Why is Chief Bromden the narrator instead of McMurphy in the novel?
Post by Friday at midnight
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This blog serves as an electronic discussion forum for Mrs. Zavitz's 10th grade Honors Literature students. Syllabi for all of Mrs. Zavitz's classes can be found in the September 2007 Blog Archive.
Blog Archive
- May 2008 (1)
- April 2008 (1)
- February 2008 (7)
- January 2008 (4)
- September 2007 (3)
Mrs. Zavitz
The Rules
- No derogatory comments
- Identify yourself consistently
- Practice honesty, tolerance, and acceptance
Important Links
Disclaimer
Chattahoochee High School or its employees are not responsible for any content located outside of the designated Chattahoochee High School class websites.
11 comments:
Oh MAN I've had this question in my mind throughout the whole book. The answer? I'll take a stab at it...
Well mainly I think that if the book was narrated by McMurphy, you wouldn't really feel that uplifted to see how the characters evolve. McMurphy probably isn't as intuitive as Chief; partly because he's got better things to do and partly because he's concentrated on dough. Like when McMurphy gets up and runs his hand through the glass. From Chief's standpoint: "Man, no one can stop him! What's he gonna do?!" From McMurphy's standpoint: "I'm going to break the window." If the novel was narrated by McMurphy, it'd describe the background of his life on the farm, his drinking habits, and all his girls. You wouldn't get the background information on the ward unless Kesey bluntly stated "and the Nurse is this way, and the patients are that way because dot dot dot." Which would be too awkward. Chief being the narrator gives information in an interesting way. And plus, you don't know whether he hallucinated parts of the book or not, which gives it a twist.
Chief Bromden's hallucinations at first provide an idea of the scope of the events described within the novel. Later, his lack of hallucinations (particularly the change from being small to big) provide an excellent picture of the changes resulting from McMurphy's work.
Chief Bromden was the narrator because if McMurphy had been the narrator then we wouldnt be able to find out what happened at the very end of the book because McMurphy got the lobotomy.
If McMurphy was the narrator then we wouldnt see how the ward was before he arrived so we wouldn't have had the background information necessary to understand the character development after he arrives. Also, like Manny said, McMurphy could not sum up the story since he received a lobotomy at the end.
Because if Mcmurphy was the narrator, then the novel would have ended when he got his lobotomy. Because it was told through the eyes of cief, the reader gets to see what happens to Mcmurphy and all of the characters once he obtains his lobotomy. Basically, it allowed for the author to tie up all lose ends
Chief is the narrator because he gets to hear everything that is said. He is the only patient who is allowed in the staff meetings. Also, the reader would not be able to see the transformation in the hospital and in all the characters if anyone else were narrating. Because he does not engage in conversation, Chief is able to closely observe everything that goes on. Chief's hallucinations also allow the reader to have a very clear image of what each character is like. Chief’s descriptions of the characters allow them to be larger than life. Like when you first see Big Nurse, Chief says "she's as big as a truck," we know she is not really that big, but we learn that Chief describes people by their size a lot to show how powerful they are.
I think that the novel is narrorated by Chief because he has been on the ward for so long and his observations are very precise. He knows alot of things that are very important to the development of the characters while McMurphy is a new guy on the ward and his past really doesn't reflect many things of importance. Also...Chief sort of has a really good way of looking at things...he doesn't judge or think to himself that this person is nice and this person is wierd. He just describes...he has no positive or negative opinions of anyone while McMurphy might. McMurphy's point of view may portray certain characters in a different light.
Chief was the narrorater because MCmurphy dies in then end and, most importantly, Chief has a 'goal' to be cured, a way to solve the conflict, while McMurphy helped the patients but never really had a conflict. If McMurphy narrorated it would have less of a plot.
Continuing on from the Biblical allegory, was Jesus the narrator? No. His disciples told the story. Had McMurphy narrated the novel, much of the meaning would be lost because the change in the characters would not have been as easily seen. More of the focus would be on what McMurphy says and does, and no real change would have been explained. Also, the ending would not have happened that way at all, completely ruining the Biblical allegory.
Probably because Mcmurphy is dead. Clearly.
I feel that Chief Bromden is the narrator and not McMurphy because of how long he has been at the hospital. By acting deaf and dumb, Chief has been able to give the reader a true outlook and sees and hears things that people think he really cant understand. If McMurphy narrated the novel, the reader would not be able to get that same perspective of the novel and see the characters in a different way.
Post a Comment