Fog v Fog- A Literary Blueprint

Literature repeats itself.  It varies and changes, yet, paradoxically, the symbols and connotations are used time and time again for different purposes.  Joseph Conrad wrote about imperialism, and Ken Kesey discusses the ideals behind madness and social reform, yet the authors chose the same symbol to represent a distinct image. The use of fog in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and in Heart of Darkness is very different, yet bizarrely alike. 

The fog in Heart of Darkness is both literal and representative of the plot through symbolism.   That is to say, the fog actually exists— this may sound obvious to readers who have not experienced Chief Bromden’s legendary hallucination periods, but it is worth mentioning.  Furthermore, in Conrad’s novel, the fog allows the reader to analyze a metaliterary aspect of the storyline, that is the fact that Marlow has been a blind narrator.  In his recount of his experiences in the African heartland, he has based his opinion on a second hand approach, for he has never met Kurtz, he hasn’t thoroughly analyzed the native people and he knows little about the relationship between the manager and his uncle, to the extent that he has identified himself as an outsider.  The fog symbolizes the epitome of his perdition in a foreign land; he is forced to carry on based on his instinct, for he has absolutely no idea what is occurring around him.  On the other hand, in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, the fog is a figment of the narrator’s imagination.  It represents the author’s desire to subtly include a remark about the control of the masses and challenging an authoritarian regime.  The fog symbolizes the shaded lens that doesn’t allow the general public to see what is going on around them: the “combine” or the possibility of a lobotomy in the case of a misdemeanor. 

The use of imagery in both novels points the reader back to the text.  It isn’t a reference to an external cliché, such as the one that may derive from the inclusion of a sunny day or a crow flying overhead.  Both authors attempt to envelope the reader in the details of the narrator’s profile, and they want the reader to become an advocate in the realizations of a certain occurrence, be it real (Conrad) or solely metaphorical (Kesey).  As a reader one should derive a lot from a reoccurring symbol such as the fog.  One must acknowledge that each piece of literature is unique, but that in order to construct a blueprint of possible interpretations for recurring themes one is obliged to analyze each one based solely on that plot and then feed in previous knowledge. 

Response to a Classmates' Blog Post

Joaquim Etienne raises many good points in his most recent blog post: ‘”Heart of Darkness”- Marlow the rebel.”  He discusses the elemental beliefs of Europeans and Englanders at the time the novel was written and today.  It is interesting to see how he remarks racism in England and the connection that that has with the characters in the novel.  Joaquim, do you think that Marlow is actually being a racist?  It is my impression that he believes that the mistreatment of the “black people” is many times cruel and that those nations are only inferior in theory but not as a united people.  What are your thoughts on this?  Do you think that this part of the novel includes irony and sarcasm so as to hint to the reader that Conrad is a rebel in himself because he criticizes the norm? 

Capricious Conrad

Irony is a fickle and ever-changing weapon.  Misusing an ironic tone could spell disaster, especially when narrating fiction.   In times passed, irony has been used throughout a text when an author wants the reader to think about the underlying message of a certain text, in this way Heart of Darkness is no exception.  Joseph Conrad attempts to use irony and satire as literary techniques to engulf the reader in a convoluted web of meaning and interpretation, yet it is possible that in seeking to be obscure he has become unclear.  Is the author’s use of irony as a general tone successful in portraying a discrete but understandable message?

When Marlow starts narrating his tale in the Congo, the reader is apprehensive.  After a few events have been narrated, the reader begins to draw conclusions, naturally, in order to formulate a sort of character profile for Marlow.  He begins describing the efforts of European colonizers in the Congo and refers to their mistreatment of the native peoples as something necessary and to the operation as a whole as a “noble cause.”  Obviously, the child of a Western education is taken aback when reading that when a European “felt the need at last of asserting his self-respect in some way… (so) he wacked the nigger mercilessly…” (72) Therefore, it is natural to start looking for an explanation of some sort.  In this case, it isn’t very difficult to find: because Conrad is writing a novel that has irony as a primary trait, it can be assumed that Marlow was also taken aback at the sight of such cruelty and that he was being sarcastic when he said that.   So, Marlow’s anecdote continues, but the reader finds that it is increasingly difficult to ignore the condescending tone that is being used when referring to black people.  Marlow says “a lot of people, mostly black and naked, moved about like ants.” (79) Now, was that a mistake from the author, whereas he meant to say, “moved about like majestic tigers,” but instead put ants?  No, that’s unlikely.  So it must be one of two things, either Marlow, and by default Conrad, thinks less of dark skinned people, or, through the use of irony and sarcasm (what is said v what is meant) he is hinting that these people were seen as inferior “ants” but they are actually worthy and noble creatures. 

After having concluded Part I of the novel, it is unclear to the reader how Conrad wishes to portray the black people.  This may or may not be of imminent importance to further understanding of the novel, but it is however, a concrete example of how irony and the possible interpretations that may derive from it affect a reader’s attitude toward the author.  Right now, the answer to the original question regarding ironic tone would have to be no, Conrad doesn’t portray a message that is clear to the reader.  However, given the fickle nature of irony, the reader could be set up for satisfaction by the time the novel is finished. 

It's the Same Guy!

Ironic:

• "Hide your wives and daughters," I know that the author isn't really afraid that there will be a second attack from the Europeans that makes it unsafe to have the wives and the daughters out. 
• "Great nations of Europe," I know that the author doesn't think that the nations are great because they annihilated indigenous tribes.  Also, he is making fun of the fact that they are referred to as "great nations."
• The Indians who told Balboa they were gay.  He is using a satirical and sarcastic tone that hint the irony.  He has no way of knowing whether they were gay, he just says that to make the listener know that the Europeans would kill on based on insignificant facts.

Not Ironic:

• The time period, 16th century.  This is actually the time when they came to the Americas
• "Columbus sailed for India..." He did actually sail for India and find Salvador.  These are the facts that the composer must maintain in order for the audience to understand the message that he is trying to transmit.

Proving Your Point (For Dummies)

When an author wants to prove a point, he/she can do one of two things: be discrete, or include the reader in the process that proves that point.  Clearly, Ken Kesey has chosen the former; what’s more he has taken the idea of ambiguity and exaggerated until his point can come to be lost in the plot or in character profiles. McMurphy was introduced to the novel when the narrator was the Chief Bromden that was playing deaf and dumb, and, perhaps as a side note, he was actually insane. So in order to evaluate the evolution of McMurphy as a character individually, one must take into account not only what happened, but also what was going on with Bromden when he narrated it.  It may well be that McMurphy didn’t change at all, that the narration transformed into something more understanding and rational because the narrator himself was slowly becoming more coherent.  Let’s explore that possibility. 

(Note for those who missed it: in order to prove my point, I will use the option that Ken Kesey chose to disregard)

At first the narrator is impressed with McMurphy’s methodology.  He is confused when McMurphy brushes his teeth with soap instead of toothpaste.  Bromden sees that as weird and funny, he exposes McMurphy as trying to shift the power through the use of humor.  The use of humor does stop.  But McMurphy himself didn’t change and neither did his goals.  When McMurphy and Chief Bromden decided to protect George in the showers and get in a fistfight with the employees, the narrator himself is involved in disrupting order in the ward.  So what one might take as a change in McMurphy— he has stopped using humor and turned towards violence— is really all part of his plan, what has changed is that now Bromden understands the plan.  Another textual example could maybe be the most decisive moment in the plot, when McMurphy attacks Ratched and rips her uniform open while trying to strangle her.  McMurphy has not become more violent as the book progresses.  He has not changed his mind about trying to take away power from the Big Nurse.  He has, however, affected Bromden immensely.  The newcomer that was originally seen as eccentric and unnecessarily outspoken has changed in the eyes of Bromden to become someone who will use violence if necessary in order to give justice to the ward and to take down the totalitarian control.  Through these examples, I have attempted to bandwagon the readers into sharing my interpretation of the novel— McMurphy didn’t change.

This is only a theory; the truth may be that McMurphy changed completely as the novel progressed.  The only thing that is certain is that Kesey overplayed his hand.  He tried to be discrete, and wound up being open ended. With only a handful of interpretations being correct, pleasing the author is close to impossible.  That is why the movie crashed and burned in Kesey’s opinion, and why my theory may be entirely off the mark, yet, it is also what makes this book so intriguing. 

If You Agree with the Premise...

When a book is set in the confines of a mental institute, and nothing else, the author must carefully choose every personification, alliteration, metaphor and symbolism that is included.  Because there is not much to analyze in the setting, and the characters are limited by the location, the reader will take any and all interactions and magnify them in order to attempt to better understand the underlying messages in the book.  In One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, this is exactly the case. 

When Bromden wakes up in the middle of the night and carefully describes his surroundings whilst walking towards a window and then narrates every single movement of a dog sniffing around until he sees that a car that I going to run over it, the reader must interpret.  What does the car represent? Is it part of a larger idea within the text that should be broken down and scrutinized with the purpose of understanding Kesey’s overall message? Perhaps. Well, probably.  In the context of this passage, surely this extraordinary occurrence must mean something.  During the beginning of Part II the ward is carefully looking upon the Big Nurse and whether or not she is powerful and menacing.  McMurphy has been known for attempting to disrupt the status quo in the ward and for trying to get the better of the abusive and controlling authoritarian regime that the nurses and doctors have set up.  The interaction between the dog and the car is a parallelism to what is going on inside the ward.  The remaining portion of Part II will reveal that Nurse Ratched is in a position of power, and that McMurphy and the others depend on her inherent kindness to remain unharmed; this passage is a foreshadowing of what is to come.  The dog is a curious and tamed animal that has dared to sniff around “in the same spot of pavement” (Kesey, 143) as the ruthless cold machine that is the car.  In the same way, McMurphy and the others are trying to challenge the traditional imperatives that the Nurse has established, if they both try to retain power, or control “the same spot of pavement,” the assumed outcome is that the car will run over the dog, and the Nurse will electroshock the patients.

Of course this is a rather raw interpretation of the text.  I am taking little and trying to make it mean a lot.  While my interpretation may be right, and the premise that the limited setting overemphasizes the travails of the characters may be correct, you as a reader, and I as a blogger, must keep in mind that the title of the book includes the word Cuckoo, as in crazy, and the setting is confined to a mental institute.  Nothing is certain.