Book Snark: Books that Disappointed for One Reason or Another

[GaT]

I am full on rant mode.  HOLY FUCK HOLY FUCK.  It is an abomination!  It is of the Devil!  It offends my very being!

 

What's got my literary knickers twisted in a knot?  The Monogram Murders which purports to be a "new" Hercule Poirot mystery.  It is horrific.  It's like Battlefield Earth-level awful.  It's not Poirot.  It's not Agatha Christie.  It's not even close.  

 

If you're a Christie fan, hell, even if you're not, do not read this book.  Step away from it before it pulls you into a vortex of suck. 

Thank you for the warning. I've read all of Christie's mysteries multi times & I remember when the first "Christie" book came out that was written by someone else I was not impressed. When I saw this book I wondered if I should get it but hesitated. After reading your review, I hesitate no more. I won't be reading it.  

[joanne3482]

I love Amy Poehler. I love her friendship with Tina Fey. I love her hosting awards shows. I LOVE Parks & Recreation. Her book... not that interesting. I don't know what it is, but I haven't even finished it yet and I received it as a gift the day it came out. 

[glowlights]

Sorry, I need to rant:

 

Netherland by Joseph O'Neill. The glowing comparisons to F. Scott Fitzgerald (ha hal!!!) notwithstanding... Hans Van Den Broek is the least sympathetic character I've come across in ages and I wanted to strangle the whiny angst and ennui right out of him. Oh, the humanity! Won't someone please think of the privileged navel-gazing Dutchman who must somehow, someway suffer through his days post 9/11? Unfortunately, I had a million pages of pretentious, bloated blather during which to think of him. Good god, does he blather. The only interesting character

dies.

 

Yeah, I know it won the Pen/Faulkner, the critics loved it, it was the darling of every book club, and hailed as one of the best books about New York ever written. *sigh* Give me Falling Man over this twaddle, any day.

 

/rant

[DimaTheRussian]

The Book of Man Readings on the Path to Manhood By William Bennett is what you get when a bomb goes off in a library of great books leavened with Readers Digests.

 

I have a great deal of sympathy for what William Bennett is attempting to accomplish with this book. Modern young American men are a pack of chicken hearted wretches, chemically castrated by soy products, drugs foisted on them by psychological quacks, and feminist harridans. If you left it up to me, I'd feed the lot of them to the wood chipper and invite some healthy-minded Australians to colonize the North American wastelands. Seems more merciful than trying to breed a generation of actual men in modern America with the legal and social system as it presently is; imagine all the problems that would cause!

 

I'm not really sure who this book is written for. The best I can come up with is some kind of cub scout leader or wrestling coach, looking for stories to inspire the team. Some of 'em are pretty good. Some are true classics. Some are worthless. Some are ... ridiculously short. I was pretty excited that the great Bill Bennett saw fit to quote from the Havamal ... unfortunately, it was only a couple of out of context lines (use the Anglo Saxon poem, "Wanderer" next time you want something like that, Bill). Most of the passages are what I would characterize as "too short" -they convey little, when taken at face value, without the background story. The ones which are long seem to mostly be Readers Digest type sentimental swill about nonentities who deserve their obscurity. Some of it is sermonizing sanctimony that is about as likely to appeal to a spirited boy as wearing a dress. Some are really good stories (Cincinnatus!), but edited down to incomprehensibility. If I were a kid reading this, well, I wouldn't be real excited about manhood. I'd be confused, and maybe considering Gloria Steinem a better male role model than whatever Bill Bennett is prating about. She's more focused anyway.

 

All in all, it's a fairly large, confused amalgamation of short anecdotes vaguely relating to the male gender. I think a kid is going to learn more about manhood from reading some Edgar Rice Burroughs stories or watching cowboy movies than he's going to get out of this 500 page collection. I mean, if it made a kid go to the library and read more about Cincinnatus or Lincoln's career as a wrestler, it would have served a good purpose, but I can't see how it would do that. Maybe he made the passages extra short to appeal to modern numskulls who have 160 character long attention spans. I'm sorry: if we've reached that point, there is no hope for humanity. Call out the wood chippers!

[Snow Apple]

The American Plate: A Culinary History in 100 Bites by Libby H. O'Connell, The topic should be right up my alley but there's just something about the writing that left me bored. 

[Readalot]

The Girl On The Train - I was so looking forward to reading this book, it's been awhile since I read a great thriller. The beginning hooked me in. However maybe 1/3 in it started to drag for me. The suspense wasn't fun anymore. So I broke my rule and read the end. Liked the ending. Maybe I will go back and read the rest.

[Archery]

Light between Oceans - only one person is likeable and we somehow are supposed to be rotting against her (at least if my bookclub is to be believed). Horrible book!

 

I guess mileage varies in fiction.  This was my Christmas book (the one I give a whole category of friends).  I didn't think we were supposed to root against the protagonist -- I kind of rooted for everyone because it was an understandable but no-win situation for everyone.  And the prose was gorgeous. 

 

I was wildly disappointed with JK Rowling's post-Potter book, The Casual Vacancy.  Talk about unpleasant characters.  I wanted every one of them to die.  I wanted a meteor to fall on the whole village.  Absolutely charmless.

 

I got Wolf Hall as a gift.  I put it down twice, no more than 50 pages in.  I am not a stupid reader, but I could not figure out whose point of view it was or what was happening.  Not enjoyable at all. 

 

And, Cryptonomicon.  My best friend said, YOU HAVE TO READ THIS BOOK! and literally stood over me until I downloaded it on my then brand new Kindle.  Six years later, I still haven't finished it.  I hate it. 

[GreekGeek]

My best friend said, YOU HAVE TO READ THIS BOOK! and literally stood over me until I downloaded it on my then brand new Kindle.  Six years later, I still haven't finished it.  I hate it.

 

Don't you hate it when friends rave about a book and insist you read it, and your own reaction is either "meh" or outright dislike? One friend sent me a copy of Mr. Bones, a collection of short stories by Paul Theroux. The first one, about a billionaire who buys priceless works of art only to destroy them, was so loathsome I almost quit then and there. The next few tales were better, but I put down the book some months ago and haven't picked it up again.

 

Another sent me Roumeli (a travelogue about Northern Greece) by Patrick Leigh Fermor. It was interesting in many ways, but when this friend started bringing up the author in every email and conversation, I told her flat out I wasn't as into him as she was. I'm difficult to buy books for, I admit; I don't necessarily enjoy the things people assume I enjoy.

[benteen]

The DaVinci Code.  I found it to be an overrated and badly written book.  The main character is a third-rate Indiana Jones (and I use the Indiana Jones description loosely) who is "shocked, stunned, has his mouth open in shock" multiple times on nearly every page he's in.  I still don't get what all the fuss was about with that book.

[glowlights]

The DaVinci Code.  I found it to be an overrated and badly written book.  The main character is a third-rate Indiana Jones (and I use the Indiana Jones description loosely) who is "shocked, stunned, has his mouth open in shock" multiple times on nearly every page he's in.  I still don't get what all the fuss was about with that book.

 

IMO the best antidote to The DaVinci Code is Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco. :)

 

http://www.amazon.com/Foucaults-Pendulum-Umberto-Eco/dp/015603297X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424711203&sr=1-1&keywords=foucault%27s+pendulum

[Kris223]

I didn't mind The Da Vinci Code but I hated The Lost Symbol (I think that was the title).

[funkopop]

The Likeness by Tana French was a huge disappointment for me.  The premise was so interesting. A police detective gets a call regarding a dead girl that looks exactly like her and matches an undercover identity she created out of supposed thin air.  The detective then must go undercover to find out who this girl was and who killed her. Somewhere the plot takes a turn and turns into a love triangle, property dispute situation and hardly answers that humongous question of WHO IS THIS DEAD GIRL!!!   The detective looks enough like her to fool her 5 roommates and its just brushed over like its happenstance.

Edited April 1, 2015 by funkopop

[Black Knight]

The Da Vinci Code is terribly written, I agree, but it had this strange knack for getting me to keep turning the terribly-written pages. I think because it answers questions quickly and sets up new questions just as quickly.

 

Here's one of my disappointments: Robin McKinley's Beauty. Beauty and the Beast is my favorite fairytale. The one thing I've always found a little sad about it, though, is the tale's need to spell out in literal fashion the true-beauty-is-underneath moral, by having the Beast transform into a handsome prince. But, I know it's part of the tale, it's meant for children, etc. so I've always accepted it. McKinley's book was no different in that regard, and all was fine until...

Beauty, upon seeing the handsome prince, worries that she is not physically beautiful enough for him. And he addresses her concern by putting her in front of a mirror and telling her how physically beautiful she is.

Rage! RAAAAAAAAGE! If I didn't have a deep horror of damaging books, I would've thrown it straight into the fire.

 

Years later, McKinley wrote another retelling of the fairytale, Rose Daughter. With great hesitation, I tried it. Maybe it's just me, but it seems to have been written specifically to address the problem in Beauty. If I ever happen to encounter her at a book reading or whatever, I"ll certainly ask her about it! In any case, the ending of Rose Daughter made it my favorite retelling of the tale. Strange that the same author would write both my favorite and least favorite versions...

[Crs97]

Light between Oceans - only one person is likeable and we somehow are supposed to be rotting against her (at least if my bookclub is to be believed). Horrible book!

I didn't think we were supposed to root against the protagonist -- I kind of rooted for everyone because it was an understandable but no-win situation for everyone.

Oh, I actively rooted against the protagonist. I thought she was one of the most selfish characters ever written. The other lady was the only character I sympathized with, much to the dismay of my book club. Definitely mileage varies.

[SherriAnt]

Okay, I've read every Leslie Meier Lucy Stone novel there is, and for some reason, in the last couple, especially this one, French Pastry Murder, Lucy Stone has regressed in morals and values to the 1950's!!

What is going on? You're in Paris, but everything is Murica, f**k yeah, and kill all the Muslims! Then Oh My God!! Your adult daughter is having sex! Before marriage! Get out the smelling salts, Mama's gonna faint! Holy crap, it was so bad I couldn't finish, and it's the very last Leslie Meier I'll ever read.

[Sandman87]

I picked up the most recent Game of Thrones book last week. Not only does author George R. R. Martin keep piling on new point of view characters that I don't care about, but there's more action taking place around those characters. More of the chapters take place in locations that I don't care about. More of the chapters could have been condensed into a half-page of exposition. In other words, he desperately needs an effective editor.

[OakGoblinFly]

I picked up the most recent Game of Thrones book last week. Not only does author George R. R. Martin keep piling on new point of view characters that I don't care about, but there's more action taking place around those characters. More of the chapters take place in locations that I don't care about. More of the chapters could have been condensed into a half-page of exposition. In other words, he desperately needs an effective editor.

 

I would have hurled A Dance with Dragons (and across the room out of utter disgust - except I had downloaded it into my tablet and I didn't want to ruin the a tablet ..... I do remember a lot of skimming, swearing, and pillow tossing during that read.  I was beyond annoyed that I waited six years for the book and it was pure trash.

 

And I agree, Mr. Martin needs a very hands-on editor (though sadly, with his success, he can pretty much do as he pleases) - I really didn't need to know about Sir-Never-Hear-From-Again and Lady-Who-Cares eat a 40 course meal while debating Battle Not Important.

[proserpina65]

In other words, he desperately needs an effective editor.

 

And, given how long the next book has been taking, I fear he still doesn't have one.  Not one who will look at preliminary chapters and say "George, why the hell should any of your loyal, long-time readers care about characters that you're just introducing in fucking book 6?!?!?!?", which is exactly what he needs.

I really didn't need to know about Sir-Never-Hear-From-Again and Lady-Who-Cares eat a 40 course meal while debating Battle Not Important.

 

Don't forget the ecstatic multi-paragraph descriptions of what they're wearing whilst having this debate and eating their 40 course meal.

[anony mouse]

I'm largely a fan of Tamora Pierce. Her romantic plots can be a bit unsettling (the worst involves a 30 year old guy hooking up with his 15 year old student, after stealing a lock of her hair while she's sleeping), but mostly she's a terrific fantasy author whose work is very empowering to young girls, on top of containing a ton of great ideas (zombie dinosaurs, for one), and characters that grow throughout her stories and it's always a joy to see pop up again.

 

And then I hit Mastiff, to date the final entry in her Tortall series (though she's working on more). I hated this book, to the point where I have no idea how the woman who's produced such great work for three decades now could have thought anything in it was a good idea.

 

To start, it ditches almost all of those aforementioned great characters. The previous book Bloodhound sort of did this too, but it at least gave us some significant time with them first and introduced new ones that filled the space quite well. This time, we only get a bunch of absurd conservative strawmen who you can sense Aaron Sorkin nodding his silent approval at, the kind who you can just imagine laughing around a poker table while lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills, then head out to club some baby seals on their way to burn down the local orphanage. Pierce has always included these guys before, but until now they've always just been minor villains who didn't need to be anything more than what we got. Here they're the main attraction, so that lack of depth and the sameness of all their personalities quickly gets aggravating.

 

Worse, the final act involves a certain character being revealed as a traitor completely out of nowhere, after they'd been a complete hero up until now. It's such an absurd betrayal of the character that I seriously wonder if they were based on a real person who Pierce had some kind of falling out with. Imagine if The Avengers didn't have any of that stuff with Loki's staff, and we were just supposed to accept that Hawkeye woke up one day and decided to turn evil; that's the level of writing cheat we're dealing with here.

 

I really hope that this was just a momentary blip in Pierce's career, but it's so terrible from beginning to end that I seriously wonder if she's reached the stage of just not giving a crap anymore, knowing her huge fanbase will buy her stuff no matter how little effort she puts into it anymore.

 

See, I thought Mastiff was okay - not Pierce's best, but certainly not the terrible, awful hell that is Aly Cooper. I've been a Pierce fan for fifteen years. While I think she could have done a better job in foreshadowing things with the traitor plot in Mastiff, I liked the book. I found it was more interesting and better paced than Bloodhound. But I've never been able to get through Aly's books. I haaaaaate her character. I'd rather just have more Kel, please.

[proserpina65]

Oh, I actively rooted against the protagonist. I thought she was one of the most selfish characters ever written. The other lady was the only character I sympathized with, much to the dismay of my book club. Definitely mileage varies.

I haven't finished the book yet, but feel compelled to ask: is it Isabel against who you rooted?  'Cause at about 2/3 of the way through the book, I really want to slap the crap out of her, myself.

 

{edited to note that, having finished the book last night, I mostly enjoyed reading it, and found myself sympathizing primarily with Tom and Lucy, although I did end up feeling a little sorry for Isabel at the end.  As for Hannah, I can't say I rooted for her, exactly, or even hoped that things would necessarily work out for her, but I could certainly understand her better than Isabel.}

Edited April 29, 2015 by proserpina65

[Crs97]

Yes, I hated Isabel with the passion of a thousand suns while my book club was annoyed with Hannah for having the nerve of 

wanting her child back.

 Hannah and Lucy were the only ones I sympathized with.  What especially made me angry

was they talked about an orphanage at the beginning of the novel, and we knew there was a child there waiting for a family, but no one wanted him because he wasn't perfect. Why didn't Tom and Isabel ever think about adopting him? Or any child from the orphanage? No, let's take a child from a woman who has already lost her beloved husband and then torture her with anonymous notes that make the town think she's crazy and then act all pissed off that she doesn't give you the baby she loved when you get caught.

 Apparently I am still steamed about it.

[proserpina65]

I had sympathy for Tom because he was really between a rock and a hard place with the situation,

especially since it turns out Isabel was suicidal after the baby was stillborn. What he did was wrong, but I understand why he did it, and at least he felt horribly guilty about it. But I agree with your point about orphanages; Isabel's friend's son was probably too old by then, but surely there were plenty of other children they could've adopted, even given their unusual living circumstances.

 

I'd have been with you about the book club consensus though.  I'm not sure I particularly liked Hannah as a character, but she had every right to feel as she did.

[Crs97]

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil - I know people raved about this book. I know we were supposed to find the town quaint and the quirky characters charming, and I know people who counted this book among the best ever and threw parties and dressed up and couldn't wait for the movie. I thought everyone in the book was a waste of oxygen on this earth.

[ulkis]

I love historical fiction.  The good kind (I know) not the endless Tudor books that feature women in dresses without heads.  Nor Conn Iggulden.  I'm talking Dorothy Dunnett.  Or going back to what a bored kid found on his grandparents shelves that they probably got from their parents.  Mary Renault.  Harold Lamb. 

 

So I jumped on Hilary Mantel's award winning books about Wolf Hall as hard as a reader could.  Yech.

 

Yeah, I don't like Hilary Mantel either. I didn't read Wolf Hall but I read Bring Up the Bodies, and that one was practically swashbuckling compared to that plodder A Place of Greater Safety.

 

Although as a lover of historical fiction, I hate to admit it, but I tried the Lymond Chronicles and I couldn't get into them, and I hate to admit this even more, mostly because I had no idea what the hell was going on most of the time. Book 3 was finally understandable and I enjoyed it a bit but book 4 went back to being confusing for me and I gave up at that point.

[Crs97]

Regarding historical fiction, there are times I can forgive a few historical inaccuracies for love of a good story. Philippa Gregory novels are never those times.

[DrSpaceman]

I feel odd commenting on this because I have not read the books, but just what I have heard about the books from seeing the TV series, I doubt I will ever read GRRMs Songs of Fire and Ice series. The books sound long, bloated and boring compared to the TV series. I try hard not to read about future events and possible spoinlers, but afterward I often read about how it compares to the books. Just from what I have heard, I appreaciate how the TV writers seem to have edited out a whole bunch of stuff I likely wouldnt care about.

[Princess Sparkle]

I will preface this by saying I love Judy Blume.  I have very happy childhood memories of reading her books, which is why I was so freaking excited for The Unlikely Event.  I read it, and while I liked a lot of it, she TOTALLY punted the ending.  She's mentioned that readers always ask her "What happened to Caitlin" at the end of Summer Sisters, so she tried to give everyone from The Unlikely Event a conclusion.  Which was a terrible move, because the entire ending is rushed and ham handed.  She excels at writing teenage voices, but the adult pieces of the book were the weakest part.

 

Whew that felt good to let out.

[proserpina65]

I feel odd commenting on this because I have not read the books, but just what I have heard about the books from seeing the TV series, I doubt I will ever read GRRMs Songs of Fire and Ice series. The books sound long, bloated and boring compared to the TV series. I try hard not to read about future events and possible spoinlers, but afterward I often read about how it compares to the books. Just from what I have heard, I appreaciate how the TV writers seem to have edited out a whole bunch of stuff I likely wouldnt care about.

Whether or not the series cut boring sections or vital storylines depends entirely on which storylines interested the reader, but the books do get increasingly long, and, by the last book, very bloated.  GRRM is definitely in love with the (as GHScorpiosRule put it about a different author) wordy mcwordiness of his writing.  He desperately needs an editor who actually makes him start cutting down on the sheer volume of unnecessary description, now that his world building is primarily finished.

[Jodithgrace]

Yeah, The Shelters of Stone was mediocre, but The Land of Painted Caves was unforgivably awful.

 

OMG that is so true! I don't know what happened to Jean Auel, but she should not have been permitted to put out those books. 900 pages, of which 500 consisted of introductions and repetitions of the very lengthy Mother song. A book written by cut and paste, apparently. Not to mention a complete reversal of a character established over many previous books. Grrr! 

But that still doesn't make me as angry as a Danielle Steele book I read many years ago, after which I vowed never to read another book by her. It's called Lightning and it was about a woman who had breast cancer, and her husband was a complete jerk about it. So she leaves him (Yay, her!) and finds another guy who is totally sympathetic. However, this guy can't handle it when she makes a complete recovery, so she leaves him too. So far, so good. But then, because God forbid a woman should end up without a man, she gets back with her former husband, who is now fine with her (because she's WELL!) At which point I threw the book down in disgust and said, Never again, Danielle Steele!

Edited July 10, 2015 by Jodithgrace

[SmithW6079]

I finally read "The Giver," which is apparently a modern classic taught in high schools. I thought it was awful. It seemed derivative of Ira Levin's "This Perfect Day" in its creation of the dystopian future, and the ending was terrible.

[Snow Apple]

I was so looking forward to reading Smash Cut by Brad Gooch, a memoir of his (a writer) and his lover's (Howard Brookner) life in New York in the 70's and 80's. Glamour and excitement until the beginning of the AID's epidemic. But I found it boring and pretentious. It's like he's more interested in trying to impress the readers with how smart he can put words together and name dropping than he is of telling the story of two people. I did enjoy some parts, but had to wade through a lot to find those glimpses of realness.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Snow Apple

[psychoticstate]

But that still doesn't make me as angry as a Danielle Steele book I read many years ago, after which I vowed never to read another book by her. It's called Lightning and it was about a woman who had breast cancer, and her husband was a complete jerk about it. So she leaves him (Yay, her!) and finds another guy who is totally sympathetic. However, this guy can't handle it when she makes a complete recovery, so she leaves him too. So far, so good. But then, because God forbid a woman should end up without a man, she gets back with her former husband, who is now fine with her (because she's WELL!) At which point I threw the book down in disgust and said, Never again, Danielle Steele!

 

Ha!  I said practically the same thing, word for word, about that POS book in another thread.  I freaking hated that book with the fire of a thousand suns because of the message I thought Steel was sending, the stand by your man crap but it was perfectly okay for the man to run off when the going got tough.  No thank you.

 

Haven't read a Steel book since.

[alias1]

I thought The Light Between Oceans was highly over-rated.  I read the posts here about the characters and I honestly don't even remember who was who.  I hated it and felt it was a calculated tearjerker.  Oh, I do remember Tom.  Yes, poor guy, he was the only decent human being of the bunch.

[OakGoblinFly]

Although 11-22-63 was amazing.

 

 

I hated the last third of that book ---- I had sworn off King years ago but read this because my dad lent me his copy of the book.  The third act felt lazy - like King got bored and threw in everything including the kitchen sink just to finish the book.

 

Never again - King is off my reading list.

[Crs97]

Sometimes I feel like I can pinpoint exactly when Stephen King was told that dinner is ready and he needed to finish up and come to the table before it got cold.

[Danny Franks]

I had never read a Stephen King book. Just didn't appeal to me as a writer and I have no interest in horror books. But I learned about The Stand, a post-apocalyptic, so-called masterpiece that sounded really intriguing.

 

Bought it on my Kindle. For the first few hundred pages, the story was good, although something about King's writing style leaves me cold. But at some point, somewhere about halfway through the 1000+ page behemoth, my enthusiasm just dwindled away into abject boredom and tedium. I simply could not be bothered to finish it. So I will never understand people who rave about his writing.

[AuntiePam]

Danny, I think most King fans appreciate his stories and his characters more than his writing style.  I wouldn't even know how to describe his style.  There are no frills, he's not that great at the literary tricks, and he tends to over-write -- tells us more than we need to know.

 

He can build tension like nobody else though, but I think that only works when he makes us care about the characters. 

 

His short stories and novellas are more polished.  The Reach is a good look at aging, and The Raft will scare the pants right off ya.

[Eegah]

So, Go Set a Watchman is out...and it's a complete trainwreck. Even trying to keep in mind the circumstances it was written under, Atticus Finch becoming a racist asshole in his old age is such a slap in the face to everyone who's ever loved To Kill a Mockingbird that I suddenly completely buy the accusations that Lee's publisher tricked her into releasing it to make a quick buck. I'll happily go back to pretending it doesn't exist now.

[Danny Franks]

From what I understand, it's not so much that Atticus Finch becomes a raging asshole in his old age, but that Harper Lee long ago decided to omit that thread of the story from To Kill a Mockingbird. It sounds like this book is the equivalent of an alternate ending or deleted scenes in a movie. Atticus Finch isn't a real person, so he doesn't really have to be the way he's written in this book. Not in your head or your heart. You can retain Scout's adulation of him if you'd rather.

 

At least, I hope that's how it can play, because both my girlfriend and mother list To Kill a Mockingbird as their favourite novel, and have both just bought Go Set a Watchman. I don't want them feeling betrayed by the way Atticus Finch is written. But the idea of finding out your hero has feet of clay is powerful, and I think the theme of coming to terms with a parent's bigotry was something that would have been a reality in the lives of lots of people who have grown up in the post-Civil Rights world in the US (not just there, obviously, but for the sake of this book that's the focus). It also seems like it might be very relevant in this current discussion of whether racism is 'over' in America. Perhaps that's why Harper Lee decided to publish it (if she did).

Edited July 18, 2015 by Danny Franks

[NewDigs]

My understanding is that the first manuscript that Lee submitted to her publisher was pretty much "Go Set a Watchman" but the publishing PTB told her to tone it down, or something. They didn't see it getting very favorable attention at the time. It was the fifties and the country was on the brink of the Civil Rights movement. At any rate, the "real" Atticus Finch is supposedly his portrayal in Watchman, changed for Mockingbird to suit the times.

[Spartan Girl]

In which case, this book was completely unnecessary to publish. Especially because in Watchman's version of the events in To Kill A Mockingbird, Atticus got Tom Robinson acquitted. Even people that never read the book knew that wasn't what happened.

It was an interesting book, I'll give it that much...but Mockingbird was better. I guess we should all be grateful this wasn't the version that got published in the first place.

[Danny Franks]

My understanding is that the first manuscript that Lee submitted to her publisher was pretty much "Go Set a Watchman" but the publishing PTB told her to tone it down, or something. They didn't see it getting very favorable attention at the time. It was the fifties and the country was on the brink of the Civil Rights movement. At any rate, the "real" Atticus Finch is supposedly his portrayal in Watchman, changed for Mockingbird to suit the times.

 

But that's my point. The 'real' Atticus Finch is not a thing. He's a fictional character, and if he's had two very different portrayals in two books, then I think you can choose which one you want to believe. It doesn't matter if the original idea for the character is what we can now read in Go Set a Watchman, that's not the version that has existed in print and celluloid for fifty five years.

 

It's like if you watch a TV show and then years later see the unaired pilot episode, which has some significant differences in the characters/premise. Watching that pilot episode doesn't invalidate the show that you came to care about. It's just so you can go, 'huh. So that's what it might have been?'

 

But I do find the idea of the childish simplicity of Scout's perception of Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird, and adult Jean Louise's more complicated experience an interesting idea. So if people want to, they could choose to believe that Atticus was never as good a man as Scout describes, she just looked up to him too much to see it. She becomes an unreliable narrator in her own book.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Danny Franks

[NewDigs]

But that's my point. The 'real' Atticus Finch is not a thing. He's a fictional character, and if he's had two very different portrayals in two books, then I think you can choose which one you want to believe. It doesn't matter if the original idea for the character is what we can now read in Go Set a Watchman, that's not the version that has existed in print and celluloid for fifty five years.

 

It's like if you watch a TV show and then years later see the unaired pilot episode, which has some significant differences in the characters/premise. Watching that pilot episode doesn't invalidate the show that you came to care about. ...

...

But what weight should the author's original intentions be given? I think they should be given serious consideration. She bowed to her publisher's wishes and changed her story and main character in major ways. Did she have a revelation? Or remain unmoved by changes requested to, probably, make the book more saleable?

[Sara2009]

But what weight should the author's original intentions be given? I think they should be given serious consideration. She bowed to her publisher's wishes and changed her story and main character in major ways. Did she have a revelation? Or remain unmoved by changes requested to, probably, make the book more saleable?

Well, Atticus is somewhat based on her father. He started out as the " Watchman" Atticus and then later on became more like the character in " Mockingbird."

[Danny Franks]

But what weight should the author's original intentions be given? I think they should be given serious consideration. She bowed to her publisher's wishes and changed her story and main character in major ways. Did she have a revelation? Or remain unmoved by changes requested to, probably, make the book more saleable?

 

I don't think it matters. The author's original intentions don't need to mean anything, if she changes her mind (for whatever reason) and then tells a different story. It's down to drawing a line between what the author originally wanted to write, and what she ended up writing, which meant a great deal to people over the last fifty years. It's the story that people love, not the innermost workings of Harper Lee's mind. And it is a fictional story. Even if parts of it were derived from her own life experiences, I still don't think it comes down to, 'which version is correct?' Both are correct. 

[NewDigs]

Well, Atticus is somewhat based on her father. He started out as the " Watchman" Atticus and then later on became more like the character in " Mockingbird."

Do we know that? I'm not trying to be argumentative and am honestly curious if the original ms was presented as a roman a clef or simply as fiction. I don't know.

I don't think it matters. The author's original intentions don't need to mean anything, if she changes her mind (for whatever reason) and then tells a different story. It's down to drawing a line between what the author originally wanted to write, and what she ended up writing, which meant a great deal to people over the last fifty years. It's the story that people love, not the innermost workings of Harper Lee's mind. And it is a fictional story. Even if parts of it were derived from her own life experiences, I still don't think it comes down to, 'which version is correct?' Both are correct.

Admittedly I have not treasured this book/story as so many have but if I am reading a book supposedly based on real people and real events I want that book to have at least a sense of verisimilitude if not outright honesty. And I do have a problem with fiction purporting to have a historical base yet is inaccurate.

If this book was presented as straight fiction there would, imo, be a lot more wiggle room.

[Danny Franks]

Do we know that? I'm not trying to be argumentative and am honestly curious if the original ms was presented as a roman a clef or simply as fiction. I don't know.

Admittedly I have not treasured this book/story as so many have but if I am reading a book supposedly based on real people and real events I want that book to have at least a sense of verisimilitude if not outright honesty. And I do have a problem with fiction purporting to have a historical base yet is inaccurate.

If this book was presented as straight fiction there would, imo, be a lot more wiggle room.

 

I think there's a difference between a story inspired by real people and events, and one based on them. From what I know of Harper Lee's childhood, To Kill a Mockingbird would fall into the former far more easily than the latter. I don't think Harper Lee has ever said that the book is meant to tell the story of her life, and of the lives of her family, and I think she has maintained that it is fiction. As such, I don't think she was ever beholden to real life when writing the book.

 

I see To Kill a Mockingbird as similar in origins to The Bell Jar and Empire of the Sun, in that the author has drawn heavily from his or her own life, and then created fiction from it.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Danny Franks

[NewDigs]

I think there's a difference between a story inspired by real people and events, and one based on them. From what I know of Harper Lee's childhood, To Kill a Mockingbird would fall into the former far more easily than the latter. I don't think Harper Lee has ever said that the book is meant to tell the story of her life, and of the lives of her family, and I think she has maintained that it is fiction. As such, I don't think she was ever beholden to real life when writing the book.

 

I see To Kill a Mockingbird as similar in origins to The Bell Jar and Empire of the Sun, in that the author has drawn heavily from his or her own life, and then created fiction from it.

And I guess this is maybe the "wiggle room" of which I speak.

I found a rather interesting piece about this tension in the Wall Street Journal. The writer seems to place Lee's father as the "model" for Atticus which, to me, makes the story at least a little dishonest.

I don't think it should necessarily detract from the book's message but is perhaps more of a cautionary tale for writers and readers alike.

[Crs97]

I am choosing to think of Watchman as her first draft. That way I can accept and reject changes on my own terms.

I actually had this hapoen decades ago with a Jeffrey Archer book I enjoyed. It was republished as unabridged and unedited, but in that version the whole plot was changed. I wrote Mr. Archer, and he wrote back to say this was the book he intended to write, but his American publishers made him change it. Well, I like the abridged version best so have completely dismissed the new version.

I love Mockingbird too much to let Watchman taint it so I refuse to let that happen!

[alias1]

I just finished Go Set A Watchman and I liked it.  It really does read like a sequel to me instead of a first draft.  In fact, I don't know how her editor got her to turn GSAW into TKAM.   It's not like one is a retelling of the other only with different morals.  It's a different story.  TKAM has always struck me as a very idealistic vision of small town Alabama in that era.  It was narrated through the idealistic prism of Scout's childhood.  GSAW is Jean Louise Finch coming back to the Alabama town as a 26 year old adult and seeing that some things about her father were not as she remembered. 

 

There is so much hearsay about the book from people who haven't read it that I wonder if it would have been better if they had waited to publish this posthumously.  Then there wouldn't be these questions about whether Harper Lee actually approved of publishing it. 

 

The new book has not changed (or tainted) my view of TKAM.  They are stand alone books about the same characters. I also wonder how much of the revered praise for TKAM isn't based on the fabulous portrayal of Atticus by Gregory Peck.