I think Atticus is the reason readers rebel against Watchman

One of the things we didn't discuss in book club is why people who spoke out against Watchman got so upset. I have my own theory that it's because Mockingbird fans are moved by the characters and the plot (and the old Gregory Peck movie for that matter) and they don't want anyone to mess with it. Mess with their view of what Atticus is in particular. People want a hero, and in Watchman, Atticus is just an arthritic man trying to survive in a changing society.

It's like reading about Dumbledore in a nursing home with dementia. No! No! It can't be! That's the not the Dumbledore or Atticus that I know!

That's what I think is going on in the public psyche. Which is what happened with Scout in Watchman. Zeus came down from Mt. Olympus.

Readers didn't like it. Huh. Neither did Scout. Which makes the public's reaction to Watchman a fascinating study in reader response. Wayne C. Booth, the author of The Company We Keep, would be having a field day.

And there I go, analyzing like a graduate student.

You can take the English graduate student out of the library, but you can't take the library out of the graduate student. Ah well, book club works for now.

Go Tell a Watchman

It's my turn to be the hostess for my book club this month and the book is Go Tell a Watchman by Harper Lee. I missed all the hoohah about the controversy involving the publication of Watchman, missed the NPR commentary, missed the call from purists calling for boycotts of the book.

I just saw it at Costco and bought it. (Where was I? Oh, there I was at Costco for bread, milk, and bananas. Again.)

When I read it, it seemed off. Not like I remembered Mockingbird. Which is why I volunteered for the book club assignment. So I read Watchman first, then re-read Mockingbird, and back to Watchman one more time.

I think the two books provide an interesting basis for comparison. I think it's obviously a draft---Scout is too TOO. Too intense. Too upset on a dime. Too self-righteous. That would have all been ironed out with a good editor. I liked Uncle Jack in there, I hadn't really noticed him before. I thought the barnacle-on-your-parents-morality was the whole point. And I liked reading what Lee intended first of all, that she changed as she decided on Mockingbird's final draft.

Writing is a process, after all, and works take on attitudes of their own. Sometimes even authors write it in a way they don't necessarily like, but it's what the text calls for. It's this weird The-author-is-in-charge-oh-wait-no-the-text-is thing. Writing a text like that is like trying to potty-train a strong-willed three-year old. Some compromises have to be made on both sides. Since the Watchman flashback  trial ends in acquittal and the Mockingbird trial does not, Lee obviously had to do some compromising.

In writer speak, that's called "revising".

Basically, my To Kill A Mockingbird world did not shatter, really it didn't. I think the world of freshman English can go on teaching Mockingbird and assign Watchman as extra credit. I don't think Watchman will be the universal classic that Mockingbird was, but I'm not sure it was ever meant to be that.

All in all, I'm looking forward to book club tomorrow to see what other readers think. I thought it was good.