The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com 7A — Tuesday, September 8, 2015 LITERATURE COLUMN To kill ‘Atticus Finch’ By REBECCA LERNER Daily Literature Columnist “ I’ll say one thing for her – she sure can write.” My dad said to me, interrupting my reading of Harper Lee’s “Go Set A Watchman.” The recently released novel, a chronological sequel to Lee’s first book, was actually written prior to her iconic “To Kill A Mockingbird. As it is for many Americans, the story of Scout during her transformative 10th summer in Alabama is more than just a book to me. One of my fondest childhood memories is of listen- ing with my brother to my father reading “To Kill A Mockingbird” in the summer when I was nine years old. With my logical and kind father, my teasing older brother and my god awful haircut that resembled Mary Badham’s in the film adaption, I related to Scout on a fundamental level. As I grew older and had to study the novel twice in high school, I con- tinued to naively adore its charac- ters. I proudly donned the “What Would Atticus Do?” pin given to everyone in my grade. When my neighbor’s family named their dog Atticus, I gave my whole- hearted approval. Like Scout in the novel, I put Atticus on a ped- estal. But “Go Set A Watchman” crushes that pedestal, putting Atticus firmly on the ground as the human being he is. “Go Set A Watchman” begins with the adult Scout, who now goes by her given name Jean- Louise, when she returns to her hometown of Maycomb, Alabama from her life in New York City. At first she slips back into her old town comfortably, flirting with her high school sweetheart, Henry Clinton, and fighting with her Aunt Alexandra. Her ease ends when she finds out that Atticus, Jean- Louise’s earliest model of integ- rity and fairness, is a member of a version of the Klu Klux Klan called the Citizen’s Council. The racial justifications that Atticus gives Jean-Louise for his behavior are incredibly uncom- fortable. There’s no escaping it. While he agrees with his liberal daughter that black people are human, he does not believe they have the capacity for decision- making or responsibility. It seems unnatural to hear such bigotry spew from the mouth of the man who stood 20 years earlier in front of his entire town to defend Tom Robinson and said “Gentlemen, if there’s one slogan in this world I believe it is this, equal rights for all, special privileges for none.” When we flash back to this moment with a young Scout, the shock and hurt that she experiences with this revelation about her father seems entirely legitimate. And yet, the discovery about Atticus does not inherently con- tradict the beloved characters of “To Kill A Mockingbird.” Atticus is first and foremost a law-abid- ing man, and his defense of Tom Robinson was based on the fact that Robinson was an innocent man being accused of a crime he did not commit. A clear dis- tinction is made between Atti- cus and more infamous White Supremacists – Atticus would never physically hurt someone or break the law to uphold his beliefs. His less violent form of racism possibly comes as a surprise, but does not come out of nowhere. After living in the deep South for 72 years, Atticus, a straight white male with some socio-economic power, does not want to change a system that favors himself and his offspring. If this situation were applied to anyone besides the most famous seeker of justice in modern lit- erature, the conclusion that in these circumstances, this person would subscribe to paternalistic racism would not be eccentric. But he’s not some random rac- ist. And our connection to the person that he was in the first book is what fuels the fire of the second. Like the rest of “Go Set A Watchman,” the ties that it has to the characters from “To Kill A Mockingbird” prove to be it’s shining moments of glory. The narrator Jean-Louise, who in the second novel has made the switch from her wise beyond her years first person voice to a more stiff third person one, comes to life when she dwells on her childhood. Without the first book, it would be too much to expect readers to care about how much Jean-Louise has changed, or that she doesn’t speak to Dill, or that Atticus is part of the citi- zen’s council. “Go Set a Watch- man” is a fine addition to its predecessor, but would wobble if it tried to stand on its own. “To Kill A Mockingbird” has its roots in “Go Set A Watch- man.” An editor saw the passion of the childhood scenes and asked Harper Lee to write a book twenty years earlier from the point of the view of young Scout. Without “Watchman”, we wouldn’t have the entrancing book that will make countless young Americans actually enjoy English class. It’s enjoyable to read because even after not pen- ning another book for over 40 years – Lee sure can write. Lerner is The Michigan Daily’s new literature columnist. You can contact her at rebler@umich.edu. Ambitious ‘Narcos’ TV REVIEW By MATT BARNAUSKAS Daily Arts Writer “Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction,” “Narcos” ’s nar- rator, DEA agent Steve Murphy (Boyd Hol- brook, “Run All Night”), meditates. “There’s a rea- son magical realism was born in Colom- bia. It’s a coun- try where dreams and reality are conflated, where in their heads people fly as high as Icarus. But even magical realism has its limits.” Following the rise and rule of infamous Colombian cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar (Wagner Moura, “Elite Squad”), “Nar- cos” crafts a sweeping narrative of corruption and brutality that spans nearly two decades. The life of Escobar is simultaneously alluring and repulsive. Filled with wealth, sex and excess, the lifestyle is reminiscent of the gangsters on display in films such as “Goodfellas,” a fantasy of riches and dreams come true. But, like its American counter- part, “Narcos” displays the sick- ening foundation that built this empire and the toxic effect it has on those involved, as Escobar grows more brutal and paranoid and violence becomes the only answer. On the other side of the law, the American Murphy, his part- ner Javier Peña (Pedro Pas- cal, “Game of Thrones”) and Colombian Colonel Horatio Car- illo (Maurice Compte, “A Walk Among the Tombstones”) are tasked with taking down Esco- bar. The trio is a mixed bag. Pas- cal highlights the charisma he had as Oberyn Martell in “Game of Thrones” in his portrayal of Peña, a smooth veteran who knows that capturing Escobar requires some extralegal means as bureaucracy continuously interferes. Carillo shares this sentiment, but has the added burden of calling the country home and seeing it turn into a battlefield. Moura handles Escobar with a deft performance that human- izes the man but never glosses over how monstrous he can be. He gives money to the poor, but later plagues his homeland with car bombings so he can get what he wants. Escobar is a violent man but not a dumb one, as Moura displays intelligence behind every move. Nowhere is this better on display than Escobar’s introduction. Under the direction of José Padilha (the director of “Elite Squad”), Moura as Escobar intimidates several border guards into sub- mission, blatantly displaying the items he smuggles. The camera lingers on Escobar as he casu- ally brings up the names of the soldiers, then the names of their wives and children, giving them the choice, “Plata o plomo,” (sil- ver or lead). Shot in one take, the scene is a chilling display of control with Padilha, who is also a producer for the series. The standard for “Narcos” is estah- blished early on by capturing Columbia’s paradox of aesthetic beauty against social suffering and violence. Murphy isn’t as effective. Portrayed with a southern drawl by Holbrook, Murphy is the new guy thrust into the jungles and slums of Colombia. Murphy’s story is one of initial patriotism and disillusionment, giving way to the realization that “Good and bad, they’re relative concepts.” Only when Murphy plunges into the rabbit hole of obsession with bring- ing Escobar to justice does he become somewhat interest- ing. However, some unhinged moments, like when he shoots the tires of a frustrated cabbie, still feel forced. The most truly irritating aspect of Murphy derives from his near constant narration. While occasionally offering a clever or sobering observation, “Narcos” ’s voiceover serves mainly as an information dump, supplying facts about Escobar’s dynasty or plot information. Considering the scope of the series, it’s under- standable that narration will be used, but it’s so constant and occasionally unnecessary in its hand-holding that it becomes an annoyance. The beast that is the real life story behind “Narcos” is hard to tame, and though the show tries its best to wrestle with as much as it can, it sometimes loses its grip. With reflections on Ameri- can interventionism, the nature of good and evil and the ineffec- tive hypocrisy of bureaucracy among its themes, “Narcos” has a lot to say within its first 10 epi- sodes, creating a balancing act that alternatively soars and tum- bles with the execution. The show uses actual news footage to inconsistently enforce these ideas. At times the use drives home the reality of the situation: that truth is crazier than fiction. However, at times it feels like a blatant cost cutting measure, considering the use of the Palace of Justice siege, a pivotal event is almost entirely stock footage. “Narcos” may struggle at times handling its ambition, but it still delivers enough of its initial promise – crafting a fascinating portrayal of one of history’s most brutal criminals and the dark world surrounding him. B Narcos Season One Netflix ‘Narcos’ is still promising.