![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe immense commercial success of Harper Lee's latest, Go Set a Watchman, is something I've witnessed first-hand. To Kill a Mockingbird is a wonderful novel, deservedly part of the contemporary literary canon. The popularity of Go Set a Watchman has much to do with Lee's successful world-building, with her creation of characters and a setting we want more from. My personal feeling is that Go Set a Watchman is a successful novel from the perspective of literary merit, and that many of the changes fans of the first novel have complained about--no spoilers here--are actually not changes at all, but just details which add depth and plausibility to the world seen by a much younger narrator in To Kill a Mockingbird. It works.
The big problem with this novel, as I see it, is the question of Harper Lee's involvement. Did she consent to the publication, as her lawyer and publisher insists, or is it a cash cow? In an essay at Women Write About Comics, "The Neglected Personhood of American Icon Harper Lee", Megan Purdy finds this suspicious.
This is true.
I'm also reminded of Franz Kafka. Had his friend respected his wishes, his works would never have been published. Instead, these private studies of Kafka's would have been destroyed. This obviously did not happen--I myself studied The Metamorphosis in my Continental Literature in Translation course, way back when at UPEI, one of Kafka's various works. The world is the better for the publication of Kafka's works, more knowing of its potentials and more satisfied aesthetically. Does this justify the publication, the act of betrayal?
The big problem with this novel, as I see it, is the question of Harper Lee's involvement. Did she consent to the publication, as her lawyer and publisher insists, or is it a cash cow? In an essay at Women Write About Comics, "The Neglected Personhood of American Icon Harper Lee", Megan Purdy finds this suspicious.
Harper Lee is 89. She receives full-time care from the employees of her assisted living facility and visits from friends looking, it seems, to cash in now, while the cashing is good. Her will can’t be revised after she’s dead, you know. Harper Lee is still alive, though, still a person with will and rights and desires. But she is an old person, of less value than those who are still productive, of less importance than those who can stand up for themselves. She is vulnerable, and like so many of our elderly folks, a potential cash cow. In hunting out more Lee books, we are riffling through her papers like hateful descendants going through their distant grandmother’s underwear drawer. Surely she’s got some good jewelry hidden away. It’ll be ours someday, anyway. No sense dragging our feet.
This is true.
I'm also reminded of Franz Kafka. Had his friend respected his wishes, his works would never have been published. Instead, these private studies of Kafka's would have been destroyed. This obviously did not happen--I myself studied The Metamorphosis in my Continental Literature in Translation course, way back when at UPEI, one of Kafka's various works. The world is the better for the publication of Kafka's works, more knowing of its potentials and more satisfied aesthetically. Does this justify the publication, the act of betrayal?
