To Kill a Mockingbird
discussion
6 reasons to not teach it.
Well said. I've actually never taught the novel, but I have recommended it to several competent students I felt would benefit from reading it.I also appreciate that you rated the book 5 stars, meaning you love it but don't recommend it be taught.
1. Old fashioned writing style? You mean, like the Bible, Chaucer, Shakespeare ... just about every classic of English literature? And all those uncommon words ... hmmm, ever heard of a dictionary?2. Atticus as a stereotype? Much copied, yes. But a stereotype? You are kidding, right?
3. You can't criticise one book for not being another book. TKAM shows one perspective of racism. No book can realistically show all perspective on an issue. And like all books it reflects the time in which is was written.
4. So are we saying that teenagers can't read books with adult themes? That is highly patronising.
5. You can't really be saying that we should teach a book that has had a movie made about it. That would rule out just about every classic novel or play ever written.
6. And there are an overwhelming number of people who do like the book. They can't be ignored either.
Yes, TKAM is of its time. Every book ever written is. That is the whole point of literature. From a teaching perspective, it gets the kids talking and thinking about the issues in the book, and the differences between when it was written and now.
Sorry, but I can't see a serious point in any of these 6.
These are not reasons not to teach it. These are reasons it should be taught. When I say taught, I mean actually actively teach them. Don't throw the book at them, tell them to read a chapter and then give them a quiz. I create reading guides for each chapter, and preview them before the students read. There is a picture of a flivver, I explain what a beadle is, etc. I tell them what literary devices to look for, and with a book like TKAM, we listen to the first few chapters while reading along to give them an ear for the voice. And so yes, when we have finished, they understand the book, they learn to empathize with the characters, who are far more than stereotypes. Learning is about creating new knowledge, not trying to fit everything in to what we already understand. In that note, why is it a problem for a student to boost his/her understanding through summaries? I encourage my students to look at these to help them get a big picture, and then read closely for deeper meaning that can't be found online.
Why are the critics the ones who get to decide? Why is there such a false dilemma that we either ignore them or ignore the book? Can't we address both? Read a few critical works about the book and have the students discuss how valid these arguments are. Then have them write their own critical pieces about the same idea.
All of your points can be addressed in the classroom as part of a cohesive unit. This is called teaching. It's quite a leap from just assigning reading.
I have to agree with Will and Lara. The whole purpose of teaching literature is to expand the mind in as many directions as possible, from vocabulary to story structure, from theme to issue and argument. We have to stop catering to the concept of "only give kids what they want," because at some point kids need to learn that responsibility is a part of life, literature, and the pursuit of happiness.
Well well. Interesting premise laid down by Rick. Only in a very small agree, do I agree with him, and it is to this extent: the title is way too over-recommended. Particularly in the 'monkey-see, monkey-do' environment of Goodreads. Its simply recommended by many readers in knee-jerk fashion, to scratch any itch, or fulfill any need, at any time. Like a box of tissues.
But Rick hits the ground running with his salvo of six points. Whew.
However, (like both Will & Lara) I don't all that see much cogency in them. I can't go along with 'em. Will/Lara ably refute each of the six items. Well done.
I would only add this to what they said:
The very title of Rick's post: 'reasons to not teach it'. But: its not the book in itself, which is being taught. Its an episode of American history and culture which is being explored. This book is just one tool in aid to that aim. It doesn't have to be the only book one uses; one should naturally offer it among an array of other books which compensate for whatever it might lack.
#6: no one is 'ignoring the points raised by the book's critics'. Again, it is not as if this book alone is the only work relied upon for exploring the history of the American South. It is the instructor's duty to highlight its strengths and weaknesses to students.
I agree with Will completely. But what annoys me most is No. 1. I mean, OMG, you totally dissed the English languange, dude.
I also agree with Will and Lara and rather than repeat their points, I will simply add that taking away fine literature like TKAM due to the fact it does not match todays values or speech patterns is a disservice to our youth.TKAM was written in a time when racism was more prevalent and we talked a lot differently, TKAM gives us issues of that time to look back on and see how far we have come, discussions on these issues by students will be more productive if they have perspectives of both then and now.
You can't only teach one side of any issue, and in my opinion taking away books like TKAM limits what our children are allowed to learn.
The Adventures of Huckleberry FinnRick,I give you all of your arguments. I see no malice in your statements or if you even believe them yourself. You give six points why not to teach the book, but make no statement whether you belive them or not.
My answer to your first five points is that is why you teach, students need to learn new things. You can teach new words, old words, the times the book was written during. If you think that students cannot learn new words, think about Harry Potter, there was a whole new lexicon introduced to the readers and they seemed fine with the new words.
Yes, the book is subtle. So what? You can teach how the book was subtle. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is very subtle too.
I want to focus in the critics of the book. There are certainly many and not all of them are cranks. Even with all of the criticizms, I see no reason to not teach the book. Is it perfect? Probably not, but show me a perfect book. For those that cry racism or showing stereotypes, I wonder what is really going on with them. The book is a harsh critique of the racism of the time. An innocent black man could not get justice because of the system. He is defended by the one man that will do his best eventhough he knows it is not a popular decision. To me criticizing this way is missing the forest for the trees. Yes there is a note of the "Great White Father", except the entire time he is not above the Hoi Paloi and never did anything but treat everyone with diginity. This is somehow missed by the critics. Even when he is spat upon, he reacts with dignity.
If we remove every book that is under criticism for school, then there wil be no books to be taught becasue every book has some one that doesn't like it.
None of those arguments are valid. 1. You don't want children to read a book in SCHOOL because they would have to LEARN new words? If you said that's why someone didn't like the book, fine. But that doesn't make it not a valuable teaching tool.
2. Atticus is one of the interesting, complex, and analyzed, characters in literature today. Considering you rated the book five stars, you must know that.
3. Actually, the book is well-known because she said what most people were unwilling to say in that time-period. Maybe you thought it was filtered because of the child narrator. If so, you under-analyzed it. You must interpret what Scout says to find the deep and painful meaning.
4. Maybe it was WRITTEN for adults, but it is commonly shelved as YA today. Also, most children are perfectly capable of understanding more adult themes than this. You say YOUR students didn't comprehend it. Maybe you should teach them? Being a teacher? Or suggest it for a more advanced class?
5. Wait, so you're saying it's too easy for them to cheat? Try to find a novel to teach that doesn't have a movie OR a sparknote entry. And even then, hello Yahoo Answers.
6. This seems like more of a conclusion and summary than an actual point. You restated three. I still think you're wrong. And then you said that lots of scholars hate it. Okay. How is that different from any other book ever written?
I think it is great. I had to read it in the 90's. The kids today need some culture..some "big words" anything would help because all they know is LOL, LMAO, BRB, OMW etc etc. Racism that doesn't "offend" doesn't even exist so I don't even know what that means. As far as Atticus being the great "white" father really? In the age of movies that never quit with the "great white mothers" or "the great white hopes" period always I mean always being around.It is a good book. It is very good.
Rick wrote: "6 reasons to not teach it1. It has an old-fashioned writing style and the vocabulary is very sophisticated. There is nothing wrong with students learning new words but it may also prevent a lot ..."
As someone who's actually been taught this book (we did it in class two years ago) I'm going to have to disagree. I loved this book! So what if the writing style is a tad bit old fashioned - it's nothing compared to Shakespeare and majority of the classics out there. And the perspective of racism in the book is mellowed down, sure, but isn't that because it's told from the perspective of a child who, although very perceptive, still doesn't understand the very real issue of racism in society? Also, this book has been written for adults and not teenagers is an insult to the younger generation's intellect - and while part of me gets why we might warrant that, really? Really?
Gw wrote: "Racism that doesn't "offend" doesn't even exist..."Huh? WTF??
Black racism against whites not only doesn't "Offend", it's lauded and applauded in the media on a daily basis.
I want to move to your planet!!
I have to disagree, I was taught this book and over 20 years later, I still love this book. In fact, unless you count sherlock Holmes, it's the only classic I have ever read more than once. It's also probably the only one I enjoyed from high school English
I agree with what most of the other messages stated in their disagreement with what Rick had to say about not teaching TQAM to students in a school setting. I found that much of Shakespeare that is taught in a school setting is often not appreciated by the students if the teacher doesn't have the background to really communicate to the class what is going on in the story.
The only accurate one that comes close is maybe the stereotypes but also consider the setting.
Perhaps if we want to make it easier for the kids these days we should teach them more inspiring stories like the Hunger Games or Twilight.The books I remember reading in highschool were 1984, which blew my mind, To Kill a Mockingbird, which impressed me, and Catcher and the Rye which I loathed. TKAM is one of the better options to teach kids, it's well written and has important subject matter.
Genuine question - what's inspiring about Twilight?
Sounds like students are too stupid to grasp old books. Might as well throw out Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and anything else from the past that has contributed to today's culture. Hell even the Declaration of Independence and Constitution probably should be avoided. Would hate for students to be exposed to how the settlers felt about natives, blacks, and women.Or, teachers could teach allowing students to put their brains to work. Personally, I think students should read Uncle Tom's cabin BECAUSE of the stereotypes. Students should be given the opportunity to discover why some books became so incredibly important despite being incredibly flawed.
But then, I think the average student is intelligent enough to handle controversial and challenging reading.
I read it for 9th grade honors english. It was fine, I was able to appreciate what it was trying to say and the vocabulary was really not that great. I think it's fine for honors programs, but for standard programs it may be a little too challenging, which is unfair to those that are stronger readers just because there are a lot of kids that don't have the same reading comprehension skills.
Lesley wrote: "Genuine question - what's inspiring about Twilight?"Genious answer: its ok to be with a girl that's a hundred or some years younger than you are. And is in no way pedophilia. Short answer: noting.
Duane wrote: "Black racism against whites not only doesn't "Offend", it's lauded and applauded in the media on a daily basis...."Hoot!!
Vera wrote: "Genius answer: its ok to be with a girl that's a hundred or some years younger than you are. And is in no way pedophilia..."
Double Hoot!!
Sheer awesomeness.
Rick wrote: "6 reasons to not teach it1. It has an old-fashioned writing style and the vocabulary is very sophisticated. There is nothing wrong with students learning new words but it may also prevent a lot ..."
I have to say that I don't agree with a single thing you've said. The first thing is the whole 'teaching' thing itself. To NOT teach is just stupid. By definition it means to give or impart knowledge on someone who is ignorant of such things. So the whole argument is thrown out.
By teaching the book, their vocabulary will grow, they will also see how racism has differed and evolved, or how because of touchy subjects 50 years ago the language had to be diluted or "downplayed" so as not to overly offend.
Adults/teenagers, it's all the same. To shape the adult you need to influence the teen, so even if they don't like/'get' it when they are teens, because they have already read it, they might be inclined to go back to it as adults. (Also you're insulting the intelligence of kids who are very near adulthood.)
And the movie plays no part in this debate. Would you stop teaching "The Great Gatsby" or "Moby Dick" or any other book that has a movie adaptation? That tool is simply to show how others who have read the book interpret the meanings and such.
Will wrote: "1. Old fashioned writing style? You mean, like the Bible, Chaucer, Shakespeare ... just about every classic of English literature? And all those uncommon words ... hmmm, ever heard of a dictionary..."YES! Thank you.
Rick wrote: "6 reasons to not teach it1. It has an old-fashioned writing style and the vocabulary is very sophisticated. There is nothing wrong with students learning new words but it may also prevent a lot ..."
Your post could be taken as veiled fascist/white supremacist for discouraging people from teaching or reading the book. TKAM is a timeless classic because it shamed White America into facing it's racism and bigotry and contributed mightily to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, a movement which has slowed but never ceased.
Your criticisms are valid but by no means compelling reasons to not teach TKAM, a novel that has become an important part of our history for marking a major shift in cultural orientation toward civil rights and away from bigotry.
Lesley wrote: "Genuine question - what's inspiring about Twilight?"Absolutely nothing Lesley, I was being sarcastic.
Rick wrote: "6 reasons to not teach it1. It has an old-fashioned writing style and the vocabulary is very sophisticated. There is nothing wrong with students learning new words but it may also prevent a lot ..."
Rick wrote: "Rick wrote: "6 reasons to not teach it1. It has an old-fashioned writing style and the vocabulary is very sophisticated. There is nothing wrong with students learning new words but it may also p..."
I don't know about your part of the world, but where I live we have big buildings called schools. These are places where young people go to learn new skills and knowledge. You know, to teach 'em stuff they don't know when they go it. Get them ready for life.
Kid reads a book. Book includes a word they don't know. They look the word up in a dictionary. Two happy results - they know one more word than they did before. And they have had some practice using a dictionary.
Or ... school decides to stop teaching one of the best books ever written because there is a risk that some of their students might learn something from it?
If we only taught kids things they already knew, it wouldn't be much of a school, would it?
Using your logic, we wouldn't teach kids science or maths because they include long words. No-one would ever become a doctor because you wouldn't allow them medical text books. Eventually we would run out of engineers, computer programmers, accountants - basically any professional - because we weren't able to teach a subject that someone in the class might find a bit difficult.
Humanity loses the ability to make complex machines or to practise medicine. When all the older generations die out, we are left with the entire population of earth who can only read at the level of Janet and John because you think that using a dictionary is too hard for them?
TKAM is not an easy book. But that is precisely why it needs to be taught. Educational standards must not be dumbed down to the level of the lowest common denominator.
And we need to give our young people a lot more credit for what they can achieve. If we tell them that TKAM is too difficult for them, what signal does that send?
I have a quote from Henry Ford that sits on my desk next to my laptop: "Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you are right."
The only quibble I have with TKAM (and I don't consider it a readon not to teach it) is the "great white hope" problem. I love this book but I have a problem with that. However, it does not invalidate the book, it just means we need more works written by African-Americans with African-American heroes. And it could be addressed (if wished) in a curriculum by also reading another work that does so.I taught TKAM to a group of students in special education (dealing with cognitive challenges) and given careful instruction that were able to grasp much of the book and were deeply involved in discussing the issues raised.
I'm not convinced any of the OP reasons are correct in and of themselves, let along sufficient justification to bump To Kill a Mockingbird off the list of American Literary canon.
Will wrote: "1. Old fashioned writing style? You mean, like the Bible, Chaucer, Shakespeare ... just about every classic of English literature? And all those uncommon words ... hmmm, ever heard of a dictionary..."Well said! Such an important book to teach.
I do not see a legitimate argument recited in this string for not teaching TKAM. But I can think of one: There is limited time and much to teach. We must make hard choices. And we have decided to replace Harper Lee with Homer, Plato, Cicero or someone else more important to learn than Lee. There are a few.My sense of the conversation though is that those who want to drop TKAM would replace it with Dan Brown, The Hunger Games or the TV Guide. Ugh.
Will wrote: "1. Old fashioned writing style? You mean, like the Bible, Chaucer, Shakespeare ... just about every classic of English literature? And all those uncommon words ... hmmm, ever heard of a dictionary..."Well said.
Rick wrote: "6 reasons to not teach it1. It has an old-fashioned writing style and the vocabulary is very sophisticated. There is nothing wrong with students learning new words but it may also prevent a lot ..."
The only valid reason that I can see for not teaching it would be time constraints because it is also a book that requires some background knowledge in order to be taught properly. (btw, I'm a big advocate for thematic teaching. I think it's great when the history teacher and the english teacher team up and plan themed units together. I think that helps to address the time constaint issue a bit.)
Your first point, imo, really refers more to considering the reading levels of the students rather than whether the book should or shouldn't be taught. For example, if you see that you have a class where the majority are reading far below their appropriate age/grade level, I can see a valid case for a teacher deciding that TKAM is too advanced for them at this point and choosing something that is equally as challenging but closer to their reading level. This type of issue could arise with any book, not just TKAM.
I'd be interested to see what the original poster, or indeed anyone else, would suggest as a better book to teach. One that would tick all of those boxes (no 'old fashioned' language, never been made into a film, etc). Tkamb might not be perfect but I can't really think what would be a better alternative.Plus, for all its flaws it seems to have been serving its purpose fine so far, so why fix what isn't broken?
I think it depends on what the overall lesson goals are. My nephew's class is currently reading "The Help".
Will wrote: "1. Old fashioned writing style? You mean, like the Bible, Chaucer, Shakespeare ... just about every classic of English literature? And all those uncommon words ... hmmm, ever heard of a dictionary..."Couldn't have said it better, Will. I think I will write a post entitled "Six Reasons Not to Take Teaching Advice from a Goodreads Post."
Denise wrote: "Sounds like students are too stupid to grasp old books. Might as well throw out Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and anything else from the past that has contributed to today's culture. Hell even the Decla..."Amen, Denise. Well said.
So many of you have said what I was going to say, so all I can add is that I find it hard to believe - no, preposterous (now there's a big word for ya, Rick) that Rick is actually suggesting that teaching.......yup, TEACHING....a book because it has "uncommon words and archaic language" is a Bad Thing!'Scuse me, but is not the point of teaching to impart knowledge, in order for students to learn something they don't already know and understand?
And what kinds of books would you teach, Rick? If TKAM is out the window, then you might as well stop teaching Shakespeare, Frankenstein, Lord of the Flies, the Great Gatsby.....anything could fit those 6 reasons of yours as long as it's put into context. "Many of my students do not see the irony in her [Scout's] voice because they lack either the background knowledge to recognize the references or they are not mature enough readers to appreciate it. If it has to be explained a lot, there is something missing for the reader."
How else will they learn? I read this book last year, and I learned plenty; it fact, I may even go far enough to say that it has completely changed me. Should people not pay their taxes if they don't know how to? Would one be worried that these people don't know what their taxes are going towards? Too bad, they need to pay their taxes anyway, and they'll learn eventually.
As for the stereotypes, that's really just a matter of perspective. You only have a couple hundred pages to get to know one person- not years and years. Yes, Atticus could be interrupted as the benevolent white man, single, two kids, etc. or he can be seen as something way more than that. A role model, for one.
As stated in your 6th (restated) reason, I'm sure you can find plenty of scholars who don't like this book. An easy way to delude yourself into thinking you sound scholarly is by arguing against something that is loved by many people.....makes them feel as though they're taking on the impossible and whatnot.
I do not know if you genuinely think that you'll be protecting your students by not letting them read this, or if it's too much work to explain. Either way, you really should not complain about something without offering an alternate solution.
Rick wrote: "There is nothing wrong with students learning new words but it may also prevent a lot of students from understanding and connecting with the novel. The first chapter alone has at least 20 uncommon and archaic words"Um... Do you mean you`d prefer students to stay totally illiterate or but "texting-literate"?
Will wrote:"If we only taught kids things they already knew, it wouldn't be much of a school, would it?"
But Yes! Thanks, Will, precisely the question I would like to ask!
Duane wrote: "Black racism against whites not only doesn't "Offend", it's lauded and applauded in the media on a daily basis."
Yes again. I wonder if anybody could write something at least half as good as To Kill a Mockingbird about that. And if a publisher daring enough to publish that kind of book exists at all...
Duane wrote: "Gw wrote: "Racism that doesn't "offend" doesn't even exist..."Huh? WTF??
Black racism against whites not only doesn't "Offend", it's lauded and applauded in the media on a daily basis.
I want ..."
Duane, I realize you were talking about society's perception in general, but if it offends anyone than it is "racism that offends." From your comment, I perceive that you are offended by black racism against whites, thus disproving your point.
I wonder if we can turn this one on its head? Instead of Rick's six reasons why not to teach it, let's look for the positives. How should we teach TKAM in schools?1. Rick has a point. TKAM is an old book and that can make it hard for some kids to like it. What we need to do is to inspire them to see the past with unblinkered eyes. The past isn't just a dull place full of old people doing things slowly in black and white. They still managed to have fun without an iphone in one hand and a skinny latte in the other. We fought, had sex, suffered from racism, worried about the end of the world, went to school ... everything that kids do now, only we didn't take so many selfies.
Instil a respect for the past and you will give students incredible insights into the modern world.
2. Get the kids talking about the stereotypes. Were they stereotypes at the time the book was written? What would a modern version look like? Explore, discuss, enrich.
3. Every book shows life from a certain point of view. That doesn't mean that the discussion has to be. Use TKAM's white characters to explore feelings about racism - current and past.
4. Treat students with respect without patronising them. There is no reason why a teenager cannot read a book with adult themes. Stretch them. Make them more than they were before. Help them to open their own eyes to see for themselves.
5. Accept that just about every good book has a movie made about it. And summaries online. So what? Some students will rely on the movie, some will think for themselves. That's how education works.
6. Talk to your students about the criticisms of the novel. Help them to understand the different points of view - and to reach their own conclusions having heard all sides of the story.
Do at least some of that and you will be a teacher.
Don't run away from a book like TKAM because it isn't easy. A teacher's job is to inspire and guide - helping students to think for themselves rather than having learning stuffed into them.
Will wrote: "I wonder if we can turn this one on its head? Instead of Rick's six reasons why not to teach it, let's look for the positives. How should we teach TKAM in schools?1. Rick has a point. TKAM is an..."
I am applauding you sir, this is incredible! I actually do inspire to be a teacher. I want to teach college though, adults that have not been to school in a while and need to relearn how to write, learn how to read critically and write a strongly worded and analytical paper on their opinion of what they've read. For those who CAN teach middle school and early high school, I applaud them, unfortunately that won't be me, I don't have the patience for it. But I agree with your list wholeheartedly.
Thanks Will for your wisdom. Too much deeply perceptive writing is overlooked.
Thanks, Will, for your insights. I especially identify with your comments regarding the stereotypes in TKAM. I read the book for pleasure, not school, (I was a precocious and voracious reader) many moons ago when I was thirteen. The main thing that stuck with me all these years is that TKAM wasn't just about racism, it was a book about prejudice of all kinds and Harper Lee's particular genius was that she made some kind of prejudice easily identifiable for every reader with the hope, I believe, that each reader would then be able to extend the unfairness that he felt to all the other "isms" illustrated in the story. I remember identifying with the outrage of sexism in the book and, therefore, feeling more empathy for the outrages of racism or the isolation of mental illness. That is what great literature does---it opens up our minds and our world a little more than they were, and if we have to learn a few antiquated vocabulary words in order to accomplish that, then all the better. I will say, though, that despite my own experience of reading TKAM as an eighth grader, I do think it is best reserved for the high school curriculum where more sophisticated themes should be explored. Too many schools are adding the book to the junior high curriculum these days because kids "can" read the book. That is beside the point. It is an adult-themed book and the most can be made out of it by adults or older teens. Besides, if junior high students are studying TKAM they then are missing all the good age appropriate literature they could be taking advantage of. Just IMHO.
Maureen, I agree that this book should be taught in high school and not junior high. Many educators confuse the ability to read with the ability to comprehend. A book such as To Kill a Mocking Bird, with its complex themes should be taught when it is a grade below students' comfort levels. There are other great books which deal with the ideas of historical racism, sexism and ableism, which are more digestible to middle grades.
Rosella wrote: "Maureen, I agree that this book should be taught in high school and not junior high. Many educators confuse the ability to read with the ability to comprehend. A book such as To Kill a Mocking Bi..."Rosella, not only is confusing the ability to read with the ability to comprehend a problem, but rushing kids to grow up and the facade of appearing mature given our complex society versus actually being mature is also a problem. So many educators (and parents) have abandoned all sense of what they learned in their classes on childhood development. Instead of giving 12,13 and 14 year olds appropriate reading material I suspect many teachers choose to "upscale" their curriculums as a reflection on their own egos, i.e. "MY class studies TKAM...or Shakespeare....or fill in the blank." And, in turn, this strokes the egos of the parents who then get bragging rights for their children's school being "so advanced" that they teach advanced, high school level books. I struggle with this in my own kids schools. Pushing inappropriately developmental material on kids, despite their ability to "perform" it or not, does not constitute enrichment.
Rick wrote: "1. It has an old-fashioned writing style and the vocabulary is very sophisticated. There is nothing wrong with students learning new words but it may also prevent a lot of students from understanding and connecting with the novel. The first chapter alone has at least 20 uncommon and archaic words like “flivver” “beadle” “unsullied”."
I don't think this is a good reason not to teach this or any book especially since so many schools are moving to tablets / computers as a requirement in class, making looking up words a snap. When we read books in school the vocab in the book was part of the lesson and we often had to write out the definitions of 10 words per chapter and were then quizzed on those words...
Just as a disgusting aside, our public school district no longer teaches grammar or script. When asked, the school board states that script is no longer necessary and that they will learn grammar through the osmosis of reading!!! I am so disgusted, you know the unstated reason is that because no standardized tests incorporate these two 'subjects' schools are not reliant on them to get their federal funding.
I get emails at work from colleagues that use emoticons as part of their speech; I find it seriously irritating to get 'winked' at while reading a work email.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Rock and the River (other topics)
Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul: 101 Stories of Life, Love and Learning (other topics)
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)
The Help (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)The Rock and the River (other topics)
Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul: 101 Stories of Life, Love and Learning (other topics)
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)
The Help (other topics)
More...
1. It has an old-fashioned writing style and the vocabulary is very sophisticated. There is nothing wrong with students learning new words but it may also prevent a lot of students from understanding and connecting with the novel. The first chapter alone has at least 20 uncommon and archaic words like “flivver” “beadle” “unsullied”.
2. The characters are stereotypes especially Atticus, Bob Ewell and Tom Robinson.
3. It is about racism seen through the eyes of a white person trying not to offend too many people in 1960. In spite of the storyline, it really doesn’t expose the ugliness of racism and of the world that she describes. It’s all very benign even though Tom Robinson dies. Today’s student is used to a harsher view from both the media and their own experience. They understand what happens but don’t necessarily connect with it because it is sugar-coated in the story.
4. The book was written for adults not teenagers. We see the world through the eyes of a wise child looking back at the events. Many of my students do not see the irony in her voice because they lack either the background knowledge to recognize the references or they are not mature enough readers to appreciate it. If it has to be explained a lot, there is something missing for the reader.
5. The movie version, though dated, is very true to the novel . How many of our students have “watched” the novel and read only pieces of it? In the same vein, there is a plethora of summaries etc. available online to boost the students’ understanding.
6. Finally, there is the ongoing attack that has been leveled at the novel: Atticus, the great white father etc. This is really like # 3 but from a more scholarly perspective. There are many critics of the novel and their points cannot be ignored.