Hello to all my blog buddies out there (group 2 that is, but if you're visiting from group 1 then welcome!). I finished Monster a few nights ago and the burning question I had at the end was, Was he really part of the robbery or not? Obviously the jury did not think so otherwise he would have been convicted for the murder of Mr. Nesbitt. However, throughout the entire book Steven’s own version of events neither incriminates nor vindicates him. His internal dialogue is ambiguous. He says “Anybody can walk into a drugstore and look around. Is that what I’m on trial for? I didn’t do nothing!” Not to mention, he alluded to being a participant, though he never confirmed or denied with his friend King that he would do it.
For this activity we are doing a double journal entry as to whether or not you think Steven did or did not participate in the robbery. This is not the same thing as to him being on trial for the murder, I just want to know if you think he was guilty in respect to participating in the robber (was he the lookout or not). Use 3 or more examples from the book that you think proves he was or was not an active participant in the crime, and explain what about the quote makes you believe that. An explanation of a double journal entry and also an example is below.
Usually a double-journal entry is done in a notebook and the student divides the page in half. In the left column the student will write a quote or passage that they find meaningful in their reading along with the page number it was found on. On the right side they would then write why they think those passages/quotes are meaningful. Since we can’t divide the page in half on the blog, just write the quote with the reason why you think it is meaningful afterwards (remember you are choosing quotes that answer the question as to whether or not you think Steven Harmon was a lookout in the robbery as was suggested in the book).
Here is an example:
“I walked into a drugstore to look for some mints, and I then I walked out. What was wrong with that? I didn’t kill Mr. Nesbitt.” p. 140—This passage is from Steven’s journal. When he is not writing the script for the movie he writes about what he is thinking. These are the parts when the audience truly gets to see what Steven is thinking and how he is feeling. What I found interesting about this passage is that he admits to going into the drugstore, but later on when he is on trial he says that he never went in there on that day. Now in that passage above Steven doesn’t mention what day he went in and bought the mints, however the fact that he mentions going into the story and then not killing Mr. Nesbitt leaves me to believe that he feels remorse or guilt for something. That would indicate he indeed was a part of the robbery, however he does not feel like it is his fault that Mr. Nesbitt died. He doesn’t say, “I hadn’t been in the drugstore in weeks, or days,” which seems like something someone would say who was truly not involved in the robbery.
Okay, so that is my example. I can't wait to read your answers!
"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" (60). - "I shook my head. It wasn't a matter of race" (146). Steve often contradicts himself. Not just about his involvement in the murder but in other aspect as well. Because of this I have a hard time trusting Steve. In other words I think he did commit the crime. The above quotes from pg 60 and 146 are an example of Steve contradicting himself. He claims that Petrocelli is only using these black criminal witnesses to further damage his and King's character. Then on page 143 when Steve's mother asks him if he should have gotten a black lawyer, Steve shakes his head no and says it's not a matter of race, when he clearly alluded that it was a matter of race previously.
ReplyDelete"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" (148). Mama only "felt" that Steve didn't doing anything wrong. Many mothers may share in these feelings of denial when their children are implicated for any wrong doing. Steve on the other hand "wasn't sure" if he had done something wrong. He also wondered if he was "fooling himself." This leads me to believe that Steve had indeed acted as a lookout for Bobo and King. He knows he went into the store and scoped it out. Perhaps if he saw no one in the store his job was to exit giving no signal at all. Steve's problem is this - he cannot equate going into a store walking around and then leaving with the eventual robbery and murder of an innocent man. Because he did not pull the trigger, he doesn't believe that he deserves to be in jail, but he knows he played a hand in the death...he knows he is "fooling himself."
"We lie to ourselves in here. Maybe we are here because we lie to ourselves." Again, another clear example of how Steve cannot be trusted. It is almost as if he is playing with the reader. He says over and over in his journal that he didn't do anything wrong, and then even says under oath on the stand that he did nothing wrong, but then goes on to say that "We lie to ourselves in here..." This says to me that he is trying to convince himself that he has done nothing wrong. It also says that he got himself in the situation because he was lying to himself. By this I mean he was trying to be something that he is not. It seems that he is an honest hard working student. He is a good son to his parents and a good brother. He associates himself with the wrong crowd (King, Bobo, Osvaldo) and by doing this he is lying to himself.
“What did I do? What did I do? Anybody can walk into a drugstore and look around. Is that what I’m on trial for? 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).
ReplyDeleteSteve writes this in his journal after his dad visits and cries in front of his son. The fact that do is underlined emphasizes Steve’s frustration over the situation he is in. When I read this, it felt as if Steve was trying to convince himself that he didn’t do anything because in his mind, he didn’t. If he were a lookout scouting the store, he didn’t take part in the actual robbery/killing. But does that mean he isn’t guilty of participating in an event that led to Mr. Nesbitt’s death? Here he admits to being in the drugstore, but on the stand he said that he wasn’t even in the store that day. He contradicts himself quite a bit, so at this point I felt unsure of his innocence.
“I walked into a drugstore to look for some mints, and I then I walked out. What was wrong with that? I didn’t kill Mr. Nesbitt. … Isn’t that what being guilty is all about? You actually do something?” (140).
ReplyDeleteThis quote is similar to the first one I posted. This quote is also from Steve’s journal, written after he refers to the guilt of another inmate. After the quote Steve tells the story of Ernie, an inmate who intended to steal from a store but ended up locking himself inside the store so he didn’t take anything. Ernie argued that he didn’t do anything, and at this point Steve thinks about his own guilt or innocence. He wonders if he is guilty even though he didn’t have the gun and didn’t steal money from the drugstore. Here, even more so than in the first quote, Steve admits to being in the drugstore looking for mints. But unlike the first quote, Steve says that he is in the store looking for mints and not looking around.
“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,” (148).
ReplyDeleteAgain, Steve doubts himself. But does that mean he actually doubts his innocence? He is surrounded by people trying to prove his guilt, all the while in jail surrounded by people who are guilty and filled with violence and disgusting sexual thoughts. He might think he is in jail for a reason, and add when he put his head down at trial essentially giving up, he might start doubting himself even if he is innocent. Strangely, I thought Steve was innocent after I finished the book because of the points made that the prosecution didn’t prove he was there. But in reading these quotes and going back into the text, I began to believe his guilt. Do I think he should have been charged for murder and receive 25 year to life in prison? No. Do I think his lawyer should have figured out a way to get him a deal like Bobo, who was ultimately guiltier and had a hand in the shooting? Yes. Do I think Steve really knew what was going on when he went into the drugstore? Part of me believes he knew the robbery would take place, but again, I’m conflicted.
sorry for the 3 posts! it wouldn't let me post the whole thing at once...
ReplyDelete“What did I do? What did I do? Anybody can walk into a drugstore and look around. Is that what I’m 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.” (Pg115)
ReplyDeleteIn my view Steve was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is nothing wrong with walking into a drugstore and looking around. So much has been said about this crime and so many have testified to a point that Steve is so confused about what is going on and what he really is. Guilty or Not Guilty! He does not seem to comprehend why he is being tried. Personally I feel that Steve did not commit the crime but has been pushed by witness’s evidence to believe that he honestly did the crime. He is delusional, and has inappropriate guilt.
“… saying that everybody wanted to act like they were good when they were just criminals. “It’s too late to put up your holy front now,” he said. In a way he was right, at least about me. 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 here with these guys makes it hard to think about yourself as being different.” (pg 62)
By the virtue of the fact that Steve is in the company of bad (guilty) people, does not make him guilty. Everyone around him is a criminal therefore it is hard to convince others that he is not guilty. He is struggling to look innocent to a point that he does not know how to do it. He is struggling within himself as to how to portray an innocent face/look but it is so hard especially when you are surrounded by bad people. The others are bound to see no good in him. At some point I wonder if we are really guilty until proven innocent as is the case with Steve. We are innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor treats him like a guilty person.
“The smile that came to her lips was one she wrenched from someplace deep inside of her. “No matter what anybody says…” she reached across the table to put her hand on mine and then pulled it back, thinking a guard might see her. No matter what anybody says, I know you’re innocent, and I love you very much.”… When she left I could hardly make it back to the cell area. “No matter what anybody says…”… And I knew she felt that I didn’t do anything wrong.” (pg 147-148)
Beyond any reasonable doubt Steve’s mother is confident that her son is not guilty. She is positive and strongly believes in Steve. This is a clear indication that besides Steve being her son and her love for him she is aware of what her son is capable of doing. He repeats to himself what his mother told him to assure himself that he is not guilty. Other than his mother, his teacher is convinced that he did not commit the crime. Both of them make us aware of the fact that Steve was an honest person who found refuge in the deadly streets of Harlem, through the films he made for his club.
Hmmm, I responded to your excellent Y&Y activity last week but my comment is missing.
ReplyDeleteThe double entry journal has been well-researched and shown to be most effective in engaging students at a deep level in their reeading. Doing it on a blog so students can easily see and incoporate each others' comments has to make this strategy even more effective.
You each found excellent quotes to support your varying ideas about Steve's guilt or innocence.