OFOCN: Blog Response #1

As readers, one of the first things we tend to do is notice the object most mentioned throughout the story. That being said, there is no doubt that the motif fog machine in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey caught the readers' attention. The fog machine usually appear when the narrator is in a difficult situation. What does this fog represent? Why is it so important for the narrator? The fog machine does not actually exist; however, in a more symbolic sense, the fog represents the mental condition of the narrator as well as the escape from reality.

When I was first encountered with the fog machine, I was confused. At first, I believed that the fog machine was a type of machine that produced chemicals and gas to calm one down as "it snow[s] down cold and white all over [the patients] like skim milk." Then, in several other instances the fog machine randomly appeared again out of nowhere. The fog does not physically exist, yet it is real to the narrator. He is imagining it as part of his hallucinations – whether it is due to the numerous drugs he’s taking or due to his actual mental condition. This fog is a way to remind the readers that this novel takes place in a mental institution and the narrator himself is a patient there. This fog is a way to remind us that the narrator hallucinates frequently and thus, is not a reliable one. This fog is a way to remind us that every time it ‘appears,’ it means the narrator is in a lost, confused state. It is almost like a warning that the narrator, although observant in many ways, should not be trusted by everything he says because after all, he does have a mental condition.

“One of these days, I’ll quit straining and let myself go completely lose myself in the fog the way some of the other Chronics have.” This quote shows how if the narrator allows himself to be completely taken away by the fog, he will turn completely insane like the others. What on earth is the fog then? The fog is a symbol of Bromden’s escape from reality. He seems to believe that the fog machines are turned on every time he is in a state of confusion so he doesn’t have to deal with what is going on around him. Feeling invisible to others when he is afraid, the fog is a safe place for him to "hide in." However, as the fog hides the narrator from the reality, the fog also limits the reader’s understanding of the atmosphere and situation of the world inside the mental institution. It blurs the line between reality and imagination, and the readers have to guess what is actually happening.

The concept of the fog appears numerous times throughout the novel and is somewhat ironic. Through the motif fog, the readers can understand the narrator and his thoughts more. Yet, the readers are more distanced and muddled by what is really going on in the novel.

Waiting for Godot Film Version

     If you were to make a film interpretation of Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett, how would it be? How would the characters look like? How would the setting be depicted? Because this is a play, it was obviously meant to be acted out. With so many different interpretations that one can have, it was exciting for me to see how other people viewed the play.

     When reading the play, I first imagined the two protagonists, Vladimir and Estragon, to be like "tramps" -- people who wore oversized clothes that were ripped, falling apart, and plain dirty. I imagined Estragon full of bruises and scars due to the beatings he gets every night. I imagined them old, smelly-looking, and simply exhausted. Because all they've been doing in their lives is wait and wait for Godot, I thought they would look practically dead. Their eyes? Lifeless. Their skin? Pale. However, in the film, I saw something completely different. Although I won't necessarily describe them as "wealthy-looking," their suits, their hats, and just their aura made them seem anything but poor. They looked clean and proper, almost full of life. I felt like through this, the message of the play was not conveyed as properly because the two men's hopelessness and the fact that they had nothing to lose was not shown. 

     In addition, the dialogue (although the exact same words) was too different from what I had in mind. The actors were TOO good of actors that they tried their best effort to ACT. The whole point of this play was to show the meaningless of life. These actors put emotion in their words; they expressed their emotions through it. They ruined the message. These words that were suppose to have no meaning, these words that were not a mean of communication, these gibberish words suddenly became the main form of expression between the audience and the characters. The dialogue was NOT meant to be a form of communication in the play! 

On top of their tone of voice, their body language and the camera shots were all ways to show off EMOTION and MEANING to these words. In the beginning of the play, Vladimir is shown doing hand gestures, standing up, walking around, shifting eye contacts, all in an effort to put significance to what he's saying. The camera would zoom in the characters' faces to emphasize the emotions and the facial expressions they show. Once again, this defeats the whole purpose of “meaningless.”

     However, one thing that seemed to be perfect was the setting. The setting was exactly what was described in the play -- empty, barren with one tree. I especially liked the colors that were laid out. They were all dull colors -- mostly brown -- with a gray sky. It truly represented this "hopelessness" and the "dullness" of life.

     I believe the play (the written form) itself by Samuel Beckett did a better job in conveying his message about the meaningless and absurdity of life. Although the film was much more entertaining as it included emotion, some type of action, etc, the written play had a more profound way of connecting with the audience/readers.

Waiting for Godot: Simply Absurd

What happened in the play? Nothing. Did the protagonists do anything in particular? No. What was my overall reaction? Ugh.

Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett seemed to be about nothing. Two characters who did nothing but wait for Godot (who in the end didn't even appear in the story). One thing that did seem to appear throughout the play was repetition -- repetition of words, repetition of actions, repetition of events.

ESTRAGON: The circus.

VLADIMIR: The music hall.

ESTRAGON: The circus.

(page 35).

“Estragon takes Vladimir's hat, Vladimir adjusts Lucky's hat on his head. Estragon puts on Vladimir’s hat in place of his own chi he hands to Vladimir…” (page 80). 

These repetitions not only made this play extremely boring, but confusing. What was the meaning of this? Attempting to find some kind of symbol or hidden message, I reread through each passage at least twice. Yet, I couldn't find anything. I started getting angrier at how confusing and absurd this play was. Then, I realized what idea this novel was heading towards: the meaningless of life.

First thing that came to my mind was "oh no," second, The Strangers. Yes, this play seems to have the same underlying theme as The Strangers by Albert Camus. It's about existentialism and the human struggle to discover purpose in the meaningless life. The two protagonists, Vladimir and Estragon try so hard to find some kind of meaning in life. They wait around for Godot, as if meeting him will lead them to take some kind of action and to some kind of meaning. They are constantly waiting, and yet Godot never comes. Just like that, the readers, or me in particular, tried so hard to find some kind of meaning behind the dialogues between the characters or Lucky's ridiculous speech. We read on and on, expecting something to happen and nothing happens. Similarly, we tried to find some kind of hidden message behind the words of Meursault who in reality, was saying nothing but what he meant. This represents one of the topics existentialists criticize about: we, humans, constantly try to find purpose/meaning in life when life is meaningless.

In addition, the concept of death is also demonstrated the same way in both works. Death is not a negative thing; it’s something that’s bound to happen. Both Vladimir and Estragon wonder whether they should kill themselves. They see death as something completely normal, like reading a book. The only thing keeping them killing themselves is that they don’t have a rope. Simple as that. Meursault also took Mamam’s death as something completely unsurprising and typical. Death is nothing of a big deal for these existentialists.

Obviously, there are some differences in that Waiting for Godot takes a more extreme manner in showing the absurdity of life. Beckett presents us with a life where actions are completely meaningless, communication fails miserably, and the characters are simply senseless. If Beckett is trying to convey the message about how absurd life really is, shouldn’t he make Vladimir and Estragon’s situation a little more realistic? Who honestly lives their lives like that? How is it even close to the way WE live our lives? The Stranger seems to have a more reality depth, where at the end, I actually began to wonder if my existence really mattered. This book? Not at all. This book I did not like. It was so absurd that I felt like I wasted my time reading it. Maybe that was the author’s intention. Either way, this book did not lead me to thinking life is absurd but how this book in particular was completely absurd and ridiculous.

The Stranger: Blog Response #3

Mankind has free will.

       The concept “mankind has free will” is shown throughout the novel through Meursault’s, the protagonist’s, character development. His revelation on the idea of free will has greatly impacted his attitude towards life as well as the actions he took from Part One to Part Two.

In the first part of the novel, Meursault seemed to be doing what he is doing simply because he did not see any other choice. He just went along with what others suggested, unaware that he had the free will to say “no.” His indifference and unawareness of his free will are shown by his interactions with Marie and Raymond. In the part when Marie told Meursault that she wanted to marry him, Meursault quickly agreed. However, when Marie asks “if [he] would have accepted the same proposal from another woman, with whom [he] was involved in the same way,” Meursault replied “sure” (page 42). This demonstrates how he will do anything that the other proposes without a thought on what he wants. This is also illustrated when Raymond asks Meursault to become a witness for him. Meursault agrees to do so because “it didn’t matter to [him]” (page 37). Meursault takes his actions and makes his decisions only because it is “natural” for him to do so.

Nonetheless, throughout the novel, the readers see Meursault’s steady character development in that eventually he realizes the concept of free will. “It was then that I realized that you could either shoot or not shoot” (page 56). This revelation led him to change his perspective on life itself. He chose to scream at the chaplain (something he would have never done during the first part of the novel), he chose to sleep and wake up when he wanted to, he chose to die right then. These actions that he takes allows the readers to see how Meursault is actually conscious and aware of what he is doing. He is not just doing it because he feels indifferent towards it; he is doing it because that is what he chose to do. He is now aware and conscious about the things he does. His attitude towards the world is no longer described as “indifference” like in the beginning where his tone was detached, objective, and emotionless. He now seems to have the perspective of “acceptance.”

His sudden change of attitude is shown clearly during Meursault’s trial. “Everything was happening without my participation. My fate was being decided without anyone so much as asking my opinion” (page 98).  Meursault was feeling very upset over the fact that he was not able to intervene and speak. If the former Meursault were in this situation, he would have merely followed the decisions the lawyers made, as it did not matter to him. Yet, he has changed. Now aware of the existence of free will and choice, Meursault believed that he should be the one making the choices to his own life. His belief that he has free will stirred his emotion of annoyance on the fact that others were deciding his life.