Go Set a Watchman

Reading Go Set a Watchman while knowing the context behind the publishing controversy as well as it being the first failed draft prior to To Kill a Mockingbird, this book, while filled with good story telling of our Scout's past anecdotes, disappointed overall still.

Moreover, I was disappointed by the ending especially as it felt Scout just acquiesced to Hank/her father/Maycomb's opinions, and showed no conviction besides proclaiming her thoughts.

As someone who grew up in rural Georgia, I found it fascinating and haunting that a lot of the rhetorics you find about racism throughout the book are still argued today.

Important Point: There are some shenanigans in how this book was published. Borrow it from a friend or get it from your library. If you purchased it, try to let your friends borrow it. The book has been published, read it. Not reading the book won't help.

State Powers/Federal Powers
Small Town Values/Striking out on your own
Parental Esteem/Parental Awareness
Forced Government Change/Local Environment Change
A writer's first draft/A writer's final publication

These are just a few of the conversations you will want to have after reading Watchman. These are also conversations that we are having in 2015. We are all bigots in our own ways, but the thing that has changed is that we can acknowledge we are all obstinate. We need to listen to each other, care for one another, and make changes in our communities so the government doesn't have to overreach. The best and worst change we can make is our family. How do your children see you? How will your children follow the watchman that has been set?

For what it's worth, this was originally posted over at The Irresponsible Reader.
—

Maycomb did not have a paved street until 1935, courtesy of F. D. Roosevelt, and even then it was not esactly a street that was paved. For some reason the President decided that a clearing from the front door of the Maycomb Grammar School to the connecting two ruts adjoining the school property was in need of improvement, it was improved accordingly, resulting in skinned knees and cracked crania for the children and a proclamation from the principal that nobody was to play Pop-the-Whip on the pavement. Thus the seeds of states' rights were sown in the hearts of Jean Louise's generation.

There are so many things that'd help me know what to think about this; for example: 1. if there wasn't the cloud of controversy over the publication – did Lee really want it published? Is she of sound enough mind to make that choice now? and so on. 2. If there'd been a third book of hers published, it'd be easier to know which is the aberration – Mockingbird or Watchman (because there is a clear qualitative distinction) – it'd be easier to cut her some slack if we knew this wasn't her typical work.

Am I glad I read this? I think so. There are phrases, sentences, paragraphs, vignettes, scenes, that I relished. I do think I like the story of Jean Louise here. I think I appreciate Atticus as father, not necessarily Atticus as a man making certain choices. I'm pretty sure I like Jean Louise's Uncle Jack.

But there's bits about this novel that just confound me. Some of the speechifying seems so out of place (and I won't get into what I think of the points of them). A lot of the speechifying makes it seem like an unfinished draft – where Lee could've come back, fleshed it out, edited it and made the same points through dialogue, not monologues.

Maybe in time, after weeks/months of thought, a few re-reads, some distance, I'll have an opinion about the book that I can stand behind. Right now, best I can manage is a shrug.

—–

I don't know what to make of this book. I suspect over time and with a second reading my perspective will change. There's a good book, a very good book, hiding in this one. As it stands, though, the book is a bit odd and unformed in places. My favorite part is the character development of Scout, from the Mockingbird days to the Scout of Watchman. That alone makes this book worth a read. The portrayal of Atticus, which is undoubtedly a bit controversial, works, but more is needed here. Atticus is a bit too flat in his portrayal. Assuming Harper Lee wrote this book, a fact I am dubious of, suspecting that editors took a heavy hand in the draft, I can see why she withheld it from publication. The characters of Mockingbird are iconic America. Whatever feet of clay they had (casting them as real people) were well hidden. Not so in Watchman. One will likely never see the Mockingbird characters in the same light after reading this book.

I'm really torn on this one. On the one hand, it definitely feels like a draft when you hold it up to the class act of To Kill a Mockingbird. Likewise, the elder abuse allegations paint a very troubling shadow over the entire book and the race discourse that is tackled make it really messy at its core. On the other hand, there are seeds here for some really interesting themes - including those about growing up without a mother and environment shaping your views - that I think would have especially been so powerful if Lee had maybe been able to optimally work on this book in her prime. I'm also probably a part of the minority who think that Atticus Finch turning out to be more racist than Scout's memory leads you to believe is a really smart take that forces the reader to examine what it means to see your idols as flawed humans. It's an especially interesting approach in a post-MeToo era where we often have to confront the fact that certain individuals we put up on pedestals are more fallible than we give them credit for.

One of the strongest, I'm assuming inadvertent, messages is about the racism you don't see in yourself. Most people know that Atticus turns out to be racist in this sequel (even though it was written first) to To Kill a Mockingbird, but Jean Louise, even as she is appalled by her father had her own bigotries.

Jean Louise has to grapple with her father falling from his pedestal. The struggle for civil rights finds Atticus scared, opposed to the idea of black people gaining too much power. Jean Louise is angry and disappointed, but she also thinks black people are sorta childlike and base, and she doesn't seem to disagree with her father saying that if “they” organize and vote, it'll be a mess because they're not ready for the responsibilities. She just seems to think they might be able to evolve and grow. And she only seems to dislike the NAACP only slightly less than her dad.

This book was written a long time ago, when Jean Louise would be seen as a lot more progressive, but still one of the take aways is that Atticus is meant to be seen as bigoted, but Jean Louise's (now outdated) views are portrayed as simply factual.

Still, I really found a lot of this timely. We still have people who are scared of progress, scared of different racial groups gaining too much power. And we are also currently grappling with seeing heroes topple as every day seems to yield one or two new stories about successful people (directors, actors, producers, agents), people we'd admired, turning out to be flawed. Ironically, when this book was published a couple years ago, so many fans of TKaM had to go through a lot of the emotions Jean Louise went through – she was disappointed in her father, while a lot of people were disappointed in the same person as this great, noble character in literature/cinema.

The portion where Jean Louise finds a racist brochure and then eavesdrops on the racist meeting Atticus and her boyfriend were attending almost read like a horror novel or movie along the lines of Get Out, Rosemary's Baby, or Stepford Wives. There is something so perverse and horrifying about thinking you know someone and finding out there is something malignant under the surface.

I know this was basically a first draft, but this didn't bother me too much other than some of the speeches/conversations toward the end felt too unnatural, like no one would use those words outside of a novel, and if the characters were standing on a soapbox.

I'm struggling over rating this one. The writing is pure Harper Lee and seeing Scout as a young woman was a treat. So do I drop it a star because it's not To Kill a Mockingbird? That seems awfully unfair. Do I drop it because the Atticus Finch written here is not the same Atticus Finch Lee ultimately created? That seems unfair as well. So I gave it 5 stars because I enjoyed the read tremendously, even as this Atticus Finch broke my heart.

I'll go ahead and say it: I like it. Of course I am disappointed in Atticus; on the other hand, he is a bit more human. Of course I see that the writing creaks and groans here and there; on the other hand, it is more TKAM, and that is an unexpected delight. Of course the stories within the book aren't as riveting as those from TKAM; on the other hand, they are the scraps on the floor and could have easily been swept into the bin.

But I also dislike it. When I think about Go Set a Watchman and start feeling dismayed, I remind myself of what my dad always advised: When I was unhappy with a story, my dad told me I could always write my own ending. There you go. If I begin feeling a little sad about this sequel-prequel, I just say to myself, “And then Harper Lee woke up and told herself, ‘Whew! Just a dream! And here I thought I'd actually written that awful thing up into a real book.'”

Summary: Scout returns to her hometown at age 26 only to discover that the people she has always loved are not who she thought they were. Set near the time of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, this book tackles issues of race relations and of relating to those with whom one may not see eye to eye.

Eh, okay, I read all the controversy about whether or not Harper Lee actually wanted to publish this or not. I know a lot of my librarian friends opted not to read this at all because of their discomfort with the whole process, which I understand. But ultimately I was too curious to resist and I threw myself onto the library's long waitlist for this.When it came in for me, I was pleasantly surprised, because it's like... not terrible. It's funny and has some great dialogue. But, I'm also definitely on board with the “feels like an unpolished draft of To Kill a Mockingbird that wasn't meant to be published in this form” crowd. There are weird vignettes that don't seem to go anywhere.. almost like a short story collection with a frame narrative, but not quite that. But those stories were very charming and full of Scout's strong narrative voice, which made TKAM so endearing. It also refers back to the events of TKAM but in a slightly different form.Anyway, let's talk about the ~shocking reveal~ that Atticus is a racist. I... liked it? If you look back at Atticus in TKAM there is definitely a paternalistic quality there (um, I mean, not just because he's literally Scout's father). And his “oh I mean I don't think they should be LYNCHED anymore, no, but the NAACP is just taking things TOO FAR” attitude is pretty realistic for a 70-something white dude in the south in the 1950s.What didn't sit well with me was the end when Uncle Jack is like "listen Jean-Louise, you're the bigot because you're being so rigid and not considering Atticus's racist beliefs" and she's like "oh god you're right, I'm horrible." like... what? really? I don't know. But I did like the parts about how she'd held Atticus up as a perfect godlike figure and in order for her to grow up she had to break free from his opinions and form her own. anyway, no, this is not going to be the enduring classic that TKAM is, but there's some sharp character pieces here, and an interesting muddle of racial politics in the Jim Crow south. I would love for this to get the [b:Pioneer Girl: The Annotated Autobiography 22212838 Pioneer Girl The Annotated Autobiography Laura Ingalls Wilder https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1416178689l/22212838.SX50.jpg 16270434] treatment with annotations and whatnot, because I think it's most interesting as a weird artifact rather than a standalone novel.–re-read for the pod:https://www.frowl.org/worstbestsellers/episode-228-go-set-a-watchman/

Not what I expected.

It is challenging to experience a childhood hero in a different light. Brilliantly, readers who loved To Kill A Mockingbird will have a very visceral experience.

For now, that is all I have to say. The narrative covers challenging topics and I think I will grow to appreciate this book more over time.

so many thoughts... for about 150 pages, I wondered what was the point and who the editor had been of the first book; basically, because it was reminiscences mostly, with the familiar voice Scout had, but without Jem and Dill around and with Henry and aunt Alexandra playing a major role.
at this point, I read somewhere that this hadn't been written as a sequel; it actually had been the first book to be submitted, and the (very smart, I think) editors suggested Ms Lee exploit some passages and angles and rewrote it.
well, whereas To kill a mockingbird has a genuine, tomboy and pungent voice, Go set a watchman portrays a Jean Louise that, at 26, still has a lot of Scout in her: she sees Maycombe as her true world, even if she lives in NY, but at the same time she can't accept the place totally. And mostly, after the aforementioned page 150, or so, the book is, more than about race or creed, about a girl deconstructing her dad: Mr Finch may or may not be a horrible person after all.honestly, I am not completely sure. I understand it was 1955 and Alabama, but I cringed in embarrassment at the whole of mankind many times when they started discussing “Negroes” and “their” rights. at the same time, as I said, even leaning towards Jean's views, I don't think this is what the book is about.
Electra lives, ladies and gentleman...

anyway, as far as my opinion is concerned, it got blindsided by the fact that TKAM had pre teens as the main voices and I am openly partial to them. also, as the smart editor predicted, it was much more sellable (is that a word ?) because it had to do with discovering the world, justice and weak versus strong. This book is good, but not so amazing.

Short Review: This is both a good sequel and not a great book. The writing and style are mediocre. But the contrast with To Kill a Mockingbird I think really makes this a far better book that it is as a stand alone novel.

Also the audiobook narration by Reese Witherspoon is pretty much perfect. I will be using it as an example of how good narration can make a mediocre book far better.


My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/go-set-a-watchman/

I generally don't take the time to pen my thoughts after reading a book. This review though is more like an ode to my nostalgia of To kill a mocking bird which had introduced me to concepts like race, friendship etc some odd almost quarter century ago.

I had picked up this book simply to get a chance to live in Atticus and Scout's world again. Discovered that this is a coming of age story in a father-daughter relationship, set in the backdrop of white American southerners reacting to the NAACP. If you have always imagined Atticus on a pedestal and have strong views on utopian racial equality - be prepared to be uncomfortable. But do read if you want a fair account of southern white person perspective on social positions tied to race. Anyways, you always have your curiosity to see what grown up Scout is like to keep turning the pages.

Three stars because will not be a repeat read for me for sure.

After reading To Kill a Mockingbird I was excited to read this one. However I was disappointed. It was a book, too long in some spots, that was (in a nutshell) Scout growing up at 26 years of age. She learns that sometimes people aren't who you think they are and that having a different opinion and way of life outside one's own is ok. Different era and time I suppose where a 26 year old doesn't already know this by that age.

I did a little research on this book and from what I found it seems this was actually written before TKAM. The writing style between these 2 books is astounding. Apparently Go Set a Watchman was rejected by publishers as she didn't have an editor. She came back with TKAM, editor in tow, and just wow. Huge difference. Goes to show editors can sometimes be an author's best friend