July 13, 2015, - 5:11 am

Go Set a Watchman: Harper Lee Reboot’s Atticus Finch is White Racist – Rupert Murdoch Publishes

By Debbie Schlussel

gosetawatchmanatticusracistwhite

Go Set a Watchman: A Novel,” the most pre-ordered book on Amazon.com since the final Harry Potter book, is in keeping with the current trend: White is the new Black. White people are the new bad guys, to be persecuted, defamed, attacked, and harmed. The Atticus Finch you grew up with was the heroic White guy who defended a Black man falsely accused of rape. But, now, he’s a racist Klansman in Harper Lee’s new “reboot,” “Go Set a Watchman.” It’s no coincidence that it comes at a time when all White people are the official devil in America. The timing was right to take down yet another White guy, who is significant in American culture despite being a fictional character.

















Most American kids are required to read Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird,” the Pulitzer-Prize-winning 1960 novel in which Finch is a brave Southern lawyer who is appointed to defend the wrongfully-accused Tom Robinson in the early 1930s. Finch rises to the challenge and is considered a hero for proving Robinson’s innocence, despite the jury convicting the man (and Robinson ultimately being killed while attempting a jailbreak). The Ewells, Robinson’s accusers, are humiliated as they are exposed as liars. Finch endures threats from the Ewells and the taunts and verbal attacks on his children.

But in this day of “Blacks–good; Whites–very bad,” none of those things matter. Instead, we are given a more politically correct version of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” in which Finch is a racist and a Klansman (and Finch’s young daughter, Scout, gets drunk, according to one TV commentator). And Finch’s defense of Robinson isn’t worthy–isn’t anything to be lauded. The “one good White guy” in the American South in 1933-35 is actually a bad guy. You know those crackaz–they’re all bad. That’s the attitude in a 2015 where police are bad and MTV is telling us how bad White people have made America . . . an America in which White privilege reigns supreme (which is funny because all of my “disadvantaged” Black neighbors have expensive smartphones, and I don’t have one). Where “Mockingbird” was about the courage of the White Atticus to vigorously defend Robinson and the courage of his daughter Scout to fight her bullies, the new version is about Atticus’ hate and weakness.

There are no coincidences in America. And that includes the timing of Lee’s new book. There’s a reason this “long lost” manuscript was “suddenly found” and announced early this year. Lee is now 89 years old and easily manipulated. While an investigation found that she was of sound mind, that’s a debatable proposition. But somebody wanted to make some money and make it by defaming White people and taking down yet another White hero in American pop culture, exposing him as yet just another vessel of racist hate. We–all of us White people, even the most heroic and charitable, the most moral–are all just haters of Black people and segregationists. That’s the message.

Lee reportedly wrote this book in 1960, but her publisher didn’t want it, preferring something “softer”–less racist against White people. But why now? Why did Lee and/or her handlers wait until now to release this inflammatory book? Why did they wait until after the original became considered a classic and required reading for generations of school children? Because it’s easy to take heroes down after investing so much to build them up. And it’s time to attack every White person of achievement or heroism in American history, according to the conventional wisdom.

This isn’t about the Confederate battle flag, as that chain of events is too recent to have played a part in plans for the book’s release. But it plays into the same viewpoint. First, start attacks and challenges against police all over the country–make sure it’s a highly-publicized attack on authority. (And that began nearly a half year before this new “White Heroes Are Racist” Mockingbird reboot was announced, so the planning of Lee’s handles surely took all of the Blacks v. Cops stuff into account.) Then, take down that flag; now, disinter Southern officers; next, remove Alexander Hamilton from the $10 bill; and after that, get rid of all references to Washington and Jefferson because they owned slaves. And while you’re at it, Atticus Finch has got to go, even if he never really existed. Heck, the General Lee and the Dukes of Hazzard didn’t exist, either. And, now, they are history as far as broadcasts are concerned. Ditto for Atticus on the pages.

Do you think kids in schools across America are just going to be assigned “To Kill a Mockingbird,” anymore? Think again. They will be assigned “Go Set a Watchman” as a companion book . . . or in the spirit of the PC revisionist virus now afflicting our country, many kids will be assigned Watchman instead of Mockingbird.

Mockingbird is already a heavy-handed, PC book. But the White male is courageous and moral and decent. And we can’t have Whitey being any of those. So the new, new, new PC novel is here. And FOX News’ Rupert Murdoch is getting in on the action. His HarperCollins is publishing the rewrite, and making a mint off of it. A taste, according to the New York Times, which seems to revel in this new PC-ing of a previously already very PC book:

Atticus Finch — the crusading lawyer of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” whose principled fight against racism and inequality inspired generations of readers — is depicted in “Watchman” as an aging racist who has attended a Ku Klux Klan meeting, holds negative views about African-Americans and denounces desegregation efforts. “Do you want Negroes by the carload in our schools and churches and theaters? Do you want them in our world?” Atticus asks his daughter, Jean Louise (the adult Scout), in “Watchman.” . . .

“Whether you’ve read the novel or seen the film, there’s this image you have of Atticus as a hero, and this brings him down a peg,” said Adam Bergstein, an English teacher in Queens whose 10th- and 11-grade students read “Mockingbird.” “How do you take this guy who everybody looked up to for the last 50-plus years, and now he’s a more flawed individual?”

In this version, Atticus is 72 years old, suffering from arthritis and stubbornly resistant to social change. He stands in sharp contrast to the gentle scholar in “Mockingbird,” who tells Scout, when explaining why he has gone out on a limb to defend a black man, that “I do my best to love everybody.”

In “Watchman,” which comes out Tuesday, Atticus chides Scout for her idealistic views about racial equality: “The Negroes down here are still in their childhood as a people.”

Some say this book is autobiographical and that Watchman is Lee’s portrayal of her allegedly racist father. But even the NYTimes points out that, with age, he turned out to be more Mockingbird Atticus Finch than this new Watchman version:

While A. C. Lee was moderate by the standards of the times, he supported states’ rights and held segregationist views, according to Mr. Shields. Later, after the publication of “Mockingbird” in 1960, his views softened, and he started campaigning for redistricting in the county to protect disenfranchised African-American voters.

I’m not sure Lee actually wrote this new book or that it wasn’t embellished by others, including the new theme of the racism of Atticus. The whole sudden announcement 55 years later with Ms. Lee nearly a nonagenarian and “shunning” interviews, we don’t even know if she’s all here anymore and aware of anything that is going on.

One thing’s for sure: once she left for New York, she became an unabashed liberal who hung out with the likes of Truman Capote and believed most Southerners were racist.

Still, I wonder–with this revisionism on the fictional Atticus Finch–will we see more revisionism with real-life characters?

Will Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman be transformed into bald-faced racists who hated Black people, too?

Harper Lee’s handlers and Rupert Murdoch’s HarperCollins are working on it.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email




Tags: , , , , , ,


72 Responses

It’s possible thus manuscript lay dormant since 1960. Virulent anti-white (establishment) hatred and rhetoric were quite potent in early hippie/communist/anti-American circles.

DS_ROCKS! on July 13, 2015 at 7:30 am

    Right, because, in 1960, there was no discrimination against blacks in the south.

    Rosen Otter on July 13, 2015 at 3:27 pm

      And in 2015 there is no discrimination against Whites in the South.

      Little Al on July 13, 2015 at 3:40 pm

        And Rosen Otter, it would be good for you to get a better sense of timing regarding the 60s. The advent of the hippies was around 1966; they were not really prominent at all in 1960.

        Little Al on July 13, 2015 at 3:42 pm

One theme that I’m sure will never be taught is that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.

Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman have already been discredited, and it only took a couple of years. They were killed in the summer of 1964, and within a couple of years SNCC, the misnamed Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee had excluded Whites from virtually every segment of the organization, and had become overtly anti-semitic. Groups like the Black Panthers followed in their lead.

Racists like Malcolm X, already in 1964 were belittling Schwerner and Goodman, and now Malcolm X is honored with all kinds of institutions and programs being named after him.

Offhand, I cannot think of any prominent Black political figure who is not anti-semitic to one extent or another. e.g. the Iran treaty, where the Black Caucus was offered as an excuse why Congress wouldn’t produce enough votes to overturn the despicable Iran treaty about to be announced.

And in the ceremonies commemorating the Mississippi murders, Chaney was disproportionally honored — not to belittle his sacrifice, but he was one of three.

In general, with a very few exceptions, I do not read literature produced after 1950.

Little Al on July 13, 2015 at 8:26 am

    Racists like Malcolm X, already in 1964 were belittling Schwerner and Goodman, and now Malcolm X is honored with all kinds of institutions and programs being named after him.

    I don’t remember him doing that, though I do remember that he belittled Martin Luther King’s, of blessed memory’s, March on Washington. He said it was turned into a liberal picnic. Meir Kahane, may he rest in peace, said something similar about the annual Solidarity Sunday for Soviet Jewry.

    Remember that Malcolm X tried, at the end of his love, to pull himself out of the racist, anti-Semitic mud of the Nation of Islam. He was murdered for it.

    Miranda Rose Smith on July 14, 2015 at 6:07 am

    In general, with a very few exceptions, I do not read literature produced after 1950.

    Dear Little Al: Have you ever read any Anne Rivers Siddons? If you want a search for spirituality, try Susan Howatch. How about Mary McCarthy?

    Miranda Rose Smith on July 14, 2015 at 6:28 am

      Dear Little Al:

      How could I forget to mention Isaac Bashevis Singer? Carsom McCullers? Flannery O’Commor? Tennessee Williams? Eudora Welty?

      Miranda Rose Smith on July 14, 2015 at 7:02 am

        Re Singer, I did qualify my comment — I said with a very small number of exceptions. I do have a great deal of respect for Singer.

        I will check a few of the authors you mention, although without time to read everything, I still like to concentrate on earlier works. The main thing I remember about Mary McCarthy is her legitimizing of the anti-Vietnam War movement and inflammatory actions supporting the Vietcong. She was one of the intellectuals whose stature contributed to making it a mass movement. So I think I’ll stay clear of her, just like I won’t see Hanoi Jane’s movies.

        Re Malcolm X, you are right that he didn’t specifically attack Goodman and Schwerner. I’m not sure though that he renounced anti-Semitism. He remained a Muslim, and, even in the last few months of his life, he spoke at meetings of left-wing groups noted for their anti-semitism and dislike, even hatred, for Israel.

        Little Al on July 14, 2015 at 9:16 am

          About the birth of Israel, Malcolm X wrote “And this time the British aquiesced and helped them (the Jews) to wrest Palestine away from the Arabs, the rightful owners, and then the Jews set up Israel, their own country-the only thing that every race of man in the world respects and understands.” Actually, of course, the British were cozy as kittens with the Arabs; they hacked off 4/5ths of Mandatory Palestine, in 1921, and gave it to the Arabs as Jordan. They fought tooth and nail to keep the Jews out of Palestine, before, during and after the Holocaust. They fought tooth and nail to make sure the hard-pressed Jews of Palestine didn’t get a single bullet. They abstained when the vote to partition Palestine came up in the U.N. But Malcolm X did say that Jews were right to want to stay alive, to use violence to stay alive, which is more than the British said then or the E.U. (PEE-EW!!!They would make a skunk vomit!) says today.

          Notice, folks, that Malcolm X says “the Arabs,” not “the Palestinians?”

          My grandfather, may he rest in peace, was involved in fund raising money for guns for the Jews in Palestine.

          Miranda Rose Smith on July 15, 2015 at 4:19 am

          They fought tooth and nail to make sure the hard-pressed Jews of Palestine didn’t get a single bullet.

          CORRECTION: They tried, but failed, to keep weapons from reaching the Jews in Palestine.

          Miranda Rose Smith on July 15, 2015 at 4:49 am

There is an old saying: “HE / WHOMEVER HAS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULES”.

So, extending that to Historical accuracy or Discourses of Morality, “HE / WHOMEVER HAS THE POLITICAL POWER WRITES THE STORY”.

The NAZI movement had Joseph Goebbels’s “THE ETERNAL JEW”. Today, we see Prequels and Sequels that appear to be rewrites to make “Politically / Socially Correct” versions and viewpoints to original stories, movies, and Historically accurate figures.

Just last week an “historically significant Battle Flag” was severely denounced by those who wish to rewrite history. Recent news details what is happening to statues, War Memorials, Grave-sites, and other irreplaceable historical structures in other countries. Kid Rock – please keep rocking.

AND, THERE ARE WORSE REVISIONIST MOVEMENTS BEING PUT UPON THOSE WHO CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN RATIONAL, ETHICAL, AND HONORABLE PURSUITS. VIGILANCE IS THE KEY WORD.

Dennis on July 13, 2015 at 9:21 am

Well aside from the fact that this takes a steaming dump all over the Eternal Candidate for Father of the Century, any bets on the fact that this ABSOLUTELY will be made into a movie, produced, written and directed by Spike Lee?

Sean M on July 13, 2015 at 10:38 am

Little Al,

The 1950s was the last great Era of American Lit before the Postmodernists took over. Gaddis, Salinger, Nabokov, Updike and many others.

Vic on July 13, 2015 at 11:45 am

    I can skip the degenerate Salinger, and Nabokov with his trashy novel really isn’t any better. There was a reason I said 1950.

    Little Al on July 13, 2015 at 3:35 pm

      I find Salinger pretty overrated myself.

      Miranda Rose Smith on July 14, 2015 at 6:10 am

My son and daughter had to read “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Now Atticus Finch is being mocked (pun intended)in order to show that no white person deep down is not racist or bigoted. It’s our “whiteness” by the way that causes this. However, it’s the legacy of discrimination and slavery that causes black society’s high illegitimacy and crime rates, not their “blackness.” The “white privilege” and “microagressions” dreck being pushed by white and black academics should be always denounced as racist. Maybe Hillary can be asked if she believes in these 2 “concepts.” I haven’t seen the put down verb “whitesplaining” for a while. These new ones will have traction as 2 New Speak words.

Concerned Citizen on July 13, 2015 at 1:05 pm

The release of this book is highly suspect. Also, it is reasonable to ask if Harper Lee even had much to do with the writing of this book, since she is shunning interviews.

Worry on July 13, 2015 at 2:43 pm

I expect this “reboot” is partly driven by the desire to reaffirm that black racism against white folk is not a real problem deserving of attention.

Somewhat OT:

You know that stupid hashtag #checkyourprivilege? How about a new one: #checkyourculture? That’s the real issue by now.

skzion on July 13, 2015 at 3:40 pm

    The chronology, I believe, will turn out to be:

    (1) Harper Lee wrote “The Watchmen” – a re-working of the original manuscript she wrote, which was NOT accepted in it’s original form.

    (2) After her original manuscript was rejected, she turned to her childhood friend, Truman Capote, who HEAVILY edited her book, and enabled it to become a best-seller. I mean, it’s obvious that this was the work of a practiced, trained writer – well-paced, characters fully developed, colorful and rich in even minor characters.

    (3) She never followed up with another published book, as her writing was not up to the standard that had been sent. However, she did continue her interest in writing – helping with “In Cold Blood” research, for example.

    (4) This is her first ACTUAL novel. It’s been edited to reflect today’s tropes of No White Man is Actually OK on Race Relations, And Must be Secretly Hateful, And, BTW, Also A Sexist.

    I’ll continue to enjoy Mockingbird as an enjoyable novel in many dimensions; might read Watchman if I can borrow it from the library (won’t waste my own cash).

    Keep in mind, this brou-haha is about FICTION. It’s not real, not history.

    LindaF on August 20, 2015 at 3:28 am

of course white people are racist because deep down blacks are not regarded as the equal of a white man. that is racist in this world of “correct talk”.

chuck on July 13, 2015 at 3:55 pm

    “blacks are not regarded as the equal of a white man”

    chuck, care to substantiate this?

    skzion on July 13, 2015 at 5:18 pm

      At one time blacks were considered to be 3/5’s of a person compared to the average white person. Whether you like it or not, deep down blacks are not considered the equal of a white person. Its ingrained and thus you have racism.

      chuck on July 14, 2015 at 5:53 pm

        Chuck, blacks were NOT considered to be 3/5 of a person. Your statement shows your utter inability to comprehend why that clause was inserted. Nothing but left wing, black activist sloganeering. Please educate yourself. Maybe go to Mark Levin’s podcasts, he did a whole segment on this on at least one recent show. Also, check Debbie’s archives, she may have something on it. PLEASE, . . .

        educate yourself. Stop the knee jerk, Pavlovian sloganeering.

        Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 15, 2015 at 12:39 pm

Well Debbie, I not that long ago saw the film that correlates to this novel, and the attorney defended the black gentlemen in the film in a precise and well mannered way, where the black man’s character in the film was falsely accused of sexual-assault on a white woman.

Lookit you guys, you can blame the “liberals” all you want, but I don’t hold my accountably and faults with the liberals (meaning the liberals who are center-left/left-of-center and knows right from wrong with good morals), I solely put the blame on another element of left wingers, and they are the “postmodernists”.

Ever since the mid-20th century, postmodernists have object to the philosophies and methodologies of the Enlightenment era throughout western Europe where great thinkers emerged at the time and til this day in age with a rich and superior legacy. The postmodernistic-left wingers for the last several decades have perverted and revised specific elements of history to propose propaganda to the public to in my view, stir up division (the “Fallacy of Division” logical-fallacy BTW) amongst the population to polarize any scenario. So I’m not the least surprised that this version of the novel is revised, propagandized and hijacked for some dogmatic ideological agenda!

Sean R. on July 13, 2015 at 4:00 pm

    “Well Debbie, I not that long ago saw the film that correlates to this novel…”

    Sean R., how could you have seen the film, when it hasn’t been made? The book hasn’t even been released yet.

    skzion on July 13, 2015 at 5:20 pm

      Sorry about that Skzion, I made an error and therefore screwed up, I was actually referencing “To Kill A Mockingbird”; the film that came out over fifty-years ago and not the novel, so you’re right in that regard buddy.

      Sean R. on July 14, 2015 at 11:37 am

    I have no sympathy for postmodernists, and of course there were many positive things about the Enlightenment thinkers.

    But there was also a negative strain that influenced both Marxism and the political correctness of today. The idea that ‘reason’ could solve all problems, and that man (as written) could ascertain the rational thinking needed to make an ever more perfect society. This thinking was accompanied by an ever-increasing intolerance towards those that were ‘unenlightened’ such as many religious institutions. Robespierre and St. Just exemplified this type of thinking.

    The book by Jacob Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, is worth reading in this regard. Although few libraries other than good university libraries still have this book, it has not yet been banned on Amazon.

    Little Al on July 13, 2015 at 6:22 pm

PBS Newshour is jumping in: http://t.co/Z739rwc1n5

Worry on July 13, 2015 at 5:39 pm

“I can skip the degenerate Salinger, and Nabokov with his trashy novel really isn’t any better. There was a reason I said 1950.”

Spoken like someone who’s never word a word of either. BTW Nabokov was one of the great conservatives of the 20th century.

Vic on July 13, 2015 at 8:13 pm

    My mistake. Upon reflection, I am aware of the conservative social values extolled in Lolita. I realize now how much the novel has done to promote traditional social values in the last few decades.

    Duh, if this is conservative, I’d hate to see the liberals. A great conservative? How could you be foolish enough to politically put Nabokov in a class with giants like T. S. Eliot and Yeats?

    And Salinger, to discard the sarcasm of my first paragraph, did much to promote the interminable, narcissistic ‘coming of age’ stories that we have been plagued with, especially since the 60s. Your stupidity is further exhibited by your remarks about Salinger’s military service. Should I call Commies patriotic because they served in World War II? Herbert Aptheker, one of the foremost Communist hacks of the 20th Century rose to the rank of Major in World War II. Eleven years later he wrote The Truth About Hungary which has gone down as one of the most blatant Commie propaganda pieces in history.

    Even a nitwit should have been able to see that my comments about Salinger pertained to his writing, not his personal history.

    And you are reckless enough to pontificate about what you think I have and haven’t read. But this is what people of limited intelligence do; they can’t think rationally about what is presented to them, so they put everything into preconceived categories.

    Will you tell me next that Charlie Chaplin was a conservative and promoted traditional values and hated Communism?

    Little Al on July 13, 2015 at 9:41 pm

      And teenaged alienation and its aftermath have been so beneficial to society since the 50s, haven’t they?

      Little Al on July 13, 2015 at 9:53 pm

Atticus Finch was guilty of microaggressions.

Theodis on July 13, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    You know anybody who hasn’t committed microaggressions?

    Miranda Rose Smith on July 14, 2015 at 6:35 am

      Miranda, your presence here is nothing but.

      skzion on July 14, 2015 at 12:34 pm

Oh and Al, here is your ‘degenerate’ Salinger…

“he saw combat with the 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division. He was active at Utah Beach on D-Day, in the Battle of the Bulge, and the Battle of Hürtgen Forest.”

Vic on July 13, 2015 at 8:57 pm

    And, of course, the rhetorical ‘oh’; style as a substitute for substance. A wonderful appreciation for the subtleties of good writing. Did you get techniques like these from the uh, conservative authors you are so fond of?

    Little Al on July 13, 2015 at 10:28 pm

    I didn’t know that.

    Miranda Rose Smith on July 14, 2015 at 6:13 am

    “he saw combat with the 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division. He was active at Utah Beach on D-Day, in the Battle of the Bulge, and the Battle of Hürtgen Forest.”

    Vic on July 13, 2015 at 8:57 pm

    Reply

    This is what I was responding to when I said “I didn’t know that.”

    Miranda Rose Smith on July 14, 2015 at 6:23 am

You’re dodging the point. Admit it, you’ve never read a word of either of those writers but are quick with the epithets. IF you did you would know that Lolita is pure Americana. Nabokov was a good friend of William F Buckley, Salinger wrote short stories about a search for spirituality. Read ‘Franny and Zooey’.

Vic on July 13, 2015 at 10:44 pm

Lolita is pure Americana? That is the problem. Contemporary Americana has degenerated into a narcissistic chaos since the 50s. Sex with minors pure Americana? Unfortunately you are right, and it is a reflection of the degeneration of cultural standards, one of the shocks of the 50s that paved the way for the horror of the 60s.

Friend of Buckley? So was Norman Mailer. So what? Buckley had liberal friends. This is like your foolish comments about Salinger’s WW II service. Personalizing instead of substantive literary comment placed in a social context. Personal anecdotes and gossip as a substitute for serious literary criticism.

Search for spirituality? Haven’t we heard enough in the last 50 years about bums and loafers and other misfits ‘searching for spirituality’ while others pay their expenses?

But I guess when someone is too sophisticated to be religious, they wind up searching for spirituality. Aimlessness without an intellectual foundation, which can lead to completely irresponsible thought and action.

When I faced educational indoctrination earlier in my life, I was, indeed forced to read Salinger. I read snatches of Lolita, because at an impressionable age, I was attracted when some of my fellow students considered Lolita to be salacious. But of course, Lolita became prominent because of Nabokov’s fine writing style, just as people read Playboy for the articles.

Little Al on July 13, 2015 at 11:24 pm

    Good Morning Little Al!

    Re: “…just as people read Playboy for the articles.”, YES, some of us did and may still do!

    In 1968, the movie – 2001: A Space Odyssey – was reviewed and I was a student at Wayne State and, as I recall, wanted to incorporate the messages / meanings / implications of the movie into a paper I had to write. So, I went to a local drug store where a friend worked, spoke to he owner, and asked him for the Sept. Edition so I could use the article as part of my research paper. YES, HE GAVE A SMIRK, BUT SOLD IT TO ME.

    Here is my proof:

    http://horrornews.net/48518/film-review-2001-a-space-odyssey-1968/

    ps: Didn’t mind seeing the pics!

    Dennis on July 14, 2015 at 7:49 am

Is it going to turn out that Atticus Finch was – gasp – Polish all the time?!?

I haven’t read “To Kill a Mockingbird”, so won’t be reading the sequel. It is interesting timing though – as Debbie points out.

I have read “Catcher” (“Everybody is out of step except me and my little sister, as long as she stays little”), and presumably it too was right on the zeitgeist, given how praised it was. Good ending though, with that figure lurking in the rye, watching the children play.

As a child of the post-war baby boom years, a time when us gangs of children played outside all the time, I remember the odd lurking figure in field and park, watching us play. It always seemed best to stay out of their reach, whatever it was they wanted to catch us for.

sue on July 14, 2015 at 3:24 am

Atticus Finch — the crusading lawyer of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” whose principled fight against racism and inequality inspired generations of readers — is depicted in “Watchman” as an aging racist who has attended a Ku Klux Klan meeting,

Until we read the book, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. In To Kill a Mockingbird, he’s a State Assemblyman, remember. Maybe he goes to the Klan rally because he knows a lot of potential voters will be there.

I’m prepared to be pleasantly surprised by this book, but I suspect it may be the most abysmal sequel to a great novel since Mark Twain wrote the sequel to Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer Abroad.

Miranda Rose Smith on July 14, 2015 at 5:57 am

Where “Mockingbird” was about the courage of the White Atticus to vigorously defend Robinson and the courage of his daughter Scout to fight her bullies, the new version is about Atticus’ hate and weakness.

Dear Debbie:

You don’t mention that Bob Ewell tries to murder the Finch children and that they are saved by Arthur Radley, their reclusive neighbor.

Miranda Rose Smith on July 14, 2015 at 7:52 am

    MRS, I am LOLOLing that in your perpetual contrarian stance here, you’re so ready to give the obvious PC riddled book the benefit of the doubt and yet when not being the resident, humourless scold you rarely give anyone here, even the host, benefit of the doubt. Comedy gold!!! 😀

    And Sue The Pom, what in Sam Hill are you crapping on about? I love “Catcher In The Rye” and have no idea what you’re bleating about, for crying out loud!

    Skunky on July 14, 2015 at 11:07 am

      Nicely said about both MRS and bad-kneed sue.

      skzion on July 14, 2015 at 12:30 pm

      Dear Skunky:

      When did I fail to give somebody the benefit of the doubt?

      I say you can’t judge a book, or a movie, by its critics. I am a huge admirer of George Orwell. I have read and re-read his essay on Dickens. In it, Dickens mentions Anthony Trollope and The Small House at Allington. Orwell wrote “To Trollope, an affair with a bar maid or a landlady’s daughter is simply an “entanglement,” to be escaped from.” I’m reading The Small House at Allington, right now, and that’s just not true. Johnny Eames is very aware of how shabbily he’s treating Amelia Roper.

      Miranda Rose Smith on July 15, 2015 at 4:46 am

        In it, Dickens mentions Anthony Trollope and The Small House at Allington.

        CORRECTION: In it, ORWELL mentions Anthony Trollope and the Small House at Allington.

        Miranda Rose Smith on July 16, 2015 at 7:13 am

Deb:

I agree with your thesis. We live in an Orwellian world. Just as Trotsky was air brushed out of a famous picture of Vad Lenin delivering a speech, we are seeing a very similar process here in the United States. I think you found a fine example of it.

Sadly, this will not be the last example of the systematic air brushing of truth, sacrifice, and heroism by White (and especially Jewish) Americans.

Sincerely,

There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

There is NO Santa Claus on July 14, 2015 at 8:18 am

Little Al, I very much appreciate the education I get from reading your posts. It brings me back to my childhood. I was born in 1956, and my mother’s NYC contingent of friends were like a who’s who of intellectual NY. Not that any were famous, although one, Gene Shepard, was somewhat known in certain circles. They were all in possession of high IQ’s, they all had at least one Master’s Degree, in some cases two, and at least a couple had Ph.D.’s in various fields.

They were always discussing a lot of books, along with people like Freud, Marx, etal, and most were what I later learned were lefties, or at least somewhat of that ilk. They would mention books and authors that you have brought up, and hold these very intellectual discussions about various topics.

At age 12, my full scale indoctrination into leftism began when I tagged along to a large anti-war march with another 12 year old, a friend across the hall. His dad was a former big shot in the Progressive Labor Party. We also attended a May Day march that year. It was 1969. By age 15, I was thoroughly on the anti-white, anti-establishment, freedom to do anything you want “as long as you’re not hurting anyone” bandwagon. I didn’t start to come out of that mind set until my mid to late 20’s.

It was then that I picked up the Bible, again, which I have not put down since. I discovered Rush Limbaugh and Bob Grant in my mid 30’s. I realized that what Rush always says about liberals, lefties, is right. People, especially young folks as I was when it occurred in my life, embrace this mind set to fit in and feel good.

Your posts Little Al, bring a conservative perspective to the discussions and bent that my mother had with her friends and followed. The 60’s were quite a time to grow up in, NYC ghetto neighborhoods were mostly where I lived. My parents had been separated and divorced years earlier, and my mother blocked my father from having much of a presence in my life, for a long time.

They are both dead now, and as I look ahead to soon reaching what were supposed to be my “golden years,” I reflect back on that mess of a time that the 60’s were. For decades I have seen clearly how The Cultural Pancake Flip which began November 22, 1963 and the weeds which had sprouted by the close of 1969, now engulf us, and mark our doom.

Bob Grant used to say in his later years, “if America ever wants to know what went wrong, it need only look in the mirror.” He also used to call it “this once great republic.”

Little Al, your posts and perspective on things, help add to my education in piecing together the steps that “this once great republic” took to get where we are today, which is nowhere. On the day JFK was shot, I never thought I had slavery to look forward to in my “golden years,” but here we are, heading 100 mph toward The Great Tribulation.

Thanks Little Al, for adding immensely to my education and perspective. And thanks to all the serious contributors to this site.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 14, 2015 at 10:40 am

    You deserve a lot of credit for overcoming your leftist background. Most people who come from that type of background never challenge it.

    Little Al on July 14, 2015 at 4:30 pm

      Thank you.

      I only touched on the tip of the iceberg. It was all around me, as you well know. There was even a 5th grade teacher, who noticed our knee jerk reaction to the word Communism, and called one of the “smartest kids in the school,” a 6th grader (oooooh!) in to tell us about how TRUE communism was really the best system. It had just never really been practiced properly before, because “we just haven’t had the right people in place yet.” How it was all related to the “all men are created equal” concept put forth by the Founding Fathers.

      While teaching us to revere the Founding Fathers, they cleverly wound these other concepts in to our minds. This occurred at P.S. 84 Manhattan, early 1967, right on the Upper West Side of NYC. It was a largely ghetto area at that time, although it was interwoven with blocks, like 86th St., where some pretty fancy people lived, the whole block from Riverside Drive to Central Park being pretty ritzy.

      But I lived on one of the ghetto blocks, the same block where the ill-fated Louis D. Brandeis High School was built. I actually watched it go up during the three years we spent living on that block.

      Also, hippie camp counselors, etc., it was all around me, the weeds sprouting, which now engulf the culture of “this once great republic.”

      Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 15, 2015 at 12:49 pm

I loved reading the book “To Kill a Mockingbird” and watching the movie on TV. Atticus Finch was hero of mine growing up in WVA and his daughter Scout was endearing in her innocence and spirit. Now that being said you have to wonder as Debbie surmised the timing of this new book by Harper Lee. In our country where race relations are at an all time low “Go Set a Watchman” will further cement in mushy headed peoples minds that “see we always knew that Finch was a racist jerkwad just like all of those evil straight White males. Never mind the fact that we have things like the knock out game where real pregnant women and elderly veterans were victims. Never mind the fact that we had a mayor of a major city allowing people to riot and thus destroy their own neighborhood without the facts of the police incident. You can expect the leftist morons(especially the ones who run the public school systems) to push this book making it required reading. They will get copies to our doofus POTUS and his buddy “Rev” Sharpton so that they can help along race relations in this country like they’ve been doing. They will have to make sure that the books have pictures and pop up areas especially for crazy Al so that he can read it on his unwatchable PMSNBC show. I’m sure that Rupert Murdoch will handle that personally.

Ken B on July 14, 2015 at 11:05 am

Lolita is Americana because it is as loving description of Truman era America as you will read anywhere. Nabokov called the book a ‘Love Letter to America’. It’s about a lot more than pedophilia which you would know if you read it. Comparisons to Playboy are off the wall because Lolita has no sexual content at all. Not a single sex scene, not a single four letter word. Nabokov was simply a conservative – he was a staunch anti-communist and supported the American effort in Vietnam. He hated the hippies with a passion. There is nothing ‘indoctrinating’ or political about Lolita at all. That’s like saying Edgar Allan Poe glorifies murderers because he wrote stories from their point of view. And Salinger’s spirituality was a specifically Judeo-Christian sort – at least when he was publishing (up until 1965). Again read Franny and Zooey. He also wrote about PTSD in WW2 vets (which he himself suffered from all of his life) as sympathetically as anyone ever has.

Vic on July 14, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    Comparisons to Playboy are off the wall? Even though Playboy did acquire the rights to some of this works?

    I’m glad that Americana is not limited to pedophilia.

    And frankly, I’d rather read a mystery written from the victim’s or the detective’s point of view.

    Little Al on July 14, 2015 at 5:56 pm

To Kill a MockBird- I liked that book in school, watched the movie school too.

I read today where I believe Al Shaptons Action Network is trying to bully Chevy, for their backing of Kid Rock, who rocks the Confed Flag. The battles these people choose are a joke and are pathetic. Do they think Blacks give a rats behind about what K-Rock does. Bullies.

“Remember that Malcolm X tried, at the end of his love, to pull himself out of the racist, anti-Semitic mud of the Nation of Islam. He was murdered for it.” Yes indeed, and Farah-Con overseen his murder, made sure it happened. Evil man

MrBigBrain on July 14, 2015 at 3:23 pm

And Vic, the word ‘scold’ seems to have acquired some currency on this blog. I would say the term definitely applies to you.

I have the nerve not to have read, or to have only read excerpts of a couple of books that you like, and for whatever reason, seem to consider great literature, so I am treated to close to a dozen posts defending these books and chastising me for not having read them or read them closely.

Classic signs of a brittle ego.

If I chastised people for not having read books that I think are important, I wouldn’t have time to do anything else.

Little Al on July 14, 2015 at 6:15 pm

I was responding to personal attacks you made against both the writers and the work (without having read much of it as far as I can see). Lolita is not really about pedophilia – that’s a metaphor and it quickly fades into the background as the book goes on. Nabokov was indeed every bit as conservative as Eliot without being anywhere near as provincial. He correctly described T.S. Eliot as a 2nd rate poet. The poem in Pale Fire is better than anything Eliot ever wrote. Salinger cannot be blamed for what he influenced. It’s like blaming Bob Dylan for John Denver. If you want to do that them give him credit for revolutionizing the way punctuation and italics are used in English prose. He did that too.

Vic on July 15, 2015 at 11:45 pm

    Eliot would certainly have been devastated to learn of Nabokov’s criticism, and of your disapproval.

    Eliot clearly anticipated the morons of the 50s, and, sadly, of today in his classic work Christianity and Culture. In spite of his genteel anti-semitism he anticipated the depravity that became reborn in the 50s, and bears down on us today.

    Little Al on July 16, 2015 at 9:26 am

      Also figures that you seem to be a fan of Bob Dylan. Goes along with your dislike of Joe McCarthy and praise of Charlie Chaplin.

      And, poor, provincial Eliot. It’s too bad that he wasn’t able to benefit from the wisdom of Nabokov regarding sophistication.

      And if something is a metaphor, I guess the choice of subject for the metaphor is irrelevant. One of the worst rationalizations if the garbage we are plagued with today.

      Little Al on July 16, 2015 at 9:30 am

Blaming Bob Dylan for John Denver?

Could you please enlighten me? Was there something wrong with John Denver? And what’s so great about Bob Dylan? Oh, I know, finger on the pulse of the culture of every decade since the 60’s, brilliant lyricist, prolific junkie, yes, I get it. The only thing by Dylan that I ever liked was “You’re Gonna Have To Serve Somebody.” He did that on Saturday Night Live in the 80’s.

I don’t like The Beatles either, only two of their songs that I like. But I support the right of anyone to say that Dylan, The Beatles, whomever, are the greatest of all time, if that’s what they have to say.

But blaming Bob Dylan for John Denver? What kind of analogy is that, and why? Just curious. Me personally, I’ll take Country Roads, Thank God I’m A Country Boy, and a lot of other John Denver fare over anything by Dylan, any day. Just my preference, not comparing for “greatness.”

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 16, 2015 at 1:00 am

Nabokov was also one of the best critics of the century. He saw through the likes Eliot, Mann, Dostoevsky. He would not abide by banality. He’s right there with Joyce, Proust and Pynchon. I don’t know what McCarthy and Chaplin have to with any of this. Chaplin was not a communist and Bob Dylan was almost entirely apolitical. Btw: Nabokov supported the Senator’s efforts.

Vic on July 17, 2015 at 1:23 am

And Nabokov emerged in the 20s not the 50s.

Vic on July 17, 2015 at 1:24 am

Yup, Vic, I knew you wouldn’t think Chaplin was a Commie. After all, all he did was support Commie causes most of the time, promote Commie fronts and take Commie positions most of the time.

Dylan was intimately associated with creating the chaos of the 60s’ rejection of authority, as well as helping, deliberately or not, separate many of the young Jewish rebels of the 60s from traditions that had helped sustain civilization for centuries and centuries.

Nabokov criticizing Eliot? I realize that for PCers such as yourself, Eliot is a villain. Banal and provincial? Mann? l Dostoevsky? Nonsense like that is not even worth discussing, except for one comment that I will make, and then you can troll somewhere else, either under the name ‘Vic’ or the other names under which you troll on this blog.

Eliot provincial? You and Nabokov must mean that he considered Western traditional culture to be superior to all others. That has become dated — it ignores diversity. Why, how could Eliot not have realized the outstanding cultural contributions of the Socialist lands, or the cutting-edge (no pun intended) activities of the Islamic world?

And while I haven’t read very much of Eliot, I’m not aware of his writing about depraved men who have sexual fantasies about underage girls. Mann or Dostoevsky either for that matter. Maybe I missed something.

So you stick to Chaplin, Dylan and Nabokov, continue to reject Eliot, Mann and Dostoevsky, but please concentrate on the liberal blogs where you belong, somewhere where the norm is one or two-sentence juvenile comments that are really more epithets than substantive contributions.

As an aside, your reading comprehension is quite poor. Given this, I can’t understand how you are even in a position to evaluate any of the writers you include in your comments.

Who said anything about Nabokov ’emerging’ in the 50s? His major influence was certainly in the 50s when Lolita, unlike his other writings, became a part of mass culture, and, as I mentioned, helped pave the way for the sexual depravities of he 60s, and the following half-century.

I’ll let you have the last word, as the brittle troll that you are, and have shown yourself to be for the last few years under your other name.

Little Al on July 17, 2015 at 7:25 am

Yes, Eliot the provincial. Imagine believing Western Christian culture to be better than Socialist or Islamic culture. The nerve!

And before you evaluate great writers, or those pretending to be great, you need to improve your reading comprehension. There is a difference between emerging and attaining mass recognition. I never said Nabokov ’emerged’ in the 50s. But there is no question he attained mass influence in the 50s, helping to set the tone for the depravity of the 60s and beyond, along with Dylan, and, belatedly, Chaplin, among others.

Little Al on July 17, 2015 at 7:42 am

And re reading comprehension, who said anything about John Denver? I don’t even know who he is.

Little Al on July 17, 2015 at 7:44 am

Maybe it is emotional mindset as well as reading comprehension. How can you understand great writers when you can’t even understand simple blog posts?

Little Al on July 17, 2015 at 7:44 am

For the umpteenth time, Lolita is not depraved anymore than Macbeth and King Lear are depraved for including depraved characters. There are no sex scenes, no four letter words. It’s about corruption, the collision of modernism and incipient postmodernism, of Old World and New, and the ability of art to expiate monstrous acts (and it questions if that’s even possible). It’s not like there was a shortage of genuinely explicit works at that time and earlier. D.H. Lawrence, Henry Miller…Nabokov did not do that sort of thing. Until you provide an example of the depravity you keep talking about I don’t know what to say. Unless you are referring to those person’s private lives in which case I simply don’t care enough to argue. For the record, Nabokov was happily married to the same lady for over 50 years. If we eliminate people on that basis then we have to throw out most of western civilization. Otherwise where are the depraved Chaplin films of Bob Dylan lyrics. Lou Reed I can see, or Kenneth Anger…but Chaplin and Dylan?

Vic on July 17, 2015 at 10:08 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field