Cuckoo's Nest IV

Did McMurphy win?

Parts one and two describe Ratched's control over the ward. You could say she had everyone wrapped around her finger: the patients, the black boys, the other nurses, and even the doctor. Part three, as I've said, is the build up to McMurphy's victory over Ratched. After the fishing trip, everyone felt a close bond to McMurphy. This gave the patients a stronger relationship with each other and against Ratched. McMurphy "stripped" her of her power, her pride, and the idol she made herself out to be to the patients. So does McMurphy lose when Ratched send him up to be lobotomized? I believe the fact that she sent him up there showed that she was weak and she unable to defeat him. I do not believe this causes the patients to lose faith in McMurphy but rather have more faith in what he tried to show them: Nurse Ratched is not God. And after McMurphy returned in the state he was in, Ratched's intention was to restore everyone's fear in her. She wanted to send a message to rebellion. Bromden smothering McMurphy did not just kill McMurphy, but it destroyed his doubts and fears of Nurse Ratched. Bromden and McMurphy are the true winners.

Cuckoo's Nest III

Part Three takes a drastic turn from Part two. In the beginning it seems as though Bromden describes a pessimistic life surrounded by negative people and a Combine with a scandalous "plan." It seems as though McMurphy withdraws his attempts to conform to Nurse Ratched and has his own plan to change the ward. Because his rebellious attitude McMurphy enourages Bromden to finally speak after so many years. Even though he finally spoke Bromden still needs to be cautous about who knows or secrets he might have heard might put him introuble with the Big Nurse. I do believe this foreshadows a optimistic ending to the story. Bromden breaking his silence after so long to McMurphy is definitely a good omen to the helpless people in the ward. Bromden truely believes McMurphy can rebel and, once and for all, ultimately challenge Nurse Ratched.

Kesey makes it very evident that McMurphy is a strong character. I wouldn't say manipulative. It could be if McMurphy uses the patients mental health to his advantage. I believe that he is a strong leader and someone the patients of the ward have wanted to see in a long time to stand against Ratched.

Cuckoo's Nest II

The presence of McMurphy has changed the whole ward. The patients have changed as well as the nurse. He tries to make is own rules to get under Nurse Ratched's skin. Part II takes a different turn when McMurphy finds out that the length of his commitment lies in the hands of Nurse Ratched and he is one of the few that really is committed. His attitude changes toward the ward as he conforms to Ratched's rules.
Why do the Acutes that voluntarily came to the ward want to stay? Why are the afraid to leave? Why did they put McMurphy in danger by not warning him of the possible punishment for his behavior? Only when Ratched decides to take away the privilege of the tub room does McMurphy rebel and "accidentally" hit the nurse's station window.

I'm a little confused about Harding's wife's visit. Obviously, by the conversation between them, they hated each other. She wasn't satisfied with him and Harding calls her a Nemesis and an unequal. Why did Harding want McMurphy to meet her? Why was she even there? I don't know what to make of it.

Cuckoo's Nest I

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest begins with the typical day of Chief Bromden. Most of Part 1 describes the typical day at the ward for the Chronics and the Acutes as well as Bromden's flashbacks of his past giving the reader a background on the narrator. The flashbacks enter with a nice flow with a fluent string of thought like Kerouac's excerpt from On The Road. Bromden's descriptions and his "cagey" attitude makes me wonder what qualifies him to be there at the ward. I have a lot more questions then thoughts about Part 1. On page twenty-eight "Outside" and "Inside" are capitalized. I've read it and I still have no clue what Bromden is referring to and why those words are punctuated that way. Nurse Ratched reminds me of (if I remember correctly) Orwell's "oligarchical collectivism." She tames/fixes the out of order. No one has a say and she IS the government of the ward. I don't believe she is out to help the patients. What did Bromden mean about her "plan?" She's the director and she's cast her whole show. Ratched drove out all the smart doctors to hold out for one she could manipulate. She hired a specific staff of black boys who hated as much as she did. Is her intention to feel superior? I can't answer anything and the second part just starting to answer my questions.

Lantern

Going to the Lantern and seeing Hamlet in Charles McMahon's direction and Geoff Sobelle's rendition of the character definitely gave me a better understanding of the play. It was amazing to me that Geoff could carry a tune, remember all his lines and act them out incredibly,and run and swing around. I was confused as to why the set was built the way it was, but after seeing him perform, along with the other actors, it's clear that McMahon built the set for Geoff's personality. In an interview McMahon said himself that he wanted something true to the text, but something people haven't seen before. I do not believe you have to read the book to see this play. Just by the body language, the power of each of the actors' voices, and the fact that in the Lantern you feel like your in the play gives the viewer the grasp of the story.
In class on Friday we were discussing the wardrobe of the actors and I agree with the majority of the class by saying that I disagree with Ophelia's dress. It stood out from all the other actors and that's not a compliment. The flower dress did not fit with the scene of the stage and the presence of the rest of the players. She was a little too crazy for me. I actually liked the actress who played Queen Gertrude (forgot her name and couldn't find her name on the lantern blog). She seemed more "out-there" than the class would imagine the character in the book, but I respect her rendition. The queen was seen as more manipulated by Claudius than a conspirator which is what I agree with. And her promiscuous attitude with Claudius added some humor to the show. I didn't quite understand why people were so "freaked out by it." It was funny. I laughed and I got over it. I do not have much to say about the [ Lantern ] Polonius but only that he reminded me of the Polonius in the movie we saw and I related to the movie very well. I also related to Kenneth Branagh because of his passion and energy he put into his words. After Geoff entered and said his first monologue I couldn't keep my eyes off him. Energy in an actor draws you to listen. I don't know if he was trying extra hard because teenagers have a short attention span, but it worked because by what I saw everyone payed attention to him. So i do not believe Hamlet should be played with anything less than the energy I saw from Kenneth and Geoff. They all had draw to them that made you want to listen. I enjoyed the tasteful humor and how the audience had an in-you-face experience.

Hamlet: ACT III, SCENE I *paraphrased*

ACT III, SCENE 1. A room in the castle. (PART C)

OPHELIA
My lord, I have memories of you,
That I wish to give to you
Please, take them

HAMLET
No, not me
I never gave you anything

OPHELIA
My honored lord, you very well know you have;
And, with them, your sweet, romantic words,
Has made the memories more rich, although fading
Take these letters; they have lost their value to me

HAMLET
HA, HA! Are you sincere?

OPHELIA
Excuse me?

HAMLET
Are you beautiful?

OPHELIA
What do you mean?

HAMLET
That if you are sincere, your honesty
should give no approach to your beauty.

OPHELIA
So could beauty and honesty be related?

HAMLET
Sure, since beauty's power can easily
change a decent girl into a whore,
than the power of decency can change
a beautiful girl into something pure.
This used to be a great puzzle to me,
but time has solved it. I loved you once.

OPHELIA
At least you led me to believe you did.

HAMLET
You shouldn't have believed me,
no matter how hard we try to be virtuous.
I never loved you.

OPHELIA
I have been deceived

HAMLET
Get yourself to a nunnery at once.
Why would you produce more sinners like yourself?
I'm fairly good myself, however,
I could accuse myself of such horrible crimes
that it would've been better if my mother
had never given birth to me.
I am conceited, vengeful, and ambitious,
with more bad thoughts in me than
I can fit into my own head, and more
than I have time to carry it out in.
Why should people like me be creeping around
between earth and heaven?
Every one of us is a criminal.
Don't believe any of us.
Get yourself to a nunnery.
Where's your father?

OPHELIA
He’s home

HAMLET
Lock him in, so he can play the fool
in his own home only. Good bye.

OPHELIA
Please, God, help him!

HAMLET
I have heard, well enough, of the makeup you wear
God gave you one face and you paint over it:
You dance and lisp and blame your maliciousness on ignorance.
I’ll have no more of this. It’s making me mad.
I say there should be no more marriages:
All those who are married already, but one, shall
Stay married. The ones that aren’t will never marry,
Get yourself to a nunnery.

Hamlet's Plan

I've decided to blog about the section of Act II I paraphrased. I was given Hamlet's monologue in scene ii on page 71 (lines 563-615). After Hamlet sees the player's performance he has his own idea for Claudius. He asks the player if he can act out a play called "The Murder of Gonzago" which plays similar to the death of his own father. In his monologue, you can tell the passion he has as he expresses his reaction to the player's performance. However he doesn't have the power to express his own passion as the player does as he says, "Is it not monstrous that this player, but in a fiction, in a dream of passion, could force his soul so to his own conceit that, from her working, all his visage wanned, tears in his eyes, distraction in's aspect, a broken voice, and his whole function suiting with forms to his conceit?" He only wishes to express his feelings while an actor expressing fiction can do it better. As he explains how the player might act out his feelings with words like drown the stage, horrid speech, and make mad the guilty the reader can only imagine how much passion he has inside. With this in mind and his father's unavenged death he uses the "Murder of Gonzago" to catch Claudius in his conscience. With the similarity to the death of the late Hamlet's, Hamlet hopes that Claudius will show a guilty face during the premiere during the play.
The best part of this monologue is the ending when Hamlet says, "The spirit that I have seen may be the devil; and the devil hath power t' assume a pleasing shape." He fears that Claudius may not have a reaction at all and calls it the power of the devil.
I ask myself: Is he really out of his mind or does he have too much bottled up that he just needs to get out?


Well, if anyone's interested my paraphrased monologue is below:


Ah, alone at last
I’m such a scoundrel!
Isn’t terrifying that that player,
Acts only in fiction, but with so much passion?
How can he exert how he wants to feel
With tears, a chocked up voice, and body language,
If that is not how he truly feels? And all for nothing!
For Hecuba!
What Hecuba to him?
Or he to Hecuba, that he cried over her?
How would he REALLY feel if he had a true reason to
And the passion that I have?
He would soak the floor with his tears,
And draw the crowd’s ear with his horrid voice,
Make the guilty go crazy, and shock the free
Perplex the ignorant, and amaze, indeed,
Very pair of eyes and ears.
Only I, a dull-spirited rascal, peak,
Like a day dreamer, inactive of my cause,
And says nothing; no, not for a king whose property
A damned defeat was made. Am I a coward?

Who calls me the bad guy?
Breaks my pate across?
And plucks off the hairs on my beard and blows it right back in my face?
Yanks me by the nose? And lies through their teeth?
Who does this to me?
Ha!

Goddammit I should take it; cause I cannot
Take matters in my own hands; I should have feed all the vultures with this slave's corpse: bloody villain!
Remorseless, inconsiderate villain!
Vengence!
What an ass I am! I should be brave
I am the son of my dear murdered father.
I will prompt my revenge by heaven and hell,
Poor my heart out with words with a curse.
A scullion!

Guilty animals sitting at a play would be struck through the soul and physically react to cunningness of a scene ;
Though he will not admit murder he will speak with his reaction.
I’ll have these actors act out something similar to my father’s death to my uncle:
I will observe his reaction and take it from there.
I may see the spirit of the devil: who has the power to act differently than expected
And possibly out of weakness and with his “powers” might damn me to the truth: I’ll have more evidence than this: this is where I’ll catch his conscience.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and Hamlet is taking out the trash."

I do agree [with Mr. Fiorini] that the first two scenes make references to perception of what is seen. The ghost of the late Hamlet has played a major role in what Horatio , the guards, and Hamlet perceives to come. Before I go into that, after reading Fiorini's question

What does it mean, then, when Horatio confirms the truth of the appearance of the Ghost?

I considered Marcellus's, Bernardo's, and Horatio's relation to Hamlet referring to Scene ii (page 17; line 163) when Hamlet says he considers Horatio an equal. It is not so much as rank, but Horatio is an honest person and good friend to the late Hamlet's son who Marcellus and Bernardo believe the ghost to be. With that in mind I believe that is why they ask Horatio for his "scholar" opinion. With the sight of the ghost and the recollection of Fortinbras it can be foreshadowed as what is to come: young Fortinbras and Hamlet fighting for land.
In scene ii, Claudius's philosophy on life --at least that's what I'd like to call it-- to Hamlet about understanding death and to persevere grief and not take it to heart is suspicious to Hamlet. Claudius also brings up the late Hamlet's death, lightly touches on his marriage to his widow, and abruptly pushes it aside to talk about Fortinbras. I believe he brings up the death and the marriage because there is no way of denying it or ignoring it but "changes the subject" because he has something to hide. This is what Hamlet sees and calls on it. Yes, Claudius and Gertrude prove a good point about perseverance, but Hamlet saw no tears and it hasn't even been two months since his father's death. Horatio's testimony of Hamlet's father's ghost in arms has Hamlet perceiving foul play or crime disclosed. By what Claudius has said in scene ii, I can see him as a strong character in the play. Manipulative is how I would describe him and Hamlet is the only one who can see through that.

I have one particular question on page 10; line 2 about the phrase "memory be green." If anyone could help me out on that...


And if you're wondering where I got my title (it's about a minute long):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCVc5TaPpe8

Last Action Hero

Coleridge and Shelley - Imagination and Narrative Voice

In Kubla Khan, Coleridge describes a beautiful place using the words bright, blossom, and Enfolding sunny spots of greenery. The poem then takes another turn and describes a woman's love using words like savage and haunted. I think Kubla Khan celebrates the imagination AND caution against its indulgence. Coleridge could be telling the reader how imagination and beauty could possibly blind someone of the caution signs and the troubles that lay under the big surface of the pretty picture.
In Shelley's Ozymandias, I can identify three speakers: the narrator, the travelor, and the Ozymandias. The narrator introduces the sonnet who meets the traveler from an antique land. Antique could mean many things but in this poem I believe it has political or social meaning. The government is not thriving and possibly close to extinction. The travelor tells the tale of the city and the king, Ozymandias, who was a cold tyrannical leader. The city's description may be decribing the downfall of Ozymandias but I believe it could also be desribing the downfall of tyranny, madness, or darkness of the world.

I wonder how Bert felt...

I listened to the audio versons of these poems on the online textbook. In The Chimney Sweeper from the Songs of Innocence it was a young narrator describing a tough life of chimney sweeping with his friend Tom. After Tom's dream about heaven they don't see their life as that bad and believe they'll get rewarded one day, "So if all do their duty they need not fear harm." In The Chimney Sweeper from the Songs of Experience it was a tired old man. By the poem it seems because of his hard life he has lost faith in God.
These poems where definitely written to influence readers for the hopes of a social and political change. I agree with the editors of the textbook in which they proclaim that Romantic poets hoped to bring out social and political change. Blake absolutely has the power to enact social change by appealing to the imagination of the reader. It certainly had an influence on me and I'm positive it did on the readers of Blake's time. The editors of the book might have included the Parliament transcript as a primary source document to show the impact of Peter Smart's testimony. If a testimony of one man to a court can have an impact on a group of people, a poet with a much larger audience (much of them Christian), with a religous "mix" into the poem can also have an impact, but larger. Especially when the audience can indentify with the poems seeing that it has religious mix into it because after all as it says in the backround, "Most members of the upper class believed that they deserved their comfortable stations in life, and that the poor must be innately evil, deserving the hunger and appalling conditions that they endured." Blake wanted to feel sympathy for the narrators of the chimney sweeper with the hopes of change.

I'm no John Kimble.

a) Question topics for Gulliver's Travels
-Why did Swift put a communication barrier between Gulliver and the Lilliputians? How might this be significant to the story?
-What was the purpose of size difference between Gulliver and the Lilliputians? Might this be the reason of the barrier of communication?
-Why did the Lilliputians bound and keep Gulliver? Did they know what they were going to do with him all along?
-In this excerpt, it is not mentioned how Gulliver and the Lilliputians overcome the communication barrier. How do you think they overcame it?

*Excerpts:
(Pg 653) "But the creatures ran off a second time, before I could seize them; whereupon there was a great shout in a very shrill accent, and after it ceased, I heard one of them cry aloud, Tolgo phonac; when in an instant I felt above an hundred arrows discharged on my left hand, which pricked me like so many needles; and besides, they shot another flight into the air, as we do bombs in Europe, whereof many, I suppose, fell on my body (though I felt them not), and some on my face, which I immediately covered with my left hand. When this shower of arrows was over, I fell a-groaning with grief and pain, and then striving again to get loose, they discharged another volley larger than the first, and some of them attempted with spears to stick me in the sides; but, by good luck, I had on me a buff jerkin,4 which they could not pierce. I thought it the most prudent method to lie still, and my design was to continue so till night, when, my left hand being already loose, I could easily free myself: And as for the inhabitants, I had reason to believe I might be a match for the greatest armies they could bring against me, if they were all of the same size with him that I saw. But fortune disposed otherwise of me."

I chose this excerpt because it made me raise some questions: Could Gulliver free himself and fight the army of Lilliputians? Did he just cooperate to find out what was going on? Did the Lilliputians know that the arrows wouldn't really hurt him but just to discipline him? This led me to predict that because they didn't just kill Gulliver that they had something in store for him. If the Lilliputians really thought Gulliver was a threat, then they would've just killed him.


b) It's nice to get in a group to talk about what we all read and to get some help from your peers. It's interesting to know what other people think and it makes me think differently about the different things I read. My group had a hard time figuring out what questions to put down to ask the class. Trying to agree on a question and how to phrase it to get the best answer took up a lot of time.

c) I think after my group members do this blog and come up with separate questions we will all know where we stand and try to put our questions together. So I think after the blog and evaluating the text this way my group will try to approach the teaching assignment differently. We haven't been able to develop a vision to teach the excerpt, but I suppose the way to teach the class is to use quotes use our own interpretations and predictions.

How many fingers am I holding up?

The doctrine O’Brien claims, in itself, explains the whole perspective of INGSOC. If you thought individually, it was against the Party and considered a crime. Thoughts of the Brotherhood like Winston’s are seen as insane, and what was seen as sane were the collected thoughts of the Party’s. O’Brien also says if one thinks individually they are not self-disciplined. If everyone thinks the same way, talks with the same diction, and knows the Party’s “truth,” then that is how oligarchical collectivism is maintained.
Winston had a hard time understanding what the “truth” was. “What-ever the Party holds to be the truth is truth.” This quote is, what I believe, the whole point O’Brien is trying to get across to Winston. What ever the Party says is true, no matter if you have a recollection of otherwise, is true. If you believe otherwise it is considered lunacy. O’Brien’s exercise of how many fingers Winston saw only broke him on the surface. He finally agreed that he seen five when in reality it was only four, but it is what the Party says it is that you must go by. After Winston’s questions about Julia and the Brotherhood it was certain Winston was not fully committed to the Party.
Winston’s curiosity led him to Room 101. One’s biggest fear was unleashed in that room, and it was hard to deny and rebel against it. Winston’s fear of rats had turned his feelings for Julia into hate, which rendered his love to Big Brother. The fact that he hated rats so much turned his hate to Julia. She says later on, “Sometimes they threaten you with something—something you can’t stand up to, can’t even think about. And then you say, ‘Don’t do it to me, do it to somebody else, do it to so-and-so.’” She goes on to say you think you might not mean it, but in reality you really care about yourself. Their hate was turned on each other for putting each other in the situation they were in. They were tired of fighting which left them nothing but love for Big Brother.
Winston’s ultimate fate in the passage was not death. According to the passage O’Brien says, “That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.” O’Brien would rather break him and teach him the basis of INGSOC than sentence him to death. Why would the Party waste time in saving Winston’s diluted mind rather than sentence him? Having the Ministries refurbish minds like Winston make the system of oligarchical collectivism stronger which diminishes any chance of any rebellion. Orwell ended Nineteen Eighty-Four with Winston conforming to Big Brother. If Winston did not give in it would be seen that Winston would have won. This goes to show how strong the Party really is through ignorance.

The World I Know

Reading 1984 and comparing ways of life in the book and the world I know I’ve come to appreciate what I have. Winston Smith is an older man who knew what life was like when he was younger: different, with a mother, a father, and a baby sister. I believe older people were more vulnerable to stray away from the new government like Winston. People like Goldstein who knew when times were better and would rather be free. I ask myself what life would be like in the future if I had no choice, no freedom, and have a scheduled day. No one had a choice and no one had an indecent thought. From waking up at a certain time to do exercises to everyone sitting down for “Two Minutes Hate”, not to mention the Newspeak language and the rationed food, the government had everyone under control and all the more ignorant. Children born at the time of this new way of life didn’t know what life was before and the government had them more under control. In a way they see this is how life should be and love Big Brother like Mrs. Parsons’s children who dance to the military music and act as the Party’s Thought Police. Children grow up to be the government’s own Stepford Wives so to speak.
Thinking about a different reality was a crime. Freedom was a crime. Winston went along with the people and the government’s rules until he found someone that was worth the risk.