One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest :: book review, mental illness

Randall Patrick McMurphy is introduced by asking, "Do I look like a sane man?" Surprisingly enough, the answer was yes; in fact, McMurphy's sanity takes the ward by storm. None of the patients have met anyone like him. The other patients seem timid and quiet, yet McMurphy is cocky, loud, and confident. He doesn't seem to belong in the hospital at all. Everything about McMurphy marked a sane, logical, and capable man. You could tell that he was a hard working man, and even Dr. Spivey suspected a misdiagnosis, but nevertheless McMurphy was in for an experience of a lifetime. Nurse Ratched and her new patient, McMurphy, are in every way opposed to each other, she demanding control, he basking in freedom and independence. Inevitably, as the Nurse asserts her power, McMurphy rebels against it in both intentional and unintentional ways. Nurse Ratched had defeated past troublemakers with electro-shock therapy, or with lobotomies, the latter an operation that makes patients docile members of society at the expense of their individuality. McMurphy was asking for more and more freedom and awakening the other patients to things they have been missing. Nurse Ratched was intent on quelling this disturbance before it became a major issue. The climax is building when McMurphy comes back from electro-shock therapy and the rest of the ward is planning his escape. The two prostitutes Sandy and Candy arrive in the ward, and there is a wild party. This is where everything turns to chaos. McMurphy attacks Nurse Ratched, but he is immediately restrained and will never know of the hope he gave Chief. Chief believed that McMurphy made him â€Å"big† enough to finally lift the control panel that he throws through a window to escape. The resolution was fitting to the events of the novel, but it came rather quickly. It seemed as though there was the party, Billy Bibbit committed suicide, and McMurphy was lobotomized in just a few pages.

Gatsby And The Pink Suit Essay

Today’s world is full of copycats and stereotypes of people who do not know how to really be themselves. It is rare that a true individual comes along. Although many may try, it is hard to differentiate oneself from the rest of the world. Gatsby, the main character in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, has a peculiar way of drawing himself away from the usual stereotypical wealthy man. During one chapter of the book, Gatsby was dressed in a bright pink suit. This uniqueness, such as the pink suit, reflects Gatsby’s need for attention from his love, Daisy; his desire to show power and wealth and his poor upbringing. Gatsby has a unique way of dressing and presenting himself that portrays his odd placement in this wealthy and prestigious class. One reason why Gatsby dressed and acted so differently from everyone, was, in fact, to make himself stand out for his love, Daisy. Gatsby had been in love with, and searching for Daisy for almost five years. â€Å"†¦he’s read a Chicago paper for years just on the chance of catching a glimpse of Daisy’s name† (84). It is possible that he dressed so lavishly and extremely to make her notice him. He finally found Daisy, but he did not want to simply run out and marry her. Gatsby wanted to draw her to him, and he wanted her to see his wealth and substance. He even threw remarkably extravagant parties and † . . . he half-expected her to wander into one of [them], some night . . . but she never did† (84). He hoped that his extreme attire would help him to stand out of the crowd and attract Daisy. Gatsby succeeded in attracting Daisy because just the mere sight of his colorful shirts in his closet brought Daisy to tears. â€Å"†¦the soft rich heap mounted higher–shirts with stripes and scrolls and plaids in coral and apple green and lavender and faint orange with monograms of Indian blue . . . Suddenly . . . Daisy bent her head into the shirts and began to cry stormily . . . ‘It makes me said because I’ve never seen such-such beautiful shirts before'† (98). He knew that Daisy would be attracted to a man who dressed and acted as an individual, not as a specific class. Gatsby also knew that Daisy would not just notice any man, but she would notice a man with power and money. When people dress and own things so outrageous, it is most likely to show their wealth and power. Others know  that these people have money because they buy the most heinous clothing and unreasonable items, and when people have a great deal of money, they automatically have a great deal of power. Those with the most outlandish clothing and possessions portray power and authority. Gatsby was aware that Daisy would surely fall for the extravagant and powerful â€Å"gold-hatted lover† over the regular, ho-hum guy any day. He attracted her with his huge car (â€Å"cream colored† and â€Å"monstrous†) and his rather large house. â€Å"[It] was a colossal affair by any standard . . . with a tower on one side, spanking new under a thin beard of raw ivy, and a marble swimming pool and more than forty acres of lawn and garden. It was Gatsby’s mansion† (9). Gatsby showed his power by not abiding to the wealthy â€Å"dress code† and making himself appear different from everyone else. Also supporting Gatsby’s reason for being so different, is the fact that Gatsby does not know the proper way to uphold the prestige of being wealthy because of less than proper life as a child and young man. His real parents were by no means wealthy. â€Å"[They] were shiftless and unsuccessful farm people-his imagination had never really accepted them as his parents at all† (104). Gatsby was not raised in a distinguished or notable household; therefore, he never really knew how to act properly. Even after his childhood, he was not â€Å"trained† to be well-mannered and in his late teens he lived quite a plain life. For example, † . . . he had beaten his way along the south shore of Lake Superior as a clam digger and a salmon fisher or in any other capacity that brought him food and bed† (104). When Gatsby became rich all of the sudden, he obviously had to change the way he acted and dressed. He never conformed to the all-too-familiar wealthy dress code. Not only were his nonconformist ways seen in his clothing, but also in other items he owned, such as his car. â€Å"Everybody had seen [Gatsby’s car]. It was a rich cream color, bright with nickel, swollen here and there in its monstrous length . . . † (68). Gatsby’s outrageous car and house portray that because of the fact that he was not brought up wealthy, when he became so, he desired to have the best and biggest of everything. He never knew the â€Å"right† way to dress and act, and this ignorance caused many of his lavish clothing and items. Gatsby went over the top when he became wealthy, because of his plain and non-extravagant environment as a child and young adult. Gatsby was the opposite of a normal wealthy man of the 1920’s. He dressed in bright colors and owned outrageous possessions. Gatsby acted this way to make his love, Daisy, notice him; to show his power and wealth; and simply because he was never taught the basic mannerisms of being rich. Gatsby did not need or want to conform his ways of dressing and living with those of his high upper class. He was an individual and went against the flow, as plainly seen with his crazy pink suit. He attracted his love, and showed his power by not doing what was said to be normal and typical for his upper class position.

Harold Pinter Biography Examples

This paper is the result of my research on the British dramatist, Harold Pinter. There is so much material available on Pinter that it was sometimes hard to decide exactly what to use, so I have limited my source texts to two authoritative reference books. As well as giving biographical information, I have tied to trace his contribution to the theatre, but even that was slightly problematic, since he did so much – he directed, acted and wrote for the theatre. Even if we concentrate on his writing, we are dealing potentially with a huge amount since he wrote plays, poems, short stories, one novel, radio plays, newspaper articles, screenplays – the list goes on. I have sometimes mentioned these other writing activities, but have concentrated on his writing for the stage. Harold Pinter was born on October 10, 1930 and became the most influential writer in British theatre in the second half of the twentieth century.   He was born into a relatively humble Jewish family in London’s East End and was evacuated from the capital during the Second World War. After the war he was educated at Hackney Downs Grammar School, this was a formative period in his life: he made friends at school with other male students to whom he was to remain emotionally close to for the rest of their adult lives. He also came under the influence of an English teacher at the school who encouraged Pinter to act in school productions and to write for the school magazine, needless to say, perhaps, Pinter shone at English.   His first published poem appeared in the school magazine when he was seventeen and at the age of twenty several poems appeared in the poetry magazine Poetry London. School also gave him a lifelong passion for sport, especially cricket. His entry into the world of the theatre was rather chaotic and haphazard. He spent two terms at Rada, but dropped out and was then fined of refusing to do compulsory military service: Pinter registered as a conscientious objector and spent most of the fifties taking small acting roles, but also working at other jobs – postman, waiter, bouncer – while continuing to dabble with writing. In 1957 his first play, The Room, was written and performed at Bristol University; Pinter wrote it in three days so that his friend from school, Henry Woolf, could have a play to direct to complete his PhD. The play was a great success and caught the attention of Michael Codron, a leading British producer and director, who was keen to put on Pinter’s next play, The Birthday Party, which opened at the Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith in 1958. The play was a flop commercially and critically. However, the influential Sunday Times theatre critic Harold Hobson gave it a superb review, hailing Pinter as the most original talent working in the theatre in London – although the production had already stopped by the time the review appeared. The next ten years of play writing cemented Pinter’s reputation with a string of successful productions. Pinter’s work is credited with introducing Absurdist drama into British theatre and his lays also had an air of menace and threat, often arising from the most ordinary of situations. In this earl period of his work an element of animalistic violence always runs beneath he civilized faà §ade of his scenes. (Drabble, 2000, p. 793) Even the most mundane objects carry a threat of danger, such as the vacuum cleaner in The Caretaker. Plays such as The Birthday Party (1958), The Caretaker (1960), The Lover (1963) and The Homecoming (1965) had turned Pinter into a celebrity and he was also continuing to act, to write plays for the radio and to write poems and, increasingly, film scripts. (Alexander 364) In 1956 he had married an English actress Vivien Merchant and they had a son born in 1958 called Daniel. However, the marriage was troubled: Pinter had a series of clandestine affairs, although Merchant acted to great acclaim in most of his plays up until the mid seventies.   Pinter’s 1978 play Betrayal is based on this period of his life. Pinter was increasingly a public figure, actively involved in left-wing politics and campaigns against nuclear weapons and the system of apartheid in South Africa. In 1975 he and Merchant finally separated after Pinter admitted to having an affair with Lady Antonia Frazier, an eminent British historian. Pinter and Frazier married in 1980. One sad fact is that Pinter’s son changed his name to Daniel Brand and remained completely unreconciled with his father, not attending the funeral. From the late sixties onwards Pinter write lots of plays dealing with memories and the uncertainty and ambiguity of our relationship with the past – plays such as No Man’s Land (1975), Betrayal (1978) and A Kind of Alaska (1982), but after 1980 his dramatic output became increasingly radical and pollicised. This was partly a reaction to the right-wing neo-conservatism of the Thatcher government, but also reflected his stance on foreign wars and Western interference in the Third World. He was a passionate advocate for freedom of speech and the importance of the arts and often lent his very public support to left-wing causes at home and abroad. It is also said that his increased political engagement was due to his new-found domestic happiness. As he grew older his output decreased but his contribution to literature and to the theatre was increasingly celebrated and recognized with a string of awards, honorary degrees and revivals of his plays. This culminated in 2005 with the award of the Nobel Prize for Literature. Pinter continued to be active, appearing on stage for the last time in Beckett’s Krapp’s Last Tape at the Royal Court Theatre in London in October 2006 – very appropriately since he had always acknowledged Beckett as a key influence on his own work. He died on Christmas Eve 2008 during a revival of No Man’s Land in London. Well before his death the word ‘Pinteresque’ had been coined. According to Alexander (2000) it means two things in particular: Inconsequential cross-talk, less logical than Beckett’s, with pauses and silences, gives way occasionally, as also in Beckett, to operatic arias of banality expressing the loneliness of the speaker. (p. 364) And also: undefined ominousness. The neurosis of Beckett’s speakers has a metaphysical dimension, a fear of death, eternity, nothingness. Pinter’s are scared of being found out or beaten up. (p. 364) Drabble (2000) puts his appeal down to his themes: â€Å"nameless menace, erotic fantasy, obsession and jealousy, family hatreds, and mental disturbance.† (p. 793) Works Cited Alexander, Michael. (2000). A History of English Literature. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Drabble, Margaret (ed). (2000). The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.