Talk:Go Set a Watchman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Mainstream New Sources[edit]

In the section "Controversy," does anyone think that Jezebel can fairly be termed a mainstream news source? I'm not trying to discredit the legitimacy of the source, I just don't know anyone who would call it MSM. Twinkie eater91 (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That whole section is rather lopsided. It fails to quote Lee herself or mention that she says she's not being exploited. The whole "exploited" thing was created out of thin air; there's never been any evidence to support it. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a npov tag to the article, in hopes of balancing out the article, but the 'controversies' section especially. I 'm not sure that i did it correctly, just got off a nine hour shift, but will do my best to find some non-'conspiracy'-type sources on the 'controversy'. I've read plenty that are critical of the idea that Lee was/is being used or taken advantage of, but can't remember if they were in RSs. Will do some research when i have more time, but i hope we can balance this out a bit. off to sleepyland! Moss Ryder (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The investigation into the claims of elder abuse has been referred to at the outset of the controversy section. Lees friend who dismisses the claims has also been quoted. All quotes criticising the publication have been from relevant sources and are verified. Billdenbrough501 (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that a lot of information in the 'Discovery' section has been omitted. Will attempt to fill out this section more including Harper Lees statement regarding the book.Billdenbrough501 (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover[edit]

This is the link to the book cover. Mhoppmann (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've tracked down the original source and added the image. --NeilN talk to me 00:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honorifics?[edit]

The men in this article are referred to by their full or last names (Jonathan Mahler, Mahler, Andrew Nurnberg, Wayne Flynt, Flynt, Joe Nocera, Stephen Peck, Peck) but some of the women are sometimes referred to as "Ms" (Ms. Kristiina Drews, Ms. Drews, Ms. Hohoff, Ms. Lee). One man, Edward Burlingame, is referred to once as "Mr. Burlingame," but for the most part it's only women who have a gender-specific honorific. The whole practice is frightfully archaic. Charles Dickens is always referred to as "Dickens," Truman Capote is "Capote," Charlotte Brontë is "Brontë." In academic writing, Harper Lee would be referred to as "Lee." Unless someone can come up with a pretty compelling reason to treat the women in this article differently to the men, I'd suggest omitting the dainty "Ms." Better to be consistent and refer to everyone by their full or last name only (ie. Lee, Drews, Hohoff).Sadiemonster (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started to go through this article a few days ago when I found a very large number of copy violations. I think I caught most of them, though the writing remained very poor, IMO. At the time I thought that someone would come along in a few days and correct some of the obvious major editing problems with this article, but this has not happened. I can only guess that no one has read the book and does not want to wade into it. I think you should go ahead and do what you can do. What do you think we should do about the use of the word "Negro" Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To your last point, I wanted to ask the same thing. Is there an accepted convention in cases like these (i.e, should the word stay since it is used in the book)? To the previous point, I see no reason why honorifics be used at all in this case. Golden122306 (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The honorifics were used by the original writers quoted, Kakutani, Mahler etc. By all means remove them if you are not changing a quote.Billdenbrough501 (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Stephen Peck, son of actor Gregory Peck...."[edit]

Stephen Peck, son ... of an actor ... who played a character ... in a movie ... based on a novel ... written by the author who also wrote this novel has an opinion about what his father ... the actor ... who played a character ... in a movie ... based on a novel ... written by the author who also wrote this novel ... would think about its publication. Stephen Peck's thoughts are quoted extensively and he gets three whole paragraphs to himself in the article, the last of which is mostly about his speculation about the future of the reputation of his father, the actor....

I honestly do not see how any of these three paragraphs has any encyclopedic value at all. The article already provides extensive discussion of the controversy about the book's publication including quoting people who actually have and have had close relationships with the author. Unless someone can explain why they should be kept I will remove them all. 99.192.91.81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you entirely. Give it until Monday, 14th, for any other user reaction, then if appropriate, go ahead—not before.
Also please remember to sign and date your posts on a talk page with four tildes like this ~~~~.
Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's Monday the 14th now. Just removed the three paragraphs. 99.192.89.224 (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.91.81)[reply]
I noticed. Thank you! Why not register? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ursuka K. Le Guin review[edit]

See:

It may be good for additional reception WhisperToMe (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

"Go Set a Watchman has received negative reviews from both critics and audiences." It's rated 4 out of 5 stars in reader reviews at Amazon UK and 3.5 out of 5 in reader reviews at Amazon.com to give just two examples. Hardly the generally negative audience reviews that that sentence is suggesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo222 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Neo222. I have changed it to read, ... "mixed" ... — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  11:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished Novel[edit]

Does Go Set A Watchman count as an Unfinished Novel? If so, should it be in the unfinished novel category?Johnnyg150 (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, It does not. It has been published as found and is a complete story. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  18:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly discussions[edit]

The discussion of initial reviews in this entry is very good. We're now starting to see the appearance of scholarly discussions, such as:

Kelley, James B. "Reading TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and GO SET A WATCHMAN as Palimpsest." The Explicator 74.4 (2016): 236-39.

I'm wondering if representative scholarly discussions might be presented in a new section, with maybe just one sentence devoted to each source. Jk180 (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new work of scholarship was recently published. It's a collection of essays considering how to interpret and teach Mockingbird in light of the publication of Watchman. It also summarizes the controversies about Watchman. Reutter, Cheli and Jonathan S. Cullick, editors. Mockingbird Grows Up: Re-Reading Harper Lee Since Go Set a Watchman. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2020.

Go Set A Watchmen is not a "sequel"[edit]

It's been established that Go Set A Watchman is the book that Lee wrote before refining it into To Kill A Mockingbird. There are many passages that were lifted from this earlier version and then reused in the published final book. With this in mind, all references in the plot should not be worded in a way that implies it is a sequel or continuation from the book it eventually became. The characters, despite often having the same name, are actually different versions and do not belong to a continuous timeline. So Scout is not "now 26" because she's never been any other age in the story. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does not alter the fact that she is 26. I have reverted your edit. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She can be "26" but she cannot be "now 26", because "now" implies a "then". Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker Gandydancer (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. It now reads,
Jean Louise "Scout" Finch, a single 26-year-old, returns from New York to her hometown, Maycomb, Alabama, for her annual fortnight-long visit to her father Atticus, a lawyer and former state legislator. Jack, his brother and retired doctor, is Scout's mentor. ..."
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary[edit]

The plot summary is confusingly written and assumes the read is familiar with the plot and characters of To Kill a Mockingbird. 2A01:4B00:87FF:9B00:5876:EA83:F982:99E9 (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why then, don't you copy-edit it and wait and see how senior editors judge your revision? Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
: I'm not familiar with this book, hence why I wanted to read the summary, and why I found it lacking. 2A01:4B00:87FF:9B00:99A4:296B:B372:F198 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made some revisions yesterday, addressing the points you had queried. Trust they have helped you (?) Regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Go_Set_a_Watchman&oldid=1207447652"