Replies

There was a very relevant comment in lonsberry's comment section I thought I'd pass on:

Most writers have projects they have abandoned for a lot of reasons. Great painters paint over paintings, writers shelve books. Lee's manuscript sat unpublished for over 50 years because that's how she wanted it. Harper Lee should have burned Go Set A Watchman. Instead, a money-grubbing lawyer (Tonja B. Carter) and publisher (HarperCollins) are cashing in on her senility and her name. It's not right.

There was a very relevant comment in lonsberry's comment section I thought I'd pass on: Most writers have projects they have abandoned for a lot of reasons. Great painters paint over paintings, writers shelve books. Lee's manuscript sat unpublished for over 50 years because that's how she wanted it. Harper Lee should have burned Go Set A Watchman. Instead, a money-grubbing lawyer (Tonja B. Carter) and publisher (HarperCollins) are cashing in on her senility and her name. It's not right.

I agree with Lonsberry. I figured as soon as I heard what details have emerged that Go Set A Watchman is an earlier draft of the Atticus character and that the two versions would not meld.

On a side note, why does Lonsberry feel compelled to write every one of his sentences as a separate paragraph?

To see what happened, let’s remember the purpose of writing – it is not to tell a story, it is to make a point. The story is just a device.

As a writer, particularly a sci-fi/fantasy writer, I seriously disagree with this. When "making a point" becomes more important than telling a story, then everything becomes political (look at what is happening to the Hugo's because "the point" is more important than the story.)

For decades it was known at Harper Collins that "Go Set a Watchman" had existed, but it was assumed that all copies of the manuscript had been lost.

Harper Lee obviously knew the story in it's editable draft existed, because she submitted it back in the 50s. But she likewise thought that all copies were lost.

So it is more than disingenuous to suggest that Harper Lee never wanted this story published. Of course she did, back when she submitted it for publication.

Would she have had a change of heart later? Maybe. But this is like discovering a lost play by Shakespeare, or a poem by Keats. If they wanted it "known" they would have made sure it was "known", but it is still fascinating to find and read.

But modern political oriented people feel that "the point" is more important than the story, so they can't separate what they like from what they appreciate. (i.e., if I don't like "the point" of the story, then the story can't be artfully done.")

I haven't read "Go Set a Watchman" yet, but I'm sure I will see flashes of "To Kill a Mockingbird" throughout it. We will see the raw imagery and powerful prose that Harper Lee gave us in her second try. We will even see weaknesses in her craft that she shored up in her masterpiece.

And none of these things have anything to do with "the point". We need to let politics be politics, and stop trying to infuse that flavor into everything we take in.