An Opened Mind to Censorship

When you asked in class whether we had had our minds changed about anything over the course of the semester, I tried to think in what ways this class has changed my mind about anything. I think the biggest change for me is that I have become much more, perhaps not sympathetic towards, but understanding of censors and their points of view. Prior to this class, most of my knowledge of book censorship related to the censorship of Harry Potter books, and as a huge Harry Potter fan, attempts to censor or ban those books always enraged and offended me. My mind has not been changed so much that I can claim to consider that subject more open-mindedly—I still think anyone who thinks the Harry Potter books are dangerous to children is crazy and completely out of line. But I no longer apply that generalization to anyone who tries to censor a book. Though the necessity and appropriateness of censoring books is always a subject of controversy, and in general I still fall in the camp of not censoring things for the most part, I now admit that there are many legitimate and reasonable arguments for censorship. Most of the arguments that I find most convincing (though they still don’t completely win me over) are those that argue for the censorship of certain books in schools. This class made me realize how difficult it must be as a teacher to walk the fine line between expanding your students’ horizons and making them overly uncomfortable in a classroom that is supposed to be a safe space. Whether books that fall on the wrong side of that line ought to be censored or not, I don’t know, but I definitely think a great deal of thought has to go in to what is the right thing for that audience.

Free Speech

Stanley Fish argues that "there is no such thing as free speech". Not only do I disagree, but I think that there are some substantial flaws with both his argument and his reasoning. He seems to say that the only way speech is truly free is if it is some absent, abstract, nonsensical speech which deviates from the norm, which he calls weightless situations. Oddly enough the thing that came to mind for me is the scene in Anchorman when Ron Burgundy and his crew are discussing the new female reporter, and Brick Tamland (Steve Carell) says "I just burned my tongue". Completely out out place, out of context, it bothers me to think that this is the only time when speech is truly free (seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiHdL-6U4Sk).

Later, he goes on to note that once speech is given for a reason, it thus negates all other possible reasons it could be given, constraining the previously "free" speech. By this logic, only speech that is given completely without reason is free speech. But after reading that, I realized that it's not an issue with what he says that I have, but that we are essentially speaking two different languages. Fish has a substantial lexical confusion with what the rest of us call "free speech". He considers speech without purpose free. Thus he is referring to whatever was said itself as free. Nowadays, we consider free speech the ability to speak freely. It's not that we speak without purpose, it's that we have the freedom to designate for a purpose whatever it is we want to say. This lexical confusion, for me, makes his argument seem much less plausible and coherent

Censorship

Throughout this class I've seen that censorship--what gets censored and who gets to decide it-- is a huge grey area. Material that has been censored spans a wide range of subjects, including sexuality, religion, politics, profanity, and race relations. The intended effect of censoring material varies as well. For example, The Catcher in the Rye is often banned in schools because parents worry that it will negatively influence their children. Similarly, literature and film about Communism was often banned because people worried it would cause people to sympathize with the political movement. To Kill A Mockingbird, on the other hand, is often censored because the language might be hurtful or offensive to those reading it. Most often though, it seems that literature is banned or censored because it represents an idea that the body with the ability to censor disagrees with. It is used as a means to quiet voices and suppress the spread of certain ideas. However, there is always disagreement over if and what should be censored, what is considered controversial, and who has the right to take away free speech. This class has given me deeper insight into the issue of censorship and greater respect for the writers who have struggled against and persisted in spite of it.

Censorship in my Eyes

This course has brought a few issues to my mind that I had not considered before. Although I had always known that censorship and book burning and other similar activities existed, I had never contemplated why. Because I grew up in the liberal, extreme-left San Francisco Bay Area, I have always thought that censorship was wrong and that the people who enforced it were narrow minded and had no business deciding what America’s youth were exposed to. After taking this course however, I can understand why some of the texts we read over the semester have been censored and why certain individuals and establishments have focused their energy on stopping youth from being exposed to certain texts.

I especially see this with “To Kill A Mockingbird.” When I read this book in high school, I felt extremely uncomfortable because I was the only black person in the class and every time one of my white counterparts used the word ‘nigger,’ I felt my spine cringe. It wasn’t because I hadn’t heard the word before; I’d even used it before. It was because I felt that myself and my feelings were not being respected in the classroom. I felt that my teacher and classmates were being inconsiderate by not asking me if I was comfortable with them using the word. Originally, I thought that if my professor had asked me if I was comfortable, I would have said no, the word wouldn’t have been used and I would have been okay with the book being taught in my classroom. After taking this course, I realize that isn’t true.

Even at 21, in a class full of my peers, I wasn’t comfortable communicating all of my emotions. This made me realize that there is no way that I would have had that comfort in high school. I’m sure that I would have told my teacher that I was okay with the use of the word in the classroom because I wouldn’t have wanted to hinder his teaching, but I also know that I would have felt extremely unhappy while reading the book.

Maybe the youth need someone to speak up for them. Even though the majority of my class may have been okay with “To Kill A Mockingbird” being on the curriculum, I wasn’t and I was the intimidated minority who wasn’t able to speak for myself. It would have been nice if someone had challenged the book for me since I did not feel I had the power to do so myself at such a young age. This causes me to believe that maybe censorship does have a place in this society. When censorship is used to protect a child’s comfort in the classroom, I think it should be exercised.

Censorship; The Household Right

Now that the semester is drawing to a close I feel that the line between censorship that should be upheld and censorship that should be admonished is harder to define than I first thought.
For instance, I think I truly believe in the right to abstain from something yourself, if you know it will be detrimental to your mental or emotional well-being ( such as violence in movies ) though I truly frown on those who censor their children from things they believe are detrimental to their well being. These parents censoring what their children hear or see usually have the best intentions, but so many take it too far. I watch Jesus Camp and get chills from how similar to brainwashing it is to restrict a child's view of the world to that degree. Knowledge is power right? The more you see and hear the more you know, so how do we decide what is detrimental and what is potential power for our countries youth?

So on that note I wanna write about when people take Censorship into their own hands ( in this case, for the worse rather than the better).

There's a play called Corpes Christi by Terrence McNally in which Jesus and his apostles are depicted as gay men living in modern day Texas. Now, i Understand how,, if one were to find this offensive they would simply not attenmd a performance or simply not buy the play. But people could not bear the thought that ANYONE would see or read this. Everywhere in Austrailia there were church leaders and soccer moms calling for the opening of the show to be canceled. The author even recieved death threats.
This is when Censorship scares me. When people have such a problem with a mere idea ( in this case ; the idea Jesus was gay) that they cannot be satisfied in simply rejecting that idea as a personal truth but they have to make sure no one else is accepting it or even thinking about it. And THAT is tyranny, when people believe they have the right to what you do or do not think or believe.

Stanley Fish and our classroom

I found that the entire time I was reading the interview with Stanley Fish I was constantly comparing his points to how we speak and view speech in this class. Overall I think Fish’s argument is interesting but in some ways extreme – I think his definition of “free speech” is pretty far from how a lot of people see it. However, there were a few phrases that Fish used that really jumped out at me and made me think about our class, for example “weightless situation.” Fish brings this phrase up in the context of his argument that we always speak for a reason, that speech has a purpose. In the context of our class, though, I was thinking that in a way we are in our own “weightless situation.” We are lucky enough to be in an environment where we can read these novels and discuss them without being actively censored and without really having to worry too much about what we say. This doesn’t make our conversations insignificant, but it does mean that they do have a certain hypothetical, non-weighted quality in them. I think the times when we, as a class and individually, have started to change our own opinions and struggled with certain topics has been when we start to think outside of that closed environment and ask questions like, would I really let my kids read that? Is it right to expose younger children to these ideas? The times when we’ve wrestled with these challenging problems and have really gotten down to working through censorship issues has been when we used the environment of a “weightless situation” to think about a time or place that is more consequential.
Another term that Fish used that I found really interesting is his idea of a “trigger point.” Fish claims that no one really believes that everything and anything should be said, and that we all have this point “which is either acknowledged at the beginning or emerges in a moment of crisis.” I think many of us entered this course without being aware of or acknowledging a trigger point, and some of the personal challenge came from a “moment of crisis.” The general views of the class all along has been very anti-censorship, but along the way we have encountered issues (for example, specific words or concepts) that have been triggers for some people and made others re-consider their ideas. For me, at least, it is this conflict between the idealistic urge to be able to say “no, I don’t think literature should be censored” and certain trigger points and personally sensitive subjects that cause a lot of my inner debate about these issues.

Response to Gladwell

I had mixed feelings after reading Gladwell’s article from the New Yorker. Mostly, I feel defensive of Atticus and of his role in the novel. Gladwell criticizes Atticus and the novel for not doing more to fight racial inequalities and tensions during the trial and argues that To Kill a Mockingird tells us primarily “about the limitations of Jim Crow liberalism in Maycomb, Alabama.” While this may be true, I think another large part of the novel is Atticus’s character, and this character would have been drastically different had he acted differently at the trial. While Gladwell seems to view it as a negative characteristic that “Once again, he [Atticus] puts personal ties first,” I think this is one of the most notable and remarkable things about his character. This is a large reason behind his relationship with Scout and Jem and his respectability in the town. If Atticus was in fact “brimming with rage” in the courtroom like Gladwell suggests, that one action would negate and alter the entire perception of his character that Lee has presented up to that point. I believe that where Gladwell’s argument falls through is in understanding that Lee never intended for Atticus to be a civil-rights hero – she intended for the trial and the civil-rights conflict to be one of the many parts of Atticus’s character and personality. The trial is just one way in which the reader and Atticus’s children learn about him and how to treat people, in the same way that they learn through his interactions with Mrs. Dubose and Boo Radley. If we hold Atticus up to the standard of a civil-rights hero of course he will fall short, but that is not what he is intended to be.
I also think that making Atticus this kind of hero would take him out of the context of the novel. While this is what would be necessary to redirect the story into a more civil-rights oriented plotline, by broadening the context and losing the “profound localism” that Gladwell mentions, a lot of the beauty of the town and the community that Lee created would be lost. Overall, if Atticus was the hero that Gladwell wanted him to be, many other aspects of Lee’s novel that are desirable would have to be altered or lost.

Censored Parades

As I watched the Thanksgiving Day parade with my 8-year-old sister, I couldn't help but think how sheltered the whole event was. The target audience is obviously little kids, probably no older than the 5th or 6th grade. I got kind of sick of watching Buzz Lightyear follow Ronald McDonald, who was before Pikachu. Sure I used to like all those characters ten years ago, but besides being kids subjects, they weren't even that modern. Where's the balloon of Jeremy Renner in his bomb suit from "The Hurt Locker"? Wouldn't such a moving performance delivered in such an incredible movie, the best movie of last year, be worthy of some recognition in a balloon? Ignoring the commercial interests behind why Ronald McDonald gets a balloon but the star of a low-budget film doesn't, the only real merit is that the star of a movie about the Iraq war is not suitable for children.

And behind that, it's clear that NBC was self-censoring itself to keep any and all big-boy subjects on the sideline. The whole mood was this light, giddy display of all things cute and unthreatening. Especially the tone of the announcers, who sounded like they were leading a Kindergarten gymnastics class. The whole display was an exercise in clean, safe, happy fun with no risks or PG material at all. Just once, I want to see a float with The Godfather on it in all his regal, murderous glory. Or Maximus from Gladiator, perhaps in an action shot about to take his vengeance.

Speech isn't free

Reading the interview with Stanley Fish made one thing very clear to me: there is really no such thing as completely free speech. Though this may seem obvious to some people and sacrilegious to others, I think coming right out and saying it makes all discussion that comes after it a lot more sensible. The ideal set forth in the United States Constitution is just that—an ideal. Not a reality. Fish tries to explain Milton’s exclusion of Catholics from his world of free speech, and his explanation makes some sense, but he could have done the same thing in a much more simple way. All he had to say was that it is simply impossible to guarantee freedom of speech for all people at all times. To protect one person’s right to free speech, it is often necessary to restrict someone else’s. Any arguments in favor or against any sort of censorship that ignore this fact aren’t based in reality. One could even argue that simply allowing someone to talk in itself takes away another person’s opportunity to express themselves, thereby taking away their free speech. Speech is never free; there are always consequences. The same extends to school curriculums. Even if a teacher is given the freedom to teach any book he or she wants, every single book other than the ones he or she chooses is being censored in a way by omission. I don’t know exactly where this idea is taking me, but I think it’s really important to remember to adjust our expectations for how free expression can really ever be.

Boo

Throughout this novel, Scout and Jem try to understand why it's alright to do some things, and not alright to do others. Personally, I don't understand much about the Deep South, and maybe that's why I'm such a big fan of Carson McCullers, Flannery O'Conner and Dorothy Allison. The Southern Gothic genre seems more mystic, and more powerful than its British counterpart. Or maybe its just easier for me to relate to someone named Scout than someone named Lady Weatherwither.
There seem to be unwritten vague rules concerning justice, and inherent dread hanging in the air with the humidity. Someone is going to get killed, raped or maybe worse. And it'll probably be some delightful character with an endearing accent that tells you all about it. Does the rest of the country have such a romantic idea of the South that these writers are continuously able to play off of it in order to shock us? Are our views that different? Our crime rates probably aren't.
Flannery O'Connor insisted that, "anything that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the Northern reader, unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called realistic." Perhaps this is why Boo Radley is one of the more interesting characters in the novel. We would expect a hen-pecking nosy neighbor in any work, and we especially expect horrific displays of violence or racism. Boo Radley is not unlike other characters- Mr. Singer in McCuller's The Heart is a Lonely Hunter comes to mind. Both are removed from the rest of the characters, and inspire a perverse sense of awe, coupled with a complete loss of understanding. Yet these characters have some sort of redemptive power. The only other character I can think of like this is God.
We rarely see God, but we sure spend a lot of time talking about him. We really just want to talk to him, even though he could be terrible. Maybe he eats cats! Maybe we get little signs, like a treat stuck in a tree, or we find our pants(haven't gotten into that mess yet, but man, I hope he's up there when I do.). I thought the most kind of shocking part of the movie was that the studly Robert Duvall was cast as Boo, who I imagined to be a lot more deformed. We talked briefly in class about him being white like a ghost. That got me thinking about racial issues, and Boo as this unattainable whiteness that saves some people and not others, for no logical reason. Or maybe he's a symbol for a grotesque God, that humans will never really figure out.

Free Speech as the Enemy

Since I already have my mind on the subject of homosexuality being censored after rewriting my essay on Giovvani's room, I thought it might be worth while to write a bit about the Westboro Baptist Church.

These are the guys that make free speech look really bad. They are activists against homosexuality. They picket various locations and events carrying big posters that say " God Hates Fags", "Thank God for 9/11", " Fag Troops" and others that blame the death of american soldiers on the fact that america is too tolerant of gays.

The really upsetting part is that these people aren't just sitting outside their own church or on Highway 95, they go and stand outside of funerals with these protests. They target the funerals of american soldiers but they go to others too, they even showed up at the funeral of three students who had died in a house fire ( though over a thousand students chased them off in a fit of rage after only 15 minutes).

The man who runs the church is named Fred Phelps, and he is not only the head of the church but head of the family of 71 who runs the church, many of which are lawyers, which explains how they have managed to escape persecution from the law.

The sick thing is that the reason these people get away with their messages of hate blaring in the ears of people who are suffering

Save the Dummies

As this semester comes to a close, I can’t help but reflect upon all the censorship cases that we’ve gone through and relay back to the beginning. Coming into this class I’m pretty sure most of us were against censorship, recounting our own trials and tribulations about putting on a school play or simply in reading certain books. In general our generation tends to be quite liberal and perhaps it is this glimmer of hope, this adherence to the importance of civil and human liberty that keeps us going. It’s almost as if now more than ever, we are remembering our own origins of these types of ideas and trying to reinstitute them into the common norm. Building a community that values the freedom of speech is certainly no easy task, but in the end I still believe the benefits outweigh the costs. I am perhaps now more than before, a strong proponent of fighting against censorship. But what I didn’t expect going through this class is how I would be able to suddenly put myself on the side of censorship. Clearly I am a young woman and have yet to have children of my own, but I was beginning to think like a “parent.” Besides the initial scare of the “motherly bug,” it is important to understand where these ideas of censorship come from. It’s the need to protect, to shelter, and in most cases to coddle the younger generations. It would be almost elitist to think of ourselves knowing what’s best for the next generation, but yet we always say that parents know what’s best for their kids. It is not about the idea of knowing however, it’s the concept of trying to allow our younger counterparts to grow and develop their own ideas with our guidance. The biggest issue I see in all of these censorship cases is the lack of establishment of an exposed communication. People are afraid to talk. But these topics that seem so taboo to many of us, need to be addressed. It’s a community’s duty to not try and coddle our young but to expose them to things in an educational manner. We need to open up the lines of communication and give some credit to our youth that they do have a brain. We mustn’t believe that they are dumb and although this statement seems silly, it’s the unfortunate state of mind that the older generation seems to hold.

Malcolm Gladwell

Malcolm Gladwell makes a lot of good points in his essay. A lot of the lines he quoted from the book as being problematic had stood out to me too, like the part when Atticus tells Scout that it’s not ok to hate Hitler, or when he says that the Ku Klux Klan had no influence in Maycomb. While Atticus has good reasons to say both these things (hate blinds people with emotion and restricts reasonable thought, and the Klan did not have a direct physical influence in the town), they seem like missteps to our modern sensibilities. But I feel that, in a weird way, these missteps actually make this a better story. Atticus has always been held high on a pedestal as a symbol of the perfect father, a pillar of morality. But these statements bring him a little closer to Earth, and make him more human. Yes, he’s not a powerful civil rights crusader, but he is still a good father, and he still tried, in his own way, to change the lives of those less privileged than he was. That is a slightly different story from the one that has always been presented with this book, but it is still a worthwhile one.

Mockingbird is also the first book that made me reconsider my thoughts on censorship. Before taking this class, I would probably have said that censorship in all its forms should be fought against. But after listening to our class discussions about the use of the n-word in the book and the play, and after thinking about Asia’s naked man theory and Luke’s idea about sensitive censorship, I’m not so sure about my own stance on censorship. It is easy to make declarations about banning censorship when we are just talking about things academically, but when it concerns a topic that has emotional connotations, it’s a harder decision to make. For example, I liked the idea of censoring the n-word for the play when high school students were performing it. But at the same time, I recognize that this isn’t faithful to my initial ideas about censorship. What I understand most clearly though, is that censorship exists in so many ways and in so many different contexts that it’s dangerous to make widespread declarations without a considerable amount of thought.

Another Book Banning!

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/archives/228866.asp

An attempt to ban "Brave New World" in Seattle public schools.

Lee's Criticism of Formal Education

As is fitting for a town that is full of prejudice and ignorant thinking, the formal education system is portrayed as being flawed and illogical. I believe Harper Lee is criticizing the power and authority given to institutions such as schools and courts by showing how unfair and ineffective they are in the town of Maycomb. She makes a clear distinction between formal education, which takes place at school, and informal education, like how Atticus teaches his children at home. This is further emphasized by the fact that Atticus never attended school. As Scout says to Atticus, “You never went to school and you do all right” (32). In this way, Lee is not simply defining the educated versus the non-educated by who attended school. She rather distinguishes those who are open-minded, tolerant, observant, and thoughtful from those who are not. This pools together many members of the black community, most of whom it is safe to assume did not attend school, with Atticus, his children, Miss Maudie, and the other compassionate people of Maycomb. Education is something that can be gleaned from life experience, interactions with other people, as well as books and school. In fact, when Scout is sent to school her intelligence is frowned upon and she fails to be taught much. However, when she reads with her father at home, Scout learns a great deal.

the movie adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird

I had both read and seen To Kill a Mockingbird a few times before our class, and I've never been able to decide if I think the movie or the novel is better. There are few movie adapations of novels that I think we can count as good as or even possibly better than its novel counterpart, and I think To Kill a Mockingbird is one of them. I think the movie adaptation of the book is on an eqal level with the book for several reasons. The emotion of the novel, the reprentation of the characters and the events of the novel, and the context from the book used in the movie are the reasons I believe the movie To Kill a Mockingbird is just as extrodinary as the novel.

There is a lot of emotion in To Kill a Mockingbird, from Walter Cunningham partaking in dinner with the family to Scout and Atticus talking about her mother, to Atticus not only defending Tom Robinson, but to how the town reacts to such an event. When Atticus has lost his case and is walking out of the courtroom there is nothing in the novel that can capture that sort of emotion. In this case the picture really is worth a thousand words. In relation to the characters, Gregory Peck is the perfect Atticus. I think he captures Atticus better than Lee herself captured Atticus. The children are also well represented, as are most people in the town, but Peck as Atticus is, I believe, the best character adaptation in any movie adapted from a novel. Even the events chosen, which the movie follows the events of the book very well, and how they are captured brings the book to life in a way many movie adaptations cannot. I think you get a better sense of who Atticus is and what he stands for in the movie than you do of the book by how they represent his relationship with Tom Robinson and his family. I also think you have much more hatred for Mr. Ewell as aman in the movie than in the novel. Overall, I think the movie captures what Harper Lee is trying to say better than she can capture it herself in her own words, although her words are quite powerful.

Life As It Is

It's strange that I find myself semi-exhilerated by censorship. I talked about it in my first essay and I mentioned it in the interview for the censorship week. I think people get a sort of kick out of fighting censorship. It gives us something to band together over. We all feel passionatly about something for once and we find ourselves agreed on one subject. Oppression tends to bring out the best in us. That connection to the human emotion of fight really brings us together. This class has made us agree on something which is so rare in the world today.

Oppression bring a brotherhood among men. We all want to fight against something because it remind us of our primal need of war.

Something really comes alive in a person when they feel like they are right and the world that is oppressing them is wrong. We spend so much time fighting people who are censoring us that we never take a moment to really appreciate it for what it is. A reason to feel righteous.

When I look at literature i feel connected to something beyond myself and when I hear of people trying to suppress it I feel justified in fighting the forces that keep it out of puplid knowledge.

So we should take time to appreciate the fight for free speech and free literature, it's something that makes us feel alive in a world that is so routine and boring .

What Makes an Adaptation?

Our reading of To Kill a Mockingbird and subsequent viewing of the cinematic adaptations has lead me to think a lot about the classic phrase, “The movie’s OK, but the book was better.” Upon closer examination, this question raises some very interesting questions: How true must a film adaptation be to the original work? What are the most important aspects of novels that must be represented accurately in film adaptations? What are the most accurate ways to depict a novels message on the screen?

With these questions in mind, I must admit that during my viewing of To Kill a Mockingbird I did find myself thinking, “The movie’s OK, but the book was better.” However, and perhaps most importantly, I did find although I found “the book better,” I also thought the movie portrayed the novels message in an accurate manner. Thus, it seems the film adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird provides some insights as to how adaptations should most accurately represent a work.

Overall, I think the film adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird most effectively represents the atmosphere Lee created in her novel. The film captures both the adventurousness and imagination of children, while at the same time representing accurately the racial tensions of depression-era southern Alabama as depicted in Lee’s novel. Most important then, I think, is that although the plot of the film takes liberty in the chronology of Lee’s novel, Lee’s message is still captured. Perhaps this capturing of message is what is most important in creating successful adaptations, more so that staunch accuracy to the original text.

PC

Sensitive Censorship

We have been discussing censorship primarily based on issues of repression throughout this class. The blacklist was created in order to suppress communist and leftist views in America, and sexuality has been repressed in literature. All of the texts we have looked at take a view of censorship that intends to eliminate a certain worldview or social option for young people. However, it seems that there are also pervasive forms of censorship that are enforced due to sensitivity to groups or individuals. I am intrigued by this as an aspect of censorship that is really much more problematic than eliminating The Catcher in the Rye from a sophomore English reading list.

I was struck by this in the film adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird, especially in how they treated the n word. While the film does use the term, it is used much more carefully and infrequently than in Harper Lee's novel. I think this is a laudable way to treat the source material as well the audience. While the adapters kept the term in in order to shock audiences with the hateful ideals present in Harper Lee's American South, it does not subject audiences to unnecessary hate speech. While I would have preferred a script in which the characters explicitly addressed the term differently from the novel, there is only so much room in a screenplay, and eliminating some of the uses of the n word are a laudable place to start cutting material from the novel.

In class, we have not used the n word either, perhaps due to discomfort, but also (hopefully) to positively assert that we do not condone or support the use of the word and its history. Censorship in this way can show respect to other people or social norms. No one in the class is advocating teaching Catcher in the Rye to a class of first graders, in part because of the explicit language. But this does not mean that we wish to censor first graders' reading. There is a time and a place for everything, even if we believe in the freedom of speech. Navigating between the appropriate and the censorial is tricky business that requires sensitivity and intelligence on both sides of the issue.

Understanding the Censor

After finishing To Kill a Mockingbird for my second time, I find myself more understanding of those who try to censor it than I have been of people trying to censor anything else we’ve read this semester. I’m a bit surprised about this myself and I’m struggling to figure out why this book was different to me than the other things we’ve read. Though I still wouldn’t say that I support this book being censored, it’s a lot easier for me to imagine situations where one could justifiably consider censoring it a reasonable choice. I think the main reason for that is the race issue. Though I personally don’t find the novel racist, I can see how the way it deals with race could make some students very uncomfortable, and I don’t think it is fair to make students more uncomfortable than necessary when they are trying to learn. High school is hard enough as it is. I think I am also partially influenced by the fact that I picture this book being read by younger high school students (I myself read it in 9th grade) or even middle school students. There is a big difference between 9th and 12th grade and I could see why some parents might not want their 9th graders exposed to certain things in this novel. I imagined most of the other books we’ve read being read by older high school students. I think another reason why I am more understanding of the censors in this case might be the fact that To Kill a Mockingbird is set in the United States, in the relatively recent past, and told through the eyes of the child. All of these things make it strike much closer to home than something like The Crucible or Price of Salt (though that doesn’t explain why I differentiate it from Catcher in the Rye). I think when a book takes place in a time and place further from a child’s own experience, they are more likely to find what is universal in it. On the other hand, when a book is in a setting more similar to their own experiences, they could assume that everything in it is relevant to their own lives, and with certain aspects of To Kill a Mockingbird, that could be dangerous.

Adaptations

I was by no means disappointed with the adaptation of To Kill A Mockingbird, but I was struck by my feelings while watching it.  I fully understand that it is nearly impossible to include every detail of a book in a movie, unless it is made into a miniseries that spans 6 hours, but with this movie I really missed some of the finer details.  When it comes to adaptations, I find that it is best not to read a book right before seeing the movie because you are more aware of what is missing or what is changed, and it can ruin the film for you.  I also feel that movie adaptations should be treated separately from the novel based on the time constraints, and also because films are in their own right an artistic medium.  When I see a film based on a novel, I usually don’t compare it to the novel, because the film is an interpretation, and I do not consider it in direct correlation to the film.  I love the Harry Potter books, but I also love the movies, and I don’t judge the movies on the books because the movies are their own stories.  I think that’s the point of adaptations, they are based off of short stories or novels, but they are in their own right a story completely different from the original. It’s all about interpretation and analysis.

As I was watching To Kill A Mockingbird, I found that I really wanted there to be some of the more minor details, such as Scout’s first day of school and her interactions with the teacher, or some more of the interactions between Dill, Jem and Scout.  I also felt that Calpurnia should have been incorporated a little more.  The movie made me appreciate the rich details of the story even more because so much was lost in the film.  The film tried to incorporate the most important aspects of the storyline, the trial and Boo Radley, but I really missed some of the finer details.   I love the film as it stands on its own and I think the story it tells is quite good, but for some reason I was having trouble separating it from the book when I was watching it on Monday.

If Boo = Mockingbird, then killing racists = sweet music

Oh the fun of analogies!

At the end of class yesterday, the point was raised among the last three left in the room that some people believe the ending with Boo and the death of Bob Ewell more or less eclipses the Tom Robinson tragedy, taking away from the book's message about race and tolerance. I, however, disagree with this view, as the book is not about race, nor is it about Boo Radley.

The book is about mockingbirds.

But seriously. The book isn't simply a morality play meant to challenge our ideas of racial tolerance. If it was, the Tom Robinson business would enter the story earlier, and the trial would last just a tiny bit longer. The novel is rather a commentary on the flexibility of morality.

Because the story is told through the eyes of a child, we are able to see a young, fairly untouched view of morality, and we see how it develops through her experience. We see Scout learn the existence of class divisions and how to treat those less fortunate than her. We see Scout learn the complexities of social persecution based on race and other factors that make one an outsider. Finally, we see Scout witness the destruction of human life in two very different contexts, and through her eyes we ourselves begin to understand that some lives and some causes are more valuable than others.

The other aspects of the novel do not eclipse the Tom Robinson story. All parts of the story work together to challenge and reinforce the reader's views of morality and justice. The reader comes to realize that busting up chiffarobes and stabbing terrible men can both be as beautiful as a mockingbird's song.

If Superman was real, he'd probably be a villain.

I feel like ending the class on To Kill A Mockingbird was the perfect ending to our censorship class. The novel has so many elements to it, it's hard not to appreciate a novel like that. Some people might criticize the novel or have mixed feelings, but at the end of the day, you can't ignore a novel like To Kill A Mockingbird. Maybe if you're illiterate, but that's a whole different issue! I guess what I'm getting at is, if you can't fight against censorship then the most you can do is write about issues in such a way that make it hard for people to runaway from them. The world is never going to stop being judgmental, people will constantly be pushed down or oppressed. It's just not going to ever stop. But does that mean we should just stand back and watch it happen? I know most people are willing to do that, but I'm not. It's those few that actually care that will make all the difference, even if it's a small difference.

It makes me think about when you're a kid, and you feel like you can save the world. You're going to be the next superman, maybe even settle for being a sidekick. Then one day life just hits you, kind of like how we see life creeping into Scout's childhood. The thing is, most people conform and just give up on the childish dream. What if you didn't though? What if you kept that little flicker of hope inside of you, that part who isn't afraid to read their child a story about two gay penguins or hand your sister The Catcher in the Rye without regret and worry?

At the end of the day, I loved going through and re-reading a lot of the novels we have. I probably wouldn't have picked up most again if it weren't for this class.

It Ain't Over 'til the Mockingbird Sings

Watching the movie version of To Kill a Mockingbird, I was pleasantly impressed. The actors in this movie really seemed to take hold of Lee’s characters and bring a new life to the text. Usually when books become movies we are often disappointed. Content is cut out, plots mixed and matched into a mess of a story, and characters become completely different people. This is definitely one of those instances where the movie almost became its own entity but in a good way. Personally I felt that the movie added to my experience and understanding of the book by really adding a depth of emotion and visual representation of the text. One of the main surprises for me was how much I loved Atticus’ character. So calm, cool, and collected he always seemed to know what was best for Jem and Scout. I think that in the book there might have been a gap of affection between Atticus and the children but in the movie we can see even though he is removed from their lives in a respectful way he still is an outstanding father. He also lets his kids grow up and learn on their own while acting as a guide rather than an overbearing adult.
One of the things that I have still felt uneasy about is the death of Tom Robinson. Somehow I wish Atticus would’ve given him more hope or support so that he didn’t have to think he had no way out but to run. However I do think the movie does a good job in making us hate Mr. Ewell. The scene where he approaches Atticus after Tom’s death made me really uneasy and I don’t think I would’ve been able to leave Mr.Ewell like Atticus does without saying a thing or two. I do think this is an important lesson for Jem to learn in terms of not fighting but I almost wonder if Jem wasn’t present, would Atticus have done the same?

Atticus' pity may have cost Tom his life

Watching the film today, I picked up on something that I missed the first time I read the book in high school, and missed this last time I read it as well. And frankly, as a kid who plans to go to law school next year, I'm kind of embarrased that I didn't catch it earlier. The novel, and every critical interpretation of it, establishes the Tom Robinson case as simply unwinnable. A black man cannot receive a fair trial in the south, and the verdict is already in hand. The fact that it took a few hours of deliberation as opposed to a few minutes is considered a moral victory, and "baby steps" in the right direction. But I disagree. I now believe that the case could have been won.

First off, a key point that Atticus raises is that neither Sherriff Tate nor Bob Ewell call a doctor. However, that does not preclude Atticus from calling a doctor after the fact. Or even a medical expert, who could have examined Mayella, and testified to the absence of evidence of rape. Atticus firmly establishes that Tom could not have beaten Mayella, the whole handedness thing. But he then assumes that this will also be applied to the rape charge. But assault is not the capital offense, rape is, and Atticus does not do near enough to establish that not only did Tom not rape Mayella, but that no rape ever occured. If Atticus had called in his own medical expert to examine Mayella, especially one with credibility (read: white), it would have gone a long way to securing a vote or two in the jury.

But Atticus' most egregious mistake is when Mayella is on the stand. Nervous, scared, and struggling to remember the rehearsed lie, she is an extremely unreliable witness. Atticus is polite in his cross-examination, and not near forceful enough. He pleads with Mayella, he tries to coax her into admitting the lie. But she digs in and defends the lie with fervor. As the famous Ayn Rand quote says, "honest people are never touchy about the matter of being trusted", and Mayella's explosion at Atticus and the jury shows her to be very touchy about it. After her rant and breakdown into tears is when Atticus makes the crucial mistake of the trial. He lets Mayella off the hook. This became excruciatingly apparent to me when in the movie, the judge looks at Atticus as if to ask if he has any more questions, and Gregory Peck gently shakes his head no. Even if the subtle act in the movie was not done in the book, either way, Atticus does not question Mayella any further. Atticus allowed Mayella's powerful, hysteric rant to be the final word on the subject.

Atticus should have asked her more questions. Let me rephrase, as that may be the understatement of the semester - Atticus should have fucking grilled her on the stand. Called as a witness, Mayella has to stay and answer any and all questions asked to her. She waived her right to protection under the 5th amendment when she testified to the rape under the prosecutor's questioning. She has absolutely no way out. Witnesses cannot just break down into tears and run off the witness stand. Now, if she had that type of massive breakdown after maybe 10 minutes of questioning, I wonder how long it would have taken Atticus to get to the truth. Atticus is clearly mentally superior to both Mayella and the prosecutor. If he kept at it, if he dug through the emotional walls, it was only a matter of time before Mayella would have broke down and admitted the truth. Whether it took a recess or three, multiple days, whatever, it was just a matter of time.

Atticus severely takes for granted that the only way to win the case is through a jury verdict - he should have tried to get the charges dismissed altogether. If he broke down Mayella into telling the truth and admitting that she and Bob Ewell made the charges up, the state would have no case. How could you prosecute a crime when the only evidence is two eyewitness, one of whom is the alleged victim herself, who says that the crime never happened? What, is the prosecutor going to recall Bob Ewell to say that Mayella was raped, after Mayella says that she wasn't? The state would have had no choice but to throw the case out.

So why wasn't Atticus more aggressive? The only thing I can think of is pity. He says that his pity does not extend so far as to put Tom's life on the line, but clearly it does. He lets her off the hook out of pity, and missed his best (perhaps only) chance to win the case, and left it up to a racist jury. It doesn't matter if you humiliate this girl in front of the whole country, if you expose her and her father to be lying bastards when a man's life is on the line. Atticus had the moral code to take on the case, and enough brains to pull it out. But in the end, he was not ruthless enough to win the case. His pity took priority over his killer instinct, and it may have cost Tom his life.

Barackticus?

Something interesting regarding Mr. President :)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-lundegaard/who-is-barack-obama-attic_b_126803.html

TKAM Film

Watching To Kill a Mockingbird only enhances the TKAM experience. With many books turned to films the movie ends up being such a disappointment. Usually the cast is all wrong, the plot gets terribly changed, and the script is so different from the text that the movie is more like a distant cousin to the book than a derivative. However, the screen adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird is pretty dead on. The first thing I noticed is that most of the speech is the same as Harper Lee's original text. While obviously some variations were made the movie is a natural progression of what Lee had already written. It is not like the viewer is meeting some new version of Scout, Jem, or Atticus - instead they just get a visual and get to interact with the characters rather than just read about them.

The major changes that I've noticed, so far, are that Dill's aunt becomes Ms. Stephanie Crawford rather than Ms. Rachel. Since Dill's aunt had no true role in the book there is no hurting in combining her with another character who is of slightly more importance. Also - Atticus is portrayed as more heroic in the movie than in the book. It becomes the story of the hero Atticus and his children rather than the story of Scout and her father.

Good and Evil

I like To Kill a Mockingbird for many reasons: the way it’s written, all the details of setting and character, the way Lee describes childhood thoughts and actions so well with her characterizations of Scout and Jem, but I would hesitate to applaud the book for its treatment of race relations. There are a lot of parts in the book that make me uncomfortable and while most of them can be explained away by considering that the book is representing a particular time period (the gratuitous use of the n-word, for one, and Aunt Alexandra’s ladies’ society discussions, for another), there are other things that are a little more baffling. I don’t know what to think about a line like this, for instance: “The bittersweet smell of clean Negro welcomed us as we entered the churchyard,” thought by Scout when Calpurnia takes her and Jem to her church. It’s clear that Scout, and therefore Lee, meant something by this description, or it wouldn’t have been included, but I have no idea what. At the end of the book, Heck Tate’s assertion that “there’s just some kind of men you have to shoot before you can say hidy to ’em” is also another theme running through this book that makes me uncomfortable. It echoes Atticus’ description earlier of the Ewells as trash and seems to reiterate an idea that some people are just born evil. This seems like a pretty problematic statement to me, and not a very useful one. It’s really only one step from this to Mrs. Farrow’s assertion that “We can educate ’em till we’re blue in the face, we can try till we drop to make Christians out of ’em, but there’s no lady safe in her bed these nights.”

Many of the complicated issues in this book are tied up very neatly by the end of the book; one could argue that it is almost too neat and simple in its portrayals. Tom dies, but Bob Ewell does as well. Boo Radley turns out to be a gentle, Nice Guy, albeit one who quite easily shoves a kitchen knife into a man’s chest. Atticus is unequivocally Good, as is Miss Maudie and Judge Taylor. Even Dolphus Raymond turns out to be drinking only Coke out of a paper bag. It makes things easier to have some characters who are so Good and some who are clearly Bad, but in the end, it’s still a little difficult to believe.

Racism vs. Homosexuality in the HS Classroom

I was interested, when we were talking about race, racism, and To Kill a Mockingbird in class on Monday, because I am curious as to what "taboo" subjects are not ok or not ok to teach in public school classrooms. As most of us have confirmed, we had read To Kill a Mockingbird at some point in school. Many of us recounted how the issues of race and racially discriminatory language was addressed in a classroom. Yet, I feel as we talked about The Price of Salt or Giovanni's Room none of us had read these texts, or what I realized were probably any homosexual texts in our high school classrooms. So the question I asked myself was why...is it because there are not necessarily well-known homosexual texts to be read in a classroom setting, or is it because of the subject matter?

Do people feel that it is ok to talk about racism in a 1960's text written in the time period of the 1930's because it is so long ago? Do they feel this type of racism no longer exists, so it is ok to discuss it, and discuss it as a past-tense situation? If this is the case is this why a text such as To Kill a Mockingbird is taught, yet a text dealing with the issue of a gay relationship is not? Is the issue of homosexuality too "present" for our society that to teach a novel dealing with homosexuality to a high school class would cause and raise too many questions? If Dominique is telling us in class how uncomfortable she was having to sit in a classroom with peers who clearly misinterpreted the reason they were reading To Kill a Mockingbird are schools worried that the same such incidents would occur if a text with homosexuality was read?

I just want to understand why it seems that it is ok to address racism in a text in a high school classroom more than homosexuality.

For the sins of my father

We could talk for days about how Atticus is the pefect role model for Jem and Scout. He works hard at his profession. He treats people the right way. He's well respected in the community. He stands up for what he believes in. And as Jem says, "he's a gentleman, like me." For Jem and Scout, and really anyone reading this book as a fan of literature, or as an aspiring attorney, or as a future father, Atticus is the standard. And for us on the outside, even though we know it is a struggle, it's hard for us to see how Atticus could fail at anything, especially in raising his children, to whom he is their biggest influence. To me, it feels almost inevitable that Jem and Scout will grow up be outstanding, upright people and citizens.

But for every Atticus, there are ten Bob Ewells. Lazy, drunk, violent, racist, and poor. While Atticus is everything a father, a lawyer, and a man should be, Bob Ewell is everything a man should not. While Jem and Scout have a golden opportunity to grow up right, Bob Ewell's children have no chance. How good a father can you be when you beat your daughter and place false charges on another man? What influence do you have on your children when you coach them to commit perjury in order to send an innocent man to his death? And it's heartbreaking when you understand there are real life examples of people who are totally screwed based on who their parents are (http://www.amazon.com/Sins-My-Father-Killer-Legacy/dp/0767906896 ). Although Atticus is the standard, the role model of what we should try to be, the example of Bob Ewell of what we should not be is as motivating, if not more so.

Is Censorship Inherently Bad?

I do not generally agree with censorship, but I can understand why certain actions are taken against particular novels, plays, movies, and art in general.  Parents try to shield their children from all of the bad things in the world in order to preserve their innocence for as long as possible.  That is censorship.  Just like school districts or teachers censor their students in order to teach them without having to expose them to bad language or disturbing content.  I think that there are different degrees of comfort, and ultimately it is up to the parent or the teacher to gauge what is appropriate for the children.  In terms of the naked man theory, I can understand why the varying degrees of nakedness could make someone more uncomfortable.  I think that there is a time and place for everything, but as adults we have to guide children and many times make decisions for them until they are old enough to make the decisions themselves.  That is censorship, but it cannot be helped. 

With the naked man theory also comes a choice.  People can choose whether they want to expose themselves to films or plays that may possibly make them more uncomfortable.  Just like people can choose what books they decide to read.  A person may feel slightly uncomfortable reading a novel that has a rape scene in it, so they may decide not to see a film adaptation that will make the whole sequence feel even more personal and uncomfortable.  I don’t think that a film should be banned so that no one can see it, but I do think that people need to make their own personal decisions about what they feel they are comfortable with, and also what is appropriate for children. 

While I don’t think that literature should be censored, I do think that sometimes it is difficult not to censor a book from a class if the content is too adult for them or if there is the potential for students to feel uncomfortable and feel like an outcast.  What I think it boils down to is, are you censoring this book from these students for the right reasons?  But then again, how do you ever know that your reasons are the right reasons? 

Confronting Our Demons

In light of our discussion last class, I’ve been thinking a lot about how words that have horrific histories (like the “N” word) or words that have been demonized (like “socialism) impede constructive discussion both inside and outside of the classroom. Of course, To Kill a Mockingbird and the discourses about the work clearly demonstrate the former, and thus provides some interesting insights. As a work that forces a reader to confront the brute racism of a small, depression-era town in southern Alabama, To Kill a Mockingbird exemplifies a vital function literature serves.

Using words with horrific pasts and/or words that have been demonized (whether warranted or unwarranted) presents an awkward situation that perhaps we’ll never truly overcome. Thus, this may be where literature is most useful: readers can confront their own emotions, prejudices, etc., in their own comfort zone, and be forced to challenge these prejudices without fear of being ostracized.

Many may disagree with me, but I feel we engage in a silly game in the classroom. We often love to talk about “those racist people out there,” and of course assume that none of us in the classroom could possibly have had racist thoughts. Further, as illustrated by the recent controversies surrounding Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez, expressing ones prejudices, even when hedging their statements in Williams’ case, can have very real consequences.

Thus, it seems rather apparent that being overly candid about ones prejudices in any public situation may be less than desirable; and this is where literature serves a useful function. Through novels like To Kill a Mockingbird we can be forced to confront our prejudices without fear, and in our own comfort zone. Perhaps this may not be the best way confront and achieve a post-race attitude, but at least it’s a start.

The Bigger Picture

It has really surprised me that To Kill a Mockingbird has brought up far more controversy it seems, than other books we’ve read. But even though it is apparent that there is quite a bit of racism in the novel, I think it is still seen as a “bad” thing in the end and that’s what lets the book stand out as a positive read. Atticus is fighting for a proper cause, maybe going against the majority, but still pointing out to us the horrors of the time. There are many things in our history that we may not be proud of and that are sensitive subjects especially having to deal with any kind of racism. However, though these pains are deep we must not try to hide from the past. These are important opportunities for learning. As I said in class, if the reception of a text/play/ or whatever is under question than is the duty of those performing/selecting the work to make sure communication portals are opened between the audience and the piece. If it’s a play let’s have an introduction and discussion afterwards. In the classroom let’s make sure everyone’s comfort levels are taken into consideration as well by creating smaller more personal discussion groups.
But some have mentioned that TKAM is not anti-racist enough. The thing I take issue with here is that if we view this novel as a mirror into the historical time of the book, these were the circumstances and racism happened. We should be communicating with the past through reading this novel and looking on the mistaken behaviors of the time and the demons of our past to better understand how these circumstances came to be and how we can avoid them in the future. I would furthermore say that TKAM may not necessarily be focused on handling the race issue of the time. Maybe it’s about Scout’s journey into maturing as a young girl in light of the horrible things going on around her. We tend to let the race issue take all of our attention, though it deserves plenty, and miss the other critical sides of this story as well.

Comfort Zone

It really shocked me in class that To Kill a Mockingbird was the one book that I really saw people take a stance on being for censorship in class. This has always been one of my favorite novels, and re-reading the text I'm really starting to pick up on the raw form of the novel. Yes, the text is racist and it does invoke a lot of emotion. However, this is coming from Scout's point of view and although she might seemly overly mature to the readers, she is still learning about the world around her. She is still a child. As a child she doesn't have a grip on racism, she doesn't fully realize what it is and how she could potentially be racist herself. I think these things reflect in parallel the racism of the text, of a child who is thrown into this event and is forced to look at the world around her in a new light.

As for censoring this text in any form...I'm just really against it. This text is raw and it's vivid, and yes it will make people angry, sad, and conformable, but isn't that what literature is supposed to do? A book that can rise up emotions inside of you, that's a book you're going to remember and reflect on later. Personally, I want a book that's going to make me think, that's going to question what I believe in, that's going to affirm what is right and wrong to me. It's so clear to me to see how To Kill a Mockingbird conveys how disgusting racism is and how disgusting people can be, even if it does so by shoving racism right in our face. Plus, when it comes down to censoring certain words or passages in the text, or even certain forms of the novel....aren't we just adding more emphasis to these forbidden words and passages? I feel like censoring them almost gives them more power, it's like trying to hide an elephant in the room. I'd rather just have it out in the open, rather than this uncomfortable cover up that is impossible to hide without completely destroying the novel.

A slur is the naked man's genitalia

I find myself in a little bit of a crisis because I've never been a proponent of censorship, but I feel uneasy supporting the open discussion of slurs among young students. Although I feel like these two seemingly conflicting thoughts may not contradict each other quite as strongly as it seems.

I oppose censorship in its purest form because it restricts knowledge. Censorship hides away material and ideas that can enrich a student's educational experience; it decides for students the information they have a right to know. This ultimately takes away the diversity of education, providing only the information that is congruent with the ideals and beliefs of the censor. A heavily censored young adult education alienates any students who don't match these ideals and beliefs.

The use of slur in the classroom has a similar effect. It forces the minorities of the classroom to the outside. It can make them feel uncomfortable. It can distract them from the rest of the material and the major context of the topic at hand. Similarly, it can distract their classmates. It can cause them to focus on only a small portion of the information available to them. In this sense, it restricts knowledge in a manner close to censorship.

I don't think that I would support throwing To Kill a Mockingbird out of the curriculum based on the N-word, but I do think that it is something that should not be stressed or specifically mentioned in classroom study. To Kill a Mockingbird is so much apart from that word, and any amount of emphasis placed on the word would be at the cost of so much else. In a performance for a young audience, I feel like speaking the word again is a distraction. The novel contains many, many more words than the play. In the play, the word would stand out. It would take away from the rest of the message, from the unfair conviction of a black man based on nothing other than his race.

I guess I need to justify using the word "genitalia" in my title now. The naked man exists as more than a naked man. He represents something. He is a message or an expression of art. That message might be lost if the viewers are too distracted by his penis to pay attention to anything else.

Scout's Innocence

Throughout TKaM, there is a commentary on youth and innocence. By meeting Scout in her earlier years, we are familiar with her character and more easily analyze her actions when she is older. Additionally, by making her intelligent and intellectually curious, dismissing her childhood judgements as naive is less valid. In the earlier sections of the book, we see Scout question the "unfairness" in the world--she recognizes the abuse her teacher doles out to Walter Cunningham, and tries explain and understand why it is wrong. By introducing this incident early in the novel, Scout's later dedication to defending her father's work becomes a character trait, and prevents her from becoming a "race warrior". When Scout is disappointed in the verdict and behavior of the town, we can understand it has her disappointment in people's unwillingness to accept basic equality. Had she been more aware of exactly how race played into each of these scenarios, her analysis would have run the risk of preaching against racism. TKaM's commentary on race is most effective because it combats the motivations behind racism, and focusses on why racism isn't any different from other kinds of discrimination. Since Scout, a child, is depicted as more sympathetic and understanding than adults, racism is portrayed as not only wrong, but juvenile, irresponsible, and irrational.

Atticus

One comment in class last week really struck me. The handout you gave to us mentioned that some of the people who had a problem with text, suggested that it was too accepting of Racism-that Lee and Atticus weren't strong enough in the fight against racism.

I found this to be very interesting. We always hear the cliche that Atticus is one of the best literary figures, especially among father figures, in the cannon. I didn't expect to hear this complaint.

Thus far, I think that Lee's portrayal of Atticus is noble, while still being realistic. I think that a lawyer figure that is even more accepting might be unbelievable for the time period. Atticus discusses obligations and morality openly and Lee is still able to show the racism in the deep south.

It'll be interesting to see how the book ends and whether or not this portrayal holds up under a more critical eye.

The Rhetoric of "Offensive Language" and the Legacy of the TKaM Play

As a theatre practitioner, the article that Magdalen sent us about the play version of To Kill a Mockingbird being censored was particularly upsetting for me. Especially the rhetoric surrounding it. From the article:

The theater director at Flagler Palm Coast High School, Ed Koczergo, says the problem is the N-word. Koczergo says the word can't be removed from the script because of copyright laws.

Principal Jacob Oliva says parents, students and community members began complaining about it during the third week of rehearsals. The production was scheduled to open Nov. 12.

First of all this might be the first time ever that I've heard of a school obeying copyright laws in respect to their shows, so forgive me for being dubious of that justification. It makes more sense to me that they couldn't cut the word because it is essential to the plot. Because it kind of is. To Kill a Mockingbird addresses racial tensions within a historical period where the n-word was both common, and still a kind of hate speech. Part of Scout's learning process is to understand the dimensions of the word and its potency. There's not really a word you could change it to without cutting whole beats from the play.

What I'm really hearing here is a failure in directing and leadership. Whoever picked the show needed to be able to articulate to the cast and the community why the word was there, and what the play stood for. What was most disturbing to me about the article was the last part:

Most Flagler County ninth-graders read the novel dealing with racism in a fictional Depression-era Alabama town as part of their course work. Oliva says the guidance teachers give in the classroom about controversial material isn't available to community members coming to the play.

This is a blatant misunderstanding of how theatre (and art in general) works. If an audience member fails to understand the negative attitude the play has towards the n-word, this director deserves to be fired. This is not to say that there aren't other elements in the script that are more ambiguous but the play (and book) is pretty clear about the way the word is used. You could do a reading where Atticus is a different kind of racist, more condescending than outright hateful. That reading is legitimate. But the "evilness" of the n-word is pretty clear in any case.

In another class I was introduced to the community of Monroeville Alabama, the source material for To Kill a Mockingbird. The citizens of Monroeville put on the play version of To Kill a Mockingbird every year with an Oberammergau-like vigor. Their humility and conscience is prominently on display in that they segregate the audience for the courtroom scene and select the all white male jury that convicts Tom from the audience. The barriers between audience and actor are broken and the town addresses their complicity in the cycles of hate depicted in the book and play. You can read more about the Monroeville production here.

My point is that if you examine the play and the book you realize that the use of the n-word is in the interest of authenticity, that Lee is confronting a culture that needed to be interrogated. A culture that Florida was a part of, a culture that all privileged Americans allowed to continue. The power of theatre is to show us our humanity, to present a reality that can't be dismissed because it's on a screen or on the page. It is standing in front of you, forcing you to engage. What I'm seeing in Florida is a fear of that, which is understandable. I can't imagine how upsetting (and educational) it must be to be put in the jury box in Monroeville for the second act of their version of the play, waiting to be forced to find an innocent man guilty. There are far more disturbing things in heaven and earth, Palm Coast, than are dreamt of in your idea of hate speech.

Atticus

It’s funny that, though this is Scout’s story and told in her voice and from her point of view, Atticus is really the hero of this story. He is frequently embraced as one of the best fictional parents ever written (a recent CNN article touts this: http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/11/07/mf.best.fictional.parents/index.html), and for good reason. He is eminently fair, kind, wise, and modest as he fights for the tired, the poor, etc. My memory of the last time I read this book was mainly of Atticus and the battle in the courtroom. I also remembered him as this awesome, perfect character. This is why it surprised me to read some of the things he said about the Ewells in the book. He describes them as “the disgrace of Maycomb for three generations” and that “it’s silly to force people like the Ewells into a new environment.” For all that Atticus preaches about treating everyone with respect, the fact that he writes off the entire Ewell clan as trash is a little jarring. Now it may be that the Ewells are in fact a family of troublemakers and none of them have ever amounted to anything good, but I doubt the town’s attitude towards them has helped that fact at all.

Atticus’ cross-examination of Mayella Ewell was another scene that was uncomfortable to read. It’s pretty obvious from the evidence that is presented that Mayella probably wasn’t raped by Tom Robinson, but it’s still a little upsetting to read about Atticus prodding her to describe in details how she had been injured and in which exact locations. I don’t know how rape cases are handled today; perhaps it’s better than the way they were handled back then, but I don’t think any rape victim should have to sit on a witness stand and recount her trauma in front of a room full of spectators like that.

I liked Atticus’s reaction to Bob Ewell’s threats later though, when he said that he would be willing to take harassment from Bob Ewell if it would spare Mayella an extra beating. I suppose it is small things like that which have made Atticus such a well-loved character in literature.

Banning TKAM Play

I was extremely disappointed after reading the article emailed out regarding a high school canceling the play of To Kill a Mockingbird. When I was in high school, my school put on some pretty mature content plays: Absurd Person Singular and Tommy stand out specifically. While the content was extreme, the individuals who participated in these productions felt that they had learned so much from them and the audiences in general enjoyed the tastefully reenacted performances. To Kill a Mockingbird's content is so much less extreme than these plays. If anything, the educational value offered is so great that the production should be encouraged.

One of the strangest elements of this banning is that the book is read in the school district. Clearly, students are already exposed to this word if they have read the book already. No one is forcing individuals to go to the play (where as the book is in the curriculum) so why would production be stopped? Is it worse to hear a word than to read it - does that give it merit? If the word is such a big issue, then why not just release a statement saying that the school, nor the participants in the play, do not support the terminology presented in this work and apologize for any offense taken.

This just goes back to the issue of Grease in the town where it was banned. Grease is a much more racy piece - not that I even feel it deserved the negative attention - but if something like To Kill a Mockingbird gets banned... what shows are left?

Tequila Mockingbird

It may not be real, but when I was in high school My theatre teacher told me about something she claimed was called the "Naked Man Theory". She said it was an explanation for why Theatre is the most censored art form. It goes like this.

Write about a naked man and some people may be offended.

Paint a picture of a naked man and more people will be offended.

Have a movie featuring a naked man and lots of people will be offended.

Put a naked man on a stage in the same room as an audience and MOST people will be offended.

Even if it's not an accepted table of censorship and its variation it kind of makes sense.

It's why I am in no way surprised to hear about the play in Florida getting cancelled. It's one thing to read the N word in a book and quite another to actually have young people say it in a room full of their parents. I know I'm supposed to fight for free expression, especially in theatre but in this case I really understand how it could be awkward and uncomfortable for those involved in this particular situation. The fact that students participating in it were the ones speaking out against it is what really makes me side with canceling the show. It's a big rule of theatre that you can never make someone do something they feel too uncomfortable to do. If you force that on a person, nothing good will ever come of it.

The code of chidlhood

We talked last class about how both “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “The Catcher in the Rye” rely on the perspective of a child for their narration. This strategy is effective (or attempts to be) because of a general belief regarding children, the idea that they are innocent, objective, and see things that adults cannot. However, I find Scout interesting because she in some ways definitely has a child’s perspective that we find endearing and admirable, however she shows maturity far beyond her age. Is that what Lee intended by picking her as a narrator? One moment in the text when I really thought of this is when Dill was hiding in Atticus’s house. When Jem went to rat him out, Scout says “Then he rose and broke the remaining code of our childhood” (159). I think it’s interesting that Lee brings up this idea of a “code,” almost a separate system that children and adults function in. In the novel this can be seen a little in the make believe worlds and scenarios that Jem, Dill, and Scout create. So much of these small stories are built around parts of the “code” that constitutes their childhood – not touching the Radley’s house, what to do about the secret hole in the tree, how to wake Dill in the middle of the night. I think in this novel the code is more universally understood or applicable than in “Catcher” – there I think Holden wants to think that he’s living according to his own ‘code’ but it is the reader that sees him caught between the rules of childhood and rules of adulthood. However, there is still flexibility in Scout’s narrative. The fact that she can make a comment about the “code of childhood” implies a maturity and consciousness that at the same time suggests that she is moving past childhood herself. I think it is this juxtaposition, this awareness of childhood combined with a simultaneous ability to see past it, that makes Scout such a powerful narrator.

To Kill a Mockingbird

The jury’s verdict, ‘guilty’ was inevitable. It was interesting that every single person in that courtroom knew what the outcome would be except for Jem. Even Scout had her doubts, but this could also be due to the fact that she didn’t necessarily understand the entire proceedings. Jem’s reaction initiates him into the adult world - one that is seemingly unjust. I find this ‘rite of passage’ to not only be a test for Jem, but the town as well. The town failed to find Tom innocent, and in a way failed to find themselves innocent. Thus, the town is unable to see the ‘black and white’ of innocence that Jem and Scout portray. For instance, when Dell and Scout are with the ‘town drunk’ they discover that he is a fraud. The idea of a fraud is horrible to them and yet Mr. Raymond insists that, “Because your children and you can understand it” (228). There are feelings of not being able to be one’s true self in the social network of the town. We see this with Boo Radley, Mayella etc. There seems to be an intrinsic force at work in which people live in fear of the truth. The fact that Mr. Raymond sees the children as more understanding than the adults, places a tremendous pressure on them to keep their innocence. With Jem’s initiation, one realizes that his innocence is gone, with the verdict of ‘guilty.’ This leaves Scout alone to not only share her innocence, but also help others reconnect. A hint at her power as a child occurs a little earlier in the novel when she points out Mr. Cunningham, reminding him of how she and her family helped out his son. It’s interesting to note that much of Scout’s ‘teaching’ has been in the real world rather than school. I don’t find this as an argument to avoid school, but rather a sign of the times. One would think the real world would scar a child as there are no limits to what the child can or is exposed to. However, there are limits as illustrated by parents. The obvious distortion between Mayella’s home life and Scout’s, is remarkable. Here is Scout introduced to everything and who seems to have a good head on her shoulders, despite little outbursts. On the other hand here is Mayella who is sheltered and oblivious to the world (no education) and yet manages in one moment to confront the world head on. It’s difficult to grasp these two different portrayals of the ‘real world’ and I think the only difference is a child vs an adult.

Girls Always Imagine Things

I love rereading To Kill A Mockingbird, and unlike Catcher in the Rye, it's still one of my favorites. I think the major difference for me is that I still see Scout as somewhat of a hero in the novel, as opposed to Holden who I felt detached to now. Although I found Scout to be an amazing character, I'm definitely noticing this time how her character brings up the role of girls/women during the time period. There is this constant question of what it means to be a girl throughout the novel. At first Scout resents being a girl, she tries everything in her power to stop Jem from ever saying she's like a girl. Then, it even gets discussed amongst family members on the way that Scout does not behave like a proper girl with her inappropriate language and lack of dress wearing. Through all these questions though, this actually makes the character of Atticus shine for me as well.

It's obvious that Atticus is not like other fathers, but this is what makes him so endearing. He isn't like the adults in Catcher in the Rye, even though it seems he is absent from Jem and Scouts life a lot. However, he is there whenever his children need him and it's his consistent and warming talks to his children that make him such a profound character. Plus, I love that fact that Atticus isn't like everyone else trying to fit Scout into this ideal girl, he just lets her test the waters out for herself and supports her the best way he can from drowning. Instead of resentment like Holden had for his parents, Jem and Scout admire their father in so many ways. Makes me wonder what Atticus's character is saying about women in the novel, but that's a thought for me to come back to.

Why kill To Kill a Mockingbird?

Reading To Kill a Mockingbird for the second time, what stood out to me the most so far is what a powerful and unique voice Scout has as the narrator. Her character and the novel itself are completely inseparable; the story it contains wouldn’t be the same coming from any other source. It made me wonder if the youth of the narrator plays a role in the censorship of this book. Though I don’t (yet) have any actual knowledge of the settings in which this book has been challenged and for what reasons, I would assume it has to do with the racial issues and the issue of rape. Though these topics are certainly sensitive ones, they are for the most part nothing that isn’t already discussed in the average high school history class. It seems to me that addressing them from Scout’s perspective might only make them even more suitable for a young audience: she is quite innocent for the most part and she is struggling to understand complicated issues without all the facts, since some aren’t considered appropriate for her to know. I wonder how someone who sought to censor To Kill a Mockingbird would respond to that fact. Unlike Holden, who though he is a young person, narrates the story in a manner that is in many ways older than his actual age, Scout almost always acts her age (though she is admittedly quite smart for that age). Again, I’m interested to know the specific reasons people try to censor this book and what their arguments are, because in my mind they’d be hard pressed to find many very convincing ones.

More Complex Issues

I know I read this book in junior high, and I think again in high school, but I am able to have much more appreciation for the book now than I did the first few times I read it. As I read it now, I am able to see all of the many different complex issues raised in this book. What is so wonderful about this book is that it is able to capture so many different aspects of life. I’ve always remembered the book in terms of the trial and the race issues, but there is so much more to it than that, and I am glad I am rereading it and seeing all that it has to offer. We get glimpses of ineffective education and illiteracy. We see complex relationships in terms of community, religion, race, and many other factors. It’s nice to pick up this book years later and take from it all that it has to offer.

One of the main issues that arises in the beginning of the book is the loss of innocence in Jem and Scout not only from growing up, but also from everything they have to endure and see in relation to the trial. We see Jem especially growing up and making connections that are still over Scout’s head. When Jem becomes distressed over Atticus giving the blanket back to the Radley’s many things come together at once. Jem is beginning to understand that Boo Radley is a victim of circumstance, whereas Scout still fears him. Jem is knows that Boo wants to be a part of life outside of his home, but in many ways he is a prisoner. Jem is deeply saddened when the tree gets cemented not because of his own loss, but because of the loss Boo is sure to feel. That was Boo’s way of feeling connected with people outside in the world, and it was taken away from him. It’s nice to see how Jem is able to pick up on all these issues relating to Boo and beginning to understand Boo in a very different way than when the book first began.

One Smart First Grader

Scout Finch may very well be the smartest first grader ever, and is most definitely (at least I feel comfortable asserting) the most intelligent, well written first grader to emerge from a rural town in southern Alabama. Throughout her narration of To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout continually presents her narrative at a level even the most accomplished writer strives for, even when her dialogue at times demonstrates her inability to construct a sentence with proper grammar. With this in mind, Harper Lee answers a question I have long struggled with in my own writing: How do you present a story via a first person narrator whose education in considerably limited, and reconcile this limitation with your need to present a narrative beyond the intellectual ability of your narrator? Lee seems to answer with a resounding, “Ignore the limitation.”

We’ve often talked about “trusting” or “not trusting” narrators throughout the semester, and with Scout in mind, I think Harper Lee proves that we most certainly can be too academic in our reading of novels. A real Scout simply cannot exist. No first grader, whether from rural southern Alabama or the most prestigious academy in France, can portray a narrative as intricate and compelling as Scout. Yet, we believe Scout despite her being perhaps the most unrealistic narrator of any text in this course.

So what lesson does Scout teach us? Should we criticize Lee for presenting us with such a farce of a narrator? I think not. Rather, it seems to me that as academics, sometimes we look to far into things. Sometimes it doesn’t matter how “reliable” a narrator is. Sometimes we care too much about what broader commentary an author might be trying to make. Sometimes we need to just sit back and enjoy the story.

(To be fair, at the end of this week’s reading Lee hints that this may be Scout’s memoir (101), and thus my argument here may be the farce, not Scout. This is my first time reading the book)

self-censored

I actually had an incident today in which censorship became an issue.

Strangely, I was the one wishing for more of it this time.

A group in directing proposed a piece that would contain live video footage of surgery. They had a picture. It was quite graphic. I asked what sort of disclaimer or warning would be given before the show so that people who can't watch graphic images could choose not to watch. She replied by saying there wouldn't be one.

I was appalled.

This is how I see it. Person A has a right to free speech ( as we all do). Person B doesn't want to hear/read what Person A has to say. Person B should not be allowed to silence Person A, HOWEVER Person A should not be allowed to force Person B to listen/read.

It bring this school censorship into perspective. I can see how parents would be truly worried about their children being exposed to something those children would not be comfortable with. And parents censoring is one thing but what if one child truly did not want to be exposed to something they found upsetting, could that child really stand against a school department? This may be a reason parents intervene.

We may not be able to relate to a child who refuses to read something like Giovanni's Room because homosexuality happens, but is making them read it really that different from making someone who feels faint at the sight of blood watch open heart surgery? I know what I said in my last blog - that if it happens in real life you should have to be exposed to it. However, now that I think about it, I know heart surgery happens (and there's nothing wrong with it, but I can't watch it without upsetting myself so I have a right not to.

Good, Bad, Neither or Both?

When I took a class on political philosophy my sophomore year, before we did any assigned readings, the professor gave us a worksheet of general questions to think about and respond to. The point of the assignment was to show us how to engage the future readings (Hobbes, Locke, Marx etc.) in a discussion of philosophy as opposed to a discussion of politics or some other medium. One of the questions was, "Do you think that people are inherently good, bad, both, or neither?" I answered like any good Ayn Rand scholar (although this was before I read Atlas Shrugged) that the answer has to be neither, primarily because to demand that human nature is constrained by anything, in either direction, is to make a mockery of free will. As rational beings, whether we are good or bad in a certain situation or just overall is defined by the choices we make, which we execute with our own free will.

In To Kill a Mockingbird, I think the reason that Atticus fights so hard to protect Jem and Scout is that he agrees that human nature is not inherently good or bad, but that over the course of life, it can be manipulated or taught to be one or the other. As kids, they just innocently believe that everyone is good. But the ensuing experiences involving racism in the community show that a lot of people are bad. It is of vital importance that Scout and Jem understand that people are neither good nor bad by nature, but can be either. People are either good or bad based on the choices they make, and have the capacity for both. Atticus wants his kids to be fully educated, fully informed, so that they can understand the good and the bad in the world, and then rationally choose to be good.

Are coming of age novels really written for kids?

For the most part, we have discussed censorship as it affects young people in the classrooms of America. And I would guess that many of us have been taught one or more of these texts, especially To Kill a Mockingbird, in grade school or high school. Additionally, almost all of these texts could fall under the category of bildungsroman, or the coming of age story. And while I certainly would not like to argue that any of these texts are inappropriate for young people, I do not believe that they were written explicitly for a young audience.

In To Kill a Mockingbird, we hear the story of Scout as she grows up and learns about race, poverty and class in Alabama in the 1930s. However, it is presented by Harper Lee as a memoir of sorts; Scout is looking back on the events of her childhood as an adult. Of course, this is a common voice to deliver a bildungsroman, one which allows the narrator to give a less biased impression of his or her own past. It also allows the narrator to include information that he or she did not understand at the time, but that the audience will be able to tease out of the text. But these various levels of understanding inherent in the text seem to target an adult audience rather than a young audience.

Additionally, it is not children who create the canon or decide what books they will be reading in class, but rather English professors and teachers. As we learned, Catcher in the Rye became popular first among the literary elite rather than teenagers and proceeded to trickle down into high school classrooms. I believe that the common line of thought is that books written from the point of view of a young person will connect far better with young people, allowing them to learn and grow with the characters. But if the books are written by adults for an adult audience, that does not necessarily have to hold true. For example, Catcher in the Rye is taught more frequently in the high school than Franny and Zooey, possibly just because Catcher stars a 16 year old boy rather than two people in their twenties. While I think that Mockingbird and Catcher do have their place in the classroom, I think that often the coming of age novel is taught to younger readers simply because of the age of the protagonist.