The media instinct to trash all that is inspiring and noble was unmistakable in Monday morning's Today report on the new novel (Go Set a Watchman) by Harper Lee, the author of the widely celebrated, best-selling To Kill a Mockingbird, first published in 1960.
Debate has raged over whether Lee, who is in very poor health and whose mental competence has been questioned, ever wanted her manuscript to be released. "Today" totally ignored that important controversy. Wanted or not, the book officially hits the shelves on Tuesday. Watchman portrays Mockingbird hero Atticus Finch in his old age as "a racist" who is "opposed to that era's reforms, like desegregation, even attending a Ku Klux Klan meeting." Naturally, Today contends that "many feel" (media-speak for "we believe") that the new book's "broader moral themes" are "just as vivid now as they were in the 1950s" because of "racial tensions" in Ferguson and Charleston.
There's also an unseemly and unmistakable sense of celebration over how Atticus Finch "has been knocked off his pedestal":
Transcript (bolds are mine):
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Now to the controversy over one of the summer's most highly anticipated books, as "To Kill a Mockingbird" author Harper Lee gets set to release her second novel. NBC's Stephanie Gosk is here with the story. Stephanie, good morning.
STEPHANIE GOSK: Hey, good morning, Savannah. Well, Atticus Finch is one of America's great literary heroes. Taught in high schools all around the country. But the 1950s lawyer who defends a black man wrongly accused of rape has been knocked off his pedestal (actually it's the 1930s; otherwise, an older Finch in the 1950s wouldn't have made any sense — Ed.), and it's his creator Harper Lee herself who does it.
ATTICUS FINCH: (in film clip from "To Kill a Mockingbird" movie, played by Gregory Peck, whose performance earned him a Best Actor Academy Award): Good morning, Walker.
GOSK: To generations of To Kill a Mockingbird's readers and viewers of the classic film, Atticus Finch has stood a near-perfect model of integrity and social justice.
FINCH: You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view.
GOSK: Starting Tuesday, that's all going to change. Harper Lee's long-awaited companion novel, Go Set a Watchman, isn't on bookshelves until tomorrow. But it's already causing a wave of backlash and outrage, many fans furious that the beloved Atticus is now shown to be a racist.
The novel, written and set during the 1950s civil rights movement, features an elderly Atticus opposed to that era's reforms, like desegregation — even attending a Ku Klux Klan meeting.
DANIEL D'ADDARIO, Time Magazine: We see Atticus's darker side. He has frankly racist opinions about his black neighbors and clients, and he says that he doesn't believe black people should be part of civil society. This is really shocking to readers.
GOSK:Mockingbird fans on social media say Lee's new Atticus is, quote, "ruining my life." Another added, "it literally broke my heart."
The reclusive author is keeping silent, but in a statement to NBC News, Lee's publisher, Harper-Collins, calls Watchman "bold and unflinching," saying in part, "The question of Atticus's racism is one of the most important and critical elements in this novel, and it should be considered in the context of the book's broader moral themes."
And many feel those themes are just as vivid now as they were in the 1950s, with racial tensions coming to flashpoints in places like Ferguson and Charleston. Lee's less heroic, more human Atticus Finch may be hitting shelves at the right time.
D'ADDARIO: This is a really complex and rich topic which really speaks to where we are today as a nation. (naturally, with an accompanying photo of a Confederate flag.)
GOSK: Book critics are in a twist about all of this, as you probably can imagine. Here are a couple of the best comments:
- One called it, quote, "disturbing reading, particularly disorienting for Mockingbird fans."
- Another said, "It was the toppling of idols."
- And the New York Times wrote, "It could permanently reshape Harper Lee's legacy."
The experience-based guess here is that the Times and others who insist on keeping this nation divided on race as they claim just the opposite couldn't be more pleased with Watchman's release, which absolutely should lead people to question its timing. Henceforth, no one will be able to discuss the lessons of Mockingbird without also disclosing that the mythical Atticus Finch because a racist later in life. Or maybe he was a racist all his life, even when he was allegedly noble. Regardless, "now we know" that he was not an uncompromisingly noble man — which in the leftist mind makes sense, because there are no uncompromisingly noble men, only supposedly noble ways of (centrally) organizing them. Oh, and see? There's no such thing as a white person who isn't a racist.
The effect on "Lee's legacy" should be enough to make people question whether she really wanted this book released, especially because there's this inconvenient quote from a year ago which hasn't been satisfactorily explained away:
“Rest assured, as long as I am alive any book purporting to be with my cooperation is a falsehood.”
At the time of that UK Daily Mail article, Lee was described as "while having started other books, one a non-fiction about an Alabama serial killer, she filed them away as unfinished." Her insistence on no new book appears to be across-the-board and comprehensive, and not limited to an unauthorized biography published last year.
In February, Caelin Miltko at the Notre Dame-Saint Mary's Observer noted the following about Lee's current health situation:
First, Harper Lee has been notoriously shy of the public limelight since the media frenzy that greeted the publication of “To Kill A Mockingbird.” She, seemingly, abhors journalism and allowed her sister to act as her mouthpiece for most of her life. Like J.D. Salinger, she had no interest in being a media magnet like J.K. Rowling.
After her sister died, she got a new lawyer, Tonja Carter. Carter, Lee’s agent and her publishing company stand to make millions off of this “sequel.” Let’s be honest, there’s very few of us who aren’t at least a tiny bit curious to see what Scout got up to in her latter years.
Second, Lee has lived in an assisted living facility since 2007 after suffering a debilitating stroke. There is some concern that her living situation makes it impossible for her to control her own destiny and that her agents are taking advantage. Her previous shyness seems to support this idea.
Third, it seems odd that this book would be published now. “Go Set a Watchman” was actually written before “To Kill A Mockingbird” and, yet, for some reason, it was never published before. There doesn’t seem to be any catalyst for this sudden change of heart and people are, rightfully, suspicious.
Damned right we are.
But why wouldn't Lee want Watchman published? Beside the possibility that it the author didn't consider it complete, a writer I know provided the following insights:
I dispute that she, in her right mind, would have ever published the novel. If it laid in a safety deposit box for all that time, there was probably a reason -- writers stash stories the way squirrels stash nuts ... I also question the timing and motivation of the publication, especially in light of the fact Lee said she would not sign off on an e-book version of Mockingbird, and then miraculously did after (her sister) Alice died.
Regardless, the book will be released, and it would appear that those of us who want to see genuine societal improvement will be poorer for it.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
