I was incredibly excited to see this news upon seeing the headline in the New York Times, and surprised, because Harper Lee has been a recluse for almost her entire life since writing To Kill a Mockingbird, and has repeatedly insisted that she had no desire to publish another book ("I wouldn't go through the pressure and publicity I went through with To Kill a Mockingbird for any amount of money. Second, I have said what I wanted to say and I will not say it again."[0])
After doing a bit of digging, however, I'm a bit concerned. Now, Lee is almost 90, and has suffered a stroke that seems to have had lasting effects. She filed a lawsuit in 2007 against the son-in-law of her former agent, claiming that he took advantage of her mental state during her recovery and duped her into assigning him the copyright to To Kill a Mockingbird[1]. For much of her adult life, her sister handled press relations and shielded Lee from these pressures. Her sister passed away three months ago, and suddenly this new book comes to light[2].
I really hope these suspicions are wrong, and that there's nothing shady at play here. I'm excited to read the book, but I can't help but be skeptical of the timing.
[2] (I dislike linking to Gawker Media sites on principle, but Jezebel actually wrote a good post digging into the details of this - "Be Suspicious of the New Harper Lee Novel".)
I'm certainly thinking of running the ebook through a statistical analysis to see if the patterns in the writing match. If they were both written in the same time period by the same author, they should be pretty similar.
I do hope there's nothing untoward going on here and that this book lives up to the legacy of To Kill a Mockingbird, but the possibility is at least worth examining.
Huh? I don't think anyone is really doubting the authenticity of the book. At least not yet. They're doubting that Harper Lee has actually authorized its release with full knowledge of what that means.
Oh, it's not the most likely hypothesis; not having access to the book yet I can't even say if it'd even be a relevant question. My most likely depressing scenario is that it's a less interesting novel that wasn't published at the time because it simply wasn't as interesting, and Harper Lee isn't in a position to evaluate it because she hasn't read it in fifty years.
Embarrassingly, I first misread this as Harper Lee working on a sequel to the Hunger Games finale Mockingjay, and I was so confused....
I was forced to read To Kill a Mockingbird for school. I started reading it with a bad attitude. After I finished it, I immediately turned back to the first page and reread it, not with a school mindset but with a "this is amazing literature that I need in my life" mindset.
If she was writing this "sequel" at the same time she was writing the original, they're likely to contain the same themes and the same timeless way of looking at life, society, and what it means to be human. I don't know if any novel could survive the pressure of being a long-delayed sequel of To Kill a Mockingbird, but I'm definitely willing to let it try!
Apparently she was writing this novel first and incorporated flashbacks, which were so descriptive that someone (might've been her editor) strongly suggested she separate them into their own novel.
Yes, this "sequel" was apparently the original book she wrote before her book editor told her to focus on when Scout was a child (the flashbacks). And they just found the manuscript hidden in a box a few months ago apparently.
A writer working on a biography of Harper Lee came to my high school 6 or 7 years ago to give a presentation about her. He told us that she had written another book but didn't want to publish it due to the pressure she felt from the success of To Kill a Mockingbird, so she planned on having it published after she died. This is probably the book he was talking about.
I can't remember exactly who the writer was, but he spoke about his experience interviewing Kurt Vonnegut for his biography, so it was probably Charles Shields.
Apparently, they only just found this manuscript hidden in a box "in the fall of 2014", so it was probably not the new book that person was talking about. In fact, this was the original book before "To Kill a Mockingbird" was written.
It seems everybody here loves "To Kill a Mockingbird". To me, it's a well written but ultimately shallow novel. Finch is your typical woman's fantasy man: great at fatherhood, great at his work, morally upright, totally scrupulous, and yes, best shot in the county. The black people in the novel rarely get a voice, except one of platitudes, and the race relations stuff is totally black and white (excuse the pun), with no particular insight. It counts as literature only because of its propitious timing around the Civil Rights movement. It's a fine school reading list book but that is all it is.
I think you missed the point. The brilliance in To Kill a Mockingbird is the way it makes us feel the confusion felt by a six year old looking at an adult world.
At the time, many people did see race relations as 'black or white', and people thought there was a perfectly legitimate debate to be had about whether someone that was black was 'less of a man' that someone that was white. What Scout really shows us is that children are not born with this pre-conceived notion, and are generally confused by it... and we should be too.
To address your specific points: the black people were not supposed to have much of a voice in the novel, because black people didn't have much of a voice back then. There wasn't much insight (in terms of speeches or things said) around race relations, because to a six year old girl the insight doesn't matter. All that matters is one of fairness - that a child cannot fathom how crazy adults must be to not give black people a voice or to treat them differently, just because of their skin.
PS: In response to your comment about Finch, you're right. Finch is perfect - because he's Scout's father - and most six year old girls do think of their father as perfect; if Scout hadn't been written that way then her character would have seemed shallow and wrong.
PPS: I've clearly thought about this too much and what I've wrote seems a bit preachy - as with any book, it all comes down to personal taste.
>It's a fine school reading list book but that is all it is.
The book has been banned from many schools.
Racial slurs, profanity, and blunt dialogue about rape have led people to challenge its appropriateness in libraries and classrooms so often that, today, the American Library Association reports that To Kill a Mockingbird is one of the most challenged classics of all time and still ranks at number 21 of the 100 most frequently challenged books of 2000–2009. Even as recently as 2011 and amid 326 other book challenges for that year, it ranks in the top ten more than 50 years after seeing print.
I'm pretty sure a book can't get on those lists any more without a theme of oppression or alienation. I'm not joking. Almost everything they make kids read any more is somehow about injustice or bigotry.
Apropos Southern Gothic lit, I'm chuckling at the thought of a typical 9th grade english teacher trying to tackle a much better book like Flannery Oconnor's "The Violent Bear it Away." Doesn't quite fit the essay templates they raise the kids on.
Surely it is plain to the simplest intelligence that To Kill a Mockingbird spells out in words of seldom more than two syllables a code of honor and conduct, Christian in its ethic, that is the heritage of all Southerners ~ Harper Lee
On the basis of regression to the mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean), or what we might call the "J.K. Rowling effect," it would be far too much to hope that the sequel will match the original. Nonetheless, this has got to set some sort of record for the gap between a novel and its sequel.
The article shares though that she originally wrote the book around the same time as To Kill a Mockingbird, or more precisely, she wrote this book first, and was advised by her editor to expound upon some segments of it to write To Kill a Mockingbird instead.
So a huge gap between publications, but I would expect the writing to be similar.
For the impact to be similar, it will take a lot more than similar writing. I will read this -- I would read Harper Lee's grocery lists with interest -- but I expect that it will be a minor literary footnote, not another beloved landmark book.
Judging by Leviathan Wakes and the others from the expanse we are safe in the unfortunate case of "a jordan". It is written by his assistant and a friend of him. They are also the people that are his "hit by a bus" insurance.
And I think that he will progress faster nowadays with the show. Not that I have high hopes for the series after book four and five.
I'm trying to understand why you brought Leviathan Wakes into this. One of the authors of The Expanse is GMMR's assistant, as I understand it, but I'm not clear how either GMMR would affect The Expanse or how The Expanse would affect Game of Thrones.
I ask as a fan of The Expanse who has not jumped into GoT, and who wouldn't like to see The Expanse side-tracked because of it. Is there some piece of this relationship I'm not seeing, or is Ty Franck more involved in GoT writing than I would have expected?
The other author of the Expanse is Daniel Abraham who is BFF with GRRM. And since the Expanse is an awesome series, they are more than capable of continuing his work in GoT if something nasty happens.
The show creators have apparently been already told about the ending, lest something unfortunate happen to GRRM. As things stand, I don't see him wrapping up the series even by Book 7, which, I hope to read before my kids go to college (I'm 26)
Despite widespread changes in social attitudes on some topics, To Kill a Mockingbird is still as relevant to today's world as it was when it was originally published.
That's because it is a timeless tale about the goodness of people, of faith and charity and humanity. Those are everlasting values.
My girlfriend reads the book at least once a year. She says it keeps her grounded and optimistic. I started doing the exercise last year and I have to say, she is right.
True. But also because it's a sensitive and nuanced examination of the fucked-uppedness of US culture with regards to race. I certainly hope that isn't everlasting, but the book remains depressingly relevant.
There's nothing unfortunate about acknowledging the racial themes in To Kill A Mockingbird, and doing so doesn't diminish any of the other messages. It would be a shit book if it were only about one thing. One of the things it's about is race, unpleasant as it may be.
That's correct, but the GP comment is unfortunate in that it is either a deliberate misinterpretation of my comment, or one made from a very superficial understanding of the text.
I think there's no denying that there has been some progress. But if you think To Kill a Mockingbird no longer has relevance to racial issues across the US, I'm going to guess you're white. There's an ocean of stuff relating to that, but this would be one good place to start: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case...
I'd be interested to hear more about the creative dynamic between this new book and To Kill a Mocking Bird. It says she put this new one aside 60 years ago to write TKaMB, but it features the characters later in their lives. I wonder if she was sketching out backstory to flesh out the characters and that was more compelling, so she pivoted and wrote To Kill a Mocking Bird instead?
"In the mid-1950s, I completed a novel called 'Go Set a Watchman,'" the 88-year-old Lee said in a statement issued by Harper. "It features the character known as Scout as an adult woman, and I thought it a pretty decent effort. My editor, who was taken by the flashbacks to Scout's childhood, persuaded me to write a novel (what became 'To Kill a Mockingbird') from the point of view of the young Scout.
"I was a first-time writer, so I did as I was told. I hadn't realized it (the original book) had survived, so was surprised and delighted when my dear friend and lawyer Tonja Carter discovered it. After much thought and hesitation, I shared it with a handful of people I trust and was pleased to hear that they considered it worthy of publication. I am humbled and amazed that this will now be published after all these years."
It sounds to me like her editor thought the flashbacks to Scout's childhood were the best part of the unfinished book - so as you said, she pivoted to the good stuff.
While I expected it to annoy me, for some reason in this particular situation I love the fact that we're using very current terminology in the context of a 'classic' from the 60s. Perhaps because it 'anchors' the term and makes it seem more like a useful word to describe a phenomenon that has always existed, rather than annoying, very-specific jargon.
He meant pivot. It has become a bit of a buzzword and perhaps people think that it has only just come into practice, however it was always around it just hadn't been reduced to a single word.
I'm also curious to know if this second book pulls as heavily from her life experiences as mockingbird did. Mockingbird is such a poignant book because of how well it captures a certain period in american history. If the second one does as well, it could be just as important of a novel.
To kill a mocking bird was the first novel i read in my life. I was only 11 (in 6th grade) at the time and took around 3-4 months (summer break) to complete it, to be honest this was the book that made me realize that reading english literature can be an extremely amazing and insightful experience. Granted i didn't understand many things that were in it at the time but it kept me hooked.
Also i remember thinking that jean was a boy till i was 20-30 pages in realizing that she was in fact a girl.
Wow. Am currently reading "The Mockingbird Next Door" by Marja Mills. Brifely, Marja gained unprecedented access to the private life of Nelle Harper Lee. It is extremely interesting, and I am quite surprised at this turn of events. Good news!
I'm sure the first book was very good but I never read it and feel negatively about it. Why? Simple. Because it was on the high school required reading list. I looked around at the teachers, looked around at the town, looked around at the larger society in which I lived, and decided very early I was having no part of indoctrination.
It's too bad. Because it probably is a good book. The bible might be as well. But I'll never know because suspicion of indoctrination ruined it for me. Maybe this is a personal failing. But putting books on the high school required reading list is a good way to make thinking people suspicious of motive in my view.
Because it would suit their style, juxtaposing two contrasting things (classical literature and marketing-driven pop culture that has lots of sequels).
I get it. To take the joke even farther, you might imagine a headline from The Onion along the lines of "God working on sequel to The Bible". Not funny when I state it all dryly of course, but hopefully you can see the joke now?
Perhaps; authorship is disputed, and some claim the Book of Mormon is the sequel from the original author.
(Of course, its worth noting that that the problem goes back further than that and that "the Bible" is itself a combination of the Hebrew Scriptures and a -- of disputed provenance, like the others -- sequel to that work.)
You make no sense at all. My complaint is about the numerous postings of "general news" here on HN. If I wanted general news, I would not come here to find it and, instead, would go to my favorite actual news sites. HN is not a general news collection point.
Hence my question, why is this here?
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I'm wondering if you are just agreeing with me.
The article you link to does not support your claim of 8%. It mentions data "averaging 8 percent to 10 percent" but then goes on to point out that:
> Not all reports classified as unfounded are necessarily false. In some cases, women who were victims of rape were disbelieved, pressured into recanting, and charged with false reporting only to be vindicated later on—the kind of awful story that adds to people’s skittishness about discussing false accusations. Some police departments have been criticized for having an anomalously high percentage of supposedly unfounded rape charges: Baltimore’s “unfounded” rate used to be the highest in the nation, at about 30 percent, due partly to questionable and sometimes downright abusive police procedures, such as badgering a woman about why she waited two hours to report a street assault. By 2013, an effort to provide better training and encourage full investigation of all complaints reduced that rate to less than 2 percent.
The problem is that you cannot rely on a police officer's opinion that a rape accusation is false. It could too easily be based on a sexist perception of the woman reporting the crime. The rape of sex workers, women who use drugs and alcohol, and women who have many sexual partners has never been taken as seriously by law enforcement.
> On the other hand, we have actual scientific data from the CDC showing that 20% of women have been raped: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=.... What we need is an equivalent study that asks men if they have ever been falsely charged with rape. My guess is that the number is quite small.
What are you arguing? Since false rape accusations can't be measured well, they shouldn't be considered a problem and they should be ignored?
"Some women don't make false rape accusations" -- true. My mother is a woman who has never made a false rape accusation. So is my wife. That's some women who don't make false rape accusations.
"No women make false rape accusations" is what you probably meant to say. That's demonstrably false -- some women do.
Actually, To Kill a Mockingbird perpetuates the idea that racist drunken white dads in the deep south in that era made false accusations and beat their daughters when their daughters hit on black men. Which is something that, you know, actually happened sometimes.
You're getting downvoted, but I think it's not because your claim lacks merit; rather the book perpetuates many ideas, of which that may be one. I'm sure fans of the book don't wish to perpetuate falsehoods surrounding a topic like rape, but they may naturally take a different perspective on what is being celebrated by sharing this news.
Why hate harry Potter? it probably encouraged many more people to pick up a book, some of whom may never have read a book otherwise, and then they may have gone on to read classics such as To Kill a Mockingbird.
ask HN: seems to be down, sorry, off topic, I want to publish eBook/only, and have all revenues go to charity. not a lot of info on web, regarding this subject. One author who put a Link on the end of his eBook is all.
After doing a bit of digging, however, I'm a bit concerned. Now, Lee is almost 90, and has suffered a stroke that seems to have had lasting effects. She filed a lawsuit in 2007 against the son-in-law of her former agent, claiming that he took advantage of her mental state during her recovery and duped her into assigning him the copyright to To Kill a Mockingbird[1]. For much of her adult life, her sister handled press relations and shielded Lee from these pressures. Her sister passed away three months ago, and suddenly this new book comes to light[2].
I really hope these suspicions are wrong, and that there's nothing shady at play here. I'm excited to read the book, but I can't help but be skeptical of the timing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_Lee#After_To_Kill_a_Moc...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_Lee#Lawsuit_to_regain_c...
[2] (I dislike linking to Gawker Media sites on principle, but Jezebel actually wrote a good post digging into the details of this - "Be Suspicious of the New Harper Lee Novel".)