Ccukoo's Nest Questions

1). Why did the Chief kill McMurphy?
          I believe it was because it was no longer McMurphy, in Chief's mind. He had been replaced, was a tool of The Combine. Bromden killed him to put him out of his misery.

2.) Why was it that Bromden always saw machinery, and not anything else?
          Since Bromden had served as a mechanic in the war, that probably had an effect on his paranoid-delusional symptoms. It is unknown whether he was insane before the war or not, but if not, the trauma of the war is probably what did it. Since he was constantly dealing with machinery at the time, his insanity simply followed a track that his mind was familiar with.

3.) Why did Kesey place such emphasis on the black boys in the story?
          I honestly don't know and would like to. He keeps talking about them, despite the fact that they aren't very important to the plot. Maybe they represent a certain aspect of society; I'm not quite sure.

4.) Kesey worked in a mental hospital before writing this book. How directly do you think that effected this novel? Did he just use the system from experience, or do you think certain events in the story happened at the hospital where Kesey worked?
          I doubt that the hospital that Kesey worked at had as many inhumane treatments as the one in the novel, but I'm also guessing that a few elements were there, such as a Shock Shop, etc. The question is whether Kesey's hospital was as outdated as the one in the book, still doing lobotomies and the likes.
         

Second Gatsby Reading Blog

Meyer Wolfsheim's sole purpose, it seems, is to show a sort of "dark side" to Gatsby. Wolfsheim is representative of all of Gatsby's illegitimate dealings. In fact, it almost seems as if Wolfsheim is supposed to directly be Gatsby's shadier half, what Gatsby might have been or one day will be. It certainly gives Gatsby depth, and makes the reader begin to question whether Gatsby is a hero or, in fact, an anti-hero.

But to counter this, you learn of Gatsby's history with Daisy, and you begin to sympathize with him again. There isn't much more deserving of sympathy than a man whose lover leaves him while he is fighting overseas. When a man has lost that much, it is understandable that he would turn to dealings with people like Wolfsheim.

The rest of Gatsby's past is pretty neutral. Sure, it makes a feel-good story when a poor-born main character rises in wealth and status, but it's kind of negated when you realize exactly how he attained this. So the two early pieces of information are the most important to the reader's impression of Gatsby.

My impression of Gatsby in this section went up. Obviously, his tragic history with Daisy brings me a great deal of sympathy for him. Normally, for most people, this would be balanced by the discovery of his elicit dealings, but not me. This is mainly because I suspected this from the start, so it was already factored into my opinion of him. Therefore, verification of his activities didn't do much to lower my opinion of him. I still think Gatsby is an excellent person, despite having some flaws.

Second Cuckoo's Nest Blog

I believe that as the rivalry between the Nurse and McMurphy progresses, the Nurse is winning. Sure, McMurphy has some frequent and comedic victories, but the Nurse usually can withstand them. As Bromden says, "To beat her you don't have to whip her 2 out of 3, or 3 out of 5, but every time you meet." All McMurphy needs to do is show one sign of weakness, and she will win. The odds are definitely on the Nurses side, considering its nearly impossible to not slip at all.

The interesting thing I noticed is that McMurphy and Bromden almost seem to be friends, despite Bromden never speaking to him. At the beginning, Bromden was silent and emotionless and only cagey in a very animal way. Now he is still silent, but reacts more to things, such as when he gets excited at the Nurse losing her temper. Also, his caginess has sort of evolved. He positions himself near McMurphy, he acts smarter and more wary of the nurses and aids, and he begins to "rebellious" things, like not taking the red pill before bed. I don't think this is directly McMurphy's influence; its just that McMurphy's presence has brought out the younger, original side of Bromden that we see in flashbacks. I believe that McMurphy reminds Bromden of his former self.

I am definitely rooting for McMurphy. He is hilarious compared to the rest of the characters, I need to get me a pair of those whale boxers he has, and he makes life miserable for a really mean character, being the Nurse.

First Cuckoo's Nest Blog

In many novels, including One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the roles of hero, anti-hero, and villain are largely based on the perceptions of the narrator. Since our narrator is a mental patient with skewed views of reality, it might not be as clear-cut later on. But for now, it actually makes it easier to identify these roles, since the narrator is quite blunt in his descriptions and emotions.

The villain is quite clearly Nurse Ratched. You can tell right off the bat that she is not a nice character. Her first action in the novel is to almost explode with rage at the aides. Bromden said she was going to "tear the black bastards limb from limb, she's so furious." Then later, he describes her as smooth, cold, and calculating. This women obviously controls the ward with an iron fist, and her inhumane treatment of the patients definitely goes against the reader's moral compass. Being the moral opposite of most readers, and being described negatively by the narrator, she is clearly the villain of this story.

I believe that this story has an anti-hero: McMurphy. He is certainly a positive character since the narrator reveres him almost with awe, and our very first impression of him is when he sees the ward and begins to spontaneously laugh heartily. According to Bromdem, "it's the first laugh I've heard in years." The audience immediately likes McMurphy, simply because he can manage to cheer up a soulless, laugh-less mental hospital full of mistreated patients. Throughout the rest of the first section, his odd sense of humor sticks around, and he even openly defies the "evil" Nurse Ratched. However, McMurphy is an anti-hero because he is not a good person. He was serving jail time, was once arrested (but not convicted) of rape, and has a tendency towards sex, fighting, and gambling. However, the audience still likes him because he is funny and can brighten up the ward.

Final Gatsby Reading Journal

1) Many times in the story, Fitzgerald deliberately mentions the billboard of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg. What is this supposed to represent?
      I think that Eckleburg represents 1920's high society. He looms above the Valley of Ashes, watching over the place where industry happens and the poor people live, as if he controls  it. The fact that most of his face is worn away represents that the rich aren't nearly as powerful as they think, but the watchful eyes still remain. It is also significant that Wilson mistakes Eckleburg's eyes for the Eyes of God, as sort of a literal jab at the reverence with which the working class see the rich.

2) Why did Gatsby always throw wild parties, even though he tended to be so anti-social?
      He wanted for Daisy to show up to one of his semi-famous parties, so the parties sort of acted as a lure. The wildness and extravagance was so that if Daisy ever did show up, she would be impressed by the wealth and status of it all. His sole goal was Daisy's attraction and approval; he couldn't care less for the actual parties or his invitees.

3) Gatsby makes a point of befriending Nick, despite being a much richer, higher-class person with more acquaintances than he could count. Why is this?
      Part of me wants to say that Gatsby could connect with Nick, both having served in the Great War and being from the West. However, it seems to me that Gatsby's motivation for everything he does in this book is Daisy. As much as I hate to admit it, I think Gatsby befriended Nick not to be friendly, but to get closer to Daisy, since Nick was her cousin. Which he did do, later in the book, convincing Nick to invite over Daisy so that Gatsby could reunite with her.

4) Right before Gatsby's death, Nick states that "I disapproved of him from the beginning to the end." Yet Nick spends the entire story idolizing him and painting him in a positive light. Why did he make this statement, which is so out of place?
      I honestly have no idea what the answer to this is. Nick suddenly pulls a little flip-flop move after liking Gatsby the whole book, and says that he had always disapproved of him. Maybe this is because liking and approving of are not the same thing. While Nick clearly liked Gatsby, Gatsby was involved in some very shady business, and it seems that Nick didn't approve of this. He could have also disapproved of Gatsby's methods, like trying to further destroy  Daisy's marriage. Other than that, I have no idea.

Opener- "Clampdown"

What is this song about?

This song is about government control. The song keeps lyrically referencing a "clampdown." When he talks of rebelling against something, he says he's not working for the the clampdown. When he talks of his eventual submission, he is working for the clampdown. The clampdown, and whole song, is about government control.

What musical elements add to your interpretation?

At the beginning and end of the song, one can barely hear the lyrics, as they are almost completely drowned out by the music. His "voice" is easily overwhelmed and insignificant next to the power of the music/ government.

How does this relate to propaganda?


The clampdown is the government's propaganda, suppressing all negatives and promoting positives of the government.

Propaganda Quote Analysis

The quote I selected was #661, "Give me the writing of a nation's advertising and propaganda, and I care not who governs its politics." This is saying that one can learn much about a government by observing how it tries to impress itself on its citizens. Public impression of this government is not important to Hugh MacLennan, the one quoted, as that can be manipulated by propaganda. And not even the message given by the advertising is as important as the methods and rhetoric used to get the point across. One government could be sending a blatant, undisguised message supporting communism; while another could be sending an innocent, peaceful one hidden under layers and layers of persuasive techniques. While Westerners would be more inclined to support the latter message, the method of propaganda reflects negatively on that government's methods and relations with citizenry. Now imagine that the first country was China and the second America. That should not change our newly gained knowledge because, as MacLennan was saying, the name and type of government matters less than its propaganda methods. If one is smart enough to analyze it, a government's advertising can lay bare the inner workings of the government itself.