Amph Go Set a Watchman: Thoughts? [Spoilers]

So the internet's close to exploding from Harper Lee's sequel to "To Kill a Mockingbird", specifically due to

Spoiler

Atticus Finch's portrayal as a racist old man that shocks a grown up Scout when she visits her hometown years after "Mockingbird" ends.

Personally, the novel was one of those required reading assignments I grumpily slogged through and then promptly forgot. I knew racism was wrong and didn't need hours of reading time to convince me. Now, some people were deeply moved by it and feel like something precious has been ruined. I personally am intrigued by this aspect of Finch's character. I do know people who outwardly do good things while having dark and unaddressed issues; people who hate certain people while considering themselves "social activists". This makes the premise of "Watchman" more meaningful to me than the sermonizing I got from "Mockingbird". But I'm just one person...

What is your opinion on "Watchman"? Has something been ruined or does the sequel add a useful layer of insight?

Ramza Edit: As Cor pointed out, the book isn't available for a few days and consequently appropriate tags need to be utilized. Forgive the spacing in my edit but it's necessary to keep it out of the preview text.

 

I'm kind of apathetic. I hadn't heard about the new twist on Atticus. I mean, if that's all it is, just "Atticus is a horrible person now" in order to shock people, then that's kind of dumb. If there's more to it than that, it could be fine.

I'm a huge fan of the original novel and the film. And I was just telling someone this evening that I kind of feel like the original characters have been such a huge part of me for so long that I don't know that I'll ever be able to, even if I like Watchman, really connect the characters from Mockingbird to the characters in Watchman, if that makes any sense. It will, I think, feel to me like I'm reading a fictional story about the "real" people from Mockingbird; which, yeah, that's weird, but it's the only way I can figure out how to say it.

 

*sigh*

Personally, I was already spoiled by a headline that one of the characters turns out to be some sort of racist, but it would be nice to others who want to discover that as they read the book next week if you could spoiler tag certain information, eh?

 

Not that I really mind this thread, but I thought I should link to my own. Nothing I've encountered since makes me open to reading the book.

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/harper-lees-second-book-to-be-released.50026995/

 

Watchman was actually written before Mockingbird, so it's more of an old twist than a new one.

I find the whole thing interesting and might even get around to reading it one day, but I'm not going to treat it like a true sequel and I don't expect it will shed any new light on Mockingbird. It's closer to two Finches in separate and occasionally intersecting universes, one where Finch is who he is, and the other where he's seen through the biases of a loving six-year old child. They basically can't be the same character just for that reason.

 

I think that's pretty close to exactly how I feel. Though for me, I think the Mockingbird Atticus will remain the "real" one - it's the rare book that I choose not to parse too deeply as to how Atticus is too perfect. He is, but when I read the book or watch the movie, I just believe that he really is the good man Scout sees him as. It's partly just a choice - I think the book works better that way and, in an odd way, the character is more compelling when he's less complicated, which almost never happens. It's also just a strength of the writing; I could choose to try to see past Scout's biased perspective, but it just feels more true the other way.

 

I've been re-reading parts of To Kill A Mockingbird and plan on picking up a copy of Go Set A Watchman tomorrow. I'm not really thrown off by the most recent Internet "controversy" involving certain opinions expressed by Atticus in the new novel. If the first (published) book is a coming of age story, told from the perspective of a child in the 30s--one that expresses idealism; the early reviews indicate that Watchman is more about disillusionment amid social/political change. Fans of the classic novel can still appreciate the Atticus Finch portrayed on those pages despite any other portrayal. Without having read it, it sounds like the version of Atticus presented in Watchman is more a product of his time and geography. Any change could also be attributed to the differences in perspective by the main character: a young child's perception of her father vs. an adult's opinion of her father. If anything comparing the two novels will offer insight into Lee's thinking and editing process. In terms of what sells copies--there was likely a reason her editors encouraged her to focus on the nostalgia of her childhood memories (instead of this manuscript). At the same time, I'm looking forward to any nuance in the characters.

I'll see where my opinion stands after actually reading it.

 

I think a big part of the problem that people are having with this information can be summed up in two words. Gregory. Peck. Gregory Peck won an Oscar for his portrayal of Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird and he's become heavily intertwined with the source material as a result. Now we find out that Atticus is a very different person than we've been led to believe. It's not hard to see why people are suddenly having trouble with GSAW.

 

What does Zombie Gregory Peck think about all this?

 

He hasn't come out of his room since they took down the confederate flag.

 

Sources close to him put his quotes as "Brains. Brrrraaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiins. Brrrrraaaaaiiiiiinssssss."