Elliott’s answer to “I have long thought of this book as one of my favorites, but noticed some heavy racist and misogyni…” > Likes and Comments
22 likes · Like
While a bit later, the opinion is very strong and the party goes on. I hold out hope that there is more to this story than you found, and it has been standing the test of time thus far so I would think it has some merit. Then again eventually everything comes to an end. Perhaps this too becomes an anachronism as the times change.
actually, here's a short article that checks in with Ken Kesey:
'The story's villain, Miss Ratched, the manipulative and authoritarian nurse, was inspired by a real woman, Mr. Kesey recalled, and he ran into her a few years ago at an aquarium near Newport, Ore. ''Do you remember me, 'Nurse Ratched?' '' said the woman, who had been the real head nurse of the psychiatric ward where Mr. Kesey worked.
''She was much smaller than I remembered, and a whole lot more human,'' he said.'
I think the fact that we're even asking these questions, or that I feel so justified in making my criticism, is the real test of time. I never feel good about hating a book, I want to enjoy everything I read. but sometimes that is impossible, and I'm not going to make excuses about the time it was written or whatever to let myself feel better about how ugly a lot of this book is. yeah, it's great to advocate for better care for the mentally ill, but very few of the characters in this book are even mentally ill - and, as the book points out, a lot of them would be free to leave at any time, if the treatment they were receiving was really so unbearable. what, exactly, are they rebelling against?? if this book were updated they would all just be taking viagra and there wouldn't even be a story.
Maybe the "great ongoing discussion" is the legacy. Some revere this book and I was starting to question this. Even when the film was made there were a great many differences that get overlooked by people like me who have seen the film many times and read the book only a couple. This definitely affected my perceptions while reading it. There truly are a lot of aspects that have not aged well. I found another tidbit about the gay character, which is another thing the film kind of left out, if you please: https://essaysiwishiwrote.wordpress.c...
An interesting read, thanks for sharing! I had read Harding's character differently - he says he wants to wait until he's ready to leave and then he'll have his wife pick him up; my take was that after McMurphy attacked Nurse Ratched, ripping open her uniform in this metaphorical stripping of her power, Harding is finally ready, he leaves with his wife. So, to me, it read as if Harding was so empowered by McMurphy's actions that he no longer felt his concerns about being unable to satisfy his wife. What was your take?
Something else to unpack with homosexuality in the story. What about when Bromden is looking at McMurphy's arms and wants to touch McMurphy and has that little freakout about "I'm one of those queers! No I'm not." From the way he lovingly describes Harding's physical beauty, is it possible that Bromden is gay or bi? I thought Bromden was a pretty great character and I wish that the book had been more about him and less about him observing McMurphy, because my issue is the presentation of McMurphy as a hero/martyr or a fun-loving guy.
I never thought much about Harding as a dynamic character or even as definitely gay - mainly because of the film version where he’s just odd, high strung, and over-educated compared to the other patients. There’s clearly more going on in the book, but even Ken Kesey dances around it saying he is "different." Perhaps I am not well attuned to this subject, but Harding is definitely ashamed of something. In light of that overwhelming conformity of that era it could be cross dressing, polyamory, or just any slightly irregular attitude toward sex. Either way this difference (or his wife’s reaction) has driven him to take some time in a mental institution. I suppose Ken Kesey could have said a lot more on the subject of homosexuality, but coming from the perspective of the late 50s early 60s his ideas are fairly undeveloped when looked at through our current perspective. Seeds at best? As for Bromden it is hard to rely on his perspective on anything. I would not want to totally dismiss him as crazy but his perceptions are abnormal. He is described as massive but seems himself as tiny. His visions of the world as hellish machinery also make his outlook suspect. Either way I did not read that as overly gay, and could just be a symptom of his overall infatuation with McMurphy. All in all I think Kesey was looking to make a statement of rebellion against the conformity of the times and the role that psychology held in that. Perhaps a better book has been written (or will be) to really address the relation between psychological sciences and homosexuality. There certainly is a lot to be said.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Adam
(new)
Nov 27, 2017 07:41AM
While a bit later, the opinion is very strong and the party goes on. I hold out hope that there is more to this story than you found, and it has been standing the test of time thus far so I would think it has some merit. Then again eventually everything comes to an end. Perhaps this too becomes an anachronism as the times change.
reply
|
flag
actually, here's a short article that checks in with Ken Kesey: 'The story's villain, Miss Ratched, the manipulative and authoritarian nurse, was inspired by a real woman, Mr. Kesey recalled, and he ran into her a few years ago at an aquarium near Newport, Ore. ''Do you remember me, 'Nurse Ratched?' '' said the woman, who had been the real head nurse of the psychiatric ward where Mr. Kesey worked.
''She was much smaller than I remembered, and a whole lot more human,'' he said.'
I think the fact that we're even asking these questions, or that I feel so justified in making my criticism, is the real test of time. I never feel good about hating a book, I want to enjoy everything I read. but sometimes that is impossible, and I'm not going to make excuses about the time it was written or whatever to let myself feel better about how ugly a lot of this book is. yeah, it's great to advocate for better care for the mentally ill, but very few of the characters in this book are even mentally ill - and, as the book points out, a lot of them would be free to leave at any time, if the treatment they were receiving was really so unbearable. what, exactly, are they rebelling against?? if this book were updated they would all just be taking viagra and there wouldn't even be a story.
Maybe the "great ongoing discussion" is the legacy. Some revere this book and I was starting to question this. Even when the film was made there were a great many differences that get overlooked by people like me who have seen the film many times and read the book only a couple. This definitely affected my perceptions while reading it. There truly are a lot of aspects that have not aged well. I found another tidbit about the gay character, which is another thing the film kind of left out, if you please: https://essaysiwishiwrote.wordpress.c...
An interesting read, thanks for sharing! I had read Harding's character differently - he says he wants to wait until he's ready to leave and then he'll have his wife pick him up; my take was that after McMurphy attacked Nurse Ratched, ripping open her uniform in this metaphorical stripping of her power, Harding is finally ready, he leaves with his wife. So, to me, it read as if Harding was so empowered by McMurphy's actions that he no longer felt his concerns about being unable to satisfy his wife. What was your take? Something else to unpack with homosexuality in the story. What about when Bromden is looking at McMurphy's arms and wants to touch McMurphy and has that little freakout about "I'm one of those queers! No I'm not." From the way he lovingly describes Harding's physical beauty, is it possible that Bromden is gay or bi? I thought Bromden was a pretty great character and I wish that the book had been more about him and less about him observing McMurphy, because my issue is the presentation of McMurphy as a hero/martyr or a fun-loving guy.
I never thought much about Harding as a dynamic character or even as definitely gay - mainly because of the film version where he’s just odd, high strung, and over-educated compared to the other patients. There’s clearly more going on in the book, but even Ken Kesey dances around it saying he is "different." Perhaps I am not well attuned to this subject, but Harding is definitely ashamed of something. In light of that overwhelming conformity of that era it could be cross dressing, polyamory, or just any slightly irregular attitude toward sex. Either way this difference (or his wife’s reaction) has driven him to take some time in a mental institution. I suppose Ken Kesey could have said a lot more on the subject of homosexuality, but coming from the perspective of the late 50s early 60s his ideas are fairly undeveloped when looked at through our current perspective. Seeds at best? As for Bromden it is hard to rely on his perspective on anything. I would not want to totally dismiss him as crazy but his perceptions are abnormal. He is described as massive but seems himself as tiny. His visions of the world as hellish machinery also make his outlook suspect. Either way I did not read that as overly gay, and could just be a symptom of his overall infatuation with McMurphy. All in all I think Kesey was looking to make a statement of rebellion against the conformity of the times and the role that psychology held in that. Perhaps a better book has been written (or will be) to really address the relation between psychological sciences and homosexuality. There certainly is a lot to be said.
