If you or anybody you may have encountered in the last couple days happens to enjoy reading in any capacity, you’ve probably heard the news about the new book by Harper Lee.
Harper Lee being, of course, the reclusive author of “To Kill A Mockingbird.”
“To Kill A Mockingbird,” first published in 1960, is one of the most overwhelmingly popular, beloved and well-written novels in the entire American literary canon. Through the eyes of its child protagonist, Scout, the novel examines — among other things — extreme racial prejudice in the society of the Jim Crow South and its courts in 1936. Scout’s father, Atticus Finch, who defended a black man from false charges, has become a kind of folk hero for those who struggle against corrupt institutions in pursuit of justice.
“To Kill A Mockingbird” — we’re going to take advantage of a cliche here — was an instant classic. If you grew up in the United States, chances are high you read it in school. This book is a big deal.
Remarkably, it’s the only novel of Lee’s that’s ever been published, but that’s set to change this year. “To Set A Watchman” is touted as a sequel to “To Kill A Mockingbird,” set in the ‘50s. Though it has many of the same characters and circumstances of the first book, it was actually written before “To Kill A Mockingbird,” and the events of each story are unconnected.
This gives the novel’s legions of fans and admirers — ourselves included — cause for celebration. Millions of readers will have a chance to return to Maycomb, Alabama, this summer.
Even so, many remain skeptical.
As do we. Maybe we’re reading too much into the situation, but something about it doesn’t feel quite right.
Lee has always been adamantly shy of attention, describing herself as more like Boo Radley than Scout Finch. On the other hand, she described her late older sister, confidante and legal adviser Alice, as “Atticus in a skirt.” Alice protected Harper Lee from those who would stand to take advantage of her younger sister’s legacy. This included such brazen attempts as an incident in 2007, when a relative of her long-time literary agent tricked Lee into signing the rights of “To Kill A Mockingbird” over to him. That, and it seems Lee never wanted to publish another novel.
“I wouldn’t go through the pressure and publicity I went through with ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ for any amount of money,” she has said.
In this context, everything about the “new” novel seems extremely sketchy. Lee kept a manuscript for 55 years, one which she supposedly had no intention of nor desire to publish. Are we actually supposed to believe that Lee gave up on more than half a century of obstinance and happened to do so just three months after her friend and lawyer passed away?
There’s ample evidence to speculate people saw several million dollar signs and decided to take advantage of an old woman. Nothing could be more shameful.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 2/5/2015 under the headline “‘Mockingbird’ sequel skeptics right to be wary "]
