One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Part 2

For my blog on Part 2 of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, I’d like to once again focus on a thought from Chief. On page 162, he is describing the unsuspected oddities he sees from McMurphy- “I was seeing him different when he first came in; I was seeing more to him than just big hands and red sideburns and a broken-nosed grin.” He sees him paint and write letters in beautiful handwriting. This section of Part 2 made McMurphy seem so much more real to me. Like all of us, he has an exterior that most people judge him by, but when alone, can be a very different person. This blurb about McMurphy not only made him more civilized, it made me ask if maybe he was acting the way he was for more than to just be a rebel. Maybe there was a true “method” to his madness. At this point in the novel, I began to see McMurphy as misunderstood soul. I realized that I judged him based only on what he had done since entering the ward and never asked myself why he was the way he was.

Cuckoo's Nest Part 1

While Part 1 of Ken Kesey’s novel, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, has many integral moments to the storyline, I’d like to focus on one page that struck me as being important. Towards the end of Part 1 on page 136, Chief is describing the hard like fellow patient Pete has had. While working as some type of low-grade train operator, Pete had to try substantially hard to perform his job right. Our narrator sets a bittersweet setting for Pete- “So for forty years he was able to live, if not right in the world of men, at least on the edge of it.” After reading this line, I realized how it universally applied to almost every man on the ward. Yes, it is true many of them did not function as properly as possible in society and that they had to try harder than the average human just to live “on the edge of it.” This however, does not make them any less human or deserving of the degradation Nurse Ratched gives them. Chief gives a positive outlook, at least for me as a reader, on the patients in the ward. No one is asking for anyone there to function as a normal person, but almost getting to the point where their behavior is tolerable is a very realistic goal, even if it is not seen as being “therapeutic” by the staff.

Hamlet Post 2

In Act II of Shakespeare's Hamlet, the main character, Hamlet, decides to find out if his uncle/stepfather, Claudius, has in fact killed his late father, Hamlet Sr. He plans to put on a play in which Claudius will be in the audience. Of course during the play, Hamlet offers sarcastic commentary to the King and Queen. Then, when the main character dies, Claudius runs out. Now Hamlet is convinced the ghost of his father was correct. I thought that by putting this play within the play was very abstract and clever of Shakespeare. Instead of conventionally having Hamlet confront the new King, Shakespeare plays on the quirkiness of his main character by having him create an elaborate plan to corner Claudius in his lie. I also thought that this made Hamlet's character seem smarter than the murderer Claudius. The King thought he was going to enjoy the theater the night of Hamlet's play but little did he know how wrong he was. This was one of my favorite scenes in the play because it was so dramatic and clever. I also love whenever Hamlet acts a little crazy and he certainly does during his play within Act II.

A highlight of the play in Act II is the demise and downfall of King Claudius which begins when he runs out of Hamlet's play. From there on, almost every decision he makes turns out to be detrimental to the character. From sending Hamlet to England but secretly sending him there to be killed (which happens to backfire) to attempting to poison Hamlet but accidentally killing his wife in the process.

Hamlet Post 1

After reading the first two scenes of Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, I am amazed at what Hamlet’s mother and uncle/stepfather are putting him through. Not only does his mother, Queen Gertrude, show little to no remorse over her late husband’s death, she marries his brother, Claudius, shortly after the death of the king. When Hamlet begins to act depressed, the newlyweds find it strange and instead of asking the young prince about it, they enlist the help of his two best friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Instead of just asking if they could help Hamlet, they bribe them with money and rewards. Not only is Hamlet’s immediate family solely worried about themselves, so are his closest friends. In the end, Hamlet is left to fend for himself in a pool of sharks. I found it depressing and disheartening that one of the only people to tell Hamlet the truth in these first scenes is the ghost of his father. This shows me that in the rest of the play, Hamlet is most likely going to have to be his own advocate and watch his back. I feel that the people he holds most dear will end up stabbing him in the back for their advancement in the government. The fact that Hamlet has to resort to acting like he is crazy is one of the most disenchanting facts of all. In doing so, he can properly devise a plan against his mother and uncle/stepfather.

Coleridge and Shelley - Imagination and Narrative Voice

In my opinion, "Kubla Khan" celebrates the imagination. In his pleasure dome, Kubla Khan enjoys life and is eternally happy. In the last line, Coleridge says he drinks the milk of Paradise- why would he be cautioning against the imagination? The only way for everyone to get to their own personal "paradise" is through their imagination. The Earth will never be a paradise- without imagination, we could never experience what that might be like. Throughout the whole poem, there is a general sense of indulgence and ornateness in Kubla Khan's world. Just because he indulgdes himself in ornate things does not make his paradise a bad place. Every once in a while, everyone needs to be indulgent.

In Shelley's "Ozymandias," I see four voices- the traveler, narrator, sculptor and Ozymandis. The narrator has a small role in the beginning of the poem introducing the traveler as someone he met in an "ancient land."

The Chimney Sweeper

Yes, I do agree with the editors of the textbook that Blake's poetry had the power to enact social change by appealing to the imagination of the reader. In both versions of “The Chimney Sweeper,” Blake calls on his imagination to make the speaker of the poems realistic. As history shows, Blake did not live an impoverished life. Therefore, he had to use his imagination at least a little bit when writing about topics he had no personal experience in, such as being a young chimney sweeper. Chances are, not everyone reading Blake’s poetry was in a lower class, since they were literate. By appealing to his audience’s imagination, he was in turn appealing to their emotions, in turn calling for social change.

I think the editors included the Parliament transcript as a primary source document following “The Chimney Sweeper” to show us that what Blake was talking about was a very real horror for children back then. It is one thing to read a poem someone made up in his or her imagination with fictional characters. On the other hand, reading the actual dialogue from the Parliament between someone who was actually in the situations Blake described brought the situation to a completely new, tangible level. This affected my reading of Blake’s work by making it more emotional for me. After reading this primary document, I felt like I had a face to pair with a heart-tugging poem; a real story to compare to one that was imaginary.

Jonathan Swift Teacher Prep Work

Questions: Why is there a time lapse in between when Gulliver is captured and when he makes an alliance with the Lilliputian leader? Do the petty wars the Lilliputians get into amongst themselves symbolize something in society? Why does Gulliver feel compelled to protect his captors?
Predictions: I could have possibly misread Swift's text and thought there was a gap in the chronology of it. Also, the Lilliputians can themselves symbolize many different types of people, for instance, Proletariats.

The group work this week had pros and cons for me. I liked that my group members gave me a different approach to interpreting the text and they also pointed out things that I missed. However, when it came time to create our chart, there was some dissension in the group as to what to write exactly. I would only change the guidelines- next time, make it clearer for what we are supposed to teach and what goes on our charts. I learned, however, that there are many different ways to present a lesson to a class and still make it learnable.

As of yet, my group hasn't figured out exactly how we will present out lesson to the class. From our conversations, though, I think we will ask the class specific questions, like the ones listed above, and see if our predictions are close.