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.