July 2009 Archives

Our Central Market Book Club discussion last night by fourteen attendees was lively and enlightening as usual. I read some brief biographical information to the group about the author at the beginning and Scott leading the discussion started out with a question about the author's choice of Chief Bromden as narrator, "How well did it work?". All of us who spoke thought the choice was very effective even though the Chief was portrayed as either insane or seriously disturbed in the beginning.

There was at least one in the group who didn't speak but who as I learned later after the discussion in the cafe downstairs believed that the use of a crazy person as narrator didn't make sense. That the chief's credibility hindered the story line but she also said afterwards that she liked hearing the opinions of those of us who disagreed. That she understood better why the book was written that way. Because of the chief's invisiblity as a result of being thought to be deaf, he could hear and subsequently report many of the incidents of the hospital which were crucial for the reader to know in order for the story to progress as it was intended. In my opinion, this kind of narrator is always better than one who is "omniscient", a technique which I think imparts a "heavy hand" to a story and makes a book less enjoyable.

What is it to be disturbed? What is it to be crazy? What is it to be different? These are questions that Scott brought up as being questions that the book basically asks the reader. Most thought that the Chief was disturbed and not crazy. After we discussed some of his background and what brought about his incarceration in the mental hospital which is the primary setting of the book, we talked about McMurphy, the outgoing unconventional protagonist who was incarcerated because he was diagnosed at a work farm where he was being punished as a psychopath. He had manipulated his incarceration because he thought it would be easier than his term at the work farm.

We discussed the intelligence of Chief Bromden who was cautious and observant and not participating actively in relationships with other patients or employees of the hospital as compared to the intelligence of McMurphy who from the beginning displayed significant social skills including laughing and game playing with the other patients. One attendee asked the group what we thought McMurphy would have become had he had education and was absent a police record. Another answered "a politician" and we all laughed.

Scott and others in the group talked about the author's skill in depicting the stories of the other patients of the hospital. Two of the members at the discussion had worked in hospitals or were familiar with the workings of mental institutions in the 60's (the book was written in 1962) and said they were amazed at how realistic the portrayal of the treatment was. But also included the additional information that shock treatments were not customary in mental hospitals in Illinois at least at this time but may have been in Texas.

We discussed whether or not McMurphy changed during the course of the book. Most thought he had. We spent some time trying to find that point at which he made the change where he was no longer the small-time conman looking to make a buck either gambling or overcharging the other patients for one thing or another. Nurse Ratched was an extremely abusive nurse and adversary of McMurpy's from the first minute he entered the hospital. When she denied the "tub room" privileges (which they used for playing cards) as a result of their misbehavior watching (or not watching) the World Series, he "ran his hand through the glass" window. He said "he completely forgot it was there".

The reason this seems like a change because it wasn't in his self-interest to aggravate Nurse Ratched since he learned shortly before this incident that he had to depend on her approval in order to get released from the hospital. He hadn't realized how important it was for him to get along with her and yet, as a result of the mistreatment by the nurse of the other patients, he still proceeded to try to upset her.

His behavior becomes more in line with being called "heroic" from this point on because he seems to be mainly thinking of how he can defend the other guys against the abuse of Nurse Ratched or at the very least, show them that he has guts enough not to stand for her abuse. He shows them that he is not giving in to her authority without a protest.

We talked much more at length about Nurse Ratched, whether she was evil or just seriously disturbed. Most thought she was evil because her actions were so premeditated. Most thought she was too functional to be disturbed though we all thought that it was she who belonged in an institution, not the characters in the story. Her manner of approaching Billy, a very fragile patient, after his escapade with Candy the whore brought in by McMurphy was painful to read as the shame Nurse Ratched caused Billy to feel was described so well by the author. I won't spoil the ending by discussing this incident further but we believed this was the defining moment for Nurse Ratched.

The fishing trip that McMurphy planned for the guys was another sign of his change. He originally wanted to make a few bucks but even when it became apparent that he was going to lose money on the trip, he continued to go along with the planning demonstrating further that his own self-interest was not his primary motivation at this point. One attendee in our group called him "heroic". But this same attendee called him a "loser". Most in the group defended McMurphy heartily.

Though it made me feel like I was a supporter of Nurse Ratched, as a result of the comment about McMurphy being a "loser", I felt I had to bring up the point that McMurphy risked the guys lives taking them on the boat after stealing it and designating someone who he wasn't totally sure about as driver of the boat. Some in our group thought that even if they would have had a deadly accident, it was better that they have this wonderful joyous experience fishing and drinking and having more fun than any of them had had in a long long time, even the doctor.

At risk of alienating almost everyone in the group (LOL), I brought up the point that responsible living in a civilized society requires the ability to control one's impulses. As we talked about this, I realized this kind of thinking, i.e. talk about controling impulses, is what actually is responsible for institutions such as this. But that the book demonstrates that this kind of thinking can "run amuk" and that is what happened as reflected by Nurse Ratched's abuse and the continued ineffective therapy for men who were not insane but who lacked courage to go out into the real world, men who if given a "boot in the seat of their pants" by someone like McMurphy might actually be able to function eventually on the outside rather than stay hiding on the inside.

I've concluded at least for myself (and the rule is that we don't all have to agree) that yes, controlling impulses is important but over-controlling to the point of abuse can be deadly and damaging just as much as the type of risky behavior that McMurphy seemed to thrive on.

Additional topics in our discussion included:

• the nature theme as represented by Chief Bromden and numerous descriptions of his Indian background and scenery prior to his incarceration,
• the sexism as represented by the many negative female characters,
• the rascism as demonstrated by the negative black characters,
• significance of laughter
• the metaphor of the "Combine" and other industrial symbols that are mentioned throughout the book,
• the metaphor of the control panel as well as
• a metaphor of a Christ-like figure being applied to McMurphy by the ending of the book.

As pointed out by Scott, there was a wide gamut of emotions covered by the story including humor such as the World Series incident which I haven't written about here to any great extent. I won't spoil it for others by talking about the ending which was believed to be both hopeful and tragic by most attendees of our discussion. One attendee summarized one of the themes well, she said "sometimes you have to break the rules". Another attendee also summarized the ending by commenting that McMurphy "defeated the wicked witch."

Looking forward to our next discussion August 10, 2009 THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS by Booth Tarkington. For more info about our upcoming reading list, check out our web page at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket/.

My opinion was changed after our Montrose Great Books discussion last night (July 2, 2009) at Houston Freed-Montrose Library. Twenty one people attended our discussion of SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES by Ray Bradbury which was led by yours truly (Alice) as a substitute for Cassie who had a last minute work commitment.

Before the discussion, my opinion was rather negative because I thought the main characters were unoriginal. After hearing so many people express how much they liked the book, I wasn't quite so negative.

After giving brief information about the author's background, I started the discussion with a question about the relationship between two of the main characters, Charles Halloway, the father and Will, his son. What was their relationship like, why did Will ask himself in the book "why this woman was so happy and this man so sad" referring to his parents? After comments were made about the father's introversion and personal observations by attendees about similar relationships they have observed, I asked about the part where Charles Halloway is awake at 3am when the carnival arrives and is setting up and he thinks "men in middle age, they know that hour well" but "women never wake then". Some in the group disagreed but others thought it was a reflection of the time when the book was written (1962) and that women were more isolated then from the seriousness of the world. Of course, we talked about how this wasn't really true since women had numerous serious concerns if they had children. I would summarize by commenting that the book WAS sexist but as someone said, that doesn't make it not true.

Next, I asked about the relationship between Will who was born one minute before midnight on October 30th and Jim Nightshade who was born one minute after midnight on October 31st as we are told in the prologue. Their birthdates were meant to indicate that Will was basically ahead of Jim in maturity and good judgement; that Jim tried to catch up with Will but for numerous reasons, one being his family background where he was the only surviving child of a single parent, was unable to have the good sense that Will reflected. According to Will on page 48, "I talk, Jim runs" which summarizes pretty well their relationship, at least in the beginning of the book.

We talked about the lightening-rod salesman and what was meant by all the action about whether or not Jim Nightshade installed a lightening-rod on his house, whether he would remove it, when he removed it, etc. It was commented that the storm as predicted by the salesman was actually the carnival or could said to have been stopped by the carnival and the majestic way the tents were put up using and draining the storm clouds in the sky. And it was also commented that Jim Nightshade was drawn into the power (my words) of the carnival because he wasn't protected by the lightening rod.

What I concluded at this point as a result of numerous contributions from the group was that Jim was weakened by his attraction to the carnival; that he became more and more mesmerized thus damaging his friendship with Will and most importantly of all, risking his own future life possibly becoming a victim of the carnival and Mr. Dark, who was the proprietor of the carnival.

As regards "being mesmerized", we talked about this state as part of being "trapped" by Mr. Dark. In the case of the lightening-rod salesman, the trap was THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMAN IN THE WORLD inside a slab of ice in an empty store. In the case of Miss Foley, a lonely teacher, she was enticed and subsequently trapped as a result of viewing a little girl in the MIRROR MAZE; the little girl being a replica of herself at a much much younger age. In the case of Jim Nightshade, he was tempted using the possibility of getting older, something he desperately wanted.

We spent a fair amount of time discussing whether the carnival was evil. There is a monologue by the father, Charles, where he talks about what is good and what is bad including comments about the Devil. Specifically, he says "really knowing is good", "not knowing or refusing to know is bad or immoral" and that Mr. Dark is "not the Devil but a type of creature that has learned to live off souls, not the souls themselves" and "the carnival gorges on fear and pain (page 202) and "uses Death as a threat". (page 205) In my opinion, this monologue was rather "heavy handed" for an author, basically saying to us, "here is the main point of this story since I don't think you can figure it out yourself". The points are interesting but really great writing doesn't resort to this kind of "heavy handedness".

Knowedge as represented by the library is a "good thing" and was a "character" in the book - something everyone agreed about, at least everyone who was verbal anyway. Though one member asked how did the library or knowledge really help them conquer Mr. Dark. My answer though I'm not sure I convinced anyone is that it helped the father become skeptical once he did the research on carnivals using the library and his skepticism helped him see the little boy in the end for what he was, trying to hamper the father's saving the life of Jim. Guess I've written too much at this point so that makes me a "spoiler". Apologies to anyone who didn't want to know the ending. I thought the ending had a very nice high level of suspense, kind of surprising given that some of the book dragged too much in my opinion.

There is much I haven't included in this summary that we talked about. In particular, we discussed the "Mirror Maze" at length, the section of the book that specifically addresses "love" and also the description by the father of "autumn people".

One attendee commented that they didn't think the sins were major enough to warrant the "sinners" becoming victims of the carnival. Our response was that those who became victims were not "punished" in relation to the seriousness of their crimes or sins but instead by their own lack of strength and lack of ability to avoid the temptations which held out an easier life or one without "winter chills". As the father says "Since when did you think being good meant being happy"(page 134).

Another attendee helped us by describing how the tone of the book migrates from light-hearted childhood to a serious darkness of growing up and facing issues such as aging, fear, death.

There were numerous comments about the writing style and what I thought was awkward lanaguage, something we discussed at the end of the discussion. This is how my opinion changed from the beginning of the discussion til the end. Many of the attendees strongly defended the writing style and genuinely enjoyed the language which was described as whimsical by some. These comments caused me to make a note to go back and read parts of the book again.

This is one of those great things about discussions - that you get feedback about a book from a different point of view causing you to re-think and consequently enjoy the book or at least understand the book at a deeper level. There were others besides myself who were critical of the book, by the way.

Looking forward to our next discussion of MAINSTREET by Sinclair Lewis on August 6, 2009 at 6pm at Houston Freed-Montrose Library. See http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/Montrose/ for further details about our group.