Blogger: Janet Kobobel Grant
A few months ago I wrote a blog post about why I was hesitant to jump into reading Harper Lee’s Go Set a Watchman. (That post is here.) Well, I leaped into the deep end of that pond when the book club I belong to voted it in as this month’s selection.
Several surprises awaited me as I plunged in.
- As an editor and an agent, I would never have considered working on the project. The first chapter is literally a nonstarter. Nothing happens in it. Jean Louise (aka Scout all grown up) is riding the train back to Maycomb for her annual trek from New York.
We sit on the train with Jean Louise. She recalls her family’s history, the nature of train riding, how the county seat was determined, etc. There’s no tension, no conflict, no action. The only movement is the train swaying down the tracks. As with most train rides for me, I was ready to snooze. I didn’t become engaged in the story until I was 40 percent into it. - The book leaps from the present to Jean Louise’s childhood without warning. The frequent switches are jarring in the early chapters. Eventually, Lee has a certain sight or smell in the present remind Jean Louise of a childhood moment, but at first the recollections pop up in a disorienting way.
- Lee’s ability to describe a scene or portray a character shines through. From that dull first chapter, this gem appears:
The train clacketed through pine forests and honked derisively at a gaily-painted bell funneled museum piece sidetracked in a clearing. It bore the sign of a lumber concern, and the Crescent Limited could have swallowed it whole with room to spare.
- Atticus isn’t some brain-dead bigot, spouting hate at blacks, which has been a much ballyhooed aspect of the book. In actuality, he remains the thoughtful, kind, man of the law we find in To Kill a Mockingbird. He is struggling with how the Supreme Court has ordered the South to change its ways and presents himself as someone who believes change needs to be more gradual. Yeah, today we find that reasoning as substantial as melted ice cream. But, in the 1960s, many educated whites saw Civil Rights that way–the North interfering with the South once again. As Atticus argues with Jean Louise, the superior civilization of the agrarian South is being pushed by Yankees and the N.A.A.C.P. into disorder. To him, law and order must prevail. I didn’t find this Atticus such a far cry from the Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird who believes a poor black man deserves a fair trial. In this book the same Atticus mistrusts civil rights, which he sees as leading to disorder. And Jean Louise herself, when asked about the Supreme Court decision says, “Well, sir, there they were, tellin’ us what to do again.” It’s almost as if, to these characters, the question, as was true in the Civil War, is more about states’ rights than civil rights.
- The book, like To Kill a Mockingbird, showcases Lee’s sense of humor and ability to stand back and see the silly delight of Southern living. Much as one might make fun of a loved sibling, Lee sees the charms and foibles of the South. Here’s a delightful childhood memory:
Calpurnia had placed three tumblers and a big pitcher full of lemonade inside the door on the back porch, an arrangement to ensure their staying in the shade for at least five minutes. Lemonade in the middle of the morning was a daily occurrence in the summertime. They downed three glasses apiece and found the remainder of the morning lying emptily before them.
“Want to go out in Dobbs Pasture?” asked Dill.
No.
“How about let’s make a kite?” she said. “We can get some flour from Calpurnia . . .”
“Can’t fly a kite in the summertime,” said Jem. “There’s not a breath of air blowing.”
The thermometer on the back porch stood at ninety-two, the carhouse shimmered faintly in the distance, and the giant chinaberry trees were deadly still.
“I know what,” said Dill. “Let’s have a revival.”
- I didn’t like Jean Louise. I certainly never anticipated that response when I had adored Scout! But Jean Louise gets in her head that Hank, her almost-fiance, and her father are both horrifyingly bigoted. So she lights into Hank over lunch in a restaurant, humiliating him in public, and she refuses to let him finish a thought before rushing in to condemn him all over again. Her conversation with her father goes pretty much the same way. Jean Louise turns into the Energizer bunny, rushing around from person to person denouncing them and can’t get herself out of fast forward. Until…
- Her uncle slaps her silent. He hits her not once but twice. Then he explains violence was the only way he could get her to listen. And you know what? It works. For the first time in the book, Jean Louise quits talking and really listens. This is the climatic moment in the story in which the protagonist makes a major shift. Her uncle suggests that Jean Louise stay in Maycomb and help to transition it into its full potential. She seems to think that’s a fine idea. I cannot bear that Lee penned a story in which a woman is brought to her senses by a man’s blows.
- The book continues as it started, with lots of talking and thinking but not much happening. The political discourses do go on and on and form the majority of the book.
- My book club’s collective response to Go Set a Watchman was one none of us could recall ever occurring in the 17 years the club has existed. At the end of each evening’s discussion, every individual rates the book from 1 to 10 (10 being the highest) for, first, how much we enjoyed it; and, second, for how well we thought it was written. With Watchman, the average rating for writing quality was in the 4-5 range, and the average rating for enjoyment was 7-8. Never has enjoyment so outranked writing. But that’s the kind of book this is: You find it fascinating that, somehow, out of this “nest” of a manuscript, the much more artful To Kill a Mockingbird was birthed. I still can’t figure out how the editor ever saw the makings of Mockingbird in Watchman.
What surprises you most in my opinions about the book? If you’ve read Watchman, what surprised you about it?
TWEETABLES
Come join the discussion about Go Set a Watchman’s writing. Click to tweet.
Book club in a blog: Go Set a Watchman. Click to tweet.
I never liked TKAM. I found nothing attractive about Harper Lee’s South and to me Scout was more ‘precious’ than precocious. I found the book overrated. to put it mildly. Had to read something a lot fresher afterwards to clear my palate.
* GSAW is far, far worse. Its only redeeming feature is the connection with TKAM, and that is merely a marketing redemption. The occasional brilliance in description and dialogue is cast into the stygian depths of an ink-sea by the leaden weight of Lee’s political and philosophical musings. It’s often like reading a tract authored by Kim-il Sung; ‘turgid’ is the word that comes to mind.
* As a disclaimer, I should say that loathe, absolutely detest the entire Southern Gothic genre. It has the cloying ambiance of being smothered in honeysuckle.
* And I apologize for my bluntness; I know that many loved TKAM, and loved Scout. But this whole phenomenon seems to me a crass marketing exercise, and while it’s interesting for a student of craft and genre, it ends up (for me!) as a literary Potemkin village.
Have you ever heard that rather dry phrase “Wow, tell us how you really feel”?
Hahahahahaha.
Jennifer, yes; I have heard it. And while I have the right to dislike TKAM and GSAW (and the genre), that does not imply the right to share those thoughts in the boorish and ungentlemanly manner in which I did. My comment shames me; speaking harshly of something much-beloved is simply wrong.
* In what may be a good object lesson in social media, circumstances are making of me something less that the best I can be, and while the circumstances are unpleasant, they don’t give any entitlement whatsoever to BE unpleasant.
* “Condemnant quod non intellegunt” might well be applied to me here, and it may be time to go.
Though I greatly admire Andrew’s writing style and often feel he is just short of a genius in many of his posts.. have to admit, Jennifer, those very words popped into my head when I read his comments. No offence, Andrew… just sayin.’…
No offense taken, Elaine. I completely agree with you, and wish I’d not made the initial comment.
Stand down.
I think what you wrote is perfectly fine!
A hearty opinion is a wonderful thing.
Especially since you can articulate things better than most people. I mean, come ON, “It has the cloying ambiance of being smothered in honeysuckle.” That is an awesome line!
*I* should have put “insert droll response here that you need to take with a smile and a grain of salt” before I commented.
I appreciate what you’re saying, Jennifer, and in sincerity, and what humility I have, thank you. I know you were speaking with tongue in cheek.
* Truth is, I regretted the comment immediately on writing it. Saying that I didn’t particularly care for either book is fine; saying that while I didn’t like the slap nor the political consciousness (though they’re understandable as artifacts of the social mores of the time) might have been constructive.
* But slamming a classic isn’t OK when it’s beloved by so many, because it implicitly criticizes taste (and I have no credentials to do that). That’s not polite, and it’s not what’s expected of a gentleman. TKAM creates a world that so many visit, and revisit; all I need do is say, “no, thank you” and move on.
* The fact and social media caveat is that when you lose both hope and focus, you should step away, because you can easily make harshness a part of your current public persona, and part of your legacy. It can beg the question “what…or WHO will be the next target?”
* And for that harshness, I apologize.
I understand your regret over your initial comment, but I personally felt like uttering an amen after each of your sentences. Watchman was published, I strongly believe, to make money. Period. It offers us a view into Harper Lee’s growth as an author to move from Watchman to Mockingbird, but I’m not fond of Mockingbird from a writerly perspective either.
Long time reader – first time writer.
As authors and readers, why do we insist upon imposing current attitudes, assumptions and beliefs to events of past decades? For sure, there was a time the South was smothered in homeysuckle. Earlier on the west was covered with the blood of buffalo slaughtered by white men. Sputnik scared us into underground cement bunkers in the back yard. All seem rediculous today, but they existed.
To write about them I’m in favor of using the language of the time, the attitudes of the time and the behavior of the time. How else are we to undertand and feel what the characters experienced then?
Don, I appreciate your perspective. It’s always a balancing act to determine how authentic to make a current work written about the past (especially fiction). If you imitate the language too closely, the contemporary reader will struggle. We as readers sub-consciously expect a certain rhythm in the writing, including length of sentences and even word order. Because language is fluid, what the writer must do is take certain words from that period and use them to give us a sense of reading about another time. But to attempt a complete match with that era is to write something readers aren’t comfortable with. Attitudes from another era are a different matter. I think writers need to reflect the thinking and view of life as closely as possible. It drives me nuts to find authors infusing 21st-century sensibilities into another era.
Andrew, while a harsh assessment of TKAM and GSAW, I must admit, I found your prose brilliant. You drove home the power of words, and they were the perfect complement to my afternoon coffee.
———
And a side note: You’re in my prayers. May God grant strength, peace, and healing…
*In my day job, I am supposed to be a “change agent,” to guide people out of the rut of a routine that isn’t serving the mission of the organization. I confess that slapping folks out of their ruts has crossed my mind. The technique wouldn’t serve the ultimate mission.
*I haven’t read the book, Janet, but your thoughtful summary conveys the sense that the Supreme Court slapped the South out of its rut. Would gradual, gentle steering have accomplished the same thing without the violent blow?
*An author can be a change agent, using words as a slap to move people out of their ruts.
Regarding the South- ” Would gradual, gentle steering have accomplished the same thing without the violent blow?”
It didn’t seem to be working. Perhaps legislating change was the only way to guaraantee it?
Shirlee, the slap is an interesting analogy. Thanks for helping us to see the book from a different perspective. Harper Lee’s thinking about legislation forcing the South to face racial inequalities seems muddled in Watchman. For the most part, I think she perceived it a necessary action, but Southerners are hyper-sensitive to the issue of state’s rights.
I really enjoyed TKAM. I read it in high school, and then again as an adult. I haven’t read GSAW, and I’m not sure I will, after reading what so many have said about it. Am I curious? Yes. But, with the scarcity of time I already have, I would rather invest it in a book I’m likely to enjoy. 🙂
*From what you shared, I was surprised that your group liked it as much as they did. But, I guess that thought comes out of my own perspective. If it took me 40% of the book to become invested in it, I probably would not have read that far.
*Thanks for sharing your insights, Janet. This was an interesting post.
“But, with the scarcity of time I already have, I would rather invest it in a book I’m likely to enjoy.”
Spoken like a true writer!
Jeanne, the only reason I read so far into the book before I became engaged is because it was a book club selection. I try to read every book, even ones I dislike because I see it as part of the commitment I’ve made to the book club. If I were reading this book on my own, and if it didn’t have such a fascinating history, I would have stopped reading after the first chapter.
The book club rated enjoyment high because we all found it fascinating to have a glimpse into the book-before-the-major-book. Not because we enjoyed what we were reading.
I figured that was the main reason you read so far into the book. 🙂 Sometimes the “Have to” overrides the “Want to.” And now I better understand why your book club’s rating for the enjoying level was what it was. 🙂
I find it interesting that you didn’t become engaged into the story until 40% in. There are “some” books I’ve read where I’m asking myself, “How …?” But … 40% in, the winds change. I’ll often laugh, feeling like someone waved their hand in front of my face, saying, “You will like this book.” And I close that last page with a smile on my face, thinking … this is the best book I’ve ever read. 🙂
**And many thanks to all who prayed for me over the retreat. It went great.
Regarding the retreat, Shelli–I never doubted. You are doing what God calls you to do. And that’s great.
Yay! I knew it would go well!!
And 40% in before I find a reason to like a book? Nope. I give it a few chapters, and then I’m either all in, or done.
Thanks for the update on how the retreat went, Shelli.
I can’t recall ever reading into a book so far before finding some saving grace in it. Definitely not my standard modus operandi to do so.
I’m so glad the retreat went well, Shelli! And, I’m sure your words ministered to your hearers!
I’m stunned the group rated it so high!
After the scathing reviews came in, I refused to spend a penny on what was so clearly a money grab.
And I often wonder if Harper Lee has a sweet clue what’s going on.
The book club rating was more a fascination factor rather than enjoyment of the book. Our discussion that night was especially lively and fun, and I think that also boosted the rating.
I’m reading it now, so I hope you’ll forgive me if I stopped reading your post partway through. I didn’t want to come across any spoilers.
My husband loved it. He reads all the time, and much of what he reads was published 50 or more years ago (and a good percentage of his favorite authors are British). This means he’s not attuned to “modern” books the way publishing professionals are. He wasn’t put off by things that drive publishing people nuts.
That said, the head-hopping and time changes definitely stood out to me and are making it harder going. Still, if I can read Tolstoy, I can read this. I’ve enjoyed the story so far, perhaps because of the setting and its evocation of a different era. When I finish, I’ll come back here and read the rest of your blog post, Janet.
Elissa, if your husband regularly reads older books, a slower beginning probably wouldn’t bother him as much as it did me. But I’m with you that the past/present switches weren’t handled elegantly.
Our book club also read this book. Most of the women hated it when they first walked through the door, but after discussing it many changed their minds.
We felt that:
1. It needed to be read as if reading a first draft.
2. That very little editing occurred in it.
3. That Harper Lee never intended for this to see the light of day.
4. It needed to be read as a completely separate book from To Kill. If you judged it in comparison it was a dismal failure, but if read as entirely new book with new characters it wasn’t bad.
As for the slapping scene it’s funny that was never brought up in our discussion. There are so many books where slapping, punching, severe abuse occur now that I guess we just skimmed right by it. Now I could be wrong here, but back in those days was slapping a normal occurrence to bring people out of hysterical behavior?
I didn’t love the book, nor did I hate it. I believe it had some thought provoking ideas. For me it felt apropos as I read it during the Confederate flag national debate.
Suzanne, I agree with your points 1-3. Although I still don’t get how this can even be considered a first draft that led to Mockingbird. Sure, the children’s scenes are some of the best in the book, but it’s still a Grand Canyon leap from this manuscript to Mockingbird. Regarding your #4, what made it an enjoyable reading experience was to compare the two. As a book in and of itself, I don’t think it was good enough to deserve to be published–that’s the publishing insider in me talking.
Reading Watchman during the Confederate flag debate would haven added some great spice to the experience, I would think.
I hadn’t thought about a slap being used to jolt a person out of hysteria, but her uncle noted he had never slapped a woman before–and it actually felt kind of good. Hm.
I was most surprised by the slap. I remember reading the slap in Princess Bride and being so upset and shocked. But to have it be the impetus for change in the main character, very difficult for me to see that happen.
Kristen, it surprised me that no one else in my book club mentioned the slap–and many of them didn’t even remember it. But once I brought it up, several responded, “Oh, yeah, that was pretty awful.”
Thanks, Janet, for expressing what I felt but couldn’t articulate. After hearing so much negative opinion about the book, I bought it anyway and loved it. Somehow the slow start didn’t bother me. And though Jean Louise often seemed a funny duck, she was true to herself. More importantly, she was willing to change once Atticus got her attention. I loved Atticus, his integrity intact as he searched for balance and gradual change in his South. I’ll read this book again, and can’t help wondering if Harper Lee has any more novels squirreled away.
Julie, my theory on any other novels by Harper Lee is that, since this original was kept, the editing process that led to the final version of To Kill a Mockingbird might also be in that safe. I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but my guess is the attorney will “discover” those versions, with the editor’s handwritten notes, and publish them. We’ll see!
Janet, I appreciate your input. I liked Scout in To Kill a Mockingbird and prefer to remember her that way, so I think I pass on reading Go Set a Watchman. Thanks for saving me the time so I can invest it in reading something else!
Good choice, Peter.