This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Go Set a Watchman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Go Set a Watchman appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 February 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
This is the link to the book cover. Mhoppmann ( talk) 22:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
See:
It may be good for additional reception WhisperToMe ( talk) 08:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)