Go Set a Watchman
discussion
Go Set a Watchman: From an Editor's Perspective
CS wrote: "I've been a professional editor/writer for decades, mostly in book publishing, although I've done short stints in magazine and newspaper too. I did fiction and nonfiction early in my career, then m..."
Thoughts....
This is a very interesting post, and you've made some very interesting points. Specifically, ....
I don't know a lot about publishing, past or present. At first blush and knowing Lee's writing from TKAM, I couldn't believe that a woman who grew up writing from a very young age and who was best friends with Capote would take something like this to an editor. But, .... I'm discovering that the editing process if far different than I realized.
My hope...? I hope, while editors might talk things out with authors, make suggestions, catch obvious errors, etc... that the writing is still the authors'. I was reading a book yesterday by a new author and was taken by the wording and the wit. I found myself smiling and thinking he, the author, was really good. My next thought...? Maybe he's not good at all; maybe his editor is really good and wrote some/most of this.
An unexpected consequence, perhaps, at least some of us ... those who see a horrifying difference between the author's craft involved in TKAM and GSAW and hear the key is editing. Is one of my favorite authors Harper Lee or Tay Hohoff? Does this extend to all authors and editors? Perhaps you could answer that.... How heavily are these books edited? Do editors guide, or do they actually do the writing ... or something in between? I've just not considered this before.
I'm especially taken by this....
"In her book Hohoff portrays Elliott as a hero who fought against the odds to better conditions for the poor. She wrote, "No one is the worse for having a hero." I believe Lee knew of her editor's book and was influenced by it. The heroic portrayal of Atticus in Mockingbird finds a counterpart in Hohoff's treatment of Elliott in the biography. In fact, Elliott is a "flat" personality in the biography, the epitome of goodness, a criticism that has been directed against Atticus in Mockingbird."
That's a great point, in my opinion, and I can see that being quite accurate. Additionally, that quote, about having a hero, is so incredibly true. (It's also a bit of wisdom that people today could learn from.) If Lee wrote TKAM to change something, to make a change in her community and/or our country, would she do that through GSAW or TKAM? Would "we" be inspired to think and to change by ridiculously flawed characters, including the angst-filled Jean Louise, or by a heroic character?
Thoughts....
This is a very interesting post, and you've made some very interesting points. Specifically, ....
I don't know a lot about publishing, past or present. At first blush and knowing Lee's writing from TKAM, I couldn't believe that a woman who grew up writing from a very young age and who was best friends with Capote would take something like this to an editor. But, .... I'm discovering that the editing process if far different than I realized.
My hope...? I hope, while editors might talk things out with authors, make suggestions, catch obvious errors, etc... that the writing is still the authors'. I was reading a book yesterday by a new author and was taken by the wording and the wit. I found myself smiling and thinking he, the author, was really good. My next thought...? Maybe he's not good at all; maybe his editor is really good and wrote some/most of this.
An unexpected consequence, perhaps, at least some of us ... those who see a horrifying difference between the author's craft involved in TKAM and GSAW and hear the key is editing. Is one of my favorite authors Harper Lee or Tay Hohoff? Does this extend to all authors and editors? Perhaps you could answer that.... How heavily are these books edited? Do editors guide, or do they actually do the writing ... or something in between? I've just not considered this before.
I'm especially taken by this....
"In her book Hohoff portrays Elliott as a hero who fought against the odds to better conditions for the poor. She wrote, "No one is the worse for having a hero." I believe Lee knew of her editor's book and was influenced by it. The heroic portrayal of Atticus in Mockingbird finds a counterpart in Hohoff's treatment of Elliott in the biography. In fact, Elliott is a "flat" personality in the biography, the epitome of goodness, a criticism that has been directed against Atticus in Mockingbird."
That's a great point, in my opinion, and I can see that being quite accurate. Additionally, that quote, about having a hero, is so incredibly true. (It's also a bit of wisdom that people today could learn from.) If Lee wrote TKAM to change something, to make a change in her community and/or our country, would she do that through GSAW or TKAM? Would "we" be inspired to think and to change by ridiculously flawed characters, including the angst-filled Jean Louise, or by a heroic character?
Shannon wrote: "Is one of my favorite authors Harper Lee or Tay Hohoff? Does this extend to all authors and editors? Perhaps you could answer that.... How heavily are these books edited? Do editors guide, or do they actually do the writing ... or something in between?"After reading Tay Hohoff's books, I believe GSAW and TKAM were written by Harper Lee. (I'm waiting for somebody to bring in Truman Capote now.) Hohoff was a good writer, a competent writer, but she was no stylist like Lee.
The NY Times article about Hohoff includes her description of how she worked with Lee.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/boo...
Editors have different methods, and some will be more directive than others. When I work with writers, I like to stand back, offer feedback and suggestions, and let them do the writing. It's important to me that their voices show up in their writing, not mine. I might change an awkward phrase here and there, but that's all. The purpose of editing is to adjust and improve the writing, not write it yourself. Most of the time I'm giving feedback on the content: does it make sense? how is it organized? is it interesting? what should be taken out? what should be expanded? Is anything important missing? In fiction I also ask, Is it believable?
CS wrote: "When I work with writers, I like to stand back, offer feedback and suggestions, and let them do the writing. It's important to me that their voices show up in their writing, not mine. I might change an awkward phrase here and there, but that's all. The purpose of editing is to adjust and improve the writing, not write it yourself. Most of the time I'm giving feedback on the content: does it make sense? how is it organized? is it interesting? what should be taken out? what should be expanded? Is anything important missing? In fiction I ask, Is it believable? "
This is what I always imagined it to be. Question.... In working with author's, have you see any who made the progress that Lee did over a two year span with the approach you offer? (No, I don't think Capote wrote TKAM. While there are some very vague similarities, they're very different.) I was, though, taken aback by the leap Lee took. Do you think most editors follow your method? When we read books, generally speaking, do you think we're reading the author ... more so than not?
This is what I always imagined it to be. Question.... In working with author's, have you see any who made the progress that Lee did over a two year span with the approach you offer? (No, I don't think Capote wrote TKAM. While there are some very vague similarities, they're very different.) I was, though, taken aback by the leap Lee took. Do you think most editors follow your method? When we read books, generally speaking, do you think we're reading the author ... more so than not?
Shannon wrote: "...have you see any who made the progress that Lee did over a two year span with the approach you offer? ... Do you think most editors follow your method? When we read books, generally speaking, do you think we're reading the author ... more so than not? "I've never known any writer to make the kind of progress that HL made, i.e., from GSAW to TKAM in 2 yrs. But then, I've probably never known any writer with HL's talent. It's important to remember that we can make this assessment because we've been able to view HL's beginning effort. Other talented writers--their equivalent of GSAW has been destroyed or safely stored away from the public. Mercifully so, I might add, for them and for us.
I don't want to speak for "most editors," because I really don't know. I modelled myself after my favorite editor. She made modest changes in my writing, which I took, and I sounded like a better writer! That's really the editor's job, and a writer with that kind of editor isn't going to complain. I think that you're worried about authenticity. Keep in mind that publication is collaborative. A writer can always refuse an editor's changes, and then the publisher can refuse to print the article or book. Fortunately, matters rarely go to the brink like that. Even if the editor has fiddled with sections of the author's writing, the author either likes it or has decided to accept it. When I read fiction or nonfiction, I expect that I'm reading the author's writing, only honed to be better by a good editor.
Funny, NPR reviewer Maureen Corrigan makes a good case that Watchman really was a sequel, and to me, it read like one. There's no introduction of characters, which is sort of an expectation that the reader already knows them. Also, I didn't recognize any passages that were the same as in Mockingbird. Can you cite them?
Kressel wrote: "Funny, NPR reviewer Maureen Corrigan makes a good case that Watchman really was a sequel, and to me, it read like one. There's no introduction of characters, which is sort of an expectation that th..."
The only problem with GSAW as sequel are all of the things that are off.
Hank didn't live across the street from them in TKAM and, due to the ages discussed in GSAW, he would have to have lived across the street. So, that was totally off. Also, in TKAM, Francis was Alexandra's grandson. Very obviously so. There was the whole scene with Francis at Christmas, having been left at Aunt Alexandra's by his father, Henry, who was Alex's son. In GSAW, Francis is listed as her son and there's not mention of a grandson. Then, there are the differences in the Tom Robinson trial. In TKAM, Tom is found guilty and killed. In GSAW, if memory serves, he was acquitted. Though, I have to admit, I hated GSAW with such a burning passion that some things became a blur. I'm pretty sure I remember this accurately, though.
Then, there are minor issues that aren't as glaring as the above. For example, Atticus never called his sister Zandra in TKAM, nor can I imagine him doing so. I think something was off with the timing of Alex coming to live with them; Alex mentioned when she came to live with them in relation to golf and the carpet. I remember the timing was off, but I can't remember why. In TKAM, Aunt Alex and Uncle Jimmy lived at The Landing, and Uncle Jimmy didn't work. When Alex moved in with them, Jimmy stayed behind. In GSAW, Jimmy has a job and The Landing isn't mentioned ... or isn't mentioned in relation to Jimmy and Alex and that having been their home. Then, we have the fact that Zeebo was the dogcatcher and in charge of the music at church in TKAM. In GSAW, he was said to have had sex with everything that moved and had multiple divorces and remarriages. Supposedly, every time he had sex with another woman, Calpurnia made him divorce his wife and marry the new object of his sexual obsession. (Which is an absolute crock.... Yeah. I can see someone thinking multiple divorces, in the 1950's, would have been the right thing to do. Give me a break.) Granted, this is weak. I suppose someone could say these sordid machinations just weren't mentioned in TKAM. Mmmm....
Regardless of the latter points, it can't be a sequel when Hank wasn't living across the street from them during TKAM and he'd have to have been per the ages mentioned. And, ... the whole Francis was the grandson in TKAM but the son in GSAW thing is just ....
It wasn't a sequel.
I think some read GSAW without having read TKAM for many, many years. If Ms. Corrigan hadn't read it recently, she'd have forgotten some of these details.
The only problem with GSAW as sequel are all of the things that are off.
Hank didn't live across the street from them in TKAM and, due to the ages discussed in GSAW, he would have to have lived across the street. So, that was totally off. Also, in TKAM, Francis was Alexandra's grandson. Very obviously so. There was the whole scene with Francis at Christmas, having been left at Aunt Alexandra's by his father, Henry, who was Alex's son. In GSAW, Francis is listed as her son and there's not mention of a grandson. Then, there are the differences in the Tom Robinson trial. In TKAM, Tom is found guilty and killed. In GSAW, if memory serves, he was acquitted. Though, I have to admit, I hated GSAW with such a burning passion that some things became a blur. I'm pretty sure I remember this accurately, though.
Then, there are minor issues that aren't as glaring as the above. For example, Atticus never called his sister Zandra in TKAM, nor can I imagine him doing so. I think something was off with the timing of Alex coming to live with them; Alex mentioned when she came to live with them in relation to golf and the carpet. I remember the timing was off, but I can't remember why. In TKAM, Aunt Alex and Uncle Jimmy lived at The Landing, and Uncle Jimmy didn't work. When Alex moved in with them, Jimmy stayed behind. In GSAW, Jimmy has a job and The Landing isn't mentioned ... or isn't mentioned in relation to Jimmy and Alex and that having been their home. Then, we have the fact that Zeebo was the dogcatcher and in charge of the music at church in TKAM. In GSAW, he was said to have had sex with everything that moved and had multiple divorces and remarriages. Supposedly, every time he had sex with another woman, Calpurnia made him divorce his wife and marry the new object of his sexual obsession. (Which is an absolute crock.... Yeah. I can see someone thinking multiple divorces, in the 1950's, would have been the right thing to do. Give me a break.) Granted, this is weak. I suppose someone could say these sordid machinations just weren't mentioned in TKAM. Mmmm....
Regardless of the latter points, it can't be a sequel when Hank wasn't living across the street from them during TKAM and he'd have to have been per the ages mentioned. And, ... the whole Francis was the grandson in TKAM but the son in GSAW thing is just ....
It wasn't a sequel.
I think some read GSAW without having read TKAM for many, many years. If Ms. Corrigan hadn't read it recently, she'd have forgotten some of these details.
Shannon wrote: "The only problem with GSAW as sequel are all of the things that are off..."Good point about Hank. All the kids on that street would be playing together in TKAM. Winning the trial is made as a passing reference in GSAW, and as I recall, Tom Robinson isn't even named. Somebody pulled that thread out of GSAW, and realized that losing the trial was a better, more poignant story line than winning it. Losing the trial also kept the story going, as we saw in TKAM.
Kressel wrote: "Funny, NPR reviewer Maureen Corrigan makes a good case that Watchman really was a sequel...Actually, Maureen Corrigan of NPR describes Watchman as a "failed sequel." Much of her review summarizes the story line. It really doesn't do much analysis of why she believes Watchman is a sequel as compared to a first draft. Corrigan is entitled to her opinion, of course. (NPR: http://www.npr.org/2015/07/13/4225459... )
She also says:
"There are lots of dead patches in Go Set a Watchman, pages where we get long explanations of, say, the fine points of the Methodist worship service."
This is the kind of exploratory writing one finds in a first draft.
"One could say, as some commentators already have, that Atticus here displays layers of contradictory attitudes about race harbored by whites, no matter how progressive. But, no. This Atticus is different in kind, not just degree: He's like Ahab turned into a whale lover or Holden Caulfield a phony...In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus was his own man; here, he essentially tells Scout you have to go along to get along."
I think Atticus was reconceived in Mockingbird as a more independent, heroic character for the different story line in Mockingbird, and this observation by Corrigan supports that.
If Watchman was really Harper Lee's second book, a sequel to Mockingbird, I would expect more polished writing and far better craft, even in a draft. Lee would have completed a major book. People don't unlearn what they have learned. Also, sequels don't simply drop readers into a different world with major changes in characters people already know. Usually authors try to ground the reader again into that world, since the sequel may be published years after the first book. If Watchman really were a sequel, I would expect it to be more akin to Mockingbird. (From reader reviews on amazon.com, many people were expecting that.) Sequels grow organically from the previous book. If there are major changes in characters, the author explains them, or even better, shows how the characters are growing and changing in believable ways. Readers aren't supposed to construct their own back story to explain the changes--that's the author's job.
This site lists common passages in Watchman and Mockingbird.
http://qz.com/452650/harper-lee-revis...
If you google "passages copied from watchman to mockingbird" there are more.
In my original post (sixth paragraph) I described how Watchman appears to be an early draft, sometimes called a "world-building book." I've also heard it called "the book before the book." My experience in fiction is not extensive, but I've seen enough writing like this to recognize what it is. The last time I critiqued a manuscript like this, it was as a favor to a beginning writer. IIRC, he had been kicking the story around for a year, and he had written down bits and pieces. The manuscript was his first attempt to put his ideas together. He set down a fascinating situation, and sketched out the major characters. His writing style was bright and funny. There was almost no plot. That manuscript showed promise, but he had plenty of distance to cover for a finished work. More experienced novelists will also write a "world-building book," but they recognize it for what it is, an initial phase. They put aside the first manuscript, start over, and keep writing.
CS wrote: "Winning the trial is made as a passing reference in GSAW, and as I recall, Tom Robinson isn't even named. "
I don't believe he's named in GSAW either. However, he's African American and one-armed, one having been destroyed ... though I think the manner of the destruction was different. Not a cotton-gin, as in TKAM. I was actually shocked that he was acquitted; I didn't think that happened back then.
Regarding sequels and in addition, .... Haven't we always known she wrote a book, it wasn't accepted, and she followed it up by writing TKAM? I feel I've known that for a long time. Then, there are the notes taken by the publisher that someone gave links to, maybe even you, CS, but perhaps in a different thread.
I don't believe he's named in GSAW either. However, he's African American and one-armed, one having been destroyed ... though I think the manner of the destruction was different. Not a cotton-gin, as in TKAM. I was actually shocked that he was acquitted; I didn't think that happened back then.
Regarding sequels and in addition, .... Haven't we always known she wrote a book, it wasn't accepted, and she followed it up by writing TKAM? I feel I've known that for a long time. Then, there are the notes taken by the publisher that someone gave links to, maybe even you, CS, but perhaps in a different thread.
Shannon wrote: Regarding sequels and in addition, .... Haven't we always known she wrote a book, it wasn't accepted, and she followed it up by writing TKAM?...Do you mean the opinion piece by Brilliant Books?
http://www.brilliant-books.net/go-set...
I thought that by saying GSAW was "rejected," they meant that no publisher would print it back then, because it was an unpublishable draft. Of course the manuscript sold to Lippincott with the requirement that HL rewrite it under the supervision of an editor. As I mentioned in my first post, I think Lee and her editor picked through GSAW for material that might be worthwhile, then left it behind.
Some people think of GSAW as a separate book in its own right. I don't. I view it as a first draft of TKAM, and part of the work-in-progress that became TKAM.
I did post a link about HL's literary agents in 1950s/1960. Their papers are in Columbia U manuscripts library and show a record of revisions from GSAW to TKAM. Lee changed the title somewhere in the process of revision.
https://blogs.cul.columbia.edu/rbml/2...
CS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Regarding sequels and in addition, .... Haven't we always known she wrote a book, it wasn't accepted, and she followed it up by writing TKAM?...
Do you mean the opinion piece by Bri..."
I have this memory, though I don't remember where it's from, that Lee said she wrote a book, no one would publish it, and she put it in a closet. I've read and watched too many things about Lee and TKAM to remember which and if that's exactly what was said or written. I almost feel like I saw it on a news broadcast or something back at the anniversary; it feels like an auditory memory and not a visual. Having said that, though, I know there have been biographical notes stating, very briefly, that Lee wrote a first novel which.... Wasn't published? Wasn't successful? I can't remember the wording, but I know that's been out there for some time.
Of course, I imagine the people who said or wrote such didn't have all of the backstory, especially since Lee hasn't been the most forthcoming author and given that they might not have understood what happened within the world of publishing/with her publishers.
Do you mean the opinion piece by Bri..."
I have this memory, though I don't remember where it's from, that Lee said she wrote a book, no one would publish it, and she put it in a closet. I've read and watched too many things about Lee and TKAM to remember which and if that's exactly what was said or written. I almost feel like I saw it on a news broadcast or something back at the anniversary; it feels like an auditory memory and not a visual. Having said that, though, I know there have been biographical notes stating, very briefly, that Lee wrote a first novel which.... Wasn't published? Wasn't successful? I can't remember the wording, but I know that's been out there for some time.
Of course, I imagine the people who said or wrote such didn't have all of the backstory, especially since Lee hasn't been the most forthcoming author and given that they might not have understood what happened within the world of publishing/with her publishers.
CS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Regarding sequels and in addition, .... Haven't we always known she wrote a book, it wasn't accepted, and she followed it up by writing TKAM?...
Do you mean the opinion piece by Bri..."
Well, .... Since you asked and have given so much information, I tried to find that in things I've bookmarked, etc.... Thus far, I've not been successful and even considered whether or not I dreamt it.
I'm beginning to wonder if it was in materials put out by the state I was in when I first taught TKAM to 8th graders. It was a bit after the anniversary, and there was an initiative to read the book across the state. That's how I scored free copies ... after a local library finished with their copy's. I'm going to give a link, but I don't think it will be overly helpful, necessarily, because there are so many articles. But, here goes....
http://www.vpr.net/archive_by_tag/ver...
I'll also keep my eyes open and will post here if I remember or find it, assuming I didn't dream it.
Do you mean the opinion piece by Bri..."
Well, .... Since you asked and have given so much information, I tried to find that in things I've bookmarked, etc.... Thus far, I've not been successful and even considered whether or not I dreamt it.
I'm beginning to wonder if it was in materials put out by the state I was in when I first taught TKAM to 8th graders. It was a bit after the anniversary, and there was an initiative to read the book across the state. That's how I scored free copies ... after a local library finished with their copy's. I'm going to give a link, but I don't think it will be overly helpful, necessarily, because there are so many articles. But, here goes....
http://www.vpr.net/archive_by_tag/ver...
I'll also keep my eyes open and will post here if I remember or find it, assuming I didn't dream it.
Speaking of sequels, which have been on my mind because of this topic....This weekend I read Sarah Addison Allen's First Frost, the sequel to her earlier novel, Garden Spells. Allen brings readers back to the same fictional world 10 yrs later, and the place is still recognizable in feeling and tone. The characters have changed and settled in over the years, and Allen shows you how and why. She refers back--accurately--to events in the previous book, and picks up some threads of the earlier story. In the sequel the characters encounter new challenges in their lives, and grow and change some more, in ways that are believable and consistent with who they were in the first book. Two of the main characters, a mother and her teenage daughter, quarrel over what the daughter is doing. The mother tries to reconcile by telling her daughter how she did something similar at the same age, and how she was so hurt by her choices. Allen writes, the daughter looked at her mother "as if seeing her for the first time through adult eyes." Now that's how to write a sequel, and that's how to show a child growing up and seeing her parent as a human being, not a god.
Kressel wrote: "Also, I didn't recognize any passages that were the same as in Mockingbird. Can you cite them?"Here are four:
Watchman's description of Cousin Joshua on page 5 has much in common with what Jem tells Aunt Alexandra about him in Chapter 13 of TKM. Specifically, both passages describe his attempt to kill the president of the University of Alabama whom Cousin Joshua deemed, in GSAW, "little more than a sewage disposal expert" and in TKM, "wasn't anything but a sewer-inspector."
The descriptions of Aunt Alexandra in Chapter 3 of GSAW share a great deal of common ground with her description in TKM Chapter 13. Discussing her corsets, in GSAW page 26 it says, "They drew up her bosom to giddy heights, pinched in her waist, flared out her rear, and managed to suggest that Alexandra's had once been an hourglass figure." That sentence is word for word in TKM with "They" being replaced by "she chose protective garments that..."
Ten lines of description of Aunt Alexandra on page 28 of GSAW can be found word for word in TKM Chapter 13. It begins with "To all parties present and participating in the life of the county...river-boat, boarding school manners...When Aunt Alexandra went to finishing school, self-doubt could not be found in any textbook...advise, caution, and warn." Compare the entire passage in GSAW against the passage in TKM and you'll find it exactly repeated, although there has been additional material worked into the paragraph in TKM.
Much of the history of the Cunninghams can also be found repeated in both GSAW and TKM. Here's a passage from GSAW about the Conningham/Cunningham legal dispute: "After nine hours of listening to the vagaries of Old Sarum's inhabitants, Judge Taylor threw the case out of court on grounds of frivolous pleading and hoped to God the litigants were satisfied by each having his public say. They were. That was all they had wanted in the first place." Compare that to the passage in TKM Chapter 16 and you'll see it repeated nearly word for word with "vagaries" replaced by "eccentricities" and "frivolous pleading" replaced by "champertous connivance," which has a much nicer ring to it, I'd say.
You'll also find great similarities in the recountings of Maycomb County's history--that's at the beginning of Chapter 4 in GSAW and again in TKM's Chapter 13. You'll see a very similar pair of passages there concerning Sinkfield's Tavern, Governor William Wyatt Bibb, and surveyors with "five quarts of shinny in their saddlebags."
And there's more...but that's all I have for you this evening...in each pair of passages, however, I think you'll see that Mockingbird shows growth. Details have been added; language has been smoothed out; the voice has been worked on...all evidence of GSAW being an early, unpolished draft of TKM.
In my original post, I mentioned how I would welcome interim manuscript showing the changes from Watchman to Mockingbird, as long as it didn't arrive as "newly discovered" material from Lee's attorney's magic vault. Guess what.Lee's attorney Tonja Carter had the pages of a "third manuscript," which was found in the famous vault, examined by a rare books expert. As Carter drooled in anticipation, her saliva trailing down the front of her dress to pool at her feet, the expert identified the pages as coming from different early drafts of Mockingbird. Aw. No new book worth millions of dollars to confuse and break the hearts of Mockingbird fans. Not to mention damage to Lee's literary reputation. You can't win 'em all, Tonja.
Just kidding. About the saliva anyway. Read it for yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/bus...
"According to Mr. Jaffe’s report, the two 'Mockingbird' typescripts both contain revisions by the author, and the later one includes notes and questions from her editor, Tay Hohoff."
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/0...
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Kressel wrote: "Also, I didn't recognize any passages that were the same as in Mockingbird. Can you cite them?"Here are four:
Watchman's description of Cousin Joshua on page 5 has much in common..."
Definitely some compelling examples.
Last week I read Charles Shields' biography of Harper Lee, Mockingbird. I'm convinced that Atticus in Watchman was closely modeled after HL's father, AC Lee. HL herself has said that Atticus Finch was not exactly like her father, but like him in character and disposition (if you can figure that out).AC Lee was a conservative state legislator, known for his inflexibility, who focused on finance and morals. In economics he was closer to Hoover, not FDR and the New Deal. His moral stance was based on a strict interpretation of Christian religion. No drinking of alcohol--he was a Prohibitionist.
While in the state legislature ACL voted for a compulsory sterilization law for the institutionalized mentally ill and prisoners. Included in the law's classification were "sexual perverts," including homosexuals. Apparently homosexuals would be precluded from procreation, even if they wanted to have children with heterosexual partners. (I raised my eyebrows about that one.) ACL also criticized the minister of his church when the minister persisted in preaching about racial justice. ACL said the church's responsibility was salvation, not social problems. Or at least that was as much as ACL was willing to give as his reasons. The minister favored federal guidelines for fair employment practices, which ACL detested. The minister was later assigned to another church, after a vote of the church's board.
AC Lee despised the KKK, at least the sheet-wearing kind. I sensed he was offended by their bad manners (seriously). Other KKK organizations, such as the Citizens' Council, sometimes called the KKK in business suits--maybe he would have felt more affinity with them as did Atticus in Watchman.
I bring up ACL's social and political record because so many people say that Atticus in Watchman, modeled on AC Lee, is a typical "product of his time and place." Certainly AC Lee was no progressive. But given his record, I wonder if he might actually be considered a reactionary, even for his time and place.
I admit it, I didn't like AC Lee from what I was reading in Shields' biography. I found him as unlikeable as Atticus in Watchman, which should come as no surprise. He struck me as an insensitive and unempathetic man. I wondered how his children, including HL, felt about his support of compulsory sterilization for the mentally ill. Their mother has been described as bipolar. He also disapproved of HL's departure from law school (his ambition for her) and her desire to become a writer. While HL was in NYC, scraping along with odd jobs, he didn't help her, but waited for her to give up, return home, and prove him right. After the unexpected success of Mockingbird, ACL said that HL's second book had better be very good. Not exactly a helpful remark to a young writer who was struggling with sudden fame and huge expectations for her second novel.
To be fair, AC Lee became a supporter of civil rights in the 1960s after witnessing some cataclysmic events of the civil rights movement. Atticus in Watchman does say he is willing to change his mind about his racist views, and that was true of AC Lee.
The best qualities of Atticus of Mockingbird, his humanity, empathy, and heroism, were not part of AC Lee's personality. They were, however, defining characteristics of John Lovejoy Elliott, the social reformer in NYC who was the subject of Tay Hohoff's biography A Ministry to Man. I would expect that HL read her editor's book, and talked about it with her. Atticus in Mockingbird bears a superficial resemblance to AC Lee, but I think his spirit owes a great deal to John Lovejoy Elliott.
Hohoff and her family knew Elliott personally. When her father died unexpectedly, while Hohoff was still a girl, Elliott found a job for her mother at his social service center so the family could get back on its feet financially. His life's work was to set up a social services and community center for the poor and newly arrived immigrants in NYC in the 1920s and 1930s. Elliott was also known for his ability to relate to and inspire children. At the end of his life, Elliott traveled to Germany because two of his friends had been detained by the Nazis. He persuaded the Nazis to release his friends, and arranged for their emigration to America. One can see why Hohoff saw him as a hero, and admired heroes.
According to Shields' biography, HL has said that Atticus Finch was very much like her father in character and disposition, but not exactly. How "not exactly"? I suspect that answer lies with Tay Hohoff's influence, and her book about a hero.
CS wrote: "While in the state legislature ACL voted for a compulsory sterilization law for the institutionalized mentally ill and prisoners. Included in the law's classification were "sexual perverts," including homosexuals. Apparently homosexuals would be precluded from procreation, even if they wanted to have children with heterosexual partners. "
Careful with this. (I've not read your whole post, but I wanted to discuss this at the outset.)
It was actually the progressives who "championed" eugenics. Big time. The progressives.... Many movers and shakers during the Progressive Era, like Teddy Roosevelt, were proponents of eugenics.
Given my home state and the fact that I have some American Indian heritage, this is a topic that's important to me. The University of Vermont, in my home state, has a great site with lots of information.
http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/
Eugenics started with and was perpetuated by progressives, including scientists, the elite, and the educated.
Careful with this. (I've not read your whole post, but I wanted to discuss this at the outset.)
It was actually the progressives who "championed" eugenics. Big time. The progressives.... Many movers and shakers during the Progressive Era, like Teddy Roosevelt, were proponents of eugenics.
Given my home state and the fact that I have some American Indian heritage, this is a topic that's important to me. The University of Vermont, in my home state, has a great site with lots of information.
http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/
Eugenics started with and was perpetuated by progressives, including scientists, the elite, and the educated.
Shannon wrote: "It was actually the progressives who "championed" eugenics..."Thanks for the info. Yes, it appears that eugenics officially was supposed to better humankind, but ended up as a tool for racism and discrimination against the poor.
An excerpt re: AC Lee's support of involuntary sterilization in Shields' biography of HL (page 67). ACL was a state legislator from 1927-1937.
...concerning sexuality and the law, [AC Lee] drew on the teachings of the Bible, as he interpreted them, to give him guidance. In 1935, he voted in favor of a 'therapeutic sterilization law,' or compulsory sterilization, affording due-process safeguards for 'those suffering from perversions, constitutional psychopathic personalities or marked departures from normal mentality.' This category included any inmate of a penal institution or insane asylum whose 'physical, mental or moral condition' would be improved, such as 'sexual pervert, Sadist, homosexualist, Masochist, Sodomist, or any other grave form of sexual perversion.'
Some confusion here about which version of the law ACL voted for. The original bill in 1935, which passed the state legislature, was struck down as unconstitutional by the state supreme court because patients could not appeal the orders. There is mention of a revised bill that passed the legislature, taking into account the supreme court's decision. That second bill was vetoed by the governor and went nowhere. I'm guessing that ACL voted for the second bill, but it also could have been the first. But really, when I think about it, any due process protections for inmates would be questionable unless the inmates had independent legal counsel. These people would have had great difficulty in a penal or mental institution proceeding if they didn't have independent legal counsel.
Eugenics in Alabama: http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/...
Shannon wrote: "A somewhat interesting article...."I view GSAW and TKAM as two different stories, with different characters to match each story. In GSAW, an early draft, Lee was feeling her way to the story she wanted to tell. But people will argue this question up and down forever.
CS wrote: "Shannon wrote: "It was actually the progressives who "championed" eugenics..."
Thanks for the info. Yes, it appears that eugenics officially was supposed to better humankind, but ended up as a too..."
Personally, I think it started as an evil, targeting those of color, the poor, and women. The progressives knew what they were doing, as far as I'm concerned. I can't and won't cut them any breaks. It was their baby for years and years and practiced in areas, like Vermont, with very few, for example, African Americans. In Vermont, progressives used it against the poor, women, and some with American Indian heritage ... hence the fact that so many American Indians in my area intermarried and never spoke of their ancestry or people again. It was a way to save themselves.
The progressives ... many scientists and the elite of the country ... wanted an America created in their image. They wanted that and actively worked to achieve that for decades.
Further, progressives today, to my knowledge, do nothing to acknowledge this very dark and disgusting reality.
Thanks for the info. Yes, it appears that eugenics officially was supposed to better humankind, but ended up as a too..."
Personally, I think it started as an evil, targeting those of color, the poor, and women. The progressives knew what they were doing, as far as I'm concerned. I can't and won't cut them any breaks. It was their baby for years and years and practiced in areas, like Vermont, with very few, for example, African Americans. In Vermont, progressives used it against the poor, women, and some with American Indian heritage ... hence the fact that so many American Indians in my area intermarried and never spoke of their ancestry or people again. It was a way to save themselves.
The progressives ... many scientists and the elite of the country ... wanted an America created in their image. They wanted that and actively worked to achieve that for decades.
Further, progressives today, to my knowledge, do nothing to acknowledge this very dark and disgusting reality.
CS wrote: "Shannon wrote: "A somewhat interesting article...."
I view GSAW and TKAM as two different stories, with different characters to match each story. In GSAW, an early draft, Lee was feeling her way t..."
I'll have to re-read the article. I didn't know it was arguing that point. I thought it somewhat interesting regarding the information on Lee's father, etc....
I view GSAW and TKAM as two different stories, with different characters to match each story. In GSAW, an early draft, Lee was feeling her way t..."
I'll have to re-read the article. I didn't know it was arguing that point. I thought it somewhat interesting regarding the information on Lee's father, etc....
Shannon wrote: Personally, I think it started as an evil, targeting those of color, the poor, and women. The progressives knew what they were doing, as far as I'm concerned... I appreciate what you're saying. There's a seriously wrong conception in eugenics about what is ideal or perfect for human beings. Someone once said that any "-ism", such as racism, sexism, age-ism, relies on the belief that one group is inherently better than another. That was the engine that drove eugenics, wasn't it?
Shannon wrote: "I'll have to re-read the article. I didn't know it was arguing that point. I thought it somewhat interesting regarding the information on Lee's father, etc...."
The article may have been picking up on the Shields' biography of HL. The biography says AC Lee was the model for Atticus in TKAM. I believe he was also, but only to a limited degree. There are characteristics of Atticus in TKAM--positive qualities--that did not exist in AC Lee.
Considering HL was uncooperative, Shields did a decent job on the bio. I do think, though, he tried to stretch material in TKAM as "autobiographical," including a portrait of AC Lee that is simply too liberal, and at odds with the facts Shields gives in the bio. Some material in the bio may undergo revision, now that GSAW is here. I believe the Atticus in GSAW is very close to the personality of AC Lee. But I think Atticus in TKAM is more a composite personality, due to editor Tay Hohoff's influence.
BTW, did you notice the date of the NYT article? Three days before the release of GSAW. All those interviewees had not yet read the book. :-)) Not a problem. One can always talk if another is listening. :-)) I disagree with the article, but I also recognize it was written before GSAW was available and people could make an informed opinion.
CS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Personally, I think it started as an evil, targeting those of color, the poor, and women. The progressives knew what they were doing, as far as I'm concerned...
I appreciate what y..."
Some unnamed "isms" were also at play in eugenics. Maybe it was one unnamed "ism" ... which was the idea that many weren't smart enough to breed, frankly. The progressives didn't want people who lacked their intellect to reproduce. Mmmm....
No, I didn't notice the date. I do know the first chapter was available days before the release and that many within the literary world and journalism put fingers to keyboards to express their thoughts regarding Atticus "turning into" a racist. Many, many articles were written after the first chapter and before the release.
I appreciate what y..."
Some unnamed "isms" were also at play in eugenics. Maybe it was one unnamed "ism" ... which was the idea that many weren't smart enough to breed, frankly. The progressives didn't want people who lacked their intellect to reproduce. Mmmm....
No, I didn't notice the date. I do know the first chapter was available days before the release and that many within the literary world and journalism put fingers to keyboards to express their thoughts regarding Atticus "turning into" a racist. Many, many articles were written after the first chapter and before the release.
CS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Personally, I think it started as an evil, targeting those of color, the poor, and women. The progressives knew what they were doing, as far as I'm concerned...
I appreciate what y..."
I just looked back at the article. Regardless of the date, the writer clearly had a copy of GSAW. For example, the NYTimes article states, "In “Watchman,” which comes out Tuesday, Atticus chides Scout for her idealistic views about racial equality: “The Negroes down here are still in their childhood as a people.”'
If my memory serves, that wasn't in the first chapter.
I appreciate what y..."
I just looked back at the article. Regardless of the date, the writer clearly had a copy of GSAW. For example, the NYTimes article states, "In “Watchman,” which comes out Tuesday, Atticus chides Scout for her idealistic views about racial equality: “The Negroes down here are still in their childhood as a people.”'
If my memory serves, that wasn't in the first chapter.
Shannon wrote: "Regardless of the date, the writer clearly had a copy of GSAW..."Yes, you're right. The showdown scene between Atticus and Jean Louise occurred at the end of the book. Now that I think of it, the NY Times reviewed GSAW on July 10, also before the release date, so they had at least one copy. The publisher HarperCollins severely restricted advance review copies to a select few, so I guess the NYT made the cut. The interviewees in the article hadn't read the book, though, so they were just speculating.
BTW, after reading the Shields' biography, I'm certain that HL knew of her father's segregationist and racist views all her life. The story line in GSAW, where Jean Louise comes home to visit and discovers that her adored father is racist (horrors!)--that was contrived for GSAW. The book doesn't have much plot otherwise.
If Go Set A Watchman was the first draft then there is certainly hope for me yet to become an award winning Pulitzer Prize novelist. I’ll look at Pauline’s Perils of Perplexity as my practice novella. My novella was easily self-published through Amazon’s Create Space and never had to go through the rigors and rewriting that Ms. Lee’s novel did which I believed turned it into an enduring American classic! There is certainly worth in the old ways of publishing with editors and publishers holding the final say.
CS wrote: "BTW, after reading the Shields' biography, I'm certain that HL knew of her father's segregationist and racist views all her life. The story line in GSAW, where Jean Louise comes home to visit and discovers that her adored father is racist (horrors!)--that was contrived for GSAW. The book doesn't have much plot otherwise. "
Agreed!
Agreed!
CS wrote: "I've been a professional editor/writer for decades, mostly in book publishing, although I've done short stints in magazine and newspaper too. I did fiction and nonfiction early in my career, then m..."When I heard Harper Lee had written another novel, I found myself going through a number of emotions. First I was incredibly excited that she had written another book. Then surprised because she said she never wanted to write another one. I lined up before the book store opened and purchased the first copy. I put away everything from my TBR pile and started reading the book. That's when I became disappointed. I couldn't believe how bad it was. It became acutely obvious to me that the book was a first draft and, since first drafts are always crap, she would never have wanted it published. So her lawyer and the publisher must have pressured her or lied to her to sign over the rights so they could make money. That's a pretty contemptuous thing to do to someone. The book isn't finished as a novel and should never have been published.
CS wrote: "I've been a professional editor/writer for decades, mostly in book publishing, although I've done short stints in magazine and newspaper too. I did fiction and nonfiction early in my career, then m..."CS, I've been writing screenplays for about 15 years and have been a part of various writing groups for most of that time. I've written seven screenplays, the result of draft after draft after draft. In 15 years, I went from one terrible final draft of my first screenplay to a barely decent final draft of my 7th screenplay. I do know how hard it is to write. I do read and read and read. There is absolutely NO WAY that Harper Lee could have taken Watchman to Mockingbird. Impossible. She didn't. I just read Capote's early "The Grass Harp." That's all I will say.
To anyone who voted "Watchman" as best fiction of the year, I think you were voting for Lee, or for "Mockingbird". Because "Watchman", on any level, is absolutely terrible. To me, it's the worst "book" of the 20th century.
I have to agree with Greg above. Go Set a Watchman had flashes of what was to come with To Kill a Mockingbird, but it was far from the best fiction of the year!
L.S. wrote: "I have to agree with Greg above. Go Set a Watchman had flashes of what was to come with To Kill a Mockingbird, but it was far from the best fiction of the year!"L.S., it really bothers me that the "Watchman" publishers pulled one over on a lot of people, and the money keeps rolling in for them. It's so difficult to get anything published, no doubt there are some great authors out there with unpublished work.
Well, Greg, this "great author", I hope, easily self-published through Amazon Create Space, and didn't look for a publisher. No money paid up front. Amazon takes a percentage off each book sold, and if you know something about formatting, and technology it was easily done.
Greg wrote: "To anyone who voted "Watchman" as best fiction of the year, I think you were voting for Lee, or for "Mockingbird". Because "Watchman", on any level, is absolutely terrible. To me, it's the worst "b..."That Goodreads poll is nonsense.
Go look at the facts. The avg GR rating is 3.34.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
That's even lower than the avg Amazon rating of 3.4.
http://www.amazon.com/Go-Set-Watchman...
The total readership of this book, according to the avg ratings by thousands of people on GR and Amazon, are assigning this book to mediocrity at best.
The publisher will use the GR poll to promote the book and cheat more readers with an inferior book by a famous author.
Greg wrote: "...There is absolutely NO WAY that Harper Lee could have taken Watchman to Mockingbird..."I understand what you're saying. I've been curious myself about HL's development from Watchman to Mockingbird in 2 years. I'm still giving HL the benefit of the doubt. I believe she hit a vein of genius in herself when she wrote Mockingbird, and (unfortunately) she never found it again afterwards. I also believe she received important help and feedback from her editor, Tay Hohoff, and possibly others.
I've been thinking of first-time authors who hit it big on their first novel--who wrote a critically acclaimed, even classic first novel--and the lag time from their first serious writing to the hit. The only person I've found with as short a lag time as HL is Amy Tan of Joy Luck Club. AT wrote a short story for a writing class in 1986, and her teacher was sharp enough to see the individual stories of JLC in it. The piece hung around for 2 yrs. In 1988 AT got an advance and wrote the book. She says that it took her 6 mos from start to finish. Some differences with HL: AT has written numerous quality novels since, and has a body of work. AT was also a successful professional writer, a business writer, before she turned to fiction. So she was in the words business before her fiction career. I think the experience of grinding out the material as a professional writer helped her make the transition.
Anybody know of other first-time authors who can compare with HL and Mockingbird?
How about Ken Kesey with One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest? He might have had a tad more formal training as a writer than Lee, but not a lot more, and he burst onto the scene right about two years after Lee with his own amazing first novel that is still being read today by great numbers of readers around the world.There are some interesting parallels between the two. Lee and Kesey make for an odd couple, but both are purely original American products who wrote novels essential to American society which helped galvanize change in our country. Both books were turned into excellent movies with charismatic leading men. And both books have birds in the title, lololo...
Both authors' careers rapidly disappeared following that amazing first book. Kesey had a second great novel, something sadly Lee never produced, but after their initial successes, both authors followed very personal agendas and pretty much turned their backs on the publishing industry, living rather private lives despite their earlier celebrity as authors.
You could also point to J.D. Salinger and Catcher in the Rye, but Salinger took a little longer than Lee or Kesey to craft it from those earlier Holden stories to the finished final product. If Lee and Kesey take about two years, Salinger is closer to five. But still, there's another author whose first book explodes on the scene, who can't replicate the same success, maybe isn't even interested in repeating it, and then pretty much removes himself from public life...
L.S. wrote: "Well, Greg, this "great author", I hope, easily self-published through Amazon Create Space, and didn't look for a publisher. No money paid up front. Amazon takes a percentage off each book sold, an..."L.S., I know nothing about Amazon Create but will check it out. What is the name of your book? And, absolutely, without even reading your book, I know it will be better than GSAW.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "How about Ken Kesey with One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest? He might have had a tad more formal training as a writer than Lee, but not a lot more, and he burst onto the scene right about two years af..."Peter, great post! Numerous one-hit wonders for sure. Do you feel perhaps any of these, or others, were published under psuedonyms?
CS wrote: "Greg wrote: "...There is absolutely NO WAY that Harper Lee could have taken Watchman to Mockingbird..."I understand what you're saying. I've been curious myself about HL's development from Watchm..."
CS, Peter, great discussion about this "one-hit" issue. Why not stop with a bestseller that really is a great book and that has indeed been sold to Hollywood for seven figures with backend %? Writing is very, very hard. Truly great writing? That's a gift, a genius. Capote's first, Summer Crossing, was published posthumously as I'm sure both of you know, and I think it's astounding he was 20 y/o at the time. It's not a great book, but it's pretty darn good. (As I side note, I've now read four of his first five. All before the age of 25, all good. Lee was very lucky to be in his orbit. Or is it the other way around? How much of "In Cold Blood" did she write?)
CS wrote: "Greg wrote: "...There is absolutely NO WAY that Harper Lee could have taken Watchman to Mockingbird..."I understand what you're saying. I've been curious myself about HL's development from Watchm..."
First time authors comparable to Lee/Mockingbird? How about Chad Harbach/The Art of Fielding? (But I know he is the coeditor of n+1, but only because it says so on a marketing/promotional proof I have.) IMHO, Fielding is the best fiction of the century so far.
Greg wrote: "First time authors comparable to Lee/Mockingbird? How about Chad Harbach/The Art of Fielding? "That's a book I haven't read yet. When it first came out, I heard some glowing responses, but over the past couple of years it seems like folks have cooled toward it. I'm not a baseball fan, so maybe that's why I haven't read it yet, but I am a Melville fan, and that's part of why I'm still drawn to the idea of reading it.
However, reviews like this one from the Atlantic have also served to keep me from going out and getting it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a...
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Greg wrote: "First time authors comparable to Lee/Mockingbird? How about Chad Harbach/The Art of Fielding? "That's a book I haven't read yet. When it first came out, I heard some glowing response..."
Peter, thanks for the link. I understand that review. I read "Fielding" knowing absolutely nothing. It was recommended to me. I just opened it up and started reading, I didn't even make the fielding/baseball connection till I started. I expected absolutely nothing, and was blown away by the humor, the fantastic sports story (it's resolution, believe me, is one for the ages), and I totally bought in to the overall weirdness, and it does get weird. If someone had told me about the final few chapters, I would never have picked it up. So that's why I don't read reviews or book jacket blurbs if I know I'm going to read something. And the same person who recommended "Fielding" also recommended "A Little Life", and again I went in, knowing nothing. Stupendous! So for me "Little Life" ranks as a close second to "Fielding" as best of the century. (Hey, you and I both know lists are silly, and "best" is subjective, but still fun, and isn't that why we read and why we are here, to have fun?) And worst of the 20th and 21st century? So easy: "Watchman"
Greg wrote: "How much of "In Cold Blood" did she write?..."HL's notes for In Cold Blood are included in Truman Capote's papers (NYPL and LOC). This doctoral dissertation has analyzed HL's work in ICB. The dissertation has restricted access, but if you really want to know, you could ask for permission to view it. An informative abstract:
https://dspace.iup.edu/handle/2069/757
Petergiaquinta wrote: "How about Ken Kesey with One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest? He might have had a tad more formal training as a writer than Lee..."Another first-time one-hit wonder is Ralph Ellison of Invisible Man. His lag time from start to finish was about 6 years. I regard Invisible Man as another great American novel.
I can imagine that writing a great book like Mockingbird, Cuckoo's Nest or Invisible Man could take it out of an author. A patron of the arts once told me that he knew of artists, both in the visual arts and writing, who pursued their art intensively for some years with success, then drifted away. When he asked them why they were no longer painting or writing or whatever, they often replied, "I have nothing more to say."
I am surprised at how strongly some writers feel that Go Set a Watchman is not worthy of reading. Paul Theroux's comment in the New York Times Book Review was especially eye opening to me. I am not a writer, but have loved reading since I first recognized that I was doing it. I don't read widely so I cannot say I am a well versed reader. My favorite authors include Marilynne Robinson, Barbara Pym, and Van Reid just to give you an idea of the types of books I love. I reread To Kill a Mockingbird before reading Go Set a Watchman, and enjoyed it as I did when I first read it as a high school student. Go Set a Watchman was very different. It had a great number of allusions that I did not fully understand. Something in the tone made it read very much like a novel of the fifties it is. But I enjoyed it. It did not diminish my appreciation for Harper Lee as I was afraid it would. I just don't see why anyone would want to keep it in a drawer, or feel the need to say that he groaned when he started reading. It was published as an opportunity for readers to see the first novel of a beloved author. I was happy for that opportunity.
Mary wrote: "I am surprised at how strongly some writers feel that Go Set a Watchman is not worthy of reading. Paul Theroux's comment in the New York Times Book Review was especially eye opening to me..."I recognize that people read books for different reasons, with different takeaways.
For others here, Paul Theroux was interviewed in the NY Times Sunday Book Review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/boo...
This was the Q & A.
Q: Disappointing, overrated, just not good: What book did you feel you were supposed to like, and didn’t? Do you remember the last book you put down without finishing?
A: I read the first chapter of “Go Set a Watchman” and thought, “Good God, no.”
I surmise that Theroux, like others here, recognized GSAW as a first draft by a beginning writer that fell below the usual publishing standards for literary fiction.
CS wrote: "Mary wrote: "I am surprised at how strongly some writers feel that Go Set a Watchman is not worthy of reading. Paul Theroux's comment in the New York Times Book Review was especially eye opening to..."CS, thanks for the link. I, too, recently laughed (numerous times, like Theroux) while reading Naipaul's "A House for Mr. Biswas" for the first time, and just this past October. And, in this same October, I read Capote's first work: (published posthumously) "Summer Crossing" as well as his first published work: "Other Voices, Other Rooms". And, in that same month, I read a total of seventeen books also including "Silas Marner", Burrough's "Junky" Ginsberg's "Howl", Ian Fleming's "Thunderball", Jo Nesbo's "The Redbreast" and...well, you guessed it, "Go Set A Watchman." And, in-progress this past October, I was reading Joyce's "Ulysses", two translations of Proust's "Swann's Way", and "War and Peace." Just to put my opinion of "Watchman" into context. So, from a reader who reads a little of everything, I'd like to say that even "Twilight" was a far better book than...well, you guessed right again.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Go Set a Watchman (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Salinger (other topics)Go Set a Watchman (other topics)
I've given a lot of thought to Go Set A Watchman since its publication. I can't recall another instance like this: the major release of a commercial novel that is the first draft of an already published book. Not just any book either, a classic that many people have read. I'm all for the prosperity of trade publishing, but to publish and market something like this? Sometimes I feel outraged about the publication of this book. Other times it just boggles my mind.
The comments here and the reader reviews on amazon.com remind me how editing and developing a book is largely an invisible process. People pick up the finished book or download it on Kindle, and start reading. They don't have to think about it (and they shouldn't have to think about it). Then something like Watchman comes along, the first manuscript that Harper Lee wrote when she was a beginner, working by herself, and it becomes clear what responsible editors and publishers do before they release books to the public.
Harper Lee sold Watchman to the publisher Lippincott in 1957. I nickname those days (well before my time) the "tweed suit" days of publishing. Publishers bought raw manuscripts and nurtured writers with advice and support from their editorial staff. (Things are different now, but I won't go into that.) IMO, Watchman fails as a novel. It is unpublishable. After I read it, I wrote these notes to myself: "Lyrical and captivating voice (not yet honed to perfection); a sharp writer's eye on the world; a lack of craft; immature ideas." IOW, the young writer was promising, but a publishable book had yet to be written. I think Lippincott really bought Lee the writer, not Watchman the manuscript, when they signed a contract. The publisher wanted this promising writer to come up with a book for them (and did she ever).
The records of Lee's literary agents are stored at the Columbia U. manuscripts library. Some of the records have been copied and posted online. (Link: https://blogs.cul.columbia.edu/rbml/2... ) They show that Lee began with Watchman, sold the manuscript, and without a break, continued to revise and rewrite the manuscript over 2 years. Eventually she changed the name of the manuscript from Go Set A Watchman to To Kill A Mockingbird. You can infer what you like from the records. It looks to me that Watchman was the first draft of what later became Mockingbird. I think Lee and her editor went through Watchman for ideas and salvageable parts, then left the manuscript behind. Readers have noticed passages lifted from Watchman into Mockingbird; others have commented on the discrepancies with the trial outcome. Lee was treating Watchman as a discarded first draft, which needed no more updating or polish to finish.
When I read Watchman, I made note of these things: long descriptive passages; places where the author tells instead of shows; a thin story line; undeveloped characters; uneven quality in the writing. These are all characteristic of an early work where the author is attempting to crystallize fictional characters and their world in her head. This type of manuscript is common enough that some editors and writers have a term for it: "a world-building book." This kind of book is written for the benefit of the author, and not published or offered as part of the writer's artistic legacy. One writer said to me, "You put that book in a drawer, and you forget about it." That's what Lee did, until her attorney unearthed the manuscript from the vault and saw dollar signs all over it.
The most bothersome aspect of this publication, IMO, is that the vast majority of readers do not realize that Watchman is the first draft of Mockingbird. They understandably read Watchman as a sequel, in chronological order of story. When read in this way, Watchman and Mockingbird combine as a tragedy: Atticus the hero is sullied and brought down; racism is excused and left unaddressed; violence against women is tolerated. Watchman is a downer when read as a sequel to Mockingbird, and some readers take it as the "truth" about Mockingbird all along. In fact, the truth is that Atticus in Watchman evolved into Atticus in Mockingbird as Lee matured as a writer and a person. Lee revised and rewrote her novel for 2 years. Without doubt she thought long and hard about how she wanted to tell a story about racism, and what kind of characters should inhabit her story. Yet because of its 1950s setting, Watchman has become for many readers the conclusion to Mockingbird, which is set in the 1930s. IOW, Lee's first draft--despite its inconsistencies--has upended the final version of her story, for which she spent so much time and energy in developing. I doubt if Lee ever intended this to happen.
The differences between Watchman and Mockingbird are stark, not only in story and characters, but also in spirit and tone. Where did the changes come from? That question sent me looking for possible influences on Harper Lee when she was writing Mockingbird, and from there it was a short distance to her editor, Tay Hohoff. Ms Hohoff was a Quaker who wrote a biography of John Lovejoy Elliott, a social reformer in NY in the 1920s and 1930s. In her book Hohoff portrays Elliott as a hero who fought against the odds to better conditions for the poor. She wrote, "No one is the worse for having a hero." I believe Lee knew of her editor's book and was influenced by it. The heroic portrayal of Atticus in Mockingbird finds a counterpart in Hohoff's treatment of Elliott in the biography. In fact, Elliott is a "flat" personality in the biography, the epitome of goodness, a criticism that has been directed against Atticus in Mockingbird.
I also think Hohoff's Quaker background and her beliefs were an important factor in the development of Mockingbird. (I won't discuss Quaker religion here, but you can read a summary on this site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religio... )
On its own, Watchman is a dark book of disillusion, distrust, and alienation. Where is love, optimism, or reason to hope? Where are the good people in this book? That may have been a question that Hohoff asked of Harper Lee in their ongoing critiques of the manuscript revisions. On amazon.com reviews, some Southerners have asked the same question. They lived in the South in the 1950s/1960s and say that while many people were racist, others felt the time had come for greater justice and equality for Afro-Americans. The progressive people are missing in Watchman, but they are present in Mockingbird as Atticus, Judge Taylor, Miss Maudie, and Dolphus Randolph.
After reading Hohoff's biography of Elliott, and also her other book, a memoir, I believe Hohoff brought a Northern sensibility, a humanist perspective, a reformist bent, and the heroic prototype for Atticus to the development of Mockingbird. Warmth, also--she wrote heart-warming stories in her memoir. Watchman is a dark book, but Mockingbird contains humanism and light despite its grim backdrop of racism and the unnecessary death of a black man. I think that aspect of Mockingbird came from the influence of Tay Hohoff. The NY Times wrote an article about Hohoff before the publication of Watchman, and mentioned that she was not the type of editor to manhandle writers to agree with her views. I believe that's true. I also believe that Harper Lee was an unsure novice when she worked with Hohoff: she wanted to be published, and she listened very carefully to her editor's suggestions.
My thoughts about how Watchman was transformed into Mockingbird only scratch the surface of this question. Literary scholars and others will wrestle with this subject in the coming years, and I look forward to what they have to say. If a book is ever written to analyze the development of Watchman to Mockingbird, I'll be the first in line to pre-order on Amazon. Personally, I doubt the source material exists. It would have to be the interim manuscripts from Watchman to Mockingbird, written all over with Lee's and her editor's notes, or perhaps back-and-forth memos between Lee and Hohoff. That kind of thing is thrown away once it's used up. But who knows? As long as it doesn't arrive as "newly discovered" material from Lee's attorney's magic vault, with questions of authenticity attached to it, I would welcome the material for greater insight into the development of Mockingbird.
I've put down a lot of ideas to mull over here. Your thoughts about any of this?