[ SECRET POST #2237 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2237 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 113 secrets from Secret Submission Post #319.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[intrigueing]

Yeah, she was an absolute monster. Really just one of the most hateful characters ever written.

But some people have tiny little brains that can't fathom the concept of a completely despicable antagonist pitted against an extremely screwed-up and flawed protagonist. Nope. If he's a bad person, it magically implies that she must somehow be a good one.

[(Anonymous)]

Except in this case it was a completely despicable antagonist against a completely despicable protagonist.

[intrigueing]

Eh, I don't think he was completely despicable. He definitely had some good traits.

But even if he had been completely despicable, that doesn't reduce her despicableness in the slightest. The things she did to all the other characters isn't somehow mitigated by the things McMurphy did.

[(Anonymous)]

The only thing she did that was really bad was threatening to tell Billy's mother that he had been with the prostitute, and I don't think she meant for him to kill himself, or knew that would happen. And she only did that because McMurphy had basically pressed her against the wall and she was losing control of the situation.

The loud talk and laughter swirled around the nurse. She looked from Billy and the girl to the bunch of us behind her. The enamel-and-plastic face was caving in. She shut her eyes and strained to calm her trembling, concentrating. She knew this was it, her back to the wall. When her eyes opened again, they were very small and still.

For most of the novel all she's trying to do is keep things in order, while McMurphy is trying to disrupt things and cause chaos.

[(Anonymous)]

She didn't have to tell Billy's mother about it at all. She didn't need to be in control of the situation that way. What the actual fuck? You think a repressive abusive overseer is justified in what they do if they just want to keep order?

"Order" is not a good in itself. It is not inherently good. Order is a means. Order is only something good if it keeps people safe or facilitates the happiness of the people being kept in order. The hospital was not full of dangerous psychopaths who were a menace to society. It was for sick people to get better or at least have a somewhat worthwhile life they couldn't have outside. She wasn't making any of them better or giving them a worthwhile life. She didn't WANT to make any of them better or give them a worthwhile life. They didn't need to be "kept in order" that way. It was just control for the sake of the power inherent in controlling someone.

That scene you quote? It's not like it was a choice between her doing that to Billy and something awful happening. It was a choice between her doing that to Billy and her losing her deathgrip of suffocating lifeless control over the patients. Don't fucking make me laugh.

For most of the novel all she's trying to do is keep things in order

Yes, like I said. Order. Order for it's own sake, not for any greater good. By not letting any of the inmates ever make a single decision for themselves, even a harmless one, and not letting them do any that disrupts the routine or gives them a modicum of joy.

while McMurphy is trying to disrupt things and cause chaos.

And that's a terrible thing...how, exactly? Don't get me wrong, McMurphy is an awful person, but how was anything he encouraged the patients to do destructive towards their wellbeing? Except in the victim-blaming "he encouraged them to rebel so it's his fault when they get punished" excuse?

[(Anonymous)]

http://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/what-would-you-532814-page2.html

I'd recommend reading the two posts that the user DoGoodThenGo says on the subject, about the context of the time and what Ratched was dealing with.

[insanenoodlyguy]

No. She was a hateful horrible creature and nothing about the time or place changed that.

[stainless]

Um, so, I'm not a big fan of this book or anything, so maybe there's no point to this, but...

...are people seriously up in arms about people identifying with a villain?

Because on the scale of shit to worry about, that seems pretty, uh, not high up?

People identify with villains all the time. Generally it means they're written well.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but there's villains and there's villains, you know?

[(Anonymous)]

No.

[stainless]

I'm not disputing that she's horrible. I just think identifying with characters is a funny and a deeply personal sort of a business, and you can't know what's going on with it unless you talk to an identifier directly and at length.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you talking about book canon or movie canon? Bromden does some things I don't exactly agree with, but I wouldn't call him 'completely despicable'.

[(Anonymous)]

We're talking about McMurphy.

[(Anonymous)]

Movie canon, natch.

[(Anonymous)]

Bromden's the narrator of the novel, but McMurphy is still the protagonist.

[(Anonymous)]

That's like arguing Sherlock Holmes isn't the main character because Watson is the narrator.