saying "not yet" probably represented a good hunk of the attitudes of 1960s readers. I am not referring specifically to their thoughts about voting, but more a general feel for race and fairness.
Think about the TV series, "All in the Family," and Archie Bunker. It was wildly popular across the country because everybody knew somebody just like him. The show aired throughout the 70s - 30 years beyond the time frame of Watchman. Racism in the 40s through the 70s was not gauged as yes/no or black/white (forgive the unintended pun), but in shades of gray.
I think Watchman would have been a better book in the 60s because it would have gotten people discussing bigotry, even in our heroes and icons. For us to peruse its pages today is to see the book in a totally different context. We cracked open a time capsule, and we measure its contents with a yard stick that is socially or even anthropologically inappropriate. Today, Atticus would be racist. In 1965, would he be regarded as such by average readers, and how would they debate it?
Watchman, with some polishing, could have been an outstanding book 50 years ago.
Mod
Good question. I believe that the things Atticus said would be less likely to be rejected out of hand if the book had been published back then. I see Atticus as the antithesis to Archie Bunker, the quintessential racist who spouted bigoted BS without bothering to examine what is coming out of his mouth. Atticus, on the other hand, was expressing the very real fears that everything he knew was about to change and that all whites who lived in the South back then must have shared to some extent.
Think of how white South Africans must have felt in the days before Nelson Mandela was elected. They must have thought it inconceivable that blacks could become a major power in government and not seek revenge for all the abuses perpetrated against them. So it was in the pre-Civil Rights Era South.
In hindsight, we now know that much of what people were afraid of never happened. For this reason, it is much easier to read Atticus's statements today and to reject them as racist.
Mod
LeAnne wrote;" Today, Atticus would be racist. In 1965, would he be regarded as such by average readers, and how would they debate it."
At least in my family Atticus would have been seen as racist in 1965. We lived near Detroit at the time of the riots and then in New Jersey when rioting took place in Newark, 15 minutes away. My father worked during them in both cities. I'm glad I grew up with his and my mothers influence and thinking.
We watched All In The Family all the time, and my view was that he was portrayed as stupid because he was such a bigot.
Karen, I was raised right too, but there were people I can recall that had different ideas. The ludicrous, bigoted behavior of Archie Bunker hit home because we all knew somebody like that. He was the classic comic foil, and I think the show's writers intended to show Americans how ridiculous racists were. I wonder if Ms Lee also meant to get a social conversation going, but instead of via comedy, through introspection. Sure, people might attend cocktail parties w people of color, but they were not voting them into their country clubs either.
Anyway, sorry to blather. Ive been having a book discussion w my son & my 15 yr old nephew this weekend, and Harper Lee's motives were on my mind.
LeAnne wrote: "Karen, I was raised right too, but there were people I can recall that had different ideas. The ludicrous, bigoted behavior of Archie Bunker hit home because we all knew somebody like that. He was ..."Oh please blather! :)
All around us we knew racist people, our relatives too. My father always corrected them. Harper Lee was an introspective sensitive person, I'm sure of it. I hope she is somewhat happy now.
Mod
Diane wrote: "Mary, a lot people don't listen, they don't pay attention, and even if they do, they rearrange the facts to suit themselves. Just yesterday, a woman asked me if we had "Watchman" by Ernest Hemingw..." Mind Blown
Mod
On the upside, he never has to worry about what the wife has put on his 'Honey do' list.
Tom wrote: "Mary wrote: "That's a strange attitude. He is missing out on a whole world of wonderful books. "On the upside, he never has to worry about what the wife has put on his 'Honey do' list."
LOL !!! Good one!
Hey! I never write those lists- my husband works hard, I am not going to put him to work on weekends. If I ask nicely, he will do things for me. It also works the other way too.
As for the husband who never reads female authors, I know there's a big batch of females who read nothing but Jodi Picoult, Mary Higgins Clark, Danielle Steele, or Patrica Cornwell books.I shake my head at this, but at least they're reading!
Mary wrote;"I agree.There would be no civil rights movement if everyone was a bigot. White people were in those marches. I bet that there were more white people who weren't bigots than we think or there wouldn't have been any changes."
I think there would have been changes, but the struggle would have been harder. But I think you are right in that there were more white people who were not racist- many were afraid to speak up, depending on where one lived.
Diane wrote: "Mary, a lot people don't listen, they don't pay attention, and even if they do, they rearrange the facts to suit themselves. Just yesterday, a woman asked me if we had "Watchman" by Ernest Hemingw..."Your people are stupid file is probably funny
Great point, Mary! There were some good-at-heart German citizens during WWII who felt uncomfortable speaking up, then later terrified to do so. There are plenty of well intended sheep out there in society and not enough leaders to break from the flock.
Mod
This statement gets to the heart of the ending of Watchmen when Jean Louise decided to stay and her uncle told her that there were more people like her than she knew.
Yes, Tom - I'd already forgotten that he said that! Despite not being a barn-burner as released in 2015, Ms. Lee did a fine job with Watchman. It and our discussion here has provided some great food for thought.
I just finished this last night and it did not take away any of my special feelings for TKAM. If anything it made me very appreciative of a great editor who saw the potential for Harper Lee to write a great book but from a child's view instead of an adult's. I did love the flashbacks in Go Set a Watchman that Jean Louise had of incidents from her childhood ( the baptism and the prom with Hank as her escort). However I think if Ms. Lee had stopped with GSAW the ideas of all people needing to be treated as equals would not have come across as well from Jean Louise as an adult especially in the 1960's. Sometimes being gentle and firm is a more effective way to get a point across than by just bluntly telling people they are wrong and I believe that Atticus and Scout did this very well in To Kill a Mockingbird.
I cant bring myself to read my hard copy of this book. I know this is crazy but I don't want to break the spine. I am waiting my turn for the ebook at the library. will let you know what I think if my turn ever comes. marty
I know I'm late to the party but will add my two cents worth. Full disclosure: I am a Southerner and English major and had never read TKAM or seen the movie. I know, I know. In anticipation of GSAW, I read it. TKAM was a 4-star read for me and I was pleasantly surprised. Next, I read GSAW and I think it was more of a 3 star read to me. Not horrible, just ok. I do believe it adds depth to TKAM and adds layers to it. I think it could've been an excellent novella with some editing here and there but I don't think it is the worst thing ever written. I realize for some people TKAM is a cherished, beloved novel. And I think for some Gregory Peck's performance as Atticus Finch, along with the novel, emblazoned that character as THE example of a moral compass and center. I think GSAW tarnishes that image of perfection which is too much for some readers to swallow. I think Harper Lee's intention here is that often in life we see a person in one light and it is a beacon for us and then when we learn other truths the light dims. GSAW has its flaws for sure but I think it raises interesting questions about race and family and identity. And its nice for the baptismal revival scene and a few others that revisit old characters from TKAM.
Mod
When I was reading GSAW I thought back to reading The Voice at the Back Door by Elizabeth Spencer.
It was a much better book, IMO, than GSAW, and it went nowhere. GSAW wouldn't have gone anywhere either. Both books treat racial issues without any sugar, and both portray their communities in a rather bad light. The reading public wasn't into that.(VATBD actually had black people in it, in that the main black character was portrayed with complexity. Harper Lee, for all her considerable talents, really didn't have any black people in her books. She had paragons or wastrels. The closest she comes is in GSAW when Calpurnia speaks formally to Jean Louise, and Jean Louise cries, in almost mortal fear, "Do you hate us?")
Was Atticus a racist? Of course he was. He was a racist in TKAM. What he does there is try to keep an innocent man from being convicted of a crime he did not commit, when other men are quite willing to convict him, even knowing he's innocent. That's a pretty low bar if that's all you need to do to not be racist. What he doesn't do in TKAM is to even privately muse about what it means for a black man to be tried by a jury of his peers when blacks can't serve on juries.
Racism is to ascribe character to individuals based on their so-called group/racial inheritance/identity. By that simple standard, Atticus was a racist all his days.
Look, Atticus was born and raised in early to mid-century Alabama. How could he not be racist? It was the air he breathed. It was the food he ate. It was the house he lived in. And how could it have been otherwise no matter where he was raised in this country?
People just don't get racism. One thing the sixties did was to take the idea of racism out of mainstream thinking. Suddenly, equality was in, racial inequality was out. But in our country's history before that time, and not just in the South, it was the opposite. It was mainstream to be racist, to consider inequality a simple fact of life. "No offense intended" (though it often was). Lincoln was a racist and he freed the slaves.
What the sixties have done is, when somebody says something that's as plain as the nose on one's face, such as "Atticus Finch, a white man raised in these United States, was a racist," people think you're saying that Atticus Finch is an ignorant, intolerant, known-nothing monster. But while some racists were ignorant, know-nothing monsters, most never were. Most were like Atticus Finch, knowledgable, tolerant in their way, law abiding. If most of the racists in this country had been like Bob Ewell, racism would never have been the enduring problem it's been in this country. It takes the Atticus Finch style of racism to stick here as long as it has.
I'll take the outrage meter up a notch. I am sure that many of the white volunteers in the Mississippi Freedom Summer were racists. How could they not be growing up in this country? That doesn't mean they didn't do brave, good, and even heroic things. What that means is that people are complex, have a mixture of good and bad in them, and that they're from some place and one family and carry that place and family around with them.
When somebody says "racist" I think "human." We live in a fallen world.
But GSAW is not really about race. It's about a woman coming of age, and de-mystifying her father, much to his relief. To do this, GSAW had to show just how "great" Atticus was, for him to have deserved the pedestal Jean Louise put him on. And I'm afraid I just can't judge how good a job GSAW did of that, because TKAM did it so well, so memorably, that you already know all about Atticus Finch and what he was to his children. While GSAW tries to make it's case, I'm thinking, "I already know that."
I didn't think the flashback scenes in GSAW were all that great, because, again, I was comparing them to TKAM. There, the childhood adventures were much more focused in time, which gave them a concentrated power that the flashbacks in GSAW didn't have. In TKAM the childhood adventures were more closely tied to the community, so you learned about the neighbors without being "told" anything. And part of that was Boo Radley, of course. Reading GSAW, I just marveled at what an achievement Lee was able to make with TKAM. It's like a foot hill gave birth to a mountain.
Just love this review and a great analysis of all three books. I also did not like the flashback scenes in GSAW and yes our reading of the somewhat failed novel is tainted by what we already know about the characters
Mod
Mod
I agree wholeheartedly although I would have said to some extent' rather than 'in one form'. My mom is my inspiration in this. She was born to a family that called its black dog Nig and yet, while pregnant with me, defied the authorities in Montgomery during the bus strike and shuttled her maid to and from work. On another occasion when we were talking about interracial dating/marriage she said if I were to give her 30-minutes warning my girlfriend would never know how she felt. My takeaway from these is that, while we can't always control how we feel about something, we can control what we do about it and if the (forgive the tired phrase) do the right thing we will contribute to making the world a better place. I am more colorblind than my parents and my kids are more colorblind than me. I would probably only require 30-seconds warning.
Mod
Diane wrote;"In my opinion, everyone in this world is a racist, in one form or another. The word is not limited to white supremacy over blacks, altho that's what some people outside the south believe. You're a racist if you believe that anyone is a lesser person because of their particular ethnic group. Think hispanic, native americans, muslims, jews, asian, ad infinitum."
Then not everyone is a racist because lot of people don't feel that other ethnic groups are lesser than they are. So no, everyone in the world is not racist.
This book left an awful taste in my mouth. The white supremacist ideology of this book perfectly represented the Southern United States, then and now. The beliefs that black people are lower, and need to be kept in their place, which is always away from good jobs, political offices, good schools, etc... it's all a way of life in the South and people (esp then) felt comfortable sharing those views. For anyone doubting if Atticus was a racist, news flash: That is racism. Systemic as well as individual racism are pointed out in this book.What caught my attention even more was the covert racism expressed by Jean Louise. I'm not sure if that's what Harper Lee intended, but she's a smart lady so I don't think it's a coincidence.
Jean Louise, after coming back from New York, held herself in high regard and she was proud of her somewhat liberal thinking. She didn't consider herself racist at all, but it comes out in conversations. She often agrees that the n****rs are lazy, dirty, etc. and she doesn't want them taking over. But she likes them, and she thinks of herself as colorblind. Hahaha! That claim always drives me nuts. We all see race/color, but what matters is the implicit bias. What do you assume when you see someone of a particular race? Her assumptions are just as racist as everyone else. However, her brand of racism (covert, comes with a smile) is the American standard. It's acceptable. I would love to ask Harper Lee if this is what she wanted the world to see. Sadly, I don't think most people will get it.
My full review is here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1192089667
Nea wrote: "This book left an awful taste in my mouth. The white supremacist ideology of this book perfectly represented the Southern United States, then and now. The beliefs that black people are lower, and n..."You know, I was paying so much attention to how Atticus was going to play out that Jean Louise's comments weren't what I paid most attention to - but yes, her words revealed some things about her character. The thing is, if the book was written in the 50s, was supposed to be set in the 40s, and was entirely unedited - I think the novel was much more authentic than TKAM.
That is not to say that I liked Watchman better (I didn't), but as far as a book portraying how things really are/were, it felt more real. For that accuracy, I gave the book 4 stars. TKAM, to me, has always been a bit of a youngster's hero-worshipping tale where one of the parents is nearly perfect. Yes, it had important messages, and wrapping those in an irresistible coming of age story was genius. Atticus was a fairy godmother and Prince Charming all rolled into one. I loved reading that story, just as novels like Peace Like a River, with another "perfect" father appealed to me.
As for the entire Southern US being racist, covertly or openly, I think that's an awfully broad brush with which to paint millions of men, women, and children. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your comments. Prejudging others without knowing them individually is how I define prejudice.
You ask "what do you assume when you see someone of a particular race?" I see my neighbors, friends, colleagues, restaurant owners, local politicians, merchants, civic leaders, professors, teachers...on and on. New Orleans is 60% black, and while my friends of color can see my white skin, I believe they view me as I do them - as a friend first.
I agree that the idea of Jean Louise being "color blind", was a bit much. Didn't buy it but saw the self-congratulatory different level of thinking that went into it.I disagree that all people are racist, but I do think people in general gravitate to what is familiar which can lead to fear or discomfort with the unfamiliar and that can have unfortunate ramifications.
I almost nominated Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin, but GSAW really wore me out, reading it, seeing the awfulness in print when I would like to think we've gotten away from that. I actually had thought relations had improved and then after Obama was elected, the nastiness went visibly off the chart.
The person in this book who I thought had the best perspective was Calpurnia.
Mod
If you were to define racism as a belief that other races are genetically inferior then I would agree with you. Based on Diane’s definition, though, I can’t agree. Like it or not, we all accept generalizations about groups other than our own. Is that racist thinking? I don’t know. What definitely is racist thinking is to take those group generalizations and apply them to individuals. Who among us hasn’t boarded a plane and looked extra-carefully and the olive-skinned man seated near us? Who has never been nervous when outnumbered by people of another group? Even thinking ‘I don’t like their music’ is to apply generalizations to an entire population which, if the population is defined by race or ethnicity, is racist. These behaviors may not be on a par with cross-burning or discriminating against a job applicant but they are still racist to a degree. I may be overly cynical but I believe I have yet to meet a person who has never considered such ideas.
I have to disagree with the person who says that everyone is racist, and that you don't have to be white to be racist. Racism and prejudice are not one in the same. Racism is backed by a political construct that disempowers one group while giving privilege to the other. So, while everyone clearly has their prejudices, racism is something so much deeper. A white person prejudiced against blacks has systemized racism to give that prejudice power. White people control the media, the government, schools, law enforcement, the financial industry, publishing industry, the top of all the top corporations. So it matters when white people see blacks as inferior, dirty, lazy, stupid, unworthy. Those images end up on our TV screens (controlled by white media), the lies end up in our history textbooks, and robs black people of their humanity.
I could go on and on, but basically I'm saying that it doesn't matter for white Americans if a black (or hispanic, asian, etc..) person is prejudice against you. They can't take white privilege away from you or pollute the masses against you. That's what racism is all about. It's individual prejudice backed with systemic power.
Mod
So without power, one can't be racist?
Mod
I think there are situational or environmental differences (and attitudes) dependent on where you live. Is your neighborhood or school or office or town diverse? In New Orleans, when you walk into the grocery store, the bank, the dry cleaners, or onto the streetcar, etc, white people are the minority. Our mayors, council members, police chiefs, detectives, civic leaders, news anchors, etc have reflected the 60/40 demographic for years. It feels "normal" to me. A tourist (white lady) once commented quietly to me that it must feel like living in Jamaica (!!!!).
We moved here 26 years ago and are glad to be raising our kids here. The rest of the country sounds..anxious.
Leanne, New Orleans and all of Louisiana is a hotbed of racism. It doesn't matter that you see a black face here and there. The organizations are run by white people, in a white system, with laws and biases, and privilege that all cater to white people. That is the reality of this country, and it is inescapable for people of color.
There's a huge movement trying to help (unaware) white Americans to understand why reverse racism does not exist, and to see the major difference in true racism and what you want to look at as "everybody's racism." More importantly, it's all about giving white people a safe space to discuss and acknowledge the ways in which their personal racial bias feeds the huge animal that is systemized racism. It's beyond the scope of this book group discussion, so I'll just say that there are people available for anyone who truly wants the knowledge. For starters, I work with a Facebook group called Whites Against Racism and Inequality. They're on the ground, in every state, taking massive action to create understanding and change. They'd happily welcome you, but only if you're open to overcoming white fragility and possibly facing some difficult realizations. If you only want to hold tightly to what feels comfortable, it's not for you. And that's fine too.
Go Set a Watchman gives us a realistic picture of the flawed thinking that keeps the problem alive, but it just barely touches the surface.
I agree with you Nea, white people need to understand racism by talking with and listening to black people's views, that's the only way to understand racism and have an educated opinion on it.
On the Southern Literary Trail
Books mentioned in this topic
Black Like Me (other topics)Peace Like a River (other topics)
The Voice at the Back Door (other topics)
Mockingbird: A Portrait of Harper Lee (other topics)
Go Set a Watchman (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
John Howard Griffin (other topics)Charles J. Shields (other topics)
