I love LA. I love Lana’s LA.

They weren’t medically trained and did no mental competency tests on her.

But all we have is ink on paper, dude. That’s the only place we can get meaning. We can’t go into the author’s mind to get the intent, especially if they are dead.

Her hometown has been putting on a play of TKAM for over a decade now. But just two months ago, a new non-profit was created “by Ms Lee” that removed the rights to put on the play. Is she aware of all these changes to her town?

Ok. You can disagree with it, but you were trying to brush it aside as nothing more than faddish deconstruction. It’s based on a standard view of the reading process.

We do know that a completed manuscript entitled “Watchman” was handed over to her editor and rejected by a publisher.

Yep. Except that it was the publishers that rejected the manuscript. And so her editors suggested that she try a different take.

But it’s being hyped as much, much more. It shot to the top of the best sellers list as soon as it was announced, for one. I mean, just look at all the love the Guardian put into their publishing of the first chapter. You can even listen to Reese Witherspoon reading it aloud with you.

You’re forgetting the timeline here. There is no reason to assume that Finch has been “peeled back of those outer layers of decency [...] and revealed.” In other words, no reason to assume they were thought of as the same character, due to all the murkiness surrounding the manuscript.

That paragraph is the standard understanding of the process of reading that you will encounter in any pedagogy class. There’s nothing there until the reader interacts with the text to create meaning. And that meaning includes contributions from the reader’s lived experience.

Why do we need to identify an owner? They’re not real people, after all. If you say Harper Lee is the owner, why would I care? We can think of the fictional characters as we wish.

There is none. This is a very unique and complicated case that’s never happened before in our lifetime.

Except deconstruction is no longer “en vogue.” And the argument Albert is presenting doesn’t rely upon deconstruction. The German Romantics were saying the same thing back in the early 19th century.

Well, yes, before she became famous decades ago, she did want this published. But through all those decades after, she didn’t want it published.

That Alabama investigation was just looking for anything obvious. In cases like this—after a stroke, suffering from dementia—things are not obvious. So their not finding any elderly abuse doesn’t say much. The guy in charge of the investigation said as much:

As someone who is not in a relationship at the moment, “learning one’s partner” doesn’t really factor into it. Some people are just really great at giving head, others are not.

I can usually mentally control how long it takes me. The specific activity doesn’t figure into it at all, really.

But the authorities did not do any mental tests or anything. “We’re not medically trained. We don’t do mental capacity tests.”

Washington Post guy said as much on the tv just now. He was asked, “Are there any redeeming features to him by the end of the book?” I don’t want to give any spoilers, so I won’t say how he answered...

If you’ve been close to someone suffering from dementia, well, you don’t always just “take their word for it.” Sadly.