OnlineBookClub.org

I saw discussion about this in another topic, but no reviews of it yet. This review contains marginal spoilers, but I do try and keep my reviews relatively spoiler free.

Reading Challenge: Book 52 - 'Go Set a Watchman' by Harper Lee

This is a very difficult review to make, and it can realistically be tackled in several different parts.

Part 1

I'm not a big fan of 'To Kill A Mockingbird'. Unlike a lot of my friends who read it either when they were at school or at a young age in general, I only managed to read it earlier this year, at the tender age of 28. It was alright. I can see why people liked it as much as they did, but it didn't wow me in the same way that it has other people I know. I can only assume that my relative age when reading it plays a fair part in that - if I'd come across this novel earlier in my life, perhaps my view of it would have been different. Instead, in buying this book, I was just looking forward to being a part of the wider picture that constitutes this book release.

Part 2

This was the first time in my life that books usurped films and games in terms of my impulsive desire. Whilst I would argue that I've always probably had a softer spot for the written word over these two other forms of media, this is the first time that I've been swept away by the media circus around a novel to the point where I have invested money in it in the form of a pre-order. An oddity, really, if you consider my general apathy to the initial story. However, just like a new big game on the PS4, where I promise myself I won't be swept away by the discussion and debate leading up to release, before buying it on day one, this became a 'must have' purchase in my mind. Arguably, no book release has been bigger in my lifetime outside of the release of the last Harry Potter novel, and to not be someone who could share my opinion on such an important literary landmark seemed hard to legislate for. Thus, I received the book at 12.01am on Tuesday.

Part 3

Don't view it as a sequel. This will be a difficult concept for many, but I just feel that you can't enjoy it if you see it as the next progressive step in the story of the Finch family. For those who aren't aware, this was effectively the first draft of a story that would eventually end up being 'To Kill A Mockingbird' - apparently (if stories are to be believed), the editors felt the flashbacks to Scout as a child were the most interesting parts of the story, so Lee was told to focus on that rather than the story she was trying to tell. Therefore, these characters work within a different timeline to those in 'To Kill A Mockingbird' in my eyes, and are effectively not the same people. Between this 'first draft' and 'To Kill A Mockingbird', the representation of characters changed, but they can't necessarily be viewed in the same light. I'll be honest, I don't have the same feelings towards Atticus Finch as a character as some do, but him being somewhat of a bigot in this novel shouldn't really devalue how important and valiant his character is presented in 'TKAM'.

Part 4

To steal a concept from 'Community', this is very much 'dark timeline' To Kill a Mockingbird. Yes, the characters that you have grown to love are not the same, and generally for the worst. Rather than questioning the story itself, it does leave me wondering what happened in the sequence between Lee's writing of '....Watchman' and 'TKAM' that led to the radical alteration of some characters? The big shift that got the media's attention was the aforementioned representation of Atticus - such a radical alteration changes the relationship between the characters and the message of the story, for sure.

Part 5

I think I prefer the story being told if I'm being honest. Maybe it is my lack of emotional attachment to the initial novel, maybe it is my age and the divergent nature of the two narratives, it is hard to tell. I can see why the editor (if the story is to be believed) suggested a focus on the time of Scout's youth, as I feel that they are the best parts of the story in terms of how well written they are. Also, 'GSAW' doesn't have narrative features such as the trial of Tom Robinson and the character of Boo Radley. Indeed, I wouldn't try to make the argument that it is necessarily a better book, and I'm sure it won't go down in history in the same way that '...Mockingbird' has.

However, it felt like the story Lee was trying to tell was more interesting to the person I am now than '...Mockingbird' ever really was. As a father, the idea of the perception of your child towards you is a huge concept, as you struggle to be the best Dad you can be, yet also to hide your inadequacies from bubbling to the surface. '...Watchman' felt like it was exploring that very concept, something that spoke to me more than anything really did in the previous novel. At what point is it right as a child for you to realise that your parents are just as flawed as the rest of us? Can you still love someone when your perception is radically altered about a core facet of their being, even when they haven't fundamentally changed themselves in the process? Is it ever possible to truly escape the life and place you were born into?

Will it go down in history in the same way as the first book? Of course not. Is it a valuable piece of literary fiction? I definitely feel like it is, and hope that unrealistic expectations don't crush the potential of the story before it has truly had a chance to flourish.

Thank you for the head up. What the book is about?

I loved "'To Kill A Mockingbird'" and have read it several times. I plan to read that one at some point and hope I won't be disappointed.

It covers primarily Scout's return to Maycomb and her dealing with relationships with lovers and her father. Mostly the same characters, just presented differently and at a different point in their lives.

I don't know if I would have enjoyed it as much if I had read 'To Kill A Mockingbird' when I was younger. Without that deep-rooted link to the first book, I didn't have the same expectations coming in to reading this book.

I have this book on order and should be reading it soon therefore I cannot offer any critique or opinions regarding the novel itself at this time other than stating that I am extremely disappointed that this novel was published. I do have some opinions based upon what I do already know however and I mention them below.

I do not need to read the book to know that it cannot compare with the quality of the first novel. To Kill A Mockingbird was rewritten five times at the insistence of the editor (Ms. Tay Hohoff) before it was published. The first manuscript read more like a series of short stories. By the time Harper Lee was in the fifth iteration she was so frustrated with the book and all the rewrites that she literally threw the manuscript from the window of her fifth floor New York apartment into a snowy winter night. Within minutes she was on the street frantically collecting the pages. I believe the first novel pushed her to the breaking point to deliver the magnificent magnum opus it eventually became. I seriously doubt that the same effort went into the second novel.

Harper Lee was notorious for not granting interviews but her older sister, an accomplished attorney who was known affectionately as "Bear", DID state at one time that a cousin asked Lee long ago when she would publish her next novel. According to Bear, who was present at this discussion, Harper said that she could never hope to accomplish what would be expected by her readers - that she could never write another novel as good as Mockingbird - so she was determined not to try. It therefore begs the question: did she have another motive for publishing the second book?

I have a theory ... and as I said above I have not read the book yet, but it is common knowledge by now to anyone who has read reviews of Go Set A Watchman that Atticus is not portrayed in quite the same, knight-in-shining-armor light in this second novel. I think Lee wanted to set the record straight before she died. Anyone who knows anything about To Kill A Mockingbird knows that Atticus was based upon her own father, Amasa Coleman Lee, who died two years after the novel was published. It is unassailable fact that Harper Lee loved, respected and honored her father and his memory. Her novel served as a glowing monument to this man despite the fact that she knew he had flaws which were not disclosed in the characterization of Atticus Finch. By now most, if not all of Harper Lee's contemporaries are dead and perhaps she feels she can tell the truth without denigrating her father's memory in the minds of anyone who actually knew him.

If this was indeed Harper Lee's motive by the publication of this book then my respect for her soars higher than it ever has in the past, but I feel the novel itself will demean and possibly detract from the greatness of the original book in the minds of some people who love it as I do, and the consequence may be that readers will forever remember the effect of the second book, relative to the first, like an itch they can't reach, and, as is often the case, the blame will be placed upon the creator. Perhaps this too was Harper's intent. Perhaps this is her penance.

@DATo
As ever your posts are informative and very thought provoking.
I have Watchman on order but I must admit to a certain reticence to read it due mainly to the reviews I have listened to or read & the suggestion that Harper Lee may not have 100% authorised it's publication. However, I no doubt will read it but I doubt it will in anyway lessen my total admiration for Mockingbird as one of the great works of American literature.
I think I will come at it as two quite different books that happen to sharing characters.
That is a most interesting theory you posit re Lee setting the record straight regarding her father & very possibly you are correct or she may simply have decided in the great tradition to "publish and be damned".

Fran wrote:@DATo
As ever your posts are informative and very thought provoking.
I have Watchman on order but I must admit to a certain reticence to read it due mainly to the reviews I have listened to or read & the suggestion that Harper Lee may not have 100% authorised it's publication. However, I no doubt will read it but I doubt it will in anyway lessen my total admiration for Mockingbird as one of the great works of American literature.
I think I will come at it as two quite different books that happen to sharing characters.
That is a most interesting theory you posit re Lee setting the record straight regarding her father & very possibly you are correct or she may simply have decided in the great tradition to "publish and be damned".

It is my understanding that Harper Lee now resides in a facility for the elderly. I recently read an article in which, I believe, it was her attorney who stated that Lee was visited there and asked in the presence of witnesses, several times, and over a period of several days, whether or not she understood and gave her consent to the publication of the book. He relates that in every instance Lee maintained that she did understand what was being asked of her and was aware that the book would be published as well as maintaining her consent to the publication. I don't know how factually accurate this account is. I only know what the man stated in the interview. I will therefore assume that these events occurred as described until the story is debunked ... which actually wouldn't surprise me. Where money and attorneys are concerned one must count the silverware carefully before they leave the premises.

I had high expectations for "Go Set A Watchman" since I was such a huge fan of "To Kill A Mockingbird" ever since I read it in my sophomore English class.

Unfortunately, this book really didn't meet my standards. I have heard a lot of readers were upset about GSAW because they expected it to have a lot of returning characters from TKAM, this particularly didn't bother me, I was just expecting a really great story and I wasn't too crazy about it.

Overall, I rate it 2 out of 4 stars.

bettiannasbookcrush wrote:I had high expectations for "Go Set A Watchman" since I was such a huge fan of "To Kill A Mockingbird" ever since I read it in my sophomore English class.

Unfortunately, this book really didn't meet my standards. I have heard a lot of readers were upset about GSAW because they expected it to have a lot of returning characters from TKAM, this particularly didn't bother me, I was just expecting a really great story and I wasn't too crazy about it.

Overall, I rate it 2 out of 4 stars.

I haven't read this book, nor am i sure if I ever will, mainly because I read a review of it that focused on the fact that this "book" is really just an unedited manuscript that was never meant for publication. My memory of To Kill a Mockingbird is so vivid, and the writing was so wonderful that I don't want to spoil my impression of the author by reading an unedited manuscript. As an author myself, I would cringe at the idea of any of my draft work being published without my permission!

I have finished it a couple of days ago and wasn't that impressed with it. I rate it 2 out of 4 stars as well and here what I thought about it:

I loved "To Kill a Mockingbird" and was excited to hear there was a another book coming out. "Go Set a Watchman" is a sequel to "To Kill a Mockingbird, but unfortunately it fell short and both it and its heroin lack the charm of the former. There is not much of a plot either, but here is the plot in a nutshell: Jean Louise "Scout" is now 26 years old. She comes back home to Maycomb, Alabama to visit her family and finds out her dad isn't the honorable man she thought he was.

As I said there isn't much of a plot and the book contains mostly flashbacks focusing on Scout as a child. Not much is going on at present except Scout's deliberations. I enjoyed the writing and the reminiscences, but not the rest. The story meanders along before making its point and it takes too long to get to the point at that. The major themes are segregation and racism and I found the petty excuses for them ridiculous and a disgrace to good sense. I am not sorry I read the book, but it isn't a book I'll ever read again. This book didn't change my feelings for TKAM , it just gave me a greater appreciation for it. Some sequels should never be written.

I enjoyed the story. Lee created a wonderful sense of the American South, and I thought that she showed endearing elements of youth as we grow to be adults. The story had a beginning, a middle and an end, and the characters were developed to the point that I can empathize with them. It was a simple story, but I find that some simple stories can be quite deep. This particular story did have depth.
When I got to the point where Scout confronted her father, I thought that the venomous level and the bitterness was a bit overboard, but after consideration, I believe Lee was spot-on. I can remember that point in my life, and how it felt.
I look forward to reading, To Kill a Mockingbird.

I waited with eager anticipation for this pre-ordered copy to arise. However, it was hard to get through. I allowed myself to form an opinion/expectation that wasn't met. I wanted to see the Atticus of Mockingbird. I wonder if this was the reality and Mockingbird the "Hollywood" version? Which was the reality?

I'll bet that Go Set a Watchman should be read before To Kill a Mockingbird. It was written before Mockingbird.

In my opinion "Go Set a Watchmen" is not a fully successful novel for lack of a convincing protagonist that engages the reader. Scout is supposed to be a fairly sophisticated woman of twenty six whose return from New York to her small home town in the jim crow south is the occasion for a good look at the racism and ignorance woven into the social fabric of that locale. That potential insight is too often obscured by the naïve, over-emotional and confused response of young woman who still relates to her father as she did as a little girl. That she suddenly realizes that Atticus, her father and ever her mentor in matters of justice and fair play holds lifelong paternalistic racist views sets her off the deep end. She sees him at a meeting of the white citizen's council and becomes hysterical. Now she hates him. He has ruined her life, She's going back to New York never to return. It's just too much. Even less credible is her too abrupt reconciliation with her father effected in large part by the intervention of her strangely erudite and highly eccentric uncle who, for emphasis belts her in the mouth! With gratitude and simple minded sentimentality Scout forgives all and realizes that her father and uncle have colluded to help her achieve intellectual and emotional independence.
In defense of the novel I would say that the uncle character at several points expresses a nuanced view of small town racial and state's rights attitudes. Atticus very convincingly articulates the seemingly benign, paternalistic view taken by some middle class, racist educated whites who argued in those days that a backward people were not yet ready to be fully integrated. Calpurnia, the black maid who essentially raises Scout is a complex and memorable character. It's unfortunate that these and other characters are more convincing and interesting than a protagonist we can't really believe in.

I think this book was not as good as "To Kill a Mockingbird." But some of that is due to the fact that it was not edited as Mockingbird was. And there are times when Scout's memories do not match. For instance when she is thinking about the trial there are differences in what happened and with the character of Tom Robinson.

"To Kill A Mockingbird" was a good book. I actually read this book for school but ended up liking the book. I bought "Go Set a Watchman" and I haven't read it. I hope that it doesn't disappoint me.