Go Set a Watchman

What I liked about it - it's interesting to see the creative differences between this (first draft of her book) and [b:To Kill a Mockingbird 2657 To Kill a Mockingbird Harper Lee https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1553383690s/2657.jpg 3275794] her actual book. You can tell what her ideas, sense of community of this fictional town, additional characters, etc. If you're reading this in that respect or totally in a different au then this is maybe a 3***. It's pretty fascinating and getting to see this develop would make a great book conversation. What I fucking hated - Harper Lee (someone who prided their privacy) was taken advantage of in her old years so that someone out there could make quick money. It's fucking cold. The fact that they heavily advertised this as a sequel makes this a slap in the face especially.

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?

Es exactamente lo que crees que es :3


Libro 1: “Como matar un ruiseñor”
Libro 2: “Como revivir a un ruiseñor”

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.

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.

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.

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.

So Scout finds out that her dad Atticus is a racist, and she's not because she's “color blind” (but would never marry a black person so is she really) and then in the end she forgives him and all is well.

Feels bizarre to me because the climax of the book is Scout's argument with Atticus, and the resolution is that she was wrong to argue because Atticus is a racist but at least he's not a mega-racist?

Feel like the book should have come with an introduction explaining that it's just a draft of a book, it feels wrong that it's been sold as-is.

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

This is a good story. I recommend not taking letting bad reviews sway your thoughts before you read it.

this book is about killing your heroes

it was... not very good

No, No, Nope. This book does not exist as it taints my beloved To Kill a Mockingbird.

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.

While I think this was probably far more nuanced than Mockingbird, unfortunately there's barely any story. Nothing happens for over 100 pages, and then the only ‘action' is disillusionment. By the time it actually got interesting, I'd already given up.

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/

This story failed very much in comparison to “To Kill a Mockingbird”. I gave it two stars because of the author but I found this story to be slow and very uneventful. It took my everything to get through this book but I did and I'm glad I finished it so I could at least say I read Harper Lee's novel.

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.

A more complex book then I expected. It's really all about Scout's maturing.

I'll confess I'm not a huge Mockingbird fan in the first place. This book made me reconsider that and made all of the characters much more interesting (yes, including and especially Atticus). I'm convinced that the most critical reviewers of Go Set a Watchman misunderstand both installments.

I was happier without reading these turn of events. I'm very behind on my reviews, but review to come.

Really disappointing. I really wanted to like this book and the nostalgia got me through it but my advice would be “don't bother”. Childhood is always more rosy in memory just like Maycomb was better in Scout's childhood.

ওকে, প্রথম ব্যাপার হচ্ছে বইটার অনেক আইডিয়া (চরিত্রগুলোর আইডিয়া) আমায় আহত করেছে (স্কাউটের মতই)। লেখাটাও একটু কম গোছানো মনে হয়েছে তবে স্কাউটেরও যেমন বয়স বেড়েছে, উপন্যাসের সুর বদলেছে। মেইন থিমটা হলো, কেউ সমাজের থেকে এগিয়ে ভাবতে পারলে সমাজের প্রতি কন্ট্রিবিউশনের দ্বায়টাও তার বেশি।

I can see why an editor came back and asked Ms. Lee to re-frame this book.

Not to say I didn't enjoy it, for the most part, but I get it. I think I'll stick to the original.

I'm sure you can all tell two things about this book immediately:
1. It was one of the most anticipated books (at least in America), like, ever.
2. It is now super super controversial.
And I'm not even going to get into the whole question of whether or not ancient Harper Lee is still capable of consenting to having her over-a-half-century-old first draft of To Kill A Mockingbird published. But I really appreciated this as a sequel to TKAM. Not because it made me happy, but it made me think, and it adds far more depth to TKAM.
There is one issue, which is peripheral to the plot of GSAW but pretty central to TKAM. This book references Tom Robinson's rape trial, but in this version the outcome was different. I understand why the case ended up being decided the way it was in TKAM. It built Atticus's lesson of what courage is: “I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what." Atticus's lesson only makes sense if he doesn't win the case and knows he probably won't. But it is a tad awkward-feeling to read that Tom was acquitted.
I think this book is best understood and appreciated when you can think of some parts in their context as a first draft and some as a sequel. Clearly, the different decision in the rape trial is a symptom of the revisions that what we now know as GSAW went through before becoming our beloved TKAM.
But, once upon a time, in the 1950s, a young woman named Harper Lee set out to write a novel about another young woman named Jean Louise Finch finding out that her father wasn't the hero she idolized. Through a number of flashbacks, she established Scout's unconditional admiration for Atticus, the perfect lawyer and perfect father who can do anything. What other dad will NOT approach you about your somewhat creepy behavior because your kind-of-boyfriend reported it in a situation to which lawyer-client confidentiality applies? We'd all love a dad like that.
And that's what we were given.
The editor loved all those lovable scenes more than the heavy adult discussions, and so young Harper Lee rewrote the book to be about this hilarious little girl Scout and her amazing dad. And we were children with Scout, and we fell in love.
How many articles on “X ways Atticus Finch was perfect” (pre-2015) can you find with a quick Google search? Okay, I haven't checked, but probably like a thousand, if you're only counting the ones in English. For half a century, multiple generations have been permitted to idolize Atticus just like Scout did. And Uncle Jack might deny that there is such a thing as a collective consciousness, but together we all forgot that we were looking through the eyes of a child.
All along, the entire point was that Atticus WASN'T perfect. He did very good things for really crappy reasons which had some correct reasoning behind them and some that was a result of growing up in a country surrounded by truly institutionalized racism. And the whole point of the book was that Scout was finally growing up. Dr. Finch even said it to her- she needed to separate her conscience from her father's and become her own person. And to do that, she had to take Atticus off the pedestal she'd put him on for the 26 previous years of her life.
Now, maybe a book review oughtn't be a critique of the book's readers, but here I go.
I think that the people who hate the publishers of this book for letting Atticus be so different from the man in TKAM, and the people who hate Scout for in some sense accepting Atticus, haven't grown up. Crazy little Scout has finally passed you in maturity. When she was a little girl, she saw her father as the culmination of all things pure and noble. When she grew up, she still saw her father as essentially a god. Ageless and unchanging in his truth and goodness. But eventually she was faced with undeniable proof that he was a human being just like her, a man with contradictions and mistakes and, hey, who's to say that Scout wasn't the wrong one in some of their areas of disagreement? But he was wrong sometimes. Maybe a lot of the time. Maybe in his whole world view. And he always had been. When the 26-year-old child Scout saw this she couldn't bear it. Believe me, my heart was wrapped up on Atticus's perfection too, and the mere concept of him being in any way “bad” hurt me too.
But then Scout and I got a long talking-to from Uncle Jack. Boy, that man rarely makes any sense. We understood so little of what he was getting at, and were won over to mostly none of it. But he still helped us. Somewhere in his long long loooonngg, my goodness, SO LONG, talks, we were able to accept Atticus's fallibility and welcome him to the human race. And we did not agree with him. I feel that in any other era this lesson would be taken for granted, but today it must be stated explicitly- acceptance and agreement are far from the same thing. We now ACCEPT that Atticus is kind of pretty white supremacist. When we were children we saw his perfectly equal treatment of all people and said “There walks a good man who is not ever racist.” And we agreed with the lack of racism. But all along, not being exercised, but being believed, was the supremacy. Atticus thought of himself and other white people as better than black people. He treated everyone the same. Both were true, but only one was seen. And the only thing he taught us was to wait in line behind the black people who were there first. We did it because he taught us too. We thought he taught us to because he, like us, was colorblind, when to him it was just manners. It made him feel good. When we discovered the true reasons behind everything he ever taught us, we felt completely lost. Our foundation was gone.
Yet we've long been able to tolerate people like the man who delivered the racist rant in the courtroom- again, not approve of his beliefs, but not have our world shaken by the fact that he exists. Scout never came to agree with Atticus that, really, giving black people equal rights would tear their world apart. She still thought (recognized?) that the Negroes of Maycomb County, the South, the United States, deserved far more than they were being given. But she could accept that Atticus disagreed with her the same way she could accept any random racist Maycomber disagreeing with her- it's his opinion, to which he's entitled, even if it's wrong. He's human like me and I'm wrong sometimes too. I'll probably argue with him if it comes up and I'm at that time in a position to do so, but in the meantime, the world still turns with wrong people in it.
This is a coming-of-age story. Finally, the little girl in a grown woman's body has matured to the point where she can disagree with her dear old dad.

OK so that's what I have to say in GSAW's relationship to TKAM and what is required of you in order to appreciate this book. Well, nothing, really. It kind of slaps you in the face and forces you to grow up. It's hard. It's really hard.

But I also loved this book, maybe as much as TKAM. It was so much the same Scout, just older. I think the first time I laughed out loud was about 3 pages in, when her train bed folded in on her and she needed to be rescued when she didn't have pajama pants on. I loved the awkwardness of puberty, of the first French kiss and its many months of repercussions. I loved the first dance and the items that were present at the beginning but not the end. (I'm so grateful now that I was never invited to prom or a dance early in high school and that I've never had access to fake boobs. NOT WORTH IT.) I loved the revival meeting. A lot of changes certainly happened between GSAW and TKAM, but Scout is Scout. Clever, ignorant, hilarious, human Scout.
I also liked the part where Henry told Jean Louise off about how she could get away with anything she did and no one disliked her any more than they did before she committed whatever newest misdeed. Without saying so, he pointed out that privilege is a lot sneakier than it seems like it should be. Anyone can tell you that in Maycomb county, “the whites” as a a group were privileged, and “the Negroes” as a group were not. But this alone couldn't define what that privilege meant. If you're privileged, blame bounces away from you as an individual and onto circumstances you can't control (in Jean Louise's case, the supposed eccentricities of her family). Responsibility for wrongdoing divides and dispels. If you're part of a not-privileged group, each individual takes on all the blame for the whole group, and the whole group takes on blame for an individual's evil actions- responsibility multiplies to land on every member of that group. This attitude, held by individuals, is what can end up leading to differences in laws.
(unfortunately i need to stop reviewing now. congrats for getting this far. i'll finish later.)

Ugh. I had hoped to find something worthwhile here that others had missed, and I did come across a few brilliant pages, but over all I wish this had not been published.