"Go Set A Watchman" (2015), Harper Lee's (1926-) Precursor to "To Kill A Mockingbird" - Release Date Jul 14, 2015

[DonRocks]

This is what you can refer to as "big news" - Harper Lee is publishing a second novel, written fifty years ago.

If "Go Set A Watchman" is any good at all, it could wind up being the best-selling American book ever written (right now, it's "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown at something close to 100-million copies), and could solidify Lee as one of the most important 20th-century American novelists instead of just a one-hit wonder.

Although Ms. Lee isn't getting any younger, it could increase her chances for a Nobel Prize ("The Bridge On The Drina" did it for Ivo Andric), and it now gives her - in technical terms - a 50-year career. The only caucasian American female to win the Nobel Prize for Literature - a *very* political award - is Pearl Buck in 1938, who had spent most of her life living in China up until that point. A legitimate argument could be made that Eudora Welty was robbed, so this could be "the right book at the right time" for Lee - time for a "make-up call," perhaps.

She seems like a very likable person, so I hope it works out well for her, and that a new generation of Americans will be introduced to "To Kill A Mockingbird" - one of the greatest American novels I've ever read: It's both timely and timeless.

Could this sequel diminish "To Kill A Mockingbird" in some way? Possibly, but do you remember Willie Mays as a Giant, or a Met? Hell, Willie Mays could *sing* at the Met and it wouldn't tarnish his legacy any more than Jackie Robinson being a pitchman for Chock Full O' Nuts.

For a contrarian opinion (note that the Nobel has always favored British writers over American writers):

"Go Set A Watchman And Five Other Sequels That Should Never Happen" by Hannah Jane Parkinson for theguardian.com - I'm writing this sentence before reading the column (which I'll do as soon as I post this), but my first impression is that "Go Set A Watchman" isn't really a sequel since it was written first, and by definition, was not written to cash in on "To Kill A Mockingbird."

There's something innocently disturbing about this title to me, mainly because it sounds pretty similar, in terms of syllables, rhythm, and accent, to an imperative I'll sometimes mutter, the third word of which is "your," and it isn't "Go Set Your Table."

PS - If "To Kill A Mockingbird" is something you've always meant to read, but haven't gotten around to doing it, what better time than now? I just read it for the first time myself two years ago, and I'm glad I did.

[farmer john]

Even if the book is 100% drivel (I will be shocked if this is the case) Ms. Parkinson is wrong as wrong can be. "Some Like it Hot"???   "When Harry Met Sally"???

It's good that the book was found while Harper Lee is still with us. She does seem like one of the good folks.

[darkstar965]

FWIW, I've now read and heard from a few media sources that Ms. Lee doesn't like the book characterized as a "sequel."

[Barbara]

I first read To Kill a Mockingbird when I was in the 8th grade and wrote a report on it. I had already seen the movie when it first came out. This was all during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, so both the book and the movie spoke to just about everybody with tremendous immediacy.

A couple of years ago, we watched a DVD of "Capote" (with Philip Seymour Hoffman) and I astonished to learn that Harper Lee went with him to Kansas to help grease the skids with the locals. Had no idea.

That lead me to a non-authorized biography of Harper Lee, Mockingbird, and also to reread TKM when the 50th Anniversary edition was issued. That lead me to reread In Cold Blood, which I had read when it was first published in the 60s.

Both of those books hold up perfectly as absolute classics. However, I read Capote's book with a more jaundiced eye, since he dedicated the book to Lee, but wrote not a peep about the help she gave him. And, of course, he was Dill in TKM. Apparently, he was quite miffed that Lee won the Pulitzer Prize on her first effort (that we knew of).

My summer of reading the Lee/Capote oeuvre, lead me to the Gerald Clarke biography of Capote, along with a volume of his classic short stories and novellas, including "Breakfast at Tiffany's." The movie has a different, happier, ending than the story, FWIW.

When I finally finished with all of this, I came to conclusion that Capote was a pretty miserable creature who wasted his talent and spread his misery around to anybody within reach. He and Lee had pretty much parted ways long before then.

Lee, on the other hand, is going to go to her grave with most, if not all, of her secrets intact. Let's hear it for the girl!

Needless to say, I will be preordering a copy of her new book as soon as that is possible. Can't wait to read it.

[DonRocks]

Needless to say, I will be preordering a copy of her new book as soon as that is possible.

Barbara, at least be aware of this before you act.

After recent stories have come forward, I will not be reading this book unless I hear from Lee herself that she is sanctioning it.

"Harper Lee's Upcoming Book Raises Concerns About Aging Author's Care" by Sabrina Toppa on time.com

"Book News: Harper Lee Says Literary Agent Exploited Her Health" by Analisa Quinn on npr.org

This reminds me of the somewhat sad exploitation of Jeanne Calment making a "rap song" at age 120 - there's a special place in Hell for people who would exploit the elderly for personal gain.

[DonRocks]

Barbara, at least be aware of this before you act.

After recent stories have come forward, I will not be reading this book unless I hear from Lee herself that she is sanctioning it.

"Harper Lee's Upcoming Book Raises Concerns About Aging Author's Care" by Sabrina Toppa on time.com

"Book News: Harper Lee Says Literary Agent Exploited Her Health" by Analisa Quinn on npr.org

This reminds me of the somewhat sad exploitation of Jeanne Calment making a "rap song" at age 120 - there's a special place in Hell for people who would exploit the elderly for personal gain.

Well, the book is coming out tomorrow, and although I've seen many headlines about it, I haven't yet read anything that would lead me to believe that this was written by Lee herself, certainly not when she was in a state of sound mind.

Atticus Finch becomes a segregationist? Are you kidding me?

Something smells funny, and I'm not buying it - and I mean that quite literally: I'm Not Buying It.

Can someone here point me to an article that supports, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Lee herself was the author of this book?

[sheldman]

I haven't read Watchman and probably won't.  But from what I have read online, it does seem clear that this was Lee's own work - not a sequel or companion to Mockingbird, but instead as something like a first draft of the book.  Articles online tell me that there was a non-ficton book published in the last few years called "Mockingbird" which goes into the development of Mockingbird, and affirms that there was an early version (submitted to editor/publisher) called "Watchman." I suppose it's possible that this newly-published work isn't really that early draft, but that seems unlikely to me.

I find the outrage/surprise about Atticus-as-segregationist very interesting, because when I read Mockingbird for the first time this year I was struck by how different the Atticus of Mockingbird was, from the iconic "Atticus" I had always been told of.  In Mockingbird, Atticus was a good father and a good person, but by no means a radical on racial issues.  He was firmly in the establishment, with no indication that he believed anything more progressive on race than just that Black people should be treated with kindness as people and shouldn't be lynched.  (Hell, he apparently didn't even challenge the composition of the grand jury!).  It is perfectly believable to me (ex-Alabama) that a man of his age, with those views in his 40s, would have felt Black people to be a lesser race and would have been a segregationist, even a temporary Klan member in his youth, and would embarrass his more progressive kid as he became an old man in the era of Brown.  People want to believe either that Atticus was a revolutionary in Mockingbird, or that only the most awful white Alabamians were segregationists.  Neither is true - and Harper Lee knew it.  Interesting to wonder why her editor, publisher, or whoever, steered her away from that "take" in the early Watchman draft, towards the gauzier picture in Mockingbird.

[DonRocks]

I find the outrage/surprise about Atticus-as-segregationist very interesting, because when I read Mockingbird for the first time this year I was struck by how different the Atticus of Mockingbird was, from the iconic "Atticus" I had always been told of.  In Mockingbird, Atticus was a good father and a good person, but by no means a radical on racial issues.  He was firmly in the establishment, with no indication that he believed anything more progressive on race than just that Black people should be treated with kindness as people and shouldn't be lynched.  (Hell, he apparently didn't even challenge the composition of the grand jury!).  It is perfectly believable to me (ex-Alabama) that a man of his age, with those views in his 40s, would have felt Black people to be a lesser race and would have been a segregationist, even a temporary Klan member in his youth, and would embarrass his more progressive kid as he became an old man in the era of Brown.  People want to believe either that Atticus was a revolutionary in Mockingbird, or that only the most awful white Alabamians were segregationists.  Neither is true - and Harper Lee knew it.  Interesting to wonder why her editor, publisher, or whoever, steered her away from that "take" in the early Watchman draft, towards the gauzier picture in Mockingbird.

Interesting, and much appreciated information.

I just read Mockingbird for the first time 2-3 years ago, and I remember (although my memory has become cloudy) Atticus putting his life on the line, leaving his family at home to go sit all night in front of the jail to protect Tom Robinson from being lynched. This happened, right? If so, I would argue that this act shows far more depth of character than being a simple laissez-faire pacifist.

[Barbara]

I'm awaiting my copy of the book as I write.

This episode is reminding me of the origins of Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House on the Prairie. From what I have read recently, she originally submitted a much darker memoir, which was rejected for publication. She subsequently rewrote the story as a more fictionalized and uplifting book which, of course, became a beloved classic (except by me because I've never read it).  The original book is being published, if it hasn't already, and that's the one I look forward to reading.

Harper Lee said in an interview back in the 1960s that (I'm paraphrasing here) that people outside the South really had no idea about race relations in the South and that it was entirely possible for white people to hold conflicting positions at the same time. I expect the portrayal of Atticus in the 1950s conforms with that.

[Ericandblueboy]

_{FROM THE ONION, AMERICA'S FINEST NEWS SOURCE}

_{NEW YORK"”Shocking the literary world once again, acclaimed author Harper Lee announced through her publisher Tuesday the surprise release of her third novel, My Excellent Caretaker Deserves My Entire Fortune. "On behalf of Ms. Lee, we're delighted to bring the public this moving new story, which follows the heartwarming relationship between a deaf and nearly blind author in the small-town South and the extremely kind and attentive caretaker to whom she wills every penny of her $45 million estate," said HarperCollins president Michael Morrison, adding that the 185-page tale vividly brings to life the setting of a present-day assisted living facility in Monroeville, AL, where an 89-year-old protagonist named Harper comes to the life-changing decision to hand over all the money in her bank account, her property, and all future proceeds from the books she has published to her extremely upstanding and unselfish friend and lawyer, Tonja. "This is a triumphant and uplifting tale of dedicated, exemplary caregiving and the substantial monetary bequest it inspires, told by one of America's greatest living writers. Readers will be deeply touched by the heroine's stirring reflections on human warmth and her repeated assertions that she is mentally competent and fit to make her own legal decisions." Morrison added that, without spoiling too much, he could reveal that the book's final pages feature a fully notarized last will and testament signed by the author herself.}

[sheldman]

... I remember (although my memory has become cloudy) Atticus putting his life on the line, leaving his family at home to go sit all night in front of the jail to protect Tom Robinson from being lynched. This happened, right? If so, I would argue that this act shows far more depth of character than being a simple laissez-faire pacifist.

Yes, you are remembering that scene as I remember it.  It is a large part of why I say that Atticus was a good person.  He was courageous in standing up for what he believed in; and what he believed in was better than some of his neighbors.

But it is consistent with the overall picture of Atticus as establishment, conservative, non-revolutionary guy.  He *needs* to believe that the judicial system is fair and honorable; he is a prominent part of that system (lawyer and state legislator), so his self-image as good guy requires him to believe in the system, and to visibly stand up for it even at personal risk.  (As I joked to friends when I read the book, what he should have done is associated a good Communist lawyer from NYC who would help him challenge the exclusion of Blacks from the grand jury.  He didn't do that, because doing it - and getting a transparently awful ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court - would demonstrate that the system was a sham in a case like the one he was handling.)

[Tujague]

Some of my friends, both white and African American, have said that one of the reasons that this new release bothers people is because this portrayal of Atticus Finch upends his place as the prototypical white male savior, albeit fictional, that undergirds much of modern racism. To Kill a Mockingbird may well be a great and beloved novel, but its legacy vis-a-vis real-life racism is rather mixed, when looked at through the lens of critical race theory. Even if this new release doesn't live up to the quality of TKAM, its complexification of the character Atticus Finch may be an important corrective to the original's less attractive effects and is perhaps a "must-read" for that very reason. (And I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I have never read TKAM! It was never assigned in any of my el-hi or college courses, and I have never gotten around to its, so my memory is primarily of the movie--so take my comments with that awkward qualification.)

[DonRocks]

Some of my friends, both white and African American, have said that one of the reasons that this new release bothers people is because this portrayal of Atticus Finch upends his place as the prototypical white male savior, albeit fictional, that undergirds much of modern racism. 

Hey! Go ask your "friends" how they'd feel if they found out Larry Bird was half-black!

Okay, I'm kidding with that one.

But what if Joe Paterno was complicit for years in not stopping a pedophile?

Or that *the* all-American family man on TV turned out to be a serial rapist?

Now it's not quite as funny.

Does it *really* have to do with race, or is it simply the loss of an icon? I say: It's the loss of an icon, the downfall of a hero. It has no bearing on my life whatsoever other than being disappointing as hell.

In my case, race has very little to do with this. What bothers me, well, two things bother me:

1) The characters in To Kill A Mockingbird - *all* of them; not just Atticus Finch - have been implanted in our memories since we were children (even though I hadn't read the book until this decade, I watched the movie several times as a child). Finding out Atticus Finch is someone who he isn't (and let's not forget he's a fictional character, and his portrait has been completed - there is *nothing* else to learn about him), finding out Atticus Finch is someone who he isn't is like finding out the Mona Lisa wasn't really smiling, or that Ingrid Bergman ended up with Humphrey Bogart, or that Spock is actually a Klingon, or that Beethoven made a rough draft of his 5th Symphony in C Major and never wanted it to see the light of day. The second item is strongly tied in with the first:

2) Is Harper Lee of sound-enough mind to approve of this release? Finding out this was a draft *really* bothers me if she hasn't given explicit permission for its release. If Lee intended for this to be a "trilogy," or whatever her agent is claiming, why did she wait 55 years to publish it? There are things that I've written before that are so terrible that I would *never* want them to be released. Where is her statement, or interview, saying how happy she is that this is finally being published? If she is of sound mind, and wants this book to be published, then so be it: It's her right to kill her mockingbird if that's what she wants to do - she owns it, or at least I think she does. This may all blow over and have no more of an impact than Alexandra Ripley's "Scarlett" (and let's not forget how much ruckus that release generated as well).

Actually, a third thing bothers me also:

3) I invested probably 100 hours of my time reading that book. Although I understand that sequels (or prequels, or rough drafts) happen, I might not have bothered to read it had I known that I essentially hadn't "finished the story" - it was a pretty safe bet that something like this wasn't going to happen. "To Kill A Mockingbird" was complete. It was an American icon. And now we're going to be treated to Ivan Drago killing Apollo Creed? Are you kidding me? This has the potential to be a hyped-up, fizzling dud - a soggy firecracker with a multi-million-dollar billing as Apollo 11. People are expecting a *lot* from this novel, and it has very little room for disappointment - a piece of American heritage (a really good piece of American heritage) is being tampered with; that said, it seems to be the "bestseller crowd" who is chirping about this the most, so pleasing them isn't going to take very much at all; the odds of me reading this are very slim, and that has nothing to do with Atticus Finch pumping segregation, or whatever it is he's about to do.

[Tujague]

I agree that the shifting, multiple accounts of how this book came into print are disturbing, and I doubt that there will be any certainty that this really was her desire. But now that it's here, it must be contended with, because it does tell us more about how Lee imagined her character, even if that alters the icon. Does it force us to see something that was there all along but we failed or refused to recognize? I don't know. But I don't think that the sort of "either-or" dichotomy you establish is something mutually exclusive. Why can't it be both about race and the loss of an icon? Isn't Finch's image as a racial-justice hero a key part of that iconic status? I get that it's disappointing, particularly if you have a certain investment in time spent reading and studying. But is that possibly due to self-identification with the character (and I'm not referring to you, Don, but more generally)--he, meaning me or we, is not what one wanted to believe? That is, did we think Atticus Finch was an icon (which in Orthodox tradition are adored), and this new release reveals him actually to have been a mirror all along?

[Al Dente]

One bookstore is offering to give customers their money back.

The Guardian

[Barbara]

I've actually read it. I was hoping that this was a novel about what happened in the South during the Civil Rights Era. Well, it sorta is.

It started out wonderfully. Just what you would expect from Harper Lee. And, indeed, it is set just after the Supreme's Brown v. Board of Education decision.

This was clearly written before "Mockingbird" because the tale of Tom Robinson (who isn't named in this book) was referred to with a completely different outcome--an aside, if you will.

However, it devolved into the most incomprehensible gobbledy-gook imaginable. Such a shame. It is also obvious why this was originally rejected for publication. We are all just lucky that some editor saw the value in it and urged Lee to rewrite.

The review in The New Yorker explains all, if not exactly explaining why I, in particular, was disappointed:

"Sweet Home Alabama" by Adam Gopnik on newyorker.com

---

Harper Lee (Al Dente)