Earlier this year, I was excited when I found out Harper Lee would publish a follow-up to her only novel, the inimitable To Kill a Mockingbird. It’s my favorite book of all time, an exercise in perfection, showing exceptional character development and intrigue. Every time I read it, I think it might end differently, which is why I pull it out about every five years, just in case!
When Lee’s sister Alice was asked years ago why another novel was not forthcoming, her response was, “When you have hit the pinnacle, how would you feel about writing more? Would you feel like you're competing with yourself?” And most of her fans were satisfied with that. How do you top the greatest story ever?
My initial excitement was quickly tempered. Wait a second. How DO you top the original? Still, I ordered a copy, looking forward to July for the release.
In the meantime, I thought about sequels which might have been better than the first entry. Usually, we think of sequels as poor follow-ups. In fact, I recently saw a “Rhymes With Orange” cartoon with God sitting on a cloud speaking to an angel. God said, “They think they want a second coming, but if I’ve learned one thing from humans it’s that if it did happen, they’d just complain the sequel wasn’t as good as the original.”
Usually we think that way, with movies especially. Still, most Star Wars fans will tell you that The Empire Strikes Back is clearly superior to A New Hope. Just the fact that the later film ended on a cliffhanger and forced you to wait three years for the next movie put it in an elite class. Of course, Return of the Jedi didn’t come close to matching its predecessor, but that might cause further conversation on why the third movie is often the worst of the batch.
Many Indiana Jones fans think Temple of Doom is better than Raiders of the Lost Ark, but it’s not by as wide a margin as the Star Wars debate. Godfather II actually won Oscars as a superior film, just as Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and The Dark Knight did, whereas their earlier entries did not receive that acclaim. Toy Story 2 and 3 are usually viewed as even better than the already outstanding original.
So why the hate for sequels? Ever see Cinderella 2? No? Good luck even finding it – that’s how bad it was. How about The Sandlot 2? The original movie was an endearing film of young boys playing baseball and learning life lessons. The sequel was the same basic plot with different characters and less endearing-ness.
There are books that should stand on their own, including some I teach. The Outsiders is a favorite of most of my students. There should NEVER be a follow-up to that book. Sure, Ponyboy shows up in another S.E. Hinton novel, but that classic wraps things up in a good way, without a need to check in on those characters later.
Where Tom Sawyer leaves off, Huck Finn picks up, but the latter is not a true sequel, just a changing of main characters. However, Mark Twain did write some more books about Tom. You don’t hear much about them because they were not that great and were likely written because the author was in some financial difficulties and knew he could make some easy money by returning to his beloved character.
As an author myself though, I enjoyed writing the sequel to my first published work, Heroics 101. When I wrote Heroics 201, I found I had a better grasp on my characters and had a lot more fun writing them. I knew them better and could explore beyond the origin story from the first book. I’ve had a number of people start a conversation with, “No offense, but I liked your second book better. The first one was good, but the sequel was really good.” No offense taken – I agree!
So what about Harper Lee’s recently published sequel, Go Set a Watchman? The reviews I’ve read are not favorable. I tend to agree, though not to the degree I’ve seen some. It was tough to see Scout, Calpurnia, and Atticus nearly 20 years later. It was difficult to read these characters from a narrator’s point of view instead of Scout’s take, like in the original. It was extremely hard to see some drastic changes in characters I have grown to love over the years.
That being said, I also know that Lee said she would not do any revisions when she discovered this manuscript. And it shows. Her original novel underwent numerous revisions and had tremendous editorial guidance. This one shows the lack of that. It’s disjointed at times, but not unreadable. I’m still not sure if I’m glad I read it or not, but I think I would have always wondered had I not cracked open the cover. I will not likely read it again, but I know I will pull out To Kill a Mockingbird again in about five years!
Word of the Week: This week’s word is lucripetous, which means money-hungry, as in, “Many speculated that Harper Lee’s family was lucripetous in pushing through the publication of her sequel.” Impress your friends and confuse your enemies!