CoxTKAMPod

The discussion revolves around the book "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee. The main themes discussed include racism, prejudice, personal integrity, empathy, and the importance of literature in teaching moral lessons. The use of Scout as the narrator is seen as effective in making the story relatable and less offensive. The decision to not depict excessive violence and to keep the story within appropriate boundaries is also seen as appropriate for a middle school audience. Overall, the book's lessons are considered relevant and important in today's divisive culture. Hello Ms. Gomez, thank you for joining us on this episode of Beyond Maycomb. Today we will be talking about the biggest lesson in 1960's best selling book, the film Walking Bird. The author of this book though. In Maycomb there are many complex characters, this includes the Finch family. Scout Finch, Jem Finch and their father Atticus. Atticus is a well known lawyer in Maycomb. In the novel, Atticus is appointed by the court to defend a black man accused of raping a white woman. In the south at this time, this case was nearly impossible to win, as a black man's word meant close to nothing against the accusation of a white woman. Now that we have some background Ms. Gomez, when did you first read To Kill a Mockingbird? Since then, has your impression changed on the novel? I first read To Kill a Mockingbird my freshman year in high school. This was during the time of the beatings of Rodney King and the Los Angeles riots. So prejudice and racism were at the forefront of everyone's minds. This would have been the early 90's. At the time, I found certain elements of the novel quite shocking. The idea of rape, of incest. These were things that were not prevalent in culture and on television and in movies. At least not movies I was allowed to watch. And so there were definitely things that I had not really been exposed to that the novel talks about. I think that those elements are still shocking. But I think that maybe today's youth are exposed to it a little bit in more of an expanded way. I'm not sure if the content is as shocking to young readers today as much as maybe it was 30 years ago. I agree. There were very shocking moments in this book. I think being exposed to the type of language used in To Kill a Mockingbird in more of a classroom environment is different and sometimes uncomfortable. For the next question, what do you remember being the biggest lessons the novel was trying to speak to? The novel definitely speaks to the obvious warnings against racism and prejudice. But I think the biggest lesson for me was the importance of personal integrity regardless of the cost. Each and every character in the novel faces hard choices and real consequences that impact their fate. In addition, the author does a good job of showing that things are not always as simple as they seem. People are not always good or bad. There's not a lot of true good or true evil. There's very realistic portrayals of people and they have many layers and shades of gray. I think this leads the characters to require deeper understanding and consideration and empathy rather than just judgment and ridicule. I agree. Harper Lee definitely does a great job of showing her characters in multiple instances and angles. I think most evidently Atticus is facing hard choices in the book like choosing to defend the colored men in order to keep being a lawyer. She shows the consequences and rewards of that decision like many other decisions in the book. Like you said, she also does a great job of warning about the consequences of racism and prejudice. She includes Tom Robinson who is wrongly accused and quite frankly shown a great deal of racism. He's ended in Tom Robinson eventually being shot trying to escape prison. Also I think Boo Radley is, I mean I know he's featured kind of more in the end of the book in the sense that his character in the beginning of the book you don't really, you kind of see him, you kind of think he's a bad guy and they kind of portray him as a little bit more evil. And then toward the end you see him as more of a good character. He kind of ends up being a hero. And I think that because he as a person doesn't change but what changes is the character's perspective. Scout is who changes. Scout's perspective on Boo Radley. And so I think that her empathy and her learning how to be empathetic toward the people around her is really what changes. And I think that's like for me that was one of the biggest lessons of the novel. Yeah, well said. Next question. Do you think that the lesson is still relevant in 2024? In this divisive culture that we live in, I think lessons involving tolerance, integrity, courage, and empathy are always relevant. I think that sometimes books that are labeled about racism can be reductively criticized without taking into account the other lessons that they teach. I think sometimes Huck Finn falls into that category. But I think it's important that we continue to be exposed to these lessons because I do think that that's always important. Yeah, I think now more than ever this book and their message is very critical. I agree that the many opportunities for this book's lesson to be applied in the world right now is important. Do you think that this book being taught in middle school is appropriate? If so, is it important for middle school to start? So I'm kind of going to give a teachery answer here. But the sophisticated language that Harper Lee uses in To Kill a Mockingbird can sometimes be intimidating for middle schoolers, especially if maybe you are a struggling reader or a second language learner. But I think as long as the instructor uses appropriate scaffolding and instructional support, I think that it is appropriate for a middle school level novel. Middle school is developmentally when students start to learn to independently resolve conflicts and establish their personal value system. And so I think exposure to literature and all kinds of media that have pro-social moral themes is important because I do think it helps students determine their individual values and help them become productive members of society. Yeah, I think it's important at this age. I think that the language and complex issues are very hard to grasp, but I think still learning at a middle school level is important. Social media has influenced this generation greatly, and reading a book written so long ago is a good exposure to see how it was and how we as a generation can improve on the subject of racism and hate. For the next question, how do you think Harper Lee's decision to make Scout as the narrator helps understand the events in the book more clearly? I think making Scout the narrator was a stroke of genius. I think using Scout as the narrative voice helps the content seem relatable and increases student interest. It allows the author to say things that could possibly seem naive or ignorant or even offensive coming from an adult narrator. She can be completely objective, and again, she can change her perspective throughout the novel takes place over the course of three years. And adults maybe don't change as much as kids do over the course of three years. Adults maybe are more set in their ways and their ways of thinking, whereas I think kids, it gives the author the opportunity to really show the change that can take place in perspective over those three years. And so I think that using Scout as the narrator was a good move because it gives the reader the opportunity to see everything through the eyes of a child. Yeah, I totally agree. I think that if Harper Lee used an adult voice to get some of these topics across, it would come off as offensive. I think Scout also makes the story more friendly to read. It helps get the point across without making readers feel too uncomfortable with these hard topics. For next question, do you think that Harper Lee's decision to confront her readers with uncomfortable and complex social issues helped the book become more realistic, or did she not go far enough in her depiction of the violent nature of white supremacy in the South? I think this is the most difficult of all the questions today. I think that it would feel unnecessarily kind of gruesome to have a child narrator witnessing anything terribly gruesome because, again, it is all told from a child's point of view, and so all of the events were witnessed by the narrator. And so if you did go into deeper detail about excessive violence, I don't think it would have added more to the novel. I think it maybe would have just pushed the agenda of violence unnecessarily in a direction that maybe would have made the novel more, like would have taken it out of the appropriate arena, and I think that would have been unfortunate because it's already jarring enough and uncomfortable enough, and right now I feel like it does a good job of showing the complex social situations. I think by making it a fictitious location, by making, you know, Maycomb, Alabama, by making it fictitious and by keeping it just on this side of appropriate, it allows access to a middle school audience, to a younger audience, so that you can teach those other lessons and, you know, again, instruct and help younger readers learn some of these important lessons without making it truly realistically violent. That's what we have history class for. Yeah. Yeah, so I think she walked that line appropriately. I don't think it would need to be more violent to get the point across. Yeah, for sure. The language and instances in Kilmarnock were sometimes very cruel, but again, I agree in the fact that who wasn't there in the rears probably would not fully understand or appreciate the lessons trying to be conveyed by the author. I think it is necessary, and it is just enough harsh language to emphasize the time period without being too harsh to be taught to middle schoolers when minds are developed. Thank you so much, Ms. Gomez. Your insights have been very helpful to understanding the real lessons Harper Lee was trying to speak to in her novel. I hope to see you on another episode in the future. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure to be here.