Go Set a Watchman

 

"As sure as time, history is repeating itself, and as sure as man is man, history is the last place he'll look for his lessons" (197).

To Kill a Mockingbird is a classic that has stood the test of time and remained an integral part of many American classrooms. Over half a century after its publication, Harper Lee's only other novel was published, to the great surprise of the public and just a few months before her death. Fans, young and old, immediately patronized booksellers in order to purchase a copy of this un-anticipated second installment in what was never before classified as a series.

Then began the outrage. To Kill a Mockingbird was a light shining in the darkness of mid-century racial prejudice. It boldly declared the need for every person to take up their shotgun and rid themselves of the rabid dog of racism before it continued to infect the entire country. Go Set a Watchman, however, seemed more like a cautionary tale on meeting your heroes, unless you want to realize that they aren't always what they seem. It presented previously beloved characters as flawed and selfish, and lacked the sparkling anecdotes and crisp metaphors of its predecessor.

Go Set a Watchman was actually written before TKAM, and Harper Lee's agent sent it to several publishers before she decided to write a different story that pre-dated the events she had previously set to type. She clearly felt no inclination to have that original work published after years of literary silence, and yet her virgin work hit bookshelves in 2015 with (according to the note in the book) very little editing done to its original form. Is there something valuable to be learned from this novel? It has been continually controversial, but in the theme of TKAM before it, most things that make people upset usually do so for a good reason.

1. "Every man's island, Jean Louise, every man's watchman, is his conscience. There is no such thing as a collective conscious" (265-66).

Identity and independence. The whole concept of Go Set a Watchman, and perhaps the reason why so many readers found it disappointing, is the development of independent thought and personal responsibility. To Kill a Mockingbird very intentionally sets up a dichotomy between right and wrong, metaphorical black and white, the prejudice of racism versus undebatable stances such as equal rights, honesty, common human decency...etc. These are all very obvious binaries that demonstrate a clear moral high ground.

Go Set a Watchman presents more complex political and moral issues that entail grappling with significantly more gray areas. For example, is it wrong to allow someone to engage in free speech when what they are saying is incorrect or offensive to you? Is it better to speak up loudly for change and burn all bridges with the community, or should one approach change more slowly, in order to maintain those communal ties? 

Atticus has made choices in the process towards change that Scout abhors, even though they both seem to agree on the same final outcome. She rails against him, angry and hurt, clearly taking the situation very personally because Atticus was a perfect hero in her eyes. It shocks her that he would do anything that she disagrees with. The end of the book does not offer any answers or display a clear path forward, but rather chooses to focus on the benefit to Scout in realizing that her father is human and that they will not always agree.

The whole point, starkly different from TKAM, does not seem to be an establishment of clear good and evil. The questions we are left with are: how can we use critical thinking skills rather than believe whatever we hear from the people that we trust? How can we disagree in a healthy way and produce intelligent discourse for change that doesn't result in name-calling and personal attacks? Can we all agree that the issues before us are complex, there may not be one perfect way forward, but we all want the same result and can thus work in tandem?

2. "What does a bigot do when he meets someone who challenges his opinions? He doesn't give. He stays rigid. Doesn't even try to listen, just lashes out" (267).

Political discourse. The second point branches from the first. Having a political conversation in our current climate is nearly impossible, especially amongst individuals from different sides of the aisle. Why is that the case? Well, this lesson is one that Scout learns when she finds herself disappointed in her father's actions. To begin, she keeps her findings a secret and doesn't ask any questions in order to dispel possible misunderstanding. When her anger has become so pent up that she can no longer withstand it, she blows up with deep emotion and is incapable of hearing any explanations.

While not everyone may agree with Atticus' proposals on how best to achieve certain ideals, it is clear to see that his calm and collected manner are a huge contrast to Scout's deeply personal and combative dialogue. He leaves her with the statement that he loves her no matter what, and she leaves essentially disowning him as her parent. Many results can come from engaging in open and vulnerable conversation: convincing, compromise, understanding, and grace. 

Screaming "I'm right; you're wrong" arguments only end in one way, with hypocrisy and broken relationships. One cannot expect others to listen when they themselves are only interested in talking. Herein lies perhaps one aspect of GSAW controversy, in that it doesn't conclude with clear ideals. Instead, it displays multiple sides and leaves them open ended, choosing to make a comment about the nature of political conversations rather than enter into the conversation itself.

3. "I need a watchman to lead me around and declare what he seeth every hour on the hour. I need a watchman to tell me this is what a man says but this is what he means" (181-82).

Messy motivations. While there are a great many aspects of this book that I find thought-provoking and valuable, it is very clearly a draft that needed a lot more editing and feedback to reach the level of TKAM. There were several moments when I had no idea why characters were behaving in certain ways, and their motivations remained unclear even after I had read on. Calpurnia, who is supposedly a pseudo-mother to Scout and Jem, mysteriously casts Scout out of her inner circle of friendship even though she has done nothing wrong. This example is one of many that filled me with questions that were never really answered, and I think the ambiguity detracts from the storyline.

Unfortunately, very few of the characters seem to have changed for good. Scout transitions from being a beloved and opinionated childhood ruffian to a selfish woman in her twenties, leaving her beau clinging to hope that she will one day commit to him and abandoning her family for New York. As I mentioned, Calpurnia is holding some unknown grudge against the children she helped raise, and Atticus is an elderly man suffering from arthritis and doesn't seem to be making the same quiet but brave stand for equal rights. I hate to be the bearer of this bad news, but Jem is dead, having passed away from some genetic heart condition. Anyone looking for a nostalgic visit to Maycomb, Alabama, will not find it in these pages.

4. "It's just that every time I've come home for the past five years--before that, even. From college--something's changed a little more" (75).

Lacking plot. There is really no plot here whatsoever. The whole book takes place in the space of about a week and is filled with intermittent flashbacks to Scout's childhood, which provide the bulk of the word count. The rest is taken up with a very simple concept: Scout is mad at Atticus, she has a very angry conversation with him, she gets a pat on the back for finally thinking like an individual, and everybody makes up. The most interesting bits are in the conversations throughout the text, but the very low stakes create a significantly less interesting novel, especially when compared with a black man's life hanging in the balance as he is tried for a crime that he did not commit.

Overall, while it is a profound read in many instances and touches on issues that are still prevalent today, publishing a book that was essentially left un-edited since 1960 was probably a mistake. I can understand why people were outraged, or at the very least, disillusioned. That may be part of the point that Harper Lee was trying to make, which is that no person should be idolized so much that their word is taken as law. We must never lose the ability to have conversations with those who hold different values, because otherwise, we will never be required to think critically about our own. The execution of the book, however, leaves much to be desired and could have been greatly improved upon with some very simple edits.