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.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, March 5, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)