ADVERTISEMENT

Mockingbird 2: Atticus goes racist

YogiNole

Star Player
Nov 12, 2004
6,677
395
733
Atticus goes from a nice guy to racist ahole in the sequel. Pretty sure the next book will feature Atticus moving to The Villages near Ocala and organizing a pro-Confederate flag rally
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/b...watchman-gives-atticus-finch-a-dark-side.html

in Ms. Lee’s long-awaited novel, “Go Set a Watchman” (due out Tuesday), Atticus is a racist who once attended a Klan meeting, who says things like “The Negroes down here are still in their childhood as a people.” Or asks his daughter: “Do you want Negroes by the carload in our schools and churches and theaters? Do you want them in our world?”

Photo
BOOKLEE1-master180.jpg

"Go Set A Watchman," a follow-up to Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird."CreditHarperCollins
In “Mockingbird,” a book once described by Oprah Winfrey as “our national novel,” Atticus praised American courts as “the great levelers,” dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal.” In “Watchman,” set in the 1950s in the era of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, he denounces the Supreme Court, says he wants his home state “to be left alone to keep house without advice from the N.A.A.C.P.” and describes N.A.A.C.P.-paid lawyers as “standing around like buzzards.”​
 
Last edited:
I'm looking forward to reading it. I understand that Go Set A Watchman is the original version of To Kill. And the To Kill was a flashback. The publisher suggested narrowing the focus and using Scout.
 
I haven't read the book yet, but it doesn't sound as much like the new book's made Atticus into a racist, as that it has placed him into a greater context regarding the world in which he was living. In To Kill A Mockingbird, I think that it was solely focused (through the lens of a little girl's perspective) on Atticus' belief in the protection of the defendant's legal rights.

In this new book, it sounds like Scout is older and the way that she views her father has grown also - to include different parts of him that she might not have noticed when he was younger, but that could have been there all along. In the mid-1900s in Alabama, I think that even if he weren't overtly "racist", that so many aspects of his life (which would have been "normal", if not slightly privileged) were in defacto racist that it's probably impossible to make a distinction.

It sounds like the new book broadens his character to show that even though Atticus may have been presented as this great man in one aspect in his life, nobody's perfect and he was still a decently well-off white man living in the South during the 30s-50s. At least that's what I've got from what I've read about it. (Disclosure: I'm not a literary expert or critic) I'm looking forward to reading it though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
Its also important to realize this was written first. The editor suggested she take a different route which she did. As a result she changed her father into the man defending the rights rather than being someone with more narrow views. I don't think she ever intended to release this version since it changed the characters so much.
 
Its also important to realize this was written first. The editor suggested she take a different route which she did. As a result she changed her father into the man defending the rights rather than being someone with more narrow views.

So you believe she "lost" the manuscript for this book for what, 40 years, and just found it. That's a little hard to believe.
 
So you believe she "lost" the manuscript for this book for what, 40 years, and just found it. That's a little hard to believe.

No, from what I've read she has had no plan to ever print this book. I think she's very old and not in the best of health and someone has taken advantage of that to publish a book she never planned to have published.
 
So you believe she "lost" the manuscript for this book for what, 40 years, and just found it. That's a little hard to believe.
It sounds like she's always had the manuscript but never wanted it to be published. As she got older (and more senile?) she was tricked/forced into publishing it by everyone else that would make $$$ off of her - publishers, family, etc.
 
It sounds like she's always had the manuscript but never wanted it to be published. As she got older (and more senile?) she was tricked/forced into publishing it by everyone else that would make $$$ off of her - publishers, family, etc.

Correct. Her sister (and lawyer) had been shielding her until she passed late last year. Now there's no one to keep the wolves at bay. The manuscript didn't "suddenly" turn up.
 
It sounds like she's always had the manuscript but never wanted it to be published. As she got older (and more senile?) she was tricked/forced into publishing it by everyone else that would make $$$ off of her - publishers, family, etc.

that's plausible.

the 180 degree change in the main character is far fetched, especially when you consider the current political climate.
 
The reviews say that the evidence indicates Watchman was the original. There are similar passages and some exact quotes when it comes to describing the town and character development.
 
Yes, everything I've read says that this is what was originally submitted to the publisher. They convinced her to rewrite and focus on Scout as a child rather than as an adult looking back.
 
Ive been following this for a few years and it reeks of exploitation and carefully introduced "new discoveries" to build anticipation.

i buy none of it and expect it to be dreadful
 
The law firm she retained for 50 years has an article in today's WSJ about how the manuscript was found. It was in an old safe deposit box that was opened per the estate directives. Interesting stuff.
 
The law firm she retained for 50 years has an article in today's WSJ about how the manuscript was found. It was in an old safe deposit box that was opened per the estate directives. Interesting stuff.

you overstate the facts a bit. it wasn't a law firm but her current lawyer. this lawyer wasn't her lawyer 50 years ago, and wasn't even admitted to the bar until 2006. this lawyer published an op ed in the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper owned by the publisher of Go Set a Watchman, about the discovery of the manuscript. The lawyer is a trustee of her estate who has an obligation to maximize its value. From her op ed, its likely she hadn't even read To Kill a Mockingbird at the time of the "discovery." The WSJ coverage really adds little to the questions of the contradictions between Watchman and Mockingbird. In fact, Lee's mental capacity to make her own decisions, including whether to publish Watchman, were questioned by Alabama medical officials. Lee is in a nursing home and has trouble hearing and seeing.

Interestingly, Lee's own sister was a practicing lawyer so the reliance on Ms. Carter, and the length of the legal relationship, seem exaggerated. Carter didn't "discover" the manuscript until Lee's sister died.
 
Soooo... ghost written by Rupert Murdoch's "divide the proles" false flag operations unit?
 
you overstate the facts a bit. it wasn't a law firm but her current lawyer. this lawyer wasn't her lawyer 50 years ago, and wasn't even admitted to the bar until 2006. this lawyer published an op ed in the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper owned by the publisher of Go Set a Watchman, about the discovery of the manuscript. The lawyer is a trustee of her estate who has an obligation to maximize its value. From her op ed, its likely she hadn't even read To Kill a Mockingbird at the time of the "discovery." The WSJ coverage really adds little to the questions of the contradictions between Watchman and Mockingbird. In fact, Lee's mental capacity to make her own decisions, including whether to publish Watchman, were questioned by Alabama medical officials. Lee is in a nursing home and has trouble hearing and seeing.

Interestingly, Lee's own sister was a practicing lawyer so the reliance on Ms. Carter, and the length of the legal relationship, seem exaggerated. Carter didn't "discover" the manuscript until Lee's sister died.

I certainly wasn't taking a position on this and apologize for any confusion that I may have inferred such. The lawyer is a part of the firm where her sister practiced, and I'm not sure I recall the lawyer stating that she is now or has ever been Ms. Lee's personal attorney.

FYI, my uncle is the retired superintendent of schools in Monroe County, and for years lived down the street from the house she owned in Monroeville, in a house owned by the school board. I know some people in Monroeville, and I am familiar with the area. My aunt and uncle knew her as an absentee neighbor and only had a few conversations with her on the infrequent occasion when she came "home". It's a place some could say is still stuck in time in more ways than one.
 
I read the first chapter. I'll read the rest over the weekend. But it is apparent there is a reason that you do not publish your rough drafts.
 
the author's older sister was a lawyer. this lawyer, ms. brown, was employed by the older sister and has taken on representation of the author after the older sister's death. i came across an article - which i can't find now - which claims ms. brown drafted documents for Lee to transfer the copyright to mockingbird, got Lee to sign them, then a few years later went to court to invalidate the document. that is highly unusual for anyone to do, let alone to invalidate your own work product. add all of these questions to the changes to Atticus Finch and there are some important unanswered questions.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT