Scan barcode
A review by georgobgabgalab
Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee
4.0
I've seen the not-so-good ratings, and I understand... 'To Kill a Mockingbird' would've been better on its own, it did not need a sequel, etc, etc.
However, I feel like 'Go Set a Watchman' by itself is, at the very least, very well written and thought out. It did not feel like a money-grab (albeit I do see how making TKAM into a "series" was unnecessary).
Harper Lee's writing has improved in comparison to the first book, or she purposefully made it seem like it as a way to give a more mature tone to the narration, given that the novel followed the journey of a young woman instead of a girl in the midst of her growth. Lee has her unique way with words, adding her own style to all descriptions along the way; eloquent without being forced - and I will forever refer to simple things such as my morning coffee as my "blistering black brew"
She also (yet again) has her novel ingeniously structured. Like in TKAM, the manner in which she divided the book into parts was wisely calculated, inciting me to take a moment to breathe and reflect upon the heaviness I just read. From what I gathered, each part ended after Jean Louise got through some sort of heartbreak or disappointment, and because the nature of it was not always as explicitly presented (though the emotions were always apparent), the break did feel necessary to pursue later on with the reading.
Why do I think 'Go Set a Watchman' bothered so many people (me included)? Now, I have seen the mediocre ratings, but I abstained myself from reading the reviews in order to form my own opinion so I may be completely wrong.
This book completely destroys the true essence of 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. A young girl and her brother, in their pure innocence and maturation, uncover the truths of the world surrounding them. Heavy topics such as prejudice, racism, injustice, are all discussed throughout the first novel in the perspective of a child's mind, providing simplicity and clarity to the understanding of the ideas presented in the book. On the other hand, 'Go Set a Watchman', is downright confusing. The man who first served as a teacher of good values (in TKAM) now has the purpose of being an example of a flawed, bigoted human being. That in itself isn't a problem - I am actually glad Lee decided to portray Atticus that way without stepping down and pulling off a "twas just a prank/dream/anything else lazy authors do". But then, out of all characters, the one that explains the whole fiasco to Jean Louise is literally the one that is borderline made fun of for being so incomprehensible in his speech solely made up of references from an assorted range of literature only he seems to have the time to read. Granted, after Jean Louise and Uncle Jack's conversation, JL was as puzzled as I was, and it did help having certain phrases repeated later throughout the book as she slowly began to grasp the meaning behind them. However, these mind games defy what made the first novel special in the first place. I understand that Jean Louise is an adult in this installment, so she is bound to have a different point of view as she would have as a child like she did in the first. But making it mentally straining to understand what the heck happened to Atticus was not particularly pleasing (lol) and I'm embarrassed to admit that I barely fully grasped several ideas of the book (... I could re-read it but... meh.).
To end it on a good note, I wanted to mention that I admire one of the author's consistencies. She does not allow herself to slip into what could be an "easier way out" in terms of plots, and persists in delivering a close-to-reality story. No matter how unsettling certain moments are (such as the verdict of Robinson's case back in TKAM; or here in GSAW when Atticus and Hank remain the same bigoted men Jean Louise discover them to be until the end of the book), they end up being essential to the delivery of the ideas pertaining to the book.
However, I feel like 'Go Set a Watchman' by itself is, at the very least, very well written and thought out. It did not feel like a money-grab (albeit I do see how making TKAM into a "series" was unnecessary).
Harper Lee's writing has improved in comparison to the first book, or she purposefully made it seem like it as a way to give a more mature tone to the narration, given that the novel followed the journey of a young woman instead of a girl in the midst of her growth. Lee has her unique way with words, adding her own style to all descriptions along the way; eloquent without being forced - and I will forever refer to simple things such as my morning coffee as my "blistering black brew"
She also (yet again) has her novel ingeniously structured. Like in TKAM, the manner in which she divided the book into parts was wisely calculated, inciting me to take a moment to breathe and reflect upon the heaviness I just read. From what I gathered, each part ended after Jean Louise got through some sort of heartbreak or disappointment, and because the nature of it was not always as explicitly presented (though the emotions were always apparent), the break did feel necessary to pursue later on with the reading.
Why do I think 'Go Set a Watchman' bothered so many people (me included)? Now, I have seen the mediocre ratings, but I abstained myself from reading the reviews in order to form my own opinion so I may be completely wrong.
This book completely destroys the true essence of 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. A young girl and her brother, in their pure innocence and maturation, uncover the truths of the world surrounding them. Heavy topics such as prejudice, racism, injustice, are all discussed throughout the first novel in the perspective of a child's mind, providing simplicity and clarity to the understanding of the ideas presented in the book. On the other hand, 'Go Set a Watchman', is downright confusing. The man who first served as a teacher of good values (in TKAM) now has the purpose of being an example of a flawed, bigoted human being. That in itself isn't a problem - I am actually glad Lee decided to portray Atticus that way without stepping down and pulling off a "twas just a prank/dream/anything else lazy authors do". But then, out of all characters, the one that explains the whole fiasco to Jean Louise is literally the one that is borderline made fun of for being so incomprehensible in his speech solely made up of references from an assorted range of literature only he seems to have the time to read. Granted, after Jean Louise and Uncle Jack's conversation, JL was as puzzled as I was, and it did help having certain phrases repeated later throughout the book as she slowly began to grasp the meaning behind them. However, these mind games defy what made the first novel special in the first place. I understand that Jean Louise is an adult in this installment, so she is bound to have a different point of view as she would have as a child like she did in the first. But making it mentally straining to understand what the heck happened to Atticus was not particularly pleasing (lol) and I'm embarrassed to admit that I barely fully grasped several ideas of the book (... I could re-read it but... meh.).
To end it on a good note, I wanted to mention that I admire one of the author's consistencies. She does not allow herself to slip into what could be an "easier way out" in terms of plots, and persists in delivering a close-to-reality story. No matter how unsettling certain moments are (such as the verdict of Robinson's case back in TKAM; or here in GSAW when Atticus and Hank remain the same bigoted men Jean Louise discover them to be until the end of the book), they end up being essential to the delivery of the ideas pertaining to the book.