Was the act of Chief Bromden killing McMurphy necessary? Why or Why not?
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.
47 comments:
Yay first post!
I'm inclined to say that it was a necessary act mainly because leaving him in a vegetative state would undo all the change that McMurphy brought about. The remaining patients could possibly be frightened back into submission by Big Nurse if she used McMurphy's lobotomized body as an example to would be rebels.
Chief Bromden acted too early. Considering McMurphy's early resilience, the recently-lobotomized rebel could have returned from his vegetative state to become more powerful than before. Not wanting McMurphy to become an example (of the consequences of not cooperating) is not much of an excuse because of the few patients left in the ward (who all knew about McMurphy's actions already) unless it was absolutely necessary for Bromden to escape the hospital on the day that he did. Even so, he could have instructed one of the remaining patients to complete the task of helping McMurphy exit his life.
It's basically like Vincent said. Chief needed to kill McMurphy or else Big Nurse might be able to use him to make a come back into power of the few remaining patients. Chief probably also felt that he couldn't leave McMurphy, a wild and "free" person, in a vegetative state. Chief felt that he was being merciful towards McMurphy, and freeing him of his suffering.
It also fulfills the whole McMurphy=Jesus motif
It is almost like imagining that McMurphy was your mother and you had to chose between life or death. Most people would chose life. I think that McMurphy and Chief had a special bond and found it odd that he decided to kill him so fast. Why not let him escape with Chief? Chief obviously has the physical abilities to carry McMurphy even if he didn't respond.I understand the issue of not making him an example for the patients ,but KILLING HIM WAS NOT THE SOLUTION they both should have escaped together so McMurphy could lead a normal life.
I think it was necesary for chief to kill Mcmurphy. I dont think it had to be chief, but i think that somebody had to do it. If nobody did, then Mcmurphy would have just lingered around and big nurse would use him as an example of a patient who didnt cooperate and get risen back into power.
I believe that Chief shouldn't have killed McMurphy. In the novel, McMurphy struggled against death when Chief strangled him. That may have been a sign that the lobotomy may have failed and that he could've been revived (and would've been if we followed the Christ-figure motif). It was probably Kesey getting tired of writing the novel and looking for a way to end it dramatically.
It was necessary for Chief to kill McMurphy. If left alive as a vegetable, Big Nurse would have won. McMurphy would become an example of what happens when you mess with her authority. When McMurphy is killed, it is not only to protect his dignity, but also to place him in the position of a martyr. It shows that he died for something he believed in - he died to ultimately help the other patients. So...In order for the protagonist (McMurphy) to win, it had to end with his death.
I think that Chief did the right thing by killing Mcmurphy. Killing him saved Mcmurphy's dignity. It allowed him to die a legend instead of live a failure. Chief did Mcmurphy a huge act of kindness and it really showed that Chief had a great respect for Mcmurphy and everything he did. (ellie)
p.s. ronak da guy- Mcmurpy would not be able to lead a normal life and he may not have even been able to escape the hospital without getting caught because he had a labotomy.... He was a vegetable. thats all :)
In my opinion it was entirely neccesary for Chief to kill McMurphy. Do i believe that all of his changes would be undone if he hadn't-no because as the characters mention it really wasn't mcmurphy(in a sense of course in reality it was but Mcmurphy is not Mcmurphy without his personality) and his effect would last forever None the less Chief had to do it to do him justice-it was definately what Mcmurphy would have wanted Mcmurphy would never have wanted Big Nurse to get the last win and Chief makes sure of that by making sure he doesn't sit around as a reminder of what big nurse can do but rather in death stays around as a hero. Mcmurphy knew the consequences of his actions and willingly gave his life up to help the other patients in the ward (christ like)and forever end Big Nurse's reign of terror. He had known that he would die reasonably soon for a while-Chief mentions that hed been looking awful tired after the many est's and was only keeping up is image and joking to help the others along with the mention of the animal like cry. Ther was truely no way he would of come out of it and i think that it was not only a good idea on chief's part but the best way to end the book really.
i dont think it was necessary. he obviously didnt want to die, or else he wouldnt have struggled so long and so hard. mcmurphy enjoyed life, and i think chief killing him was unnecessary. he didnt deserve to die. and his 'dignity' wouldnt have died. everyone would have remembered for who was prior to the lobotomy. he would still be respected, they would all know the lobotomy was for them. it wasnt necessary to kill him.
It was neccesary because if chief had left Mcmurphy there, the big nurese would have an example of what happens if someom=ne crosses her. No one can recover from a lobotomy.
I think that McMurphy did have to die. I don't think that it was because Big Nurse would then have an example of what happens when you don't follow the rules; Ruckley and Taber are already examples of patients who had lobotomies. I don't know what they did to receive their lobotomies, but whatever it was, it does not seem to have a big impact on the other patients. The patients who had lobotomies seemed to be dead anyway. They don’t do anything except sit there and occasionally say something. There is no way McMurphy could have returned to his normal, lively self. The lobotomy already killed the character that we came to know, and all that was left of McMurphy was body. I don't think that McMurphy would like to see himself in such a lethargic state, and Chief killing him was a way of putting him out of misery.
I think that it was necessary because if McMurphy was left in a vegetable state, then Big Nurse would just gain complete control over the ward again. I even think that she would be even more "powerful" than before because she would feel accomplished because she had "taken out the biggest rebel" of the ward.
I believe that killing him DEFINITLY was necessary. If he had remained in his vegetable state, then it would have been clear that Big Nurse won. It would have shown that McMurphy couldn't over come her power and authority. Also it allows for the patients to have a better memory of him. Rather than seeing him in a vegetable state and thinking how he use to be when he still had his entire brain, they can remember him as a strong willed martyr who went out with a bang.
I think the death of McMurphy was necessary. After receiving lobotomy, McMurphy was impotent; just lying in his bed hopelessly. Nurse Ratched's purpose was to make McMurphy as an example of a failed rebellion, and perhaps that's what Chief was trying to prevent. Also, McMurphy parallels to Jesus Christ, who went up to the heaven. In parallel, McMurphy also went up to the heaven, or hell, by dying.
I think that Chief had to kill McMurphy because he was thinking about how McMurphy would like to be remembered. If he hadn't died McMurphy would have been looked at by other patients and they would continue fearing the Big Nurse because of what her power is...but if McMurphy dies then he would be rememeber as a hero. Someone who had the guts to challenge the Big Nurse. I also think that he had to do it because he didnt want to see McMurphy so weak and insignificant. The killing of McMurphy only made him a stronger memory and without that McMurphy's past triumphs would turn into nothing.
I feel that the death of McMurphy was necessary. If Chief had left McMurphy alive, he would have had no reason to flee the ward, and the sight of McMurphy each day would set chief back to his crazy state form the beginning of the story. McMurphy would also be subject to Big Nurse's use as an example of what happens, even to the best of them, if things get out of line.
What would've happened if Kurt Cobain hadn't shot himself in the head? What would've happened if Jesus didn't get crucified? What would've happened if Kennedy didn't get shot?
Think about that.
I mean didn't you watch I Am Legend?
For someone to reach that legendary status they have to die prematurely for what they stand for! If McMurphy hadn't been killed right there people would've never remembered him as the great man who beat the nurse.. they would remember him as the washed up chronic who once tried to stand up to Big Nurse.. just like Chief had been remembered as before McMurphy stepped in the ward..
Killing Msmurphy was necessary because the other patients would lose hope if they got used to the "broken" MCMurphy and Chief needed to sever his ties keeping him in the ward.
I believe that it was necessary for Chief to kill McMurphy. Yeah, there are the stories that have the happy ending of the hero living the dream life of the fame and fortune and whatnot, and then there are the stories that (as I would like to believe) leave a harder mark on the reader. Those are the stories that kind of get you thinking, even if they are overrated.
There's a difference between dying for something you believe in and .. dying, I guess. Going along with the Christianity motif and McMurphy's Christ-like figure, things happen for a reason. Jesus had to die. Jesus died at the hands of one of his disciples, and even though Chief and McMurphy were close, Chief sealed the deal. I know we said that Billy was more like Judas, but I'm trying to make a point of how the two stories parallel. McMurphy had to die, but I'm not going to go into the whole timing issue, seeing as how the question is merely asking if the act of Chief killing McMurphy was necessary.
It also says in the novel (ooh, textual evidence) that Chief was sure that McMurphy wouldn't have let a Vegetable just sit there in the ward.
"I was only sure of one thing: he wouldn't have left something like that sit there in the day room with his name tacked on it for twenty or thirty years so the Big Nurse could use it as an example of what can happen if you buck the system. I was sure of that."
So yes, it was necessary that Chief killed McMurphy. If the other patients saw what happened to him if they "bucked the system," then they'd be scared to death, and all that McMurphy had worked for was useless. McMurphy stayed so that he could make a difference, so that the men in the ward had their own individual voices. He wanted them to be free and not be controlled by some lady in a white suit. Seeing his body Vegetable-state would cause the other patients to crawl back into their comfort zones and allow Big Nurse to whip things back into routine. McMurphy didn't want that. He wanted to be remembered and he wanted his actions to make some sort of change. His death shows that McMurphy died an influential man. It's a legacy type of thing.
Sorry if my thoughts are all over the place =/
It was completely necessary for Cheif to kill McMurphy! McMurphy and everything he stood for was already dead when Cheif smothered him. McMurphy would have not wanted to live in this "living dead" state. All the effects on the ward that he caused would have been reversed had Cheif allowed Big Nurse to use Mac as an example to other patients. Cheif did what Big Nurse tried to avoid throughout the novel; he made Mac a martyr.
As much as i was truly dissapointed by this act of Chief killing Mcmurphy...he did in fact do in unkowingly...and i believe it was for the better. Had McMurphy...the all powerful conformity denying McMurphy, been displayed as a vegetable, the men wud have lost ALL hope of EVER going against the norm and standing up for justice and what they believe. One does not let the enemy desacrate the body of a fallen general...
I believe that this act was necessary because it was closure for Chief. McMurphy was the man who opened Chief up to this oppurtunity, and Chief idolized him...he would not have been able to leave if McMurphy was still in the hospital. This was also Chief's way of moving on with his life... it seemed like the only way to indefinatly end his ward experience.
look ms. zavitz, i'm posting!
well, i'd say that it was necessary because he was pretty much a vegetable at that time, and he would have had nothing to do for the rest of his life but watch everyone else do everything. also because chief was trying to save mcmurphy's pride, which would have wanted him dead instead of defeated by nurse ratched.
I agree with Vincent's post. Leaving McMurphy powerless and lobotomized would mean that Big Nurse won, that she had the last word. It would revert everything to how it was before McMurphy came into the ward. McMurphy the vegetable goes against everything he stood for. So yes, it was necessary for Chief to kill McMurphy.
It was completely necessary for Chief to kill Mcmurphy because if he had not been killed then he would not have been the martyr that he obviously wanted to be by not leaving. Plus nobody would ever want to see their hero in a state like that, and McMurphy is obviously Chief's hero.
Way to go Ronak McMurphy was a vegetable
attaway ronak with these intense questions
i have a crush on ronak
it's official i'm dating ronak!
mcmurphy was a carrot in his vegetative state because of his fiery hair...
no emma i already claimed ronak. i have dibbs. i win. period. end of story. ronak is my boy.. friend. not yours. go cry. cause hes mine.
no way sam i will fight you to the death for him. with his stunningly good body and great personality i can't stand not to have him.
xoxo (to ronak)
Emma Goodnow
i guess you'll have to stand it because i have won the battle emma. i do not need to fight with you.. we will let NAK ATTACK of luv choose his fate.
goodbye fellow bloggers
ps-nakky baby choose me!
fine sam i admit defeat i only beg that you do not take ginjew from me... his fire red hair and large muscles remind me of McMurphy, something ronak will never be able to do for you.
I LOVE GINJEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
xoxo (to ronak and GINJEW <3)
Emma Goodnow
It was both an act of mercy and an act of tact. If Chief allowed the lobotomized McMurphy to live, McMurphy would become a symbol of the 'victory' that Nurse had achieved.
It was necessary for Chief to kill Mcmurphy for multiple reasons. From a literature point of view it would have been one of the best ways for Ken Kesey to wrap up the novel. But from an anyalitcal point of view, I see it has an honor. Chief knew Mcmurphy wouldn't have wanted to live like that, and by killing him he gave him an honorable death (as a maytr) and his death inspired everyone to leave the ward.
lol they should all be dead because i said so. =]
te amo mrs. zavitz
it was entirely unnecessary for chief to kill macmurphy. His personality didn't change after shock therapy, and he was still recovering from the lobotomy. Given time, he could have been back on top. He thrashed while chief was killing him showing that he still wanted to live.
I believe that it WAS a necessary act because McMurphy had brought so much change to the hospital. If Cheif had let McMurphy live.. he would have let Big Nurse win and things would go back to the way they were before.
I think that it was necessary that Chief killed McMurphy. If Chief had allowed McMurphy to continue to live in a vegetative state, then McMurphy would have been remembered as the rambunctious, carefree patient that eventually got defeated by Big Nurse. By smothering him with a pillow, Chief allowed McMurphy's dignity to remain. McMurphy's defiant ways would be remembered opposed to his vegetative state. Chief allowed McMurphy to be a hero, instead of yet another defeated character in the ward.
-Chloe Owens
I personally think it was necessary because it kept McMurphy's character alive. By not killing him Cheif would have been letting Big Nurse win the fight. Chief knew that McMurphy would want it that way and it just lets him live on in everyone elses hearts and not be brought down by Big Nurse. He is preventing Big Nurse from making McMurphy an example of how trying to takeover will not work.
yes, i believe that it was necessary for Chief to kill McMurphy because it was in a way closure for Chief. It showed that Cheif had come full circle and had been truly affected by Mcmurphy, McMurphy influenced him and opened his eyes to the wards unfairness. Chief killing McMurphy shows that he was aware of the mistreatment of patients and didn't want McMurphy to have to suffer any longer. Chief killing McMurphy showed that he had learned and almost become a new person
I think that it was necessary for Chief to kill McMurphy because this way McMurphy was able to keep his dignity. If Chief hadn’t have killed him than the big nurse would have ultimately won and McMurphy would have been remembered more as an example of how not to act in the institution. Since Chief killed McMurphy he was able to have McMurphy remembered as a martyr and keep his character alive.
-Lindsay Brinker
I think Chief's act of killing McMurphy was out of true consideration for him in that the last thing McMurphy would have wanted was to be an example of Big Nurse's success in controlling the patients. McMurphy's time had come; he had done all he could have in the ward and had a major impact on the patients. Leaving him in a vegitative state would only have pleased Big Nurse.
it was completely necessary for Chief to kill McMurphy. Part of what makes a hero is the legacy they leave behind. If chief hadn't killed McMurphy, McMurphy would of been remembered as a "vegetable" rather than the drastic change he brought to the warde.
I think it was necessary because otherwise big nurse would have won the final fight. the act of Bromden killing mcmurphy allows mcmurphy to have a dignified death, without having to be humiliated by the staff...
ps. i was in allstate and couldnt post.... so please give me credit ms zavitz
Post a Comment