Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
The Chronicle Review

It’s Time for Scholars to Take Harper Lee Seriously

By Patrick Chura July 22, 2015
Gregory Peck and Brock Peters starred as Atticus Finch and Tom Robinson in the 1962 film version of “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
Gregory Peck and Brock Peters starred as Atticus Finch and Tom Robinson in the 1962 film version of “To Kill a Mockingbird.”Photofest

While researching To Kill a Mockingbird as a graduate student 16 years ago, I faxed several questions for Harper Lee to McIntosh & Otis, Lee’s literary agency in New York. After summarizing what little was known about the book’s genesis, I asked directly if any early drafts of the novel survived, whether Ms. Lee could give me any information about the original manuscripts, and whether her editor at Lippincott, Tay Hohoff, had anywhere commented in detail about the drafts. To my surprise, Lee responded. What she said, in brief remarks conveyed through McIntosh & Otis in March 1999, was “No to all counts.”

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

While researching To Kill a Mockingbird as a graduate student 16 years ago, I faxed several questions for Harper Lee to McIntosh & Otis, Lee’s literary agency in New York. After summarizing what little was known about the book’s genesis, I asked directly if any early drafts of the novel survived, whether Ms. Lee could give me any information about the original manuscripts, and whether her editor at Lippincott, Tay Hohoff, had anywhere commented in detail about the drafts. To my surprise, Lee responded. What she said, in brief remarks conveyed through McIntosh & Otis in March 1999, was “No to all counts.”

Though I don’t believe Harper Lee had simply forgotten about Go Set a Watchman, I also don’t blame her for her reticence about the manuscript she sold to Lippincott in 1957, or for distancing herself until quite recently from her first attempt at a novel. As the impact and controversy surrounding the publication of Go Set a Watchman indicate, To Kill a Mockingbird and Atticus Finch are sacred icons. An entire category of readers is now simply refusing to read Watchman for fear of the harm it will do to a literary saint. A larger number of readers, however, seem ready to welcome the complex new work into our recently intensified national dialogue on race.

There is another category of readers who should be newly interested in both of Lee’s books: professors of American literature and culture studies, who have tended to ignore Lee. Despite the enormous popularity of To Kill a Mockingbird, comparatively few scholarly articles have been written about it, comparatively few college courses include it on their reading lists, and there has not been a sustained or serious critical conversation about the novel among scholars. The publication of Go Set a Watchman offers good reasons for having this conversation now.

Racial events and ideology of the 1950s leach into Lee’s depiction of 1930s history.

Tay Hohoff asked Lee to move her novel’s setting from the late 1950s to the 1930s, and to tell the story from a child’s perspective. The case history suggests this was because she viewed Lee’s original manuscript as too volatile, telling unpalatable truths about race in the 1950s. The product of Hohoff’s requested rewrite, of course, was To Kill a Mockingbird. Lee’s recent comment on this professional relationship — “I was a first-time writer, so I did as I was told” — implies that she in fact had wanted to explore those truths.

Early in the new novel, an aging Atticus Finch asks his 26-year-old daughter, Scout, what the New York press is saying about the South in the violent aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. “Well, to hear the Post tell it, we lynch ’em for breakfast” she replies, adding, “I haven’t paid any attention to it except for the bus strikes and that Mississippi business. Atticus, the state’s not getting a conviction in that case was our worst blunder since Pickett’s Charge.”

The “Mississippi business” Scout refers to, of course, is the story of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old boy from Chicago who was brutally murdered by two white men in August 1955 for allegedly whistling at a white woman in Money, Miss. Scout’s claim that the acquittal of Till’s murderers constituted a calamitous defining moment (a claim Atticus agrees with), and that the Northern press “went insane” over it, captures the South’s general paranoia and instability on the verge of the civil-rights movement. But the passage also conveys specifics about what was on Harper Lee’s mind as she composed the first draft of To Kill a Mockingbird, offering hard evidence that Lee’s initial impulse, her reason for becoming a writer, was a desire to confront and appraise the reactionary bigotry of her community in the post-Brown era.

A cursory reading of To Kill a Mockingbird reveals evidence of this desire. Racial events and ideology of the 1950s leach into Lee’s depiction of 1930s history, orienting sections of the text not to the Depression era in which the novel is set but to social conditions of the civil-rights era. To Kill a Mockingbird joins the national debate about segregation stimulated by the Brown decision, for example. The novel strives to counteract the propaganda of the White Citizens’ Councils, anti-integration societies that appeared after the Brown decision for purposes of intimidating the small number of black registered voters and fomenting white resistance to school integration. As fundamental a presence in the novel is the structural and ideological detail of Till’s lynching, which seems unquestionably to have provided a model for aspects of Lee’s fictional Tom Robinson trial and lynching.

The stunning assertion at the core of Watchman, and the cause of the distress now afflicting devotees of To Kill a Mockingbird, is that Atticus Finch is a racist and segregationist. Two decades after having “accomplished what was never before or after done in Maycomb County” by winning acquittal for a black man on a rape charge against a white witness for the prosecution, he joins the board of directors of the bigoted Maycomb County Citizens’ Council. He explains it to his daughter this way: “Honey, you do not seem to understand that the Negroes down here are still in their childhood as a people.”

The political awareness of Watchman and the gravity of its exposure of Atticus as a white supremacist should prompt scholars to reconsider their dismissive view of Harper Lee as an artist and re-evaluate their assessment of her Pulitzer Prize-winning work as little more than a saccharine children’s book. Mockingbird may in some ways be a “sweet book,” as I’ve heard it called, but this is after all a curious designation for a work about rape and race and death, a novel in which state-employed prison guards pump 17 bullets into the body of a black male for allegedly attempting to climb a barbed-wire penitentiary fence using only one arm. Ta-Nehisi Coates’s recent warning in Between the World and Me, that the “regressions” of racism “all land, with great violence, upon the body,” was made also by Lee.

It may be justifiable to fault Harper Lee for writing what is for some a “feel good” racial novel in which blacks essentially lack agency and the only hero is a white man who serves all too readily to vicariously assuage white racial guilt. We now know, however, that the immaculate Atticus of Mockingbird is viewed through the eyes of a young daughter who was eventually to grow up and feel betrayed by him. Mockingbird detractors have long wished that Lee had written a different kind of novel; the ironic and fortunate circumstance is that she did, and we now have it.

Mockingbird detractors have long wished that Lee had written a different kind of novel. We now have it.

In Go Set a Watchman, not only is Atticus’s heroism severely undermined, but Lee’s authorial surrogate Scout receives comeuppance from Calpurnia for presumptuously crossing the color line to console her former caretaker when her grandson has a tragic accident. Scout declares that she can no longer bear even to look at her once-venerated Atticus, but Calpurnia can no longer bear Scout’s arrogations of white privilege. Scout, shocked and hurt when Calpurnia rejects her pity and puts on “company manners” before her, pleads with the woman who raised her from the age of 2: “Cal, Cal, Cal, I’m your baby, have you forgotten me? … What are you doing to me?” Calpurnia’s response is both edifying and apt within the acrimonious racial context of Go Set a Watchman: “What are you all doing to us?” she replies.

ADVERTISEMENT

Read together, Lee’s two novels complicate each other in beautiful and profound ways, offering a compelling case of textual revisions made during a politically contentious period and valuable possibilities for comparative study. Asking students to weigh the difference, for example, between vigorously defending the rights of a black man — as Atticus famously does in Mockingbird — and affording all blacks full humanity — as Atticus clearly does not in Watchman — can elicit opinions about an issue that has arisen frequently in history and literature, that has attended such figures as Harriet Beecher Stowe and Abraham Lincoln, and that is relevant now. Are the heroic Atticus of Mockingbird and the anti-heroic Atticus of Watchman different people? Not necessarily. Students should be pressured to articulate the many meanings of this paradox.

Had Harper Lee kept to her original civil-rights manuscript and been allowed to direct her energy toward developing Go Set a Watchman, we might have had a greater book than To Kill a Mockingbird. As it stands, we have a thought-provoking and powerful new novel that deserves to be read and discussed in culture-studies classrooms beginning immediately.

Patrick Chura is a professor of English at the University of Akron and author of Thoreau the Land Surveyor (University Press of Florida, 2010) and Vital Contact: Downclassing Journeys in American Literature From Herman Melville to Richard Wright (Routledge, 2005).

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Vector illustration of large open scissors  with several workers in seats dangling by white lines
Iced Out
Duke Administrators Accused of Bypassing Shared-Governance Process in Offering Buyouts
Illustration showing money being funnelled into the top of a microscope.
'A New Era'
Higher-Ed Associations Pitch an Alternative to Trump’s Cap on Research Funding
Illustration showing classical columns of various heights, each turning into a stack of coins
Endowment funds
The Nation’s Wealthiest Small Colleges Just Won a Big Tax Exemption
WASHINGTON, DISTICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES - 2025/04/14: A Pro-Palestinian demonstrator holding a sign with Release Mahmud Khalil written on it, stands in front of the ICE building while joining in a protest. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators rally in front of the ICE building, demanding freedom for Mahmoud Khalil and all those targeted for speaking out against genocide in Palestine. Protesters demand an end to U.S. complicity and solidarity with the resistance in Gaza. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Campus Activism
An Anonymous Group’s List of Purported Critics of Israel Helped Steer a U.S. Crackdown on Student Activists

From The Review

John T. Scopes as he stood before the judges stand and was sentenced, July 2025.
The Review | Essay
100 Years Ago, the Scopes Monkey Trial Discovered Academic Freedom
By John K. Wilson
Vector illustration of a suited man with a pair of scissors for a tie and an American flag button on his lapel.
The Review | Opinion
A Damaging Endowment Tax Crosses the Finish Line
By Phillip Levine
University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin