Young Adult Lit/Crit

Duke U Athletes

I meant to mention this last night--has anyone thought about INEXCUSABLE in relationship to the Duke case..the lacrosse players suspended for an alleged rape? I sure have. What do you think? KES

Questions

Hi!  I was asked to post the questions we ended our Socratic Seminar with last week.  Here you go:

1.  What does this novel have to say about responsibility?

2.  How can reading this novel, even if we never teach it, inform us as teachers?

See you tonight,

JD

Inexcusable at Wikipedia!

Hey all.  It's Dave.  Since a lot of you seemed intrigued by wikis last night, I've gone ahead and spent a few minutes creating a very rudimentary page for Inexcusable on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inexcusable

As you can see, I've pretty much just put in the bare minimum.  Please, if you are so inclined, edit the page by adding whatever information you would like to add!  Don't be shy!

The way I learned the most about Wikipedia is by simply browsing through other pages, seeing how categories and charts and things were created, and then applying that new-found knowledge to the pages on which I was working.  So do that!

I hope you see why I think this is a great idea for a classroom.  Having students create a Wiki page on a book or an author would force them to think critically about what is important about each character, what the main themes are in novels, why characters act the way they do in situations, and so on and soforth.

Since I know you're all new to wikis, you might be shy about "doing something wrong".  Worry not!  I will moderate this page and fix any "boo-boos" you might make.  The only way to learn about new technology such as this is to fiddle with it and figure out how you can make it work!  Dig in!

We'll talk more in-depth about Wikis next week, so any questions or concerns you have while toying with this page can and will be addressed!

Have fun. :)

Both Sides Now

Chris Lynch nearly reeled me in, hook, line, and sinker. By writing in the first person point of view, Lynch's imposed subjectivity lead me to believe that Keir was a good boy and that he just had an incredible streak of bad luck. Keir's rationalizations were believable, at first.  I even began to empathize with Keir. However, I soon began to have my doubts about Keir's upstanding character during the breakup party incident and his "crusade for righteousness." In fact, I believe that Keir has the "makings" of a sociopath. When I view Keir objectively, I see him as a social deviant. Keir has defaced public property, partcipated in illegal drug  possession and trafficking,  committed rape, and quite possibly murder. Keir has an  incredible string of "bad luck" for such  a "good boy."   
Nancy

Overwhelmed

            First off, sorry it has taken me so long to post this, I have had a busy week and haven't wanted to read postings about the book until I was finished with it. With so little time I think it was almost bad that I got so into this book and couldn't not finish it!

             I think the way to describe how this book makes me feel is overwhelmed. I was nothing like Keir when I was in high school, so I have definately been having trouble relating. I have, however, tried to find things in him that I could see in myself or some of my friends. I think I eventually was able to see Keir through other people I knew...good people in bad circumstances or making bad decisions. The hardest parts of the book for me to get a grasp on is how he does these terrible things, like what happens at the break-up parties and can still think he is a good person.  I knew in the back of my head that something bad was going to happen,  but when he originally decided to ride around in the limo, and not drink, I was almost proud of him. Then when he took the pill and Rollo brought him to the party I felt like he was on the downward slope. My last hope of redemption was his fear, and I thought "Yes, just listen to that. Go home! Don't do anything stupid." And then the phone rang. Ray. I want to hurt him when he calls Keir, tells him it's nothing, go party.  I think the thing I took away most from this book is how influenced Keir is, by all the wrong people. He thinks he is a good guy, and then the football accident occurs, and afterwards everyone is making him out to be this great guy. First Ray, then the quarterback Ken. They are saying the things that make him feel good about himself, so he lets them sway him. He chooses not to listen to Gigi or his sisters--the voices of reason--because they make him feel wrong. Since everyone is telling him how good a guy he is, especially Ray, there is no reason to believe anyone who tells him otherwise. I think in this sense I feel a little compassion for him.  But  at the same time, he is a victim of his own bad choices. He chooses to drink as much as he does, which usually ends terribly. Yes, it is compounded by his buddies, either the football team or Ray. But ultimately he has to be the one to choose. He knows it, too, repeating "you can't not choose."  I think about it the same way I do about the killer nickname. He knows it isn't right. But he ultimately chooses to go with it, even though Ray, in perhaps one of his few commendable actions, tells Keir that isn't who he is. Perhaps that name  influenced him as much as anything else. When someone calls you killer long enough, then maybe you start exhibiting the characteristics one might associate with such a name.  So at the party when quarterback Ken kept calling him Killer, and telling him he wanted things he didn't really want, Killer started wanting them. Perhaps it was a little bit of peer pressure, but I think Keir could have said no; Killer didn't say no.

            I think that the most interesting information we get about Keir comes from Fran when he visits her in Norfolk. She tells him "You make things up to be the way you want them to be. And Ray lets you" (150).  This is the reason that Keir thinks he is such a good guy, why Keir thinks he didn't do any of the things he did. Mary says that Ray is the reason for this--why Keir never had to be responsible for anything. On the one hand Keir is a victim of circumstance. On the other hand, he cannot rely on other people to be responsible for him, even if that means being responsible for his responsibility. Does that make sense?

What My Kids Think

I read Laura's post early this morning and decided to take an informal interest survey with some of my own students.  I read them one chapter: "The Company You Keep," in which Keir tells about the "breaking up" parties for the football and soccer teams.  That chapter motivated me to write such annotations as, "creepy little bastard," and "I want to smash his face in," so I thought if any chapter might "hook" a kid, that would be it.

The feedback in response to the question, "What do you think of the narrator, Keir?" follows:

"I think he is insecure about himself, which is why he does mean things with his football buddies."

"I think Keir is involved with the wrong crowd, but seems nice overall."

"This guy sounded like he was worth reading about.  Any story with football definitely has action."

"I think Keir is kinda a dick.  He tries to validate himself because he feels bad for being a bad person.  He is selfish."

"I think the narrator is surprised, almost in shock, because he is realizing how he really is and his teammates are."

"I think he's an idiot.  He seems very two-faced and just concerned about being popular."

"Keir seems to be very upset and may have a right to be because he was shown in a wrong manner."

Also, out of 17 kids, 6 said they wouldn't like to read the book at all, 8 said they would like to read it in a class, and 3 said they would read it on their own.

Finished it as well

I, as it seems many of you, was unable to not read the entire novel.  It draws you in from the get-go.  Knowing that Keir is at some point in the actual text going to rape Gigi makes it extremely hard to put the novel down.  I found myself rooting for Keir, but at the same time, I found many of his actions ignorant, immature, or simply wrong.

From the very start, Inexcusable had the feelings of two other works, "The Tell Tale Heart" and The Catcher in the Rye.  While this novel differs from "Catcher" in the fact that the main character definitely does not have the preoccupation with remaining innocent that Holden does, the style that Keir narrates with is very similar to Holden's trying-to-be-honest-but-not-always-succeeding style.  "The Tell Tale Heart" comes in with the idea that we immediately get the feeling that Keir, like the narrator of "The Tell Tale Heart," is someone who is not to be completely trusted and taken at his word.  I found that this mix made for a rough combo to walk away from.

I knew Keir was capable of terrible things (his betrayal of the soccer team showed that), and we knew what the terrible thing was going to be from the start, but I could not help but naively hope that some miracle would happen and he would not rape Gigi.  That's why this book is compelling.  A flawed character, a very flawed character, is sometimes easiest to like, and it thrashes us when he is shown with the monstrous flaws he has.

I'm definitely looking forward to this conversation on TH night.

Participating in a Socratic Seminar

In response to my post last Fri asking for volunteers to facilitate discussion, Jacqueline has offered to be the seminar leader for a discussion of INEXCUSABLE on TH night. Here is a good description of the key question that ignites the seminar:

"An opening question has no right answer; instead it reflects a genuine curiosity on the part of the leader. An effective opening question leads participants back to the text as they speculate, evaluate, define, and clarify the issues involved. Responses to the opening question generate new questions from the leader and participants, leading to new responses. In this way, the line of inquiry evolves on the spot rather than being predetermined by the leader."

Participants in the seminar must come prepared (that's what your annotations of the text accomplish) for the discussion, or in my experience it can degenerate into a general chat about any number of related topics or remain at an "amateur reader" level (that is, "I liked it, I didn't like it," etc.) instead of remaining focused on the text. Focus on a sophisticated reading of the text is our objective.

I look forward to our discussion. Just a warning. I think the class has READ this book. If you haven't finished it by TH night's class, I can't protect you from the ending's not being spoiled by your enthusiastic peers.

By asking you to read only the first half I am trying to be respectful of how much reading there will be to accomplish every week in this class, primarily your independent choice reading for book clubs, seminars and lit circles.

KES

Finished It

Ok, I finished the book. So if you haven't, don't read this post until later as I will discuss the book in toto.

First off, this wouldn't have been a useful book to me when I was a kid. I was an entirely different person from Keir in every way imaginable, and would never have ended up in a situation like he landed in. There were a few posts trying to assign blame, whether it be on Keir for being self-deceptive or Ray for not fulfilling parental duties, but what about society as an abstract force? Keir and his dad go out drinking and Keir gets served? Not only do they serve him, they know full well that he's a high school senior and condone his behavior. What about Ken's parents, who decide that it's ok to leave the house to their son for the weekend and tell him as long as they don't find out what goes on it's ok? While these may be alarmingly frequent occurences in the real world, let's not blame Keir for finding himself in a situation where he can get a wide assortment of drugs with no one telling him that it's wrong.

As for the football incident, I place no blame at all anywhere. It was an accident, these things happen. Keir can feel bad that it happened, and others can express sympathy for both the hurt boy and Keir, but this incident was not a result of any deliberate action, and was entirely an accident.

And now, to the 'inexcusable' act itself. Keir was stupid, this is beyond question. He was also drugged up quite nicely. And so was she. While his responsibility is to restrain himself and understand when 'no' means 'no', her responsibility was to either not end up in the situation or to be irrevocably firm. In that sense, they both failed. Again, we're not sure as to specifics because we get them first person. Did she in fact say 'no'? Did she in fact respond to Keir's overtures in a positive way? These are not excuses (his action is indeed 'inexcusable') but they are mitigating circumstances.

I can see quite clearly how this is supposed to resonate with younger readers. They are assumed to be in a world surrounded by temptation, bereft of moral guidance, and thrust into situations where they aren't able to make rational decisions. Parents are conspicously absent. Ray, the most present parent in the book, has fallen into the trap of trying to make friends with his kids before they have grown up. The very fact that Keir calls his dad 'Ray' indicates a level of informality and a lack of authority possessed by Ray over Keir's life. I of course know my parents' names, and those of my friends' parents, but it would seem horribly awkward and inappropriate to call any of them by their first names. Keir has no moral compass, no authority figure pointing the way, and thus he becomes excellent at rationalizing all that he does. After all, no one is telling him differently.

Well, that's enough for now. There's sure to be some good discussion in class Thursday!

-NJP

Part one con't

Karen - I am not sure how to attach my comment to your comment.  But as far as your question concerning Ray, I believe that Ray is a big part of Keir's problem.  He is an alcoholic, or as he states a "quasi alcoholic."  He has never completely gotten over the loss of his wife, Keir's mother.  Rather than give Keir guidance concerning his questionable actions, he soothes Keir's conscience with comments such as "you're a good boy".   I'm only at page 69, so I'm not sure of Ray's reaction in the end.  I don't see him as a bad guy, but simply a troubled man that loves his son dearly.  He can't stand the thought of Keir being in trouble.  Keir also could not stand to be seen as a bad kid in the eyes of his father.