Go Set a Watchman: A Novel

This was interesting, in that it is technically the sequel to "To Kill A Mockingbird" but apparently was written first. I had just finished TKAM (re-reading after many years) which was just as good as I remembered it being. There were a few issues in this book that seemed to be inconsistent with the story in TKAM, but they were minor, and didn't affect how much I enjoyed this. Scout is still headstrong, and independent to a fault as an adult. Atticus is still pragmatic and sensible. I was a bit disappointed that Jem and Dill were no longer with us. I found it a little slow at times, and kept thinking that if I had not just re-read To Kill A Mockingbird, I am not sure this would have held my interest as much as it did. I also dislike that whole "miscommunication as a plot device" concept, but I did like the way Jean Louise comes to terms with her father's humanity and human failings. It's a right of passage we all go through with our heroes, and Ms. Lee handles it well.

Disappointing followup to "To Kill A Mockingbird" lacks the glorious prose of the fist book and almost seems as though it is written by someone else. Filled with familiar characters, but Atticus Finch is almost unrecognizable. His overt racism, while realistic for a southern gentlemen of the period, is still oddly shocking for those familiar with the iconic character of "Mockingbird". There have always been rumors that "Mockingbird" was reworked by Truman Capote and the original editors and publishers when "Watchman" was first submitted for publication. This current work casts some new doubt on whether Harper Lee actually wrote "Mockingbird" completely. "Watchman" is less a sequel than it is the original outline for "Mockingbird" and was written first, before others reworked it to create the great classic we all know. It is better that we not elevate this book to classic status. It doesn't really deserve the accolades.

Though not nearly as good as To Kill A Mockingbird, it is eminently readable. The majority of the critics fall into two camps, those who tell you that you should be critical of the book because a supposedly heroic character has turned out to be a "monster," and those that tell you they don't like the activities surrounding its publication. Most of these critics are blowhards who have not read the book themselves. As to the first suggestion, if there was any hero in the first published novel, it was Scout who revealed all to us, and potentially Boo Radley who rescued Scout from certain peril. Furthermore, the ultimate status of other characters still living at the time Go Set A Watchman are ambiguous at best, and a complicated ethos is wrangled between competing factions for a full two chapters near the end. As to the second suggestion, in none of the hundreds of books I have read in my lifetime, have I ever felt it necessary to ask the question, "Cui bono?" so why should I begin now, because some dilettante with a blog spiels a rant, and then that rant goes viral with bunch of copycats? Not on your tintype.

The most important thing about beginning this novel is to stop thinking about it as To Kill a Mockingbird. Same character named and places but the story is completely different.

It's been decades since I read To Kill a Mockingbird. I remembered a few character names and very loose plot points. Going into Go Set a Watchman I was able to read it for itself.

What an amazing return to Maycomb County, to characters we have grown to love, if not from bound pages, some of them yellowed and dog-eared, then from the silver flickering of a moving image in a darkened theatre or television room, and to sensibilities of the 1950s that had almost vanished from my 62-year-old brain. Though worn, the attitudes and the struggle, between the races, within families and among generations continues, making the conversations and messages perennially of value. To me this was a fitting and satisfying conclusion to the tale so exquisitely told by a great American writer. I'm glad it was published now, as the perspective of the years and events that have happened since it was first penned only enrich its value. Thank you, Harper Lee! Count me one more author inspired by your prose.

I approached this novel as a cynic, thinking it was a scheme by promoter and publisher to capitalize on the fame of Harper Lee's TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. It was puzzling that a completed manuscript put aside a half century ago would suddenly merit publishing.

I was wrong. GO SET A WATCHMAN is an equally powerful work and as beautifully written. It takes place in the same setting, Maycomb County Alabama through the voice of a polished adult, Jean Louise known to readers of MOCKING BIRD as Scout, and in a different time from the depression of the thirties: post 1954 Brown v Board of Education.

It may lack the impact of the social justice issue of the Tom Robinson trial in MOCKINGBIRD, but the impact of a child returning home as a refined adult shocked at the hostile change in race relations, is equally effective.

The book has a superbly crafted ending, a bruising, but family-resolving encounter with her Uncle Jack that leaves the reader wondering if anything has changed since.

When I finished this book I found myself thinking that it read like a first novel, which I understand it was even though the events in the story occur some years after those in "To Kill a Mockingbird." My guess is that if Harper Lee had written only this one book, we would never have heard of her. It was mildly interesting to look in on the characters years after our first introduction to them, but that wasn't enough to carry the day for me. I also felt cheated by the absence of Jem and Dill. I felt that conversations that were probably meant to help us to know each character and move the plot along were often hard to follow. It was like Lee was writing in family shorthand, and I wasn't a member of the family.

Good but not as intimidating, tense, moral as first. The surprise disclosed in this book has disappointed many PC people, but it is real and exists and you don't change it with flag ceremonies. In my way of thinking, the books should have been written vice versa, that is, Mockingbird being the second book. It makes the consciousness and fortitude even more honorable and significant. I have difficulty with Scout in this book who is surprised by the temperament and community mores... you do not live in a home with educated, talkative people and not know basic traits as those examined here.

Scout is a little spoiled and uppity herself and should recognized the raising she received was enough to create her own character, so that she could walk away from the poison environment which was her father*s home all his life. One generation is now cleanse, education and home raising succeeds in creating a better person in the next generation which is really all one can expect realistically. To hell with all the adults and juvenile delinquents, they are lost and a loss to throw money at.... educate and create teachers, who can make a change is a child*s life, educate so the child can read about life outside the town limits. Educate a child in such a way as to create knowledge, but also create curiosity with an open mind.

But the book doesn't go there, lol... sorry for the diversion.

Enjoy.

I had very high hopes for this book. Perhaps that’s in part why I am so terribly disappointed. I must credit Harper Lee’s editors: it was a wise decision to insist that she rewrite this novel, and continue revising it, until it turned into the magnificent To Kill A Mockingbird that we all know and love. There are only perhaps two or three parts of this book that I found actually enjoyable; the rest I grudgingly endured. It had its good points: her vocabulary is strong, and some of the writing is eloquent. Unfortunately, much of the writing in this book is nebulous. There is a great deal of philosophizing, which I found tiresome. Also, most apparent in the beginning of the book, Lee chooses to “tell" the reader about her characters, rather than “show," as she did in Mockingbird. “Showing" rather than “telling" is a much stronger writing technique. I found the “telling" juvenile, prosaic, and not engaging at all. Fortunately that ceased after the beginning of the book. If I weren’t so determined to read this book for its historical value, having been published some sixty years after it was written, I would’ve dropped it after the slow, poorly told beginning. So I pushed through, and upon completing it, I found myself with an empty, dissatisfied feeling. I’m almost sorry this book was published. I just re-read To Kill A Mockingbird very recently, in anticipation of this book, thus deepening the stark contrast between the brilliance and delightfulness of Mockingbird and this disappointing book. I do recommend reading it just for the sake of historical background, because it is interesting to see where one of the best, most revered pieces of American Literature got its start. I’m giving this three stars, which I feel is a bit generous, but I’ll allot extra credit for the admirable vocabulary.

Here is a video review/ discussion of the book that I feel hits the nail on the head. https://youtu.be/vPNk-0dv5_Y

While I much prefer "Mockingbird" to "Watchman", this is also a coming-of-age book - for Jean Louise as an adult. I would have liked to see Jem and Calpurnia's characters and thoughts on the situation included also. More of Atticus and the townspeople too.
It is a definite read for everyone though, and provides a different outlook on the racial situations than "Mockingbird" did.
I wonder why Ms. Lee, in writing this novel first, put such a different spin on Atticus in "Mockingbird". It must have been difficult to view him in a completely different way in "Mockingbird" -- a child's view of her hero vs. an adult's view of a man.
I will read it again, and again.

I was disappointed in this book in the respect that it contained a huge error. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Robinson was convicted of raping a white girl. In Go Set a Watchman, when Tom's trial was referenced through Jean Louise's memories, the result of the trial was acquittal. This error was very disheartening to me. Also, Finch's Landing had been inhabited by Aunt Alexandra and Uncle Jimmy when Scout was a child but nowhere in this book was that referenced as so. Additionally,if Henry Clinton had been such a lifelong, important friend of Scout's, as described in this book, why wasn't he mentioned anywhere in To Kill a Mockingbird?
On a positive note, Jean Louise needed to see her father as a "real man" as opposed to the god she felt he was prior to her return to Maycomb. As a devout fan of To Kill A Mockingbird, I found this book overall disappointing.

While clearly Harper Lee's first novel and not her best work, this book was not nearly as bad, either in writing or in content, as I was lead to belief by some. In some things I read about this book, Atticus was said to be portrayed as a drunk and a racist and I didn't find either to be true. I think he was shown in this book as a realistic version of an older Southern white, educated adult male, resistant to change, set in his ways, just as people are today. People want to judge both historical and fictional characters by our standards today rather than the reality of the time they lived in or are set in. The writing was clearly earl mid-twentieth century and overly dramatic for my taste, I would have found the adult Scout as portrayed in this novel to be a royal PITA. However, it is worth reading and some people will find it badly written, some will find it offensive and some will find it boring (it kind of is, in some places).

I was afraid from all the kerfuffle around the release that I would not like this book. But it's a great book. It ABSOLUTELY needs to be read *after* Mockingbird. I can imagine the editor who put this manuscript into a drawer and told Lee to go home and write the prequel was very wise indeed. And although there's controversy about this work getting published, I think it deserves to be published and it adds enormously to Mockingbird. Mockingbird presents this world as we present the world containing Santa Claus to children. Watchman is what happens when the child finds out Santa isn't real (sorry -- maybe I should have put a spoiler alert on that.) Without the background provided by Mockingbird, though, this story would be pretty empty. So I'm a little uneasy giving it five stars -- I'd never have given it that many if it was published alone, but as part of the Mockingbird universe it certainly earns them.

There are several more detailed reviews here that I'd only be repeating if I spent a lot of time. Check them out for details -- for me, I'll just join the chorus of "this is a good book."

I reread Mockingbird before I read Watchman, and was much more impressed with it than I remember being when I was assigned to read it in high school. It is clear to me after reading both why Lee's editors wanted her to re-write Watchman. What is remarkable to me is that they had the foresight and prescience to ask her to do it. How could they know that such a wonderful book as Mockingbird would result?

I enjoyed reading Watchman, more for its historical context than literary value. It is a much better book than many other published novels I've read; it just sort of pales in comparison with Mockingbird.

I think the events described in Watchman are realistic, having grown up in the South during that period. I think it is unfortunate that some people have such negative views of Atticus, or for Lee portraying him as she did, as I've read in other reviews. People have to be viewed in the context of their times, and good people might act in ways or do things that we wouldn't approve of now. Wonder what they'll be saying about us in 50 years? If predictions about global warming turn out to be true, our reputations might suffer worse than those who played parts in any previous social injustice.

It was a bit difficult to follow along, what with her constant thinkings back to the past. It brought in Hank, who was not in the original book, and discarded other characters who were. The book did not hold my interest as To Kill A Mockingbird did, but it did give the reasoning behind the thoughts and feelings of those in the south during this period of time. I had a difficult time pinning down the exact year when this took place and only got it when I googled To Kill A Mockingbird and found out when the original story occurred. The ending and the philosophy of her uncle probably told the entire story. I was not happy with this book and still question if Harper Lee actually wrote it or merely had notes scribbled and someone else penned it.

Jean Louise has grown into a self obsessed 26 year old living in New York City. When she comes back to Maycomb, she is disillusioned with the way things are. She feels betrayed by all those she loves because they do not think or act in ways she thinks are right. Jean Louise feels that her life and what she thought her father stood for, was a joke on her. I feel the same way about this book. I set myself up, with the help of advertising, to anticipate a great book that would be a connection to TKAM. I am sadly disappointed and feel betrayed. It was not worth reading and only served to make me angry. Most of the characters in TKAM are only briefly mentioned or not in the book at all. I am left hanging, wondering what happens in plots that Harper Lee starts but doesn't finish. The character of Jean Louise is maddening. She is full of herself and most of the book consists of her tirades. She is furious at her father, but the way she speaks to him is shameful. At one point in TKAM, her father said she would grow out of swearing. She doesn't and seems to include the words hell, god or damn in most of what she says. The book was a little insightful so I gave it two stars. As someone else noted, it is very much a first draft and I don't think it was worth publishing. I wish I had paid more attention to the fact that it was written before TLAM, so I have to partly blame myself for the huge let down that this book was.

I would recommend reading or rereading "To Kill a Mockingbird" first. Watchman takes place about 20 years later. Scout is all gown up and has moved to New York. Every year she comes back to Maycomb for her two week vacation. This book is told in the third person, Scout is no longer the story teller. The story takes place shortly after the Supreme Court's Brown vs The Board of Education, saying that equal but separate educations for blacks and whites violated the constitution. We encounter a different version of Atticus Finch, a different version of the Mockingbird trial. Scout must come to terms with her father's racism and her own perceptions their relationship. We are given additional looks at Scout's past as she grew up in Maycomb Not having a mother who could explain what becoming a woman causes her some difficulties. The story keeps you interested and wanting a better resolution. Harper Lee wrote this book first and may not have did not really finish it. It is still a good read.

After all of the articles about Atticus Finch's racism, I was pleasantly surprised with Go Set A Watchman. It ideally aligns with To Kill A Mockingbird when you consider the narrator. In the first best seller, Scout is the voice. Her father, Atticus, is a saint . . . a God . . . a perfect man. In the new best seller Scout grew into a mid-20's Jean Louise. A third party is narrating. Reality is setting in. What Jean Louise sees in her father, as an adult, may have always been there had Atticus not been a saint in her mind. Regardless, Jean Louise is the primary character, not her dad. The theme is dealing with change. There is change in her town, her family, and the society. How each character deals with Jean Louise, as she pushes back on change and reality, is brings complexity, and satisfaction for both books by Harper Lee. I hope a third book is found. She remains a great writer.

Read TKAM for the first time immediately before reading GSAW. I was ready to name my next child Atticus and, as a lawyer, was thrilled to have a moral portrayal of the profession.

Then I read GSAW. The now 26-year-old just couldn't stop interrupting dialogue. Her character was less mature than her younger Scout, which i founder disappointing for a female heroin portrayal. Here she is trying to find out why, but instead of listening, screams, cries, and just goes off on these rants, running away every chance she gets.

The characters are unrefined and Atticus, well it was interesting seeing his reasoning for his views, but it did not make sense as an evolution of his character when juxtaposed to his younger TKAM self. I don't agree with the other reviewers that he was always this way. The only similarities were his deductive reasoning skills.

I'm glad I read it because once I came to terms that this was just the first draft of the "polished gem" TKAM became, it was more of an historical read of how important editors are and how easy it is for people take advantage of situations. This read made me deeply appreciate Lee's invisible hand and better understand Lee's reluctance to continue interviews or publish other books.

While this book certainly doesn't need any more reviews than it already has, I'm adding my two cents anyway, mostly so I can remember what I thought of the book.

I'm a big To Kill a Mockingbird fan, and it left a huge impression on my when I first read it as a teen. I knew from the advance hype that this book wasn't going to live up to TkaM standards, but I still had hope.

No, this one didn't work for me. Yes, I was disappointed that some of the characters I loved turned out to be racists, but that alone is not the reason for my disappointment.

To me, this read more like a bit longer novella than a novel. There was not a lot of depth to it. Towards the end, it sounded too preachy. The characters that were so rich in TKaM were rather flat here. There wasn't much of a plot.

I listened to the audio edition narrated by Reese Witherspoon. Her reading was good, not quite as good as I expected but good. However, the music between sections was just annoying.

I still love To Kill a Mockingbird, and because Go Set a Watchman is easily forgettable, I don't think it will color my opinion in the long run.

The outrage over this book is really amazing. I knew going in that there was no way this could be anywhere near as good as To Kill a Mockingbird so I was not disappointed when it wasn't. Mockingbird is one of my all-time favorites and apparently, this is the case with many others and you see that many are upset over the revelation of the true nature of Atticus Finch. To me, though, this is fitting. Atticus is a product of his time and place and this is shown clearly in Watchman. Thinking back to Mockingbird, Atticus is a voice of reason and man of integrity. Upon a closer look, however, he isn't really outspoken about his ideas of race. He only defends Tom Robinson because the case was appointed to him and the man was clearly innocent. In the eyes of Atticus, Tom didn't deserve an unfair trial simply for the color of his skin. That doesn't mean Atticus believed in racial integration, though. When Calpurnia sleeps over, she is on a cot in the kitchen. These are only a few examples that I have found in Mockingbird that allude to, but don't hit you over the head with the fact that Atticus doesn't believe in integration of races.
I also see Watchman as a perfect sequel to Mockingbird. I'm SO glad Mockingbird was published first. It draw a parallel with WIlliam Blake's Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience. Mockingbird shows Scout as a very innocent young girl. She learns some valuable life lessons in Mockingird and thus, loses some of that innocence but certainly not all of it. In Watchman, her innocence is totally lost and by the end of the story she is a mature adult and has become her own person completely. Atticus is no longer the infallible god that is seen through Scout's eyes in Mockingbird. He is a flawed human being. In this way, Scout has now become the moral compass that Atticus was seen as in Mockingbird. In fact, at the end of Watchman Atticus tells Scout how proud he is of her for standing up to him for what she believes. She is the one that actually carries the traits that we all thought belonged to Atticus, and even then we see that Scout has some flaws herself (i.e. she wouldn't marry a "negro"). Clearly, this shows that to some degree Scout is also a product of her time and place.
Those who are lambasting this book for its content, in my opinion, are not putting it into this type of context. It is set during the time when desegregation was a hot-button topic much like same sex marriage is today. It is set in the deep South where racial tensions were very high. To me, the content and characterization is spot on.
As for the literary views of it, it is definitely NOT the masterpiece Mockingbird is. The ending feels a bit rushed, Uncle Jack's speeches are a bit drawn out, and the history of Maycomb County gets old very fast. The childhood flashbacks are very interesting and fun to read. It is clear to see why Harper Lee was advised to craft a story around those ideas. With some proper revision and editing, I truly believe Watchman could have become a masterpiece, as well. As it sits, though, it is still a great companion piece to Mockingbird. I like how it made me think, how it made me feel uncomfortable, and how it made me miss the characters that I read about in Mockingbird. This is, after all, exactly what Scout is thinking and feeling in Watchman and we are right there with her from the first page of Mockingbird to the last page of Watchman.

I had high expectations for this long awaited sequel to Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird (one of my alltime favorites). However, it was a little disappointing. I expected it to be in the same slow, languid voice that Harper used in her first book, so I was prepared for that. But at the end, I felt it had been a bit disappointing. The message was poignant and will stay with me (no spoilers), but it seemed like a long arduous build up for such an anti-climax. I'm still glad I read it, I did put my finger on something that actually surprised me, but there was no dramatic last scene that tied everything together like there had been in Mockingbird. Still, I love the way she winds a yarn and her voice, so Southern and mesmerizing made it worthy.

Don’t read reviews. We are just ignorant clowns with high opinions of ourselves. But, if you are indecisive and have already heard conflicting reviews, then by all means, enter the fray and read on.

Buy it and read it (!!!),especially, if you are between the ages of 22 and 30 (and yes, it is worthwhile for ALL ages) Go Set a Watchman may not be what you expect, but it is Harper Lee, and she has a way with words. You will be sure to enjoy the new characters, in particular Dr. John Hale Finch.

*Spoiler alert*
Go Set a Watchman is is a very different book than To Kill a Mockingbird. It could be re-titled, Go Scout, and find Your Conscience. The book has a more grown-up feel. The narration is still from Scout, but instead of the innocent perspective of a child, she is twenty-six years old and has all of the idealism, dreams, immaturity, and drama one would expect from a young adult (hence its relevance to tweenagers).

I know little of Harper Lee, but the book appears to be a description of her worldview with a myriad of conflicting themes (beyond just racism). Scout is struggling to makes sense of her world after finding that Atticus is not her moral anchor. She draws from Aunt Alexandra, Dr. Finch, Church, and her childhood to find a moral compass that can explain what she sees in Maycomb. Written in the 1950’s, it is almost prophetic that Harper Lee could describe the search for justice and truth at the time that many absolutes were being discarded.

Jean Louise narrates the story and much of it centers on her struggle to understand Atticus. She is not the naïve child she once was. She is a New York wise twenty six year old who discovers that Atticus may not have been the same shining white knight she assumed him to be. Atticus is not immune to the cultural reconstruction and changes of his time. Jem has died, but he is not forgotten. Although his heart failed, he lives on in the hearts Maycomb and in the Jean Louise’s recollections.

If you are 25, like myself, you will appreciate the coming of age struggles (not the teenage nonsense called “finding oneself”). Jean Louise is pressed to find a spouse and to return to the small town of her youth. While home offers familiarity there is no anonymity to be found (note: The Coffee scene in particular). Small towns embody both what we love and hate. A fitting description of Got Set a Watchman.

People who are hating this book because Harper Lee made Atticus into a "racist" missed the point of this book entirely. This was about Scout finally seeing her dad as human rather than the god-like figure, finally taking him off that pedestal she had him on. Most people have this happen by their teenage years but Scout has not had this happen until she is an adult coming back to visit her family since her father is such a great person, making so few mistakes. You learn that true bigotry is not being willing to listen to someone that challenges your opinion. I was disappointed with this book at first because I did not think it was on the same literary standard as To Kill A Mockingbird but the last fourth of the book raised my opinion of this book.

I am an English teacher. The writing is eloquent; story line is rough. Perhaps it's just that we grew up knowing Atticus Finch to be a good person. In this novel, I felt I had lost a father figure (however strange that sounds.) It was also heart breaking to hear Scout's view of her father, as he teeters and falls off the pedestal on which she placed her father. It hit too close to home, learning a man is not what he seems to be. Finch is, in this novel, a KKK member. The references to Tom Robinson were cursory and unexplained. I had to close the book when the word "N(gGer" was splashed across multiple pages. Not my cup of tea. And I don't drink tea.

Reading this book, even though I knew from early reviews and newspaper articles that Atticus would be revealed as a hateful racist, was one of the all time worst decisions I have ever made! And the disappointment that such a great character from TKAMB was now forever tainted is only compounded by the fact that that Go Set A Watchman is boring, disjointed and not even very readable. It's inconceivable to me that I ruined my love of TKAMB for this waste of time. It should have remained unpublished. There are so few things these days that we can actually look up to and revere - such a tragedy to lose one of the great ones. I wish I had an undo button in my brain.

So disappointing, but really no surprise. I only read it because my misguided book club chose it as a selection. From the back story I've seen about how it came to be published I can only say how sorry I feel for poor Harper Lee, and her late sister. It's so obvious why neither wanted it published and I have no doubt that Ms. Lee would have destroyed the manuscript if she found out the plans for it while still of sound mind. It's a bad book, really more of a polemic than a novel. The character of Atticus is a mere shell of what he was in Mockingbird, and he's not substantial enough to carry the enormous weight that the book attempts to place on him. I took the opportunity to re-read Mockingbird (for the first time in 45 years) and was so impressed with the language and the characters and the stories of a small Southern town. It really struck me what a distinctive and Twain-ish voice Lee had in the book. That language and voice are largely absent from Watchman, unfortunately. Comparing the two books make me appreciate what a marvelous editor she must have had to go from Watchman to Mockingbird. And the fact is that Mockingbird so skillfully makes the point that I think Watchman was aiming at (tho' not entirely sure of that) without slamming the reader over the head. Bottom line, I wouldn't bother reading Watchman unless you want to compare to Mockingbird. As a stand alone novel it is pretty horrible.

If one read To Kill a Mockingbird first, this would disappoint if you didn't understand that Harper Lee first wrote this, and I believe set it aside to write the beginning of the story... and it was in Mockingbird she found her voice. However, it's an important novel, as it's pertinent even today to understand why it's been so difficult for the black and white people to just become one race: human. What I learned most through this book is near the end when Jean Louise discovers she's a bigot. Meaning she sees NO other point of view than her own. Rang a bell with myself. If we don't listen to those who think they have a reason for their prejudices, we'll never be able to get them to listen to our opinions of situations or cultures. This book has come out very late in Lee's life, and I suppose that's because she herself didn't write as well as she felt deserved publication at the time. But don't discount this book as not worth the read. You may learn something about yourself and your own conscience.

Jean Louise Finch, known as Scout in her younger days, is 26 years old now, and is coming back to Maycomb County from New York to spend vacation time with her fiancé Henry Clinton, and her beloved father Atticus. But Jean Louise finds out something shocking about her father and her husband to be that makes her re-evaluate her feelings for the idyllic town she grew up in, and her upbringing. Does she ignore what she’s found out and go ahead with her wedding, or does she leave Henry and her father in the rear-view mirror?

Let me say that I loved To Kill A Mockingbird, anyone whose read my review of that book can see how much I loved that book. Go Set A Watchman is not To Kill A Mockingbird. I did not like Go Set A Watchman. The characters in Go Set a Watchman are paper thin. The new character, Henry Clinton, is hardly an indelible character. The readers immediately know he’s Jean Louise’s fiancé, and readers find out other facts about him, but it’s not a full characterization of the person, for sure. To Kill A Mockingbird had so much depth to it, something that is sorely lacking in this book. The iconic Atticus, the eloquent lawyer is rendered mostly mute, until the second to the last chapter, and that’s a disservice to one of the most iconic characters in literature. Characters evolve, they get older, I’m not sad or angry about Atticus, I wanted to hear more from him in this book to know more about his evolution, but he is largely silent. Other iconic characters from Mockingbird are barely mentioned or not
mentioned at all. Jean Louise is a flawed character, especially to enter into the conflict that she enters into, but that makes her more human in a way. I will give Lee a Lot of credit for discussing race in a realistic way, rather than the idealistic way it was discussed in Mockingbird, but that credit is revoked for the way Lee ended the book, the ending doesn’t match the tone of the entire book, and so, if some part of this book was ghostwritten, I would say that the ending seemed like it was ghostwritten, because it felt added on and wholly unnecessary.

I know Harper Lee went to New York for a time, so there are definitely autobiographical elements in this book, but I don’t know how much is autobiographical and how much is fictionalized. Every author starts with a story they know and fictionalizes parts of it, but maybe it’s too autobiographical, and maybe that’s why she never wanted it published. It is a difficult book to read for sure, and not worth it for the ending that is delivered to the readers.

For more timely reviews, visit my blog, reviewswithatude.wordpress.com

It takes a number of chapters to really "get into the novel". One will see a different view of Atticus Finch and Scout (Jean Louise). One should also keep in mind that the character of ATTICUS was created by Harper Lee in To Kill A Mockingbird and Go Set A Watchman. It should also be noted that both novels take place in the 1930's and 1950's general time period in the South. A good deal of the PRE-publication (of this 2nd book) comments seemed to be made by people in the media who had NOT read the book before making some foolish comments about the 2nd novel.

It is true, you will see a different view of the entire FINCH family. One thinks of ATTICUS FINCH by the portrayal of Gregory Peck in to Kill A Mockingbird. It would make NO sense to try to make a new movie about to Kill A Mockingbird. The version of the movie with Gregory Peck and the book are EXCELLENT as is. As far as a movie being made about the book Go Set a Watchman, it would be VERY HARD to replace Gregory Peck's character.

The question comes up--Should this 2nd book have been published? At this time, I do not have an answer to that question.

Should individuals READ this book? 100% YES--That will allow individuals to make their own opinion about the book well informed.

What a disappointment - this first book by Harper Lee. I wish that it had not been published. I respected Miss Lee for writing To Kill A Mockingbird because she told us something of the best of human kind - showed a person who, at great social risk to himself - stood up for right at a time when he was very much in the minority. This new book shows one how petty, mean-spirited, and closed minded people can be. The speaker lets us see her in an unfavorable light and, though, she at the last shows us that there is some slight change in her attitude: she preaches - pouts - leaves us with little admiration for the characters in the book. I'm sorry that I read it.

Like most, I was apprehensive about reading a book which might denigrate my childhood "dream father". Reading Watchman was a revelation. I like Mockingbird no less, but realize now that it is really a story for children.....Mockingbird engenders good citizenship and high ideals. These are qualities we SHOULD encourage. Watchman is a book for all adults who will remember well the moment they realized that their idolized parent had clay feet. In Jean's case, the only thing that bothered me was that she kept the blinders on as long as she did. Her father and possible fiance were dreadful monstrosities in her visit home, but it is hard to believe that her father's weak character was not evident to her long before this particular visit. Jean/Harperr's realization that the world she chose was a better place than the one she was born to is another affirmation to all adults who have chosen a path different than their birthplace and have chosen to create their "families" with people who share similar ethics and moral compasses - regardless of a lack of common dna.

Well, where to start with this? Knowing that this book existed, I had to read it even though after the early publicity I was very afraid that it would destroy my image of Atticus Finch. Thankfully, it didn't, but that's one of very few redeeming features of the book. If this had been released before To Kill a Mockingbird, there would not have been the same degree of interest in either book and TKAM would never have been the iconic book it was.
I found the writing style to be tedious and lecturey (it mightn't be a word, but you get my meaning). For me, I didn't feel the same investment in the characters that I felt with TKAM. Jean Louise came across as juvenile and self righteous and as for Dr Finch (Atticus' brother) - enough said.
I was also disappointed that the fate of Tom Robinson was different in both books. Even though it's a darker ending in TKAM, it was more realistic for the time and place.
I'm glad I read it because I couldn't not, but it's definitely not up to the standard of her other book. I wouldn't recommend it - although it didn't change my opinion of Atticus, it did change my opinion of Harper Lee 's ability as a writer.

I finished this book awhile ago and have been formulating my review of it. To Kill a Mockingbird (TKAM) is one of my favorite books- I've read it numerous times- and when I heard about this Harper Lee manuscript turning up I pre-ordered it. Did I like GSAW? Obviously- I gave it four stars. It's well written and many aspects trademark Lee from TKAM- it's filled with same dry humor, sharp dialog and the biggest draw are the characters set 20 years after TKAM. Now, if you are truly expecting a prequel to TKAM, you'll be disappointed. Many of the characters are there except for a main one from TKAM, but remember this manuscript was written before, not after. Jean Louise (Scout), Atticus, Henry... they are in this book but the focus is not the trial of TKAM but rather a young woman who has spent her life putting her father on a pedestal as many of us have with Atticus Finch, only to discover he is not entirely who she thought he was.

Atticus is a product of his time- the south in 1930's Maycomb County. After Scout discovers Atticus and Henry in a monthly meeting as a result of impending segregation, her world is shattered. She can't believe her father is a bigot. This drives her to the edge and she eventually spends a good half chapter pontificating to Atticus about how far he has fallen. Or has he? Atticus Finch was in TKAM and is in GSAW a staunch believer in justice and what is right and wrong when it comes to the law- regardless of race. He holds some surprising beliefs considering what we know of him from TKAM. I think that is what is hardest for people that don't like this book- we have all put Atticus on a pedestal. His sense of right and wrong- his unwavering love for his children, his steadfast sense of justice, his work ethic. That has not changed, but this revelation is shocking. Then we remember GSAW was likely never intended to be published. It is a vetting out of a bigger and much more important story. And out of this draft came one of the most well written and well loved novels of all time.

Would I have liked this book as much if TKAM had not been written? Maybe. Friends ask me who haven't read TKAM or read it a long time ago which to read first. I'm not really sure as in my mind these are two independent books with common characters. But the writing- it is in engaging and offers a glimpse into the building blocks of an amazing story- the iconic tale of To Kill a Mockingbird.

I understand this was written before "To Kill A Mockingbird", and was published just before her death. It is not well edited, the story is not all that interesting until about the middle of the book. My bookclub seemed to think it was published by her family for the money it would bring in. Harper Lee did not write another novel after "Mockingbird", although she did write some short stories and helped Truman Capote in his writings. Not sure she ever wanted to publish it, it had been rejected initially by publishers. Not a complete waste of time, especially if you really loved "Mockingbird", but not one of my best reading experiences.

In T Kill a Mockongbird, the reader thinks they see the kind of adult Scout will become. In Go Set The Watchman, the reader witnesses Scout's transformation into fully self-responsible adulthood. It is a difficult, heart and mind wrenching process; but fortunately the senior adults in her life are ready to relinquish the file reins. I like best Harper Lee's ability to allow us, her readers to experience with scout this transformation and in so doing. Also allow us to review or, perhaps recognize the same process in ourselves. Along the way, we are given an excellent review of the social and political issues which continue to plague our nation as they have since before the civil war.

After reading this book, I understand why Harper Lee never wanted this book published. I think people wore her down until she agreed. I feel like they used her just to make money. Those that hounded her to get it published knew the author's name would make it an excellent seller, a money maker. It's not that I thought it wasn't a good book to read but it wasn't the same quality that "To Kill A Mockingbird" was, imo.

I agree with others, if this had been published before her other book, it wouldn't have done anything for me. I wouldn't give it 5 stars but I did give it 3 stars. A lot of people didn't like the way Atticus Finch was portrayed but I look at it in a different way. Things were a certain way in the past and we can look at things today and see how far we have come and also see how far we have yet to go. People evolve, what they didn't consider as unacceptable at that time, they now look upon those things, that transpired, as no longer acceptable.

Considering the greatness of "To Kill a Mockingbird," this novel was very disappointing, though it shows flashes of the engaging writing style and captivating storytelling associated with the other book. I say "other" rather than "earlier," because this book seems to be a first draft that editors rejected, seeing the germ of a fine novel before sending Harper Lee back to the drawing board to produce the landmark novel we all love. In the lives of the "Mockingbird" characters who reappear in "Watchman"--mainly Scout (Jean Louise) and Atticus--this book is about 12 years later, but I found this second encounter with them less than satisfying. While caught at a more mature time of her life, after she's left Maycomb for New York, Jean Louise entirely lacks the childlike charm of Scout. Atticus has morphed into much less virtuous man, slowed by age and disease, but it's hard to see how he could have shown the courage of the attorney who stood up to a town's ridicule and threats to defend Tom Robinson. On the other hand, I found one of the new characters (or at least a character I don't remember from "Mockingbird"), that is Jean Louise's boyfriend Hank, to be quite interesting and refreshing.

I liked to read - "To Kill A Mockingbird", but this feels like it was written by another person. This author is full of racism. Frankly, it was hard to read the book as I turned each digital page in agony. Still, I did force myself and I wonder why this book was written no more. To tell you the truth, we need to understand that the book needs a good editor, but even then I doubt you can change the core premise. Atticus is a bad man. He is full of racism and not who we thought he was. Something tells me,,, this book will not be made into a movie.

Totally upset with this book. I waited on the pre-order list and couldn't wait to read it. I got about 50 pages in. Thought it was just not what I wanted to read at the time. My friend who got it the same day ended up getting through it eventually. I started from the beginning 3 times and just couldn't get into it. I am an avid reader and I think it was the first time I could not get through a book. I was so disappointed. I honestly did not hear one person say they enjoyed it.

It was hard to get through almost the first half. The concepts are muddled. Perhaps the author was muddled in her thinking? Part of the book is a rationalization for abject racism, lamely trying to humanize the evil which corrupts our culture and our world. My pity rose to anguish! The attempt to end on a higher note is still a sad contrivance for justifying the rebellion which was supposedly defeated in 1865. This book is a poster for the regret we should have for ending reconstruction as we did. Racism is the root of hate on many levels and in many arenas. It is a cruel lesson when Ms. Lee had to ruin Atticus Finch, while rationalizing digusting Southerner illusions and resentment, in order for her to deal with her inner demons.

I wanted to love this more. Lee builds incredible characters and scenes, and like its predecessor, Go Set a Watchman delivers that much. The pace was steady -- not fast, not heart-pounding by any means, but even in the chapters where we're getting to learn the characters, you feel part of the story and you want to read on.

Where it went wrong for me was the climax and conclusion, which I will not reveal here. The almost unbelievable way in which Scout resolves the main plot point made me almost angry. Perhaps it was more revealing of the characters than I was ready for, but I think it was more of a revelation of Lee's personality.

Worth a read for the joy of savoring her structure, but don't expect the ending to satisfy.

I was never one of those conspiracy theorists who believed that Truman Capote was the actual author of To Kill a Mockingbird, my absolute favorite book of all time. I always took the viewpoint that if Harper Lee was just a "one hit wonder" what a hit it was! Now having read Go Set a Watchman which Miss Lee supposedly wrote prior to Mockingbird, I can only say someone -- if not Mr. Capote -- must have been the true author of that wonderful book. There is no way Miss Lee could have improved to the caliber of the writing of Mockingbird based on this book. The only parts of the book that are enjoyable are those which include the flashbacks to Scout's youth. Otherwise, the character development is poor, and the story line in this book is lacking. I have friends who refused to read Watchman based on reviews that say Atticus is revealed to be a racist, and they did not want their memories of Mockingbird to be tarnished. If this book had been published first, I would never have read Mockingbird. So I am truly grateful that the publisher suggested Miss Lee rework her original effort. He should have told her to destroy this book so it never saw the light of day. I don't know what the motivation was for Miss Lee to allow this travesty to be published other than financial gain. It certainly will not advance her reputation as a great author. No, Watchman didn't tarnish my memories of Atticus so much as it forever tarnished my admiration for a beloved author. Whoever advised Miss Lee to release this book did her and those who love Mockingbird a huge disservice.