Kenny G: I thought it was well written in sections; sometimes confusing, slow, long-winded. In need of an editor! I would recommend it only for literary historians of Harper Lee. C+
Ron B: I thought the writing was good; the story line was interesting; it seemed to me like a long series on PBS. It was difficult to follow the arguments - Uncle Jack's slap was right out of a 1940s movie. Overall it was OK, not inspiring, not engaging. B
Tom G: I don't think it should have been published. My feelings when reading it, "These people are
Mike B: My hackneyed theory is that most novels are not novels, but a collection of short stories and anecdotes stitched together with baling wire and some excellent verbiage. Go Set A Watchman is but the latest example we have read. Not that there is anything wrong with well-written short-stories, but this stitched-novel turned into an explanation of why good people do questionable things. I don't expect to be recommending it to others, but I am very glad I read it. Slap! B
Bob S: Scout's father was not a god-like person. "Every man's watchman is his conscience." The point is coming to terms with the reality of her father against the culture she grew up with. How she comes to terms with what she knows is right vs. the hateful culture of the South. Imperfect. I like the books you guys select as higher literary order that provide insight and I find illuminates the human condition through literature. "How Green Was My Valley" is an excellent example. This book: B+
Rob E: There’s no way, IMHO, that the characters created by Harper Lee in ‘Mockingbird’ could have morphed into the same characters as portrayed in ‘Watchman’. I highly doubt that Miss Lee wrote this in her 80s. I’ve read that Watchman’s publisher and editor were “highly involved” in writing the book. Additionally, Gregory Peck’s son says his father would likely have asked Lee, who became a close friend with Lee, not to publish the book.
I’ve often scored a book low and blamed the editor more than the author. Here I blame the publishers and editors for the following:
Particular Flaws in Watchman: (Trigger warning. These comments reveal much in the book.)
1. Atticus Finch has become an openly racial bigot, much in contrast to his race attitudes and actions in Mockingbird. His daughter, Scout, is now improbably called Jean Louise by friends and family. She’s relocated to NYC and knows that Maycomb is now all rubes and racists or Nazis – even her father, the sainted Atticus. She’s come to see Maycomb again before she retreats to NYC and all of its smarter people.
2, Scout doesn’t know anything about sex and pregnancy, even though she’s skinny-dipped with boys and surely seen large women who lost their bulge and are now pushing a baby buggy.
3. The book has several interminable poorly written conversations between Scout and family and locals.
4. One of the easiest and sleaziest things for an author to do is to mock Southern women. It's been (over) done. Example, here: the young women’s tea party. I get tired of this. I don’t think Lee would have taken this cheap shot.
5. The scenes between Scout and her father, uncle, and aunt are brutal and even violent as Uncle Jack slaps her and nearly knocks her out.
6. Racial and religious bigotry in the South have been extensively portrayed in literature and film. The message, I think, in Mockingbird is that there are/were some southerners that don’t fit that mold. Watchman says there aren’t. You have to move to NYC to be purged. Some writers have said that Watchman is important literature because it might inspire racial healing. I don't agree. I hope nobody makes Watchman into a movie with that objective.
7. The ending is hokey (stop reading here if you don’t want to be exposed to why I way this).
8. Finale. Scout finds out that her uncle is really her father. She and her uncle walk off into the sunset arm in arm. I fully expect that when another secret sequel manuscript is miraculously found and published, Scout and Uncle Jack will get married and Atticus will give her away at the wedding. The horror, the horror!
9. Bottom Line, This is the most disappointing sequel I have ever read. Grade: D for Disgusting, or F for Fraudulent
Keith G: To be concise, the book had two problems: the beginning and the end. The beginning was a 150 page soap opera. The ending turned on a dime, through a more global scale about racial prejudice. Ambiguity in society. Stereotype: class, stress, sweating: C
Charlie P: C - not a good book. We would not have heard of it, not read it, if not for To Kill A Mockingbird. Important not as literature, only historically.
Jack F: My opinion is tainted by having read To Kill A Mockingbird just prior. This was a fun collection of short stories, some of which I liked a lot. As a whole: B-
Bob W: I give it a C for effort in splicing together short stories. The pregnancy story didn't make an impression on me. It appeared to be a Socratic dialogue at the end. Not terribly impressive: C
Dick J: When I chose this book, I knew it was not a Top 10 book for us. But it captures the feelings of the South in the 50s. If published in 1957, this book would have sold 2,000 copies and ended. B-
Postscript.
While looking for a copy of Mockingbird in a couple of libraries the week before our meeting, I came across Mockingbird; a Portrait of Harper Lee, by Charles Shields (2006). I've only read his introductory chapter, but here are a few of his nuggets.
A Book-of-the-Month survey (of club members, I presume), in 1991 found that for "making a difference in people's lives" Mockingbird ranked second to the Bible. Shields conjectures that "Maybe that is because its lesson of human dignity and respect for others remain fundamental and universal." IMHO, those attributes are lacking in Watchman.
In her home town her name is pronounced, Nail Harpuh.
Shields says that "her career had to do with the nature of creativity and the power of community. .... as a young woman in her early thirties, she was fortunate to come in contact with a handful of people in the arts who believed in her. After years of trying to write a novel, she was suddenly, through the generosity of friends, given money to live on for a year so she could write fulltime." Then (paraphrasing Shields) she linked up with a supporting agent and editor. "Lee had put herself in a circle with people who could help her, who ... helped her create a book that would outlive all of them by decades." Over the years people in her circle grew old and died. She felt pressure to write a second book, and tried to, but (without that circle rge) gave up.
Shields, writing in 2006 and addressing the question of why Lee never wrote another book, sums up: "I have come to believe that Harper Lee was inspired by love to create her great novel love for the world of the South, for her little town, for her father and her family, and for the values she found among the people she most admired. She was lucky enough to have captured many of the things she most wanted to replicate her first time out. Many writers have done much less after many books. Maybe she was, in some sense, satisfied. Maybe her deed was done."
I think, on no direct evidence, except the contrast between the books, that the circle that "helped" her produce "Watchman," were not so inspired, nor, in her 80s, was she
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete