Go Set a Watchman
discussion
The Unmaking of Saint Atticus
date
newest »
newest »
There's a lot being made of the fact that Watchman was the first novel attempt, and Mockingbird was the inspired result of an editor's suggestion when Watchman was set aside. I still scratch my head over the "rewrite" or "early draft" charges, given the two are so different (outside of many quoted bits that were lifted and transferred, mostly concerning setting and peripheral characters.) I'm sorry I can't think of a readier parallel example, but we might as well call LOTR a rewrite of Silmarillion in that case.Sure Mockingbird reuses portions of it, but it isn't difficult at all to read Watchman as a sequel and take away the lesson Scout absorbs about child's perception vs adult's. I find that to be an entirely legitimate reading, no matter Watchman's origins, or that it is weaker structurally and not a classic-to-be.
C.E. wrote: "...we might as well call LOTR a rewrite of Silmarillion in that case."The comparison is apt. I think Silmarillion is the "world-building book" of material that Tolkien wrote prior to Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was setting up his fictional world in his head. The Wikipedia article on the Silmarillion notes that it is not entirely consistent with Lord of the Rings (neither is GSAW with TKAM). That makes sense, because it is a type of first draft.
Both GSAW and Silmarillion lack much story--another characteristic of a "world-building book." Novelists will write preliminary works of this kind to help fix a fictional world and characters in their heads. Once that's done, the story comes. Works of this kind are primarily intended to help the author, and not to be published as commercial novels. Silmarillion was compiled and published posthumously by Tolkien's son.
Don wrote: " there has been widespread indignation and gnashing of teeth by Mockingbird fans who, upon reading Watchman, discover that their sainted hero, Atticus Finch, turns out to be a far more complex, three-dimensional human being..."If you wish to merge the two books to create a certain personality for Atticus, nobody is stopping you. But--
How do you account for the fact that GSAW is an early draft of TKAM? Not only is there documentary evidence (https://blogs.cul.columbia.edu/rbml/2... ) but GSAW itself contains many inconsistencies of an early discarded draft, e.g, the different outcome of the trial in GSAW. In this respect GSAW is of historical interest in the development of TKAM, but it is not a sequel or prequel.
I would have had no problem with a real sequel and the revelation of faults in Atticus. But I find the personalities in GSAW and TKAM too far apart to reconcile. Atticus in GSAW is small, conventional, and bigoted. Atticus in TKAM is independent, empathetic, and heroic. Racism and empathy don't mix well. For me the combination does not compute.
Don wrote: "...Atticus and his fellow southerners recognize full well both the need for and the inevitability of change. They simply object to how it was being rammed down their throats by arrogant and equally bigoted outsiders..
This was a bogus argument to avoid the real issue and allow segregation to continue. Not that the non-Southern states were so perfect; we know they weren't. Change was forced on the non-Southern states, also by the courts.
In GSAW Atticus asks Jean Louise if she wants a state government run by people who don't know anything about government. In the 1950s the people who were skilled in government were white, and they had a tradition of indifference to the welfare of people without those skills, i.e, black. It's a vicious circle: Black people are unprepared, so they shouldn't have greater political power or rights; but without greater political power or rights, they will continue to be unprepared. Atticus's argument is a disguised attempt to maintain the status quo, with no end in sight.
I suspect that the young Harper Lee lost discussions like this to her father, who probably held these views. Because HL failed to respond adequately to these flawed arguments in her book, GSAW can come across as an excuse for racism.
Don wrote: " ... critic Stephen Metcalff ... stated that “To Kill a Mockingbird is a type of literature Americans are most comfortable abiding, because it makes them most abidingly comfortable with themselves.” Go Set a Watchman provides no such comfort for its readers, which is likely the reason the book was originally rejected for publication....
It's well-documented that GSAW was rejected for other reasons, in the words of Tay Hohoff, a senior editor at Lippincott who worked with HL on TKAM. Hohoff said that the book was anecdotal, i.e., it lacked character development, plot, and other technical requirements for a novel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/boo...
But to get back to your other point, I don't think TKAM is a comfortable book at all, though it is more smoothly written than GSAW. The racism portrayed in GSAW concerns words and manner rather than action. Atticus and Jean Louise in GSAW say denigrating things about Afro-Americans--between themselves--, and Atticus meets with a Klan group. In TKAM, Mayella lies and condemns a black man to save her reputation. The lynch mob shows up at the jail to kill Tom Robinson. How worse can racism be? In GSAW, racism is in your face with words, but the reality of racism for Afro-Americans is distant.
Don wrote: " ... after having their saintly image of Atticus Finch shattered, I fear that far too many teachers ...will refuse to accept the fundamental truth of Watchman. They will reject the opportunity to use this book to teach their students just how profoundly difficult wrestling with ideas and beliefs that conflict with their own can be.
What do you regard as the "fundamental truth" of Watchman? You've mentioned various ideas here. If you're saying that we should understand better the point of view of racists or other kinds of bigots, which is Atticus's plea to Jean Louise...sorry, there's no future in that. I recognize that they're coming from different life experiences compared to mine. But people with these opinions are expected to move on to something better. There are anti-discrimination laws, right?
I'm also unconvinced that Watchman is a vehicle for teaching "how profoundly difficult wrestling with ideas and beliefs that conflict with their own can be." How did Jean Louise handle this crisis in GSAW? She didn't. Uncle Finch whacked her across the face, delivered a pop psychology lecture, and just like that, JL changed her mind. Where is the gradual, believable change in JL if she were to plausibly come to terms with her father's racism?
C.E. wrote: "Sure Mockingbird reuses portions of it, but it isn't difficult at all to read Watchman as a sequel and take away the lesson Scout absorbs about child's perception vs adult's. "
Except for some pesky little details, like....
In TKAM, Alexandra's son is named Henry and her grandson is named Francis. Whereas, in GSAW, her son is named Francis.
In TKAM, Alexandra's husband, Uncle Jimmy, hasn't worked a day in his life. He sits beside the river with his fishline. In GSAW, Uncle Jimmy is or was a longtime businessman who has given advice in business.
If one were to sit and do the maths, one would realize that Hank of GSAW would have been living across from the Finch family at the end of TKAM. He wasn't.
Those are just three examples.
If one hasn't read TKAM for awhile, one might buy that it's a sequel. The nitty-gritty facts of TKAM are a blur, with only the main characters and main storyline in the forefront of one's memory. If someone has read TKAM recently, one is left with a ... what the heck ... feeling throughout the novel.
GSAW is not a sequel.
Except for some pesky little details, like....
In TKAM, Alexandra's son is named Henry and her grandson is named Francis. Whereas, in GSAW, her son is named Francis.
In TKAM, Alexandra's husband, Uncle Jimmy, hasn't worked a day in his life. He sits beside the river with his fishline. In GSAW, Uncle Jimmy is or was a longtime businessman who has given advice in business.
If one were to sit and do the maths, one would realize that Hank of GSAW would have been living across from the Finch family at the end of TKAM. He wasn't.
Those are just three examples.
If one hasn't read TKAM for awhile, one might buy that it's a sequel. The nitty-gritty facts of TKAM are a blur, with only the main characters and main storyline in the forefront of one's memory. If someone has read TKAM recently, one is left with a ... what the heck ... feeling throughout the novel.
GSAW is not a sequel.
Don wrote: "...when one engages in a careful reading of Mockingbird...we see what a flawed man Atticus actually is - both as an attorney and as a father. Of his three criminal cases mentioned in the book, his first two ended with his clients being hung."Losing a criminal case doesn't make someone a bad lawyer. Go online and read some of the charges in these cases, and if possible, the amount of evidence against the defendants. Remember, the prosecutor makes a decision whether to bring criminal charges in the first place, so the cases are vetted. Two of my friends were public defenders; another did appeals before the California Supreme Court for death penalty cases. They were all very good, conscientious lawyers who believed in the best justice possible for horrific people nobody else much cares about. My friends were used to losing cases, believe me.
I thought your concept of Atticus in TKAM as a flawed lawyer and father was an interesting take, though I don't think it holds up. For example, I'm not sure a change of venue would have helped TR in the trial. Raping a white woman was such an inflammatory charge, I'm not sure TR could get a fair trial in another court. Also, I would expect him at risk to be lynched anywhere. In Maycomb, at least the jurors were aware of what the Ewells were like. More importantly, Judge Taylor viewed the charges as unfair, and during the trial he tried to help TR and Atticus. When in doubt, stay with a sympathetic judge!
I thought TR's damaged arm was visible. Medical testimony might have helped (e.g., for the extent of damage and his lack of mobility), but the jurors could have been convinced enough with the proof visible by their own eyes.
It's important to remember that this is a novel. If HL fussed with Atticus's legal maneuvers, she could have had a boring book. The trial was the climax of TKAM, and written for drama, with a message about racism. Think about literary license here.
I understand your criticism of Atticus as seeming so perfect. Actually, I thought he was a somewhat distant parent, and he left many parental tasks to Calpurnia--maybe too much. While he was aware of injustices to black people, and may have felt the need for reform, he took the path of least resistance for most of his life and did nothing. At least until Judge Taylor assigned him to this trial. I thought the trial forced him to understand the impact of racism more deeply, and to actively work for justice as a matter of conscience. Many white people in 1960, when TKAM was published, were probably in a similar position: standing on the sidelines, realizing something was wrong, but not doing much about it. That's why I think TKAM hit a chord when it was published.
Jem would not have been tried as an adult. Given the physical evidence of assault, the case probably wouldn't have been prosecuted. I don't think this single incident makes Atticus a bad parent, though you can argue otherwise. Wasn't there some confusion about whether Jem or Boo killed Ewell? Sheriff Tate guessed what had happened.
CS wrote: "While he was aware of injustices to black people, and may have felt the need for reform, he took the path of least resistance for most of his life and did nothing. At least until Judge Taylor assigned him to this trial. I thought the trial forced him to understand the impact of racism more deeply, and to actively work for justice as a matter of conscience."
Did he take the path of least resistance?
I'm not sure we have evidence, in TKAM, that would lead one to believe that. I think we have an absence of evidence on that point, to an extent. However, we do have....
Didn't Calpurnia learn to read in the Finch home, taught by the father or grandfather of Atticus? I can't remember if it was the father or grandfather of.... Further, that man gave Calpurnia a book, which she used to teach her son to read, if I remember correctly. That would have Calpurnia being taught to read by an elder Finch around 1880. While that doesn't speak to Atticus, it does speak to the fact that the male head of the Finch family taught a black girl to read, at the same time Atticus himself was being taught to read. It speaks to the ideals of that family, or some within that family. I don't think that was overly common at the time, if we were to think of it in those terms.
Then, separate and apart from Judge Taylor and the Tom Robinson case, we have the way Atticus treats Calpurnia in TKAM. He doesn't treat her as a servant, a "black" servant. He treats her as part of the family. As part of that, he gives her rides home if she has to work late, for example. Is that the path of least resistance? If he'd been a real man, this would have been known in the community and frowned upon. Further, when Alexandra suggests they no longer needed Cal and that they not speak in front of Cal regarding the family, town happenings, and politics, Atticus takes a stand against her, a fairly vocal stand ... and a stern one when Alex says they should let Cal go. He outright says she's family and would always have a place there. Again, had he been a real man, that would have been something else again. While this might not equate with marching against injustice, it's real. Do we show people what we believe in by shouting in the streets or by the every day choices we make during our lives?
We also have the conversations between Miss Maudie and the children and Miss Maudie and Aunt Alex after the trial and after Tom was killed. Miss Maudie tells the children that Atticus is the type of man who other people turn to and, frankly, use to do the dirty work and to take the stand that others aren't prepared to take. Alex asks Maudie how much more is going to be expected of Atticus, how much more the town is going to expect him to do ... when they aren't prepared to do it themselves. While implied, this doesn't read, to me, like Atticus took the path of least resistance until Judge Taylor called on him to take this case. It paints, to my way of thinking, a man who has, more than once, taken a stand that others weren't willing to take and took on the burdens that resulted in that stand. If Atticus was new to the idea of standing for justice, why would the town and Miss Maudie consider that he'd be the one to do their heavy lifting? They'd have no reason to think that, would they?
We're talking about a time during which, in thinking of the Scottsboro Boys, lawyers took cases but didn't really work those cases, by and large. Would go through the process without much effort.... Would show up to court drunk.... In TKAM, we have a "man" who took the case, despite knowing it would cost him and would cost his children. He took the case of a "black" man who was accused of raping a "white" woman. Holy heck! Doing something like that, and actually doing it, was worthy of a beating or death back then. Not only did he do it, he was willing to put his life on the line the night at the jail. I'm not entirely sure that speaks to a man who is new to morality, to a sense of justice and injustice, or matters of conscience.
Further, we have all of the many times within TKAM that Atticus speaks to conscience, speaks to his thinking regarding the case, etc..., to his being a parent and needing to hold onto his morality and conscience else risk losing respect of his children. Did he, all of a sudden, develop that particular moral compass? Maybe, I suppose. I don't know that, though, especially when taking everything into consideration.
Did he take the path of least resistance?
I'm not sure we have evidence, in TKAM, that would lead one to believe that. I think we have an absence of evidence on that point, to an extent. However, we do have....
Didn't Calpurnia learn to read in the Finch home, taught by the father or grandfather of Atticus? I can't remember if it was the father or grandfather of.... Further, that man gave Calpurnia a book, which she used to teach her son to read, if I remember correctly. That would have Calpurnia being taught to read by an elder Finch around 1880. While that doesn't speak to Atticus, it does speak to the fact that the male head of the Finch family taught a black girl to read, at the same time Atticus himself was being taught to read. It speaks to the ideals of that family, or some within that family. I don't think that was overly common at the time, if we were to think of it in those terms.
Then, separate and apart from Judge Taylor and the Tom Robinson case, we have the way Atticus treats Calpurnia in TKAM. He doesn't treat her as a servant, a "black" servant. He treats her as part of the family. As part of that, he gives her rides home if she has to work late, for example. Is that the path of least resistance? If he'd been a real man, this would have been known in the community and frowned upon. Further, when Alexandra suggests they no longer needed Cal and that they not speak in front of Cal regarding the family, town happenings, and politics, Atticus takes a stand against her, a fairly vocal stand ... and a stern one when Alex says they should let Cal go. He outright says she's family and would always have a place there. Again, had he been a real man, that would have been something else again. While this might not equate with marching against injustice, it's real. Do we show people what we believe in by shouting in the streets or by the every day choices we make during our lives?
We also have the conversations between Miss Maudie and the children and Miss Maudie and Aunt Alex after the trial and after Tom was killed. Miss Maudie tells the children that Atticus is the type of man who other people turn to and, frankly, use to do the dirty work and to take the stand that others aren't prepared to take. Alex asks Maudie how much more is going to be expected of Atticus, how much more the town is going to expect him to do ... when they aren't prepared to do it themselves. While implied, this doesn't read, to me, like Atticus took the path of least resistance until Judge Taylor called on him to take this case. It paints, to my way of thinking, a man who has, more than once, taken a stand that others weren't willing to take and took on the burdens that resulted in that stand. If Atticus was new to the idea of standing for justice, why would the town and Miss Maudie consider that he'd be the one to do their heavy lifting? They'd have no reason to think that, would they?
We're talking about a time during which, in thinking of the Scottsboro Boys, lawyers took cases but didn't really work those cases, by and large. Would go through the process without much effort.... Would show up to court drunk.... In TKAM, we have a "man" who took the case, despite knowing it would cost him and would cost his children. He took the case of a "black" man who was accused of raping a "white" woman. Holy heck! Doing something like that, and actually doing it, was worthy of a beating or death back then. Not only did he do it, he was willing to put his life on the line the night at the jail. I'm not entirely sure that speaks to a man who is new to morality, to a sense of justice and injustice, or matters of conscience.
Further, we have all of the many times within TKAM that Atticus speaks to conscience, speaks to his thinking regarding the case, etc..., to his being a parent and needing to hold onto his morality and conscience else risk losing respect of his children. Did he, all of a sudden, develop that particular moral compass? Maybe, I suppose. I don't know that, though, especially when taking everything into consideration.
Shannon wrote: "...Did he take the path of least resistance? ..."I wasn't aware that Atticus may have taken a stand on other unpopular issues before TR's trial. You know TKAM better than I do. It makes sense, because Judge Taylor specifically chose him for TR's trial, not the usual lawyer who handled this kind of case. I remember a reference to that in TKAM.
I'm glad you bring up the bits about Calpurnia. I wasn't aware of all those details. And speaking of Calpurnia....a reviewer on amazon said she stopped reading Watchman because Calpurnia "is drawn as a woman who did not love Scout with all her heart." Now this is someone who understands the difference between the two books: why Mockingbird is a great book with heart, and Watchman is a phony.
CS wrote: "Shannon wrote: "...Did he take the path of least resistance? ..."
I wasn't aware that Atticus may have taken a stand on other unpopular issues before TR's trial. You know TKAM better than I do. It..."
I'm not positive that he did. I'm just also not positive that he didn't. I just don't think that someone who took the path of least resistance would drive his African American cook home at night, would call her a member of the family, would risk his life for Tom that night at the jail, and would be seen by Miss Maudie as someone who does the heavy lifting for the town. It's part supposition on my part, based on different aspects of the story, but supposition.
Interesting thought posted by the person in the Amazon review.
I wasn't aware that Atticus may have taken a stand on other unpopular issues before TR's trial. You know TKAM better than I do. It..."
I'm not positive that he did. I'm just also not positive that he didn't. I just don't think that someone who took the path of least resistance would drive his African American cook home at night, would call her a member of the family, would risk his life for Tom that night at the jail, and would be seen by Miss Maudie as someone who does the heavy lifting for the town. It's part supposition on my part, based on different aspects of the story, but supposition.
Interesting thought posted by the person in the Amazon review.
Shannon wrote: "I'm not positive that he did. I'm just also not positive that he didn't..."Remember when Scout chafed under Calpurnia's discipline and Scout complained to Atticus? Either there, or elsewhere, Atticus acknowledged his debt to Calpurnia for helping him raise his motherless children.
Don wrote: "In the end, both characters' bigotry is exposed. But even more importantly, so is the bigotry of readers who fail to recognize that Lee is again challenging them to walk in another's shoes."That would be an interesting reading of GSAW, but it's a flawed one that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The problem here is your attempt to bend time and force Watchman into a sequel to TKM, instead of recognizing it as the early draft of Mockingbird that it is. What you are trying to do here is take a key idea from Mockingbird, Atticus's advice to Scout to climb into someone's skin and walk around in it in order to understand that person, and force it onto the events and characters of Watchman. And what you are trying to do here doesn't work (and is essentially a dishonest reading of Lee's first draft) because that idea isn't present at all in Watchman.
The idea of stepping into a person's skin to understand that person is one of the essential revisions the draft underwent as Lee worked it into Mockingbird. Atticus voices the idea to Scout after her disastrous first day of school so that she might better understand Miss Caroline, her inexperienced first grade teacher. The idea of stepping into someone else's skin and seeing things from his or her perspective is then worked throughout the fabric of Mockingbird. It's there with Walter Cunningham Jr. and Dill; it's essential to Jem and Scout's understanding of Miss Dubose; it happens to Scout and Jem at First Purchase AME Church when they discover what it's like to be treated differently because of their skin color; it's an obvious part of Jem's identification with Tom Robinson; and it all culminates in the brilliant scene at the end when Scout sees the events of the novel again through Boo's eyes. It's even there in the story of The Gray Ghost, the book involved in the dare between Dill and Jem at the beginning of the novel which shows up again when Atticus reads it on the last page of Mockingbird.
This theme/motif isn't present in Watchman. And it doesn't exist there because Harper Lee hasn't developed it yet. That idea gets written into Mockingbird during her two-year revision process. And it's just one reason why TKM is such a superior book compared to the thin Watchman. In this rough draft, there's nothing so rich, no themes or motifs so complexly developed, as what Lee does later in Mockingbird.
You can't take one of the key concepts of TKM and retroactively apply it to Watchman if it isn't there. And nothing in Watchman lends itself to this reading.
And I'm a teacher who's going to "reject the opportunity" to incorporate Watchman into my classroom. It's poorly written, poorly crafted with weak characters. It's self-indulgent and dull. It goes nowhere and my students would be bored to tears. And there'd be no reason to force march them through the book because when they're done it won't leave them with anything worth the effort.
There's a reason why this manuscript was rejected multiple times. And there's a reason why Mockingbird continues to be read by so many people. Fortunately Tay Hohoff worked with Lee and encouraged her to craft this manuscript into the far better novel it eventually became.
CS wrote: "Don wrote: "...when one engages in a careful reading of Mockingbird...we see what a flawed man Atticus actually is - both as an attorney and as a father. Of his three criminal cases mentioned in th..."As a former criminal defense attorney, I know well that prosecutors can pick and choose which cases they decide to take to trial, but a zero for three record does not present a particularly admirable record - particularly when all three of your clients not only get prison sentences, but die at the hands of the state. I considered your very reasonable position on the change of venue motion, but ultimately rejected it for two reasons: first moving the trial to a larger city in Alabama would likely have given him a better shot at an acquittal; secondly, he simply mumbled "something inaudible" when he was asked why he didn't file such a motion (page 165). I know this is a work of fiction and that a certain amount of "poetic license" is to be expected, but because Lee spent her entire youth watching her father practice law and even studied law herself, the wealth of details and circumstances suggest that Lee subtly presents invites her readers to see beyond the narrow vision of the eight-year-old adoring daughter and see Atticus as the flawed and very human person that is more fully revealed in Watchman. But as I stated initially, the beauty of Mockingbird lies in its ambiguity and thus openness to interpretation. For that reason, I disagree with Flannery O'Connor's take that this is really just a children's book.
Let's face it, fellow readers. We have two different books by two different authors. Harper Lee, as demonstrated by "Watchman" was an extremely immature writer, obviously she didn't understand plot at all, character development, etc. "To Kill a Mockingbird" is simply out of her league. That's all there is to it. The rumors are true: she didn't write it. If you've read early Truman Capote, you can only conclude that he is the author of "Mockingbird".
I dunno...if you've read Capote, TKM doesn't sound like him at all. And he was such a showboat, he would have told Johnny Carson repeatedly that he wrote it.I think the answer is less conspiratorial...Harper Lee grew a lot and learned a lot during those two years in the big city. Her small world of Monroeville expanded; her understanding of good writing expanded. Her editor and agent helped her out, pointed her toward the good in Watchman and told her most of it was crap. They got her to tell a story instead of trying to write a book as a series of moralizing speeches. But the voice is similar in many places...you can hear the better author of TKM in the lines of Watchman if you listen for it.
Greg wrote: "...We have two different books by two different authors. Harper Lee, as demonstrated by "Watchman" was an extremely immature writer, obviously she didn't understand plot..."I believe that HL wrote the words of TKAM. It's possible for a writer to gain that level of craft in two years, especially if she is working with a good editor. But where did the ideas of TKAM come from? The two books tell very different kinds of stories. TKAM shows mature ideas; GSAW does not. Where did the plot and character development come from? Certainly HL matured as a writer and a person in the 2-year interval, and she was able to conceive a better story for TKAM. I think her editor, Tay Hohoff, had a significant influence on the development of the book. There may also have been other influential people we don't know about yet.
You're not the only one asking about HL's progress from GSAW to TKAM in 2 years. In August a rare books expert from Sotheby's, James S. Jaffe, identified some early manuscript of TKAM (the so-called third book) from HL's atty's famous safe deposit box.
Mr. Jaffe said he read “Mockingbird” and “Watchman” in preparation for reviewing the pages on Aug. 21. He said he was struck by the “substantial differences” between the early draft of “Mockingbird” and the published version...
“What’s most interesting is, what happened, how did she do that, how did she pull that off?” he said, adding that, as a first novel, “it has all the faults of a first novel. Mockingbird’s a masterpiece. How do you get from here to there?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/bus...
I also agree that Harper Lee wrote TKAM and I'm not sure why there is any doubt of that. I know that a drunk and bitter Truman Capote claimed to have written it on TV a few times but he was also spoke about books that he wrote and didn't exist and told tales solely for the purpose of getting attention. As for the comments of the rare book expert they are comments that have no foundation. Scholars don't always understand creativity but they can be very creative when being scholarly. If he finds it difficult to conceive how HL got from 'Watchman' to TKAM he can look at the career of Ken Kesey. His first book out of the blocks was 'One flew over the cuckoos nest' a masterpiece generally accepted as one of the great novels of the last century. He followed that with a difficult but rewarding novel - 'Sometimes a great notion' - and than his writing went in steep decline. This happens the same can be said about Melville who has 'Moby Dick' and than several lesser books to his name but no-one doubts his authorship. This claim is speculative at best and doesn't take into account many factors such as the obvious fact that 'Watchman' is about confrontation between the characters whereas 'Mockingbird' is more about discovery not to mention that Scout is a child in one book and an adult in another. Her view points are different as is the times she lives in. But the single most important difference between the two books is that 'Watchman' was abandoned and 'Mockingbird' was not and the early drafts mean little especially when one takes into account the influence of the editor and other people in her circle. If Mr. Jaffe wants to know how she got from 'Watchman' to Mockingbird' the answer may be as simple as the fact that 'Watchman' was the book that she thought she had to write to get published whereas 'Mockingbird' was the book that she wanted to write and it was published.
Don wrote: "“People generally see what they look for, and hear what they listen for.” ― Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird
In her 1957 novel, Go Set a Watchman, Harper Lee again demonstrates why she is consi..."
Don wrote: "“People generally see what they look for, and hear what they listen for.”
― Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird
In her 1957 novel, Go Set a Watchman, Harper Lee again demonstrates why she is consi..."
This is fantastic. i wish i had written it. thank you,Don.
CS wrote: "Greg wrote: "...We have two different books by two different authors. Harper Lee, as demonstrated by "Watchman" was an extremely immature writer, obviously she didn't understand plot..."I believe..."
CS, I'm on board with Mr. Jaffe. I'm not a literary expert, but I have spent a lifetime of reading, and I do know good writing from bad writing. "Watchman" is so bad, but I did get a good laugh out of the long, drawn out "falsies" high school dance scene which anyone would be embarrassed to claim to have written. And, when all is said and done, "Twilight" (a 2-star rating from me) is a far, far better book than "Watchman". I do think what has been done, what has been perpetrated to Lee and her estate, is borderline illegal.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Don wrote: "In the end, both characters' bigotry is exposed. But even more importantly, so is the bigotry of readers who fail to recognize that Lee is again challenging them to walk in another's sh..."Petergiaquinta, I see you gave this book a generous two star rating! That said, I very much appreciate that as a teacher, you aren't going to force "Watchman" on your students, it's a terrible book. To me, "Twilight" was a far superior book to "Watchman".
@Greg: To me, "Twilight" was a far superior book to "Watchman".To be fair, I haven't read Twilight, so I shouldn't weigh in on how Watchman compares, but I would far rather have my students reading Twilight or any other YA/tweener schlock than expose them to Watchman. This past summer I found myself drawn into some ugly discussions with fans of Harper Lee who were raving about what a great book Watchman is, and I just don't get what they are seeing. I'm with you; it's got a few moments (you like the falsies episode; my favorite part was Scout's naked baptism in Aunt Rachel's goldfish pond), but overall it's just immature, strained writing that never should have seen the light of day except in a more scholarly work as evidence of Lee's writing process.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "..This past summer I found myself drawn into some ugly discussions with fans of Harper Lee who were raving about what a great book Watchman is, and I just don't get what they are seeing...."Maybe love (of Harper Lee) is blind. I'm with you, as my posts on this board have shown.
If it makes you feel any better, it's my impression that word of mouth for this book is thumbs down. In fact, I now hear of more people who won't read it because they believe it will spoil Mockingbird for them.
Yeah, I'm hoping it disappears from the scene like those posthumous Hemingway releases that nobody talks about anymore. But like Greg, I'm flabbergasted that Watchman could be voted the top fiction book by our fellow GoodReaders in this year's poll. Sigh...
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Yeah, I'm hoping it disappears from the scene like those posthumous Hemingway releases that nobody talks about anymore. But like Greg, I'm flabbergasted that Watchman could be voted the top fiction..."Hi Peter, about Twilight: I just read it this year, ten years after it's original publication. I thought it was funny, a satire on the genre. After all, the heroine, Bella, can only do ONE thing right: cook. And the love interest, Edward, doesn't eat. I read it in two days and laughed a lot! As a teacher, I'm sure you want your students to learn to love reading, and surely Twilight/Potter books taught a lot of students, the world over, to love reading, and how can that be bad? Watchman, on the other hand, could cause many to run screaming from the sight of a library.
CS wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "..This past summer I found myself drawn into some ugly discussions with fans of Harper Lee who were raving about what a great book Watchman is, and I just don't get what they..."CS, I know of no other site/media outlet that has included Watchman on any kind of year end list of quality books. The award here is totally out of step with the rest of the world, not that that's always a bad thing, of course. Oh, just came up with a theory: the publisher issued two different versions, the good one and the one we read.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
― Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird
In her 1957 novel, Go Set a Watchman, Harper Lee again demonstrates why she is considered by many to be one of the premier twentieth century American novelists. This newly released novel had been rejected for publication until Lee re-wrote it from the perspective of Jean Louise (also referred to as Scout) as a six year old child. The novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, subsequently went on to become one of the most widely read and deeply beloved American novels and films of all time, read and viewed by literally millions of students and adults alike. From Watchman’s very beginning, Lee sets the scene in the same small, imaginary, and seemingly bucolic town of Maycomb, Alabama, in a manner that embeds even life-long Yankees warmly within its midst.
However, the reaction to the newly released Watchman has been dramatically different from that of Mockingbird. Although there has not been as much pre-publication anticipation of any novel since the Harry Potter series, subsequent to its publication, there has been widespread indignation and gnashing of teeth by Mockingbird fans who, upon reading Watchman, discover that their sainted hero, Atticus Finch, turns out to be a far more complex, three-dimensional human being - one with warts, secrets, prejudices, and all. One couple, who had named their son Atticus, actually went so far as to have his name legally changed after they read the book.
Truth be told, when one engages in a careful reading of Mockingbird, looking beyond the naïve perspective of Scout, its six year old narrator and examines the facts of the story as Lee gives them to us, we see what a flawed man Atticus actually is - both as an attorney and as a father. Of his three criminal cases mentioned in the book, his first two ended with his clients being hung. In the third, Tom Robinson, wrongly convicted of raping a white woman, subsequently commits suicide-by-cop. Even though Atticus knew full well that Tom could never receive a fair trial in his racist hometown, he negligently failed to file a pre-trial motion for change of venue. Further, despite complaining in his closing argument that the prosecution provided no medical evidence that a rape had been committed, Atticus himself failed to produce any medical testimony regarding Tom's disability. Instead, he relied on a cheap and ultimately unconvincing courtroom stunt that could easily have been faked. Although this made for a compelling visual image in the film version, it doesn’t pass for good trial practice. Thus the only apparent issue available to poor Tom on appeal would seem to have been ineffective assistance of counsel.
Despite appearances, in the end Atticus proved himself to be no better as a father than he was as an attorney. What kind of father, particularly one who was a criminal defense attorney. would suggest to the sheriff that his own son, Jem, had killed Bob Ewell despite the fact that Jem’s size and broken arm logically precluded him from having done so? Why was Atticus seemingly all too willing, even anxious, to bring Jem to trial for the death of the very man whose testimony convinced the jury to find the innocent Tom Robinson guilty of rape? The easy and obvious answer to these questions is that the virtuous Atticus had such faith in the legal system (even though it had just convicted the innocent Tom Robinson) that the jury would see that Jem acted in self-defense and acquit him of any wrongdoing. But if this is true, where was Atticus's faith in and devotion to the law when he was subsequently more than willing to be complicit in withholding material evidence that it was Boo Radley and not Jem who had in fact killed Bob Ewell? Was Atticus more concerned with the impact that the appearance of a cover-up of a crime allegedly committed by his son would have on his own reputation and political career than he was for his son’s well-being? The often overlooked beauty of Mockingbird is the fact that these remain open questions and subject to interpretation.
In Go Set a Watchman, Atticus is again shown to be a flawed hero. However, this time the imperfections of his daughter, Jean Louise, are likewise brought to light. In the end, both characters' bigotry is exposed. But even more importantly, so is the bigotry of readers who fail to recognize that Lee is again challenging them to walk in another's shoes. This time, however, Lee demands that her readers take a more uncomfortable walk in the shoes of mid-twentieth century southern white folk, people who see their culture, values, and customs being decimated by the likes of the NAACP and the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Atticus and his fellow southerners recognize full well both the need for and the inevitability of change. They simply object to how it was being rammed down their throats by arrogant and equally bigoted outsiders.
Lee’s call for tolerance and acceptance in Watchman brings to mind President Abraham Lincoln’s then nearly century old admonition to the nation at the end of his Second Inaugural Address:
"With malice toward none, and charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
The key words for both Jean Louise and Watchman’s readers are “as God gives us to see the right”.
Of Mockingbird, Flannery O’Connor observed that “for a child's book it does all right. It's interesting that all the folks that are buying it don't know they're reading a child's book. Somebody ought to say what it is." But critic Stephen Metcalff was not only a little kinder, he was a little closer to the mark when he stated that “To Kill a Mockingbird is a type of literature Americans are most comfortable abiding, because it makes them most abidingly comfortable with themselves.” Go Set a Watchman provides no such comfort for its readers, which is likely the reason the book was originally rejected for publication. Rather, Watchman provides a rude awakening for those Mockingbird fans who share young Jean Louise’s blind adoration of Atticus. Here, just as Jean Louise is shocked and appalled when Calpurnia disabuses her of the notion that their relationship had been something more than that of mistress and dutiful servant, Lee holds up a mirror to her readers’ own comfortably perceived ability to walk in Tom Robinson's shoes, by laying bare their inability to take a little stroll in the shoes of an aging, flawed, mid-twentieth century southern gentleman. I suspect that Ms. O’Connor would be far more pleased with Watchman than she was with Mockingbird.
It would be a mistake to simply dismiss Watchman as yet another bitter coming of age story. As the adult Jean Louise ultimately discovers, there is still much to be learned from this more fully human Atticus Finch. By his acceptance and indeed his celebration of the development of his daughter’s independent mind, in spite of her bitterly scathing and deeply personal attack on him, the Atticus of Watchman proves to be a far wiser, more heroic, and loving father than Scout’s naïve idolized image of him that most readers took from Mockingbird.
Clearly, Watchman is not a book about redemption. However, when it is read together with Mockingbird, they combine to provide a powerful and realistic insight into not just the necessity but also the difficulty of attaining tolerance, acceptance, and ultimately reconciliation - on both individual and cultural levels.
Unfortunately, after having their saintly image of Atticus Finch shattered, I fear that far too many teachers who have for years or even decades devotedly taught their students to emulate his seemingly uncompromising virtues will refuse to accept the fundamental truth of Watchman. They will reject the opportunity to use this book to teach their students just how profoundly difficult wrestling with ideas and beliefs that conflict with their own can be. In doing so, they will deny them a unique opportunity to develop their own more informed, open-minded, and tolerant worldview, one which is required to deal with a world populated by people who are far more complex than the cookie-cutter characters presented by Scout’s innocent and youthful perspective in Mockingbird. For such teachers, walking in the shoes of another applies only to those whose shoes already fit their own feet.