Ugh, I have felt so conflicted about this book since I'd first heard of it, mostly due to the elder abuse allegations of Lee, and then the synopsis came out. I almost cancelled my pre-prefer, because I just don't want to imagine a universe where Atticus is not the pure hero I've always thought of him as. Got my notification last night that Amazon has shipped my pre-order, though, and I still haven't decided if I'm going to keep the book or return it. TKAMB is one of my very favorite books, and I may just want to stay unaware of any character development outside of TKAMB.
Yes, this exactly.
Not that I agree with you - but this is a perfect illustration of my point .
Because NOBODY is the pure hero you think of them as. I mean...Jesus himself probably put the milk back with just a half inch in the bottom of the bottle on a regular basis or something.
FWIW - I'm being very breezy here about the reality of a fallen idol, but I totally get that this sucks for people who adore this book. I liked it fine when I read it, but it's not part of my personal canon (so to speak) so I don't have the visceral reaction that a lot of you are having.
But I've totally gone full Tyra when a character I'd invested a lot of love in turned out to be a schmuck. So I do get it.
And in the interest of full disclosure, I always thought Atticus was sort of too good to be true and a bit sanctimonious. It's Jem I loved in TKAM. And Dill. And Miss Maudie. And Scout a little bit. I'm super intrigued to see the public reaction once people actually read it. And I can't wait to analyze the shit out of it. What a great opportunity for comparison for kids...man, the options are endless for English teachers. :::kicks rocks:::
I hear there's a new sequel to Peter Pan where he grows up and becomes an accountant, a lost manuscript where Holden Caulfield eventually ends up going to Princeton and joining a fraternity after which he becomes an executive at Phillip Morris, and there's a newly-discovered Anne of Green Gables book where Anne cheats on Gilbert with Roger, a wealthy businessman, and eventually gets a divorce.
I hear there's a new sequel to Peter Pan where he grows up and becomes an accountant, a lost manuscript where Holden Caulfield eventually ends up going to Princeton and joining a fraternity after which he becomes an executive at Phillip Morris, and there's a newly-discovered Anne of Green Gables book where Anne cheats on Gilbert with Roger, a wealthy businessman, and eventually gets a divorce.
Peter grew up and became a M&A lawyer didn't he? Robin Williams ( ) in Hook - wasn't that his job?
Ugh, I have felt so conflicted about this book since I'd first heard of it, mostly due to the elder abuse allegations of Lee, and then the synopsis came out. I almost cancelled my pre-prefer, because I just don't want to imagine a universe where Atticus is not the pure hero I've always thought of him as. Got my notification last night that Amazon has shipped my pre-order, though, and I still haven't decided if I'm going to keep the book or return it. TKAMB is one of my very favorite books, and I may just want to stay unaware of any character development outside of TKAMB.
Yes, this exactly.
Not that I agree with you - but this is a perfect illustration of my point .
Because NOBODY is the pure hero you think of them as. I mean...Jesus himself probably put the milk back with just a half inch in the bottom of the bottle on a regular basis or something.
Just cracking up picturing James or somebody trying to make some cereal and seeing the empty carton, "Dammit, Jesus!!"
And I *know* no hero is actually "good". But sometimes book characters let me think things that real people don't.
I hear there's a new sequel to Peter Pan where he grows up and becomes an accountant, a lost manuscript where Holden Caulfield eventually ends up going to Princeton and joining a fraternity after which he becomes an executive at Phillip Morris, and there's a newly-discovered Anne of Green Gables book where Anne cheats on Gilbert with Roger, a wealthy businessman, and eventually gets a divorce.
LOL I could actually believe Holden working for PM.
But, Anne, no. I can't see that. I could see Susan finally coming out, though
I think some people (white people probably) are having trouble with Atticus because of everything said in that wonderful "I Racist" piece. Not saying this is true of anyone in this thread. Just of the casual "I can't be a racist" white hipsters I encounter. I think it's brilliant that Lee wrote Atticus this way. It's thought provoking. And it comes at a very critical time in our history for race relations. And it wasn't even written recently! I can't wait to read it. I want to reread Mockingbird first though.
Given that this new (old) book is apparently supposed to be at least in part about learning that parents that you might have idolized are complex and imperfect people...I find it interesting that so many people are all, "NOOOOO!!! You can't tarnish my Atticus!!"
I mean...the whole point appears to be that he's never actually been perfect except through the eyes of his child? (which is how we all know him)
I dunno. I'm intrigued though and want to reread TKAM and then read this one and see what I think.
This is not why I wouldn't want to read it. I find the premise fascinating and it makes sense from Scout's POV. I don't want to read it because I'm not sold yet on the reasons that it was published. It just seems wrong to me if Harper Lee really did not want this to be published.
Or always was. Believing that a black man deserves justice doesn't mean you believe he should be able to sit next to you at a lunch counter or buy the house next door or send hi kids to school with your kids. There are plenty of people NOW that would vehemently support a black man's right to a fair trial, to legal representation, to freedom from false accusations, etc...but shit, man, you don't want one of them dating your sister now would you? I mean...it's just a different culture. Nothing against black folks, but we're better off keeping to our own kind.
I have HEARD people my own age say shit like that. No crustiness about it...just racist.
ETA: I will freely admit that I may be forgetting a ton of nuance in TKAM that makes it clear that Atticus is in no way racist. I only remember the broad plot - it's been a long ass time.
There isn't much in TKAM that suggests Atticus is remotely racist in the text, aside from not calling Aunt Alexandra on her own racism.
But TKAM was also written from a child's perspective, a child who idolized her father and wasn't privy to his adult life. Nor were the readers, so we all made our own assumptions. Since we were reading Scout's story, the assumptions were that Atticus was an all around good guy. It's been a while since I read the book, but I actually think it's pretty telling (especially given this new information) that Harper Lee wrote it that way, and didn't have Atticus call Aunt A out on her racism.
I'm torn. On one hand I wish this book hadn't been published, as it kinds of taints TKAM for me. On the other, I think it leads to great discussion on flawed heroes, different perspectives, and how we (especially as children) make people into who and what we want them to be sometimes.
If popular opinion turns against Watchman, do you think To Kill a Mockingbird will lose it's place in the cannon?
No.
Serious scholars (ie canon setters) know better than to hold an earlier draft of Mockingbird against Lee. And schools aren't about to stop teaching it.
So says some people. I'm not so sure. I've heard it's possible her publisher was heavy-handed in the editing of Mockingbird... which is sad in a way. I'm most inclined to believe that this book was possibly based on some early notes, and then mostly written by her lawyer, and published with her "consent," but also that she didn't really understand what was happening.
I don't actually care about Atticus not being a super progressive civil rights leader, or holding somewhat disgusting views of segregation. I think there can be several reasons for that, and I don't think it necessarily diminishes his fight for justice in TKAM, depending on how it's depicted. However, I can imagine it's not really depicted or explained well, since I've heard that the book over all is really bad. If it was a well-written and thought-provoking novel where Atticus Finch held some... unexpected views? Fine. Supposedly it's a mess of a sequel that was better off not being published.
So says some people. I'm not so sure. I've heard it's possible her publisher was heavy-handed in the editing of Mockingbird... which is sad in a way. I'm most inclined to believe that this book was possibly based on some early notes, and then mostly written by her lawyer, and published with her "consent," but also that she didn't really understand what was happening.
I don't actually care about Atticus not being a super progressive civil rights leader, or holding somewhat disgusting views of segregation. I think there can be several reasons for that, and I don't think it necessarily diminishes his fight for justice in TKAM, depending on how it's depicted. However, I can imagine it's not really depicted or explained well, since I've heard that the book over all is really bad. If it was a well-written and thought-provoking novel where Atticus Finch held some... unexpected views? Fine. Supposedly it's a mess of a sequel that was better off not being published.
The link I posted has old quotes from Lee's original editor, who has described the process from turning "Watchman" into "Mockingbird." I think the reason it's a bad book is because it's a first draft. There's a good reason her editor encouraged her to make so many changes.
Also, I don't honestly care about Atticus Finch. I think the question is whether Go Set A Watchman tarnishes Harper Lee's legacy as a great writer, not TKAM's legacy as a great book. Harper Lee HAS been considered a great writer, because she published a great, great book. But the assumption is that the book was so good, that had she wanted to, she could have published more good, if not great, books. By all accounts, GSAW is mediocre at best, which kind of brings down her average, right? I don't think it takes anything away from TKAM. It might, sadly, besmirch Harper Lee's reputation, though. That's probably why I desperately want to believe the conspiracy theories about this not being a completely finished book, or entirely her own work.
Ugh, I have felt so conflicted about this book since I'd first heard of it, mostly due to the elder abuse allegations of Lee, and then the synopsis came out. I almost cancelled my pre-prefer, because I just don't want to imagine a universe where Atticus is not the pure hero I've always thought of him as. Got my notification last night that Amazon has shipped my pre-order, though, and I still haven't decided if I'm going to keep the book or return it. TKAMB is one of my very favorite books, and I may just want to stay unaware of any character development outside of TKAMB.
Yes, this exactly.
Not that I agree with you - but this is a perfect illustration of my point .
Because NOBODY is the pure hero you think of them as. I mean...Jesus himself probably put the milk back with just a half inch in the bottom of the bottle on a regular basis or something.
But in the literary world, we can have a pure hero to illustrate right from wrong, the literary world doesn't need some iconic heros or villians to be turned into real life people. This argument is fine, but Atticus isn't real, so I don't really care if he becomes flawed in a second book (pre-quell or sequel).
I'm just sad that a great editor who saw the first draft and said, "Hmmm, it's fine, but have you thought about telling it from Scout's view?" saw the vision. Then Harper IMPROVED her draft and made it iconic with direction and a rewrite. Now some money-types are more interested in using her great novel to publish the first "ok" draft. It's fine, everyone needs/wants money, but I'm not expecting a great book. I will probably read it with a side-eye and as a stand-alone work more, since I know it's probably more for money than any other motive.
Not that I agree with you - but this is a perfect illustration of my point .
Because NOBODY is the pure hero you think of them as. I mean...Jesus himself probably put the milk back with just a half inch in the bottom of the bottle on a regular basis or something.
But in the literary world, we can have a pure hero to illustrate right from wrong, the literary world doesn't need some iconic heros or villians to be turned into real life people. This argument is fine, but Atticus isn't real, so I don't really care if he becomes flawed in a second book (pre-quell or sequel).
I'm just sad that a great editor who saw the first draft and said, "Hmmm, it's fine, but have you thought about telling it from Scout's view?" saw the vision. Then Harper IMPROVED her draft and made it iconic with direction and a rewrite. Now some money-types are more interested in using her great novel to publish the first "ok" draft. It's fine, everyone needs/wants money, but I'm not expecting a great book. I will probably read it with a side-eye and as a stand-alone work more, since I know it's probably more for money than any other motive.
But if she didn't intend him to be a pure hero except as seen through the eyes of his kid? I mean...that's interesting. I'm not saying that's exactly what's happening here because 1. I forget half of TKAM and 2. there is a whole lot of other IRL backstory muddying these waters, but I don't think it's something you brush off with a "but he's not real."
But in the literary world, we can have a pure hero to illustrate right from wrong, the literary world doesn't need some iconic heros or villians to be turned into real life people. This argument is fine, but Atticus isn't real, so I don't really care if he becomes flawed in a second book (pre-quell or sequel).
I'm just sad that a great editor who saw the first draft and said, "Hmmm, it's fine, but have you thought about telling it from Scout's view?" saw the vision. Then Harper IMPROVED her draft and made it iconic with direction and a rewrite. Now some money-types are more interested in using her great novel to publish the first "ok" draft. It's fine, everyone needs/wants money, but I'm not expecting a great book. I will probably read it with a side-eye and as a stand-alone work more, since I know it's probably more for money than any other motive.
But if she didn't intend him to be a pure hero except as seen through the eyes of his kid? I mean...that's interesting. I'm not saying that's exactly what's happening here because 1. I forget half of TKAM and 2. there is a whole lot of other IRL backstory muddying these waters, but I don't think it's something you brush off with a "but he's not real."
I think Harper did intend that. Atticus is the same person as he raises his kids, Jem and Scout, as he is with his clients and those he is cross-examining. He is not righteously right at all in the books, he questions people to come to the "right" conclusion without him leading or didactically telling them how to think. His power is in making people around him better people without making them feel judged. He also doesn't act like he knows everything, but wants to question everyone and forgive those for mistakes as they stumble through life (his kids and his community).
I'm not saying this only through Scout's telling - the trial scenes (as I remember - from a reread about 5 years ago, but I also have seen the play twice since then, so I could be mixing the play rewrite with the book) are very telling where the people who are in the wrong, aren't ridiculed or treated poorly and actually come around to prove Atticus' point for him. I think we should reread TKAMB first, then this one and we can all discuss the difference.
ETA: Oh and I did read the NYT's article about how Harper Lee's own father, Atticus, was a segregationist who had a change of heart while she rewrote TKAMB and wanted integration. So it seems that since she modeled him after the "best" of her dad, that the first version is just an alternate universe book - aka Bizarro World TKAMB.
But if she didn't intend him to be a pure hero except as seen through the eyes of his kid? I mean...that's interesting. I'm not saying that's exactly what's happening here because 1. I forget half of TKAM and 2. there is a whole lot of other IRL backstory muddying these waters, but I don't think it's something you brush off with a "but he's not real."
I think Harper did intend that. Atticus is the same person as he raises his kids, Jem and Scout, as he is with his clients and those he is cross-examining. He is not righteously right at all in the books, he questions people to come to the "right" conclusion without him leading or didactically telling them how to think. His power is in making people around him better people without making them feel judged. He also doesn't act like he knows everything, but wants to question everyone and forgive those for mistakes as they stumble through life (his kids and his community).
I'm not saying this only through Scout's telling - the trial scenes (as I remember - from a reread about 5 years ago, but I also have seen the play twice since then, so I could be mixing the play rewrite with the book) are very telling where the people who are in the wrong, aren't ridiculed or treated poorly and actually come around to prove Atticus' point for him. I think we should reread TKAMB first, then this one and we can all discuss the difference.
BOOK CLUB! I'm in. Except my kindle's broken so I can't just download it.
I think Harper did intend that. Atticus is the same person as he raises his kids, Jem and Scout, as he is with his clients and those he is cross-examining. He is not righteously right at all in the books, he questions people to come to the "right" conclusion without him leading or didactically telling them how to think. His power is in making people around him better people without making them feel judged. He also doesn't act like he knows everything, but wants to question everyone and forgive those for mistakes as they stumble through life (his kids and his community).
I'm not saying this only through Scout's telling - the trial scenes (as I remember - from a reread about 5 years ago, but I also have seen the play twice since then, so I could be mixing the play rewrite with the book) are very telling where the people who are in the wrong, aren't ridiculed or treated poorly and actually come around to prove Atticus' point for him. I think we should reread TKAMB first, then this one and we can all discuss the difference.
BOOK CLUB! I'm in. Except my kindle's broken so I can't just download it.