Go Set a Watchman
discussion
To read or not to read Go Set a Watchman??
I'm getting worried that it's getting heated in here. So I'm going to make a passionate request to all. Please take a look at my profile pic. I'm 5 feet tall, 100 pounds. My students all tower over me, and I teach freshmen. So I ask this, before you hit post think of me wearing a cowboy hat, riding a giant chicken and singing your favourite song from Nightmare Before Christmas.That is all. :)
I'm neither angry nor annoyed, and you have a good list of books here, some of them doable in a freshman high school English class, some of them not. But let's acknowledge two things before proceeding...first of all, none of these books are by the authors you initially listed. Second, there's no reason to get rid of a great book just because you want diversity in the types of authors represented in the classroom. Why would you substitute a book that is less effective for a better book based on the background of the author? A book by a white sexually ambiguous female author from the Deep South can speak to my kids just as well as a book by a gay Jewish man or a straight Native American one. It's a fallacy to think readers have to personally identify with authors and characters. Because what about all my poor Egyptian kids and the Filipinos??? Where are their representative authors in the curriculum?You'd be better off arguing for adding a wider range of authors into the school curriculum. But then, you be a couple of decades late for that because it's already happened, although clearly not to the extent you would like. Maybe it's happening more than you're aware, though...there's room for Lee and Cisneros in the curriculum, and many schools teach both in the same classroom. But I wouldn't substitute Cisneros for Harper Lee.
But back to your list, which is a good one, although not what you originally promised...I've read many of these books, but not all, so I can't speak to all of them. And I'll be looking into the titles I'm not familiar with because I'm constantly looking for books. It's a great list, so you don't need to get angry or annoyed. And don't get all worried that I'm angry or annoyed. I'm not. I just like to talk books, and I think a lot of folks don't understand what it takes to be a really successful book in the curriculum that is studied by a classroom of diverse American freshmen. And keeping that in mind, nothing here jumps off the list as being something both as rich or as accessible as TKM is for 14 year olds. Some of it is more accessible; nothing I'm familIar with here could be called richer. And nothing here strikes me as something that could take its place in the curriculum in a meaningful way.
Sharon Draper is no Harper Lee, not by a long shot, not on her best day. Diary by Alexie maybe has come closest to being embraced by English classes, but it's not much of a book to study and discuss. It's a good read for kids, an excellent choice for independent reading. It's better than your typical YA fare, but not by much. And yes, that comment is elitist of me because the high school English class isn't a place where we need to waste time studying YA. It's already accessible. It doesn't need more time devoted to it.
But Ginsberg? Is "Howl" here just to get me to do a spit take? Ginsberg is my personal favorite of your authors here, but freshmen wouldn't give a shit and then their parents would skin you alive. And your principal or department chair would not take your side, alas. After Ginsberg, I'm a big fan of Satrapi. But what would we do with that book in the English class? Again, great independent reading, but not a lot to study here, and the cost would be prohibitive, especially for the small amount of time we'd devote to it. It would be a great supplemental read to Mockingbird, another look at a young female narrator struggling with the grim realities of growing up in a really awful world...but does Satrapi do that any better than Harper Lee? She takes a different approach through a different medium, and it would be great to expose kids to that. You could even do some great comparison/contrast writing if you paired the two. But I wouldn't exchange TKM for it.
And by the way, why exactly would Persepolis be more meaningful than TKM to a diverse group of 14-year-olds in my English classroom? I'm not being a jerk here; I'm getting back to the original question. Why would Diary? Why would the poetry of Ginsberg or Giovanni? Based on my experience, none of them would be; some students would like one more than another, and a handful would even prefer some of them to Mockingbird. But is there a book on this list than would appeal and be more meaningful to the entire room of them at once? I don't think so. And I'll let you know if the handful I'm unfamiliar with make me change my mind about that statement once I read them.
Take a deep breath. No one's faulting your choice of books here. I like your list. I just don't think you understand the dynamics of what makes a great book for a widely diverse group of 14-year-olds to read on a daily basis over the course of a month or so, to study closely, to write about, to talk about. It's not easy to find great books like that.
I've a question....
Since when, in the 1950's, did people use the word "auditorium" to refer to one's church sanctuary? (Visions of Joel Olsteen are dancing through my head.)
"There’s nothing like a blood-curdling hymn to make you feel at home, thought Jean Louise. Any sense of isolation she may have had withered and died in the presence of some two hundred sinners earnestly requesting to be plunged beneath a red, redeeming flood.... She was sitting beside her aunt in the middle pew on the right side of the auditorium; her father and Dr. Finch sat side by side on the left, third row from the front" (92).
The above is from GSAW. The word "auditorium" was used three or four times in relation to church.
Interestingly, two years later, every reference to church in TKAM involves the word "church" and not auditorium. For example,
"Calpurnia’s eyes narrowed and I could tell what was going through her mind. 'Cal,' I said, 'you know we’ll behave. We haven’t done anything in church in years.' Calpurnia evidently remembered a rainy Sunday when we were both fatherless and teacherless. Left to its own devices, the class tied Eunice Ann Simpson to a chair and placed her in the furnace room. We forgot her, trooped upstairs to church, and were listening quietly to the sermon when a dreadful banging issued from the radiator pipes, persisting until someone investigated and brought forth Eunice Ann saying she didn’t want to play Shadrach any more – Jem Finch said she wouldn’t get burnt if she had enough faith, but it was hot down there" (133).
Does this not seem odd? It seems odd to me. Megachurches and congregations filling auditoriums is a new concept. Right? Are there any Southerners among us? Was the word "auditorium" used for the church sanctuary in '57? Even more specifically, was "auditorium" used in '57 but was "church" used in '60?
Things that make one wonder....
Since when, in the 1950's, did people use the word "auditorium" to refer to one's church sanctuary? (Visions of Joel Olsteen are dancing through my head.)
"There’s nothing like a blood-curdling hymn to make you feel at home, thought Jean Louise. Any sense of isolation she may have had withered and died in the presence of some two hundred sinners earnestly requesting to be plunged beneath a red, redeeming flood.... She was sitting beside her aunt in the middle pew on the right side of the auditorium; her father and Dr. Finch sat side by side on the left, third row from the front" (92).
The above is from GSAW. The word "auditorium" was used three or four times in relation to church.
Interestingly, two years later, every reference to church in TKAM involves the word "church" and not auditorium. For example,
"Calpurnia’s eyes narrowed and I could tell what was going through her mind. 'Cal,' I said, 'you know we’ll behave. We haven’t done anything in church in years.' Calpurnia evidently remembered a rainy Sunday when we were both fatherless and teacherless. Left to its own devices, the class tied Eunice Ann Simpson to a chair and placed her in the furnace room. We forgot her, trooped upstairs to church, and were listening quietly to the sermon when a dreadful banging issued from the radiator pipes, persisting until someone investigated and brought forth Eunice Ann saying she didn’t want to play Shadrach any more – Jem Finch said she wouldn’t get burnt if she had enough faith, but it was hot down there" (133).
Does this not seem odd? It seems odd to me. Megachurches and congregations filling auditoriums is a new concept. Right? Are there any Southerners among us? Was the word "auditorium" used for the church sanctuary in '57? Even more specifically, was "auditorium" used in '57 but was "church" used in '60?
Things that make one wonder....
HI Shannon, I wrote a reply in the other thread, but am curious to see what people say here! Briefly reput I thought that Auditorium could be a nod to the building they were in. Somehow I thought they were at a revival and they were not in a church but gymnasium to accommodate the audience size. Could be wrong tho.But I wondered was Lee using JL to demonstrate a skepticism. Not atheism, but was she just judging the revival and using the word to show a smirk? That's total speculation however, so I couldn't offer it as an answer. But I love your question, great catch and very thought-provoking.
@ShannonAh, close reading, thoughtful response...Shannon, you make me happy because you are really thinking about how poorly Watchman is written, both here and in your review. I'm troubled by the great number of people who call themselves "good" readers chirping endlessly in their reviews of Watchman about how well it's written and how it does nothing to diminish their views of Harper Lee and Mockingbird and how unfair some people are being in their criticism. And then there's a trail of comments into the hundreds following these weak reviews chirping in response, "Great review!" and "You really nailed this one!" and "That's exactly my response!"
Sorry, I probably should be attaching these ideas to your review instead of your comment here, but oh well...because you're right, much of the writing in Watchman is "pitiful," as you call it.
I had made up my mind about how poorly written the book was by page 5 where I found this boner, if I can use that word here in its literary and not anatomical sense: "She sternly repressed a tendency to boisterousness when she reflected that Sidney Lanier must have been somewhat like her long-departed cousin..."
Ooh, that's bad writing.
Anyway, back to your observation about church/auditorium, here's my take on it. The "church" is the building, as well as the body of believers who gather there. It can also be used in a general sense, such as here speaking of the Radleys, "They did not go to church, Maycomb's principal recreation..." I just took a look, and it's used I think 48 times in TKM both as noun and adjective ("church basket"/"churchyard") and interestingly as a verb once when Zeebo says that Rev. Sykes is going to "church" Lula, the only time in my recollection that I've seen that word used that way. (And I bet Lula is going to be changing her ways once that happens...)
"Auditorium" is the large room in the church where the hymns are sung and where the pastor delivers the sermon. It can also be used for the big room in a theatre or a school, and Lee uses it nine times at the end of the book talking about where the Halloween pageant is held. So she could have potentially used it talking about "church," but if you go back and look at the way that word is used in Mockingbird I think there's only one place where "auditorium" could have been used and that's when Scout is sitting in First Purchase looking around: "the church's only decoration..." or after Rev. Sykes demands a larger offering for Helen: "The church was becoming stuffy..."
But here, unlike in the larger Methodist church of Watchman, there is only one room in First Purchase. The "church" and the "auditorium" are one and the same.
Or so goes my reading of things...speaking from experience, and I'm not from the Deep South nor old enough to know what they called it in the '50s, but I can say that in the '60s we called the room where the congregation gathered in our small Baptist church an "auditorium" to distinguish it from the rest of the "church." This was common usage and we didn't know what a megachurch was back then, and if we had we would have called these sinful places the work of the devil. (Hell, we would have called Joel Osteen the anti-christ!) Every small Baptist church I ever attended as a child in the Midwest used the word "auditorium." It was typical usage back then, even for a small gathering place like at a church camp.
I really like the way you are thinking hard about the growth in Lee's craft as a writer, and here's what I think about Lee's shift from "auditorium" to "church." "Church" is the right word in TKM. It's folksier. "Auditorium" works for the place where the pageant is held. As a writer, she is getting a better sense of what words to use where.
In those couple of years in the late '50s as she revises TKM, she is changing and growing as a young woman. She is realizing some things about her writing. And she is being coached up by Hohoff and Maurice Crain. We all go through tremendous changes and growth as people in our 20s, and Harper Lee is maturing, shifting in the way she views the world as a whole, herself as a person, her writing, her community of Monroeville, etc. This is inevitable for anyone, at least any thoughtful person, but consider how greatly Lee would have changed during these important years of her life by leaving the Deep South behind and moving to New York City. There's a tremendous amount of bravery here that I don't think many contemporary readers acknowledge about young Harper Lee. And I'd say these changes and shifts in perspective along with the advice from older, smarter more experienced people in the writing/publishing world help account for why Watchman is so clunky and weak and why Mockingbird is so beautifully written.
Annemarie wrote: "HI Shannon, I wrote a reply in the other thread, but am curious to see what people say here! Briefly reput I thought that Auditorium could be a nod to the building they were in. Somehow I thought t..."
Hey, there, Annemarie. :)
I responded in the other thread, but I'll say here that .... At the beginning of the book, when there's talk of church (the first sign that the Merriweathers, I think, were getting a divorce was at church because they sat on separate sides of the auditorium and glared at one another, when saying Aunt Alexandra will, at church on Sunday, gossip with several of the ladies in the auditorium, and this reference) they're not at the revival.
Thanks for responding.
Hey, there, Annemarie. :)
I responded in the other thread, but I'll say here that .... At the beginning of the book, when there's talk of church (the first sign that the Merriweathers, I think, were getting a divorce was at church because they sat on separate sides of the auditorium and glared at one another, when saying Aunt Alexandra will, at church on Sunday, gossip with several of the ladies in the auditorium, and this reference) they're not at the revival.
Thanks for responding.
Petergiaquinta wrote: " I can say that in the '60s we called the room where the congregation gathered in our small Baptist church an "auditorium" to distinguish it from the rest of the "church." "
Really?!
I grew up in New England, raised as a United Methodist in the '70's and '80's. We never used the word "auditorium" but the word "sanctuary" in relation to the room where the service was held. I've never heard the word used, only sanctuary, in all of my life ... even within other Christian circles. But, there you go. I'm from New England. If Southerners used the word "auditorium" to reference the sanctuary, well.... That dog don't hunt, so to speak.
(One thing.... Where the Halloween pageant is held in TKAM is in the school.... In the school auditorium vs. in the church....)
Thanks for responding!
Really?!
I grew up in New England, raised as a United Methodist in the '70's and '80's. We never used the word "auditorium" but the word "sanctuary" in relation to the room where the service was held. I've never heard the word used, only sanctuary, in all of my life ... even within other Christian circles. But, there you go. I'm from New England. If Southerners used the word "auditorium" to reference the sanctuary, well.... That dog don't hunt, so to speak.
(One thing.... Where the Halloween pageant is held in TKAM is in the school.... In the school auditorium vs. in the church....)
Thanks for responding!
In the Midwest, and in the kinds of towns and the churches I attended (which would be a lot closer to the churches in Maycomb in the book than a New England United Methodist church), the word "sanctuary" was never used. It's still not used today. That's way too fancy a word to use in this world, even in a church, at least when I was a child.I went to Regular Baptist churches. (I'm better now.) They are very conservative still today and view Southern Baptists (what Miss Maudie would probably be) as having gone a bit astray, both in their response to slavery and their interpretation of doctrine. And the Baptists in Maycomb are more conservative than the Methodists--Scouts says that the Methodists are not allowed by Miss Maudie's church to take communion with them, something that probably would have been true as well in my church growing up. I'd say that the Regular Baptists of my childhood would have been much closer to TKM's Foot Washers in their conservatism, although foot washing is not a regular practice in the GARBC, and we were allowed to have a little fun in our lives, which doesn't seem to have been the case for poor Arthur and Nathan growing up.
In general, Methodists are more liberal than Baptists of any stripe, and the United Methodists are a further liberal progression of the Methodists that you see in Maycomb in either the '30s or '50s, depending on which book we're talking about. When Scout says that funny line about Mr. Radley's stiff posture and connects it to what Miss Stephanie has told her that he "took the word of God as his only law," that's a line that could be said about a lot of Regular Baptists I knew growing up. And ones I still know today, sigh...
In Watchman, interestingly, you can see this liberal shift happening within the Methodist church. Think of the way that Uncle Jack rejects how the song leader is attempting to modernize the doxology. (In contrast to everything I've said about what an awful book Watchman is, Lee did attempt in this draft to incorporate a motif of how things are changing and the way that conservative people, or most people in general, are troubled by change--and that "change" in Watchman is not just related to politics and race and the Supreme Court--it's there with the doxology and the way that now there's a Cunningham operating an ice cream shop where Scout's childhood home used to stand, etc.) I'm just surprised at the restraint Uncle Jack showed in church that Sunday morning. Based on the way he responds later to Scout, he might have punched the song leader right in the kisser for daring to monkey with the tempo of the doxology!
Ah, good old Wikipedia tells me that the two strands of Methodism (north and south) came together in 1939, and I can see how Lee is incorporating this change into the plot of Watchman...the Methodists of Maycomb are troubled by their new, younger minister from out of town who is "suspected of liberal tendencies," and the song leader Herbert tells Uncle Jack that he learned this new version of the doxology from a song instructor who "taught a course in what was wrong with Southern church music." That song instructor was from New Jersey!
Petergiaquinta wrote: "In the Midwest, and in the kinds of towns and the churches I attended (which would be a lot closer to the churches in Maycomb in the book than a New England United Methodist church), the word "sanc..."
There's the rub.... We New Englanders say it, but others don't. I asked a couple week's ago on our book group's thread, wondering if we had any Southerners and if that word was used, but I don't think we do or not who read that thread. I'm fairly certain that everyone here, regardless of their branch within Christianity, use the word sanctuary. However, I suppose, now that you mention it, it is a fancy word. A stuffy and, perhaps, conservative word. Even though generations have passed and we've progressed (...to the point of being quite liberal), I imagine we New Englanders still have something of the Puritans and Puritanical about us. I don't always consider that.
Good call regarding the doxology scene! Spot on. That bit, with a nod toward history and change, is precisely something that would fit within the realm of Southern Lit. I missed it, I'm grieved to say. Likely due to my bad attitude regarding this book.... My attitude and the fact that a woman who'd been one of the greats in Southern Lit didn't seem to craft a novel that read as Southern Lit. It was as if I was seeking the Southern Lit I've always courted and was faced with
and surrounded by people, those at TIME, etc..., giggling while wondering if Edward's skin sparkled.
(Fear not... I've not read Twilight, but I know far too many who have and spoke of it, aloud ... in broad daylight at that!)
Did Lee really think her incessant references to vomit and vomiting, of which I began to keep a tally, served as a Gothic element? Did writing a chapter in which Jean Louise yelled at Uncle Jack, followed by a chapter in which she screamed at Hank in public, followed by a chapter in which she yelled the rooftop off the building Atticus worked in, followed by a chapter in which she started things off by yelling at Alexandra ... swiftly followed by being slapped silly by Uncle Jack, constitute the forays into history, unwillingness to change, and racism made by authors of Southern Lit and Lee herself? (A word.... No.)
I go back to a reaction I had when I was about a third of the way or so into the book.
Was this Harper Lee's temper tantrum? I remember writing a paper once, in high school or college, that involved some injustice. I can't remember which.... Oh, I was in rare form. I raged ... on paper. Screamed into the keyboard of my computer. When I was done, .... I want to say it was my mother and not my teacher.... I think my mother asked if she could read it. Whoever it was, the person said, "Now that you've gotten that out of your system, sit down and write a paper that's actually good. No one will take you seriously if they read this argument." After the initial sting of it, I realized the person was right. Do we really (...oh, why am I thinking about some of our more recent politicians, shoot, which destroys my point...) pay attention and are we willing to open our minds and change our ways after listening to a person who is ranting and raving and seems totally out of control? At one time, at least, no. Perhaps this was Lee's temper tantrum; she was angry at the world, specifically the world of the 1950's and she, basically and in keeping with her fascination with vomit, projectile vomited on the page. At which point, the editor(s) pointed that out to her and told her, now that she had that out of her system, to sit down and actually write something worthy of her and worthy of the genre. Followed by Harper Lee sitting down, now purged, and getting serious about her message.
Ultimately, we won't know. Given that Harper Lee is almost blind and almost deaf and not herself since her stroke.... Given that she's somewhat kept and that her keeper, her lawyer, seriously curtails contact.... Given that we're not going to be able to ask Harper Lee any questions about this and given the fact that the few reporters who were allowed access didn't ask anything remotely deep.... We'll never know.
But, I take your point about the doxology, now that I've had my tempter tantrum, I'm ashamed to say, and see that it's a tip of the hat to the themes, and, to an extent, the structure I expect to find in Southern Lit. What the Sam Hill?! I'm much more fond of pointing out the ironies found in others than acknowledging them in myself, darn it all! ;)
Thanks, truly!
There's the rub.... We New Englanders say it, but others don't. I asked a couple week's ago on our book group's thread, wondering if we had any Southerners and if that word was used, but I don't think we do or not who read that thread. I'm fairly certain that everyone here, regardless of their branch within Christianity, use the word sanctuary. However, I suppose, now that you mention it, it is a fancy word. A stuffy and, perhaps, conservative word. Even though generations have passed and we've progressed (...to the point of being quite liberal), I imagine we New Englanders still have something of the Puritans and Puritanical about us. I don't always consider that.
Good call regarding the doxology scene! Spot on. That bit, with a nod toward history and change, is precisely something that would fit within the realm of Southern Lit. I missed it, I'm grieved to say. Likely due to my bad attitude regarding this book.... My attitude and the fact that a woman who'd been one of the greats in Southern Lit didn't seem to craft a novel that read as Southern Lit. It was as if I was seeking the Southern Lit I've always courted and was faced with
and surrounded by people, those at TIME, etc..., giggling while wondering if Edward's skin sparkled. (Fear not... I've not read Twilight, but I know far too many who have and spoke of it, aloud ... in broad daylight at that!)
Did Lee really think her incessant references to vomit and vomiting, of which I began to keep a tally, served as a Gothic element? Did writing a chapter in which Jean Louise yelled at Uncle Jack, followed by a chapter in which she screamed at Hank in public, followed by a chapter in which she yelled the rooftop off the building Atticus worked in, followed by a chapter in which she started things off by yelling at Alexandra ... swiftly followed by being slapped silly by Uncle Jack, constitute the forays into history, unwillingness to change, and racism made by authors of Southern Lit and Lee herself? (A word.... No.)
I go back to a reaction I had when I was about a third of the way or so into the book.
Was this Harper Lee's temper tantrum? I remember writing a paper once, in high school or college, that involved some injustice. I can't remember which.... Oh, I was in rare form. I raged ... on paper. Screamed into the keyboard of my computer. When I was done, .... I want to say it was my mother and not my teacher.... I think my mother asked if she could read it. Whoever it was, the person said, "Now that you've gotten that out of your system, sit down and write a paper that's actually good. No one will take you seriously if they read this argument." After the initial sting of it, I realized the person was right. Do we really (...oh, why am I thinking about some of our more recent politicians, shoot, which destroys my point...) pay attention and are we willing to open our minds and change our ways after listening to a person who is ranting and raving and seems totally out of control? At one time, at least, no. Perhaps this was Lee's temper tantrum; she was angry at the world, specifically the world of the 1950's and she, basically and in keeping with her fascination with vomit, projectile vomited on the page. At which point, the editor(s) pointed that out to her and told her, now that she had that out of her system, to sit down and actually write something worthy of her and worthy of the genre. Followed by Harper Lee sitting down, now purged, and getting serious about her message.
Ultimately, we won't know. Given that Harper Lee is almost blind and almost deaf and not herself since her stroke.... Given that she's somewhat kept and that her keeper, her lawyer, seriously curtails contact.... Given that we're not going to be able to ask Harper Lee any questions about this and given the fact that the few reporters who were allowed access didn't ask anything remotely deep.... We'll never know.
But, I take your point about the doxology, now that I've had my tempter tantrum, I'm ashamed to say, and see that it's a tip of the hat to the themes, and, to an extent, the structure I expect to find in Southern Lit. What the Sam Hill?! I'm much more fond of pointing out the ironies found in others than acknowledging them in myself, darn it all! ;)
Thanks, truly!
Shannon wrote: " "Now that you've gotten that out of your system, sit down and write a paper that's actually good. No one will take you seriously if they read this argument." "That's a good analogy. And I'm going to go back and look at the different references to vomit in the novel now that you mention it.
I just talked to my mother on the phone. She lives in the Chicago area now and still goes to church. She says that her GARBC pastor here regularly uses the word "sanctuary," but she agreed that back in Iowa it was a word folks never used. She grew up in small-town Southern Illinois and doesn't recall it being used there back in the '40s and '50s.
Strangely, she says there weren't any Methodists!
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Strangely, she says there weren't any Methodists! "
Ha! :)
(Regarding vomit as a Gothic element, not, I believe the references begin when she's in the balcony, watching the meeting. However, they might have started earlier than that. I think it was there, though, that it began....)
Ha! :)
(Regarding vomit as a Gothic element, not, I believe the references begin when she's in the balcony, watching the meeting. However, they might have started earlier than that. I think it was there, though, that it began....)
Oh, ....
When I originally started posting, I'd only read the first few posts here. I just started going back and reading them all. I've an appointment and can't finish now, but.... At some point, I'll have a lot to say, or, perhaps, I should just say this....
I've taught TKAM to 8th graders and to 10th graders. A parent and local librarian procured several copies for free about four years ago when I was still teaching middle school. I was at a public school then and am in a public school now, with 10th graders, in New England. While I've had many students with European and American Indian ancestry, I've not had many African American students. When reading this with my 8th graders, I had one African American boy. The entire class was totally and completely riveted. When Tom Robinson was found guilty, that particular young man was very upset and four of my girls started crying. (By the way, the Trayvon Martin killing and trial of Zimmerman coincided with our reading of the book. My students actually asked if I'd planned it. They were constantly making connections between what they were reading in the papers and hearing on the news and what was happening in TKAM, both in the plot and with the characters.)
I'll never forget what happened when Tom was killed. We did almost all of the reading aloud. It took forever, but it was necessary with my 8th graders. At any rate, when I read that, my African American student actually yelled, threw the book, and ran out of the room, crying.
Oh, ....
Students today most definitely connect with TKAM.
After retrieving my student, etc..., my students talked about that particular aspect of the plot for days. Talking of going home and telling their parents, crying themselves to sleep, and having nightmares.... I actually started having nightmares that I'd forever marred my students.
With my sophomores, .... Well, sophomores are a bit harder to impress. However, of the texts we read, TKAM is their favorite. Further, we watch the movie in the end. It's our one movie of the year. They're actually horrified by the movie. Each and every time. They think the book is better.
In education, perhaps in America, we're so prone to an "all or nothing" approach. One end of the spectrum or the other. Phonics or whole language? Which polar opposite are we going to pick? Boys seem to enjoy non-fiction and their numbers seem lower than girls, so let's only read non-fiction in high school. From one extreme to another....
Yes, for many, many years, we focused, almost solely, on dead white men. However, .... Some of those dead white men had something to say. Should TKAM be removed from the curriculum and replaced with the words of an African American author? No. Not in my opinion, especially due to the historic implications of this particular book. One can, can't one, do both? TKAM through the lens of history, a comparative lit approach, coupled with various readings from, for example, Langston Hughes.... Personally, I tend to fight the idea that only people of a certain race or gender or fill in the blank have anything valid to say on certain subjects. That's a judgment I'm not willing to make or entertain. Nor is the idea of deciding who should be silenced. That sounds extreme, but to me, we're riding a fine line when we start thinking along those lines. It's happening within education, literature, and our very communities today. (What did the Black Lives Matter advocate just tell Clinton. Something like.... How about black people don't tell white people what to do and white people don't tell black people what to do? I just know I butchered that, but I don't have the time to look it up. While it makes sense in a sociology class and from that perspective, it's something we need to fight. In my opinion....)
Regardless, I can assure that my students very much connect with TKAM.
When I originally started posting, I'd only read the first few posts here. I just started going back and reading them all. I've an appointment and can't finish now, but.... At some point, I'll have a lot to say, or, perhaps, I should just say this....
I've taught TKAM to 8th graders and to 10th graders. A parent and local librarian procured several copies for free about four years ago when I was still teaching middle school. I was at a public school then and am in a public school now, with 10th graders, in New England. While I've had many students with European and American Indian ancestry, I've not had many African American students. When reading this with my 8th graders, I had one African American boy. The entire class was totally and completely riveted. When Tom Robinson was found guilty, that particular young man was very upset and four of my girls started crying. (By the way, the Trayvon Martin killing and trial of Zimmerman coincided with our reading of the book. My students actually asked if I'd planned it. They were constantly making connections between what they were reading in the papers and hearing on the news and what was happening in TKAM, both in the plot and with the characters.)
I'll never forget what happened when Tom was killed. We did almost all of the reading aloud. It took forever, but it was necessary with my 8th graders. At any rate, when I read that, my African American student actually yelled, threw the book, and ran out of the room, crying.
Oh, ....
Students today most definitely connect with TKAM.
After retrieving my student, etc..., my students talked about that particular aspect of the plot for days. Talking of going home and telling their parents, crying themselves to sleep, and having nightmares.... I actually started having nightmares that I'd forever marred my students.
With my sophomores, .... Well, sophomores are a bit harder to impress. However, of the texts we read, TKAM is their favorite. Further, we watch the movie in the end. It's our one movie of the year. They're actually horrified by the movie. Each and every time. They think the book is better.
In education, perhaps in America, we're so prone to an "all or nothing" approach. One end of the spectrum or the other. Phonics or whole language? Which polar opposite are we going to pick? Boys seem to enjoy non-fiction and their numbers seem lower than girls, so let's only read non-fiction in high school. From one extreme to another....
Yes, for many, many years, we focused, almost solely, on dead white men. However, .... Some of those dead white men had something to say. Should TKAM be removed from the curriculum and replaced with the words of an African American author? No. Not in my opinion, especially due to the historic implications of this particular book. One can, can't one, do both? TKAM through the lens of history, a comparative lit approach, coupled with various readings from, for example, Langston Hughes.... Personally, I tend to fight the idea that only people of a certain race or gender or fill in the blank have anything valid to say on certain subjects. That's a judgment I'm not willing to make or entertain. Nor is the idea of deciding who should be silenced. That sounds extreme, but to me, we're riding a fine line when we start thinking along those lines. It's happening within education, literature, and our very communities today. (What did the Black Lives Matter advocate just tell Clinton. Something like.... How about black people don't tell white people what to do and white people don't tell black people what to do? I just know I butchered that, but I don't have the time to look it up. While it makes sense in a sociology class and from that perspective, it's something we need to fight. In my opinion....)
Regardless, I can assure that my students very much connect with TKAM.
Shannon wrote: "Annemarie wrote: "HI Shannon, I wrote a reply in the other thread, but am curious to see what people say here! Briefly reput I thought that Auditorium could be a nod to the building they were in. S..."Hey Shannon, thanks. And I won't pretend to a have the slightest clue as to the difference between church and revival. My family worships at the local movie theater. Born a snake handler and I'm gonna die a snake handler!
Kidding. Also, please don't be offended snake handlers. I'm certain that's a groovie thing.
Annemarie wrote: "Hey Shannon, thanks. And I won't pretend to a have the slightest clue as to the difference between church and revival. My family worships at the local movie theater. Born a snake handler and I'm gonna die a snake handler! Kidding. Also, please don't be offended snake handlers. I'm certain that's a groovie thing.
"
;)
"
;)
Petergiaquinta wrote: "I'm neither angry nor annoyed, and you have a good list of books here, some of them doable in a freshman high school English class, some of them not. But let's acknowledge two things before proceed..."No worries. I'm not angry either. I just sensed some annoyance in your rhetoric. I can't blame you if you were a little peeved (C'mon, you gotta admit you probably were a little...), because I am part of that crowd that older generations would consider too idealistic, impractical, and socialist. At the end of the day we're both humans, messy and complicated, and we're passionate about what we do. We're just trying to figure out the best way to serve our youth. So, I hope you don't think I'm being disrespectful or seem too hot-headed.
I'm going to try to make this a short post. I won't address everything you've said, but please don't assume I'm ignoring your points. I just hope, in some ways, to answer your questions in an overlapping manner. This time around I'll try to better explain myself.
First: Let's get this out in the open. No matter what, it appears we'll have to agree to disagree.
Second: For the reason above, I didn't list the books by my original list of authors. I didn't want to waste our time, because I obviously would have listed the writer's most crucial works, of which you're already aware being an avid reader, and which you already think are not as good as TKAM for 14 year old youth. I disagree 100%, but that's okay. I thought I would broaden my approach by listing even more authors.
Now, as I've stated above, youth have grown up in a different America. It seems for you, you'd rather not sacrifice TKAM for the sake of making time to include diverse literature. But I'm saying, and this is in the case of being diverse and inclusive, we should. (At this point you may roll your eyes.) Compromise can be made by spending much less time on TKAM, but you'll likely think this is an impossibility due to pressures of curriculum standards. For the kids I work with, representation is everything. I think they should read books with characters that reflect themselves and others, because it will teach them how to empathize. Empathizing leads to connectedness and sense of community. It helps lead to self-awareness and awareness of others, because we're not the only ones walking this earth. THAT, for me, is the whole point of reading books. I don't want them to just "like" a book, I want them to love it, and this type of transformation should occur in an English class setting. It's difficult, sure. You have to spend time teaching grammar and vocabulary, and spend even more time teaching the vocabulary we use to think and talk about books. But trust me, from what I've seen, once they read a book they love, even if it's terrible terrible writing, they will go on to read more books, books you would consider challenging, thoughtful, and rich. I know schools are already incorporating more diverse works, but rarely in an English class. For example, "Persepolis" is often taught in a social studies course. "The House on Mango Street" was taught in my creative writing course.
I'm reading a couple of articles on JSTOR to educate and better articulate myself. I found one that focuses just on gendered reading called: "How Interested Are Literacy Educators in Gender Issues? Survey Results from the United States." If you would like a link or pdf of the article, let me know. It was written in 1999 but still has relevance.
Michelle Commeyras, the writer of this article, states: "Understanding literacy as gendered social practice is a multifaceted exploration. Consider that throughout history most of the texts published have been authored by men. Consider how that has influenced and defined what we know and how we think about such subjects as history, science, philosophy, and religion." Youth of today's America look and see history in a different light, primarily through eyes that are accustomed to thinking about gender, sexuality, and race issues. Creating time in the classroom to reflect that type of thinking is crucial. A lot of the books in the list I provided were written in the 21st century. They will accomplish things that TKAM can't, simply because they were written during a different time and look at history in a modern way. Obviously TKAM tackles racism, and presents it as a dangerous, pernicious, and deeply rooted negative force. But duh. Of course racism is bad! We need to read and talk about books that explore racism in the here and now.
This can go unsaid, but I want to be clear - you and I have different criteria for what makes great literature, which I find cool and interesting. (This could be due to obvious reasons, such as gender and generational differences.) To give you a better understanding of how I define "literature" versus "popular fiction," I found this NPR article you can check out if you like. They include Emanuele Castano's definition, professor of psychology at The New School for Social Research in New York. Popular fiction focuses on plot. Literary fiction focuses on the psychology and inner life of the characters. This is a simple and workable definition, which is why I like it.
When you say we shouldn't waste out time studying or talking about YA literature, that is elitism. I'm glad you recognize it as such. It's not really your fault because often the first book we mention from the YA realm is something like Twilight. I think we can all agree that book is garbage. However, the dichotomy towards this book has changed, people recognize it as garbage, because in the last 10+ years the YA market has exploded in wonderful ways. It's now as complex and rich as say... "Adult fiction." If TKAM were to be published today in 2015, it would no doubt be listed as a YA book. Here's another article which may interest you called: "To Kill a Mockingbird: the first YA novel?" There are some things I agree and disagree within this article. Something I like: "English teachers may do well to consider that it is a white author’s perspective – and ought to be the mere beginning of a dialogue about race and never the final word." Something I don't like: "Today’s YA novels deal primarily with dystopian or supernatural themes." That's not true. Dystopian and supernatural books are marketed the most, just as James Patterson, Danielle Steel, and Lee Child are in the adult fiction world. Unfortunately though, that's the representation YA books get. Which is why we should do better to include more diverse and inclusive books in the curriculum. It's tough, sure. In the meantime, public libraries are our allies and can fill in when schools lack the time and resources to cover diverse literature.
(That wasn't a short post. Haha. Sorry.)
@Petergiaquinta -- Jennifer and I may cause you to be writing on the computer instead of enjoying this Sunday afternoon. I'm not piling on. :-) I'm picking up the discussion about something else you mentioned above.Petergiaquinta wrote: "And I take the hero comment back, after rereading my post...Atticus isn't the "hero" of the novel at all..."
Atticus isn't the hero-protagonist of TKAM, like the hero of an epic. But he is the hero in TKAM, in the sense that he's the heroic character in the backdrop story of Tom Robinson's trial. After all, Atticus didn't have to take the case after he was appointed by Judge Taylor, nor did he have to go to the jail and protect Robinson from a lynching that night.
Some critics interpret Atticus as someone devoted to justice, rather than to his Afro-American client. I think he was devoted to both. A lawyer who cared merely about justice, or fair representation in court, would not have taken the extra step of going to the jail that night. One look at those men ready to break in and lynch Robinson, and a less caring lawyer would have said, "This gig is done." Seriously. I also noticed how he personally broke the news of her husband's death to Tom's wife, bringing along Calpurnia for support. A lawyer who was focused on going through the motions of a fair trial for a black man probably wouldn't do that.
I view Atticus as symbolic of the white majority in the 1950s: aware that Afro-Americans were not being treated fairly before the law or in society, willing to consider that things should change, but also sitting on his duff and not doing much about it. Then he was called upon by Judge Taylor (symbolizing, by extension, his own inner judge) to act in a more proactive way for justice. Yes, I realize Atticus of TKAM is set in the 1930s. But I perceive his stance is far more typical of the 1950s, just at the beginning of major civil rights changes in the 1950s and 1960s. Among other reasons, I believe that's why TKAM grabbed the public imagination when it was published.
In the real world, people like Atticus in TKAM are important because they permit change. In order for Afro-Americans to make gains in our society, enough people in the white majority have to go along, or at least be willing to consider more fairness. I noticed the same thing with the women's rights movement starting in the 1970s. Enough men had to agree with women activists in order for the women to achieve anything. Or more recently, the gains by gay people for greater equality under the law: enough non-gay people have to agree with gay people in order for any changes to occur. While the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision about gay marriage, they were the last step in a change of attitude that had been going on for decades.
ETA: BTW, getting back to the subject of this forum...GSAW can be upsetting to readers because when read as a sequel, Atticus of GSAW appears to be going backwards in evolution as compared to Atticus in TKAM. That's why GSAW can be shocking to readers who don't know the inside story of its publication. Atticus of GSAW, set in the 1950s, is reactionary and has taken a 180-degree turn from his character in TKAM. He's also unlikeable and small. All of this is presented without explanation. From the way that HL wrote those books, GSAW as the first draft, TKAM as the finished product, those changes make sense from an authorial/editorial perspective. But most readers don't know about the publishing history and can't make sense of the changes. Really, GSAW is a crazy-making book.
If you doubt this, look at some reader reviews on amazon.com. Readers either (1) try to force an explanation for Atticus's abrupt change of character between the two books, by imagining a cause that appears in neither book, or (2) say he hasn't changed, he's still the same, or (3) accept that he's a racist old man, it's heartbreaking, and TKAM is forever ruined for them, or (4) know about the publishing back story, vilify HL's attorney, agent, and publisher, and pan the book.
OK, so I may be exaggerating a little. You get the idea.
To add my two cents (sorry if I'm just reiterating a point already made but I didn't feel like reading the entire lengthy discourse above)...
I love TKAM and I think it still has value within the American education system. That said, TKAM was written when the struggle for racial injustices, in a lot of ways, looked a lot different from today's struggles. Martin Luther King Jr. Malcom X. The Black Panthers. JFK. Medgar Evers. Rosa Parks. Emmett Till.
Even though there still are many, many similarities to the struggles of then and now, decades have passed since TKAM was originally published (1960). Obama is president. Weed is legal in two states as is GLBTQ marriage in all 50 states. In the interim between 1960 and 2015, politics has played out per usual, social/environmental mistakes and triumphs have been made, wars lost and won, different trends have had their heyday, society has moved forward on some issues and is seemingly (& frustratingly) stagnant on others.
We have come a long way...but not so far as to render the issues in TKAM a memory. #BlackLivesMatter is just one of far too many reminders of how far we still have to go as a society.
TKAM was once (& still is) taught as the cornerstone of race and class divide to junior high students. While many issues in TKAM are still very relevant today, today's youth need reading material that speaks to them and the society in which they live which is different from 1960 society. They need a novel not only engages and captivates them in the same discourse, but also in their community as it exists today. In other words, they need a similar novel - but one that was written in more recent history to take TKAM's place.
I love TKAM and I think it still has value within the American education system. That said, TKAM was written when the struggle for racial injustices, in a lot of ways, looked a lot different from today's struggles. Martin Luther King Jr. Malcom X. The Black Panthers. JFK. Medgar Evers. Rosa Parks. Emmett Till.
Even though there still are many, many similarities to the struggles of then and now, decades have passed since TKAM was originally published (1960). Obama is president. Weed is legal in two states as is GLBTQ marriage in all 50 states. In the interim between 1960 and 2015, politics has played out per usual, social/environmental mistakes and triumphs have been made, wars lost and won, different trends have had their heyday, society has moved forward on some issues and is seemingly (& frustratingly) stagnant on others.
We have come a long way...but not so far as to render the issues in TKAM a memory. #BlackLivesMatter is just one of far too many reminders of how far we still have to go as a society.
TKAM was once (& still is) taught as the cornerstone of race and class divide to junior high students. While many issues in TKAM are still very relevant today, today's youth need reading material that speaks to them and the society in which they live which is different from 1960 society. They need a novel not only engages and captivates them in the same discourse, but also in their community as it exists today. In other words, they need a similar novel - but one that was written in more recent history to take TKAM's place.
Imagine having the following in one novel....
*A single parent attempting to work and raise two children...
*A child who doesn't feel like she fits in at school....
*A group of children who are struggling to live, who come to school without food or money for lunch ... who are unclean, have lice, and are, some of them, seen as lower than others in their school or town.
*A girl who doesn't feel she fits in with other girls (maybe even with other children in general) or her own family, being the only child still at the children's table. A non-conformist whose one sibling is actually a conformist.
*A boy whose mother had him without being married. A fatherless boy who, for whatever reason, is passed from family member to family member.
*A boy, the above boy, whose mother decides to bring a new man into their home. A new marriage, leading said boy to try to figure out where he fits into his mother's life and this new family.
*A boy, the above boy, whose new father expects the boy to be a boy, a typical boy, a man. The boy shouldn't want to be in the house, reading, and spending time with his parents; he should be outside playing games that boys play and doing things that boys do.
*A family that doesn't always get along.
*An overweight and older man who is just so boring, stifling, and old-fashioned but who shows great heroism in the face of danger and death.
*A man who got in trouble in his youth and was broken by his father, through confinement or some other form of abuse. A man who doesn't fit in, isn't understood, is feared, and may or may not suffer from some form of mental challenge or mental illness.
*A verbally abusive woman who, when facing her death, attempts to break her drug addiction in order to leave this earth as herself and not as a drug addict.
*A young woman who is scorned by the town, has no friends, is abused by her father, and does a horrible thing ... due to fear and for survival ... which leads to a man's death.
*An African American man who is falsely accused of a crime and who people want to hurt. A man who is convicted due to his skin color and is shot by law enforcement officers 17 times.
*A woman, who happens to be African American ... I say happens to be because some girls and most women, of all races, will relate ... who is stalked and threatened by a man.
*A man who struggles with how to raise his children and how to be a man of character.
*Two children who think their father is old and boring but who discover they don't know all there is to know about him, shockingly.
*Two men, a lawyer and a newspaper man, who risk their jobs and, perhaps, their lives to take a stand.
*A group of people who want the right thing to be done but would rather leave the hard work, the heavy lifting, to someone else.
*A man who lives a lie in order to protect his spouse and children.
*Heroes and cowards....
*People who are looked down upon based on their race and who don't have the same level of education or opportunities as others.
*A Jewish man who is targeted for being a Jew.
*Children attempting to fit in and navigating what to tell their parent, whether to lie, and deciding upon what dictates they should follow.
*Death....
*Children who are attacked by a drunk.
*A man who doesn't fit in, who is broken, but who tries to reach out.
Imagine finding a book, a well-written book, that contains all of the above. All of it. In one book....
How many children can connect with at least one of the above ... if not several of the above points?
That's the thing with good literature.... On a certain level, it really doesn't matter if a man or a woman, a heterosexual or a homosexual, an American or someone from another country, a white or a red man or woman, an older person or a younger person, someone who lived and died 100 or 500 years ago or someone who just graduated college, etc... wrote the piece. What matters is that a human being, gifted in understanding life and in communicating insights, writes something true to the human experience.
When we look at the above list, can we really say we've changed, as humans, that much?
No, we can't.
Additionally and ironically, in 2015, can we deny that we're still talking about the color or gender or age instead of talking about humanity?
Sadly, no, we can't.
*A single parent attempting to work and raise two children...
*A child who doesn't feel like she fits in at school....
*A group of children who are struggling to live, who come to school without food or money for lunch ... who are unclean, have lice, and are, some of them, seen as lower than others in their school or town.
*A girl who doesn't feel she fits in with other girls (maybe even with other children in general) or her own family, being the only child still at the children's table. A non-conformist whose one sibling is actually a conformist.
*A boy whose mother had him without being married. A fatherless boy who, for whatever reason, is passed from family member to family member.
*A boy, the above boy, whose mother decides to bring a new man into their home. A new marriage, leading said boy to try to figure out where he fits into his mother's life and this new family.
*A boy, the above boy, whose new father expects the boy to be a boy, a typical boy, a man. The boy shouldn't want to be in the house, reading, and spending time with his parents; he should be outside playing games that boys play and doing things that boys do.
*A family that doesn't always get along.
*An overweight and older man who is just so boring, stifling, and old-fashioned but who shows great heroism in the face of danger and death.
*A man who got in trouble in his youth and was broken by his father, through confinement or some other form of abuse. A man who doesn't fit in, isn't understood, is feared, and may or may not suffer from some form of mental challenge or mental illness.
*A verbally abusive woman who, when facing her death, attempts to break her drug addiction in order to leave this earth as herself and not as a drug addict.
*A young woman who is scorned by the town, has no friends, is abused by her father, and does a horrible thing ... due to fear and for survival ... which leads to a man's death.
*An African American man who is falsely accused of a crime and who people want to hurt. A man who is convicted due to his skin color and is shot by law enforcement officers 17 times.
*A woman, who happens to be African American ... I say happens to be because some girls and most women, of all races, will relate ... who is stalked and threatened by a man.
*A man who struggles with how to raise his children and how to be a man of character.
*Two children who think their father is old and boring but who discover they don't know all there is to know about him, shockingly.
*Two men, a lawyer and a newspaper man, who risk their jobs and, perhaps, their lives to take a stand.
*A group of people who want the right thing to be done but would rather leave the hard work, the heavy lifting, to someone else.
*A man who lives a lie in order to protect his spouse and children.
*Heroes and cowards....
*People who are looked down upon based on their race and who don't have the same level of education or opportunities as others.
*A Jewish man who is targeted for being a Jew.
*Children attempting to fit in and navigating what to tell their parent, whether to lie, and deciding upon what dictates they should follow.
*Death....
*Children who are attacked by a drunk.
*A man who doesn't fit in, who is broken, but who tries to reach out.
Imagine finding a book, a well-written book, that contains all of the above. All of it. In one book....
How many children can connect with at least one of the above ... if not several of the above points?
That's the thing with good literature.... On a certain level, it really doesn't matter if a man or a woman, a heterosexual or a homosexual, an American or someone from another country, a white or a red man or woman, an older person or a younger person, someone who lived and died 100 or 500 years ago or someone who just graduated college, etc... wrote the piece. What matters is that a human being, gifted in understanding life and in communicating insights, writes something true to the human experience.
When we look at the above list, can we really say we've changed, as humans, that much?
No, we can't.
Additionally and ironically, in 2015, can we deny that we're still talking about the color or gender or age instead of talking about humanity?
Sadly, no, we can't.
I don't disagree but you also can't ignore the fact that some major social changes have taken place since 1960 that have changed the course of history/ideology/and daily life. Blacks can vote. Segregation is by law if not practice illegal. Gays and lesbians can get married. Female college enrollment is higher than mens. The internet has been developed and is a HUGE social, economic and political factor in many of our struggles and our advances today. The World Wide Web provides us and overburdens us (at times) with a constant stream of 24/7 news and gossip.
TKAM is a great novel and one that people will always be able to relate too. There's absolutely no disagreement in that. The time period of the novel is 1930s and it was written years before JFK and MLK Jr were assassinated. Decades before it was even an idea that a black man could lead our country as President.
Here's a question for you (the broader 'you') - is our idea/definition of American 'classical' literature keeping up with the times? Does it need to ? Does the 'classical American novel,' as we know it to be, as we were taught it was in school, successfully encapsulate society despite the changes of times and ideologies?
TKAM is a great novel and one that people will always be able to relate too. There's absolutely no disagreement in that. The time period of the novel is 1930s and it was written years before JFK and MLK Jr were assassinated. Decades before it was even an idea that a black man could lead our country as President.
Here's a question for you (the broader 'you') - is our idea/definition of American 'classical' literature keeping up with the times? Does it need to ? Does the 'classical American novel,' as we know it to be, as we were taught it was in school, successfully encapsulate society despite the changes of times and ideologies?
@ Emily: We're making a lot of the same points, which I'm happy for. I mean, I don't mind being the only one in the "room" with a different opinion, but it's nice to have back-up. @ Shannon: Thanks for jumping in. Your list is awesome. It would be great if kids could get exposure to such things. But I'm a tad confused at which point you're making. Obviously one book could never include all those things unless they were short stories... is that what you meant?
You said: "It really doesn't matter if a man or a woman, a heterosexual or a homosexual, an American or someone from another country, a white or a red man or woman, an older person or a younger person, someone who lived and died 100 or 500 years ago or someone who just graduated college, etc."
This is why I think it does matter: For so long published materials were created by (white) men for (white) men due to the patriarchal conditioning of our society. For so long marginalized voices were not heard. Consistently female writers are more harshly criticized than their male peers. And so on. Everything you said after that was great about communicating the true human experience.
You also said: "When we look at the above list, can we really say we've changed, as humans, that much?"
I'm going to say we have changed. A lot. Once I meet my future partner, I'll get to marry her. Legally. Something had to have changed in our social consciousness to make that happen... and I'm grateful.
WOOHOO @Jennifer! Yay for the day when you meet the 'one' and get to walk down the aisle!
Emily wrote: "I don't disagree but you also can't ignore the fact that some major social changes have taken place since 1960 that have changed the course of history/ideology/and daily life. Blacks can vote. Segr..."Hi Emily, I think that you are right to ask if the traditional cannon of American lit is keeping up with the times. I think that it should keep up with the times. TKM doesn't reflect America as it is now legally but sociologically it unfortunately does reflect America. This country has suffered a rise in racial profiling and increased violence while having to listen to diet racist statements which only serve to blame a marginalized group.
As a teacher in a public school it's important to remember that at NO POINT in TKM is the African Amerian experience unfiltered by a white narrator. This is important. The experience of extreme poverty, sexual violence and incest (Mayella) is also filtered by a child narrator. None of the people who can speak of the demoralizing experience of being victimized are given voice. And that's fine as it was never (possibly) Lee's intent to do this. But we as a society have learned that it's important to hear from the victim, to stop expecting and accepting filters.
As far as this book encapsulating all of society, I don't think any book can do this. Which is why we need to switch up the books more. Instead of teaching the same bag of tricks each year, we as teachers, should be expected to pick up new books and new lessons every so often. I'm lucky that my school is progressive in our drive to make teachers stay on our toes. we have to change up what we teach while always focusing on the framework: Critical reading and analytic writing.
Emily wrote: "I don't disagree but you also can't ignore the fact that some major social changes have taken place since 1960 that have changed the course of history/ideology/and daily life. Blacks can vote. Segr..."
Yes, African Americans can vote, but the right to vote wasn't really what TKAM was about. Further, while African Americans can vote, felons can't. I'm not saying that's good or bad. But, they can't. Neither can people who aren't American citizens. Except when they do. Should they? Shouldn't they? Going back to African Americans and the vote, I remember '08. I remember watching an elderly African American woman who was going to pledge herself to Hillary but who was turned away by young African American men who were pro-Obama. Yeah, that last point just made things messy. But, it's true, and voting is still an issue in this country.
Segregation is illegal. True. One of the new things in education, though, is for states to set their reading and math goals by race. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion...
Gays and lesbians can get married. Yes. Do gay and lesbian students still get picked on, every day, in school?
Female college enrollment is up. I've a suggestion, though. If any of you are on FB, go to CNN's FB page and read some of the comments on the posts regarding the women who just graduated from Ranger school. CNN posted several different posts the other day. Read what people wrote. I was just on a few minutes ago. I can't remember which post I was reading. It had nothing to do with women. One of the male posters addressed one of the female posters and asked her to "suck his" ... well, you can guess, "all night long" .... I believe he said that, because he thought her profile picture was ... hot. That's just one example of how women are treated today on social media. We could also look at the different treatment of women running for office, like Clinton and Palin in '08, and men running for office. Then, there's the fact that there are more slaves in the world today than ever before, 27 million, and the majority of those slaves are women and children ... the majority of that number are sex slaves. And, yes, there are sex slaves in America today. I'll not even point to ISIS and the Yazidi girls and the fact that the AP and CNN were, just a few months ago, referring to their rapes as forced marriages.
It's about humanity. In my opinion.... Further, for example, when I teach TKAM, I don't teach it in a vacuum. One can couple the teaching of this book with African American voices, current events, etc....
Regarding your last question, .... When I think about TKAM, for example, and look at my list, I wonder which of the points on my list wouldn't successfully encapsulate today's society.... Further, .... Well, I'm a history nerd. I'll put that right out there. But, honestly, I find myself get itchy and twitchy surrounded by talk of needing to learn and read and relate only (?) from books, etc... from the here and now. History has lessons to teach. When we forget that, we tend to face the consequences of that forgetfulness.
Yes, African Americans can vote, but the right to vote wasn't really what TKAM was about. Further, while African Americans can vote, felons can't. I'm not saying that's good or bad. But, they can't. Neither can people who aren't American citizens. Except when they do. Should they? Shouldn't they? Going back to African Americans and the vote, I remember '08. I remember watching an elderly African American woman who was going to pledge herself to Hillary but who was turned away by young African American men who were pro-Obama. Yeah, that last point just made things messy. But, it's true, and voting is still an issue in this country.
Segregation is illegal. True. One of the new things in education, though, is for states to set their reading and math goals by race. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion...
Gays and lesbians can get married. Yes. Do gay and lesbian students still get picked on, every day, in school?
Female college enrollment is up. I've a suggestion, though. If any of you are on FB, go to CNN's FB page and read some of the comments on the posts regarding the women who just graduated from Ranger school. CNN posted several different posts the other day. Read what people wrote. I was just on a few minutes ago. I can't remember which post I was reading. It had nothing to do with women. One of the male posters addressed one of the female posters and asked her to "suck his" ... well, you can guess, "all night long" .... I believe he said that, because he thought her profile picture was ... hot. That's just one example of how women are treated today on social media. We could also look at the different treatment of women running for office, like Clinton and Palin in '08, and men running for office. Then, there's the fact that there are more slaves in the world today than ever before, 27 million, and the majority of those slaves are women and children ... the majority of that number are sex slaves. And, yes, there are sex slaves in America today. I'll not even point to ISIS and the Yazidi girls and the fact that the AP and CNN were, just a few months ago, referring to their rapes as forced marriages.
It's about humanity. In my opinion.... Further, for example, when I teach TKAM, I don't teach it in a vacuum. One can couple the teaching of this book with African American voices, current events, etc....
Regarding your last question, .... When I think about TKAM, for example, and look at my list, I wonder which of the points on my list wouldn't successfully encapsulate today's society.... Further, .... Well, I'm a history nerd. I'll put that right out there. But, honestly, I find myself get itchy and twitchy surrounded by talk of needing to learn and read and relate only (?) from books, etc... from the here and now. History has lessons to teach. When we forget that, we tend to face the consequences of that forgetfulness.
@Shannon - I am not nor will I ever say any of the issues I mentioned or mentioned by others, including yourself, on this string are perfectly tied up in a beautiful bow. They never will be - that's just a fact life....but life is a work in progress. While we must learn from history, we must also progress and enhance who we were and what we were.
Shouldn't you/your society strive to be better than yourself? No one's saying Nelle Harper Lee's TKAM will go out of style and/or not be a valuable component in our schools. That said, we must also allow our society and educational system progress. White authors - male or female - once and still esteemed in schools beyond all others need to mix it up with those that were once 'outcasts'. Our society needs to let that happen. There is a perspective other than the white perspective.
We as a people and our society both need and deserve to hold the outcasts'/the 'other' author in higher esteem than what it's been....a second class citizen. We will only progress as far as we let our education progress.
Shouldn't you/your society strive to be better than yourself? No one's saying Nelle Harper Lee's TKAM will go out of style and/or not be a valuable component in our schools. That said, we must also allow our society and educational system progress. White authors - male or female - once and still esteemed in schools beyond all others need to mix it up with those that were once 'outcasts'. Our society needs to let that happen. There is a perspective other than the white perspective.
We as a people and our society both need and deserve to hold the outcasts'/the 'other' author in higher esteem than what it's been....a second class citizen. We will only progress as far as we let our education progress.
Jennifer wrote: "@ Shannon: Thanks for jumping in. Your list is awesome. It would be great if kids could get exposure to such things. But I'm a tad confused at which point you're making. Obviously one book could never include all those things unless they were short stories... is that what you meant? "
All of those things are actually found within TKAM.
All of those things are actually found within TKAM.
@ Shannon - Haha, I snorted at my own screw up. Thanks for keeping me in check ;)
Jennifer wrote: "You said: "It really doesn't matter if a man or a woman, a heterosexual or a homosexual, an American or someone from another country, a white or a red man or woman, an older person or a younger person, someone who lived and died 100 or 500 years ago or someone who just graduated college, etc."
This is why I think it does matter: For so long published materials were created by (white) men for (white) men due to the patriarchal conditioning of our society. For so long marginalized voices were not heard. Consistently female writers are more harshly criticized than their male peers. And so on. Everything you said after that was great about communicating the true human experience."
True.
It's also true that some of those dead white men have something to say, even today.
Is the point to find the book written by the white man, the book written by the white woman, the book written by the American Indian, the Christian, the Muslim, the Jew, the heterosexual, the homosexual, the ....?
Is that the point?
Or, .... Is the point to find the book that truly touches upon the human experience? And, .... Bear with me. With regard to TKAM, it might just be that both Harper Lee and Langston Hughes have something valid and vital to say about that time. (It might even be true that, despite not being Generation Z, they still have something to say.) As some are leery of others going just for TKAM because it's a classic, others are equally leery of those who want to throw TKAM out in favor for a new author of the appropriate color. The choice needs to be made on a deeper level than either of those approaches. (As a woman of European and American Indian descent, who has been asked more than once where she hides her feather, I can appreciate the movement to read multiculturally ... not to just teach and read dead white men ... to find things that are relatable. I can. Really. However, more importantly than my being a woman, than my being a New Englander, than my being single, than my being Christian, than my having Indian blood, is the fact that I'm a human being ... a human being with a thirst to learn about humanity from other human beings. That was once the dream. We lost that somehow, at some point.)
This is why I think it does matter: For so long published materials were created by (white) men for (white) men due to the patriarchal conditioning of our society. For so long marginalized voices were not heard. Consistently female writers are more harshly criticized than their male peers. And so on. Everything you said after that was great about communicating the true human experience."
True.
It's also true that some of those dead white men have something to say, even today.
Is the point to find the book written by the white man, the book written by the white woman, the book written by the American Indian, the Christian, the Muslim, the Jew, the heterosexual, the homosexual, the ....?
Is that the point?
Or, .... Is the point to find the book that truly touches upon the human experience? And, .... Bear with me. With regard to TKAM, it might just be that both Harper Lee and Langston Hughes have something valid and vital to say about that time. (It might even be true that, despite not being Generation Z, they still have something to say.) As some are leery of others going just for TKAM because it's a classic, others are equally leery of those who want to throw TKAM out in favor for a new author of the appropriate color. The choice needs to be made on a deeper level than either of those approaches. (As a woman of European and American Indian descent, who has been asked more than once where she hides her feather, I can appreciate the movement to read multiculturally ... not to just teach and read dead white men ... to find things that are relatable. I can. Really. However, more importantly than my being a woman, than my being a New Englander, than my being single, than my being Christian, than my having Indian blood, is the fact that I'm a human being ... a human being with a thirst to learn about humanity from other human beings. That was once the dream. We lost that somehow, at some point.)
Jennifer wrote: "@ Shannon -
Haha, I snorted at my own screw up. Thanks for keeping me in check ;)"
;)
Haha, I snorted at my own screw up. Thanks for keeping me in check ;)"
;)
Somehow, it appears that we are all arguing different things and not acknowledging it.
My main argument on this string is that while TKAM is still a valuable text and should still be taught in schools, it shouldn't be the cornerstone text for teaching the race/class divide as has been tradition. Rather, it should be taught alongside other more modern novels which discuss the same issues from authors of different perspectives (whether it be by race/creed/age). This combination of differing novels could only serve to broaden our children's perspective.
The white mans word may still be valuable, but it is not nor has it ever been the only valuable word out there. It's time for our society and our educational system to appreciate that fact and progress with the times.
"The United States places 17th in the developed world for education (referenced in link below)" - why aren't we #1 or at least in the top 5 with our extensive resources.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11...
My main argument on this string is that while TKAM is still a valuable text and should still be taught in schools, it shouldn't be the cornerstone text for teaching the race/class divide as has been tradition. Rather, it should be taught alongside other more modern novels which discuss the same issues from authors of different perspectives (whether it be by race/creed/age). This combination of differing novels could only serve to broaden our children's perspective.
The white mans word may still be valuable, but it is not nor has it ever been the only valuable word out there. It's time for our society and our educational system to appreciate that fact and progress with the times.
"The United States places 17th in the developed world for education (referenced in link below)" - why aren't we #1 or at least in the top 5 with our extensive resources.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11...
Emily wrote: "Somehow, it appears that we are all arguing different things and not acknowledging it.My main argument on this string is that while TKAM is still a valuable text and should still be taught in sch..."
Yeah.
The formatting of the website is not efficient for discussions. It's not prompt with notifications either. I'm trying to be mindful and respond to everyone, but it's tough to differentiate.
Does anyone else feel that way? Haha, it may be the one thing we all agree on!
It seems to me that we're talking about what would resonate with students. People presented the opinion that TKAM should be, to one extent or another, set aside in order to pick a new text, written by a new author, for a new generation. I, for one, made a list and asked those here to imagine a book with all of those things.... Just imagine. Finding one book with every single thing on that list.... Well, we have one book at our fingertips that has every single one of those things, things that are still more than relevant to today's students. Frankly, they're things that appear to be ripped from today's headlines, communities, families, and schools.
That text, though, shouldn't feature prominently because the person who wrote it was a white woman...? A white woman who is now old and in an eldercare facility? What could she truly say to any of today's students? Doesn't it stand to reason, since she's white and since she wrote in her prime and is now nearly deaf and nearly blind and is kept in a facility, that her perspective is skewed?
I don't know. Does it?
I'll acknowledge something.... I've read books by white authors and by red authors that have resonated with me and haven't resonated with me at all. Not one bit. I've read books, specifically, about American Indians or involving American Indians by white authors and red. Honestly, ... really and truly, some of both resonated with me and, in my mind and heart, spoke truths. I've read some of one American Indian author, Joseph Bruchac, for example, that both have and haven't resonated. While, I'll say it again, it's important not to just teach dead white men, it's not always true that the "context" (whether the author is the right color or age or you name it....) trumps the content.
That text, though, shouldn't feature prominently because the person who wrote it was a white woman...? A white woman who is now old and in an eldercare facility? What could she truly say to any of today's students? Doesn't it stand to reason, since she's white and since she wrote in her prime and is now nearly deaf and nearly blind and is kept in a facility, that her perspective is skewed?
I don't know. Does it?
I'll acknowledge something.... I've read books by white authors and by red authors that have resonated with me and haven't resonated with me at all. Not one bit. I've read books, specifically, about American Indians or involving American Indians by white authors and red. Honestly, ... really and truly, some of both resonated with me and, in my mind and heart, spoke truths. I've read some of one American Indian author, Joseph Bruchac, for example, that both have and haven't resonated. While, I'll say it again, it's important not to just teach dead white men, it's not always true that the "context" (whether the author is the right color or age or you name it....) trumps the content.
One more thing....
TKAM isn't just about race. Maybe some read it that way and teach it that way, but, honestly, it's about so much more. That's one of the reasons it's such a rich and valuable text.
It's about a time period, which included The Great Depression and poverty. Harper Lee was born prior to The Great Depression and grew up during it. It's about Southern Lit, with Harper Lee having grown up in the right region. History! Clinging to the past, faced with the opportunity to move forward and change or cling to the past and be destroyed. (An interesting theme, perhaps, for all Americans ... perhaps for all.) Yes, racism figures in with Southern Lit. Her views on race and racism are limited, as she's white, but they can also be deep. It's about conforming or not conforming to society's rules and mores. Would we say that Harper Lee's life was one of conforming to society or not conforming? It was about sexism; I don't need to say that Harper Lee was a woman who wrote this prior to Title IX, etc....
TKAM should be taught because it involves all of these things and more. It's about the whole package and can be supplemented with authors of the right color and, if people feel the need, age frame.
TKAM isn't just about race. Maybe some read it that way and teach it that way, but, honestly, it's about so much more. That's one of the reasons it's such a rich and valuable text.
It's about a time period, which included The Great Depression and poverty. Harper Lee was born prior to The Great Depression and grew up during it. It's about Southern Lit, with Harper Lee having grown up in the right region. History! Clinging to the past, faced with the opportunity to move forward and change or cling to the past and be destroyed. (An interesting theme, perhaps, for all Americans ... perhaps for all.) Yes, racism figures in with Southern Lit. Her views on race and racism are limited, as she's white, but they can also be deep. It's about conforming or not conforming to society's rules and mores. Would we say that Harper Lee's life was one of conforming to society or not conforming? It was about sexism; I don't need to say that Harper Lee was a woman who wrote this prior to Title IX, etc....
TKAM should be taught because it involves all of these things and more. It's about the whole package and can be supplemented with authors of the right color and, if people feel the need, age frame.
@Shannon - You missed the point. We are all arguing different points of the novel per Jennifer and my last point. Can't you, can't we at least agree to that. I do and I'm pretty sure @Jennifer does. No one's point is illegitimate and all are valid. All are points overlap at different junctions but you or all of us seem to not realize.
That said, this discourse has become somewhat null and void as it just keeps entwining itself. Nothing is gained. No new perspectives. No new and innovative thoughts.
I am bowing out of this one. Like many a classroom, this discourse has ceased to really go beyond. Unlike classrooms or even moderated chatrooms, there is no moderator on this string to see that this conversation stretches beyond it's limits.
That said, this discourse has become somewhat null and void as it just keeps entwining itself. Nothing is gained. No new perspectives. No new and innovative thoughts.
I am bowing out of this one. Like many a classroom, this discourse has ceased to really go beyond. Unlike classrooms or even moderated chatrooms, there is no moderator on this string to see that this conversation stretches beyond it's limits.
Emily wrote: "@Shannon - You missed the point. We are all arguing different points of the novel per Jennifer and my last point. Can't you, can't we at least agree to that. I do and I'm pretty sure @Jennifer does..."
So, if people are coming from differing perspectives or "different" perspectives, it's best to shut down the discourse and go to our separate corners...?
I'm beginning to see the point.
So, if people are coming from differing perspectives or "different" perspectives, it's best to shut down the discourse and go to our separate corners...?
I'm beginning to see the point.
Shannon wrote: "Emily wrote: "@Shannon - You missed the point. We are all arguing different points of the novel per Jennifer and my last point. Can't you, can't we at least agree to that. I do and I'm pretty sure ..."I believe what Emily is getting at is that we keep repeating points which overlap with previous discussions in this same thread or have actually already been argued, defended, and questioned. And I think she's just tired of seeing that dialogue go in circles. That's all.
Jennifer wrote: "I believe what Emily is getting at is that we keep repeating points which overlap with previous discussions in this same thread or have actually already been argued, defended, and questioned. And I think she's just tired of seeing that dialogue go in circles. That's all. "
Ahhh.... I see.
They need a similar novel, but they need a novel written by an African American of a more recent generation due to perspectives and the fact that we're living in a different decade.
I have to say, though, of several of the points made tonight ... one, the fact that we still have segregation in our schools but, virtually, no one talks about it or acknowledges it ... could be new and of value. I suppose it's not of GSAW or TKAM proper. Though, sadly, the Asian and white children, children who various states feel should be reading with 90% and 88% proficiency, will be able to read TKAM and might not be as interested in reading GSAW, due to the poor writing. Whereas, sadly, the Hispanic children and African American children, for whom some states have set reading goals of 83% and 70-something% proficiency, will only be able to read GSAW and won't be able, likely, to tackle TKAM on their own.
Then, funny thing.... At least in state's like Florida, I guess American Indians won't read either, given the fact that no goals have even been set for their race. I know because, when the news broke, I kept calling the DOE in Florida and one other state. Virginia? They'd put me on hold, after taking my initial calls, and would never pick up. Twenty minutes later.... Also, they never responded to my written correspondence.
Segregation in 2015.... It leaves me feeling all kinds of warm and fuzzy inside.
:(
But, I suppose that's not about the books themselves, so....
Ahhh.... I see.
They need a similar novel, but they need a novel written by an African American of a more recent generation due to perspectives and the fact that we're living in a different decade.
I have to say, though, of several of the points made tonight ... one, the fact that we still have segregation in our schools but, virtually, no one talks about it or acknowledges it ... could be new and of value. I suppose it's not of GSAW or TKAM proper. Though, sadly, the Asian and white children, children who various states feel should be reading with 90% and 88% proficiency, will be able to read TKAM and might not be as interested in reading GSAW, due to the poor writing. Whereas, sadly, the Hispanic children and African American children, for whom some states have set reading goals of 83% and 70-something% proficiency, will only be able to read GSAW and won't be able, likely, to tackle TKAM on their own.
Then, funny thing.... At least in state's like Florida, I guess American Indians won't read either, given the fact that no goals have even been set for their race. I know because, when the news broke, I kept calling the DOE in Florida and one other state. Virginia? They'd put me on hold, after taking my initial calls, and would never pick up. Twenty minutes later.... Also, they never responded to my written correspondence.
Segregation in 2015.... It leaves me feeling all kinds of warm and fuzzy inside.
:(
But, I suppose that's not about the books themselves, so....
@Emily, @Jennifer, @Shannon, @AnnemariePls ignore me if you think I'm butting into your discussion.
None of you is really wrong (or entirely right). Everyone takes in a book in a different way and at a different level. Some people need props that are closer to their present experience. For those readers, a protagonist that shares their ethnicity and/or a modern-day setting are crucial. IOW, how far away from our present time and place can a reader go and still relate? That answer depends on the particular reader.
I can understand why some people may not relate well to TKAM now. It is set in the sensibility of the 1950s/1960s, and the racial issues we confront now are not the same. I believe that TKAM still has something worthwhile to say about human nature, our ideals, and racial prejudice. But these days it takes more digging to get at the relevance of TKAM. Some readers would rather not go there; they'd rather try something else.
TKAM has a very strong emotional baseline. The reader feels with Scout and goes along for the ride in this story. That's one point in its favor for jumping the divide from our present day to the 1930s. I only wish more books, both adult and young adult, were like this.
Ethnic authors purport to represent the worldview of that ethnic group, more or less. It's hard to say any single individual can express the entirety of experience of his/her ethnic group, or that the entire ethnic group would agree with the author's views (they probably don't). I wouldn't rule out a book by a white author about a non-white ethnic group because some authors are astute and empathetic enough to write about anybody, and do it well.
Every author writes through a filter of personal experience and his/her cultural experience. It's not always obvious from the facts in the author's bio what that filter might be. I prefer to judge the book, and whether it rings true for what it's trying to say.
@Shannon, when I reread TKAM after GSAW, the first time I've read TKAM in decades, I felt the book expresses some themes that are timeless. But it's like Shakespeare (another one of my favorites). It's not that accessible to some people now, and it's more important that they learn, as opposed to what books they learn from. I think you should continue to teach TKAM if you can, because you love it and you transmit your understanding of the book to your students so well.
CS wrote: "Every author writes through a filter of personal experience and his/her cultural experience. It's not always obvious from the facts in the author's bio what that filter might be. I prefer to judge the book, and whether it seems to ring true for what it's trying to say."
I definitely agree!
I definitely agree!
CS wrote: "@Shannon, when I reread TKAM after GSAW, the first time I've read TKAM in decades, I felt the book expresses some themes that are timeless. But it's like Shakespeare (another one of my favorites). It's not that accessible to some people now, and it's more important that they learn, as opposed to what books they learn from. I think you should continue to teach TKAM if you can, because you love it and you transmit your understanding of the book to your students so well. "
TKAM, especially for younger readers and readers who face reading challenges, can be daunting ... especially the first few chapters, depending on how it's taught. If one does a lot of work prior to reading, ... regarding the history, points of Southern Lit, etc... and if one reads those first two or three chapters aloud, as a class, the older readers pick up on it and get into it. The sentence structure, flow, voice.... When we hit the scene in the Radley's backyard and the "pants/strip poker" chapter (5?), they're in. I let them skip part of two chapters near the end, as they're boring as dirt and not overly significant, if they choose. But, they pick it right up. With my 8th graders a couple years ago, we had to read the whole book aloud, together. It took what seemed like 5,000 years, but .... The kids loved it. And hated it. Hated Tom's death. Cried. It was definitely more difficult with the 8th graders and took more time, but it went more deeply into their hearts.
At any rate, it definitely depends upon how it's taught. If you know your kids, if you frontload and scaffold and work the history, etc.... If you work through the opening with them, .... They absolutely love it and learn so much from it. If you just give them the book and, basically, expect them to read it, process, and learn from it themselves, it's definitely not accessible to all. You're absolutely right on that point. Sadly, some do expect them to do it on their own. If that's the case, many wouldn't be able to access the material and would learn nothing.
TKAM, especially for younger readers and readers who face reading challenges, can be daunting ... especially the first few chapters, depending on how it's taught. If one does a lot of work prior to reading, ... regarding the history, points of Southern Lit, etc... and if one reads those first two or three chapters aloud, as a class, the older readers pick up on it and get into it. The sentence structure, flow, voice.... When we hit the scene in the Radley's backyard and the "pants/strip poker" chapter (5?), they're in. I let them skip part of two chapters near the end, as they're boring as dirt and not overly significant, if they choose. But, they pick it right up. With my 8th graders a couple years ago, we had to read the whole book aloud, together. It took what seemed like 5,000 years, but .... The kids loved it. And hated it. Hated Tom's death. Cried. It was definitely more difficult with the 8th graders and took more time, but it went more deeply into their hearts.
At any rate, it definitely depends upon how it's taught. If you know your kids, if you frontload and scaffold and work the history, etc.... If you work through the opening with them, .... They absolutely love it and learn so much from it. If you just give them the book and, basically, expect them to read it, process, and learn from it themselves, it's definitely not accessible to all. You're absolutely right on that point. Sadly, some do expect them to do it on their own. If that's the case, many wouldn't be able to access the material and would learn nothing.
It was absolutely worth the read! Personally I think it's a great tool...kind of a before and after look for writers. I loved the story and found it quite real. Maybe even more applicable to past life than To Kill a Mockingbird.
Southern Bookish wrote: "It was absolutely worth the read! Personally I think it's a great tool...kind of a before and after look for writers. I loved the story and found it quite real. Maybe even more applicable to past..."I like speculating how GSAW became TKAM, but there aren't any interim manuscripts or notes to give us a full picture. So I'm not sure how well GSAW will fit into an academic study of novel development. Right now, I think GSAW is more of a literary curiosity. In a NY Times article about Tay Hohoff, the editor who worked with HL on TKAM, Hohoff mentions that she and HL went through a couple "false starts" before HL found a story and characters she liked, hit a groove, and kept writing what became TKAM. I think of GSAW as simply another one of HL's false starts.
I'm always troubled when people say GSAW reflects Southern racism as it used to be. I think GSAW is too simplistic. There's no doubt in my mind that prejudiced people like Atticus and Jean Louise in GSAW existed. But that was only one type of Southerner, even then. On amazon.com reviews, some Southerners who lived there in the 1950s/1960s say there were many opinions about black people, along a spectrum of progressive to very racist. GSAW doesn't reflect that spectrum, although TKAM does.
Also, the racism portrayed in GSAW concerns words and manner rather than action. Atticus and Jean Louise in GSAW say denigrating things about Afro-Americans--between themselves--, and Atticus meets with a Klan group. In TKAM, Mayella lies and condemns a black man to death to save her reputation. The lynch mob shows up at the jail to kill Tom Robinson. How worse can racism be? In GSAW, racism is in your face with words, but the reality of racism for Afro-Americans is distant.
CS wrote: "I think GSAW is too simplistic. There's no doubt in my mind that prejudiced people like Atticus and Jean Louise in GSAW existed. But that was only one type of Southerner, even then."You're right. Folks who are claiming that Watchman has a more realistic or nuanced view of Southern racism than Mockingbird either don't know TKM very well or they have again confused the novel and the film.
In addition to what you've mentioned, I'd add the character of Dolphus Raymond, a puzzling figure to Scout because he's from good stock and owns a lot of land in Maycomb County, but he lives with a black woman, has a number of children with her and spends all of his time with members of the black community. He plays against stereotype and seeing his mixed race children causes Scout to ask some probing questions about the nature of race.
By the way, Dolphus Raymond's white fiancee blew her head off with a shotgun when she discovers that Raymond has a black girlfriend, and I've always thought that's a brilliant solution for racists troubled by living in a diverse society...
In TKM, there's the figure of Braxton Bragg Underwood, the newspaper publisher who hates blacks but protects Atticus outside the county jail and then later writes a moving editorial criticizing the murder of the crippled Tom Robinson by his prison guards. There's Miss Maudie and Judge Taylor, who both seem to have nuanced views of race. There's Link Deas who gives work to Helen Robinson and who stands up for her when Bob Ewell is harassing her. (He also gets thrown out of the courthouse for speaking up for Tom during the trial.)
So yeah, I'd agree with you that TKM does a far better job addressing the historical realities of racism. Atticus even makes reference to the Klan's treatment of the Jewish Sam Levy in Maycomb. And in a brilliant passage of TKM, Harper Lee does a much better job showing life in the Quarters when Calpurnia takes Scout and Jem to First Purchase AME Church. Among other things Scout observes there, she gets a taste of what it feels like to be rejected because of one's race when Lula criticizes Calpurnia for bringing the children to church with her.
Jennifer wrote: "As a bibliophile and English major, I feel compelled to read this. But should I? "
absolutely--do read it!
Jennifer wrote: "As a bibliophile and English major, I feel compelled to read this. But should I? "
I listened to Go Set a Watchman and liked it. And it's not a very long book. I think it is worth the time.
If you loved To Kill a Mockingbird and you've questioned the ability of an author to write this well only once, and you think perhaps her friend Truman Capote helped her out, then you must read Watchman. You'll be convinced that it's impossible for Lee to have gone from Watchman to Mockingbird in two years. That kind of leap isn't even possible in any time frame. No disrespect intended, but Lee does not have the writing skills required for "To Kill a Mockingbird." However, if you've read early Capote, you'll realize he certainly did! Go ahead, read Capote's "Other Voices, Other Rooms" or "Glass Harp" both pre-"Watchmen". The best one can say is that Capote's friend, Lee, tried to write like Capote, and failed. Again, no disrespect intended.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "And I take the hero comment back, after rereading my post...Atticus isn't the "hero" of the novel at all. There's nothing so obvious and simplistic as that in the novel. I think too many people thi..."Peter, great point! Many people have indeed read "Mockingbird" and seen the film. It is so much easier to visualize scenes from the movie than from the book, certainly. But still, I say Lee tried to copy early Capote, failed, and Capote stepped in and wrote "Mockingbird" from Lee's pretty bad effort.
Jennifer wrote: "As a bibliophile and English major, I feel compelled to read this. But should I? "
Yes, absolutely Jennifer you should read this to see what a stretch it is to go from "Watchman" to "Mockingbird". As an English major, you MUST!
The biggest regret in my long history of reading was reading this book.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
In Cold Blood (other topics)
Mockingbird: A Portrait of Harper Lee (other topics)
Go Set a Watchman (other topics)
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)
More...
Truman Capote (other topics)
Charles J. Shields (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Twilight (other topics)In Cold Blood (other topics)
Mockingbird: A Portrait of Harper Lee (other topics)
Go Set a Watchman (other topics)
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Joseph Bruchac (other topics)Truman Capote (other topics)
Charles J. Shields (other topics)
But I do have to say that yes, it's been my experience that many students of color are a little annoyed (rightfully so) that they get to read about white people often. Everyone wants to be represented. Everyone wants to see themselves in the story. There's nothing wrong with that. And I don't think my black students, Hispanic students, transgendered students, gender neutral students and gay students have every right to ask that they get to read about an experience other than white, cis-gendered, heteros.
House on Mango Street is ENTIRELY accessible to any 14 year old. But that's not my list, so I think you were talking to Jenn.. I'm having a Immanuel Kant experience (that was not a compliment to myself, he wrote an essay called "What is Enlightenment" when he hadn't been in on that conversation that the Wednesday Society had been having so his essay, which we study (LOL) is actually a little 'thank you capt. obvious'!... oh god, Jennifer stop me! I'm being the biggest loser on goodreads right now!