News that Harper Lee's long-lost novel, Go Set a Watchman, is to be published later this year has got the reading community in a lather.
This sequel to To Kill a Mockingbird, written in the 1950s, picks up Scout's story 20 years later, and focuses on her complicated relationship with her father.
Those of us conditioned to expect disappointment whenever a treat seems too good to be true, will already have felt some apprehension. Part of the charm of the original novel was its child-eye view. I'm not sure I want to see what maturity, and life, have done to Scout. I'd prefer her to remain forever at the age where dressing up for Halloween is thrilling, her father is an unalloyed hero, and the barbarities of racial prejudice are understood only in starkest outline. Am I alone in wishing that the tale did not continue into the future, but had delved into the past, to reveal more of Atticus Finch's origins, or those of Boo Radley or Tom Robinson?
When Lee wrote To Kill a Mockingbird, the word prequel was almost unknown. It only came into common parlance in the 70s and 80s as film directors discovered the commercial benefits of giving a hungry audience more of what they liked. In the world of books, however, prequels already existed, although they were surprisingly rare. I remember the unsettling feeling when, half-way through devouring the Narnia series, I discovered that The Magician's Nephew ¬ published in 1955, five years after The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - took the story back to the childhood of the professor in whose house the Pevensie children find the wardrobe that leads to Narnia. Though enjoyable, it gave a strong sense of the narrative taking a breather while an inessential footnote was filled in. To my young mind, it did not have the propulsive energy of the novels that described the children, and Narnia, hurtling towards their various fates.
The idea of revisiting a character some years before we first met them has been on my mind lately thanks to watching Better Call Saul, the prequel to Breaking Bad. A brilliant piece of scriptwriting, it depicts the earlier life of the off-beat lawyer Saul "I can make it legal!" Goodman, one of the show-stealing characters in the first series. The story is so sure-footed, you'd think the writers had known every detail of Saul's origins before they gave him a part in Breaking Bad, but in fact, once the new series had been commissioned, they made it up one episode at a time, to explain the sort of man he is when by the time he and Walter White meet.
A back story in fiction - or film - has so many advantages over a sequel, I can't think why more writers don't take advantage of it. Remaining true to the known facts is the only obvious hurdle to be cleared. Thereafter, there is something psychologically satisfying about getting a richer perspective on a tale we already love, adding layers of meaning and depth. A sequel, by contrast, has greater potential to disappoint, characters changing or distorting with time in a way that risks diminishing the pleasure of the first book. There is also the dramatic certainty in a prequel that the reader knows how the story ultimately ends before they start, so that the element of surprise and revelation it must contain is of an entirely different, subtler kind.
Countless novels have had memorable sequels, either by their own author or those who purloin their characters. But, with the exception of Jean Rhys's Wide Sargasso Sea, where she takes Charlotte Bronte's "madwoman in the attic" in Jane Eyre and creates a politically electrifying account of who this woman was, I can't think of many outstanding prequels. It's a pity. Novelists in search of a good idea might do worse than take their cue from the creators of Saul, and go back to their own work. Those of a magpie disposition are free to mine other people's books for inspiration too.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article