Questioning Insanity

What does it feel like to be crazy? Do insane people know that there is something wrong with them or do they simply find out based on the way society reacts to them? These were some of the burning questions that I had as I read the first pages of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

As I continued to read, I started to question every single thing the narrator, Chief Bromden, told us. It becomes pretty clear early on in the story that Chief Broom tends to exaggerate and blow things out of proportion. This is why, when I reached the part of the story when he starts to talk about the fog, I didn’t really know what to make of it. Does the fog represent the moment when he is given medications in order to calm him down? Is it some sort of technique they use in the mental institute to confuse and control them?

But on the other hand, one has to step back and look at the book as a whole. It is a strong critique towards society, mankind and values. If we look at it through this perspective, is it possible that the fog represents something even bigger? The fog might stand for uncertainty, self-doubt, the confines of social structure, judgment or even insanity itself. 

Right or Wrong. Wrong or Right. Does it Matter?

There are people that say that "a picture is worth a thousand words." Generally, I would agree, but in the  case of Waiting for Godot, I wouldn't be so sure. After having watched the film, I am now forced to look at the play through someone else's eyes. I see things the way the director imagined them, and this alienates me from the play, and from what I felt and saw as I was reading it. The fact that it is a play means that Beckett wanted this to happen. He wanted the actors to interpret the emotions and actions of the characters a certain way and try their best to portray that, but at the same time leaving a large grey area so that the audience can replay the entire thing in their heads and have it come out completely different.

How can I know what you see? How can I know what you feel? Every single person experiences things in unique ways, so there is no way of knowing whether what the author intended you to feel is actually what you are experiencing.

If we take Lucky's speech from the play, there are a thousand different ways that an actor can choose to interpret it. I had imagined Lucky as a worn down, shaky, small old man that would just start to ramble on and on about nothing, with occasional lapses in judgment. However, the way it is presented in the movie, Lucky talks with passion and conviction. He makes pauses, and when he reaches the middle he starts to get really into it.

Whether you are like me, and imagine a life-less Lucky babbling about inconsequential things, or whether you agree with the impersonation he was given in the movie, no one can tell who is right and who is wrong because there is no right or wrong.  

Breakeven

As I finished reading Waiting for Godot, I couldn't help thinking about how pathetic the lives of these two characters were. Their actions, their thoughts, their words - are all completely pointless. They had spent their entire lives waiting for someone that would never come, and hoping against hope that he would make it.

"Vladimir: Say, I am happy

Estragon: I am happy.

Vladimir: So am I.

Estragon: So am I.

Vladimir: We are happy.

Estragon: We are happy. (Silence) What do we do now, now that we are happy?" (pg. 66)

Vladimir and Estragon convince themselves that they are happy, much in the same way we do quite often. We claim that we are happy with our lives, with our society and our way of life, but is this all just some kind of artificial happiness? People say that once you settle down, get your own place, get married and have children, you will truly know what happiness means, but do we feel this way because we are supposed to or is it what really makes us happy? is there a difference?

I was able to connect the ending of this play with the song Breakeven by The Script. O'Donoghue sings "just praying to a god that I don't believe in". Isn't this what Vladimir and Estragon are doing? they are waiting for someone that they don't even know exists. the same thing happens with us and our concept of God. We believe that he will someday make his appearance and solve all of the issues of humanity, but where is the proof? Haven't we waited enough already?

Like Pieces of a Puzzle

What is the point of our existence? Why are we here? Who sent us and what is the purpose of our existence here on earth? We were forced to ask ourselves these questions as we started the unit on existentialism, but what we didn't expect was having to question the answers we gave to these queries while reading The Stranger.

Through a character as complex in his simple view on life, Camus makes us take on a new perspective, whether we choose to agree with it or not. We all lead the lives we claim we want to because we all believe in "free will". However, after reading this existentialist novel I realized that even if we fight as hard as we can in order to break free from the ties of society and humankind, we will eventually have t give up and accept the conditions society sets upon us.

Mersault led a relatively calm life, and in the eyes of a passerby he might just have gone by undetected. The things that make him so different to us are the way he thinks and the way he leads his life, focusing merely on the present, paying no attention to the past and not worrying about the future. This type of carefree lifestyle led him to commit murder for the simple fact that he had no reason not to do it, and this act landed him in jail.

Once in jail, Mersault's way of thinking changes completely, and he finally starts sharing personal details about his past and worrying about his oncoming execution. He is a perfect example of a man who tried to fight the constraints of society, but was held back and ended up being just another insignificant piece in the puzzle of humanity.