Last night, at about 12:30am, while dealing with another night's inability to sleep, I finished Marja Mills' The Mockingbird Next Door: Life with Harper Lee. This book has me thinking on a multitude of levels. I find myself standing, pondering things as they are, and asking questions to which there are no answers... or at least, if there are answers, I have yet to find them.
Somewhere in the prologue to Mills' book, there should be a note to readers stating that if you have not read the entirety of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird prior to commencing Mills' book, that the reader is required to close Mills' book and first read Lee's. The number of parallels drawn between the settings of the two books, and their respective characters makes Lee's book a prerequisite. Ms. Mills draws comparisons and conclusions between fiction and fact ad nauseum through her book. Frankly speaking, if you have not read To Kill a Mockingbird, you will not understand much of Mills' work, but as a result, you may not find yourself reaching for half so much gravol or pepto bismol.
With that said, I feel as though, having read Mills' work, and now having had some time to digest it, that if what Mills wrote was authorized (Harper Lee herself now contests that it was not, in fact, authorized), then it does neither harm nor good to the reputations of the Lees. I have put this book down, having finished it, and am left feeling dissatisfied in its contents. The only additional information I now know (providing that it is not fallacy in some way) that I did not previously know about Harper Lee is the occupation of her elder sister, and the names and occupations of a handful of her close friends and relatives in Monroeville, Alabama. No great truths wwere exposed. No great motivations were revealed. Perhaps that is the snoop in me, the curious girl who has loved Lee's novel since I first held it in my hands, who wanted to know more -- more about the characters, the town, the author.
With that said, I feel as though, having read Mills' work, and now having had some time to digest it, that if what Mills wrote was authorized (Harper Lee herself now contests that it was not, in fact, authorized), then it does neither harm nor good to the reputations of the Lees. I have put this book down, having finished it, and am left feeling dissatisfied in its contents. The only additional information I now know (providing that it is not fallacy in some way) that I did not previously know about Harper Lee is the occupation of her elder sister, and the names and occupations of a handful of her close friends and relatives in Monroeville, Alabama. No great truths wwere exposed. No great motivations were revealed. Perhaps that is the snoop in me, the curious girl who has loved Lee's novel since I first held it in my hands, who wanted to know more -- more about the characters, the town, the author.
This brings me to my next question. When did it become okay, and who gave the overarching permission, for everyone in the world to know everyone else's business all of the time?
Harper Lee seems to me to be the kind of writer who doesn't write because she desires to be famous. Harper Lee writes because she has something of value to say. When she became famous, she did what any sane person who lacked any and all desire for fame would do -- she ran from it. She has spent her entire life running from it. After the success of To Kill a Mockingbird, she never published another work... and why should she? When one book is written, rockets to the top of its class, and stays (as To Kill a Mockingbird has done) a classic worldwide for decades, what need is there to write another? As is alluded to in Ms. Mills' work, when your first work is already at the top, there is only one place for any subsequent works to go -- down. To add to that, publishing further works would only prove counter to what Ms. Lee was trying to avoid. Publishing a second novel, or even an article in a magazine or newspaper, would draw attention to herself. Why would a woman who is trying to stay out of the spotlight draw attention to herself with further publications?
Yes, she could have continued publishing under a pseudonym, but if J.K. Rowling is any indication, the lack of confidentiality in modern society means even a pseudonym is no longer good cover for an individual seeking to stay out of the spotlight. People simply cannot keep their noses out of other people's business.
I feel very similarly overall about the fact that Ms. Mills even wrote this book -- authorized or not. She begins the book by saying that she was sent to Monroeville, Alabama (Harper Lee's hometown) to write a story on the author for her newspaper. Lee had declined an offer from officials in Chicago to appear at a Chicago Library event, but had instead written a letter in support of said event.
Why wasn't the letter Ms. Lee wrote enough? Why can't people just let the woman live out her life in the way that she wants to? Why feel the need to go poking around in her hometown, digging up old friends and skeletons in her closet?
I feel very "Leave Britney Alone" about this. I mean... I write, too. I don't want to have the details of my life -- where I live, who I spend my personal time with -- broadcast all over the internet for the whole world to know. Some things are simply designed to be private. As such, I have never, nor will I ever, give you my full legal name. You see, I have a very unique name, and it would be very easy to find me once you knew what it was. I, like Harper Lee, value my privacy. I'm sure I would hide from fame, should it ever try to infiltrate my life as well.
All in all, I feel that Ms. Mills' book, while an interesting read, may not be entirely truthful, and was most certainly and unnecessary intrusion into the golden years of an author who has spent her entire life running from the spotlight. While informative, I find it also exploitative and sad.
Perplexedly Yours,
- A.
Yes, she could have continued publishing under a pseudonym, but if J.K. Rowling is any indication, the lack of confidentiality in modern society means even a pseudonym is no longer good cover for an individual seeking to stay out of the spotlight. People simply cannot keep their noses out of other people's business.
I feel very similarly overall about the fact that Ms. Mills even wrote this book -- authorized or not. She begins the book by saying that she was sent to Monroeville, Alabama (Harper Lee's hometown) to write a story on the author for her newspaper. Lee had declined an offer from officials in Chicago to appear at a Chicago Library event, but had instead written a letter in support of said event.
Why wasn't the letter Ms. Lee wrote enough? Why can't people just let the woman live out her life in the way that she wants to? Why feel the need to go poking around in her hometown, digging up old friends and skeletons in her closet?
I feel very "Leave Britney Alone" about this. I mean... I write, too. I don't want to have the details of my life -- where I live, who I spend my personal time with -- broadcast all over the internet for the whole world to know. Some things are simply designed to be private. As such, I have never, nor will I ever, give you my full legal name. You see, I have a very unique name, and it would be very easy to find me once you knew what it was. I, like Harper Lee, value my privacy. I'm sure I would hide from fame, should it ever try to infiltrate my life as well.
All in all, I feel that Ms. Mills' book, while an interesting read, may not be entirely truthful, and was most certainly and unnecessary intrusion into the golden years of an author who has spent her entire life running from the spotlight. While informative, I find it also exploitative and sad.
Perplexedly Yours,
- A.
No comments:
Post a Comment