Yet ANOTHER Harper Lee Novel!

[kennyc]

And a new announcement:

http://www.theonion.com/article/harp...ent-care-50840

[Barty]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well, here we go....

Entertainment Weekly:

"...Look, I’m very aware of the fact that no reviewer is going to be able to stop the Watchman juggernaut. I just want people to understand two things: First, this is all about the money. And second, reading Watchman will forever tarnish your memories of one of the most beloved books in American literature. D+"

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/14...-lee-ew-review

Pretty harsh review.

So TKaM is a first draft of a book that was scrapped. Not polished, not intended for publication. She's written other books she deemed not worthy of release, but this one is different because it is intimately connected to her one published masterpiece.

I'm not conspiracy minded, but I do think it's a little suspect that she decided after all this time to publish it. For most of her adult life Harper Lee was satisfied that TKaM is the version she wanted published and the legacy she wanted to leave. As late as 2011, she told an interviewer she'd said all she wanted to say with TKaM. (It can hardly be the money -- for Lee. TKaM is a perennial seller and she lives modestly. But obviously it's a huge deal for the publisher.)

Now, of course she could've just changed her mind: infirmity and impending death can change your perspective. They can also bring about personality changes, compromise your judgment, or cause you to forget your previous views and reasoning behind how you came to hold those views. The writer and atheist Christopher Hitchens told his friends that if they heard any report of his death bed conversion they ought to dismiss it as vicious slander or the ravings of an addled mind. Who's to say which is Lee's authentic intent, what she says she wants now or what she's always said for some 50 years? Preferably people without a huge financial stake in the book's publication. No I'm not saying these are nefarious characters who tricked a senile woman into signing things she doesn't understand. But I think it's easy to exert undue influence on a person while convincing yourself you are doing what they want anyway.

It does not help that all this seems to have happened following her sister's death. Could be a coincidence. Could be her sister was an autocratic and controlling person who kept Lee from doing what she wanted. But seems to me it is more likely that she was looking out for Lee's interest, honoring her lifelong wish, and protecting her legacy.

I'll probably read it anyway and try to keep in mind what the book is.

[pendragginp]

Hmmm. I just finished it, but I need to think about it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pendragginp

Hmmm. I just finished it, but I need to think about it.

Will look forward to your thoughts.

[pendragginp]

Well. Briefly - it's definitely written by Harper Lee. There are passages where her voice is clear.

It's also obviously an early effort. It's trying to get somewhere but the effort is not always cohesive, and is at times downright clunky.

I don't want to say anything too specific and spoil it for people who haven't read it yet.

I will say that it is no Mockingbird, not in immediacy or feel or lyricism. The only places where those things are present are in flashback scenes, where I did feel as if these are the same characters as in Mockingbird.

Frankly, if it hadn't been by Harper Lee, if it was just a book I picked up in a store or a library and started to read to decide if I wanted it, I would have put it back.

As it is, just because it is by Harper Lee, I'm glad to have been able to read it.

I would say that this is not Scout, in this book, except in some flashback scenes. It's completely Nelle Harper Lee, translated to the page.

But after all that's what so many first novels are.

And given that, I'm glad for another reason to have been able to read it; because it's so clearly this person at this age and at that time. And given how little we've ever actually known of her, I have liked that.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pendragginp

Well. Briefly - it's definitely written by Harper Lee. There are passages where her voice is clear.
......

Thank you for your take on it! Much appreciated!

Originally Posted by pendragginp

Well. Briefly - it's definitely written by Harper Lee. There are passages where her voice is clear.

It's also obviously an early effort. It's trying to get somewhere but the effort is not always cohesive, and is at times downright clunky.

I don't want to say anything too specific and spoil it for people who haven't read it yet.

I will say that it is no Mockingbird, not in immediacy or feel or lyricism. The only places where those things are present are in flashback scenes, where I did feel as if these are the same characters as in Mockingbird.

Frankly, if it hadn't been by Harper Lee, if it was just a book I picked up in a store or a library and started to read to decide if I wanted it, I would have put it back.

As it is, just because it is by Harper Lee, I'm glad to have been able to read it.

I would say that this is not Scout, in this book, except in some flashback scenes. It's completely Nelle Harper Lee, translated to the page.

But after all that's what so many first novels are.

And given that, I'm glad for another reason to have been able to read it; because it's so clearly this person at this age and at that time. And given how little we've ever actually known of her, I have liked that.

Yes, thank you for your comments on completing the book. The "clunky" aspects almost certainly reflect that Go Set a Watchman represents a first draft published as it was left since the mid-50s, whereas To Kill a Mockingbird represents a polished effort produced through about two years of working with an editor [Tay Hoff] at J B Lippincott & Co. I definitely still want to read this, though it will be weeks from now given my place in the queue at the two ebook lending libraries at my disposal (and and even longer wait to get the paperbook from my local library). Even if it is not a great book when I recall all the disposable stuff I've read in a lifetime this will be worth it to get two wildly different perspectives on the fictional town, characters, and time.

For those who just can't get enough of discussing the book and the controversy over publication here is an hour long NPR radio broadcast with some excellent guests:

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2015/07/15/g...-book#comments

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

I definitely still want to read this, though it will be weeks from now given my place in the queue at the two ebook lending libraries at my disposal (and and even longer wait to get the paperbook from my local library).

I PMed you with an Amazon library loan redemption link.

[pendragginp]

The "clunky" aspects almost certainly reflect that Go Set a Watchman represents a first draft published as it was left since the mid-50s, whereas To Kill a Mockingbird represents a polished effort produced through about two years of working with an editor [Tay Hoff] at J B Lippincott & Co.

Yep, I agree. I'm looking forward to seeing other readers impressions.

[AnemicOak]

Historic Day One Sales for 'Watchman'
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...-watchman.html

Barnes & Noble and Book-A-Million have both pronounced that Go Set a Watchman had the largest first day sale of any adult fiction book in the history of both retailers.

[tomsem]

I haven't yet read TKAM and have been thinking that disqualifies me from reading GSAW. But it actually might be an interesting experiment to read them in reverse order of publication, and in order of their creation (if official accounts are to be believed).

[BenG]

I've read the first few chapters. I haven't gotten to any of the controversial material yet.
There are some childhood flashback's and I can see why her editor wanted a book about Jean Louise's childhood.

[BenG]

I bought the unlocked Fire Phone last week to use as a music/audiobook player, so I'm not in the market right now.

Edit: I'm not sure how I posted this comment in this thread. Sorry.

[voracious71]

Originally Posted by BenG

I've read the first few chapters. I haven't gotten to any of the controversial material yet.
There are some childhood flashback's and I can see why her editor wanted a book about Jean Louise's childhood.

I finished it a couple of days ago. I was expecting the scenes to be more controversial actually. The Atticus of GSAW was representative of how many Americans felt about race issues. And that holds true even today. Treats individuals of a differing race humanely and kindly, yet worries about them as a group. Also worries about his "way of life" going by the wayside. Atticus in this novel reminded me of many people I know.

I think this makes a bigger impact today, because we have already experienced the civil rights movement and people's thoughts and opinions are up for scrutiny in a way I don't think they were back then. I don't think GSAW and Atticus would have been half as "controversial" at that time. I'm sure Jean Louise would have been the controversial one.

Flashes of TKAM were evident. I agree that Jean Louise's childhood flashbacks were by far the strongest parts of the novel.

[BenG]

Yes, the Atticus of the new book is not incompatible with the character from TKAM.