A review of Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee

My hopes for this book were actually fairly low; I wasn't expecting to be knocked off my feet as I was by To Kill a Mockingbird. Unfortunately, I nevertheless found myself disappointed with Go Set a Watchman.

The book was marketed as a sequel but, in reality, it's pretty much an earlier draft of Mockingbird. Rediscovered in the last year, it seems to have been published as it was found, with little or no revision. As such, there are many inconsistencies with the original book, including the outcome and significance of Tom Robinson's trial. Because of this, the book is less a sequel than it is a reflection and examination of Mockingbird's themes from a different perspective.

I knew all this going in. I knew how the character of Atticus was going to be portrayed, I knew the novel was going to have a far less optimistic tone than that of Mockingbird. Going into Watchman I was hoping for an alternate story that would serve to compliment and shed new light on Mockingbird, which remains one of my all time favourite books.

In part, Go Set a Watchman succeeds: it sheds new light on the characters and themes of Mockingbird, challenging them and revealing a way things could have been. Unfortunately, the manner in which it goes about doing so is incredibly clumsy. Go Set a Watchman reads like a first draft. The messages are delivered rather ham-handedly; the subtelty and elegance that made Mockingbird so powerful is almost entirely lost. Characters progress in haphazard ways, and there are stretches of incredibly stunted dialogue, not to mention pages and pages of poor writing.

All of these problems can be owed to the fact it is an early draft. But, then, that's the biggest problem with the book: a first draft should never be published without extreme revision, all the more so if it's going to be held up against a book like To Kill a Mockingbird.

I knew before I started it that the novel would lack one of Mockingbird's finest aspects: a young, idealistic Scout as the lead character with an older, retrospective Scout as narrator. Unfortunately, I don't think I was prepared for how much that absence would reflect on the quality of the story. I think, perhaps, that To Kill a Mockingbird succeeded only because of that character and narration, the window through which the story and its universal themes are viewed. With this in mind, Go Set a Watchman was always doomed to fail.

That being said, there were a few very enjoyable and very insightful passages, particularly during the last third of the book. Jean Louise's conversations with her uncle and her angry tirade against her father were quite powerful.

Overall, Go Set a Watchman was not a bad book. Unfortunately, it lives under the shadow of it's predecessor. If Go Set a Watchman had been published independent of that shadow, I might have enjoyed it more, though I doubt I would have loved it. People were worried the book might shatter their image of To Kill a Mockingbird, but the simple fact is that Go Set a Watchman is neither well written enough, nor consistent enough with the original book, to be capable of such a feat.

If you're interested, I just found this article that sums up some of my thoughts surrounding the book's quality and the circumstances of its publishing. Worth a read. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/opinion/joe-nocera-the-watchman-fraud.html?_r=0

As always, thanks for reading! If you're interested in reading any of my other book reviews, click here

A Review of Heretic by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I recently read Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Before I read the book, I had never heard of Hirsi Ali, but apparently she is a prominent critic of Islam (I intend to read her autobiography, as her backstory seems interesting). The book caught my eye, as the idea was obviously fairly unusual, and I hoped that the author might have some interesting ideas to put forward in a tactful and thoughtful manner. Unfortunately, I found this was not the case.

My feelings towards this book changed several times as I was reading it, and I've waited several days to write a review, so as to let my thoughts on the book solidify. After a lot of reflection, I stand by my initial reaction. The few intelligent discussion points this book brings up were ultimately consumed and overshadowed by angry tirades and blatantly illogical arguments. I couldn't escape the feeling that this book was written with the specific intention of stirring the pot, making people angry, and creating a bestseller. It quite unsettles me that this book was front and center the last few times I walked into the bookstore, and that there are so many reviews on Goodreads commending the author for being "courageous" and "inspiring".

I consider myself fairly well informed when it comes to politics, religion, and current events. However, there are millions of people out there a lot smarter than me who could argue my thoughts a lot better, and I wouldn't call myself qualified enough to argue the specifics in regards to Islam. However, in regards to the book, Hirsi Ali contradicts herself quite a bit within its pages. She talks of a difference between Christianity and Islam as being the former's progression away from a literal interpretation of their holy book, while Islam, she states, continues to do the opposite. How, then, can she single out specific lines and verses within the Quran when she has just said the only difference between doctrines is the method of interpretation?

This sort of cherry picking facts is present throughout the book. She picks specific verses she wishes to criticize and ignores others. This is hardly unusual, given the argumentative nature of the book. What frustrated me, however, was the overbearing tone in which the book was written. Hirsi Ali condescends to the dissenting reader, appealing only to a very specific demographic (a fact she herself acknowledges). She calls out Western Liberals for branding any critic of the religion as an "Islamaphobe", which is, in some cases, a fair statement. Critical thinking should not be shut down, simply because we don't wish to offend people, and the media and government often go overboard with political correctness. The problem lies in the fact that, so often, ignorant and racist individuals shout with the loudest voices, overpowering those able to make rational and informed arguments. Hirsi Ali seems like a reasonably intelligent woman, and I would not be so critical if the tone and method of her argument did not, ultimately, provide fuel to the fires of ignorant and hatred. She claims to seek rational and reasonable discourse, yet the angry tirades she continually goes on will only serve to invigorate uninformed individuals who think they know what they are talking about.

Hirsi Ali states at the beginning of the book that she won't subdivide Islam. This pretty much defeats her argument from the start. When speaking about a religion that is some fourteen hundred years old, arguably the world's single most diverse faith, how can you not subdivide? It is ignorant and uninformed to make such sweeping generalizations. When discussing the problems in Islamic doctrine, one simply CANNOT compare western Muslim communities in the oppressive Saudi regime, or radicalized groups such as ISIS or Boko Haram. Again, this is an example of Hirsi Ali contradicting herself, as she specifically draws attention to the fact that Islam is decentralized, with many different sects and groups, unlike an organization such as the Catholic church.

I think that Hirsi Ali believes such sweeping generalizations justified because of her personal experiences. I have not read her autobiographies (though I think I will in the future), but her tale is undoubtedly sad and, yes, many young Muslim girls are not afforded the opportunity to escape. Unfortunately, this leads to her book being incredibly tinted by her own anger, to the detriment of her rational arguments. She simply cannot seem to separate her own experiences from her argument, and thus she does not come across as the informed individual she purports to be.

Hirsi Ali claims this book is attempting to insight discussion within the Muslim community itself. I don't really see how she can reasonably hope to accomplish this goal. In terms of addressing western liberals, she hits her target audience. But given that she herself states that change can only come from within the community, how can crafting a western bestseller achieve this change? Everything about the book's surface appearance, from the title and author photo to it's inflammatory tone, seeks to make it a bestseller (I'm sure she's making a nice profit off of her crusade for change). Yet I can hardly see it being widely read in the middle east, where she argues change is needed, and where most of her anecdotal evidence comes from. Pissing off western lefties (such as myself) is a noble goal, but it's hardly going to get people in Pakistan and Iraq having serious discussions.

As I've said, she does have some good points. Talks about the problems with literal interpretation of the Quran, the prevalence of Sharia law in the middle east, the appeal of radical groups and the use of the religion as a political tool. These are all very serious issues, and I found myself agreeing with some of what she had to say on the subjects. If she had focused on these arguments rather than contradictory ones, as well as scaled back her personal rhetoric and been a bit more subtle with her cherry picking, the book might have been a success.

Directly comparing herself to Johnathan Swift in "A Modest Proposal" was, for me, the final nail in her coffin, as her writing continually falls short of Swift's informed intellect and wit. Hubris betrays her, as her self confidence is ultimately empty. I think this is the root of most of my problems with the book. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not as smart, nor revolutionary, as she thinks. Moreover, she is a disillusioned woman with a few good points, overshadowed by a condescending and, at times, whiny tone, complete with sweeping generalizations and contradictory arguments.

Boston Bombings and the Death Sentence

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s sentence. The infamous Boston Marathon Bomber was sentenced to death a few weeks ago, with the trial drawing a lot of the attention from the media and the public, as anyone who has turned on the TV or looked at the news over the last year will know. I always find myself feeling slightly uncomfortable watching coverage of these kinds of high profile trials for a number of reasons.

The media always loves a spectacle. The more terrible things in the world are, the happier FOX and CNN are. Some networks, of course, are worse in this regard than others, but even the most unbiased news networks enjoy a spectacle simply because their viewers enjoy one. It’s simple logic. We get endless reports about the heroics of the rescue services involved, stories from the survivors, and interviews with the teary eyed family members of the dead, speaking of how they can finally have peace now they’ve achieved justice.

Now, I’m being cynical, but it is an undeniable fact that the public, you and I included, feeds the cyclical nature of the news. Even now, only a few weeks after the sentencing, the amount of coverage has dropped drastically in lieu of other more pressing news stories, and it will remain this way until some other revelatory event happens. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, his older brother, and their victims will be forgotten again by the bloodlusting public for a time. People react to these cases very emotionally, whether in anger at the act itself or elation at the sentence. Yet, as soon as it isn’t flashed in their faces every waking moment, the emotions slip their mind. I don’t blame people for this (the average individual has far too many worries on their hands to be concerned with the sentencing of some terrorist). However, the more I think about it, the more I find myself wondering: does this not lend a false air to their cries for justice?

The argument can probably be made in relation to any major news story from terrorist attacks to natural disasters, and I am not saying it’s ever going to change. However, surely if such emotive reactions were sincere then they would last a little longer, with more depth? I suppose this is beside the main point of this essay, which I am getting to, but I think it is very important to consider the manner in which we are affected by a sensationalist media, one that loves to stoke the fire.

And here, I reach the problem I set out to write about: Tsarnaev’s death sentence.

I am not a supporter of the death penalty and never will be. My reasons are long and varied, but they effectively boil down to a belief that the death sentence is institutionalized murder. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are some people out there who could not be rehabilitated, would waste taxpayer money in the prison system, and the world could generally do without. However, I think these people are surely few and far between, and it is impossible for a bureaucracy weed these individuals out. How can a society hope to uphold civil rule of law when its government is exempt from the same rules?

The media attention, people’s overly (empty?) emotional reactions, and my pre-ingrained biases in regards to the death penalty all combine to leave me incredibly uneasy over this case. I simply can’t help but feeling have not seen the results of a trial, but that of a witch hunt. Tsarnaev’s trial represents an entire nation in search of vindication. This is an incredibly dangerous president to set, and we see the same mentality in the biases present throughout the west concerning Muslims and Middle-Easterners.

Now, I’m all for patriotism and I am certainly all for justice. However, it is an incredibly slippery slope once we, the public and the government, begin making examples of certain individuals in the way that America seems to have done with Tsarnaev. This is a problem present throughout western nations, not just the United States; in Canada, as much as any other country, we are so brainwashed into a fear of the “terrorist threat” that we allow bills such as C-24 and C-51 to be passed.

As we have seen with the Tsarnaev trial, people are scared and they are angry; scared and angry people tend to lash out.

And, finally, I come back to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev himself. The boy was only nineteen at the time of the attacks, barely more than a kid. By all accounts, he was a caring, good natured kid, who idolized his older brother. He was not the mastermind in this plot, simply a pawn. This does not excuse his horrific actions, but it does provide some context for them. We’ve all been there: confused, young, alone, tired of constantly putting up a façade and hoping for a chance to do something meaningful with our lives. His older brother’s radicalization provided Dzhokhar an opportunity to do something meaningful, and, for better or worse, he took it.

I guess I’m just trying to say that evil acts do not make evil people. This was a confused – probably depressed and lonely – young man who was presented a way to do something meaningful. I don’t mean to say he should not be punished, but can’t we show at least a minute amount of compassion, the slightest bit of understanding?

Dzhokhar Tsarvaev’s sentence saddened me, but it did not surprise me. I’ve been trying to work out my thoughts in order to write this piece for a while now. I suppose I expected it, but hoped for a different outcome to the trial. Many people reading this (not that anyone actually reads this blog) will probably not understand where I’m coming from, so I was hesitant to voice my thoughts, lest I not articulate them clearly. These sorts of cases continually inspire a “you’re either with us or against us” mentality, that extends even to these at home discussions.

That said, I hope I’ve articulated my thoughts clearly. Anyone reading this, I’d be interested to know what you think! Message me on facebook or comment on here. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? I value all kinds of feedback, and I love debate and discussion.

As always, thanks for taking the time to read my rambling!