Literary Exploration discussion
The Book-Club Books
>
July 2011 - One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
message 1:
by
Michael, Mod Prometheus
(new)
Jul 08, 2011 02:07AM

reply
|
flag



Melki wrote: "If I remember correctly, Chief is the narrator? I read this once in 1976, saw the play in college and I've seen the movie countless times, but still better reread before I discuss."
In the book Chief is the narrator.
In the book Chief is the narrator.

McMurphy, who was really just an anti-authoritarian trying to rebel in any way he could whether he needed to or not?
Or Nurse Ratched, someone who was just doing their job to the best of their ability, albeit in a way we would abhor now but at the time was considered the correct way, and really thought she was working for the good of the patients?
I think they both wrong, they were just taking it to the extreme, but I think McMurphy was having a more positive effect on the others

I get that McMurphy was trying to help the others but only really to help himself. He was only working to gain for himself and to bite his thumb at authority.
(view spoiler)

BUT I gotta agree with Kim - he's really only looking out for #1.
Nurse Ratched (so tempting to call her by RPM's nickname...) is a collosal control freak, but sometimes we need those people in the world just to get the job done.
I was just flipping thru the book now - and despite the teeny-tiny print, I have got to read this again. I'd forgotten how good it is.
While I agree that McMurphy was only looking after himself, he did help some of the patients; (view spoiler)

I'm shutting up now til I actually reread the book!


agreed but i guess thats why he is considered more of an anti hero, but yeah hes pretty morally ambiguous.


Thanks Lou. That was something I was thinking about when reading it. How my perspective, built on modern mental health knowledge and practices, influenced my understanding of the book compared to how it would have been received at the time it was released.
In this day and age half of the patients would probably never have been committed, certainly not McMurphy. Going the other way mental health issues weren't as understood as they are now and EST was considered an important medical procedure. It's even still in use, though to a much lesser extent. So the doctors and nurses were treating the patients to the best of their medical knowledge.

It's so interesting to see the other posts above (from younger folks, I'm guessing), that approach the book as literature, rather than the call to rebellion and attack on social conformity that it felt like back then.

Carycleo, I approached the book as literature, but I find I want to fight the system during the day and rebel. Being told what to do is definitely more annoying than usual.

Three decades later, I'm inclined to be a whole lot more sympathetic to her. (I now identify more with poor old Mr. Wilson than Dennis the Menace too, but that's another story...)
Here's a brief summary from Wiki I found interesting:
Kesey was inspired to write "Cuckoo's Nest" while working the night shift at a VA hospital.
He wanted the film to be narrated by the Chief character, and also wanted Gene Hackman for the role of McMurphy.
Hmm... still trying to imagine "Popeye" Doyle as McMurphy...

Attitudes and perceptions change and being raised in a different era I approach things and see meanings in a different way. So some books have less impact, some more and some about the same.
I'm in no way saying that Nurse Ratched is a good person but that she is acting, in her opinion and knowledge, in a well meaning manner for the greater good.
I can't identify with McMurphy, a person who rebel just because he can. An anarchist with no understanding of the true situation or compassion for the impact on those around him.


Anyway, reading this book for pleasure and as a sort of "need to read all these famous books" I really never considered the social impact and why the book was written. Thank you, some of you, for sharing your thoughts on that! These days the whole background story to a book interests me, which I'm glad for.
When I read it, I remember feeling very strongly for McMurphy, hating the nurse, and being utterly agasht over and over again. I think if I read the novel again now, a whole bunch of those first impressions might get ruined (I'm sad to admit to having become a sort of "jaded reader") so I won't be reading it again now.
P.s. The end still freaks me out when I think about it!
To reread or not to reread is always a difficult question, I think there is enough in this book o make a second read through enjoyable and fruitful

For me it's more like this book is a childhood memory, and reading it again migh rewrite part of that. I always want to remember that feeling of icy shivers down my spine while lying on the grass in the burning sun and contemplating life as a mentally ill patient!

I can't identify with McMurphy, a person who rebel just because he can. An anarchist with no understanding of the true situation or compassion for the impact on those around him...."
I really like what you've brought into the discussion here, Kim. And I feel similarly, but just slightly different (although maybe not different at all, come to think of it ... at least with Ratched).
I, too, see Ratched as acting for what she perceives is the greatest good, but then I can't help thinking of some of the nastiest "villains' in the real world who have done the same. Genocides, tortures, flat out murders have all been committed with the perpetrators really believing they are doing the "right thing" or doing what is best.
And with McMurphy, I agree with the fact that he's always challenging authority but I wonder whether it is so much because he can as because he has to. It feels to me like he is compelled to rebel because he feels injustice in authority and needs to fight it. And I do think that McMurphy genuinely cares about people (Bibbit and Chief specifically) and isn't doing things for purely selfish reasons, even though the personal, selfish motivations are undeniably there. I just think he's more complex than utter selfishness.
I started reading this yesterday, and then I misplaced the book. How annoying is that? That's twice in two months I've done that now. I am getting old.

I read the book and saw the movie in high school, but that's been almost 8 years ago now, so I put in a request for the book at the library today so I can re-read.
Miss placing books sounds worse the losing keys or your phone. I don't know how you could survive Brad




Early on, he says (on p. 8 in my copy) by way of introduction, "But it's the truth even if it didn't happen." I love this aspect of the novel. Putting the narrative in the voice of someone incapable of reliably accurate perception forces the reader to take the role of the authority on what "really" happened. Which sort of makes us like the staff, judging the mentally ill people and the tales they tell. Which is very sly on Kesey's part.
(P.S. Melki - I hear you on the teeny-tiny print. :))
Also, maybe this is just my weirdness, but Bromden's descriptions of the complete surreal weirdness of life there made me think how cool it would be as anime. His perceptions, with the spider webs and force lines and all of that ..... nightmarish and cool.


I, like Carycleo, also wondered at the brilliancy of the choice of the narrator - Bromden seems a half-way point in describing the system from the eyes of real mental trauma in a person and mental coherency when watching and understanding events, people. He also carries a contradiction in himself - physically big and powerful he feels small and weak mentally, later on 'growing' because of McMurphy and, as I understood it, this referenced more to his own perception of himself and inner strength than actual physical strength. His surreal visions and descriptions of events add the feelings of mental patients through there own sensitive kind of way. So, as a narrator Bromden was something in between everything - a patient, but a coherent personality; a dis-balance (by the end, a balance) of physical and mental strength; the bridge of perception of the ward by the staff and the patients; McMyrphys' impact on Bromden seems to be the high point of his fight with the system - a complete understanding, a recurring strength and, at the very shocking end, a respect of mental personality that McMurphy becomes deprived of and given back by Bromden.
As for McMurphy, I do not think him as completely selfish nor necessarily going against the system. I think he was more against inhumanity and wanted these patients to be treated as people more that as mental loonies. His complete shock when arriving to the afraid bunch of people, not daring even to laugh, I think he tried to give them back a life of joy, needs and fulfilment - even the constant talks referring to male masculinity, women and so on seem to be there to wake up his friends to a certain vitality, the basic one at first - sexuality. At the same time, he himself does not consider certain viewpoints or consequences, nor is he reluctant to get money from his friends, so as a character he's neither wholly good, nor wholly bad overall, just very powerful.
As for Miss Ratched, I agree that she only acts as she seems right. Her basic fault seems to be her being too loyal to the general rules, not being able to re-think them or consider her patients as individuals. This establishment seems to me as a place to keep them instead of bringing the back to life.
There also comes the question of conformity overall - when the Chief describes people being 'cured' and going back to society, he feels it is all a working of the Machine that makes everyone the same. People in the ward, with their differences and peculiarities cannot live in the real world - the reason for voluntary staying in the place the hate so much; but as they still stay there - are they simply afraid to go out and face themselves as different from others, or can the outside world of conformity be w o r s e that Miss Ratched and her terrible system?
Seems to me that McMurphy is the vital force that brings these people back to life, on their own way. He takes them to the sea, to connect with nature again, he revives their manliness with women, beer, fishing and brings back a what seems to me a very important trace of a person who can live through anything - laughing (remember, by the end they laugh?).
That's just some thoughts about the book. I think it's not so much about how bad the mental system was then (even though it was), it's more about how people came to be there in the first place and what defines a human being (in this case is should say - a man).
I hope some of this is of use :] I just really liked the book.



On the other hand, I kind of share Thomas's view that "you would find many guys like McMurphy at your nearest jail. Genial, yet really only looking out for themselves." Jail is where he came from after all, looking for an easier sentence in the psych ward. McMurphy shook the place up, but primarily to entertain himself and make him feel powerful rather than out of compassion, is my take.
My local libraries catalog this book as Teen Fiction, which surprised me. The themes seem very adult to me. I totally identify with Rebecca saying she was "emotionally spent" when she finished it.
What do you folks think was Kesey's main point in writing this book? Part of me thinks it really is about mental illness being a kind of prison in and of itself, but I'm pretty waffley on that. The intro in the edition I read said Kesey had worked in a psych ward and also been a kind of occasional, temporary patient through volunteering for drug experiments, so he would have had a pretty up close and personal experience to draw from.
I still haven't finished the book so my feelings could change before the end, but it seems to me as though mcmurphy is helping the men to feel empowered again after they have been torn down by the disrespect of women in their life. The nurse uses disrespect as a way to hold power over the men, and perhaps harding's wife does the same. And mcmurphy has come along and tries to help them reclaim the respect they feel they deserve. He helps them to grow as big as they used to be. I love that metaphor from the chief, although for him it's more reality than metaphorical, that he has been made small compared to what he used to be, just like his dad was made small by his mother. It makes me reflect on the damage that women can do to the men in their lives with their disrespect.
Anyway , I'm sure to have some more thoughts when I actually finish it
Anyway , I'm sure to have some more thoughts when I actually finish it

For me, the heart of the book is summed up near the end when Harding says, "'I can't speak for them. They've still got their problems, just like all of us. They're still sick men in lots of ways. But at least there's that: They are sick men now. No more rabbits, Mack. Maybe they can be well men someday. I can't say.'" Despite McMurphy's faults, he gave the men back their dignity. That is no small thing. Every morning I go to work, caring for those whom Bromden would describe as "Chronics", and I see from them and hear from them, how important this is. To me, and to his friends, McMurphy is a hero, albeit an atypical one.

(Hi, I'm new, but I read this at the end of 2010, loved it, and thought I might try diving into the discussion)
I think Kesey was less concerned about the threat that mental illness represented than the threat that the machinations of society pose. From McMurphy's perspective, many of the patients on the ward were not so much irredeemably crazy, as suffering the effects of marginalisation and emasculation. Chief Bromden refers to society as The Combine- an industrial social machine which chews you up and spits you out if you don't fit within a predetermined definition of 'normal'. I think for Kesey, it was conformity to a bland model of behaviour and the medicalisation of abnormality that was the truly scary prison.
