Week 3 - Scout as Narrator

[Alex Gandy]

To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the point of view of a six-year-old narrator. What are the benefits and limitations of such a youthful narrative voice? Do you buy Scout as a real six-year-old? Is she too wise for her age? Would the story have been more effective from another point of view? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the text.

[Kennedy Curley]

I don't think there are many limitations of Scout being the narrator. She has way more than the average amount of wisdom for a six-year-old, and her vocabulary is also very mature. The only limitation that I can think of is that sometimes she doesn't understand what's going on. For example, when Aunt Alexandra and Atticus were discussing the impact Calpurnia has on the family, Scout thought to herself and to us, "Who was the 'her' they were talking about?" (Lee 136). Other than that, all the narrator is really supposed to do is tell the story from his or her perspective in an effective way, and that's what Scout did.

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Alex Gandy <alexga...@gmail.com> wrote:

To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the point of view of a six-year-old narrator. What are the benefits and limitations of such a youthful narrative voice? Do you buy Scout as a real six-year-old? Is she too wise for her age? Would the story have been more effective from another point of view? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the text.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "fgsea" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fgsea+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Alexandra Olazaran]

Having Scout as the narrator forces us to infer what happens and piece the story together ourselves because she is too innocent to know what is actually going on. I don't see any limitations to the story because of The way that Harper Lee wrote TKAM. I don't think that Scout is too wise for her age because she isn't the one who says wise things, she is just surrounded by wise people and she is telling the reader what she hears. I think that Scout's point of view is the best for the whole story (including the ending) because, like I mentioned before, it allows us to come to our own conclusions.

On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Alex Gandy <alexga...@gmail.com> wrote:

To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the point of view of a six-year-old narrator. What are the benefits and limitations of such a youthful narrative voice? Do you buy Scout as a real six-year-old? Is she too wise for her age? Would the story have been more effective from another point of view? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the text.

[zulrich]

I think it is beneficial to have a young narrator so you get the full effect of the innocence that Scout has as a kid. Limitations could be her not understanding the lynch mob, which is why the author writes the scene of the lynch mob like she does. If I did not know Scout was a six-year-old, I would have thought she was about twenty or so. She does seem way too wise for her age, although she is six and she gets her wisdom from her really wise dad. I don't think the story would have been more effective told from another perspective. Although Tom Robinson's perspective would have been an interesting side of the story to hear, such as the court scene and everything before and after that.

[Shaye Murray]

I LOVE that Scout narrated the story. I think the fact that she was a child and more naive than an adult made the story more effective because children see things as they are. A person is a person and there's nothing else to it. Yet with adults and as you get older you begin to separate yourself more from different kinds of people and you begin segregating and stereotyping. I do buy Scout as a six year old. There's no doubt that she is wiser than most, but her age frequently comes out when she doesn't fully understand things, or isn't able to clearly explain down thing she's heard, though her inability to explain or understand something is also a limitation with using a child narrator. When Scout beats up Francis because of what he calls Atticus; it shows how little understanding she had of the racism because she was unaware of the meaning of the word. 

On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Alex Gandy <alexga...@gmail.com> wrote:

To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the point of view of a six-year-old narrator. What are the benefits and limitations of such a youthful narrative voice? Do you buy Scout as a real six-year-old? Is she too wise for her age? Would the story have been more effective from another point of view? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the text.

[Sarah Park]

To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the point of view of a six-year-old narrator. What are the benefits and limitations of such a youthful narrative voice? Do you buy Scout as a real six-year-old? Is she too wise for her age? Would the story have been more effective from another point of view? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the text.

Having Scout, a six year old, as a narrator, has its benefits and limitations for the readers. You are able to see the story from an outsider and a neutral person. She doesn't necessarily understand everything, but because she doesn't I think it's easy for us to inference things for ourselves by the way she describes the scene neutrally, however this could also be a limitation. We can't actually inference everything that happens because at some times, she doesn't exactly know what's going on, so she can't exactly explain them. Scout seems to be mature and immature at times. She seems to have a better sense compared to other children, but compared to the adults she interacts with, she seems to be immature. She is exposed to things that not all six year olds are exposed to, yet hasn't developed a mentality like Jem. I feel like Scout was a good perspective to see the story because she doesn't know everything that's happening, which makes the story neutral and innocent.

[Meagan Kelly]

I agree with Zach. I think it I beneficial to have it told by such a young character. Like Zach said, it puts the story in a perspective of innocence but at the same time the audience realizes that Harper Lee is against racism and is trying to get the reader to believe so as well. The parts such like the lynch mob would have been too straightforward for such a delicate and angry time period. But I do disagree with people who say she is too wise, because I believe you can never been too wise for your age. Being too wise is like saying being too kind. It's a blessing and a curse. Because of Scout's wisdom, she knows things that she shouldn't and puts too many puzzle pieces together but at the same time knows how to stay calm and stay out of trouble for the most part. 

Sent from my iPhone

[Mikayla Lewison]

I personally really like that the book is told in the point of view of Scout. To Kill a Mockingbird is a very intense book, but when Scout narrates, it brings some youth and happiness. Scout is so poised and mature for her age you honestly wouldn't think she was only 6 years old. I think there are perks and flaws to being a very smart 6 year old. I wouldn't consider her too wise for her age, she's just a little more mature than people are used to so it might astound some people. I personally think that Scout was the perfect narrator for the book because I like how innocent, yet intelligent she sounds. I love the fact that Harper Lee's message is racism is received in an innocent way. It's also a little easier to get a grip on and understand the factual nature of the book because you can interpret the innocence of the book in your own way. 

---

From: Alex Gandy <alexga...@gmail.com>
To: fg...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:59 AM
Subject: Week 3 - Scout as Narrator

To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the point of view of a six-year-old narrator. What are the benefits and limitations of such a youthful narrative voice? Do you buy Scout as a real six-year-old? Is she too wise for her age? Would the story have been more effective from another point of view? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the text.

[Blake Grabsky]

     I think it's beneficial that TKAM is told from Scout's points of view because it offers an alternative perspective to the story. The Book Thief was told from a German's point of view rather than the usual Jew's. You'd also expect a book about racism in the South to be told by a black man such as Tom rather than a six-year-old white girl. Because Shout's our narrator, we can see racism in the South from a different perspective. This is beneficial because we see that not only did racism affect black people, but it also impacted Scout, Jem, Atticus, and Dill. I don't think that there are any limitations with Scout as the narrator. Her youth actually benefited the story as some people believe that her ignorance hindered the story. Because she didn't understand some things, she had to ask Atticus about them. This prompted him to respond with his Atticusisms -- the important lessons that the book is ultimately trying to convey to the reader. I don't think that Scout is too wise for her age. I don't think it's possible to be "too" wise. Yes, Scout is smarted than the average 6-year-old, but that doesn't make her too wise. Scout didn't understand a lot of things throughout the book, but she asked questions because she wanted to understand. No one can know everything, but asking questions is the first step to becoming wise.

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Alex Gandy <alexga...@gmail.com> wrote:

To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the point of view of a six-year-old narrator. What are the benefits and limitations of such a youthful narrative voice? Do you buy Scout as a real six-year-old? Is she too wise for her age? Would the story have been more effective from another point of view? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the text.

[Charlie Tapken]

I think that havong scout be a six-year-old narrator is good because you can just see all the innocence and the new concept on that effects this girls life so much. The only limitations is the understanding and way of thinking when it comes to some of the more advance type of things that a normal six-year-old would not understand either. Although scout also does understand some of thing that a normal six-year-old wouldn't understand. in some instances i think that she may be to wise but it's good. her being "too wise" doesn't ruin it or anything i didn't think about it til i thought back on the book.

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Alex Gandy <alexga...@gmail.com> wrote:

To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the point of view of a six-year-old narrator. What are the benefits and limitations of such a youthful narrative voice? Do you buy Scout as a real six-year-old? Is she too wise for her age? Would the story have been more effective from another point of view? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the text.

[Igor Do Nascimento]

Having Scout as a narrator was beneficial in many prospects, first because the author can have a bigger impact on the reader, because it makes the reader feel more affection towards a child than an adult, Her innocence plays such a big role on it, because we can understand what she doesn't which makes us feel like part of it in some way and kind of identify and compare moments of our own life when we pretended to know something we did not understand. and since Harper lee created Scout as a Tomboy, which makes Scout different from the other girls, to infer that being different is not wrong, that just because people's impression on how you look or on how you behave does not make you bad or good. I believe the lesson that Harper Lee was trying to convey when she wrote the book, was that children had better sense of judgement than the adults, for the children had the innocence to see everybody as equal, while the (majority of ) adults saw certain people from distinct background inferior or simply different and unfit for any kind of social relation.

[Katharine Jovicich]

I think it would be neat to be told from another point of view maybe Atticus. It would be fascinating to see what he was thinking about during the trial and when Tom said he felt sorry for Mayella and when Jim and Scout saw him move slowly from the jail. I wonder about his thoughts during everything because he seems so calm. I do thing Scout is a little mature in a way but Harper Lee does a great job at showing her innocents. She does grow up different from the rest of her class because she lives in a neighborhood of older people and no kids live on her block permanently. To me she doesn't really seem 6 years old all the time but its also a different time period so maybe some 6 year olds could of been more mature.

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Alex Gandy <alexga...@gmail.com> wrote:

To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the point of view of a six-year-old narrator. What are the benefits and limitations of such a youthful narrative voice? Do you buy Scout as a real six-year-old? Is she too wise for her age? Would the story have been more effective from another point of view? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the text.

[roni medina]

Blakey Pooh Pooh I agree! I like that scout is the narrator because she's so innocent. Since she was so little and young it equals out the seriousness of the book. When I was a little kid I never thought of leaving someone out and I always spoke my mind about everything. You really get full view of everything 

Sent from my iPhone

[Amy Schmitt]

I love the point you made Sarah about how Scout's perspective is neutral, because she is too young to form her own perspective on certain situations. I don't agree with you about how her naive spin on things could have a negative effect on the story though, because, and I could be wrong about this, but I think that Harper Lee wanted the readers to interpret the story for themselves. I also liked the point you made about the fluctuation of her intelligence because it is quite clear, like you mentioned, that she is a child when she gets lost in conversation around adults and when Atticus has to reword his part of the conversation for her. I love Scout as the narrator as well!!   

[Jansen Rees]

Yes, Scout in wise for her age, but I do think that she is portrayed as a real six-year old. Her innocence shown throughout the novel is a fine example of that. She doesn’t understand what is happening most of the time and her being naïve helps with the story telling. It does make you infer things though. I also think her innocence helps tell the story because you see the bad and wrong shown throughout the novel in a kid’s point of view. Most kids do not see the bad in things, so they don’t believe in things like Racism. They believe everyone is the same so it helps show how wrong racism is. 

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Alex Gandy <alexga...@gmail.com> wrote:

To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the point of view of a six-year-old narrator. What are the benefits and limitations of such a youthful narrative voice? Do you buy Scout as a real six-year-old? Is she too wise for her age? Would the story have been more effective from another point of view? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the text.

[Wil Kahlich]

I think Lee made a good choice to tell this story from Scout's perspective. A young, innocent outlook on life is one of the most happy and optimistic things...ever. They tend to see the good in things people do, and not understand why anyone would be evil, with very elementary, but accurate, logic.

Lee definitely portrays a young child well. She nails the innocent outlook and sometimes blissful ignorance that can come with being a child.

--
-Wil

[Caleb Smith-Shaw]

I think that hearing a story told through a child's point of view is much different from a story told from the point of view of an adult. Children base much of what they say on emotion, while adults base more of what they say off of logic. I think that Harper Lee made a good choice making the narrator a six-year-old girl because Scout's character often shows us different perspectives of very serious and dark situations, whether it be through humor or just explaining something a different way than the other characters. Also, Scout is very intellegent for her age and thinks differently from other children her age and location. If this story was told from another little girl that lived down the street from Scout, To Kill A Mockingbird would be a totally different book.   

[Robert Cooper Flickinger]

I personally loved the fact that scout narrates it. It really gives you a new perspective on life in that time period. Her innocence also changes the way you think about the story as well as giving you lots of comic relief at times. That is one of the reasons i love this book

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Alex Gandy <alexga...@gmail.com> wrote:

To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the point of view of a six-year-old narrator. What are the benefits and limitations of such a youthful narrative voice? Do you buy Scout as a real six-year-old? Is she too wise for her age? Would the story have been more effective from another point of view? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the text.

[Gissel Glez]

I agree with the point you made Caleb when you said that "If this story was told from another little girl that lived down the street from Scout, To Kill A Mockingbird would be a totally different book." Because as we know Scout was the narrator for the book and Lee as you said had a good choice in having her for the intelligence she has and is one of the main characters mostly in the book.

---

Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 18:15:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Week 3 - Scout as Narrator
From: calebsm...@gmail.com
To: fg...@googlegroups.com

[Siqi Huang]

The book published at that time wouldn't cause people to blame mistakes on a six-year old because of her naive point of view. The questioning of racism would be forgiving coming from a young child but many detailed factors seemed to happen in a blur. Many events described seemed suitable from a child's perspective like luring Boo Radley out of his house but not always if the author wants to get the attention to the audience. The trial was phrased in simple words but since it was crucial, the author had to make Atticus' speech clear for the audience which a six-year old may not make out of. I wouldn't be surprised if Scout's knowledge surpasses many of her age because she was raised by an understanding man who encouraged her to reach far out of Maycomb. Technically, the situation does seem a bit more mature for a child, who I think would be a better alternative is Boo. Although he doesn't move much but the quietest one always observe the best. He does come out of his house to save Jem and Scout at the end so it means that he cares but rather stay inside the house to avoid the negativity of the town. "He hadn't done any of those [bad] things.........he was real nice" showed that Boo had emotions and often staying in the house would give a neutral description of the environment instead of Scout questioning and making false assumptions all the time (281). 

---

From: alexga...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 02:59:27 -0500
Subject: Week 3 - Scout as Narrator
To: fg...@googlegroups.com

To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the point of view of a six-year-old narrator. What are the benefits and limitations of such a youthful narrative voice? Do you buy Scout as a real six-year-old? Is she too wise for her age? Would the story have been more effective from another point of view? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the text.

[Katharine Jovicich]

Alex
I really like your point on us having to piece the story together because we are not given all the details. Do you think it would of been interesting from Atticus's point of view?
I hadn't thought about the thinking of different ways to interpret what we are not told and what we are told from a 6 year old. Sence Jim is close in age and they practically are together all the time do you think Jim would have just about the same plot and thoughtsfor this book? If Jim was narrator would there be a little convention to Jim from Dill actually wanting to marry Scout instead of the pretend that wegetfrom Scout? Sence Jim and Dill played by themselves without Scout sometimes. Would Jim have the same point of view on Aunt Alexandra?

[Weston Smith]

Exactly Kennedy! That's what I was thinking. Scout seems a bit mature for a six-year-old. And she does use some higher level vocabulary as well! I agree with you in how Harper Lee "balanced" her out and made her innocent and like every six-year-old didn't know what was going on around her. I think Harper Lee did a good job making Scout the narrator.

---

Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 15:44:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Week 3 - Scout as Narrator
From: kennedy...@gmail.com
To: fg...@googlegroups.com

[Owen Lee]

With Scout as the narrator, I think there are some limitations since she is in fact only a six-year-old. Harper Lee did not get in as much detail about the lynching as others would have liked to have known about, because she is a six-year-old and doesn't know what the term "lynching" is. Lee did an excellent job portraying Scout as a six-year-old and frankly, I don't think this story would've been nearly as effective if it was in anyone else's point of view. 

Sent from my iPhone

On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Alex Gandy <alexga...@gmail.com> wrote:

To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the point of view of a six-year-old narrator. What are the benefits and limitations of such a youthful narrative voice? Do you buy Scout as a real six-year-old? Is she too wise for her age? Would the story have been more effective from another point of view? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the text.