Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What really knocks me out is a book that, when you're all done reading it, you wish the author that wrote it was a terrific friend of yours and you could call him up on the phone whenever you felt like it. That doesn't happen much, though'.
Something Salinger wrote in The Catcher in the Rye. Wonder if Lee will be putting her phone off the hook after many years from her first effort. This doesn't happen to often especially when one's first effort meets with great success.
Ms. Lee's 'new' book will be released tomorrow. Already, those whom had access to the book are saying that Atticus is presented in a completely different light than Mockingbird.
I have read enough reviews to realize this book will not be for me.
However, we must not change our opinion of To Kill A Mockingbird.
As reported repeatedly, To Set A Watchman was Ms. Lee's first attempt at a novel, which was written from the point of view of an adult Scout visiting her father, in which she discovers that he had decidedly racist viewpoints. However, the editor suggested that Ms. Lee veer off, and write a book from Scout's viewpoint as a child. Ms. Lee took the advice, and TKAM was the result.
Now, the Ms. Lee that wrote Watchman was different from the Ms. Lee that wrote Mockingbird. She had gained experience in writing, had advice, and managed to produce a magnificent, enduring novel.
When she was writing Watchman, she was in a different place, trying to make, to me, a different point. She took the title from the Bible (old Testament), and I assume (for obviously I have not read the new book) pointing out that it was the newer generation (Scout would be the Watchman) that would lead changes in Civil Rights, and about race relations. New generation versus old, if you will.
Therefore, I will not view Watchman as exposing a 'new' viewpoint of Atticus. I believe, for now, that they were totally different books, that happened to have characters with the same names. Ms. Lee chose to publish Mockingbird, and to NOT publish Watchman.
That she now has agreed to the publication of Watchman involves many possibilities. She may, as some have suggested, be senile, and not totally understanding (or recalling) what Watchman would mean for Mockingbird.
Or, she may be thinking of the financial possibilities, for herself (in a nursing home) or her heirs. It will, and has, made money for her (and her estate).
Or, she may well be sickened, at heart, over the decades 'worship' of Atticus, and desired to released this, her first effort, to show that he had feet of clay.
Finally, she may have desired to show that Men, even people like Atticus, can become 'difficult' with the passage of years. In my 60 years, I have certainly know people who seem to 'harden' with the passage of the decades, and become more 'biased' as they age; a lesson I am now, in my years, constantly on guard against.
Ms. Lee's 'new' book will be released tomorrow. Already, those whom had access to the book are saying that Atticus is presented in a completely different light than Mockingbird.
I have read enough reviews to realize this book will not be for me.
However, we must not change our opinion of To Kill A Mockingbird.
As reported repeatedly, To Set A Watchman was Ms. Lee's first attempt at a novel, which was written from the point of view of an adult Scout visiting her father, in which she discovers that he had decidedly racist viewpoints. However, the editor suggested that Ms. Lee veer off, and write a book from Scout's viewpoint as a child. Ms. Lee took the advice, and TKAM was the result.
Now, the Ms. Lee that wrote Watchman was different from the Ms. Lee that wrote Mockingbird. She had gained experience in writing, had advice, and managed to produce a magnificent, enduring novel.
When she was writing Watchman, she was in a different place, trying to make, to me, a different point. She took the title from the Bible (old Testament), and I assume (for obviously I have not read the new book) pointing out that it was the newer generation (Scout would be the Watchman) that would lead changes in Civil Rights, and about race relations. New generation versus old, if you will.
Therefore, I will not view Watchman as exposing a 'new' viewpoint of Atticus. I believe, for now, that they were totally different books, that happened to have characters with the same names. Ms. Lee chose to publish Mockingbird, and to NOT publish Watchman.
That she now has agreed to the publication of Watchman involves many possibilities. She may, as some have suggested, be senile, and not totally understanding (or recalling) what Watchman would mean for Mockingbird.
Or, she may be thinking of the financial possibilities, for herself (in a nursing home) or her heirs. It will, and has, made money for her (and her estate).
Or, she may well be sickened, at heart, over the decades 'worship' of Atticus, and desired to released this, her first effort, to show that he had feet of clay.
Finally, she may have desired to show that Men, even people like Atticus, can become 'difficult' with the passage of years. In my 60 years, I have certainly know people who seem to 'harden' with the passage of the decades, and become more 'biased' as they age; a lesson I am now, in my years, constantly on guard against.
Thoughts?
You bring up a lot of good points however I want to also add that Ms lee was on the movie set of TKAM and she commented how much Gregory Peck looked a lot like her father atticus . My grandmother had the biggest crush on Mr Peck as well so I do remember the movie very well . I also think that they could not have picked a finer actor than mr duval for the role of boo Radley . I do hope that they would make a movie of this new book . It sure would be nice if they would . I do think those of us who enjoyed TKAM will certainly enjoy Go set a watchman . at least I hope we will . I do intend to read it .
Location: Montreal -> CT -> MA -> Montreal -> Ottawa
17,330 posts, read 33,016,638 times
Reputation: 28903
I'm not planning on reading To Set a Watchman, but have you all been reading the articles about how Harper Lee didn't want it published? And her allies saying that this is going against her wishes and that her mental health is too questionable to have been able to make the opposite decision (to have it published) now?
To paraphrase a friend of mine today: "I'm depressed about the publishing against a writer's wishes event happening tomorrow. Dementia is evil enough. Taking advantage of it and destroying literary history deserves a special place in hell."
According to the documentary maker of the recent PBS film, Harper Lee has great difficulty seeing and hearing, but her mind is still sharp. Whether or not this is true, I am glad that they are publishing this book. It will give us insight into the creative process of how To Kill a Mockingbird took shape. It's similar to when early versions of classic hits by Elvis or the Beatles are released and we see the "birth" of a musical concept. The new novel may not be great literature, but it will help to give TKAMB perspective, especially as our perspectives change over the passage of time. Nothing is ever black and white.
TKaM is the most beloved American book of the past 50 years. There is absolutely no way Lee could win with a sequel. People are going to find things to hate no matter what.
As for Atticus having racist views ... come on, people. He was a white lawyer in rural Alabama in the 1930s. Of course he had racist views. How could he not? People tend to forget that Atticus was so adamant about defending Tom Robinson because Tom was innocent, not because he was black. Atticus had integrity, but he was still a man of his era. Expecting him to be otherwise is a bit unrealistic. Atticus represents to so-called "benevolent racism" of many whites of the era. Most of the book's anti-racist message comes from Scout and Calpurnia.
People may rightly feel disappointed in Atticus. As they should. But it makes him a more realistic character. He's still a great man. But he's a great man with some very, very big flaws in his character. That makes him more human. Not less.
And another big thing to keep in mind: Harper Lee wrote many drafts of TKaM. Her editor realized they were great stories, inspired by her childhood, but there was no coherent unity to the novel. Lee worked very hard with her editor to turn TKaM into the work of genius it is. I don't know if GSaW went through the same process.
TKaM is the most beloved American book of the past 50 years. There is absolutely no way Lee could win with a sequel. People are going to find things to hate no matter what.
As for Atticus having racist views ... come on, people. He was a white lawyer in rural Alabama in the 1930s. Of course he had racist views. How could he not? People tend to forget that Atticus was so adamant about defending Tom Robinson because Tom was innocent, not because he was black. Atticus had integrity, but he was still a man of his era. Expecting him to be otherwise is a bit unrealistic. Atticus represents to so-called "benevolent racism" of many whites of the era. Most of the book's anti-racist message comes from Scout and Calpurnia.
People may rightly feel disappointed in Atticus. As they should. But it makes him a more realistic character. He's still a great man. But he's a great man with some very, very big flaws in his character. That makes him more human. Not less.
And another big thing to keep in mind: Harper Lee wrote many drafts of TKaM. Her editor realized they were great stories, inspired by her childhood, but there was no coherent unity to the novel. Lee worked very hard with her editor to turn TKaM into the work of genius it is. I don't know if GSaW went through the same process.
This isn't a sequel. It's the discarded first draft of to kill a Mockingbird. For all intents and purposes, this book is set in a different universe.
As for Atticus, in the original book he told Scout not to use the N-Word and also said whites would have to pay for their misdeeds one day. In this book he was reportedly once in the KKK and calls blacks backwards. It's not about being a more complete character, which I would be fine with. It's about a complete 180. Atticus was vehemently against racism in the first book and there is textual evidence to prove it.
I would be fine with this if it wasn't being advertised as a sequel. But since it is its confusing a lot of people.
As for Atticus, in the original book he told Scout not to use the N-Word and also said whites would have to pay for their misdeeds one day. In this book he was reportedly once in the KKK and calls blacks backwards. It's not about being a more complete character, which I would be fine with. It's about a complete 180. Atticus was vehemently against racism in the first book and there is textual evidence to prove it.
In the new book, it says Atticus once attended a Klan meeting. He wasn't a robe-wearing, cross-burning member. And you can still hate the N-word and recognize the "misdeeds" of whites and still be a racist. The Atticus we meet in this book seems to be of the Thomas Jefferson stripe of racism that sees whites as the superior race who must be kind and guide the backwards races into the enlightened ways of white civilization. It's a nicer form of racism, I guess, but it's still racism.
Atticus was against mistreating black people in TKaM, but I never read anything in it that made me think Atticus saw all races as equal. He still saw black people as inferior, though he felt it was the duty of white people to treat them with kindness and respect. It's more of a condescending racism than an antagonistic racism, but it's still racism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
