Talk:One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
could you include a link to a site that would further explain what a peckin party is an why it happens please
[edit] Nurse Ratched
I just noticed that Nurse Ratched doesn't have an entry in the Characters section (neither as main character or as staff member). Can someone ad her? AbCarter 10:14, 6 september 2006 (CET)
- She actually has her own individual article. Czolgolz 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- That doesn't mean she shouldn't be mentioned here. Pele Merengue 05:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Totally unacceptable plagiarism on this page
The entire Themes section is lifted directly from SparkNotes.com, word-for-word. Whomever added that content didn't even bother citing SparkNotes, let alone obtaining permission. That's lame. I'm deleting the entire section right now. --Sean Parmelee 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing and taking care of it. Czolgolz 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Title
I was wondering if it would be a good idea to put an explanation of the title in the article, I saw the movie but haven't read the book. Maybe somebody who has could just say a sentence about where it comes from? --yoshi 00:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's in the article about the book. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
---The title of the book is explained on the first page of this topic.....it has to do with a nursery rhyme about three gees...one flew east, "one flew west, one flew over the cuckoos nest"
[edit] New start: novel / movie / disambig on the main entry?
I can not read this talk page. Two polls about the same subject, and the second one is reallly difficult to interpret what the votes want. I can not see how this conclusion [1] can be considered to be reached. Btw, I think the subject should be discussed before polling. I suggest we start from the top, and archive the old stuff to get a more readable talk page.
So, what are the objectives for having the novel, movie or the disambig page on the main entry? My personal take is the novel should have it. The novel and the movie are both very well-known, but the novel is the original work that the movie is based on. // Habj 20:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The old, difficult to interpret discussion on the topic is now archived. // Habj 20:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quotes
I think it would be a good idea, if we all included our favorite quotes from the book.
[edit] Cheif Bromden
Should the Cheif be in the characters section? I think probably heshould be up with RP MacMurphy Eldonkeyo 04:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Added. --Sean Parmelee 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think McMurphy and Chief should relocated into their respective categories but placed first in each category because of their importance. What do you think? UrbenLegend 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Putting McMurphy and Chief in their respective categories sounds good to me. - Im.a.lumberjack 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chief's condition
I have just finished reading this book, and i don't recall there even being a confirmation, or even a hint, that Chief is a Skictzophrenic (sp?) since i cannot recall for sure, i will leave it as is, but i would appreciate someone confirming this fact.
Added. --0beron 30 August 2006
The fact that the Chief was a normal young man who suddenly, after the death of his father, started suffering from hallucinations, makes him seem somewhat schizophrenic. As to a real diagnosis, that remains to be seen. Czolgolz 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Working as an orderly?
Both the Ken Kesey and the Counterculture articles say Kesey volunteered as a subject at Menlo Park, not worked as an orderly. I can't verify which is true, so I'm not going to edit, but can anyone else find a credible source? Livitup 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
we may never know for sure, i've heard both. kesey himself isn't really a reliable source, i think he was a little crazy himself.--66.133.254.89 12:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think he did both. We know for sure that he worked within a mental asylum (Menlo Park);
"[I] had nothing to do but a little mopping and buffing, check the wards every forty-five minutes with a flashlight, be coherent to the night nurse stopping by on her hourly rounds, write my novel and talk to the sleepless nuts" (Preface to Ken Kesey's Garage Sale)
Several critics (such as Bloom & Barry) also claim that he took psychotropic drugs and underwent ECT to gain a deeper insight into their effects.84.13.49.115 21:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nurse Ratched
There should be a small abstract of Nurse Ratched's character in the characters section, with a "See Nurse Ratched for more information" at the end. - Im.a.lumberjack 19:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Themes
Should we consider a Themes section? There is certainly a large amount of pertinent information that isn't currently in the article. - Im.a.lumberjack 19:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Style problem, commentary throughout article
This article isn't in the right style. There's a bunch of interpretive comments throughout it. For instance, McMurphy's initials are "R.P.M" and it says he brings about "many revolutions." It looks like the article was lifted from somewhere else. --Howdybob 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Subjective POV presented as fact
The whole Christ allusion description in the plot summary section is totally subjective and interpretive and has no place in a synopsis, especially when presented in an empirical manner. To be included (if at all) it should be in a separate section labelled /analysis AND include critical or primary sources to back it up, not presented as fact by an anonymous editor. This subjective POV stance also extends to claiming Nurse Ratched wanted Billy Bibbit to commit suicide. At no point is this made implicit or explicit in the book, just that she callously and unprofessionally wanted to cause him guilt and fear to reclaim power over him. His suicide is what causes her to LOSE control, not reclaim it. Similar arguments can be levied at the passage about The Chief euthanising MacMurphy. Reading on this whole artice reads like somebody's bad English dissertation and is full of psuedo-academic and personal interpretation over fact and content and is not an encyclopedic article at all.