THe Animal side of Cuckoos Nest

My first thoughts about this blog immediately turned to the discussion of the animal analogy employed by Harding and McMurphy. These two “insane” patients have a reasonable conversation about their roles in the hospital opposed to the role of Ms. Ratched, the head nurse. They compare themselves to rabbits while Ms. Ratched and other tough people like her are referred to as wolves. They speak about a hierarchy within the animals. The Wolves are the most powerful, where as rabbits are weak and must submit to the wolves. However, the rabbits do have some slyness on their side. This characteristic is clearly evident as McMurphy and other patients make plans or bets behind Ms. Ratched’s back. Yet, she does remain the dominant wolf of this floor. She is willing to betray her own staff to maintain control according to Harding. If the doctor were to become too lenient with the patients, she would supposedly call up the head of the hospital and insinuate his alleged use of prescription drugs. No matter what she will remain a wolf. Another part of the analogy they refer to is sex. Rabbits are well known for frequent proliferation and McMurphy is known as oversexed. He fits right in. As for the rest of the acutes and chronics, many of them cannot perform sexually or have some problem in that area. For this reason they are even lower rabbits than McMurphy. I think this analogy holds true for much of what I have read so far. The patients are timid and if they ever attempt to stand against the head nurse, she waits with a cold silence that forces them to back down. She is a master of her craft. Earlier on, Chief Bromden describes how she meticulously selected her staff, apparently looking for other wolves like herself. No matter what she will remain the wolf of the floor.

Also, this conversation reminded me of Animal Farm. The hierarchy of animals and the message of both sets of leaders are similar. The rabbits must not step out of line, the wolves will teach them their place. If necessary the main wolf of the hospital, Ms. Ratched, can send any too bothersome rabbit to the disturbed floor, where they will probably never be seen again. In Animal Farm the pigs, as the leaders, act similarly by not allowing any animals that think differently. They rose to power in a similar way that Ms. Ratched maintains it. Both convince their respective groups that they are acting in a way that is best for everyone. Ms. Ratched is trying to cure these people. In order to do so, she needs to keep a strict schedule that everyone must follow. There is no room in her world for talking back or new suggestions. She remains this confident and powerful wolf, keeping her little rabbits in line, until McMurphy decides to try and crack her. His first successful action gets the Acutes a new day room through the doctor’s help. However, she continues to have her game face on. I am curious to see what his next action will be and what her response will be. I cannot imagine Ms. Ratched allowing much else to happen. In her world, there are always consequences.

Response to p.1588 Act IV #4

Laertes and Hamlet are intertwined characters whose lives draw many parallels. Both characters end up with similar goals, that of avenging their father’s deaths. Yet each one handles it very differently. Hamlet hears from a ghost, potentially his father’s, so he is unsure of the validity of his father being murdered. In order to discover the truth, Hamlet feigns madness and also sets up a play for Claudius. Laertes on the other hand, is quite sure his father was murdered and quite sure who the murderer is after he returns. Laertes acts as any son seeking revenge would. He heroically seeks the facts from Claudius and strives to find the killer.

In Act IV of Hamlet Laertes returns to Denmark with a clear mission. He is only slightly confused about why his father was killed; however, he is very direct in his mission. Laertes has returned to find the murderer and kill him, even if it means cutting his throat in a church. Hamlet also wishes to kill his father’s murderer. He first decides to prove the King’s guilt, but even after that he cannot fulfill his goal. Hamlet often views himself as a coward, which highlights Laertes as a hero. Laertes has a plan and is unafraid, where as, Hamlet takes lots of time and never knows when to kill Claudius. This division not only separates the characters but also makes them more comparable. They have basic similarities; close in age, studied abroad, in the court; but nothing draws them closer than their missions. This connection is shown in their final moments as each demonstrates respect for each other after killing each other. They realize they were both consumed by their rage and twisted into a crazy plot by Claudius. Even though Laertes was angry, he does forgive Hamlet. Laertes was a noble man with clear sense. The sudden news of a father’s death would provoke anyone to act the way he did. Since Hamlet’s news was more drawn out and less clear, so was his revenge plan. Part of the reason Laertes comes across as heroic is because of Hamlet. Hamlet’s plan and madness are too deceptive. As he says, he is something of a coward. If Hamlet had been direct and firm with his goal then Laertes may not have seemed so honorable. The contrast between the two’s actions places each one at each end of the spectrum, coward and hero.

Antigone's Simple Motives

Antigone’s actions are to be admired. She was not searching for glory, or honor, or pride. She simply was following the way of the gods. Antigone’s brother would not have had a good afterlife if she had not made attempts to bury him. She was acting on her personal beliefs regardless of Creon’s laws. Her sister in the end tried to be supportive but it was misinterpreted. Creon had forgotten his place and Haimon tried to remind him but only Antigone’s actions were strong enough to show him.

When Antigone first approaches her sister, she is seeking help. In this scene we hear Antigone’s most basic motivation. It is the way of the gods to bury the dead. Antigone does not pretend her family is anything near good; therefore, even though her brother tried to invade, he still deserves the respect the dead receive. Ismene represents the majority of the people at the beginning. They are too afraid to go against any law or authority. Later Haimon tells his father Creon that there is talk. The people do not understand this law; they are on Antigone’s side. However, Antigone is not going against authority for the sake of it. If Creon had not made that law, she would still have tried to bury her brother. Her issue here was her family and what she believed was right, not authority.

Another point we mentioned in class was whether Antigone was acting as a martyr. I do not think she cared about martyrdom, glory, or honor. She was not trying to make herself look better. If she were trying to glorify herself and her actions, she would have made a better stand of burying her brother in front of people or spoken against Creon directly to the people. No, she was not doing this for herself. When Ismene comes to her aid in front of Creon, neither of them is trying for glory either. Ismene finally realizes her priorities and claims guilt in hopes of supporting her sister. As for Antigone, she was cold and dismissive to her sister for a couple of reasons. She was undoubtedly bitter towards Ismene for not being there when she needed her. Also, as Antigone says “your death will not lessen mine”, meaning there is no point in Ismene dying too given she did nothing against the law. Since Oedipus, this family has been doomed. Antigone sees no need for her sister to die as well, especially because she is the last family member.

I think what Antigone did was noble. She was thinking of her brother before herself. When the laws are unjust, she stood up, ignored them, and did what she knew was right. The gods were extremely important to the culture of her time, their authority superseded that of any king. Therefore, it was important not to upset them. She knew by not burying her brother there would be trouble with his afterlife. Antigone’s motivation was simple; do the right thing.

A Night on Dover Beach

On a night where the sea was calm, the tide was full, and the moon lay fair, a little boy could not sleep in a house on Dover Beach. He quietly tiptoed down the stairs not wanting to disturb the slumbering home, crossed the living room, and found his Grandfather awake in a chair looking out the window into the bay. Upon seeing the little boy, the Grandfather invited him over.

“Come to the window my boy; the night-air is sweet.” The little boy obeyed.

“Listen, do you hear the grating roar of the pebbles, which the waves draw back, and fling, at their return, up the high strand, begin and cease, and then again begin?” Inquired the grandfather. The boy thought. He loved the sea, so various, so beautiful, so new, a place of endless opportunity, but what he heard didn’t make sense.

“It sounds…sad grandpa.” The old man gave the little boy a slow, knowing smile; it only lasted a second before he ushered the boy back to bed.

It was moments like these that stayed with the little boy. He returned to Dover Beach often throughout the years, but never on a night with the sea so calm, the tide so full, and the moon so fair.

The years passed by, until one day while in a class lecture this young man could not help longing for those Dover Beach nights. He couldn’t focus; the class was a bore. But, one comment caught his attention.

“…Sophocles long ago hear it on the Aegean. It brought into his mind the rather turbid ebb and blow of human misery. What do we find in this sound?” Posed the professor to the pensive class.

While the young man had no idea what the teacher was talking about, it seemed to relate to that one night with his Grandfather. He supposed Sophocles must have experienced something similar. It seems all men, even great thinkers, had grandfathers to absorb the powers of the sea with.

Time continued as it does and this man discovered his sea of faith was evaporating. He still enjoyed moments of admiring its shores but his view was constantly changing.

To the boy, Dover Beach and its waves had seemed sad only once. But now, to the man, he always only heard the melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, moving with the breath of the night, pulling away from the beaches of the world. It was moments like these that stayed with him. They reminded him of being a boy, of being young, and forced him to ponder his future. For once upon a time he had been a boy. He had been innocent and seen the best in things. Once, the world had seemed to him an endless land of dreams. But now he had experienced more. He had grown up and life changes. Now, he could not see joy, nor love, nor light, nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain.

A Man Lost in Between

Kurtz and the Magistrate are both men lost in between the world of their homeland and the world of the natives they preside over. After being immersed in the new lands for so long, the men change. Kurtz, from The Heart of Darkness, embarked on his mission to further the economy of his homeland. He was a main connection to the heart of Africa where he lived for many years. However, when first met by Marlow he seems to have lost much of his western lifestyle. Kurtz seems completely assimilated with the natives, and they seem to respect him. He came to the place as an explorer and left the place a new person. Kurtz was not a native though. His dying words exclaim of the mysterious “horror” and his postscript wishes for the natives to be exterminated. Where did this come from? Kurtz is clearly not the man he was before Africa; he has lost much of his western attitude and behavior. Nor is Kurtz true to Africa; he wants to kill its people! He is lost in between. He has become a unique type of man, forgotten in the convoluted twists of imperialism. In Waiting for the Barbarians the Magistrate has experienced something similar to Kurtz. He has lived on the frontier for thirty years. At the beginning of his stay, he was a man of the Empire, loyal and against the barbarians. After so long observing the native people, the Magistrate has become captivated by the culture and history of the area. He does not see them as a threat. Instead, he spends his days collecting and exploring the lands. He never fully learns the history, ways, or even language of the nomadic people of his region. But there is no doubt he has changed. With the arrival of Joll, it is clear the Magistrate is no longer in agreement with the Empire. He even extends his favor of the natives by hosting a native woman. He eventually returns her and is not met kindly by her people. Also, she rejects him and does leave. Toward the end of the novel, it is clear he is a lost man. The Empire has abused and abandoned him, but he is also afraid of the barbarians. The Magistrate does not belong to either world. Both he and Kurtz are explorers caught within their explorations.

Barbarian morals

Waiting for the Barbarians is thus far a juxtaposing journey of morals and reality. The book immediately features two officers of the Empire with differing views. One, wearing “two little discs of glass suspended in front of his eyes in loops of wire”, treats the barbarians with disdain and views them as a threat. The other, the magistrate, has been around these nomads for nearly thirty years. He thinks they are a harmless people. He supports this view as he quietly tries to help the prisoners the other officer has collected. The magistrate is limited because he knows anything drastic will make him appear as an old officer stuck in the field too long. After the other officer is gone, he begins to indirectly patch things up. The magistrate takes care of a near blind “barbarian” girl left behind. I think deep down he thinks he is helping those people, or making things right by doing so. While his morals are in the right place, the reality instead, seems a little greedy. Given an absence of companionship in his long stay on the front, it seems he is only motivated to cure his loneliness. The two remain together and yet not close for quite sometime. One day, the magistrate makes the bold moving of attempting to return her to her people. Here, he is very selfless. Because of that, and because they are in a new environment, away from peering eyes, the two become much closer than ever before. They are even able to consummate their peculiar relationship. The reality is, she leaves him and her stay with him has probably degraded his leadership role in his community. However, the magistrate’s morals have been respectful and with good intentions. He is not the most likeable character, but only because of the confusing circumstance. He cannot run things the way he would wish because it would be against the Empire. The way he treats the girl is sweet but a bit unusual. If the magistrate should either come full circle and act in true consistency with his morals or succumb to the ways of the Empire, his character could be better understood. Yet, his perplexing nature makes him unpredictable; and therefore, makes the next section more suspenseful.