Go Set a Watchman

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.

This was not what I expected. It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't good.

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.

—–

Very interesting to read, especially when you consider what this book is. I am glad that To Kill a Mockingbird got written and published in the end, but I'm also glad that I had the opportunity to read this book.

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.

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/

I love Harper Lee's writing. I love the way the dialog is written and I love the characters. I wish I could meet them in real life. I think I'd have to read it again to grasp the full theme and overall message in the book, but it did make me pause to think.

What the heck, Scout? You stand your ground almost until the very end not caring whether you alienate your family because dang it, you have ethical morals and you will defend them to the end – almost. Then your uncle slaps you across the face and pours some liquor down your throat and all of a sudden you concede and are okay with the way things are? Tsk tsk, young lady. This book does not hold a candle to [b:To Kill a Mockingbird 2657 To Kill a Mockingbird Harper Lee https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1361975680s/2657.jpg 3275794], and fortunately for fans of the great classic it does not take anything away from it either. In fact fans of TKAM may end up loving the classic even more!

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.'”

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.