I'm afraid I've never read the book. This must obviously change, and soon. However, the movie is incredibly brilliant, and I've always admired that perfectly-symmetrical title.

>the movie is incredibly brilliant

Without question. I was amazed to hear that Kesey was very disappointed in it because of the more significant changes made (for example, the film is not narrated by Chief Bromden, and Jack Nicholson does not play McMurphy as the "tough little Irishman" Kesey wrote him to be), but I personally believe that a straight adaptation would have been no more impressive than the dozens of straight adaptations we get every year. They range from alright to pretty good and within 10 months everyone forgets them.

This film, however, is a rightful masterpiece, just as good as the book, but in a different way. The spirit of the novel was retained, as was the theme, but it was interpreted and handled differently...which is exactly why it works. People don't seem to understand that words on a page don't magically work just as well as direct imitation on a screen. It's a wholy different art form and no direct transition is going to impress anyone.

Once again, though, I doubt I'll be spending much time discussing film versions in this column. Mainly because usually--all together now--they stink.

>that perfectly-symmetrical title

Pretend I don't understand you and explain this.

>Pretend I don't understand you and explain this.

My mind always unconsciously divides it into two halves - "One Flew Over" and "The Cuckoo's Nest". Each of the halves is four syllables. Plus, it just has a nice ring to it.

>it just has a nice ring to it.

So does Austin Reed.

Smashing article, couldn't agree more. EXCEPT Not sure if I agree about Bromden being more ill than the rest of the patients, and his own ending gives the book for me a much more optimistic beat to finish on. In a way, things rather DO work out for the best, don't they?

Also, I've read more books where authors strive for a Cuckoos-style ending, but haven't earned the emotional impact and it's come across as hollow and dull, than books where people have avoided such an ending, I think. Which isn't to disagree with you, it probably just reflects on what we've each read, but I think it affirms how masterfully put together Cuckoos is.

Any other Kesey books worth a shot? I'm a bit intimidated by their size and infrequency.

Also, anyone seen the play?

>Not sure if I agree about Bromden being more ill than the rest of the patients

Well, he's more ill than most of the patients, I think...to be honest, I haven't counted them up, and so, numerically speaking, I may actually be wrong. But he's at least the most ill of the main patients. (There are some pretty vivid descriptions of patients that are far, far worse off than he is...but we--for obvious reasons--don't hear much of their personal experience. Whereas Bromden's hallucinations are far more severe than anything Harding or Cheswick or Billy Bibbit have to face. For them it's all intimidation.)

>In a way, things rather DO work out for the best, don't they?

As you mentioned later in your comment, this speaks to how masterfully assembled the book is. Kesey gives you every right to feel the way you do...and also to feel the way I do. The ending is "definite," but the consequences are not. It really depends--I think--on where you place yourself in relation to the characters. If you side with Bromden, you do end on an optimistic beat, as you say. But if you've been following more closely the escalating battle between McMurphy and Nurse Ratched...well...the ending can't get much more powerful than that.

It's a good point, because the ending is double-edged. However, as you mentioned, Kesey EARNED it, which is what sets it apart from not only the books that didn't bother with a brave conclusion, but also the books that did and left us feeling unsatisfied.

>Any other Kesey books worth a shot?

I started to read Sailor Song last year, but I lost interest. I don't think it was due to the book...I think it was something external that kept me from finishing. I was actually wondering the same thing myself, if anyone's read anything else.

>Also, anyone seen the play?

No, but I think the guy who played Bromden in the somewhat-recent run was the son of the actor who played him in the film. Also he was used to play the Bromden-like character in the Robot Wars episode of Spaced. Nice to see the characters being kept alive. Perhaps at some point they'll be as recognizable as the cast of A Christmas Carol.

Hmm, Bromden certainly has vivid mental episodes, but I always felt (or perhaps assumed) that he'd slowly cracked up mostly from being inside the institution, and would be perfectly harmless and well in the outside world. Still, as you say, we're quibbling over minor points in a book that rewards a number of interpretations, so I'll stop now. Let's imagine the book is a woman - I'll bum it, you can go in it's mouth and we'll high five at the same time

>I always felt (or perhaps assumed) that he'd slowly cracked up mostly from being inside the institution, and would be perfectly harmless and well in the outside world.

I personally disagree, but I do think it's left intentionally vague. We have glimpses of Bromden's pre-ward life, and for the most part it's pretty normal, safe stuff. Which means we don't actually bear witness to the "start" of his mental illness. When did it happen? After he was committed? It's unclear.

I think, for the sake of reading the book without that distraction, I assumed it happened pre-ward and he was rightfully committed. You, however, believe it happened as a result of being committed. And I can't think of a single instance to disprove you...

Which points to intentional vagueness. Which, in itself, is another facet of the ending. It has elements of triumph and elements of tragedy. Which is it? It's vague. You reach your own decision. But this schizophrenic nature of major plot-points is actually in keeping with the theme of the book, come to think of it...no?

>we're quibbling over minor points in a book that rewards a number of interpretations, so I'll stop now.

Honestly I didn't see it as quibbling, and I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was (and am) genuinely interested in your differing opinion--especially since it's not unfounded at all. If all of these Booktext articles manage to bring up a valid opposing view of something, then they'll have been well worth writing.

>Let's imagine the book is a woman - I'll bum it, you can go in it's mouth and we'll high five at the same time

We are the Siskel and Ebert of books. (You're Ebert.)

Oh yes, the use of quibbling wasn't meant to sound negative at all. I've loved the book for a looong time, and this article has prompted me to think about it in ways I hadn't before, which is brilliant. More please!