Final Cuckoo's Nest Blog

1. Why was it necessary for Kesey to end the book with such a large show from McMurphy's side?

The party at the end was not just a show of power from McMurphy to Big Nurse, but it was also a way to show how far McMurphy had brought all of the characters. Billy was able to actually have a relationship of sorts with a woman, with the kind of woman who his mother would not have liked him to have. Harding was able to show off his reasonable side in trying to get everyone to clean up, and most of all, the Chief was actually able to take part at all. The fact that he was one of the ones present really shows that he has come a long way; not only does he dare to do something that Big Nurse would not like, but he also ends up interacting with the rest of the patients in a reasonable manner.

2. Was it ever possible for McMurphy to "win" the battle between him and Big Nurse? And I don't mean metaphorically, but physically.

While McMurphy did technically win the battle, he won at the cost of his life. Everyone else benefited save him. He was allowed to win in that the patients all began to leave, but McMurphy himself did not. The thing about this is that the Big Nurse had ultimate power over him. If he had run away then maybe he would have in effect won, but all in all, as long as he stayed in the ward, Big Nurse would have cut him off, had him lobotomized as she did.

3. In what ways did the other acutes add to the story?

The acutes showed how McMurphy was actually helping the ward, rather than just causing havoc for fun. Though he seemed to be doing things just for his own good, thanks to his development with the other acutes he was allowed to blur the line between selfish and self-sacrificing. Because of the acutes you can sit and debate McMurphy's reasons all you wish, but in the end the fact remains that for whatever reason he did it, he ended up helping these patients out.

4. How was Harding used to develop McMurphy?

Harding seemed to me to almost be a foil to McMurphy, an example in which the foil characters can actually get along. Harding seemed to be nervous, nitpicky and unsure of himself, quiet and allowing others to do as they wished; meanwhile, McMurphy was loud and boisterous, quite sure of himself and willing to point out to other people what he thought. However they are both friends, and they do both share the fact that they are smart, though they appear to me to be smart in different ways. Harding seems more book-smart, while McMurphy is more cunning. Allowing these two characters to work together, with McMurphy's personality bouncing off of Harding's, it characterized McMurphy much more strongly than he would have been otherwise.

Cuckoo's Nest Blog 2

By the end of part 1, I would have to say that McMurphy is managing to get the better of the nurse more so than the other way around. The fact that this part ends on McMurphy getting all of the ward to quit working and stare at a blank tv screen just to show her up probably shows that at the very least he has more power over the patients at this point. While the Nurse still has technical power, at this point McMurphy has managed to make his point more or less so.

The Chief goes out of his way to be near McMurphy so that he can hear what is going on. That shows a change in that at the beginning of the story he was less excited about things and more or less just along for the ride. Now, while still mostly just along for the ride, he also seems to be more active at attempting to be around people and things. The fact that McMurphy managed to get him to break out of his shell and raise his hand shows just how much he actually has managed to effect the Chief, with this being the most obvious one of the ways that he has been affected. At this point I like the Chief relatively well, because I kinda think that he is smarter than what the others think he is, and he does a good job of hiding it, but at the same time I think that he has very little bearing on the story physically. The part in which he comes in is more so in his description and how he gets you to lean to one side or the other just by how he describes it.

I find myself cheering for McMurphy, even though I don't particularly like him, mostly because I like the patients and what he is doing is also making them happy. In the same way, I also think that I lean towards his side thanks to the Chief's storytelling and the fact that there is an obvious slant towards McMurphy's side.

First Cuckoo's Nest Blog

The first character that I feel confident placing would be McMurphy, who I personally think is an anti hero. He has traits that would make him qualify as a hero, but at the same time he shows traits that make him not so savory. The facts that he is lazy (he is in the mental hospital because he would rather be there than a work camp), aggressive (what originally got him in prison) and manipulative all point towards him being more of an anti-hero than anything else. He is rude at times and is obviously attempting to manipulate those within the ward. Nurse Ratched says, "He is what we call a ‘manipulator,’ Miss Flinn, a man who will use everyone and everything to his own ends." While not the most trustworthy, I do believe that she was telling the truth in this statement; this is proved even further once he takes the bet at the end in order to try to get under the Nurse's skin and try to turn the already established order a little onto its head.

Another easy one to place would be the Head Nurse. While probably not as mean as McMurphy would lead us to believe, the truth of the matter is that she does not really seem to care about the patients. Also, like McMurphy, she is manipulative and used to being in control. She has everything running under a tight ship, under her control, and the doctor can't do a thing about it thanks to his cowardliness. She definitely is looked upon as the villain to most people in the ward. McMurphy's conversation with Harding at the end proves that everyone in the ward thinks of her as meanest, most manipulative woman on the face of the planet. After McMurphy attempts to prove this to Harding, he eventually gives in, admitting that, "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 [McMurphy does] about [Nurse Ratched] and the whole business, " She's got them under such a tight rein that they can't even admit to themselves that they dislike her through some sort of cognitive dissonance. She holds the rest of the ward in fear, so much fear that they are helpless to do anything about it.

The hardest one to place  would be hero...there doesn't appear to be any heroes in this story, at least not of the traditional sort. Even with tragic hero, it would be hard to shoehorn a character into the role. I would say Harding might fit a tragic hero, but I can't say that I know enough about him to be able to aptly place him. His faults are not ones that would make a villain or even an anti hero. He could be a hero, but his cowardly attitude, even if it is self-aware, would make it hard for him to a traditional hero. Even more so, I have little idea of how much he will even affect the story. Another character in a similar situation is the Chief, who also cannot fit as a villain or anti-hero, but isn't a traditional hero. The fact that he clearly cannot be trusted also leads you to wonder how much of what he tells you is true, and how much of it is his insane ramblings. Either way, I don't know how much bearing he will have to do with the story, regardless of his place as the narrator.

Final Great Gatsby Reading

What was Fitzgerald trying to accomplish by repeatedly mentioning the glasses of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg?

The sign was a way to symbolize all the attention the elite class got, and how they were always being watched. In the first time it is described, it is said to rise above the fog and is able to be seen by many in the surrounding area.  Later, after the trouble with Myrtle and the car, his sign is again mentioned, only this time it is referred to by Wilson, who seems to hold the idea that it is "God" and is always watching. Specifically, that he is watching Myrtle with her affair, and that he knows and will punish her for it. Wilson takes it too far, but it does go to show that there is a lot to be seen and watched, with the affairs and underhanded business that goes on in the area.

How effective was Fitzgerald's use of character to portray his theme?

Considering it appears that Fitzgerald's theme has to do with looking back at the past, and how the characters he use all seem to be stuck in the past for one reason or another, I would say it was very effective. In effect, Fitzgerald is dwelling on the one girl who turned him down because he was too poor, and this book goes to show that. Gatsby is his stand in, constantly stuck in the past, one that can never be real again. Tom is the typical, or at least at first, stereotype of the jerk jock who is otherwise perfect. However, Fitzgerald throws a twist in that all of the characters are portrayed sympathetically by the end of the book, at least for a moment (for Tom, literally just a moment.) It also goes to show that sticking in the past hurts everyone: Gatsby dead, Tom and Daisy in shambles, with Nick and Jordan no better or worse than they started, if only for the fact that they were both friends with those affected.

What is Fitzgerald's reasoning for making Gatsby what he is (hero, anti-hero, villain)?

Gatsby is, in my opinion, a tragic hero. His downfalls all come back to the fact that he is stuck in the past, and all of the bad things that he does/did can be linked to that fact. He got into somewhat shady business so that he could be more successful and as such gain Daisy's affection again, like they'd been prior to him leaving for the war. This, of course, mirrors Fitzgerald in that Fitzgerald would be sympathetic with him, seeing as how Gatsby is a sort of stand in for himself, in a way. At least, in that he gets turned down by the woman he loves because he doesn't have enough money, and then when he does have money, there's still no way of regaining her affection for real. This makes people feel sorry for him, while all the same it gets across Fitzgerald's point that it's useless to be stuck in the past, and that the only person it hurts is oneself.

How effective was Fitzgerald's use of Gatsby as a stand in for himself?

It was effective in that it showed just how useless it is to be stuck in the past. With Gatsby, the issue was that he couldn't move on, and after he had managed to pull himself up to Daisy's level and she still found herself unable to truly reciprocate in the way that Gatsby remembered it being, he just couldn't imagine that she didn't feel the same way as him. It managed to show the reader just how hopeless Fitzgerald felt that dwelling on the past could be, and Gatsby's death was the cherry on the top of everything, in that it was symbolic. Everything in Gatsby's life had been leading up to his reunion with Daisy, and after she could not be what he wanted, it only shows that Gatsby would die. Even more so, his death was in part caused by his refusal to let go of his attachment to Daisy.

Great Gatsby Reading 2

1. I see Meyer Wolfsheim as being a way to develop Gatsby, in our eyes. His character shows just who Gatsby will put up with and deal with. In this case, Wolfsheim is a little bit sneaky and cheating, and maybe colors our judgement of Gatsby. But at the same time, one can also look at their relationship as interesting in the fact that Gatsby seems to merely put up with him, though showing a few signs of liking him as a person.

2. Their relationship makes Gatsby seem a little tragic. They seem to have been in an obviously good relationship, however he had to leave to go to war. Then Daisy marries Tom (for what reason, we aren't quite informed, only that she thinks it was a mistake) and she is obviously unhappy with him. Gatsby, in the meantime, is well forgotten for all intents and purposes, and yet he still loves her all the same. It just happened that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or more likely not at the right place at the right time. Now he has to see Daisy in an unhappy relationship and he is unable to do anything about it himself.

3. Gatsby, unlike many of the others of this crowd, is partially a self-made man (other than the money left behind to him by Cody) and that sets him apart from the rest of the people in that we can respect him for making his own money rather than merely inheriting it. We also feel sorry for him in that part of his money came from his best friend who died. In general, the rest of his background makes him into a rather sad figure, and it seems as though he has some issues dealing with his money and with what he is doing and in general it just shows you why he is so awkward at his own parties.

4. I get the feeling that I shouldn't like him more, since he is in love with a married woman. However, overall, these chapters have only served to make me like Gatsby more. I feel sorry for him, losing Daisy to Tom, and I also like him for how awkward he is whenever he first gets to see Daisy again. His wonder at the situation (after his embarrassment) made him more likeable and overall human. He seems more real than some of the other characters, and feels like maybe he's still in wonder with his wealth, still capable of real happiness, while all of the other characters seem to look at everything like it's old stuff.

Jelly Roll Morton, "Black Bottom Stomp"

How do you envision this music playing a part of Gatsby's parties?
There are two ways I can imagine this music. The more likely of the two, I think, is as dancing music. Probably not ballroom dancing, but the kind where people would be okay to dance by themselves. The other way would be while people are eating. However, I don't imagine a lively song like this to be used during eating, and more likely was playing while people were dancing.

What is the mood? How/why?
The music is very upbeat and danceable, making me think of a happy and energetic mood in which everyone is talkative and wild.

What activities go along with this music?
Dancing, for the most part. Dancing quickly, with or without a partner.

The Great Gatsby- Reading Blog 1

From what we have already read, I must say that there are three characters that I can categorize as either a hero, antihero or villain, or at least predict that they will become that once we get more characterization. 

Though he only comes in during that last third of the reading, I imagine that Gatsby is a hero of this story, not alone part of the fact that the book is called "The Great Gatsby". Another reason is that, while nobody that Nick talks to seems to know much about him, the indirect characterization you get while talking to him and from the guests show that he actually is a pretty nice guy. In one instance, a girl is talking about how she ripped her dress at the last one of his parties, and that "inside of the week [she] got a package from Croirier's with a new evening gown in it." (43) She goes on to say how expensive it was and how odd of a man he was for doing something of the sort. Then, later, once Nick has actually met him, Gatsby seems quite friendly towards him, if a bit distant any time someone else approaches him or tries to talk to him.

Jordan Baker strikes me as a sort of antihero, in that she is obviously meant to be portrayed in a friendly and nice light, or at least to be identified with as a sort, but at the same time she has a sort of hauty nature and a tendency towards lying that most would more so associate with a villain. When first introduced, her description of holding her chin in the air "as if she were balancing something on it which was quite likely to fall" gave me the impression that she had an air about her like she thought she was better than everyone else. The last few pages in the reading then go on to detail how she had a penchant for lying, which Nick quickly forgives because she is a woman and that is something one can easily forgive a woman for. However, while she does have these very obviously bad traits, she is quite friendly and helpful with Nick during the party at Gatsby's, keeping Nick company and trying to help him find Gatsby.

One character who immediately rubbed me the wrong way was Tom Buchanan. His first description of stubborn and hard and all together too strong for himself, carrying himself as though he was so much better than everyone else gives one the idea that he might be the villain, all that he is supposedly a sort of friend to Nick. His insistence during that dinner that the white people should rise up and put other races in their place would be looked upon in a bad light, at least by modern audiences. And the later fact that he has a mistress (a fact that his wife knows and yet can do nothing about) and that he cares not if people know it puts him at odds with most peoples' ideas of morality in general, and his treatment of said mistress is also one to be looked down upon. Though neither he nor Myrtle are the best of people, and their relationship seems plainly based on the fact that neither likes their spouse, many will feel sorry for Myrtle when Tom strikes her and causes her to have a bloody nose, all based on an argument over whether Myrtle may talk about Daisy or not. I personally cannot find any good traits about Tom, and only bad traits or ones that are neutral at best.

Bua's Style

Bua's style is very angular, but with important curves that are not quite realistic. In fact, his style has an abstract element to it in that it does not portray, realistically, the way people and things look. The poses the people in his paintings are in look based on real ones that people could actually pull off, but are not entirely accurate and seem  unnatural. The colors that he leans towards are very earthy, with lots of greens and browns.

Mencken vs Kroll on the Death Penalty

Out of the two, I would have to say that the Kroll piece was much more effective, if only because it was much more connected and together as compared to the Mencken essay. With Kroll's essay, the pathos was so heavy you could have cut it with a knife; with Mencken, the appeals were scattered, if they were even there. While I do not believe an argument can be very good if the only thing it relies on is pathos, compared to the scattered nature of Mencken's essay, Kroll's was more effective. With Mencken, I had not the slightest idea who he was aiming his essay at, and at about the first mention of religion, the entire argument slides into a downward slope of hypothetical after hypothetical, until it finally reaches what was probably the entire point of Mencken's argument: him talking about how the execution process should be much quicker. With that he manages to backdoor you into what he believes, without really having any substance. However, the Kroll essay is a narrative, one that takes a clear bias as it tries to get you to agree with Kroll. The effect, while not quite that much for me, was much better than Mencken's if only because of the cohesiveness of the essay, rather than Mencken's scatterbrained attempt to make a point, which he only got to after insulting the opposition and trailing off into tiny rant after tiny rant. My assertion that the Kroll essay is better is more so based on the fact that the Mencken essay was anything but persuasive to me, rather than the fact that it was all that amazing.

"Sixteen Military Wives" by the Decemberists

What is this song about (subject matter)?
This song is about (in the first stanza) army men who die fighting, and leave behind wives The next part is about a group of  "academics" out of whom only a few care. The last one is about cannibal kings eating the aforementioned characters.

What is the theme of this song?
The first stance and chorus led me to believe that it is about how soldiers were sent out because "America" "can't say no" and that because of this they say that it is necessary, since "America" says it to be. "And America dies, if America says it's so." But then the idea that the anchorperson goes "la de da de da" which is pretty much nonsense and means that the anchorperson does not actually care.

"Race for the Prize" by the Flaming Lips

What is the theme of the song?
The theme of the song is that sometimes a race doesn't mean competition, people can work together towards a common goal for the good of humanity. In the first stanza it says "Two scientists were racing/For the good of all mankind...For the cure that is their prize..." In this song the race is not a literal one, but a figurative one in which both of them merely want the "prize" not for themselves but for humanity. The race does not mean that they are working against each other, and in the third line it says "Both of them side by side" meaning that really, they are working together and the "race" is how they both want to get the cure (the mentioned "prize") for the good of humankind. Therefore, in this song, the lyrics point toward a resolution to get the prize for their species and not for themselves. The music pushes a somewhat resolute, calming idea, at least at first. But then it gets more rocky, somewhat like turbulence, which shows how the two scientists are working together against whatever danger it is that they are fighting against.

Patrick Henry Speech Fallacies

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?"


This part of the speech relies on the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum, or the appeal to fear or force. Here, Henry is trying to get the audience's attention by making the extreme, the idea of soldiers in every house, the possible reality if the audience does not do/feel as he does. Thus fallacy pretty much just means that he is relying on his audience's fear as his main point right here. If the audience does not agree to go to war, then there will most definitely be soldiers stationed in every house before there can possibly be any way to free themselves from the British, their oppressors. 


However, while this speech does commit several fallacies, it is also true that it is well written, and I can imagine, well delivered. Henry's rhetoric is quite strong, and while he does not back up all of his statements entirely, that does not stop things such as argumentum ad baculum not catching peoples' attention and making them listen. This makes people feel like it maybe was urgent, that it was necessary, and therefore most people don't even realize that it is a fallacy, and that they may not have entirely backed up their statements.

Duck and Cover (1951)

Overt message
You must be ever cautious for an attack, ready to duck and cover to save yourself. No matter where you are, you are supposed to duck and cover to protect yourself.

Covert message
This video fives people the idea that there is something they can do when an atomic bomb is dropped, and that keeps them from feeling helpless when/if it happens.

Propaganda/persuasion and why?
Propaganda, because it obviously tries to get people no to feel safe, but to feel like maybe they could help themselves, that they can stay safe. The government might have been trying to dissuade the people from the fear they felt, that was ever present in this time period.

Destination Earth

The overt message
Oil helps many things run and give us many luxuries, but the way to make it work is through competition for more oil, among other things.

The covert message
The video was also trying to show how horrible the Martian state was, using the Martians as a metaphor for communists, which was a big deal at the time. The idea of competition, which was poo-pooed by the ruler, was what they were trying to promote, while they made the ruler look cruel.

Propaganda or persuasion and why?
Propaganda, through the use of transfer, with the idea that oil stands for America, which stands for freedom. This gives the cartoon a source of false credibility.

Propaganda (WWII 1941-1945)

What is the overt message?
The most obvious thing is that it says that you should "eat less bread" but that what people eat at home effects how they do in the war.

What is the covert message?
Other than what is said in the overt message, the only message I can see is that it wants women to stay at home and cook, and that that is the only way that they can help win the war.

How does the disparity in the two of these make it propaganda?
The message says that you should eat less bread (one must assume this is the "key" the poster speaks of_ yet the picture shows the woman cooking the food and looking happy while she does it. Meanwhile, the overt message does not really gibe with the covert message, which very well seems to have little to do with what the overt message wants the people to do. That's what would make it propaganda.

"Clampdown" by the Clash (1979)

What is the song about? How do you know?
The song is about how people get trained to believe a certain way, like as it says, "We will teach our twisted speech/To the young believers." Then it says that "they" which I assume to either be government or an authority figure of some sort, make you work hard until you are the one brainwashing younger generations.

What musical elements add to your lyrical interpretation?
The heavy beat throughout the song sounded much like a hammer hitting a nail or otherwise the government like a "clamp down." This other wise shows that it is like the work it focuses on throughout the song and the hammering in of ideas.




What is something in the song that relates to propaganda, persuasion, deception, rhetoric, or argument? Explain.
The song is about the propaganda of society and how the society enforces these ideas without even meaning to.

Propaganda, Persuasion, Rhetoric, and Argument

730, 745, 780, 783

745- "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon"

This quote seems to be going with the "History is told by the victors" type of thing, only with a bit of a twist, which is where the topic of persuasion and propaganda come in. Similar to the one about victors, this one has the common idea that history is not necessarily what happened, but rather what ended up being recorded. In this case, it means that history is what common perception has allowed for us to see, based on our biases. An example of this could be looked upon with the Crusades. If you were to ask most students what they knew about the Crusades, granted that they knew they were, they would most likely slant it to the side of the Europeans, the Christians, and portray the Arabs as aggressors, as the ones who were in the wrong. That's because our biases cause that to be the way it ends up being portrayed. Just like with every other thing in history, what we are told now gets changed by the attitude toward it at the time and now, when it is being taught about. Whether it was meant to be that way or not, propaganda effects how things are retold, and deception is involved in many historical retellings.