A Further Understanding of Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee #GoSetAWatchman
Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee is the remarkable sequel to one of the best-loved books of all time.
It is no small boast--this book is considered mandatory reading in many school districts across the nation, if not the world. It is thought to be one of the greatest novels ever written; it is always one of the top ten books of all time. Imagine trying to live up to that when it was the only book you ever published? But Harper Lee does it.
No, it is not as good as the original To Kill a Mockingbird. In some respects, it simply evokes the straightforward definition of a sequel, a direct next episode for the plot and characters of the first book. It doesn't go much further than that. Yet in many ways, it seems a greater book--a tighter plot and narrative structure that appears to not waste much time. That was always one of the hardest parts about teaching TKAM. The beginning was kind of long and arduous to where kids wondered when they were going to get to something good. Yes, in a literary fashion we deem all that lengthy introduction as great exposition. However, try telling a modern youth that when he or she is used to seeing an explosion in first five minutes of a movie.
There are at least three bits of allusion that are absolutely necessary for a fuller understanding of what is happening or will happen in Go Set a Watchman.
First, you simply must have a thorough understanding of the Bible verse from which Lee takes her title: Isaiah 21. Babylon, the golden city, is going to fall, and somebody better set a lookout.
Secondly, an offhand remark by a character that looks at Scout Finch and calls her the "daughter of Nereus." Nereus in mythology was a shapeshifter with the power of prophecy.
See, good authors drop little stuff like this. They mean to do it, even little offhand comments.
Thirdly, there's "Childe Roland." First, it is a line from King Lear. Second, it is a Browning poem where the hero gets completely disillusioned and sees the world hellishly distorted. "Childe" is a medieval term for an untested knight (that's very interesting overall).
In a way, Lee has managed to create a new world of thematic interpretation. Phenomenal job of it too. If anything, this book proves she was no one-hit wonder.
I find it fascinating in a literary interpretation sort of way. There are all sorts of schools of criticism with taking the writing itself, or the cultural connection, or the author's life, feminism or Marxism, what have you. Lee is able to do something I don't think has ever been done before: draw upon a 50-year history of literary accomplishment on the book and use it to her advantage in writing the sequel.
If we readers did not know of the character of Atticus Finch and how he has been perceived in history--through the book, through the movie, even through cultural signposts--we would not feel the same as Scout does in the book. The point is that we DO feel as Scout does because we know the literary significance of the character of Atticus Finch. Could Fitzgerald have envisioned a sequel for the lives of Nick Carraway or Daisy to this kind of effect? Could Twain have given us Huck Finn several years later? Could Melville have created a plausible and even more wonderful revenge motif for the son of Ahab (yep--I went and used Moby Dick). All those books would have to have been published 50 years after the original, not some sequel that comes out a few years later due to monetary demand.
What kind of literary interpretation is that? She plays upon the world's understanding of one of the greatest characters of American fiction and masterfully bends it in a new way to evoke an even deeper understanding about the themes and mores of the first novel and America's growing up.
I applaud Harper Lee and her new novel. No matter what you think about the politics, she shapes an amazing literary ride.
#GoSetAWatchman
It is no small boast--this book is considered mandatory reading in many school districts across the nation, if not the world. It is thought to be one of the greatest novels ever written; it is always one of the top ten books of all time. Imagine trying to live up to that when it was the only book you ever published? But Harper Lee does it.
No, it is not as good as the original To Kill a Mockingbird. In some respects, it simply evokes the straightforward definition of a sequel, a direct next episode for the plot and characters of the first book. It doesn't go much further than that. Yet in many ways, it seems a greater book--a tighter plot and narrative structure that appears to not waste much time. That was always one of the hardest parts about teaching TKAM. The beginning was kind of long and arduous to where kids wondered when they were going to get to something good. Yes, in a literary fashion we deem all that lengthy introduction as great exposition. However, try telling a modern youth that when he or she is used to seeing an explosion in first five minutes of a movie.
There are at least three bits of allusion that are absolutely necessary for a fuller understanding of what is happening or will happen in Go Set a Watchman.
First, you simply must have a thorough understanding of the Bible verse from which Lee takes her title: Isaiah 21. Babylon, the golden city, is going to fall, and somebody better set a lookout.
Secondly, an offhand remark by a character that looks at Scout Finch and calls her the "daughter of Nereus." Nereus in mythology was a shapeshifter with the power of prophecy.
See, good authors drop little stuff like this. They mean to do it, even little offhand comments.
Thirdly, there's "Childe Roland." First, it is a line from King Lear. Second, it is a Browning poem where the hero gets completely disillusioned and sees the world hellishly distorted. "Childe" is a medieval term for an untested knight (that's very interesting overall).
In a way, Lee has managed to create a new world of thematic interpretation. Phenomenal job of it too. If anything, this book proves she was no one-hit wonder.
I find it fascinating in a literary interpretation sort of way. There are all sorts of schools of criticism with taking the writing itself, or the cultural connection, or the author's life, feminism or Marxism, what have you. Lee is able to do something I don't think has ever been done before: draw upon a 50-year history of literary accomplishment on the book and use it to her advantage in writing the sequel.
If we readers did not know of the character of Atticus Finch and how he has been perceived in history--through the book, through the movie, even through cultural signposts--we would not feel the same as Scout does in the book. The point is that we DO feel as Scout does because we know the literary significance of the character of Atticus Finch. Could Fitzgerald have envisioned a sequel for the lives of Nick Carraway or Daisy to this kind of effect? Could Twain have given us Huck Finn several years later? Could Melville have created a plausible and even more wonderful revenge motif for the son of Ahab (yep--I went and used Moby Dick). All those books would have to have been published 50 years after the original, not some sequel that comes out a few years later due to monetary demand.
What kind of literary interpretation is that? She plays upon the world's understanding of one of the greatest characters of American fiction and masterfully bends it in a new way to evoke an even deeper understanding about the themes and mores of the first novel and America's growing up.
I applaud Harper Lee and her new novel. No matter what you think about the politics, she shapes an amazing literary ride.
#GoSetAWatchman
Comments
Post a Comment