Thoughts on Go Set a Watchman

Go Set a Watchman

Are you one of the many who have set your mind against reading Go Set a Watchman? I understand, I really do. Why spoil the lovely experience that is To Kill a Mockingbird? And what’s all this we hear about possible fraud, taking advantage of the elderly author, cynical manipulations by Rupert Murdock, and Atticus a racist, for heaven’s sake!

With all that though, I must admit, I had planned to read it from the moment I first heard of it.

I’m one of those teachers who regularly used To Kill a Mockingbird in my classroom and during my 34 years in junior and high school classrooms, I’m sure I read it, often aloud, close to 200 times (read it to my own kids, too, as bedtime story). With that background, how could I not want to see its forebear? And now that I’ve read it, who better to discuss it with than all of you?

On the issue of whether or not Harper Lee wanted it published, I, too, would hate to think she was "being taken advantage of," but I've yet to see anything but speculation on whether or not she was. Joe Nocero's article offers little more than his distrust of Rupert Murdock as evidence of fraud.

In everything else I've read, there are statements that people close to Lee say she is happy with the book’s publication. And I am absolutely sure that the slightest whisper from Harper Lee that she was upset about its publication would turn into a media roar. As far as I am concerned there is already too much decision-making devoid of facts going on in this country and maybe even in me, I am not about to let innuendo keep me from seeing for myself.

Having read the NY Times pre-publication review, I was a bit put off by the glee with which the reviewer “mourned” Atticus’ racism. TKAM is thematically rich and one of the chief themes is racism, specifically its gradations in the South of the 1930s. Atticus and Bob Ewell may be on opposite ends of the continuum of racism, but a careful reading of the book shows that both believe in the difference between “them” and “us.” (Malcolm Gladwell explored this in an interesting article in The New Yorker a few years ago.) We tend to hear a word like "racist" used as though it had a single meaning and a single way of being represented in the world. While in fact, it can be used to designate anyone from people who simply believe that there are different races, to people who believe that "purity of race  must be maintained," and on to people who believe that war among races is necessary, inevitable, and up to them to get started.

              Atticus is far from the last of these, but seems pretty close to the middle one. But as a friend of mine pointed out, Atticus is not presented as so much of a superman in ...Mockingbird that he is incapable of making mistakes. (For example, he certainly misunderstood and mishandled the mob at the jailhouse. It was Scout, not he, who defused the situation.) So far as I can see, the Atticus we are given in …Watchman is essentially the same as the one in …Mockingbird. He is not perfect in his understanding of humanity, but, to use Jem’s assessment from …Mockingbird, he is, “…a gentleman just like me!”

I've known quite a number of people like Atticus in my life; people who express awful views about groups of people, yet who see it as their business to make every person with whom they come in contact feel comfortable and respected. It seems to me that sometimes the people who are so clear about how far we have to go, don’t stop to realize how far we have come. Atticus’ views on race were mild for a white of his time, let’s thank goodness that they make us uncomfortable now. (Notice that I don’t say white Southerner, growing up I heard the same sentiments in the North.)

The fact is, the Times reviewer and the media in general, have been focused on the wrong person; …Watchman just like the much better …Mockingbird is not about Atticus; it is about Scout. And it’s not about how to deal with racism (I’m not convinced that either Scout or Harper Lee has any clue about how to create an equitable society); it is about growing up. Like the book it spawned …Watchman is not a blueprint on how to change the world, it’s an exploration of how to live in it as yourself—and discovering whoever that might be.

 Did I like the book? Well, Harper Lee can certainly tell a story. And when she gets out of her way, she writes beautifully. Makes me wish she had a whole bunch of novels hidden in trunks somewhere. Each time she shares an anecdote from Scout’s childhood, the book soars. The story of the falsies is as sweet and cringe producing as can be—who would want to suffer through that age again! Still, all in all, the book is immature and not as good as it should be. I wish that after ...Mockingbird was published, the editor had taken this book in hand and sent Lee back to use what she had learned to make this work stronger.

 I guess more to the point for us is the question, can we use it in the classroom? I think so. For one thing, contrasting it with …Mockingbird, gives us real insight into what is meant by “revision.” Aside from the description of Aunt Alexandra, Harper Lee changed, strengthened, and refocused every aspect of this book in creating …Mockingbird. For an advanced class of students, it would be a wonderful exercise to see how each of the themes gets different treatment in each book—racism, growing up, friendship, individuality, community, family, extended family, neighbors, cruelty, kindness, justice (both legal and social), etc. Much can be discovered, too, in contrasting the narrative point of view—Scout the elder vs. Scout the younger.

It is also a very timely book with passages that might find a use in Participation in Government classes. The issues of latent racism, unequal justice, States’ Rights, the role of government, the nature of freedom/liberty, the power of the Supreme Court and the meaning of the U.S. Constitution are in the book and in our national conversations. Certainly they can be explored in our classrooms, too.

On the other hand, there is much in this book that is offensive. In its world there are two n-words, both are used frequently but it is far more uncomfortable with “NAACP” than “nigger.” The KKK is presented in better light than Catholics. The Supreme Court is the enemy. And, of course, the South is presented as a separate country and a far more virtuous one than the North. Further, by current standards, Scout is a terrible spokesperson for Civil Rights willing to assent to Atticus’ statement that “our Negro population is backwards.”  When kindly Uncle Jack serves her a vicious backhand to the jaw followed by a return slap, she gives in meekly, “I can’t fight them any more,” and allows him to tend to her. 

I can’t see making the reading of Go Set a Watchman a requirement. I can see reading excerpts together and/or having a book group of interested students tackling it. What amazing conversations it might stimulate. I'll bet a Socratic/Harkness discussion on the treatment of the themes in both books would be the highlight of a term.

I’m glad I read it. For me, it revives memories of my experience with the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s—Lee is capturing the country just as it was poised on the edge of momentous change. I can see where my own understanding came from and how it evolved. I can see where I came to reject the received wisdom of my elders—a rejection that many of my contemporaries also embraced, and that set us on a path to war protests, “Don’t trust anyone over 30,” and “Turn-on, tune-in and drop-out.”  Go Set a Watchman places key current issues into a context that is already distant and different even as it is timely and familiar.

 In many ways, Harper Lee has once again given us the right book for our times.

Bibliography

Lee, Harper. Go Set a Watchman. First Ed. New York: Harper, an Imprint of Harper Collins, 2015. Print.

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-atticus-we-always-knew

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/10/the-courthouse-ring

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/books/harper-lee-go-set-a-watchman-may-have-been-found-earlier-than-thought.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/books/review-harper-lees-go-set-a-watchman-gives-atticus-finch-a-dark-side.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/books/review/harper-lees-go-set-a-watchman.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/books/harper-lees-go-set-a-watchman-brings-division-and-curiosity-to-monroeville-ala.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/opinion/joe-nocera-the-watchman-fraud.html