Go Set a Watchman
I was extremely reluctant to read Go Set a Watchman, firstly because of all the shenanigans that have gone on behind the scenes re the publication and secondly, because I'm one of those people who changed my own life because of To Kill a Mockingbird. When I didn't fit in anywhere as a child, school, family etc, I took courage from Scout and I always knew that I wanted to be just like Atticus when I grew up - the main reason I'm a lawyer.
And then my husband bright home a copy of the sequel thinking I would be excited and it lay on my bedside table for a few days while I debated whether to open it and tried to decide whom I would would be betraying by reading it; my younger self, Harper Lee, Atticus?
Finally, I decided to go ahead. For two reasons. (SPOILER ALERT - don't read on if you want the plot twists to surprise you although they've been in the papers!)
1. Curiosity
2. I wondered whether the key changes (Jem's death/Atticus turning out to be a racist) were a parable for our times. I became a lawyer but I'm not Atticus nor ever will be. The world we live in cries out for men and women of character but none heed the call. Perhaps, it is fitting, that an inspirational book should have a tawdry end in an unexpected sequel, its the way of humanity, after all. We're all going to be on our iPhones, Whatsapping each other about C-list celebrities, while the world ends with a whimper.
So I read Go Set a Watchman.
As I'm sure you know Watchman is being touted as a sequel with a grown up Scout returning to Maycomb County for a visit and as it turns out, confront the changes that have taken place there.
However, there are many who insist the book was merely a first draft of Mockingbird, totally re-written at the behest of the editors into the classic we all know and love. Therefore to publish the first draft is an obscene act by Harper Lee's lawyers and publishers and would never have been allowed by Harper if she was in full control of her faculties or her sister who was formerly her carer but has since died.
Having read it ...
I can assure you that this was an early draft by an enormously talented writer but still a beginner when she wrote Watchman. This book should NEVER have seen the light of day except as a lesson to would-be writers that when an editor suggests changes, they may be on to something ...
My evidence for the assertion above:
1. The actual writing demonstrates the enormous talent of Harper Lee as a wordsmith. The lyricism is still there, it's like listening to Obama when he gave the eulogy after the black church killings. An editor would have been excited to read it.
2. But the only bits that stand out and are memorable are Jean Louise's (Scout's) flashbacks to her childhood (again based on that old adage, write what you know, those sections ring true) so one can see why a top class editor would think that a book set then would be more effective than a book set during Scout's adulthood.
3. The grown-up Scout is somewhat smug and irritating and self-righteous in her 'colour blind' view of the world. What do amateur writers do when their characters aren't sympathetic enough? God knows I've done it often enough myself! We kill of someone close to the character to add depth/burden etc - a plot device in other words. So when we get to the bit where it turns out Jem is dead, I actually laughed out loud. If Harper Lee had written Mockingbird first, there was no way she could have written that section in such an offhand way, she would have sweated blood to kill off our Jem of Mockingbird.
4. There's also a brief mention of forgetting to tell Dill about Jem dying. Again, if she had written Mockingbird first, it would be completely out of character for anyone to forget to tell Dill. He would have the first person Scout ran to for comfort (after Atticus).
5. And then there's Atticus, a racist in his old age despite bringing up Scout to treat all people as equals. The story in Watchman, insofar, as there is a plot, is basically about Scout discovering that she has to take ownership of her own morality and belief system, she can no longer piggy back on Atticus as their views have diverged. She has to 'grow up'.
Again, we have a profound beginner writer's mistake - where the editor write SHOW NOT TELL in the margins in a big red pen. In Watchman, we are told how wonderful Atticus is, but we are never shown. The only major scene showing character is when he sits approvingly through a racist diatribe by some segregationist.
When Harper Lee wrote Mockingbird, she fixed this problem through and through. We don't aspire to be Atticus because we're told he's a good man. Instead, we remember him telling Jem not to shoot a mockingbird, him shooting the rabid dog, accepting payment in kind from the Cunninghams, sitting in front of the jailhouse to protect his client from a lynch mob, letting Scout be who she is, taking care of Boo, taking on the white establishment to defend a black man. That my friends is showing, not telling.
6. Characters that work in one's mind but not on paper. New writers love the idea of mysterious, erudite characters, speaking in riddles. On the page, it's damned irritating. Scout's uncle in Watchman is the sort of character a new writer pens only to discover later that he's a complete creature of fiction with no reality about him. There were no such characters in Mockingbird. The same can be said for Hank but I'm too bored to even talk about his role in Watchman.
7. The soapbox treatment. Whenever my Singh feels strongly on some subject (or I do) there is an inevitable scene in my first draft where a character will make a long speech justifying MY position on the issue. It inevitably comes out in the final edition when my editor points out that more subtle means are needed to get my point across. Harper Lee is obviously a woman with a profound sense of the wrongness of segregation despite growing up in the South. She credits Scout with these strengths - Scout too is 'colour blind' on race. But again we have Scout making angry speeches which are a lot less effective than Atticus leading by example in the rewritten version.
8. Lastly, in an attempt to justify Atticus's attitude she suggests the argument is about state rights versus federal government intervention and that he believes that integration needs time and can't be done in a twinkling because the black race is not ready. This bit sounds like a C- essay on law written by Thomas or Scalia. In Mockingbird, she ditches the politics and focuses on the ethics, as it should be.
As you can see, I was quite worked up reading this book as I usually don't bother to write reviews - too much else to write :-)
Anyway, there's good news and bad news.
The bad news is that my husband paid for the book so we have lined the pockets of the publisher. If you must read it, I am happy to post you my copy FOC (just PM me) so that we don't further this act of literary sabotage.
The good news for those who grew up with Mockingbird is that Watchman changes nothing. Nothing in it sticks or changes the way you feel about the characters. It is an early draft by a genius who then gave us the book so many of us needed growing up.
Maybe its time to try and live up to Atticus again ...
And then my husband bright home a copy of the sequel thinking I would be excited and it lay on my bedside table for a few days while I debated whether to open it and tried to decide whom I would would be betraying by reading it; my younger self, Harper Lee, Atticus?
Finally, I decided to go ahead. For two reasons. (SPOILER ALERT - don't read on if you want the plot twists to surprise you although they've been in the papers!)
1. Curiosity
2. I wondered whether the key changes (Jem's death/Atticus turning out to be a racist) were a parable for our times. I became a lawyer but I'm not Atticus nor ever will be. The world we live in cries out for men and women of character but none heed the call. Perhaps, it is fitting, that an inspirational book should have a tawdry end in an unexpected sequel, its the way of humanity, after all. We're all going to be on our iPhones, Whatsapping each other about C-list celebrities, while the world ends with a whimper.
So I read Go Set a Watchman.
As I'm sure you know Watchman is being touted as a sequel with a grown up Scout returning to Maycomb County for a visit and as it turns out, confront the changes that have taken place there.
However, there are many who insist the book was merely a first draft of Mockingbird, totally re-written at the behest of the editors into the classic we all know and love. Therefore to publish the first draft is an obscene act by Harper Lee's lawyers and publishers and would never have been allowed by Harper if she was in full control of her faculties or her sister who was formerly her carer but has since died.
Having read it ...
I can assure you that this was an early draft by an enormously talented writer but still a beginner when she wrote Watchman. This book should NEVER have seen the light of day except as a lesson to would-be writers that when an editor suggests changes, they may be on to something ...
My evidence for the assertion above:
1. The actual writing demonstrates the enormous talent of Harper Lee as a wordsmith. The lyricism is still there, it's like listening to Obama when he gave the eulogy after the black church killings. An editor would have been excited to read it.
2. But the only bits that stand out and are memorable are Jean Louise's (Scout's) flashbacks to her childhood (again based on that old adage, write what you know, those sections ring true) so one can see why a top class editor would think that a book set then would be more effective than a book set during Scout's adulthood.
3. The grown-up Scout is somewhat smug and irritating and self-righteous in her 'colour blind' view of the world. What do amateur writers do when their characters aren't sympathetic enough? God knows I've done it often enough myself! We kill of someone close to the character to add depth/burden etc - a plot device in other words. So when we get to the bit where it turns out Jem is dead, I actually laughed out loud. If Harper Lee had written Mockingbird first, there was no way she could have written that section in such an offhand way, she would have sweated blood to kill off our Jem of Mockingbird.
4. There's also a brief mention of forgetting to tell Dill about Jem dying. Again, if she had written Mockingbird first, it would be completely out of character for anyone to forget to tell Dill. He would have the first person Scout ran to for comfort (after Atticus).
5. And then there's Atticus, a racist in his old age despite bringing up Scout to treat all people as equals. The story in Watchman, insofar, as there is a plot, is basically about Scout discovering that she has to take ownership of her own morality and belief system, she can no longer piggy back on Atticus as their views have diverged. She has to 'grow up'.
Again, we have a profound beginner writer's mistake - where the editor write SHOW NOT TELL in the margins in a big red pen. In Watchman, we are told how wonderful Atticus is, but we are never shown. The only major scene showing character is when he sits approvingly through a racist diatribe by some segregationist.
When Harper Lee wrote Mockingbird, she fixed this problem through and through. We don't aspire to be Atticus because we're told he's a good man. Instead, we remember him telling Jem not to shoot a mockingbird, him shooting the rabid dog, accepting payment in kind from the Cunninghams, sitting in front of the jailhouse to protect his client from a lynch mob, letting Scout be who she is, taking care of Boo, taking on the white establishment to defend a black man. That my friends is showing, not telling.
6. Characters that work in one's mind but not on paper. New writers love the idea of mysterious, erudite characters, speaking in riddles. On the page, it's damned irritating. Scout's uncle in Watchman is the sort of character a new writer pens only to discover later that he's a complete creature of fiction with no reality about him. There were no such characters in Mockingbird. The same can be said for Hank but I'm too bored to even talk about his role in Watchman.
7. The soapbox treatment. Whenever my Singh feels strongly on some subject (or I do) there is an inevitable scene in my first draft where a character will make a long speech justifying MY position on the issue. It inevitably comes out in the final edition when my editor points out that more subtle means are needed to get my point across. Harper Lee is obviously a woman with a profound sense of the wrongness of segregation despite growing up in the South. She credits Scout with these strengths - Scout too is 'colour blind' on race. But again we have Scout making angry speeches which are a lot less effective than Atticus leading by example in the rewritten version.
8. Lastly, in an attempt to justify Atticus's attitude she suggests the argument is about state rights versus federal government intervention and that he believes that integration needs time and can't be done in a twinkling because the black race is not ready. This bit sounds like a C- essay on law written by Thomas or Scalia. In Mockingbird, she ditches the politics and focuses on the ethics, as it should be.
As you can see, I was quite worked up reading this book as I usually don't bother to write reviews - too much else to write :-)
Anyway, there's good news and bad news.
The bad news is that my husband paid for the book so we have lined the pockets of the publisher. If you must read it, I am happy to post you my copy FOC (just PM me) so that we don't further this act of literary sabotage.
The good news for those who grew up with Mockingbird is that Watchman changes nothing. Nothing in it sticks or changes the way you feel about the characters. It is an early draft by a genius who then gave us the book so many of us needed growing up.
Maybe its time to try and live up to Atticus again ...
No comments have been added yet.
