Cuckoo's Nest Reading Blog #3 (Final)

1.) What do you think the fog represented?

I think that the fog was the Chief's mind's way of hiding whatever it was that upset him. For example, in the beginning of the book when he gets pulled into the shaving room, he says that "they start the fog machine again and it's snowing down cold and white all over me like skim milk, so thick I might even be able to hide in it if they didn't have a hold on me." (p. 7) He's panicking because he thinks he's going to be taken to the Shock Shop, so to hide himself away from the horrors that await him there his mind conjures up this thick white fog to cover it all up. As the book goes on, the fog begins to appear less and less until it's gone completely, and by then we know it's because the Chief isn't afraid anymore, and his mind isn't trying to hide the unpleasantness around him.

2.) Who do you think has won in the end, Mack or Big Nurse?

In a sense, one could say that Big Nurse has won, seeing as how she was able to get McMurphy lobotomized, but his spirit still remains. She may have thought that she had won, since she was able to turn him into a Vegetable, thus preventing him from causing any more trouble, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she was able to quell the rebellious spirit he instilled in the men on the ward. To assist in her loss, the Chief killed McMurphy so as to prevent the memory of his boisterous, rambunctious actions from fading and being replaced with a memory of a drooling sack of flesh laying in a bed. In this sense, the Big Nurse hasn't won. Since the majority of McMurphy's time on the ward was spent fighting against her and not being a Vegetable, that is what he'll be remembered for, and as such his spirit will live on. She has not crushed it completely.

3.) Why do you think Kesey chose to have Chief narrate the book instead of Mack?

I think Kesey made Chief the narrator instead of McMurphy so as to provide some perspective on the whole situation. Although the Chief is heavily biased towards McMurphy's side of things, he also gives us insight on the Nurse's side of the fight, which makes for a more interesting read. Thanks to having Chief as the narrator and showing us some of the Big Nurse's side, the reader feels conflict between the two opposing forces and can choose as to who they want to support in the story. The Chief also provides us with a more fleshed out narrative, because he's privy to conversations and events that the other characters don't witness. Since he acts as though he's deaf and dumb, he can get really close to some of the other characters (such as the Big Nurse and the black boys) and hear what they're saying without suspicion. This contributes to our perception of all of the characters, something that couldn't be accomplished if Mack were the narrator.

4.) Based on the portrayal of women in the book, what do you think the perception of women was back when the book was published?

The women in this book aren't exactly the paragon of pleasantness. The Big Nurse is painted as a tyrannical woman who doesn't care about her patients in the slightest - all she wants is rigid order. Harding's wife is a cruel and manipulative woman who makes him feel inadequate and mocks his masculinity or lack thereof. The two prostitutes, Candy and Sandy, are relatively nice women but are still whores, which is certainly something society back when this book was published would look down upon. Based on these portrayals, women obviously weren't particularly valued in society, and each represent some different negative stereotypes of females. For example, the Big Nurse is a nurse, first and foremost, which is the sort of job that would have been seen as 'acceptable' for a woman back in the 50's, which goes to show that people back then believed women could only hold traditionally feminine jobs such as being a nurse. Harding's wife is a manipulative flirt who, despite coming to visit her husband at the hospital, openly shows the men her cleavage and basically acts like a slut, giving off the vibe that women are greedy and cunning and use sex to get what they want. The two prostitutes are pretty nice girls, but as mentioned are still both prostitutes and are not ashamed of it. They also get into some pretty socially unacceptable behavior other than being whores - drinking, for example. All in all, the portrayal of women in this book is awful. What I'm gathering from it is that women are evil, crafty, manipulative sluts who will use cruelty and sex to get what they want, which just goes to show that the opinion of women during the 50's was far from a positive one.

Cuckoo's Nest Blog #2

I would say that McMurphy is getting the best of their rivalry. By the very end of the section, he's obviously started to bother her by first trying to watch the World Series and then by continuing to stare at the TV screen even after the Big Nurse has cut the power. It's apparent that he's gotten her goat due to the fact that "[they] can see the nurse's face get red and her mouth work as she stares at [McMurphy]. (pg. 124) When she yells at McMurphy for not working, "her voice has a tight whine like an electric saw ripping through pine". (pg. 125) The Big Nurse has lost her composure and is ranting to the patients about not doing their work while McMurphy is as calm as anything. I think this shows that he's winning the battle between them.

I'm not sure how I feel about the Chief. To me, he's still just the narrator, and a slightly unreliable one at that. His perception of the Big Nurse is heavily biased towards portraying her as villainous, which bothers me just a bit, but since I think the point of the story is to have us rooting for McMurphy this bias is excusable. However, I don't think he's outright lying to us about anything, it's his perspective that's skewed. The medicine messes with his head and gives us whole sections of the book that seem so disconnected due to the fact that they're talking about fog and whatnot. I don't think McMurphy's presence has changed the Chief's narration at all, but I do think his presence has changed his character, if only slightly. The scene where the Chief raises his hand to add to the vote towards watching the World Series on page 123 shows that he's not afraid of the Big Nurse and also that he's willing to lower his act of deafness ever so slightly in order to help McMurphy's cause, which he supports.

I'm rooting more for McMurphy, though I can see why one would root for the Big Nurse. By this point, he's tried so hard to get the nurse's goat and to get the other men rallied together against her tyrannical rule that I think he deserves to win. He's very persistent in his efforts, which is admirable.

Cuckoo's Nest Blog #1

Hero: There doesn't really seem to be a hero in this story. Unlike in The Great Gatsby, our narrator here, Chief Bromden, is essentially just that - a narrator. He might as well not exist as an actual character and just be an omniscient narrator. He doesn't really have any values that we could agree or disagree with, he just tells things as they're happening to both him and the people around him. Whenever the Big Nurse does something to him, such as having him shaved before his electroshock therapy, he doesn't comment on how evil he thinks she is, he's simply relaying the events. McMurphy can't be our hero, either, since he has values that society disapproves of, and none of the other characters are major enough or have values that line up with ours to count as the hero.

Anti-hero: McMurphy is the anti-hero because while his values do conflict with society's, he also is honorable at the same time. As shown on page 40, 41, and 42,not only has he done many things that society disapproves of (such as assault and battery and rape) he has also pretended to be crazy so as to avoid going to a work camp. While these are bad things, his good aspects are that he realizes that Nurse Ratched is a bitch and he wants to screw with her system, something society and the audience can approve of because we realize that she is not a good person.

Villain: Nurse Ratched is obviously meant to be the villain of the story. While it would seem like she's a good woman, seeing as how her job is meant for 'fixing' those that are 'broken', her portrayal is nothing short of villainous. This is shown not only by the patients' view of her (such as Harding's sarcastic rant on page 55 of my copy and his affirmation of the fact that everyone hates her on page 56: "No one's ever dared come out and say it before, but there's not a man among us that doesn't think it, that doesn't feel just as you do about her [...]") but also by the things she does. On page 45, she manipulates and goads the patients to talk about embarrassing and incriminating secrets. ""Am I to take it that there's not a man among you that has committed some act that he has never admitted?" She reached in the basket for the log book. "Must we go over past history?". She's practically threatening them, but with an air of sugar-sweetness. While she doesn't seem to be obviously evil - she's not beating the patients or anything - she's very manipulative and coy. The definition of a villain is one whose values go against society's, and while she is doing what society wants (fixing broken people) she is not doing it out of the goodness of her heart, she's doing it because it allows her to manipulate people and gain utter control.

Great Gatsby Reading Blog #3 (Final)

1.) What was Fitzgerald's purpose in including the giant advertisement for Dr. T.J. Eckleburg's now defunct business?

As mentioned in the book, the giant pair of eyes is compared to that of God's, and little else is said on the topic. However, to a keener-eyed reader, more can be dug out of them. Not only do these glasses symbolize the eyes of God, they are there to show that God is watching and disapproves of the moral decay that is going on. The eyes' home in the valley of ashes, a disgusting place, emphasizes the fact that God is witness to all the filth surrounding the characters of the book. The climax of the novel also takes place under the watch of these eyes, and this is simply another sign of God's gaze judging what's going on. After all, the events of the book would not have played out the way they had if Gatsby had done the morally right thing (said that Daisy was the one driving when Myrtle was run over) instead of acting selfishly (or in his mind, selflessly, by claiming that he was the one driving.) The eyes of God are disapproving of this morally bad act.

2.) What was Fitzgerald's purpose in having Nick be the narrator of the story instead of having an omniscient narrator?

By having the self-proclaimed unbiased Nick as our narrator instead of an omniscient one who could hop from person to person and event to event without hindrance, Fitzgerald not only gives the story an obviously more human set of eyes from which to inspect everything, but also gives it more weight. After all, Nick is only human, and can't know everything that's going on at once. The only way he figures things out are by witnessing them or by having them told to him. For example, by having Nick rush over to Gatsby's house and finding him dead instead of narrating his murder through the eyes of a crazed Wilson, there is a greater shock value to the event. Plus, Nick's disheartening efforts to get somebody else who cared to come to Gatsby's funeral increases the tragedy of the event. If an omniscient narrator had been commenting on the scene, much of the emotion of it all would have been lost.

3.) Do you believe that Fitzgerald did a good job of portraying Daisy in both a sympathetic and unsympathetic way?

I can say with a resounding yes that Fitzgerald showed off two sides of Daisy very well. In the beginning of the book, the reader feels sorry for her, because she appears to be a lovely girl who's married to an abusive man that she doesn't love. Plus, she knows that he's cheating on her, which causes us to feel even more for her. Even with the advent of learning about her and Gatsby's romance five years earlier, we still hold great sympathy towards her, for the great love that she once had has been replaced by an unhappy marriage with Tom. However, as the book carries on, especially by the end, I personally just wanted to punch her. She claims to love Gatsby, and even kisses him in front of Nick and Jordan, but when Tom and Jay start arguing over her and her feelings for them, she panics and admits that she still has feelings for Tom. And then, at the news of Gatsby's death, instead of showing grief at the fact that the man she apparently loved is now dead, she just speeds off with Tom, who will surely continue his pattern of taking mistresses and generally being a big brute, and leaves Nick and Gatsby's father as the only ones at Jay's funeral. Fitzgerald does a great job of making the reader have polar opposite feelings for Daisy as the book goes on - for one half, we have sympathy towards her, and the next, we just wanna smack her.

4.) Do you feel as though the title of the book is a fitting one? Was Gatsby truly 'great'?

I think that 'Nick' titling the book 'The Great Gatsby' was his attempt at honoring his dead friend more than anything. While Nick does admit to disliking Gatsby for pretty much the entire book, by the end, after learning of his death and desperately trying to organize a halfway decent funeral for Jay, he's lifted him somewhat onto a pedestal and is admiring him some. While this is quite touching, I don't think Jay Gatsby should be called 'great'. Not only did he lie about his own life (including the fact that his father was still alive, which is even more hurtful given that his dad was one of the people that came to his funeral) he also allowed himself to get hopelessly lost in what turned out to be a fruitless dream. He had convinced himself so thoroughly that after trying so hard to get close to Daisy, including getting involved with shady people like Meyer Wolfsheim, he would eventually get her and ride off into the sunset, so to speak, that he basically sealed his own doom. Had Gatsby not been so hopelessly enamored with Daisy and desperate to make her happy, he would have admitted that she was the one driving when Myrtle was killed, and as such would have prevented his own death. Alas, his own foolishness and unceasing desire for gratification of his wishes brought his downfall. As such, while it is kind of Nick to look on the bright side of Gatsby and elevate him to a higher status than he actually is, I disagree with him - Gatsby does not deserve the title of 'great'. Perhaps foolish would be a better term.

Great Gatsby Reading Blog #2

1.) The purpose of Meyer Wolfsheim is to make us wonder some more about the already mysterious Gatsby. How exactly did he get his money? Was it through seedy business deals with Wolfsheim? This affects the way we see Gatsby in that he seems less like a respectable, well-to-do man and more of a shady character. After all, why would such a rich, well-known guy like Gatsby hang out with a man like Wolfsheim, who rigged the World Series?

2.) The backstory about Jay and Daisy's past shows that Gatsby is definitely not the type to get over a girl easily. When he falls in love, he falls hard. This shows that he is a very dedicated man (seeing as how he has feelings only for Daisy) and that in that same vein he is very narrow-minded when it comes to love - the only girl he wants is her.

3.) Detailing the rest of Gatsby's past shows that he lived a very dynamic life - not only did he go to Oxford, he also fought in World War I. It changes our impression of him in that it makes us think of him as a very well-rounded man. Not only did he go to a very prestigious school, he was also given a medal in a very important war. So, he is a scholar and a war hero, which is a very positive thing in our society.

4.) I personally like Gatsby more. He's led a very interesting life and continues to do so, given his lavish parties. This is pretty cheesy, but I also like the fact that he's so completely dedicated to Daisy and absolutely head-over-heels in love with her. It's not too often that you see a man completely enamored to the point of mortification like with Gatsby - usually it's the woman who's tripping over herself when she's madly in love with a guy. This adds an emotional depth to Gatsby that we don't really see otherwise. Comparing the way he acts around Daisy to the way he acts the rest of the time, he seems like a cardboard cutout of a rich man going through the motions. His affections for Daisy make him more real and therefore likable.

Jelly Roll Morton "Black Bottom Stomp"

It would be the kind of song his band/orchestra would play. He would play music like this to get people to dance and to show that he's 'hip with the times', so to speak. This is the 1920's equivalent of pop you might hear at a nightclub today.

The mood is very jovial and upbeat. It uses a fast-tempo and cheerful sounding instruments like trumpets to help give off a happy vibe. It's in a major key, which adds to the joyous feel.

This is definitely a dancing song. People would grab a partner and start partying.

Great Gatsby Reading Blog #1

Hero - Nick Carraway
Antihero - Jay Gatsby
Villain - Tom Buchanan


Nick is the hero of the story because his values reflect those that society finds acceptable. Shown by the quote on page 1, he describes himself as being "inclined to reserve all judgments". Being nonjudgmental is seen as a positive quality in society. He is also shown to be a generally nice guy, such as when he is talking with Daisy on page 16. ""Oh, yes." She looked at me absently. "Listen, Nick; let me tell you what I said when she was born. Would you like to hear?" "Very much."" This shows that despite his overall discomfort with the situation (since his cousin is obviously distressed), he still manages to display interest in what she has to say, showing he has a good heart. By having these characteristics of kindness and a lack of judgment against people, Nick is painted as being a man that society would approve of.


Jay Gatsby would be the antihero. While he also has qualities society approves of like Nick does (he is also polite and kind), he is also somewhat morally reprehensible in that he throws raucous, overindulgent parties practically every week. The description from page 39 to page 41 proves this. It goes into detail about all the lavish items and events going on at Gatsby's place, such as his aquaplanes, Rolls-Royce, numerous servants, and extravagant fruit purchases (solely for the purpose of juicing them with a fancy machine), just to name a few. While having lots of money is approved of by our society, the sheer amount of it that Gatsby spends and the indulgence he takes part it is seen as negative by society. This makes him an antihero, because his values (concerning extravagant parties and spending tons of money) conflict with what society finds acceptable.


Lastly, I think Tom Buchanan is the villain. This is obvious in the scene on page 37 where "[m]aking a short deft movement, [he] broke [Myrtle's] nose with his open hand". This outward display of violence and aggression is obviously a bad thing in our society. This isn't the only scene where Tom displays a cruel nature. When talking about the lower class Wilson on page 26, he states that "[h]e's so dumb he doesn't know he's alive." This shows that he has a disdain towards those without money. More evidence of his dislike towards lower class people is shown on page 25, where he threatens Wilson by saying "... if you feel that way about it, maybe I'd better sell it somewhere else after all." His cruel and violent tendencies make him the villain, because society disapproves of mean and aggressive people.

Justin Bua

His style is very slick, his subjects look smooth and oily and as though they could move like water. Everything is stylized and exaggerated, such as the fingers on the piano player or the size of the bass as compared to the bass player. Everything's a bit cloudy and indistinct sometimes. He uses neutrals and dark colors for the most part.

Death Penalty Essays

I believe that Kroll's essay was much more persuasive, mostly due to the fact that it hits the reader with the pathos appeal like a sledgehammer. If the reader is already susceptible to this kind of appeal, they'll be drawn in hook, line, and sinker. Even if the reader isn't particularly susceptible to pathos, they'll still be able to feel sympathy towards Kroll's explanation and perspective on the events, as compared to Mencken's essay, which does not come off as a raw, emotional reading experience, but instead seems much more self-centered and dismissive. Kroll appears to be writing not only to appeal to the average person's sympathies, but also to those who have undergone the same experiences as him. With Mencken, he writes as though he's the only right one and everybody else is wrong. This is rather unpleasant to read, especially given the fact that he insults the intelligence of those against the death penalty in the first paragraph. Kroll caters more towards his reader's emotions and experiences, while Mencken just seems to be catering to his own opinions.

"Sixteen Military Wives" by The Decemberists (2004)

1.) What the song is literally talking about is sixteen military wives, five of which who have lost their husbands. It's also about celebrities with sordid lives and celebrities who are given awards by an academy of 18 people. There's also mention of fourteen cannibal kings, apparently eating the celebrities. 


2.) The theme of the song is that ignorance is bliss. The lyrics state that "Seventeen company men Out of which only twelve will make it back again Sergeant sends a letter to five Military wives, whose tears drip down through ten little eyes". If these military wives were never told of their husbands dying - thus being ignorant to the situation - they would not have been crying, and as such, would have been happier. Another lyric, "Fifteen celebrity minds
Leading their fifteen sordid wretched checkered lives", shows that if no one knew anything about these celebrity's lives, they would be spared having to listen to unpleasant and 'sordid' details, thus making them happy. 

"Race for the Prize" by The Flaming Lips (1999)

The theme of this song is that if someone dies trying to make a difference, it doesn't matter, they were insignificant. This melancholy is demonstrated by the lyrics, which state that the cure the two scientists are looking for "[is] so dangerous, but they're determined". This shows that despite the possibility of death, these men want to make a difference. It also says that "if it kills them, they're just humans", demonstrating that even if they do die, it's not a big deal - they're just humans, insignificant and unremarkable. This generally sad tone is reinforced by the instrumentation, which I think is in a minor key. The music sounds very sad and rather defeated, showing that if these men die, there would be no major impact. The general feel of the song is rather sad, but painfully true.

Patrick Henry Speech Fallacy

The line from his speech that commits a fallacy is this: Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?


This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. To put it in context, in this paragraph Patrick Henry is asking of the convention when will the colonies be strong enough to fight off such a powerful adversary as Great Britain. The sentence that I've used is suggesting that if the colonies don't do anything to fight back against Great Britain and simply continue telling themselves that they are too weak and will not win the fight, that everyone will inevitably, without argument, eventually become disarmed and have a British guard stationed in their house. This is, of course, not true, seeing as how if the colonies hadn't have fought back, there most likely would not be a complete disarming of everybody and there would not be a British guard in every house.


This speech is famous, of course, because it was what helped spur the colonists on to fight back against their oppressors, and we all know what that lead to. It's effective despite its fallacies because people simply see it as an incredibly persuasive piece and it has appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos, which adds to its persuasiveness just by covering a whole lot of ground. Plus, in this particular example, anyone who would have originally been listening to this speech would have been too startled by the thought of having a British guard in every house to notice that this line was a fallacy.

Duck & Cover

• Overt: Duck and cover when the atomic bomb strikes.
• Covert: If you don't duck and cover, you'll die.
• I think this was informational because there's no hidden message to it, it's just trying to keep people safe. It is persuasive in that it's trying to persuade people to duck and cover when the bomb hits, though there's some fallacy in that it used fear for its argument.

Destination: Earth

• Overt: The United States has the highest standard of living because it has oil and competition.
• Covert: Communists are backwards and have a lower standard of living because they don't have oil and aren't capitalist. America's better than them and Americans should support our oil-run capitalist society. If you don't, you're a communist.
• I know that's the overt message because the video outright states that and the oppressed Martians eagerly begin changing their society to match America's.
• I know that's the covert message because it's glaringly obvious that the oil companies who supported the cartoon want people to like the oil industry because it helps America be America. The Martians are also obviously meant to be communists.

Propaganda (WWII 1941-1945)

1.) The overt message is that if people eat less bread, American troops will be able to win the war.

2.) The covert message is that if you believe in the cause of U.S. troops and want them to win, you'll make the sacrifice of eating less bread in order to help them win, and if you don't, you're not a true American.

3.) It's propaganda because there is the obvious message that eating less bread equals victory and that it will benefit the troops, but the hidden message encourages loyalty to the American cause. The fact that one encourages simple victory and the other encourages loyalty shows this is propaganda.

"Clampdown" by the Clash (1979)

1.) This song's about how the government/those in power are brutal and are corrupting the youth, and as such this government should be brought down. This is shown by lyrics such as "We will teach our twisted speech to the young believers", which shows that the government wants to teach 'twisted speech', as in lies and propaganda, to young people in order to get them to do as they want - in this case, submit to 'the clampdown'. The lyric "Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall" shows that the singer wants the youth to aid in bringing down the government, because apparently that's what governments are supposed to do, since he says that 'government (is) to fall', showing that he thinks governments are meant to fall. By saying "let fury have the hour, anger can be power" the singer is suggesting that people get angry at the government, because rage can give people power, in this case, power to overthrow the government.

2.) The music is very rhythmic and jarring, which sounds almost militaristic. This could be used to show that the government is militaristic and wants everybody to fit nice and neatly together into their 'clampdown', or it could be sort of a rally cry for the youth to band together (like an army) and be in time as they bring down the government.

3.) This song shows persuasion, because the singer is urging rebellion. It's not propaganda because there's no hidden message, it's obvious what the singer wants you to do. There's no underlying message to it that one has to look closer to understand, like with propaganda. It's all very straightforward.

Propaganda, Persuasion, Rhetoric and Argument (D, E, F)

Four quotes:

#279

#285

#300

#312

My quote of choice is #312, which states: There are two major forms of lying: concealment, leaving out true information; and falsification, or presenting false information as if it were true.

This has to do with propaganda in the sense that propaganda can be a lie. For example, if I were composing a piece of propaganda insinuating that Mr. Behler kicks puppies, information that is known to be false, that would be employing the second form of lying referred to in the quote - falsification. Concealment can also be used in propaganda. Using the aforementioned 'Mr. Behler kicks puppies' scenario, the propaganda I was composing could show that I had witnessed Mr. Behler kicking a puppy. However, if Mr. Behler only did such a thing because the puppy was rabid and trying to attack him, that would be concealment. I would be leaving out part of the truth of the statement (the statement being that 'Mr. Behler kicked a puppy because it was rabid and about to bite him') to try and emphasize the point I was trying to make. 

The quote has to do with persuasion in that one can both conceal and falsify in order to convince someone of something. For example, if I were trying to convince somebody that I can read Japanese, I could conceal part of the statement (the statement being 'I can read Japanese when there is an English translation.') by simply saying 'I can read Japanese' I would be leaving out the truth that I can only read it with an English translation, but the listener wouldn't know that. They would just believe me when I said I can read Japanese - what reason would they have to doubt me? I could also falsify and say 'I've been reading Japanese since I was three years old'. That would be falsification, since that's a blatant lie, but, once again, what reason would the listener have to doubt me?

These two forms of lying, concealment and falsification, can be utilized as rhetoric. If I were to go into more detail with my persuasion and used figurative language, such as 'I was able to read Japanese faster than Sonic the Hedgehog can run at age three', that would further convince my audience of my claims, in this case through the use of falsification, since I can neither read Japanese nor English as fast as Sonic the Hedgehog can run. 

Both concealment and falsification can be combined in order to form a strong argument, such as the one attempting to convince people of Mr. Behler's puppy-kicking habits and how evil he is because of it. By using concealment in your argument, you are keeping the audience ignorant to some aspect of truth that would weaken your argument should they know it. By using falsification in your argument, you can make whatever claim you wish, which can greatly strengthen your argument. For example, I could lie and say that I've seen Mr. Behler kick thousands of puppies within one week. This would show people that he greatly enjoys kicking puppies and is terrible because of it.