Monster

Monster, by Walter Dean Myers, raises interesting questions about race as well as our legal system. As readers, we are called to question the role that emotion plays in the court room and the extent to which race influences these emotions.

Criminal cases in the United States are, in theory, supposed to be based on facts and evidence. If there is reasonable doubt that a defendant committed a crime, they are supposed to be freed. However, throughout Monster, we are introduced to multiple instances of emotion taking over in place of reason. Steve, the protagonist (though it feels strange to call him such as he plays such a passive role in the story), is told by his lawyer, O'Brien, that the jury already believes him guilty. “You're young, and you're Black, and you're on trial. What else do they need to know?” (79). Even O'Brien seems to believe that Steve is guilty, but she does her job of defending him and upholding the law, clinging to the notion of reasonable doubt.

The prosecution feeds on the emotional response of the jury. At one point, the prosecutor sent the jury home with crime scene photos of the murdered victim. This serves no relevance to whether or not Steve is guilty; his guilt has no bearing on whether or not the murder was gruesome – that fact exists independent of the reality of Steve's involvement. Yet these images were used in an attempt to emotionally to manipulate the jury. Emotions play a role in other points throughout the story as well. Steve communicates this through his screenplay, with directions such as “CUT TO: CU of JUROR looking bored” (54), reminding us as readers that the jurors interest has bearing on the potential outcome of a cse.

In my view, the book also illustrates the potential moral issues with the notion of felony murder. Felony murder is a charge, essentially equal to murder in severity of punishment, for being involved in any felony in which a murder takes place, even if one had no involvement in the actual murders. In my mind as a reader, even if Steve had been guilty or being a lookout for an unarmed robber, he had in say in whether or not a murder was going to take place. Oddly, Bobo, who was actually in the store and could have possibly been the actual murderer, wasn't charged with felony murder in exchange for turning in Steve, whose involvement was debatable.

One interesting thing to note is that despite being in the form of a screenplay “written” by a black writer, the novel seems to employ a subtle racism through the notion of white neutrality. Generally, characters are considered to be white unless otherwise specified. For example, Steve, writing the story, feels the need to note that Arthur Williams is a “Black detective,” implying that all the others are white.

The book approaches race multiple times. Race is made a prominent theme in the text, despite the fact that in a courtroom the only thing that is supposed to matter is evidence. A scene with the mayor notes that the city is interested in all crimes, and not just those committed against white people. The book also confronts systemic issues surrounding black Americans, noting that a significant number of black men are unemployed or underemployed, suggesting that this results in a predisposition towards criminal behavior.

In my mind, the format of the book made it very accessible. I formed images in my head as I read as if I was watching Steve's film. The photo illustrations included in the book actually took away from the experience for me, forcing images in place of those I formed as a reader. This text is an engaging read, creating tension as the reader forms an emotional involvement with Steve through his journal entries (the script portion takes a much more neutral view). Raising questions concerning race, morality, and law, the text is thought provoking and would be a wonderful tool to spark discussion and debate in the classroom.