Atticus Finch is a racist (Go Set A Watchman controversy)

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/20 ... ions/?_r=0

Marie Tae McDermott is a news assistant and comment moderator.

The controversy swirling around the publication of “Go Set a Watchman,” Harper Lee’s unexpected second novel, only increased with Michiko Kakutani’s review and the revelation that Atticus Finch, far from the idealist father of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” is a racist.

When the release of “Watchman” was announced in February, readers excoriated Ms. Lee’s lawyer Tonja Carter for what they saw as the exploitation of the 88-year-old author. They pledged boycotts of the book and accused the publishers of elder abuse.

But as the book launched on Tuesday, readers softened and most accepted the new Atticus as a more realistic portrayal of a white Southern man in the 1950s. Their acceptance came even as many were dismayed with the novel’s more timely message: Bigotry exists, and it’s ugly.

“There’s a sweetness to the prose, a kind of hardheaded nostalgia with an underlying sadness, that can be so difficult to imbue fiction with. I want to read the rest.” said R.P. Lewis in San Francisco after reading the first chapter of the book published on NYTimes.com.

Judy in New York City held the most popular view, having the most recommended comment out of 750 that were published. Unfazed by Atticus’ views she said, “Atticus was a decent man and a good father. But Lee never said he was a saint. It was her readers who sanctified him, not Lee.”

SFR grew up in the segregated South in the 1940s and likened the environment to a battlefield, with families pitted against each other and relationships ruined. The reader in California said, “The book Lee wrote could not have been published then. She sweetened the tale and we have the lovely ‘Mockingbird.’ But ‘Watchman’ is the truth that could not be told until now.”

J.C.V. Calderone, a teacher who was born in Alabama, taught “Mockingbird” for years until becoming disillusioned with the novel saying, “When I read the story as an adult, I saw how trite and outdated the message was, and recognized in it the sort of latent, quiet racism that leads white people to say things like, ‘I don’t see color.’” He continued, “I can only hope that the publication of this book will put its predecessor in its rightful place in American life.”

As an actor, Chris Gibbs portrayed Atticus in the stage version of “Mockingbird” and always suspected Atticus was more grounded in fiction. “It is a great part and people are profoundly moved, but it was clear to me from the start that Atticus is not a real person. And the novel always struck me the same way. Too easy, doesn’t ask the hard questions about race in America. Which might explain its popularity,” he said.

Nita in Philadelphia was struck when the executive director of the nonprofit where she works used a racial slur in front of her. As a black person she commended Ms. Lee writing, “I think Lee’s depiction of Finch as an undercover racist actually strengthens her legacy. His characterization shows her heightened awareness of the complexities of the race struggle, when even allies of good intent harbor attitudes detrimental to progress.”

Robert Henderson, who grew up in Alabama 150 miles from where Harper Lee lived is excited to read the book. He remembered how his farmer father treated black sharecroppers with respect while believing that they were inferior. “It is not hard for me to grasp what she is saying in her new book. Even though Atticus defended a black man does not mean that he viewed blacks and whites as equals,” he said.

Traveling Man reminds us that the 26-year-old Jean Louise in “Watchman” is no longer Scout, the 6-year-old child who idolized her father. “Obviously TKIM is told from the perspective of idealism of a child toward their parent(s) whereas Watchman is told from cynicism and truth that one sees as an adult,” he said.

The legacy of Atticus as a man of principle who once said, “I do my best to love everybody” to a racist spewing hate speech has reinvigorated the national debate about race. But not everyone would agree that we should embrace the opening of old wounds. bkay wrote, “Life and growth and improvement is about moving forward; not backward. … So, as it stands now, I would have voted to keep this old manuscript under lock and key. You just don’t mess with ‘Mother Nature.’ And I’m personally struggling to keep the idea of Atticus the racist out of my head.”

That last quote is pure idiocy. You don't censor books so you can forget about the evils of history.

[Joun_Lord]

I see nothing wrong with Finch holding racist views. That was the reining attitude at the time. Pretty much everyone, even allies of blacks, would have held some racist ideas even if they were trying to work past them. It would be out of place for Finch to be a perfect saint that saw whites and blacks as equals, that even if they liked and respected black people they wanted them separate and not really equal.

I think the message of the books is much stronger with Finch not being a perfect saint, being a man of his times. It showed even good men of that era held pretty fucked up views and it shows just how far we've come.

Though for years people have been saying Finch was something of a racist. He defended the black dude because he had to, he was assigned the case. He won the case not by proving the guy was innocent of rape but how Finch himself was honorable and right and wouldn't be defending rape dude if he wasn't innocent. His defense of the black dude is described as "paternalistic". Its been so long since I read the book, high school like 15 years ago....my god I'm freaking old, I dunno.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Though for years people have been saying Finch was something of a racist. He defended the black dude because he had to, he was assigned the case. He won the case not by proving the guy was innocent of rape but how Finch himself was honorable and right and wouldn't be defending rape dude if he wasn't innocent. His defense of the black dude is described as "paternalistic". Its been so long since I read the book, high school like 15 years ago....my god I'm freaking old, I dunno.

This: I admit it has been a long time since I've read it, but IIRC the book very heavily implies that Atticus has less than enlightened views on race. It is never made completely explicit, but it was pretty clear to me that Atticus took the case because of his strong commitment to justice in and of itself, completely separate from his personal views on race, and that duality was a major component of his character (and the larger message of the novel, which is primarily about the notion of justice). It is certainly a relatively common view/criticism of the original text, so this is far from being some sort of retcon.

[eyl]

I see nothing wrong with Finch holding racist views. That was the reining attitude at the time. Pretty much everyone, even allies of blacks, would have held some racist ideas even if they were trying to work past them. It would be out of place for Finch to be a perfect saint that saw whites and blacks as equals, that even if they liked and respected black people they wanted them separate and not really equal.

I think the message of the books is much stronger with Finch not being a perfect saint, being a man of his times. It showed even good men of that era held pretty fucked up views and it shows just how far we've come.

Though for years people have been saying Finch was something of a racist. He defended the black dude because he had to, he was assigned the case. He won the case not by proving the guy was innocent of rape but how Finch himself was honorable and right and wouldn't be defending rape dude if he wasn't innocent. His defense of the black dude is described as "paternalistic". Its been so long since I read the book, high school like 15 years ago....my god I'm freaking old, I dunno.

As I recall, he did prove the defendent was innocent of the rape (or at least incapable of performing the attack as depicted, since he was missing a hand). And he lost the case anyway

[Pelranius]

Well, Tom Robinson was acquitted in Go Set a Watchman.

In Watchman, Atticus Finch—a white lawyer heroized for defending a black man accused of rape in Jim Crow-era Alabama—turns out to be a rabid racist. Daughter Scout, the protagonist, who has since relocated from her native Deep South to progressive New York City, must reconcile this grim reality. The New York Times’s Michiko Kakutani additionally points out that, in Mockingbird, the man who Atticus defends in court (Tom Robinson) is ultimately convicted. In Watchman, he is acquitted.

http://qz.com/452086/this-go-set-a-watc ... troubling/

[Steve]

IIRC wasn't this from some old manuscript Harper Lee wrote before she actually wrote and published Mockingbird?

[Elheru Aran]

IIRC wasn't this from some old manuscript Harper Lee wrote before she actually wrote and published Mockingbird?

Yes. Mockingbird was a rewrite as the publisher originally wasn't interested in the concept of this novel. They wanted something a little more young-adult and inspirational, IIRC. You could consider this a director's edition with extensive recutting and script changes, if you liked.

[Broomstick]

In addition, Go Set a Watchman was actually Harper Lee's first novel, and not revised by her later after To Kill a Mockingbird was published. It's not surprising that the characters are somewhat different than expected.

That said - the notion that a white Atticus Finch in the 1950's wouldn't have held racist views is ludicrous. Even the "progressive" NYC back then was filled with racism both latent and overt. Haven't read the new book, but I wouldn't be surprised if Scout is racist by today's standards.

[Terralthra]

I think the Onion actually has the best take on this one.

NEW YORK—Shocking the literary world once again, acclaimed author Harper Lee announced through her publisher Tuesday the surprise release of her third novel, My Excellent Caretaker Deserves My Entire Fortune. “On behalf of Ms. Lee, we’re delighted to bring the public this moving new story, which follows the heartwarming relationship between a deaf and nearly blind author in the small-town South and the extremely kind and attentive caretaker to whom she wills every penny of her $45 million estate,” said HarperCollins president Michael Morrison, adding that the 185-page tale vividly brings to life the setting of a present-day assisted living facility in Monroeville, AL, where an 89-year-old protagonist named Harper comes to the life-changing decision to hand over all the money in her bank account, her property, and all future proceeds from the books she has published to her extremely upstanding and unselfish friend and lawyer, Tonja. “This is a triumphant and uplifting tale of dedicated, exemplary caregiving and the substantial monetary bequest it inspires, told by one of America’s greatest living writers. Readers will be deeply touched by the heroine’s stirring reflections on human warmth and her repeated assertions that she is mentally competent and fit to make her own legal decisions.” Morrison added that, without spoiling too much, he could reveal that the book’s final pages feature a fully notarized last will and testament signed by the author herself.

Seriously, does anyone actually believe that Harper Lee sat on this manuscript for decades and only now decided to publish it for <reasons>?

[The Romulan Republic]

This has been addressed:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/m ... says-agent

Harper Lee’s agent has said that Alabama state’s investigation into the writer’s mental health is “closed”, reiterating that the much-loved writer is in “full possession of her mental faculties”.

In a statement issued on Friday, Andrew Nurnberg, who has been Lee’s foreign-rights agent for two years, said he was “surprised to hear that someone had, anonymously, approached the authorities in Alabama to suggest that Harper Lee was being subjected to ‘elder abuse’”.

“Nelle could not be better cared for in the residential home where she lives. To suggest otherwise, anonymously and without any supportive evidence, is as shameful as it is sad,” said Nurnberg. “We should rather celebrate the fortuitous discovery of this long-lost novel and share the author’s joy at its imminent appearance.”

The statement comes in the wake of renewed speculation about Lee’s state of mind, after it emerged that two agencies in Alabama were investigating the situation, interviewing the author and acquaintances to see whether she was competent to make decisions over publication.

The New York Times reported on Thursday that the Alabama Department of Human Resources was looking into Lee’s condition, with the help of the Alabama Securities Commission.


Harper Lee 'hurt and humiliated' by Mockingbird sequel controversy
Read more
The Securities Commission announced on Thursday night that it had closed its investigation, issuing the statement: “We made a determination that Ms Lee, based on our interview with her, was aware that her book was going to be published. She wanted it published. She made it quite clear she did.”

But the Department of Human Resources would not confirm or deny the existence of any investigation to the Guardian, nor to the New York Times. But a friend and neighbor of Lee’s told the Guardian that he had been interviewed by an investigator from the Department of Human Resources, asking him if he had any reason to believe Lee was being maltreated in the decision to publish her new book.

Joseph Borg, director of the Alabama Securities Commission, told the Guardian on Friday that his office had been brought into the investigation by the Human Resources Department to examine any financial wrongdoing, and while his office had closed its file on the case that did not mean that the entire investigation had been closed. “I cannot say that they [HRD] have closed it but I do not see any action going on,” he said.

Borg sent a small team of investigators from his office to interview Lee in person in her assisted living facility in Monroeville. He declined to say how many or to release details of what Lee said, all of which will be in a subsequent report resulting from the inquiry.

“Our initial review has to do with whether or not Miss Lee is cogent, she knew what was going on and wanted her book published. She replied in the affirmative and said she was not making any complaint to us, so we do not need to inquire further,” Borg told the Guardian.

An official who was briefed on the meeting between financial investigators and Lee said: “She asked direct questions. She gave very strong answers. She is a very strong and direct little lady. She lets you know what she is thinking and she wants the book published. She was quite clear, quite emphatic.”


Go Set A Watchman: read the first chapter - interactive
Read more
The interview with Lee was described as “friendly”. The official was not prepared to reveal what Lee actually said, but added that although she is profoundly deaf, she communicates well in writing.

“Her hearing is impaired. You have to write questions out, but she writes back, or write on a chalk board. She reads perfectly well,” the official said.

“Having spent quality time with her over the last couple of years,” Nurnberg said in his statement, “I can categorically state that she is in full possession of her mental faculties.”

Advertisement

The two have had “wonderful discussions” on everything from politics to university life in England, he added. “The fact that she is hard of hearing and suffers from some macular degeneration (entirely common for someone in their late 80s) has no bearing whatsoever on her quick wit, or of speaking her mind on all manner of things. That she chose many years ago to lead a quiet life away from the world at large (the last time she spoke to the press was, I believe, in 1964) is her prerogative and should be respected,” he said.

Lee was “surprised”, said Nurnberg, when Tonja Carter – her “dear friend and lawyer”, the author had previously called her in a statement – stumbled across the manuscript of Go Set a Watchman, the novel which imagines her character Scout as an adult.

But she is “both delighted and enthused that it will now be published”, said Nurnberg. “Contrary to certain press reports, it was not ‘rejected’ at the time: her putative editor – having read Go Set a Watchman – persuaded her to write Scout’s story through the eyes of a child, and the plan was to write a short novel to act as a bridge to Go Set A Watchman. This is clear from documentation at the time, which I have seen. This bridging book was never written but, as readers will find, it is not necessary to understand how Scout, her father, her extended family and the politics of segregation in the mid-50s evolved.”

It offends me that people are assuming Lee is being exploited and has no control over her work. If its true, that's horrible and obviously should be taken seriously, but if its not, and the investigating apparently suggests that its not, they're showing tremendous disrespect to the woman themselves by essentially saying she's just a puppet with no ability to control her own life. I know it makes a juicier story, but the celebrity gossip hounds can fuck off.

Sometimes people just change their minds, particularly in old age when they don't have much time left and might be considering how they will be remembered when they're gone.

[Vendetta]

Seriously, does anyone actually believe that Harper Lee sat on this manuscript for decades and only now decided to publish it for <reasons>?

I dunno, releasing a book where one theme is reassessing a childhood hero through adult eyes and being able to see the flaws that were once hidden after the character in question has become a hero in the minds of readers as well is pretty clever....

[The Romulan Republic]

From stuff I've read, I gather that Lee herself thought the text was lost. Its like when they rediscover an old Doctor Who episode or something.

[Tanasinn]

It's not unheard of for an author to lose a manuscript or to abandon it only to come back to it much much later. Stephen King had had both happen more than once, for example.

[Simon_Jester]

True. Heaven knows there's stuff in my personal papers and records that gets buried or mis-shuffled for a long time.

[Raw Shark]

It's not unheard of for an author to lose a manuscript or to abandon it only to come back to it much much later. Stephen King had had both happen more than once, for example.

Not disagreeing with the overall point, but it probably deserves to be noted that King writes like a fucking maniac. He writes like a junkie shoots up. My freshman advisor lived across from the hall from him when they were in college, and he said the typewriter sounds never stopped unless the guy was in class, the bathroom, or the cafeteria.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not disagreeing with the overall point, but it probably deserves to be noted that King writes like a fucking maniac. He writes like a junkie shoots up.

For most of the 1980s, he quite literally wrote like a junkie. He has been on record as saying that he literally does not remember writing many of his books during that time period because he was doing so much cocaine.

[Raw Shark]

Coke is almost the exact opposite of junk, but that's otherwise fair AFAIK.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Right, but "junkie" is a much more generic term than JUST heroin users. It's a catch-all term for any addict.

[Solauren]

I don't see what the controversy is about.

Lots of people have view/opinion changes.

Case in point: Friend of my came out of the closet, his Dad was fine about it, but after a while, got all 'holier then thou' on him about it.
Turns out, he was off his medication.

It's not impossible that Atticus has something happen to him that caused his views on 'blacks' to change/worsen

[Steve]

Or his views were never that enlightened in the first place. It's far more reasonable to presume he was always racist, but just because he was racist didn't mean he couldn't believe in justice even for blacks.

Or over the course of twenty years his idealism withered as the South's social system came under increased attack, leading to whatever racially-progressive beliefs he held being crushed under the fears that spread across the community.

[LadyTevar]

It has been proven that as people age, they get more conservative and cling to the values of their youth, no matter how out-dated or politically incorrect they become. A Psychology Today article from Oct 2014 reviewed 92 scientific studies and summed up the reasons as 'Personality', 'Judgement', and 'Familiarity'.

A Personality that is still open to new experiences is less likely to grow Conservative, but most people start to feel overwhelmed by all the changes going on around them. They cannot keep up, and therefore cling to the 'Old Days'.
As one ages, their judgement also fossilizes. They start to hate ambiguity and desire a simple yes/no good/bad resolution to problems. This ossification meants they cling to their pre-concieved notions, and make snap judgements based on prior prejudices.
Then comes Familiarity, where their minds are puttering along without needing to think about how they'll spend their day, because it will be the same as yesterday. They are happy where they are, which makes them more conservative over any changes to their safe, routine lives. When change does happen, they fight it simply because it means they have to think.

So, we come to Atticus Finch, roughly twenty years after his failure to get justice for Tom Robinson. He is still the principled Southern gentleman, but now he's caught in the uproar of the 1960 Civil Rights Movement, which was tearing the bandage off still-bleeding wounds of racial inequality. His Prejudices are being challenged: there are black schools, black colleges, and even all black communities where they can live and work without ever seeing (or being seen) by a white man, what more do they want? Worst of all, the safe Familiarity of black/white relations up to this point is being questioned, debated, and declared lacking. But most of all, his Personality is being challenged by his own flesh and blood as Scout takes her own stand in the fight.
Thus, Atticus Finch reacts like every other elder stateman of the 1960s -- he doubles down in his Conservative ways, trying to wish things back to the 'better days' of his youth, or at least the era of "Mockingbird". He tries to hide from the changes, to ignore that his daughter no longer needs his advice or protection. He metaphorically shakes his fist to get those blasted kids off his lawn, because he has no other way to reconcile his beliefs with the cultural shift around him.

So, is Atticus Finch racist? Yes. He always was, but his commitment to justice fueled his actions in "Mockingbird". Now, we're seeing him facing something bigger and scarier than a lynch mob or a pre-prejudiced jury -- he's facing a total cultural revolution, and all he has to cling to is the pillars of his youth.

[Pelranius]

Considering that Tom Robinson gets acquitted in GSaW, I'm more inclined to treat it as an alternate history novel of sorts (albeit for fiction).

[amigocabal]

Considering that Tom Robinson gets acquitted in GSaW, I'm more inclined to treat it as an alternate history novel of sorts (albeit for fiction).

Why could not have his conviction been overturned and a new trial set?

[The Romulan Republic]

Because Tom dies in To Kill A Mockingbird. Shot trying to escape, as I recall.

[amigocabal]

Because Tom dies in To Kill A Mockingbird. Shot trying to escape, as I recall.

Similar to what happened to Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park?