So Far, So Good

So far, I am really enjoying One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The story is creepily fascinating and makes me want to read more. What makes the novel so interesting for me is not, however, the storyline or plot. The page-turning element of the novel, for me, is the characters. Kesey has created the most intriguing and baffling characters. McMurphy serves as a wonderful contrast to all other characters of the story who remain mysteriously unexplained. Perhaps some of my questions will be answered as the plot develops but as of now, I am going crazy with curiosity! I find myself wondering: does the head nurse ever feel bad for her actions? How did she get so mean and ruthless? Is the Chief a reliable narrator? What exactly is wrong with him? The questions the novel has created for me have made reading thus far absolutely exciting and enjoyable. I’m thinking my paper may deal with the importance of and techniques of character development in the novel.

p.s. Sorry this is late Mr. Coon!

Claudius- A Villain from the Beginning

Question # 2:
How early in the play, and from what passages, do you perceive that Claudius is a villain?

Claudius is set up as a villain from the very beginning of the play. As readers, we automatically do not like Claudius because of his actions (marrying his brothers widow uncomfortably soon after his death). Claudius's words only add to our dislike. The very first time we hear him speak, he speaks the deceiving words of a villainous character. His speech in regards to the King's death seems formulated and not genuine. He comes across as speaking and acting the way he feels the public expects and wants him to speak and act. He shows no sign of true grief with his actions and thus his words are interpreted as fake and formulated. Our distrust of Claudius continues to grow throughout the play with his sneaky actions and deceiving demeanor. Perhaps his ability to make himself appear genuine while acting completely the opposite is what makes Claudius such a threatening villain.

Oedipus

Waltzing?

Earlier this week I sat at a picnic table in the quad with a few friends flipping through the pages of my English text book, searching for a suitable poem for this assignment. I came across “My Papa’s Waltz” and was instantly shocked and saddened by the words I read. I then proceeded to read it out loud to everyone at the table and we all agreed that the speaker of the poem was a young boy with an abusive alcoholic father, who was desperate for his father’s love. We remained completely sure that we had found the overarching message of the poem, that is, until Brian Baker entered the discussion. He read the poem and had an entirely different response. He reassured us all that the father and son were simply playing around and dancing in the kitchen together. Perhaps unfairly, the six girls at the table (including myself) shrieked and began to call Brian’s interpretation insensitive and blatantly incorrect. However, the more I thought about it and the more I read the poem, I began to realize that Brian’s interpretation can be supported with just as much evidence as my own initial interpretation. It was this first controversial encounter with the poem that helped me discover one of its central characteristics.
Roethke’s “My Papa’s Waltz” may actually give readers more insight into who they are as people then it gives about who the characters of the poem are. Roethke sets up the poem, perhaps intentionally, so that a reader must make a choice. Depending on who is reading, the tone of the poem may be interpreted as desperate, critical and unfortunate; on the other hand, another might read the poem and describe the tone as playful, comic, and even joyful. Essentially the reader must decide if the “waltzing” described in the poem is literally dancing or simply a self-comforting euphemism the reflective son has created for his father’s drunken manhandling of him as a boy.
Some phrases in the poem create a disturbing tone and contribute to the interpretation of “waltzing” as a euphemism. For example, when the boy describes himself as hanging on “like death” and “clinging to” his father’s shirt, there is a tone of desperateness in the word choice. When the father’s palm is described as “caked hard by dirt,” the father becomes associated with dirtiness which has obviously negative connotations. The father’s outright neglect for his son’s well-being by (unknowingly?) inflicting scrapes on his son’s ear also contributes to the conception of their “waltzing” as dysfunctional and violent.
However, Roethke includes just as many if not more phrases which create a playful and humorous tone, suggesting quite the opposite interpretation. His choice of the words “romp” and “waltz” is very revealing. He easily could have chosen stronger more violently-associated words, but chose these lighthearted and playful words instead. He also utilizes slant rhyme and a very rhythmic, even musical meter which both add to the playful and good-humored feel. There is a sense of comedy that goes hand-in-hand with the element of playfulness. For example, the image of a drunk father waltzing around the kitchen and knocking pans off the shelves of the kitchen while Mother watches on completely annoyed is an extremely humorous one. Still, the other side of the argument would note the helplessness of the mother and the destruction caused by alcoholism.
Regardless of which choice a reader makes, the tone of the poem is undoubtedly nostalgic and has an undeniable element of a complex kind of love. The retrospective son is able to look back on his childhood and appreciate the joy and playfulness imbedded within a somewhat dysfunctional memory. Although he describes his father as drunk, dirty, and even neglectful, the son cannot help but express his love for his father. The author presents a scene and leaves it up to the readers to determine, based one each reader’s set of preconceptions and assumptions, what tone each will take from the poem. What do you think? (667)