No Need to Know Where You’re Going If You Know You Need to Leave
WONDROUS CALS Book Club, 30-12-2024
Living while constantly aware of the many injustices and inequalities of modern society creates a constant strain on the minds of empathetic humans. With a developed idealism and enough education, most people find themselves wanting to change things for the better, while at the same time feeling that the task is impossible. The drive for positive change is met with the unmoving reality of an endless stream of disasters, wars, scandals and the systematic exploitation of the underprivileged. Nearly as long is the list of suggested solutions competing for people’s energy and resources. Although every solution contains some hope, there is also potential for confusion and disagreement amongst those aiming to improve the world, leading to infighting and further disillusionment. This state of alienation can lead to stasis, either through conscious withdrawal from activism for wellbeing or through being overwhelmed with the quantity and complexity of both problems and solutions. Nevertheless, many feel a drive to resist the status quo, even if they do not know exactly how to create a better alternative. Through an exploration of resistance across Bea Wolf, “Bartleby the Scrivener, a Story of Wall-Street”, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and The Dispossessed, the qualities of positive, self-assertive and joyful revolutionary action become clear, leading to an outlook that harnesses the energy of outrage to create a communal yet personal path towards changing the world. Even though it is an almost self-contained impossibility to imagine a future outside of the confines of this present, fiction allows for the bravery and confidence to defy the harmful elements of oppressive structures and set out on a path of resistance that is productive, shared, energised and rises beyond a cycle of repression. When the alternatives to an unjust world are not fully realised, compassionate and joyful revolution nevertheless allows for the setting of a new course that makes improvements possible while remaining open to course correction.
Bea Wolf, the retelling of the classic saga Beowulf by Zach Wienersmith and Boulet, shows the fighting of evil through the protagonist Bea Wolf. Like all other main characters, she’s a child who revels in adventuring, feasting on candy and soda, and resisting the pull of adulthood and adolescence. The joy of this resistance is visible in every panel where the young heroes are asserting themselves, whether it is through the building of the treehut called Treeheart, the liberation of animals from a farm or the discovery of toys, candy and water balloons (23). The joy of the revolt against the drab of society is threatened by the antagonist Grindle, an adult neighbour of Treeheart who symbolises all that is boring and stale in adulthood (29). His terrifying power is to age anyone he touches, so that “those who felt Grindle’s finger grew old – fog-eyed and furrow-faced” (33). The battle against Grindle shows the children’s resolve to hold on to fun as a weapon against the conformity, armed with foam-bolt guns, balloons and catapults (52). However, Grindle manages to defeat them: “Ten kids turned teenaged, tired-eyed, ever-texting. Eight turned middle-aged, aching, anxious, angry at the internet” (53). As Grindle manifests the children’s worst fears, the ageing magic shows the power of society to incorporate rebellion into the status quo. It is impossible for the warrior children to resist the inevitable growing up, but moreover, they are turned into bland, uninspired people who are unoffensive to Grindle’s sensibilities. They no longer enjoy life, just like Grindle, the “baron of boredom” (32), who can only find a static contentment in a perfectly cleaned and quiet house, but finds no happiness there. His overwhelming might causes the remaining children, including Roger, their king, to despair. During this “midnight of mirth” (59), they see no possibility to continue their resistance against the status quo, mirroring the hopelessness felt by many in the face of a relentlessly pessimistic world.
This paralysis is dispelled when Bea Wolf comes to Treeheart to offer her help to Roger. Just like in the saga of Beowulf, she is the mightiest warrior of the area and brings hope to a kingdom terrorised by a monster. Bea Wolf’s courage and past feats convince the children that parties are possible again, and in defiance of Grindle’s destruction, Roger throws another feast, showing the inspiration that can come from a figure that embodies idealism with joy. The children’s happiness is apparent in their star-pupilled eyes while they gorge themselves on a mountain of sweets (140), further illustrating the playfulness of both their revolution against Grindle’s killjoy overseeing and the story as a whole: reworking an ancient English text to be about children is in itself a joyful, fun act, infusing all of the weighty words and stylistic features of the original Beowulf with a humorous undertone. Bea Wolf, the text, resists the expectations and rules of literary conformity as Bea Wolf, the character, resists the confines of Grindle’s joyless conventionality. Challening him to a duel, she says “Make no more clouds. I have drawn rainbows here.” (148). Rainbows here symbolise the colourful and boundless state of play of the children, but also hint that the supreme state of the world after the revolution is a dreamlike, idealised world, not fully defined, but nevertheless felt and partially realised whenever people live their lives full of idealism. Trying to see behind Grindle’s spectacles, she instead sees only “a joy-void, empty as vacuum” (149), underlining how he has no goals or suggestions for positive change, but only strives to undo any threat to the status quo. He does not fight for anything, but fights against the fun of the children. When Bea Wolf manages to rip Grindle’s tie, he shrinks to a child himself, and becomes harmless. The symbolism of the tie as a representation of corporate conformity and adulthood emphasises how even Grindle, as intimidating and powerful as he is, is only a pawn in the larger forces trying to suppress the joy of the children. This becomes even more clear as Grindle flees to his mother, who is foretold to bring renewed darkness to the victorious children at the end of the story. However, the feats of Bea Wolf are handsomely rewarded by the just king Roger and become part of the mythology of the children, celebrating the day she overcame the oppressive neighbour who stifled their fun. In the end, Bea Wolf showcases the excitement of adventure that is the core of many stories, where heroes overcome great odds, to inspire a spirit of resilience against the monotony of every-day life. The children’s perspective on Beowulf demonstrates that the hero’s courage can be combined with the joy of children’s play to defy overwhelming odds, creating a part of an ideal world in the here and now, even when there is no outline for that ideal.
A similar appeal to joyful resistance is described in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey. Despite the pain and harm that are inherent in the setting of the insane asylum, the revolution against the regime of the authoritarian nurse Ratched by Randle McMurphy is focused on humour, fun and rambunctiousness, which shows how their can be joy in revolution even if the rebel is ultimately destroyed. The story of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is told by Chief Bromden, one of the patients at the asylum who suffers from paranoid delusions and traumatic memories. Like most of the patients, he is docile and insecure, which is further exacerbated by the fear they feel because of the Big Nurse’s tyrannical treatment. Under the guise of care, she humiliates the patients to remain in control of the institution, enlisting the help of the aides and manipulating the doctors to enforce her will. Through the process of group meetings, she maintains a facade of political representation, but her overbearing directions to staff and patients leave her in total control of the ward. Harding, one of the patients, even says: “All of us here are rabbits (…). We need a good, strong wolf like the nurse to teach us our place.” (Original italics, 64). The metaphors of rabbits and wolfs illustrate the hierarchy and helplessness that are fostered in the asylum under the Nurse’s rule, but also show that Harding is aware of the dangers this poses. After all, all rabbits can be torn to pieces by the predator, and they have no hope of defending themselves. However, despite the obvious unhappiness in the ward, nurse Ratched has convinced everyone there that the problem is with themselves, and that all of their discomfort is the right path to improvement. Resisting her is not only futile, but shameful self-sabotage.
Like in Bea Wolf, the situation changes with the appearance of the hero. In this case, Randle McMurphy arrives at the asylum, where he hopes to avoid the more uncomfortable punishment of prison by being treated as a “psychopath” (13), which he is told is “a guy that fights too much and fucks too much” (13-14). Even before the other patients see him, they hear his voice, loud and uncompromising, indicating that his political will will not be dominated. Immediately, it becomes clear that his charisma is a threat to the routines of the asylum. However, his most powerful tool for disruption is symbolic of the joy of revolution: it is his loud and genuine laugh.
Nobody can tell exactly why he laughs; there’s nothing funny going on. But it’s not the way that Public Relations laughs, it’s free and loud and it comes out of his wide grinning mouth and spreads in rings bigger and bigger till it’s lapping against the walls all over the ward. Not like that fat Public Relations laugh. This sounds real. I realize all of a sudden it’s the first laugh I’ve heard in years. (12)
His laughing is a shock to establishment, but also to the oppressed “rabbits”, who are at first confused and later emboldened by it. His laughing is not just an act of expression, but part of a larger attitude of playfulness and self-assertiveness. “Even when he isn’t laughing, that laughing sound hovers around him, the way the sound hovers around a big bell just quit ringing – it’s in his eyes, in the way he smiles and swaggers, in the way he talks” (12). The laughing represents an attitude of resistance, a signal to the world, enforced by the simile of the bell, that something has arrived or something needs to change. In being apologetically himself, enjoying himself despite the setbacks, he upsets the meticulous and oppressive order built by the systems of the Big Nurse. Where she has worked to reduce everything particular into a part of a large machine, mirrored by the narrator’s delusions of a mechanical Combine that eats away at every piece of individualism in the United States, McMurphy is a unique and personal element, inviting the other patients to assert themselves and express their own voices. This is not an unconscious act. McMurphy instinctively despises despotism and uses the language of the rough environment he has grown up in to analyse power structure of the asylum. He calls nurse Ratched a “balls-cutter” (60), an example of a type of person who rules over people unfairly. He recognises this type of person from outside the asylum: “Seen ‘em all over the country and in the homes – people who try to make you weak so they can get you to toe the line, to follow their rules, to live like they want you to” (60). He calls it “going for the vitals” (60), the life force, which is why his life energy is such as threat to her control. He encourages the others to fight back and stand up for their desires, such as watching the baseball game on television despite the change it requires to the routine, and takes them on a fishing trip where they can experience the outside world through danger, fun and contact with women.
When McMurphy’s resistance becomes powerful enough to inspire change in others, Chief Bromden realises it is because he has remained himself despite the outside forces that push people to conform. Despite the never-ending resources of society directed to submit the rogue elements, McMurphy keeps true to his character and enjoys it as well as he can. Bromden says:
There was times that week when I’d hear that full-throttled laugh, watch him scratching his belly and stretching and yawning and leaning back to wink at whoever he was joking with, everything coming to him just as easy as drawing breath, and I’d quit worrying about the Big Nurse and the Combine behind her. I’d think he was strong enough being his own self that he would never back down the way she was hoping he would. (…) He’s what he is, that’s it. (…) He’s not gonna let them twist him and manufacture him. (161).
Nurse Ratched tries all her tricks and succeeds in subduing him for a while when she threatens his chances of being released. The threat to his future freedom makes him less belligerent and even makes him accept the nurse’s domineering for a while. However, the friendship he has built with the others patients makes him rebel for their sake when he realises that they cannot fight back without him. His last big ploy is to sneak into the medicine supply and throw a midnight drinking binge in defiance. When the Nurse threatens all of them with severe consequences, she singles out one of the patients, Billy Bibbit, and uses her ultimate weapon over him: to tell his mother of his behaviour. This sends Billy into such a frenzy that he kills himself, which nurse Ratched hounds over McMurphy until he attacks her a final act of revolution before he is taken for a lobotomy that turns him into a “Vegetable”, comatose. Bromden realises McMurphy “made me big again” (287), but also sees how he pushed himself beyond what he could for the sake of his friends on the ward (319). While the Nurse uses his catatonic body as a warning to the others, Bromden considers what McMurphy would have done: “he wouldn’t have left something like that to sit there in the day room with his name tacked on it for twenty or thirty years so the Big Nurse could use it as an example of what can happen if you buck the system” (322). Determined, he kills his friend with a pillow before using his renewed strength to break out of the ward and start a new, free life. Although Bromden does not know what to do, he has learned he cannot abide by the dehumanisation that has limited him so far. His life after the asylum will be an alternative to the subjugation he has felt his whole life, even if he does not know what that life will look like, yet. Bromden’s defiance ensures that despite McMurphy’s demise, he still inspires change. His revolution had no defined goal that he tried to achieve, but was born from his recognition of the unethical treatment of himself and others around him. There is tragedy is McMurphy’s fate, but the resilience and attitude with which he defied the regime of the Big Nurse lives on in the other patients. The story of McMurphy’s sacrifice focuses on Bromden’s escape, and the ring of his laughing will echo throughout many of the lives of the patients, showing how not even death can still the ring of McMurphy’s revolution.
In contrast to the bold resolution of Bea Wolf and McMurphy, Bartleby, the hero of Herman Melville’s Bartleby, the Scrivener: a Story of Wall-street, does not revolt through action, but through inaction. Nevertheless, his determination and self-sacrifice mirror both heroes, and though his revolution appears to have no goal except resistance, he presents an alternative to the status quo by means of his quiet, polite refusal to cooperate. When he first enters the scrivener’s office run by the narrator, he is described as “pallidly neat, pitiably respectable, incurably forlorn” (9) – hardly the description of a figure who is bound to overthrow the social order. However, after initially working well, Bartleby refuses to assist in an errand with the singular phase “I would prefer not to” (10). The narrator is startled into acceptance by the hurry of his business and the politeness and oddness of the phrase, and when Bartleby refuses more and more work later on, it becomes clear from that “his decision was irreversible” (12), despite his gentle and meek attitude. Although the Narrator says he would have fired Bartleby if there had been any “uneasiness, anger, impatience or impertinence in his manner” (10), his manner instead dissipates all his tools of reasserting the hiearchy. In fact, it undermines his confidence in his own perspective: “when a man is browbeaten in some unprecedented and violently unreasonable way, he begins to stagger in his own plainest faith. He begins, as it were, vaguely to surmise that, wonderful as it may be, all the justice and all the reason is on the other side” (12). Though the only violence or force that Bartlebly has employed is to be “violently unreasonable”, it is enough for the narrator to make him question his usual responses to insubordination. When Bartleby refuses to work at all, and even turns out to live in the office, the narrator resorts to the absurdity of moving his offices instead of setting Bartleby out of door (27-28). Here, the ungraspable power of Bartleby’s revolution becomes apparent, and in the absurdity of the situation, humour is revealed. When Bartleby is promptly sent to prison by the next tenant, the narrator cannot help but be entangled in Bartleby’s fate, and tries to make his imprisonment as comfortable as possible by paying a “grub-man” (32) to see him well-fed. However, Bartleby refuses to eat, dying soon after, leaving the narrator disturbed and guilty, feeling endless pity for Bartleby (34). Thus, without doing anything, Bartleby has upset the status quo at the heart of Wall Street.
In essence a tragic tale, the enigmatic nature of Bartleby allows for a wild range of readings, leading from those of civil disobedience, as set out by Melville’s contemporary Henry David Thoreau, to existentialist dread or an absurd joke. In any case, despite any communicated goal being achieved, Bartleby succeeds in withstanding the expectations of Wall Street, symbolising the churning productivity of the 19th-century United States, which closely resemble the Combine as imagined by Chief Bromden in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Bartleby has no strength, charisma or community to provide him with the power to overthrow the system he finds himself in, but the quiet yet undeniable statement that he “would prefer not to” draws an ultimatum that causes a revolution in the people around him. The cast of side characters takes over the use of the word “prefer” (20-21), even though one of them, Turkey, considers it a “queer word. I never use it myself” (21). The hierarchy of the office is overthrown, and though the narrator remains in control of the others, nothing he can imagine sways Bartleby. His ultimate summation, “you must” (22, original italics) yields no result, showing the absurdity of language acts and power structures in the face of blatant refusal to accept them. On the whole, Bartleby the Scrivener shows another face of the revolutionary hero by deconstructing the tools of the ruling class and countering them with gentle self-assertion. Bartlebly’s death, like McMurphy’s sacrifice, is not to be interpreted as losing the battle for self-determination. In fact, both resist past the point of death, showing that their revolution remains after their lives end.
Imagining a world after the revolution, Ursula K. Le Guin imagines two parallel worlds in The Dispossessed. When a revolutionary movement on Urras becomes a serious threat to the establishment, they offer the barren twin planet of Anarres, where the revolutionaries build an anarchist-communist community that, centuries later, brings forth the hero of the book, Dr. Shevek. Dr. Shevek is an outsider in both societies, but continues to strive for the best of both through he conviction that following his ideals is ultimately for the common good of both worlds. Although his urge to criticise both governments brings him into conflict, he feels he cannot do otherwise. The society of Anarres is based on the teaching of Odo, an activist from Urras that sparked the revolutionary movement. One of the central works of Odo, Analogy, works around the central metaphor of cells in a larger body. In it, society is compared to an organism, where individuals are its cells. This means that for society to flourish, individuals must be willing to work together for the well-being of the greater whole, which sometimes includes sacrifice. When discussing the state of their twin planet Urras, Shevek’s friends discuss how their society is afraid of “infection” by Urras’s corruption (43). Bedap, one of the friends, comments that “in a sick organism, even a healthy cell is doomed” (43), describing that there can be no ethical living in a society with unethical values or practices. This shows how the revolutionary and analogical thinking of Odo informs the perspective of the inhabitants of Anarres. Shevek strives to be a healthy cell, true to himself, in a healthy organism, which is how he and his friends perceive the world they work in.
However, the cell has another meaning in The Dispossessed, representing the restraints of imprisonment. This double meaning is woven throughout Shevek’s growing up, first started when his class is taught about the phenomenon of prisons, which do not exist on Anarres. In their youthful curiosity, Shevek and his classmates find a place that can be locked and imprison a volunteer to investigate this concept that is so foreign to them. After a night of imprisonment, during which the boy suffered from diarrhea, they all become sick with the idea of prisons and never speak of their experiment again (40). When one of them brings it up with others, they do not understand what he is talking about. Later, when Shevek travels to Urras, the concept of imprisonment becomes relevant again, as he is not allowed to travel from the university grounds except under supervision. He learns of modern revolutionaries and soldiers being imprisoned in the country he is staying in and reflects back on the boundaries that control people, both on Anarres and Urras. When he returns to Anarres, his thinking has changed. He now perceives the restrictiveness of collectivism on Anarres more consciously and can give words to the feelings of unease he has experienced his whole life. The double meaning of the cell is explored by Shevek explicitly when he reflects on his duties to society and his desires as an individual:
He recognized that need, in Odonian terms, as his cellular function, the analogic term for the individual’s individuality, the work he can do best, therefore his best contribution to his society. A healthy society would let him exercise that optimum function freely, in the coordination of all such functions finding its adaptability and strength. That was a central idea of Odo’s Analogy. That the Odonian society on Anarres had fallen short of the ideal did not, in his eyes, lessen his responsibility to it; just the contrary. With the myth of the State out of the way, the real mutuality and reciprocity of society and individual became clear. Sacrifice might be demanded of the individual, but never compromise: for though only the society could give security and stability, only the individual, the person, had the power of moral choice – the power of change, the essential function of life. The Odonian society was conceived as a permanent revolution, and revolution begins in the thinking mind. (333)
Shevek realises through the analogy of the cell that his duties and desires are not opposites, but align in bringing the best to his community. As long as his desires do not hurt or exploit the world around him, following his intuitions and thoughts are the best means to contribute. A society that forbids this, even out of the idealism of Odoniasm, has changed the concept of the cell as a metaphor for healthy individuals into the cells of a prison, with walls that cannot be broken, another central metaphor of The Dispossessed. This distinction Shevek makes between sacrifice and compromise is the core of the fates of McMurphy and Bartleby. Both sacrifice their lives in pursuing their uncompromising spirit of revolution, which shows why they succeed despite their demise.
Ursula K. Le Guin is most explicit in her commentary on revolution, since The Dispossessed centers around the theme of individual responsibility to the common good. Where Bea Wolf, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest and Bartleby the Scrivener all represent larger struggles against machinal oppression through individual revolution, The Dispossessed is explicitly about the social structure after the revolution. Its central lessons are that revolution is never finished and that every individual bears the responsibility of resisting structures that imprison people. When Shevek joins his old friend Dulap in a meeting of the Syndicate of Initiative in order to try and reopen Anarres to people from Unarres, the prejudice and habits of the Annaresti resist any change that might threaten the status quo (350-359). When the discussion derails into accusations towards Urrasiti “propertarians” and Shevek personally (358), he formulates his goal with the reopening of the settlement, which is to oppose the restrictions on Anarres:
“You see”, he said, “what we’re after is to remind ourselves that we didn’t come to Anarres for safety, but for freedom. If we must all agree, all work together, we’re no better than a machine. If an individual can’t work in solidarity with his fellows, it’s his duty to work alone. His duty and his right. We have been denying people that right. We ve been saying, more and more often, you must work with the others, you must accept the rule of the majority. But any rule is tyranny. The duty of the individual is to accept no rule, to be the initiator of his own acts, to be responsible. Only if he does so will the society live, and change, and adapt, and survive. We are not subjects of a State founded upon law, but members of a society founded upon revolution. Revolution is our obligation: our hope of evolution. ‘The Revolution is in the individual spirit, or it is nowhere. It is for all, or it is nothing. If it is seen as having any end, it will never truly begin.’” (359)
The language of evolution and survival mirrors Odo’s Analogy, but his insights have moved against the dogmatic Anarresti who force each other to conform to the rule of the majority. Revolution is not static, but ongoing, and it is every individual’s duty to resist opression, even if it is oppression in the name of shared betterment. This spirit of revolution, the individual’s dedication to justice, can be found in all the heroes of resistance: Bea Wolf, McMurphy and Bartlebly. They all resist as individuals, upsetting a status quo that limits, because it works as a “machine”, or as the Combine described by Bromden. Agents of machination and conformity can be explicitly evil, such as Grindl, or well-meaning, such as the narrator in Bartleby, but no individual should allow the rigidity of tyranny. Every individual is responsible for resisting oppression. Shevek, Bea Wolf, McMurphy and Bartleby all show paths that are true to their own spirit and successfully overthrow and undermine coercive and exploitative power structures, even if they do not always know how to define the ideals they are striving for. This shows that it is not necessary to have settled on a definitive solution to social problems before action can be initiated. In fact, it shows the opposite. Revolution against oppression is the duty of every individual, who can resist in the manner most suitable them. It is through the struggles of individuals that new alternatives become accessible to larger groups, who must then embody these alternatives in their own revolutions, sharing change until oppression has been eliminated.
As revolution is never finished, and the fight against oppressive power structures is perpetual, it is essential to find joy and freedom in revolution. In order to resist the constant threat to people’s freedoms, literature can picture heroes and revolutions that show the successes and sacrifices necessary to achieve the best possible world and thus inspire a spirit of joyful revolution in its readers, even when the end goals of revolution are difficult to imagine. Zach Wienersmith and Boulet show the determined rebellion of legendary children in their fight against Grindle, the agent of conformity and oppression, by flaunting their adventures and indomitable playfulness. They do not aim for a particular goal, but they recognise the restriction of their freedom and happiness, and break the hold Grindle has over them by playing, feasting and expressing their courage. Ken Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest shows that rebellion can inspire change in even the most timid and downtrodden people when McMurphy’s laughter and outrageous behaviour free Chief Bromden from the insecurities and inhibitions that have been imposed on him by a dismissive and cynical society, represented through him overcoming the Combine and escaping from the ward of Nurse Ratched. While Herman Melville’s Bartleby the Scrivener seems a melancholic tale of a broken individual, Bartleby nevertheless embodies the same spirit of resistance when he asserts his right not to do what he is asked. His end is without compromise, allowing him to show the absurdity of the society around him. Finally, Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Dispossessed shows that even after the revolution has led to “an ambiguous utopia”, every individual is still responsible for being true to the ideals of freedom for everyone while contributing to the community. Together, these works show that what is required of everyone is not to know where their revolutions lead, but to persist, joyfully if possible, in refusing to accept a world that is not yet a healthy organism for every cell to live in.
Works Cited List
Kesey, Ken. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Viking, 1962. Berkley, 2016.
Le Guin, Ursula K. The Dispossessed. Harper Collins, 1974. Harper Voyager, 2011.
Melville, Herman. “Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street.” The Piazza Tales, 1856. Melville’s Short Novels. Norton Critical Edition, 2002.
Weinersmith, Zach and Boulet. Bea Wolf. First Second, 2023.
Other Sources
Beckett, Samuel. Endgame. 1957.
Woolf, Virginia. “A Room of One’s Own.” 1928. A Room of One’s Own and the Voyage Out. Wordsworth Classics, 2012.
