Instructor Forum Response for Monster

Hi everyone! I have been looking through your forums and so far have been impressed with the depth and quality of feedback. It looks like most of you are right on track. I will be rating these in Week 3.

During Week 2’s forum (our first real discussion forum) I appreciate seeing folks beginning to engage with each other. So many of my students often when talking about the language and overall style of our first book note a bit of confusion reading and making sense of it initially, but found they got into the hang of it and found it read quickly. I am glad that, even if this style turns out to be not a particular favorite, that it will give you something to think about in terms of the overall structure of creative literature today. Often we think about how point-of-view and diction shape fiction and nonfiction; but looking at mixing genres and playing with style in unconventional ways can also be effective and enlightening at times. We’ll read another book later with a few graphic novel elements that we can compare and contrast with Meyers’ work.

Looking at how Monster begins there are thoughtful responses highlighting Harmon’s obsession with the moniker of Monster and how Meyers at various times leads the reader to feel both suspicious of Harmon’s recounting of the story and at other times sympathetic and concerned for him. 

I have noted at times many discussions looking at whether or not we find Steve guilty; however sometimes folks seemed to focus on this a little less and more on how and when judgment occurs. It certainly is important to take some time looking at how Steve was judged and potentially why, as you also pause thinking about what your own judgments would be. As you have finished this reading my now you’ve most likely noted how Meyers certainly does make so much of Steve’s exact story-line ambiguous and as important conversations between Steve and James King are notably vague we have to fill in the blanks as best we can with what information we are given from Steve.

I am always pleased to see any notes about the irony of justice as described by the prosecutor, Petrocelli, when talking about how our jury system works. There are notable ironies that are important to recognize and comment on.

I love too to see when folks make use of specific page numbers and quotes in their citations and paraphrased passages. This is excellent specific work. Please continue to keep focusing on page numbers and supporting quotes.

As we continue these conversations I want you all to feel comfortable enough with each other to disagree at times or discuss why they drew different conclusions. In many cases there is not a set correct answer and often ambiguities abound when we think about why we interpret and respond to books in the ways that we do.

One important tip I need to give folks is that it can take me a while to read through and process your responses. As you all know they are each worth 25 points per post, for a total of 50 points available for the two posts you complete each week. If you find yourself with a low score 20-25 points and you completed both questions thoroughly, you likely just need to hang tight. Changes are I may not have moved down to read your second post. If that score stays unexpectedly low, contact me. It is possible on very rare occasions I may miss a post so let me know is something seems off. And of course as we are underway in the semester I will be sticking to our weekly timeline as well. This means that posts made after the deadline will often not be counted as Moodle does not let me rate posts after a due date without my changing the settings for the entire forum.

If questions do arise about your score please email me with a question.

Jumping into looking at some forum commentary I want to draw everyone’s attention to a previous student Meri’s post (from last spring) which talks about how Meyers' book could potentially be reinforcing stereotypes about young black men. This was a particularly provocative point because reading Meyers’ commentary (end-of-book) we know he wants to challenge our thinking about race, racial stereotypes, and prejudices. Yet Meri makes us wonder about the other side of the coin here in the presentation.  She says provocatively:

“While I appreciate the different writing style of Monster and it proved to be an enjoyable read, in my opinion it reinforced the stereotype of young black men who are not born well off. Many teens struggle with many different issues and off all the ones Walter Myers could tackle, he chose the typical desire and expectation to be in the “hood” and participate in crime which society tends to illustrate as the cultural norm for young black men” (Meri).

This point made me think about familiar (or expected) narratives and how they serve and perhaps sometimes do not serve our culture and certain communities. Did Meyers in his attempt to make us see the widespread use of racial stereotypes create a narrative/plotline that played into other existing stereotypes? By exposing how others judge Steve, is Meyers in fact placing Steve in a position that we have seen such characters being placed in time and time again? What would you argue there? Would the contrasting argument that familiar or otherwise these are still stories that desperately need attention and thought from a large diverse audience? 

In previous semesters students have also noted how Steve is disillusioned by his experience and forced to become a “player” in the world. By player they meant a participant, someone with a role. Perhaps by discovering (or considering) our own potential capacity to be classified as a monster ourselves, we are not discovering that we are inherently flawed, instead we are discovering our own humanity and the ownership we practice over our lives.

When we think about additional information that we should consider when evaluating the criminal justice system through this novel there are a few points students have conceded: Steve at times can be a slightly unreliable narrator to some degree for a variety of reasons including his youth, his possible involvement, and the lens from which he views his situation. Additionally we cannot entirely judge a system based off of one narrator. Finally this is a fictional novel that was written in 1999. These are all qualifiers that we must take into account when we think about how this novel speaks about our society and culture at large.

However by taking them into account we have an entirely new set of questions. If something is written over a decade ago how much should we let that date influence our reading? Does it disqualify certain information or portrayals; is it a starting point, or something else? 

Indeed how we analyze a book or text depends greatly on the content itself when evaluating the relevance of the date. Of course we cannot let an older book completely determine how we make statements about what is happening “now”, though certainly it can greatly inform us about the past. 

That said, if one were currently looking into prison conditions present day and the treatment of inmates one would find much research that argues that we are still dealing with the same larger issues that we were in 1999: mistreatment of prisoners occurs repeatedly, prisoners abuse and victimize each other, elements of race and prejudice are still very much an ongoing issue inside the prison and in our larger society as whole. Look at popular public search engines and one constantly will see issues emerging about what “justice” is exactly, and what degree prejudice (race or otherwise) plays into our judiciary system. We have a national climate that is torn, angered, saddened, divided, and exhausted with fighting about these issues. 

The message I am driving at here is even if this book was written a while ago questions of, “does race influence how you are treated in our legal system”, “does mistreatment occur of those that have been arrested or are incarcerated”, and “do we judge others prematurely based on cultural determiners that we may not even be fully conscious of” are still incredibly relevant today, if not even more so than when this book was written. 

We are having culture wars over these questions, citizens are protesting and taking the streets, our social media has exploded with hashtags about these issues, and many argue that nothing has changed. So yes while Meyers’ book cannot speak to the justice system as a whole, nor can it through its portrayal of one individual completely represent a larger group of individuals, it can speak to these issues and allow us to consider the many various angles that come into play. It can provoke, inform, and challenge us: all good and necessary things. 

Another question that arose is about fiction and nonfiction as genres not necessarily to be compared. When we think about this novel being a work of fiction, compared to Leyson’s book which was a nonfiction memoir, I wonder if that changed what for you as readers was the “truth” of the story. We might have a tendency to invest our trust more concretely in a nonfiction text, especially if we find the nonfiction writer to be reliable and informed. That said, fiction (especially prominent works included the canon of great literature) does teach us about the greater world, the history from which we have emerged, and it allow us to understand other cultures, other individuals, other time periods more than we could by just reading only nonfiction. 

I do not have a short answer as a grapple with this concept of, do we distrust fiction, or feel a little more wary of its “truth”, than we would a memoir. But my gut answer is that fiction has just as much to offer us in way of “truth” as does nonfiction. This is because of so many reasons that we cannot fully evaluate here about the place from which fiction emerges for each writer and from the context of each rhetorical situation that creates a work of fiction. The questioning of what fiction can and cannot speak to is fraught with complications, contradictions, and hundreds of sub questions that would apply to particular texts. I’ll stop here before I get carried away ruminating on this subject. Suffice it to say though, these are essential questions to reflect on as when consider how we evaluate literature and the writers/narrators that we find, or not find, credible. I’m glad folks are thinking along these lines and tackling some of these harder issues.

I want to make a moment too to address how perplexing Meyers’ text can be at times. We know from reading his comments at the end of the novel that Meyers deliberately left Steve’s role in the stick-up to be vague. We question repeatedly what exactly Steve did or did not agree to. Take a look again at the conversation between King and Steve (interestingly one is labeled by his last name here and the other his first). 

On p.150-151:

King: “All we need is a lookout. You know, check the place out- make sure ain’t no badges copping some z’s in the back. You down for it?”

Cut to: CU of Steve looking away.

Cut to: CU of King

“So what is it?"

This phrase is repeated as the camera moves farther and father away, growing louder and louder as Steve and King become tiny figures in the bustling mosaic of Harlem.  

Many students argue for Steve’s guilt or Steve’s innocence. O’Brien notably stresses that “justice demands proof”. Petrocelli insists, “Steve Harmon was part of the plan that caused the death of Alguinaldo Nesbitt” (261).

Here is the question we must ask: when was it proven that Steve was part of the plan? We are reading from the vantage point of both the jury and those inside Steve’s head. We cannot let our personal knowledge as readers who are intimate with Steve’s thoughts shape how we view the jury’s decision.

Many readers argue that the jury verdict seems fair, as there was not specific concrete proof for the jury that he was part of the plan. How much should we, can we infer, when talking about convicting someone? It’s a very tricky question and Steve does not help us, as he does not share that most important detail: his response to King. But through his own personal chronicling we are privy to statements like the following:

“What did I do? Anybody can walk into a drugstore and look around. Is that what I am on trial for, I didn’t do nothing. I didn’t do nothing. But everybody is just messed up with the pain. I didn’t fight with Mr. Nesbitt. I didn’t take any money from him” (115).

“The pictures of Mr. Nesbitt scare me. I think about him lying there knowing he was going to die. I wonder if it hurt much. I can see me at that moment, just when Mr. Nesbitt knew he was going to die, walking down the street trying to make my mind a blank screen” (128).

“I lay down across my cot. I could still feel Mama’s pain. And I knew she felt that I didn’t do anything wrong. It was me who wasn’t sure. It was me who lay on the cot wondering if I was fooling myself” (147).

“I think about December of last year. What was the decision I made? To walk down the streets? To get up in the morning? To talk to King? What decisions did I make? What decisions didn’t I make?” (270).

 

If we are the jury we do not know Steve’s thoughts. But we have to ask what is proven to the court? Is it enough that Bobo identifies him as “the man from whom you got the sign that everything was all right” (178)? Bobo states, “He was supposed to tell us if there was anybody in the drugstore. He didn’t say nothing so we figured it was all right” (182).

What we are left with is what we infer, what we fill the lines in with, and what conclusions we believe we can accurately draw based off of what we are given. Ambiguous lines do come up and make us wonder how much we can trust Steve and his narration, especially as he often doubts himself. As readers we might likely tell ourselves that this guilt he privately struggles with must connect him to a role in the crime. Meyers in his interview refers to Steve’s guilt or innocence as something that readers were “bothered by his possible role”. 

We are left with this fact: there is much that we cannot know for sure, not conclusively. Thus if we are finding Steve guilty or conversely Steve innocent we have to ask ourselves what concrete information or lack thereof led us to that conclusion. Was it Boho’s testimony? Was it Steve telling us (as readers) that he walked into the drugstore and “looked around”. Is that enough?  For some readers it is, for others it is not. If we are the jury and we are looking at Steve’s role how much emphasis can we place on Boho’s testimony? One student provocatively highlights this quote, “we saw in the case of Bobo Evans, ‘As a matter of fact, your deal depends on your admitting you were there, doesn't it, Mr. Evans?’ (194). This statement brings about another issue, for his deal depending admittance that he was at the crime scene opens the door for false information. He may have not even been there at all, but in order for him to lessen his stay in prison you can bet that he is going to fabricate some story and say that he was.”  In short how we arrive at our conclusions is complicated and how we respond to the jury verdict is even more complex.  

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

We’re going to be reading a very thought-provoking piece on this issue by Kara Brown in particular in regard to the presence of highly lauded award winning movies that featured a primarily black community in the roles of slaves or domestics. Brown stresses that while these stories do have great importance, she is tired of these stories being the only ones about her community that seem to be told, or rather seem to win attention and recognition. Her article, "I'm So Damn Tired of Slave Movies" is an informative thoughtful one. It is also a piece that makes me think about how in our reading of books that challenge prejudices and cultural misrepresentation we may find that in attempting to dispel certain stereotypes, other stereotypes are still created. Read her piece on the link below:

http://jezebel.com/im-so-damn-tired-of-slave-movies-1755250873 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LET'S LOOK AT A VARIETY OF STUDENT SAMPLES

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

 

From Stevie:

Prejudice and racism have been alive for a very long time. Honestly, that's just how the world is. It seems that America tries to end racism and it fails each time. History really does repeat itself. There is racism against all of us. Each of us have our own prejudices against us, and yet, we still seem to have racism in our country. Monster, by Walter Dean Meyers, is obviously about racial prejudice in many ways. The main character, Steve Harmon, is African American, and many assumptions are made about him. " Half of those jurors, no matter what they said when we questioned them when we picked the jury, believed you were guilty the moment they laid eyes on you. You're young, you're black, and you're on trial" (78-79). Steve and the other characters being black does have affect on this story. The jury immediatly judges them based on their race and how they look. They assumed they were guilty the when they seen that they were black. People think differently when there are different races involved in a case, they feel African-Americans are more to blame then other races. Although, I do not believe that race is the main focus of the book, but it is very imortant and does have an effect on the trial.

The book is more focused on Steve and his journey through the trial. It is more about how it affects him and his view on his life and family. I think that the book will focus more on steve and what he went through with his experience on the trial. There are a few racial references, but the book seems to mainly focus on his life and family. He had so much time to think about life while he was sitting with his fellow inmates. That's all they really can do. When Steve's dad came to visit, he said, "She's [Steve's Mom] struggling. It's hard on all of us. I know it's hard on you" (112). Seeing his father cry made him hurt even more. It would be difficult to be in that situation, knowing that you did nothing wrong. It would the people who are close to you more than it would hurt yourself. His mom has always been cheering him on. "No matter what anybody says, I know you're innocent, and I love you very much" (33). His mother will always on be on his side, and support him.

Gender is also important in this book. One of the reasons Steve is found guilty is because he is a young male. There is a double standard between males and females. If Steve were a girl, it would be less likely that he would be found guilty of murder. Sexism is also a form of prejudice and discrimination. Even though there are many ways that one can look at the characters in this book, the most important part of how Steve is seen is how he sees himself. He sees himself as a monster because of what he is on trial for. Steve hates the way others look at him. He is continuously battling other people's perceptions of himself when trying to keep his goodness in mind. I am really interested in how he Steve will continue to look at himself. He knows he is a good person with good morals, but other people's thoughts can change the way you look at yourself.

 

From Autumn:

A culture norm that stands out to me in the book is in the attitudes towards murders that the people within the neighborhood of Harlem have. Much like one resident pointed out to a newscaster “I ain’t shocked. People getting killed and everything and it ain’t right but I ain’t shocked none.” (pg. 121) This shows that one of the cultural norms for this society is murders themselves, they happen so often that the people in the community are no longer as effected by it, in fact they have grown accustomed to it. This is important because it ends up effecting the mayor’s determination in stopping crimes within the areas of the city.

A prejudice that is present within this book is one that is the more important issue present in the story and that is the prejudice against Steve not being seen as anything but guilty simply because of how he looks and who he is. It is simply stated as such by O’Brien as she was sitting with Steve in the waiting room, “Half of those jurors-believed you were guilty the moment they laid eyes on you. You’re young, you’re Black, and you’re on trial. What else do they need to know?” (pg. 78) This is a heavy weight that begins to rest on Steve’s shoulders and one I believe follows him making it hard for him to find hope in his trials. Included in this same type of mental judgment of people is the reoccurring statement that is made about Steve being no different than the other men on stand. For instance, as Steve noted in his journal “I think they are bringing out all of these people and letting them look terrible on the stand and sound terrible and then reminding the jury that they don’t look any different from me and King.” (pg. 60) This reveals that even Steve knows that it is all a question of whether or not the jury will see him as a bad guy same as everyone else or not. This is a very important subject that follows and begins to develop more in the story as the trial continues, even being stated a number of times as the reason things begin to look worse for Steve.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

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? 

 

From Anonymous:

In his book Monster, Myers presents the various characters and/or narration using different colloquialisms, type settings, fonts, and  sentence structures.  This variety of styles aids readers in following the story throughout the frequent switches in narration.  The text of adults/people in authority is similar to Times New Roman and the sentences use a more correct version of English containing a wider vocabulary than the younger people/prisoners.  This is very evident in the statements made by the lawyers during the trial.  Briggs emphasized this in her opening statement: “Miss Petrocelli, representing the State, has presented this case in very broad and grandiose terms.” (27)  Steve and his peers speak in a much less formal manner and often use slang as seen in this interaction between Steve, Osvaldo, and Freddy:  “You better chill; he hangs with some bad dudes.” (81)  Steve’s parents use language in a more middle American way saying things like, “Do you think I should have got a Black lawyer?” (146) which is not necessarily proper English but certainly accepted by much of the population. 

Myers uses the first person narration of Steve’s journal entries as a way for the reader to understand Steve’s fears and emotions and see him as real person.  Steve uses the journal to describe and adjust to the surreal world in which he finds himself but more importantly to put in writing what would be dangerous to allow himself to say or show amongst the other prisoners.  “I hate this place.  I hate this place. I can’t write it enough times to make it look the way I feel.  I hate, hate, hate this place!” (46)  The journal is also a place for Steve to process his emotions and view of himself:  “I lay down across my cot. I could still feel Mama’s pain.  And I know she felt that I didn’t do anything wrong.  It was me who wasn’t sure.  It was me who lay on the cot wondering if I was fooling myself.” (148)

But for all the processing Steve needs to do in his journal, it is important for him to be able to distance himself from what is really happening.  He uses the movie screenplay as a third person narrative to accomplish this.  “I think to get used to this I will have to give up what I think is real and take up something else.  I wish I could make sense of it.  Maybe I could make my own movie…The film will be the story of my life.  No, not my life, but of this experience.” (4) Mr. Sawicki, his film teacher, points out that “When you make a film, you leave an impression on the viewers, who serve as a kind of jury for your film. If you make your film predictable, they’ll make up their minds about it long before it’s over.” (19)  Not only is this a connection to a class and teacher that Steve enjoyed, but also a correlation between life and art in that both will have a jury which decides the fate of the piece/life.  The movie will be judged by its viewers and Steve will be judged by not only the jury but also the reader.  Steve tries to make his movie as unpredictable as he finds the trial to be.

Although Myers uses some style elements of a graphic novel in this work, I find it mostly unnecessary and sometimes even intrudes upon my reading and perceptions.  This may  partially be what he is trying to do with the photo drawings - force the reader to avoid making assumptions. The graphic that I found most powerful was when Steve was writing “monster” in his notebook and O’Brien crossed out the word and then told Steve that “you have to believe in yourself if we’re going to convince a jury that you’re innocent.” (24) 

The allusion to the civil rights movement in O’Brien’s opening argument is quite ironic in its use during this trial of a young black male.  In the “American system of justice.  We don’t drag people out of their beds in the middle of the night and lynch them.  We don’t torture people.  We don’t beat them.  We apply the law equally to both sides.  The law that protects society protects all of society.” (26)  It becomes even more poignant after hearing the guard’s opinion that the case will last “Six days - maybe seven.  It’s a motion case.  They go through the motions; then they lock them up.” (14)

Myers uses repetition in language to emphasize and foreshadow important themes in his novel Monster.  In Prosecutor Petrocelli’s opening argument, she says “A citizen of our city, a citizen of our state and country, has been killed… Most people in our community are decent, hardworking citizens who ….”  By repeating the word ‘citizen,’ she contrasts upright citizens with “monsters” who “disregard the rights of others.”(21) This term is used again by Bolden when he testifies “I just wanted to do the right thing.  You know, like a good citizen.” (55)    All this while Steve is trying to “seem like a real person” (60) and “feel like a good person” (62) because he’s “a human being.” (76)  The emphasis on ‘citizens’ contrasted with ‘monster’ leads to a sense of ‘other’ that creates a separation between Steve and the jury and the reader. Later, Myers repeatedly uses the word “mistake” which may be a foreshadow of things to come in the second half of the book. O’Brien first introduces the word in a conversation with Steve where she explains “Our job is to show that she’s not lying, but she’s simply made a mistake.” (79) The term is used again in O’Brien’s examination of Osvaldo.  O’Brien: “It wouldn’t be right to lie under oath but it would be just fine to go into a drugstore and stick it up?  That’s cool isn’t it?  Osvaldo: That was a mistake.” (105)  Osvaldo uses the mistake argument again when he states “I made a mistake and now I figure it’s about time I did the right thing.” (107)

I am enjoying this novel and the social inequalities it presents.  I do not find the style of writing confusing. Although Myers, through Steve, has worked to make the story unpredictable, through what I have read so far, I imagine that Steve will be found innocent.  Will he understand that the “mistake” he made was not scoping out the store but trying to be something he was not to impress his peers.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Monster- 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.

 

From Kathryn:

The moniker of Monster is used throughout the book to emphasize the dehumanization that Steve Harmon experiences throughout the course of his trial. The racism, predetermined thoughts, opinions, and stereotypes of those around him constantly bring him back to this image he has of himself as a monster. Meyers emphasizes this by choosing the moniker as the title of the book because the ordeal of Steve’s trial truly makes him feel as though he is a monster in the eyes of those around him, even those closest to him. It also emphasizes the importance of that image in determining how Steve views himself, and the idea of what he may become depending on the outcome of the trial. 

Even within Steve’s first diary entry, it is clear that the environment in which he finds himself trapped while attending his trial is suffocating, surreal, and all consuming. He writes, “I think to get used to this I will have to give up what I think is real and take up something else.” (4) Just the environment of his cell and the inmates around him has made Steve feel dehumanized, something other than himself. He continues, “The film will be the story of my life. No, not my life, but of this experience… I’ll call it what the lady who is the prosecutor called me; monster.” (5) Steve identifies as a monster because he is shunned, trapped, confused, and labeled. Throughout his account of his own trial he constantly questions his previously assumed identity, morals, and values. At times the trial itself and the judgments of those around him cause Steve to feel as though he is a monster. 

Often the language used by others makes Steve identify as a monster. In the prosecutor’s original statement to the jury she proclaims, “There are also monsters in our communities-people who are willing to steal and kill.”(21) From the start of the trial Steve is labeled as a monster, the first words the jury hears include the moniker, which emphasizes the author’s point in highlighting the word as important to Steve’s understanding of himself and of the trial. While he watches the trial unfold, this is the label he has for himself and the other defendants through which to view the events and outcome.  He reflects in his diary, “It’s funny when I’m sitting in the courtroom, I don’t feel like I’m involved in the case…I don’t have a role. It’s only when I go back to the cells that I know I’m involved.” (59) The trial itself, and the rhetoric of those players involved in the trial affect Steve on the outside, but being locked up is what causes him to truly understand his role; to identify as a monster. He feels a forced camaraderie with the other inmates due primarily to circumstance. Another inmate tells Steve, “he liked the name of the screenplay. He said when he gets out; he will have the word monster tattooed on his forehead. I feel like I already have it tattooed on mine.” (61) Being grouped with the other inmates through the words of the lawyers and judge during the trial makes Steve feel as if he has already been sentenced. 

Throughout the novel it is clear that the reactions of those around him cause Steve to feel like a monster. The various characters Steve associates with contribute to the image he has for himself as a monster. Besides the initial language used by the prosecutor and continued throughout the trial, he feels the reactions of other characters and internalizes their fear, hate, and misunderstanding as further proof of the monster with whom he begins to identify.  The hesitation he feels from his lawyer, the perceptions of society, and even the grief he causes his family place a large burden on Steve. He feels the pressure of society and the doubts of his lawyer when she tells him, “You’re young, you’re Black, and you’re on trial. What else do they need to know?”(79) When his father comes to visit him in jail, Steve writes, “It’s like a man looking down to see his son and seeing a monster instead.” (116) The reality of the trial, its environment, and his own identity crises is all consuming to Steve. Even when his mother, convinced of his innocence, visits him in jail Steve writes, “I knew she felt I didn’t do anything wrong. It was me who wasn’t sure. It was me lying on the cot wondering if I was fooling myself.”(148) This is a turning point in the book, when the real conflict becomes internal. Steve is up against institutional racism, injustice, and inconvenient circumstances. He has been labeled by the court, and society as a monster, but the true battle that he must face is deciding whether or not he will become what society has named him. He must find a way to understand that he is not a monster."

    

From Hannah:

“I think Meyers picked the title Monster to show how deeply the way people see someone can really affect that person, especially when they are in a vulnerable place, and how easy it is to label someone without really knowing exactly what has happened in their life. This shows in how Steve refers to himself as monster and wants to pass that title on to his movie because that's what the prosecutor called him. To me it's like in some ways he is so lost and defeated already that he takes on monster because he doesn't feel like he has anything else. For example, about half way through the reading he says, "Sunset said he liked the name of the screen play. He said when he gets out; he will have the word Monster tattooed on his forehead. I feel like I already have it tattooed on mine." (60-61) I can hear how defeated he already feels. Like that's how everyone must see him and he is never going to be able to wash it away. Later, after a visit with his mother, Steve goes on to say, "I knew she felt that I didn't do anything wrong. It was me who wasn't sure. It was me who lay on the cot wondering if I was fooling myself." (148) I think those quotes in particular also show the dehumanizing effects of negative language on Steve and the other inmates. They are starting to take on the label of monster instead of their own names. Even when Steve's mother assures him that she still believes in him and knows he is innocent he questions it. I think to Steve Monster represents everything he doesn't want to be, can hardly believe that he is, and yet can't seem to get away from. I think it is the same for many of the other inmates except some have taken it to an even deeper level and really embrace it. I think to Steve's attorney and the prosecutor monster is just an image that can sway a judge and jury. The prosecutor wants to bring that image to the front of everyone's mind at the same time as Steve and other criminals so that they seem inseparable while Steve's attorney wants to tear down that image and leave them with one of Steve as an innocent young kid that was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Overall I think Monster is a thought provoking title for a book about an inmate on trial for murder because it is from the inmate’s perspective. That title would have been more expected on a book with an outsiders take on a murderer but in choosing it for a book written from this perspective I think Meyers really did a good job of engaging the readers with everything that Monster represents and some of the major flaws in our criminal justice system. It's hard to believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty when the first way they are presented to you is as a monster.”

 

From Tara:

 “Throughout the entire trial the whole point was to humanize Harmon as if he wasn’t human. I think that is another reason for the name of the book, because half of the book was spent trying to prove that he wasn’t a monster but just a human kid who didn’t make the best choices. While Harmon was incarcerated he mentioned a conversation with an inmate were he said he was going to get the word monster tattooed on his forehead and Harmon’s response was he already felt like he had. I think that the second someone goes to jail the word monster is with them always. That’s not always fair, some crimes deserve it. Rapists and murders deserve it but some people in jail made a simple mistake that cost them their life. When you go to jail you not only lose your life but it’s like your identity goes with it. You’re no longer the person you were but just an inmate. “I wanted to open my shirt and tell her to look into my heart to see who I really was, who the real Steve Harmon was.”(92) Everyone including his attorney looked at him for what he looked like and who he hung out with, that weren’t really looking at him. Throughout this book everyone who looked at him looked at him like he was guilty already. That I think is the true meaning of this book. That the second someone deems you a monster it’s who you are and the more people who call you a monster the more you believe it yourself. Even at the end of the book when Harmon is released after a not guilty verdict he still sees the change in their eyes. In the way his attorney turns away from him or the way his father distances himself from him. It’s because once he was a monster to them they’ll never see him another way.”

 

From Jessica:

“I used to hate reading/replying to forum posts, but now I enjoy them because it gives me a better understanding and perspective of our readings. As I was reading your post, I was about to ask the question if you think that the other prisoners almost embraced having the title of “Monster?” You kind of answered it when you said, “They are starting to take on the label of monster instead of their own names.” With that said, do you think the other inmates like to be seen as violent criminals, also known as “Monsters”? I almost feel as if the other inmates are striving for that label. Like there is nothing left of them, besides being known as a bad person, so why not embrace it. I really felt this way as I was getting to the end of our first week of readings when Steve says, “Violence in here is always happening or just about ready to happen. I think these guys like it—they want it to be normal because that’s what they’re used to dealing with” (144). To me, Steve also seems to be drowning in emotions. He wants to show everyone that he didn’t kill Mr. Nesbitt, but he’s also feeling like he’s falling into the trap of the label “Monster”, “everybody in here either talks about sex or hurting somebody or what they’re in here for. That’s all they think about and that’s what’s on my mind, too. What did I do? I walked into a drug store to look for some mints, and then I walked out. What was wrong with that? I didn’t kill Mr. Nesbit” (139-140). Steve is having the same thoughts of people who were convicted of crimes, yet he didn’t do anything. I can’t imagine the mental toll this would take on any individual. What are your thoughts?”

 

From Meri:

“I appreciate your insight when saying, “I think Meyers picked the title Monster to show how deeply the way people see someone can really affect that person, especially when they are in a vulnerable place.” This is so true and I really think it ties in with the adolescence theme of discovering oneself. A lot of times when we are unsure of who we are or what we stand for, or are attempting to develop these values and beliefs, we tend to identify with what other people think of us, often times allowing their opinion to define us. I also like how you said in regards to the other inmates, “They are starting to take on the label of monster instead of their own names.” This must especially ring true for anyone who doesn’t know themselves, particularly Steve whom is still developing into the man he’s going to be. Living in a place where you are treated as a criminal regardless of your guilt, and being viewed as a monster day in and day out, must really mess with your mind. I think after a while even someone who is completely innocent would be convinced of their own guilt. However, I think the title Monster means more than this. Like someone else mentioned in their post, we think of monsters as scary beings from children’s books. But as we get older and become more aware of the world, we realize monsters can be a human being and that evil exists outside of a Grimm fairytale. While hopefully most of us never have to consider whether or not we’re monsters, as the idea is so far removed from who we think we are, it is not the same for Steve. He is in a position where he is being called a monster and attempting to determine whether or not that is true for himself. Not only is it difficult for him to come to terms with that possibility, I think it would be challenging for any one of us to have a word that has belonged to fiction for so long now be very real and possibly embody who we are. I think maybe Myers chose Monster to introduce the word to us as it exists in the real world.”

 

From Esther:

As in any story written from the perspective of an unreliable narrator (i.e. That is, a narrator who has proven to the reader that he can’t be trusted fully, or at all*) it is difficult to interpret certain elements, especially key elements. Doubtless, “Monster” is the word that Steve Harmon struggles with the most. On p. 24 of the text, the struggle is most evident, “CUT TO: STEVE HARMON. Then CU to the pad in front of him. He is writing the word Monster over and over again.” Harmon displays that he is haunted by the word, that he is obsessed with it. Indeed, at several points in the text (p.5, 148, 61, 116, etc.) he broods over the word and continues to apply it to himself. Especially after his mother visits him (on p.148), he admits that he is “wondering if [he] is fooling [himself].” The reader has reason to wonder this too, especially after considering p.149-151*, when a conversation is relayed between King and Harmon in which King encourages him to join him in the drugstore heist. He(Harmon) conveniently lets the conversation trail off. He later lies about this conversation on p.223* in his testimony to the jury, and then struggles to convince himself that he is not a monster on p. 271* and that he had no participation in the heist. He states that he keeps “editing the movies, making the scenes right. Sharpening the dialog. ‘A getover? I don’t do getovers.’”* He goes on to say that he knows the difference from right and wrong and he knows what truth is. His stubborn insistence (with a strong sense of guilt behind it) that he isn’t a monster and that he had no complicity in the murder of the drugstore owner can easily make the reader suspicious. If this was Myers intent, it was very well done. However, I rather suspect, due to the way that the sympathy is encouraged toward Harmon through the rest of book (especially in the descriptions of rough jail life and the way that other inmates beat and rape each other and the way that Harmon struggles through fear and missing his family…even in the way that Myers refers to Harmon by his first name and refers to everyone else by their last name) that this was not his intent. The reader may well feel manipulated if they have come to the conclusion that Harmon is guilty, at least in part, and might wonder what sympathy he deserves. Even after he is declared innocent, the word Monster still has power over Harmon. On p. 276, when O’Brien (Harmon’s lawyer) turns away from him and refuses to celebrate the victory, he describes the scene as O’Brien looking at him as “some strange beast”, and later questions on p. 281, what it was that O’Brien actually saw in him. Language, particularly, the manipulation of language does play a very strong role in this story. Though we are only given a superficial glance into the prosecuting attorney’s use of such language (such as calling Harmon guilty, and a monster), we are given a much clearer picture into O’Brien’s and Harmon’s manipulation of language. O’Brien encourages Harmon to lie (p.217-219) and he willingly does so throughout his testimony. They slant language in the same way that the prosecuting attorney does, though for the opposite purpose. They do so to convince everyone that he is innocent (to humanize him) while the prosecuting attorney does it to prove he is guilty (to dehumanize him). Whatever the motive, however, the means were still the same…which in many readers’ minds may reduce the sympathy they are able to have for Harmon. When everyone is lying or seeking to manipulate, it is hard to take anyone’s side. 

 *Textual evidence for my claim that Harmon is an unreliable narrator. Please also see p. 63-64 (where Harmon admits to feeling sick, sleep deprived, and mentally unstable), p. 130 (more of the same), p. 159( in which he admits his dependence on the movie he is writing and rewriting within his mind), and especially p. 45-46(where Harmon admits he is losing touch with reality and that if he didn’t have his movie, his own controlled, filtered world, he would go insane).

 

From Arian:

When I first laid eyes on the book Monster my initial thoughts were that I was about to embark on a journey into something evil, sinister. I was not disappointed but I was surprised. I was expecting a character with a horrible life and attitude, Steve Harmon is a fairly normal teen. I believe Myers chose this title in part for the shock value. The word monster instantly brings to mind images of things that scare us, things we can’t make sense of. On the same note I believe he wanted to give us the perspective a juror may have walked into a court room with. The jurors would have been briefed on the case prior to hearing the defense and I feel that an average citizen would initially have an image of scary, monster like prisoners in their head. Under the idea that they themselves would never be involved in this type of a crime, the actual participants in the crime must be “monsters”. In the beginning of the book Steve’s lawyer O’Brien points out this assumption by the jurors as she states to Steve, “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” (16). This implies the possibility that the jury already is viewing Steve as something other than human. By titling the book Monster we are handed that immediate perception, a thought that resonates in our subconscious. The prosecution attempts to solidify the possibility of the jurors’ negative feelings towards all involved in this type of crime by stating in her opening remarks, “Most people in our community are decent, hardworking citizens who pursue their own interests legally and without infringing on the rights of others. But there are also monsters in our communities-people who are willing to steal and to kill, people who disregard the rights of others” (21).

Steve Harmon is battling the idea that he is a monster throughout the book. We see in his notes the internal war as he goes back and forth as to who he really is as a person and how the prosecutor wants to define him. There is a moment in the court room after the prosecutors opening statement where Steve has a difficult moment, he scribbles the word monster all over his pad of paper until his lawyer O’Brien stops him. She then says to him, “You have to believe in yourself if we’re going to convince a jury that you’re innocent” (24). He also gave the notebook itself the title “Monster”, he is writing his experiences in here and the movie of this time in his life. In his notes he writes, “I’ll write it down in the notebook they let me keep. I’ll call it what the lady who is the prosecutor called me. MONSTER” (4-5). It’s as if he is being swayed in the direction of considering himself a monster. At a later point when he’s back in his cell he writes, “I want to look like a good person. I want to feel like I’m a good person because I believe I am. But being in here with these guys makes it hard to think about yourself as being different” (62). Mr. Harmon, Steve’s father, also seems to struggle with how he now views his son. He visits him in jail and appears to no longer have a concrete view on who his son is. When Steve asks his father if he believes Steve didn’t do anything wrong he is unable to answer a yes or no. Instead he reminisces with tears in his eyes of simpler days when Steve was a baby and finishes by saying, “It just never occurred to me that you’d be in this kind of trouble…” (111, 112). Steve feels this interaction shows how his father’s view of him is changing he writes, “me being his son and him being my dad, is pushed down and something else is moving up in its place. It’s like a man looking down to see his son and seeing a monster instead” (116). The Guards also show defined attitudes towards the prisoners in the book. They talk to and treat them like they are animals or worse monsters. They are constantly degrading them in how they talk about and to the prisoners. For example, one of the guards is referring to Steve in a conversation before the trial has even begun, “It’s a motion case. They go through the motions; then they lock them up. Isn’t that right, bright eyes?” (14). Here the guard is assuming Steve is guilty before any evidence or testimony has been presented. He then degrades Steve by referring to him as “bright eyes”. This may sound harmless but it is a term one would use towards a child or as a way to poke fun at someone. Another example is shown later in the book where Steve and a few others are set to task by the guards to mop the floors of the halls at the jail. Steve has a moment of panic where he feels like nobody, someone easily mistaken for the other criminals around him. This in combination with the strong smell of disinfectant makes him feel like gagging, it’s hard for him to breathe. In seeing this the guard says to him, “You vomit-you just got more to clean up!” (129). There is no empathy only an air of cruelty, even for a moment of weakness that cannot be avoided. It is sad to see the attitudes of the prosecutor and the guards throughout. Is there no truth to the idea of innocence until absolute proof of guilt? Whether or not a citizen is found guilty in a court of law we as fellow humans have preset judgments, that sometimes cannot be swayed, with little or no evidence of truth.

From Tiffany:

“To Petrocelli, a monster is known. A monster is one who is of the different kind in society, those who make choices that lead the path of deference from what is right. Petrocelli works hard through the hearing to make known to the jury that the men before them are what is to be considered a monster, “You mean that he literally drowned in his own pool of blood”.  (136) This use of language allows for the interpretation of the jury on King and Steve to be less than human, that if you were human and acted of rightful behavior you would not commit such actions. Petrocelli dehumanizes these characters detailing that they deserve what is coming to them if found guilty because they have no great significance to society if all they live and breathe for is to be a monster, to continue their lives out behind bars or killed because of being that of what has been labeled upon them. A monster does not own any rights; they are subject to the will of the guards whom place their bodies behind the bars or under the lights of their death bed. A monster has no soul…”

“By titling the book “Monster” I feel Meyers is attempting to take the reader down a similar path that a juror would go down.  Imagine the situation from a juror’s point of view first; you are selected as a juror and are required to be present because a crime has been committed and there is some evidence or proof to suggest that the individual on trial could be found guilty.  Prior to hearing all of the facts and listening to the evidence some individuals may assume the individual on trial is guilty from the beginning for a number of different reasons.  In this specific case Steve is black, he comes from an area of crime, has some connection with the other parties involved, and is being accused by the prosecution.  Obrien states in her opening argument, “He is innocent until proven guilty. If you consider him innocent now, and by law you must, if you have not prejudged him, then I don’t believe we will have a problem convincing you that nothing the State will produce will challenge that innocence” (26-27). Obrien’s statement in itself suggests individuals, regardless of the law, can conclude someone guilty before proven as such.  So much so that she felt it necessary to give the jurors this reminder.

Now to take a look at this from a reader’s perspective.  Ultimately, the title of “Monster” and the picture accompanying it on the cover itself suggests that a young black man has been arrested and a very serious crime has been committed.  Meyers has basically labeled the man on the cover, Steve, a monster which in no way suggests a positive portrayal of Steve. I feel he purposely sets the reader up this way as a means to demonstrate, or bring to light, the issues of having a flawed court system, the idea of innocent before proven guilty, and the many prejudices an individual may face.  One of those prejudices could be guilty by association for example.  In Steve’s diary he writes, “I want to look like I am a good person.  I want to feel like I’m a good person because I believe I am.  But being in here with these guys makes it hard to think about yourself as being different” (62).  If Steve has a hard time seeing himself as different, it is easy to see why others may find it difficult as well.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________              

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?

From Alayna:

“The goal of the criminal justice system is in fact to rehabilitate and help people pay for their crimes and then go on to start a new life but based on my own knowledge and the image given to us from Steve's perspective, the system does nothing of the sort for the most part. Everything about the environment Steve is in would be harmful to someone his age. They are conditioned to never show any emotion and violence is an everyday occurrence as we saw with the priest being harassed and the prisoners who beat each other up at night (sorry I read the book on my kindle and it doesn’t have page numbers but it happens several times throughout the book if someone could point out a specific that would be great). Steve is miserable nothing he is experiencing is helping to prepare him after his release, guilty or not, we see no evidence of job training or education programs, the guards treat them like monsters which furthers their isolation and deviant behavior, and violence runs rampant. The one part that really spoke out to  me was when Steve talks about the dark and how that is the only good time because it is the only time you can cry (page 1) Personally I have lived in an environment where i was living in fear and the only time I felt safe to express my emotions was the dark of night. It sucked a lot. Everything in my life suffered just a it does for steve and the other inmates, so much so that another inmate is willing to sell secrets just to void getting beat on or seually assaulted. And if you tie in the real world Steve’s story isn’t far off. The Prison system has become laregly privatized in recent years and with this system it is actually more profitable to have less support and rehab programs because people are more likely to recommit because they don’t have any other options therefore filling “Bed Quotas” and generating money for the owners of for-profit prisons.”

 

From Amanda:

“I believe another possible fault of the justice system is that two parties, in this case, King and Steve are on trial together.  I believe this leads the jurors to form some biases in regard to the character of those on trial, and to form prejudices in regard to their innocence.  Being tried together makes it harder for the jurors to see them as different.  This hurdle is mentioned multiple times throughout the book.  I can see where trying two individuals at the same time may be convenient and valuable as it saves costs for the court and can be a better use of time.  Also, the facts of the case involving the two parties are the same which can be beneficial.  However, is it fair to the individuals on trial?  I’m not convinced.  In this specific case, the crimes of King and Steve are vastly different, yet they are both on trial for murder even though their parts in the crime were not the same.  Whether or not Steve agreed to be a look out for the robbery, it was clear he did not commit a murder or plan to be involved in a murder.  At the least he should have been tried for a crime more appropriate to the actions he was being accused of rather than felony murder.

Where I do see evidence that the criminal justice system worked effectively is in the end of the book.  Steve was not convicted, and I believe this was because there wasn’t enough evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to convict him.  Obrien stated in her closing argument, “Is there reasonable doubt as to Steve Harmon’s guilt?  I think the doubt was established when Lorelle Henry did not identify Steve as being in the store.  It was reinforced with every witness the State brought to the stand” (253).  Also, while the prosecution did everything they could to paint the picture that Steve was a monster and was the same as King and the other criminals involved, they were ultimately not successful.”

 

From Esther:

I always tend to be a little wary of all-inclusive statements that begin with “We all know” and “One would think” because the assumptions that they make. I’m not saying I disagree that our criminal justice system is flawed…I’m saying that because of Harmon’s status as an unreliable narrator (this claim is substantiated in detail in my previous posting), the datedness of this novel (it was published in 1999, nearly two decades ago), and the fictional nature of Myer’s book, a reader should be wary of using this novel as a standard with which to judge the criminal justice system of today.

With that said, however, I do think that this novel does point out some disturbing accounts of life in jail (Myers does state in the interview in the back of the book (p.6) that he “met and interviewed many young men who are similar to Steve Harmon and whose stories are also similar” which to me, lends more credibility to the novel and Harmon’s experiences in jail) that should be addressed. I’m sure that the things that Myers describes do happen in many prisons. However, there is a difference between problems in the criminal justice system and problems in prison life. With the exception of one prison guard who attempts to bribe Harmon and King with the promise of a homosexual partner if they are convicted and sent to prison, and another who asks if they want in on a bet about the verdict of the trial (p. 266) the people who are causing problems in prison are the prisoners, not the guards. The guards might not be particularly kind (such as the guard who yells at Harmon while Harmon is mopping the floor) but it’s not a nursery, it’s a prison, they aren’t under any obligation to be nice. As, stated above, the individuals who are causing all of the problems in prison (i.e. rape, assaults, murder, etc.) are the prisoners. There is something to be said for keeping the right company. If you don’t want to associate with prisoners, you should be following the law and staying away from those who do not. In Harmon’s case, even if he was innocent, he shouldn’t be associating with King (p.149). Now, a possible argument is that Harmon didn’t have a choice because of the neighborhood that he lived in. By Harmon’s own admission, however, his home wasn’t in ghetto, “Fade in: Steve’s home. It is neatly furnished, clean.”(p.58) His father and mother are also portrayed as honorable, respectful people. He did have a choice.

Yes, it is tragic that there are people in prison, prisoners that will harm and abuse other prisoners. It is also tragic that these other prisoners have done crimes to get them in prison. Now, there are times when people are arrested mistakenly and in this case, these other prisoners would be true victims. However, I don’t believe that Harmon falls into this camp. As I established in my earlier post, I believe he was guilty and was an accessory to murder. Aside from my other claims in my previous posting, I found this passage to be especially suggestive in terms of Harmon’s guilt. After watching reports of the robbery on TV, Harmon retreats to his room and lies on his bed, he “is lying on his bed, eyes open, not seeing anything. We hear first the doorbell ring and his mother calling him, but he doesn’t react…” (123) Note: In my first posting, I included other passages that I believe prove Harmon’s guilt or at least offer a reasonable doubt to his innocence.

 With that in mind, one of the flaws in the criminal justice system that this novel isolates is that sometimes people who are guilty aren’t convicted when they should be. For his part in the crime, I don’t think that Harmon should get twenty-five years in prison. However, he was an accessory to murder, no matter how small his part was. Yes, there are problems in the criminal justice system. There are difficulties with the prisoners, especially. A prison isn’t a place designed for saints, it is a place designed for lawbreakers. Maybe we don’t have enough guards, maybe our prison sentences are too long for some, maybe our prison sentences are too short for others…maybe we don’t have enough funding in order to establish or determine these things. Maybe things have improved since 1999.

 

From Meri:

Esther, I have to say while we are only a few short weeks into our class, I am impressed with your posts and the insight they provide. I think you also do a good job at looking at the questions from different angles and noticing what others might not. This is illustrated especially by your statement, “I always tend to be a little wary of all-inclusive statements that begin with “We all know” and “One would think” because the assumptions that they make.” Not to mention, you point out both the datedness of the novel and the fictional nature of it, the first of which did not occur to me.

Though I do have to question whether we, ourselves, may potentially be one of the problems in our criminal justice system. I say this because we are all potential jurors, yet our way of thinking speaks to double standards. You state that you believe in Steve Harmon’s guilt. I have to agree with O’Brien on this, not much speaks to his innocence. Especially when he re-writes his conversation with King and chooses morality. This implies that the initial conversation went in the opposite direction. However, while you cite that you don’t necessarily think Steve should receive twenty-five years for his part in the murder, you do believe he should be punished. I’d like to make a note that even if he is guilty, he did not agree to participate in a murder, he agreed to participate in a stick-up. Yes, this was his choice and all bad choices have the potentiality to become worse choices, but he did not actually know (as far as the audience knows) what was going to happen. But the both of us still believe he should be punished. Yet, when it comes to the prison guards, you state, “The guards may not be particularly kind but it’s not a nursery, it’s a prison, they aren’t under any obligation to be nice.” They aren’t under any obligation to be nice, but they are under obligation to do their job. Part of which is protection. You pointed out that, “the people who are causing problems in prison are the prisoners, not the guards.” While this may be true, some of the guards allow this. In the real world, some even encourage this. They are aware of both rape and beatings, and they choose to do nothing. Some want to see rapists and child molesters be punished, and while I can’t blame them, does that justify their actions? Or lack thereof? If we would punish Steve for his involvement in a crime, no matter how minor, why are we not as willing to hold the prison guards and such to the same standards? Are these double standards perhaps embedded into our way of thinking? Also, if there is something to be said about the company one keeps, isn’t there also something to be said about the jobs individuals (such as the prison guards) choose?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

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.

From Meri:

“One of the many troubles with racism is that it is twisted by different individuals to support whatever line of reasoning they believe. For example, on page seventy-two the two detectives who come to question Steve about his involvement disagree over Harmon’s potential sentencing. Williams doesn’t believe the death penalty will come into play. He thinks the judge will push for life without parole. Or, if they come clean, he might even go for 25 to life, saying a lot of time and money gets saved that way. Karyl, however, argues that it might not go that simple. After all, he points out that the victim was well respected in the neighborhood. A hard-working Black guy who worked his way up. This too is racism. Whether Mr. Nesbitt was White or Black should not have any bearing on the outcome. Since Black’s still carry the stigma of being thugs and underhanded people who do not earn an honest living but, instead, steal and rob and take advantage of others. They are also seen as lazy individuals who prefer to live of welfare and are uninterested in becoming valuable members of society. Therefore the murder of Mr. Nesbitt is viewed as even more heinous, as he overcame his limitations and earned respect for being a hard-working Black man. I’m not saying that he doesn’t deserve that respect, I think any honest hard-worker does. But it should not come into play in court. It is not right for the same crime to be committed against two separate black men, one working at a fast-food chain and the other a store owner, but to have the severity of the punishment be greater for the second man. Both have the right to life and liberty and deserve to have justice brought equally to those who took that from them. Justice, in the legal sense, is not meant to be determined by how the victim chose to live their life but by the defendant’s actions. This should be the same if it was a White man and a Black man.

Furthermore, I think Walter Myers also hid racism in-between the lines. There are many articles and films about advertisements and how they stereotype individuals. One popular stereotype is to dress Black women in bright, electric colors or place them in similar backgrounds. While these colors do indeed flatter the skin tone of these women, the way advertisements handle these depictions create the image of these women being wild and untamed. The ads place them in forests and running with cheetahs, giving a feral nature to the image. I couldn’t help but notice that the cover of Monster is similar in contrasting that bright orange color against the dark pigment of Steve’s skin. Now this color orange is the same as the jumpsuits prisoners wear in confinement, so it is possible that is why it was chosen. But even the strip with Steve’s information on the cover is matched up to his exact skin tone. I can’t help but wonder if this is an embedded form of racism.

I also find it hard to believe that it is merely coincidence that Walter Dean Myers chose to name the prosecutor in his book the same as a man very highly involved in the O.J. Simpson murder case. Which is considered by many as the most publicized criminal trial in American history.”

 

From Forest:

I originally chose this question because I believed it would have the most textual evidence to support my argument. When I went back and reviewed all of the pages I had already read, I was looking for very specific details speaking to racism. It was harder to find than I thought. Racism is evident, but not in the abundance I was expecting. 

"Well, frankly, nothing is happening that speaks to your being innocent. Half of those jurors, no matter what they said when we questioned them when we picked the jury, believed you were guilty the moment they laid eyes on you. You're young, you're Black, and you're on trial. What else do they need to know?" (78-79) 

O'Brien's comments to Steve clearly imply that the jury will have a harder time believing Steve is innocent, all because he is black. This is the most blatantly racist statement I could find in the entire book. The words O'Brien spoke set a tone for the entire book. I, as the reader, viewed the jury and criminal justice system as inherently racist. 

The way Steve is treated by prison personnel while incarcerated is poor, but his treatment is not unlike the rest of the prisoners (black, white, hispanic). Being called "bright eyes" (14) by the guard is something that would likely have occurred to any prisoner in Steve's place, regardless of race. 

 

From Kaylee:

Forest, I agree. My initial reaction was that the lack of racism was somewhat surprising. But I think a lot of that has to do with our expectations as readers - our experience would lead us to believe that a story about an African American teenager going on trial would have a large commentary on racism. We expect something To Kill A Mockingbird-esque. Which perhaps makes us guilty of stereotyping, just as we believe the justice system is guilty in regards to stereotyping black people. And I agree that the most direct example of racism was O'Brien's quote. As Steve's lawyer, it was her job to prepare a defense, and unfortunately his race was something she had to take into consideration. I don't believe she was being racist towards Steve, I think she was just acknowledging the presence of an obstacle and being honest with Steve. 

I think this story is interesting because when you pose the question of racism, people adamantly agree it's evident. But so far I've only seen one quote used to support its prevalence. And if, in the entire book, only one quote can be found that overtly addresses the presence of racism, does our inkling to say it's there stem from the story itself or from our own external beliefs/experiences? Perhaps this was something Myers intended to evoke. 

I don't think that racism is inherently portrayed throughout the novel. I don't think it is intended to be a theme, nor do I think the novel intentionally offers comment on the idea of racism. The novel focuses on Steve's story and it mainly addresses the feelings and experiences Steve has in jail and on trial and how he personally copes through them. The fact that he's on trial doesn't offer comment for racism as James King, the other boy standing trial for the murder, is also black. And in the end, Steve is acquitted anyways, while James is convicted. The conflict isn't interracial, nor does race dictate the outcome. The only explicit hint of racism comes from O'Brien - "You're young, you're black, and you're on trial. What else do they need to know?" (79). This suggests that the jury will be more likely to find him guilty because of external factors that aren't necessarily relevant to the trial. But it is only a brief acknowledgement that the justice system can be biased when it comes to race. I think racism can be interpreted by the reader by inserting their own personal experiences and knowledge of race and the justice system into the story, but I don't think that racism was a major theme that was intended to be portrayed. Inevitably with a non-white protagonist, racial prejudice will appear at some point in the story, however, it can be a few lines of dialogue (perhaps to increase plausibility), or it can be the story, which I don't think is the case here. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 Individualism & Identity Steve constantly struggles to distance himself from the environment he now lives in. Reflect on how Steve's feels his individualism and thus, his humanity, is slipping away from him. What larger pieces of him 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? 

 

From Stevie:

Steve Harmon is a sixteen year old, African American who was accused of being involved in a murder. It would be difficult to go through what Steve is going through. Knowing you are innocent, and having everyone look at you as though you are already found guilty. It makes him look at himself in a different way. He doesn't know who he is anymore. I try to put myself in Steve's shoes, and imagine how I would look at myself differently. Knowing that everyone would think I was guilty of murder, would be absolutley devastating. Everyone would look at you completely differently. "I sat down and looked straight ahead. It was easy to imagine myself sitting where they were sitting. Looking at the back of prisoner" (98). Steve is refferring to the students sitting behind him. He never would imagined that he woud be in the position that he is in right now. He knows that people look at him as a monster, and he begins to believe it the deeper into this trial he gets. The prosecutor continuously refers to him as a "monster" and it gets to him; he even writes it down on his notepad over and over again. "You have to believe in yourself if we're going to convince a jury that you're innocent" (24). This is what O'Brien tells Steve as she sees him doing this. I absolutely love this quote because it's so true. If you don't believe that you are innocent, then no one else will. You have to believe in yourself, before you can convince others to believe in you.

Also knowing that you could be locked up for the rest of your life is terrifying; especially when you're only sixteen. Steve has a lot of time to reflect on his life and who he is. But each time, he's not really positive of who he has become. He questions his innocence multiple times throughout the book, making us readers question it as well. "I want to look like a good person. I want to feel like I'm a good person because I believe I am. But being in here with these guys makes it hard to think about yourself as being different. We look about the same, even though I'm younger than they are, it's hard not to notice that we are all pretty young" (62). Steve is trying to find a way to allow his better self, and the characteristics that make him an individual show in an environment where others look at you the same as everyone else. 

Steve also doubts his self-identity when he realizes his father is no longer sure of who he is. His father cannot give him reassurance that he believes that he is innocent. "When you were first born, I would lie up in bed thinking about scenes of you life. You playing football. You going off to college. I used to think of you going to Morehouse and doing the same things I did when I was there. I never made the football team, but I thought - I dreamed you would. I even thought about getting mad at you for staying out too late - there you were lying on bed in those disposable diapers but your mother insisted on the kind you didn't have to wash, just throw away. I never thought of seeing you - you know- in a place like this. It just never came to me that you'd ever be in any kind of trouble..." (111-112). That was a difficult moment for Steve. He wants reassurance from his father, but he doesn't get any. I would be devestated if my father said those words to me, or even if I was in any position like that.

All in all, adolescence is all about searching for who you are and finding your own identity. When you go through a difficult time in life (not so much the case of being put on trial for murder), you find out important things about yourself that you never knew. I am unsure if Steve has found himself yet. The book leaves me questioning it. I think he learned much about himself through the trial, but I don't think things between his family will be the same.

 

From Autumn:

Stevie, I would like to add to your argument on the individualism and identity in the novel with a look at the overall view that may be present. What I mean to say is that perhaps there is more to it than Steve Harmon’s identity alone but also the introduction of how many others are at risk of losing their identity as well. Thinking of those in prison that are all considered prisoners for one reason or another but how that reason does not matter and neither does their name or their life before ending up there. Those who have ended up in prison are at risk of losing everything that had seemingly made them an individual.

Take for instance Steve’s comment as he moped the floor with the other prisoners, “I realized that the five guys doing the mopping must have all looked alike-To my right and left the other prisoners were doing the same thing.” (129) This is evidence of the very fact of losing one’s own individualism. Is this not also true for those who live out in the world as well? In a ghetto neighborhood with lots of crime, much like Steves’, those who are outside looking in would see nothing but criminals, grouping together much of the community as such rather than just the individuals responsible.

This fact is not isolated to areas with crime either they are present everywhere you go. When looking at another human being we tend to think first off about what we compare that person to whether it is based on gender, race, looks, attire, anything we may see, and even what we hear. We base what our initial thoughts about someone are on the experience that we have had in our lives, of course we do not do this consciously all the time. This is something that has been present in human beings for as long as we have been alive and it has fogged the minds of many into treating one person the same as another simply by similarity in some way or because of different experiences in the past. Now this is not to say it means that everyone has then lost their own individualism but rather to say, as you have mentioned, that believing in oneself is the only way that others will believe in you.

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Concluding Thoughts:

I love this point Hannah makes about how Meyers’ book is not really about what actually happened; the purpose of the book she argues is more focused on how we make judgments and “guesses” about what we think actually happened. She says:

“It's not really about what actually happened but about the judgments people are going to make based on what they think happened. It's about how people feel and their ability to paint the picture they want others to believe in. I think right from the start Steve feels overwhelmed with the negative things those around him are feeling and saying about him and it starts to quickly seep into how he views himself. From his first journal entry you can hear his uncertainty in who he is, "There is a mirror over the steel sink in my cell...When I look into the small rectangle, I see a face looking back at me but I don't recognize it." (1) Just a little farther in he goes on to write, "Sometimes I feel like I have walked into the middle of a movie. It is a strange movie with no plot and no beginning. The movie is in black and white, and grainy. Sometimes the camera moves in so close that you can't tell what's going on and you just listen to the sounds and guess." (3)  From those two quotes it already sounds like he is losing touch with who he was before getting arrested and the life he lived on the outside. As the book progressing I think Myers does a good job of not making it exactly clear whether Steve did or did not do the crime and allowing how Steve and the other main characters feel about the situation and Steve's character to come through instead.”

 

There have been a lot of thoughtful notes about what O’Brien’s reaction could mean at the very end of the book. Jessica makes a poignant point about how her reaction affects Steve:

“Even though Steve essentially won the case, and was found not guilty, it is almost like he is still trapped. Not physically, but mentally. His identity has been lost in the process of the trial, and Miss O’Brian, as much as she pushed Steve to stand out from the others on trial, has in the end, pushed him to not really know who he is. After striving so hard, for so long to become a man that the judge and jurors thought of as a good person, it is heart breaking to realize that after he had been through all of this, he is now struggling to see who he really is.”