___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Our first book will be Monster by Walter Dean Myers and you need to begin reading it this week. 

Monster deals with the social and ethical ramifications of personal choice, identity conflict, judgement, guilt, responsibility, capability and culpability, peer pressure, profiling, race, cultural norms and prejudices, dehumanization, and the subjectivity of truth (to name just a few!). Additionally it furthers ongoing debates over upbringing versus environment and larger sociological concerns in the formation a person's character and value systems. 

The writing style of Monster is unique and you will find in the book a mix of a first-person diary and third-person screenplay. This might seem unusual at first or perhaps even a bit disjointing. Just keep reading and let the pieces come together instead of trying to work everything out from the very beginning. As you continue reading changes in voice and narration will begin to transition more naturally than they did at first. And of course feel free to think beyond the content of the story itself to how the style of the book affects and influences your reading. 

This is a challenging read emotionally and it will set us along the path for discussing many various themes related to cultural diversity and adolescent maturity.

Since you will need to refer to specific pieces of text when you post in the forums and when you take your quizzes, I highly, strongly, emphatically recommend that you take notes as you read. These notes should alert you to what is happening on specific pages. This may be as simple as jotting notes in the margins of the books or as complex as writing/typing notes as you read (with page numbers for reference). However you chose to do it this semester, you'll find that your notes will be lifesavers when you are trying to find a specific excerpt from a book to support your idea in the discussion forums/papers.  

Students find it extremely helpful to read the discussion forum questions before reading the text so that they can best prepare for the discussions, looking for answers and references along the way, instead of trying to search for them after the fact.

Below are some questions we will discuss next week on the discussion forum. Plan to have specific textual support and page numbers to backup your responses.

Looking ahead--------

* This is not a self-paced course, however I understand that folks might want to read ahead on occasion. To that end if you look under our second moodle box where our paper assignments and critical glossary assignment description is located you will also find a list of forum questions for the semester. I may alter some of these questions slightly in the forums but this is a good comprehensive list overall. These will help anyone take notes should you be reading ahead in any our books. :)

FORUM QUESTIONS  for Monster

1) What gender /or cultural norms, expectations, and prejudices do you see developing in this book and to what effect? 

2) Language, Style, and Narration: Talk about how your reading of the book went with the varying type of narration we see. We encounter a first-person account written in the style of a diary or journal, and we also see a third-person screen play form of narration.  Did you find that you moved seamlessly from one voice to another, or were you confused at times? We see also elements of a graphic novel in here with the inclusion of the occasional drawing, photograph, and margin "commentary". Did this alter your understanding and investment in the book thus far? 

3) Monster theme: Reflect on the moniker of Monster in this book. Why do you think Meyers picked this title? What does the term "monster" represent to various characters and how is it interpreted throughout the book? You might also discuss the role language plays in the dehumanization of certain characters.

4) Criminal Justice: We know our criminal justice system can be flawed. One would think that a major goal of the system would be to rehabilitate prisoners so that they can be productive members of society upon their release. Based on Steve Harmon's account, did you see evidence to show that the criminal justice system was working effectively? What faults did you see?

5) Racism:  Are you finding evidence of racism in this book? What do you notice? Point to specific passages and language that stands out to you.

6) Individualism & Identity Steve constantly struggles to distance himself from the environment he now lives in. His lawyer, O'Brien, stresses that she must make him look different from King in the eyes of the jury if he is to be acquitted. She says, "My job is to make sure the law works for you as well as against you, and to make you a human being in the eyes of the jury" (15). Back in prison he is made to mop corridors with four other guys:

Reflect on how Steve's feels his individualism and thus, his humanity, is slipping away from him. What larger pieces of himself do we see getting lost as he lives in a cell and is put on trial. What brings him back to who he is, or would you argue, that for most, if not the entirety of the book, he does not know that himself? 

7) Ending: Take some time to think about the ending of this book. I won't give any spoilers here, but be careful in your forum if you choose to read others post about the ending. Discuss your understanding of O'Brien's final moment with Steve. Why did she have the reaction she did and how did you make sense of it. Consequently how is Steve influenced by her reaction long after the trial?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Monster basic info:

Originally published: 1999

Author: Walter Dean Myers

Genres: Drama, Crime Fiction, Mystery

Awards: Michael L. Printz Award, Coretta Scott King Honor book, nominated for a National Book Award & is a New York Times Bestseller 

Pages: 281 

Reading/Grade Level: 9-12

Here's a link about Meyers' passing--

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/arts/walter-dean-myers-childrens-author-dies-at-76.html

Let's take a moment to begin our discussion of Monster with a look at the opening of the book, "The best time to cry is at night, when the lights are out and someone is being beaten and screaming for help. That way even if you sniffle a little they won't hear you. If anybody knows that you are crying, they'll start talking about it and soon it'll be your turn to get beat up when the lights go out." (1). From the beginning we get a strong appeal to pathos and a sense that our narrator is in an environment that he is deeply afraid of and fighting for survival in. He describes how in his cell the mirror is "scratched with the names of some guys who were here before me" (1). Why do you think these names were scratched there? In general we think of names scratched on desks, trees, or other notable spots as a call for some kind of permanence or immortality. Clearly though the inmates that surround Steve do not wish to remain where they are and fight against any permanence to their situation. Why write their names then? Do you believe it is simply to leave some trail of their existence? Something to recognize that they in fact were present there? Look above at our upcoming forum questions and as we continue reading and completing Monster explore these themes of individualism, identification, and how humans are, or are not, grouped together.

Moving along with this theme of individualism and identity, I want you also to consider how the phrase "having the heart" is used in this book. Often we think of having heart as representing courage or a strong persistent desire to accomplish something. Is that true when we hear characters like Osvaldo and King talk about having heart? How would you define or explain this phrase as it pertains to this story and our characters?

Another main concept we must address is the idea of ambiguity and the role the readers play in the storyline. As the readers, and thus the audience, do we become the jury? Or are we separated because we, unlike the jury, are given more of a backstory than they ever get? Be sure to read at the end of the book the Questions for Walter Dean Myers, His Own Story, On Passion for Writing, and Why Write for Young Adults. We'll tackle this further next week but I want you to be thinking about what role you are placed in as readers and what responsibility you are given, or afforded, in that role. What ownership, if any, are you given over the text? Finally what questions are left unanswered not just for the jury, but for us? What do we not know and why is not knowing relevant as we make our way through this reading? 

When/ or how is guilt/innocence determined or assigned in this story,--for the readers, for Steve, for the jury, for society at large? Steve's lawyer, Miss O'Brien, tells the jury: 

In a conversation with other inmates:

In a conversation between Steve and O'Brien:

Moreover how does Steve see himself? Does he view himself as innocent, or have conflicting thoughts? Equally important how do his mother, father, and Miss O'Brien view him? Is he innocent to them, guilty, a Monster, or in some gray area they cannot define? Look for passages with these individuals where Steve looks to others to see who he is to them, and perhaps consequently, the world.

Looking further into this idea of Harmon's guilt, culpability, or responsibility here is an excerpt from the Meyers interview I also posted in the Week 2 block. Please do go in and read the full (short) interview. Here in Meyers' own words is our author reflecting on Steve's guilt or innocence:

"Steve Harmon had every right to walk into the store, and every right to walk out again inasmuch as it was a public venue. In this highly technical sense there is no legal guilt involved. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most of the lawyers I consulted, the verdict was supportable. But, mentally by separating himself from the implications of his walk into the store on that day, he was walking the same slippery slope as the above mentioned murderer who claimed that the killings were the fault of the bank guards for their failure to do the logical thing under the circumstances, give up the money in exchange for their safety."

The concept of audience and ownership is deeply connected to the style of the book and they way the story is told, and thus, the narrator Steve's Harmon desire to have much of this story read like a screenplay. Harmon devotes himself to depicting this story as a screen play and comments on it frequently:

From the beginning we wonder what that something else might be, and as we read it becomes clear that the act of making a story out of his situation becomes a coping mechanism for Steve. He involves himself in his own story, and all of its various angles, and in doing so he ironically permits himself to distance himself at the same time. He becomes not just the main figure in the plot that is acted upon, but rather a director to some degree over the scenes he is present in. Is he doing this to give himself some sense of ownership over the situation? Is he doing this purely to manage his emotions or to tell what he feels is a closer version of the truth than is represented in the courtroom? 

What do you make of his writing his story out in this form? Moreover what do you make of Meyers' choice as a writer in juxtaposing Harmon's diary-like journaling with the cut and dry dialogue of the screen-play format? Look back over the forum comments this week that talk about style and think about how this format continues to guide or divert your reading. 

Let's take a moment here to look at a quote from Mr. Sawicki, the film teacher, to Steve about the act of screenwriting and telling an honest story that keeps your audience invested in the outcome. Consider this quote in the larger metaphor of Steve's story and how they are applicable to how his case is presented before the jury and how Meyers presents this narrative to us the readers.

Looking at a film and its ending in class---

Reading Notes Part 2

Monster Reading Notes p.151- end

When we left off we were deep in a conversation between Steve Harmon and James King about how "you don't have to be Einstein to get paid. All you have to have is the heart." King questions Steve wondering if he has the heart, and yet throughout the book we see evidence of exactly the opposite. It is Steve who has "heart" in a traditional sense of the word. Some students have mentioned how they see "heart" as monikered by King as meaning courage, or if not courage per say, an ability to follow through on your plans. Certainly King thinks of "heart" as a steadfastness or a firm resolution to act. Yet real courage of course evades King and perhaps Steve as well many of you may argue. If we think of "heart" as having empathy for others, some sense of compassion or humanity, we clearly see this more evident with Steve not just in how he reacts to looking at the murder pictures, but also how he is described as a film student and individual. He is affected deeply by the situation that surrounds him and shows a strong contrast to King's cool and disinterested character. Whether or not this act of King's is genuine or a forced facade we cannot quite know, and will likely not be able to figure out, to our satisfaction. We are here, in short, for Steve's development, and he is our lens into this story. We primarily see what he sees, and feel what he feels. As the trial continues (p.201, 215-216) O'Brien works to separate Steve from King as King's lawyer is working to link the two together. Think about the differences between these two characters and what to you seems to be the most significant contrast and similarity between them.

Back in prison Steve's environment becomes increasingly violent and also reflective at the same time. Steve writes, "The guy behind the steam table put a lot of food on my plate and gave me a smile. In here you don't smile back at people who smile at you, so I just walked away" (153).  Moments like these tell us quite a bit. First we get a larger sense of the emotional desolation that surrounds Steve. All emotion can be viewed as weakness and no weakness it seems goes unpunished. Is this a smile of simply reaching out or is in something darker? We see snippets of the violence and rape that are part of prison life and Steve briefly mentions certain subjects only to move quickly on as if the subject matter is too much for him to process himself. Conversely despite this ridged, terse, and violent environment, we also have conversations between Steve and other inmates that show if nothing else some desire to make sense of their situation, and even if they feel hopefulness in the face of it, by talking there is that movement towards contrasting feelings of understanding, empathy, contrition, resentment, and many other emotions. 

There is much in this environment that goes unsaid, and yet at the same time, these conversations do crop up. Like everyone else this is an environment where the characters still want their stories told, craving some kind of hearing in any form. In terms of the violence Steve says, "I think I finally understand why there are so many fights. In here all you have going for you is the little surface stuff, how people look at you and what they say. And if that's all you have, then you have to protect that" (155).

Let’s take a moment to look at one revealing passage. The inmates are talking about being in the system, it not being the time “to get all holy”, and this larger notion of the truth:

Inmate 1: “ What’s the truth? Anybody in here knows what the truth is? I don’t know what the truth is! Only truth I know is I don’t want to be in here with you ugly dudes.”

Steve: “Truth is truth. It’s what you know to be right.”

Inmate 2: “Nah! Truth is something you gave up when you were out there on the street. Now you are talking survival. You talking about another chance to breathe some air 5 other guys ain’t breathing” (222).

A larger theme is Meyers book is the subjectivity of truth or the lack of a clearly defined truth. There are so many unknowns in here. Reflect on what you think the “truth” of Steve’s situation is? Based on Steve’s view and definition of truth, what do we learn about Steve as a person? Also why and when does truth become subservient to survival, and is this escapable, for any of us, at some point in our lives?

Steve's relationship with his family becomes increasingly distant and also emotional. He writes of his mother looking at him and it was as if "she was mourning me as if I were dead" (158). What did you think of this moment and what kind of future it predicted for Steve? Can anything ever be the same for him again? At this moment we do not yet know whether Steve will be found innocent or guilty, perhaps as readers we are not even sure of his innocence or guilt. Meyers intentionally wants us to make up our minds about Steve before he reveals too much to us. But what is dead in Steve? Is it his future, is it his innocence, is it his naivety? What has left him never to return? And has something more powerful and perhaps ultimately more useful filled Steve instead? What do you think? Why or why not?

In our Week 2 notes we are looking at the "movie" Steve was making in his head about his experiences. We talk about this screenplay serving as that something more or something else Steve needs to focus his energies on in order to distance himself from his situation. If he looks at this from the angle of a writer, a director, or a storyteller of some form,  he can persuade himself that he holds some bit of power in how the story is told, if not the actual outcome. The screenplay becomes a huge focus for him and a large part of his reality, "I looked over the movie again. I need it more and more. The movie is more real in so many ways than the life I am leading. No that's not true. I just desperately wish this was only a movie" (159).

Flashbacks to the film class Steve took with Mr. Sawicki serve not only to show us a glimpse of Steve's past and inner life, but also work to develop the almost fatherly relationship Steve has with his mentor and teacher Mr. Sawicki. And of course these flashbacks always leave us with a piece of advice from Mr. Sawicki that is applicable to Steve's current situation in how the jury is going to see him and make sense of him. In class Sawicki says:

"There are a lot of things you can do with film, but you don't have unlimited access to your audience. In other words, keep in simple. You tell the story; you don't look for the camera technician to tell the story for you. When you see a filmmaker getting too fancy, you can bet he's worried either about his story or his ability to tell it" (214).

It is Mr. Sawicki who does a lot of the work for us in revealing who Steve is to us. It is not just his testimony that helps us create a sense of Steve in the jury’s eyes. Rather by seeing Steve reflect on Mr. Sawicki’s notes in film class we see Steve as someone who is reflective, contemplative, interested in how a story is told and to what effect, and someone capable or looking at the larger world philosophically. In describing Steve and his character to the jury, Mr. Sawicki says, “It is my belief that to make an honest film, one has to be an honest person. I would say that. And I do believe in Steve’s honesty” (237). After hearing this were your views of Steve changed, reinforced, or something else entirely? How much stock do you think the jury puts in Sawicki's assertions? And perhaps more importantly we have to think about how we view Mr. Sawicki's opinions, or how the jury might view them, from a point of privilege. Who is Mr. Sawicki? What do we know about him? What is his role in society? What can we infer about his background if any? What authority is his voice granted and why? Finally is there anything traditional, predictable, limited, or problematic about Mr. Sawicki serving as a channel or conduit through which Steve is "humanized". 

We have spent the majority of our time looking at Steve's journaling and how the dialogue and the third-person screenplay portion is arranged. But also important are the few images that we see in the book. Take some time to look over these again and note what stands out to you. Look in particular at the image on p.198. What do you make of this picture? How could you analyze the portrayal there and its larger significance?

In the final testimonies the defense and the prosecution talked a great deal about evidence and proof. Steve’s lawyer O’Brien, notably argues, “I have faith in you, and faith in the American judicial system. And that faith leads me to believe that justice in this case demands more proof than you have seen in this case” (243). What did you make of the final testimonies and the ultimate verdict? I’ll be careful not to give any spoilers away here, but I want you to analyze your reactions at the end of the novel. Were you surprised by the outcome? Did it feel like the right verdict for you for all involved? Do you think the verdict speaks towards our society and judicial system accurately? And finally what does O’Brien see when she looks at Steve after it is read? Why does this last scene seem to represent something so significant and yet so uninterruptable at the same time?

Conclusions: What sense in this book to you get that Steve's ruling is already determined from the beginning of the book? Did you feel that way or did you feel that there was a sense that anything could happen? Consider the language that is used around Steve and how he is often warned that so much is stacked against him, much of which is not under his control. Do you believe it is fair to say that the story presented to us shows a criminal justice system that is geared to suppose "guilty until proven innocent" or the reverse? What were your views about justice, truth, the subjectivity of truth, and the use of evidence or proof in this trial? Here is one early passages to stir your thoughts in that direction:

Folks here is a quick article for you to look over in addition to your critical reading. Give it a quick skim--

New Crop of Young Adult Novels Explores Race and Police Brutality

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/books/review/black-lives-matter-teenage-books.html