Talk:One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel)/Archive 1

message: I think the book should have the main entry, since it came first and its what the movie is based on. --DrBat 12:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sign your vote with # ~~~~
===Support===
#I support the idea of making the book the primary article, but I would rather see the book article be located at "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel)" and the movie article be located at "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (movie)" with "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" redirecting to "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel)".   — Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 14:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
A disambiguation page might make sense here. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I would support a motion to have One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest be a disambiguation page for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel) and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (movie).   — Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 02:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And I notice you voted to move the novel article of OFotCN; why? There is the clear level of popularity in the movie that makes it obtain the exception as 2001 has. It has made much more money than the novels, it is far more popular, and it is one of the biggest Academy Award winners of all time. More people are going to go to the main article for movie information, you fail to realize. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I said why there.  If I went to that page, then I would want information on the book, but that is why I suggested a disambiguation. Sonic Mew | talk to me 17:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Point being? There is a SIGNIFICANT amount of people that would visit the article for information on the book movie. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You were denying that above. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course there are.  But that still leaves a big number of people wanting information on the book.  That's why a disambiguation would be a good idea. Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And that number is dwarfed by those who want information on the movie. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Can either of you produce evidence for your claims? In the end, though, it should not matter whether one format is mass media or not. More people would be interested in the book, if the movie wasn’t the only thing they ever heard about. The book is the better, and original work. If this can’t be resolved, we should consider putting the novel and movie articles back together into one.   — Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 19:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quality doesn't matter, it's popularity. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest made $100,000,000, and if ticket prices were what they are now, it would have made much more than that. I can honestly say that a lot of the people who saw the movie (which is more exposed to people) haven't heard of the book. A disambig page is not needed for a subject with two articles. Keep the movie on the main page, and link to the book page right away. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey does. And like how The Godfather links to the disambig page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is still the original work, though.  We aren't denying the popularity of the movie, but it makes much more sense to either have them both at one page, or to have the main page as a disambiguation.  Besides, I expect most people that have seen the movie have at least heard about the book. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we use the fact that 2001 uses the main article, as it is significantly more well-known. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Before we just keep repeating the same arguements over and over again, does anyone have anything else to add to the discussion? Sonic Mew | talk to me 06:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's alot of arguement about "original work" well i think its important to recognize that Kesey has said that he hated the film for straying from the boom completely and i tend to agree, except i dont hate the movie for it. He wasnt involved in the film process. So in terms of original work i'd consider both films to be original since the themes covered vary between the two. As such i think the current set up (where a querry presents the searcher with an option for both) to be quite good. --24.218.44.240 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: #I support the idea of making the book the primary article, but I would rather see the book article be located at "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel)" and the movie article be located at "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (movie)" with "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" redirecting to "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel)".   — Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 14:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # A Link to the Past (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Object

message: :Add any additional comments
A disambiguation page might make sense here. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a motion to have One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest be a disambiguation page for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel) and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (movie).   — Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 02:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And I notice you voted to move the novel article of OFotCN; why? There is the clear level of popularity in the movie that makes it obtain the exception as 2001 has. It has made much more money than the novels, it is far more popular, and it is one of the biggest Academy Award winners of all time. More people are going to go to the main article for movie information, you fail to realize. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I said why there.  If I went to that page, then I would want information on the book, but that is why I suggested a disambiguation. Sonic Mew | talk to me 17:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Point being? There is a SIGNIFICANT amount of people that would visit the article for information on the book movie. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You were denying that above. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course there are.  But that still leaves a big number of people wanting information on the book.  That's why a disambiguation would be a good idea. Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And that number is dwarfed by those who want information on the movie. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Can either of you produce evidence for your claims? In the end, though, it should not matter whether one format is mass media or not. More people would be interested in the book, if the movie wasn’t the only thing they ever heard about. The book is the better, and original work. If this can’t be resolved, we should consider putting the novel and movie articles back together into one.   — Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 19:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quality doesn't matter, it's popularity. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest made $100,000,000, and if ticket prices were what they are now, it would have made much more than that. I can honestly say that a lot of the people who saw the movie (which is more exposed to people) haven't heard of the book. A disambig page is not needed for a subject with two articles. Keep the movie on the main page, and link to the book page right away. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey does. And like how The Godfather links to the disambig page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is still the original work, though.  We aren't denying the popularity of the movie, but it makes much more sense to either have them both at one page, or to have the main page as a disambiguation.  Besides, I expect most people that have seen the movie have at least heard about the book. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we use the fact that 2001 uses the main article, as it is significantly more well-known. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Before we just keep repeating the same arguements over and over again, does anyone have anything else to add to the discussion? Sonic Mew | talk to me 06:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's alot of arguement about "original work" well i think its important to recognize that Kesey has said that he hated the film for straying from the boom completely and i tend to agree, except i dont hate the movie for it. He wasnt involved in the film process. So in terms of original work i'd consider both films to be original since the themes covered vary between the two. As such i think the current set up (where a querry presents the searcher with an option for both) to be quite good. --24.218.44.240 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: :Sign your vote with # ~~~~
===Support===
# Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Disambiguation

message: # Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: I can not read this talk page. Two polls about the same subject, and the second one is reallly difficult to interpret what the votes want. I can not see how this conclusion 
 
can be considered to be reached. Btw, I think the subject should be discussed before polling. I suggest we start from the top, and archive the old stuff to get a more readable talk page.
So, what are the objectives for having the novel, movie or the disambig page on the main entry? My personal take is the novel should have it. The novel and the movie are both very well-known, but the novel is the original work that the movie is based on. // Habj 20:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New start: novel / movie / disambig on the main entry? 

message: The entire Themes section is lifted directly from SparkNotes.com, word-for-word. Whomever added that content didn't even bother citing SparkNotes, let alone obtaining permission. That's lame. I'm deleting the entire section right now. --Sean Parmelee 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally unacceptable plagiarism on this page

message: I just noticed that Nurse Ratched doesn't have an entry in the Characters section (neither as main character or as staff member). Can someone add her? AbCarter 10:14, 6 september 2006 (CET)
:She actually has her own individual article. Bkatcher 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean she shouldn't be mentioned here. Pele Merengue 05:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nurse Ratched

message: There should be a small abstract of Nurse Ratched's character in the characters section, with a "See Nurse Ratched for more information" at the end. - Im.a.lumberjack 19:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nurse Ratched 

message: Should the Cheif be in the characters section?  I think probably heshould be up with RP MacMurphy
Eldonkeyo 04:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chief Bromden

message: Should we consider a Themes section?  There is certainly a large amount of pertinent information that isn't currently in the article. - Im.a.lumberjack 19:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes 

message: This article isn't in the right style. There's a bunch of interpretive comments throughout it. For instance, McMurphy's initials are "R.P.M" and it says he brings about "many revolutions." It looks like the article was lifted from somewhere else. --Howdybob 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style problem, commentary throughout article 

message: In my Penguin Modern Classics edition of this novel (), it has several sketches in it, all by Ken Kesey. I think a section on these sketches might be of some importance. <B>Troubleshooter</B> 22:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sketches 

message: In the introduction there is that not about the books epigraph. I believe that doesn't belong in the introduction of the article as it doesn't help summarize the rest of the article and should be removed. Thanks. Marlith T/C 19:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epigraph 

message: :Image:Cuckoo nest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cuckoo nest.jpg

message: Some of the plot of the book is confused with the plot of the movie.  I don't have time to read the whole book now, but I do remember that in the book McMurphy tricks the Chief into revealing that he can hear, while in the movie the Chief reveals that fact to McMurphy on his own.  I think the scene of McMurphy trying to lift the shower room control panel was in the movie and not in the book, but I am not sure.
:McMurphy did try to lift the shower control panel in the book in an effort to convince the inmates that they should resist, even if it seems hopeless.  In the book, McMurphy doesn't exactly trick the Chief into revealing he's not deaf, he just let's him know early on that he know's the Chief is acting.  The Chief still reveals that he can hear on his own, it just comes as no surprise to McMurphy. Bkatcher (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: I have just finished reading this book, and i don't recall there even being a confirmation, or even a hint, that Chief is a Skictzophrenic (sp?) since i cannot recall for sure, i will leave it as is, but i would appreciate someone confirming this fact.
Added. --0beron 30 August 2006
The fact that the Chief was a normal young man who suddenly, after the death of his father, started suffering from hallucinations, makes him seem somewhat schizophrenic.  As to a real diagnosis, that remains to be seen. Bkatcher 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chief's condition 

message: Both the Ken Kesey and the Counterculture articles say Kesey volunteered as a subject at Menlo Park, not worked as an orderly.  I can't verify which is true, so I'm not going to edit, but can anyone else find a credible source? Livitup 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working as an orderly? 

message: Where is the evidence that McMurphy is racist and sexist?
On p.229, in the shower scene, McMurphy calls Washington a "Goddamned Motherf***ing N*****"(uncensored in text) Evidence for Racism Bobokapi (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While that is definitely a sign of racism, it was a different time - calling a black person a nigger could reflect on your hatred of that person or a hatred of all black people. It's still too speculative, however, to declare that he has anything against black people. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

text: He doesn't have anything against black people in general, the only reason he said it was because he wanted to get under the skin of the male nurses, who had been abusing their power. The same thing applies to your claim that he's sexist; he doesn't hate women, just Nurse Ratched, and so he feigns misogyny in order to provoke her and thus weaken her power over the other patients.  --Heslopian (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist and sexist? 

message: The whole Christ allusion description in the plot summary section is totally subjective and interpretive and has no place in a synopsis, especially when presented in an empirical manner. To be included (if at all) it should be in a separate section labelled /analysis AND include critical or primary sources to back it up, not presented as fact by an anonymous editor. This subjective POV stance also extends to claiming Nurse Ratched wanted Billy Bibbit to commit suicide. At no point is this made implicit or explicit in the book, just that she callously and unprofessionally wanted to cause him guilt and fear to reclaim power over him. His suicide is what causes her to LOSE control, not reclaim it. Similar arguments can be levied at the passage about The Chief euthanising MacMurphy. Reading on this whole artice reads like somebody's bad English dissertation and is full of psuedo-academic and personal interpretation over fact and content and is not an encyclopedic article at all. (unsigned)
:Also: "Harding is an intelligent, good-looking man who is ashamed of his repressed homosexuality."
:"He frightens McMurphy by talking about the people who 'need [McMurphy] to see them,' that is, the people who need McMurphy to stand up for them."
:...lolwut?  These sound like bullshit to me, but I'm putting "citation needed" for a while in case some one can back them up BlueRaja (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Subjective POV presented as fact

message: I was wondering if it would be a good idea to put an explanation of the title in the article, I saw the movie but haven't read the book. Maybe somebody who has could just say a sentence about where it comes from? --yoshi 00:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the article about the book. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I think it would be a good idea, if we all included our favorite quotes from the book.
:That's not really a standard wikipedia practice. Bkatcher (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: The analytical sections, 'Background', 'Title' and 'Main characters', are very interesting. Unfortunately, they aren't allowed in Wikipedia per WP:V unless they can be attributed to reputable sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.154.70 (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:V 

message: I find it very strange that the article about such a highly significant work contains nothing about how it was received by critics, and, as can be seen by the "Further reading" list, it has been the subject of considerable academic analysis and commentary, which is also not mentioned in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Criticism or Analysis? 

message: could you include a link to a site that would further explain what a peckin party is an why it happens please
The Synopsis section makes references to the shower panel, which was in the movie. In the book, the control panel was more of a Punch card Computer than controlled the ward, and was located in the Nurses Station; not the shower room as said in the Synopsis. (05 - 05 - 12  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.65.168 (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The control panel in the book was a huge console that controlled the water in the no-longer-used hydrotherapy room, the room the patients used as a game room. It's different from the nurse's control console in her little station. Bkatcher (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Following Bkatcher, it is referred to in the novel as the "tub room" not the shower room.  I am changing "shower room" to "defunct hydrotherapy treatment room" in the synopsis.IcehouseCover (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: I tire of reading half-hashed, poorly written plot synopses of books I love.  For some reason, this page caught my attention today.  I made some edits I hope improve the encyclopedic tone of this particular article, and have posted my list of edits and their reasoning below.
::"The book is narrated by "Chief" Bromden, a gigantic and docile half-Native American inmate who is -(thought to be) +(presents himself)*1 deaf and mute. Bromden’s (tale)+*2 focuses mainly on the antics of the rebellious Randle Patrick McMurphy, who faked insanity to serve his sentence for battery and gambling in the hospital-(,)*3 rather than in prison, -+(for battery and gambling)*4.  The head administrative nurse, Mildred Ratched, rules the ward with a mailed fist and with little medical oversight.  She is assisted by her three black day-shift orderlies, and her assistant doctors.
::McMurphy constantly antagonizes Nurse Ratched and upsets the routines +(of the ward)*5, leading to constant power struggles between the inmate and the nurse. He runs a card table, captains the ward's basketball team, comments on Nurse Ratched's figure, incites the other patients -(on the ward)*6 to conduct a vote -(on)+(about)*7 watching the World Series on television, and organizes an unsupervised deep sea fishing trip. His reaction after claiming to be able to and subsequently failing to lift a heavy control panel in the defunct hydrotherapy room (referred to as the "tub room") – "But at least I tried." – gives the men incentive to try to stand up for themselves, -(and to do their best)*8 instead of allowing Nurse Ratched to take control of -(everything they do) +( every aspect of their lives).*9  The Chief opens up to McMurphy, -(and reveals)+(revealing)*10 late one night that he can speak and hear. A disturbance after the fishing trip results in McMurphy and the Chief being sent for electroshock therapy sessions, but even this -(experience)+(punishment)*11 does little to tamp down McMurphy's rambunctious behavior.
::One night, after bribing the night orderly, McMurphy smuggles two prostitute girlfriends with liquor onto the ward, and breaks into the pharmacy for codeine cough syrup, and later unnamed psychiatric medications. McMurphy persuades one of the women to seduce Billy Bibbit, a timid, boyish patient with a terrible stutter and little experience with women, so he can lose his virginity. Although McMurphy plans to escape before the morning shift starts, he and the other patients instead fall asleep without cleaning up the mess (of the group’s antics)*12, and the +(morning)*13 staff -(finds)+(discovers)*14 the ward in complete disarray. Nurse Ratched finds Billy and the prostitute in each other's arms, partially dressed, and admonishes him. Billy asserts himself for the first time, answering Nurse Ratched without stuttering. Ratched calmly threatens to tell Billy's mother what she has seen. Billy has an emotional -(breakdown and,)+(breakdown, and)*15 once left alone in the doctor's office, commits suicide by cutting his throat. Nurse Ratched blames McMurphy for the loss of Billy's life. Enraged at what she has done to Billy, McMurphy attacks -(her)+(Ratched)*16 -(and attempts) (,)+17* (attempting)*18 to strangle her to death+(,)-(and tears)+(tearing)*19 off her uniform, (and)+*20 revealing her breasts to the patients and aides watching. –(He has to be dragged away from her and is moved to the Disturbed ward.)+(McMurphy is physically restrained, and moved to the Disturbed ward.)*21
::Nurse Ratched misses a week of work due to her injuries, during which time many of the patients either transfer to other wards +(,)22 or check out of the hospital forever. When she returns, she cannot speak, and is thus deprived of her most potent tool to keep the men in line. -(Most of the patients leave shortly after this event.)*23 –(Later, after)+(With)*24 Bromden, Martini, and Scanlon –(are)*25 the only patients who attended the boat trip left on the ward, McMurphy is brought back in. He has received a lobotomy+(,)*26 and is now in a vegetative state, +(rendering him)*27 silent and motionless. The Chief smothers McMurphy with a pillow during the night in an act of mercy-(,)*28 before throwing the tub room control panel, the same one McMurphy could not lift earlier, through a window, and escaping the hospital."
*1 (thought to be) by whom?  Those who see him on the ward? Himself?  Vague language.
*2 Bromden does not entirely focus on Bromden, but does focus the bulk of his narrative around this individual.  Important distinction which allows Bromden’s own character development.
*3 Superfluous comma
*4 Moved before 3
*5 Added to clarify
*6 Removing awkward repetition within same sentence
*7 Changing preposition here to prevent immediate nesting of preposition in repetition.
*8 Weak wording.  Eliminating.
*9 Weak wording.  Clarified.
*10 Tense issue.
*11 Diction issue.  
*12 Clarified.  There is no description of what needed to be cleaned up or a mess being created prior to this.  Confusing without qualification.
*13  There are numerous references to “staff” in immediate surrounding sentences.  Adding this to clarify.
*14 “Finds” is used at the beginning of the next sentence.  Awkward repetition.  Replaced with more elucidative synonym.
*15 Corrected misunderstanding/misuse of the placement of comma and conjunction.
*16 Pronoun replaced for clarity of sentence.
*17 Conjunction and noun removed, and Comma added in tense change
*18 Verb moved and tense changed.  See 17
*19 Comma added and tense corrected
*20 Conjunction added in line with tense changes
*21 Removed sentence with vague pronouns and replaced with alternative.
*22 Comma added
*23 Seems redundant and confusing to flow.
*24 Changing for clarity
*25 Removal in line with 24
*26 Comma added
*27 I’m reluctant here.  I nearly wanted to add a comma after “silent” in the original text, but decided to add “rendering him” to preserve the compound description “silent and motionless” in the spirit of modern grammar.
*28  Removing comma.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IcehouseCover (talk • contribs) 23:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Summary Overhaul 

message: This novel appears on the list at Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls), and I can't for the life of me work out why. Anyone have any idea? Faerie Queene (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a specific incident where Nurse Ratched attempts to get responses in group therapy, resulting in multiple patients admitting to pedophilia and incest.IcehouseCover (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate Categorisation?

message: Someone said Cheswick's death wasn't a suicide, but it's really implied that it was.  He tells McMurphy how disappointed he is that McMurphy has decided to toe the line, dives into the pool, and wedges his fingers into the grate.  McMurphy, the lifeguard, and the aides can't pull him out and he drowns.  When Billy kills himself, the nurse blames McMurphy for Cheswick's death as well.  I really think it was suicide.  Anyone else have any thoughts? Bkatcher (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Cheswick's death is suicide.  The inclusion of the incident alone suggest parallel importance to the structure of the narrative, and foreshadows future death.IcehouseCover (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheswick's Death

message: In the Summary section, the first sentence of paragraph three reads:
"One night, after bribing the night orderly, McMurphy breaks into the pharmacy and smuggles bottles of liquor and two prostitute girlfriends onto the ward."
Do we know the two young women were prostitutes?  Speaking as a man who enjoys sex and who had to fight very hard against the indoctrination of his rigid Roman Catholic schooling in order to be able to do so, I resent the hypocrisy which says that, if a woman enjoys sex and if she is not faithful to one man, she is a prostitute.  
It is a long time since I read the book, so I cannot remember if Ken Kesey explicitly stated that the two young women with McMurphy were prostitutes.  Unless he did so, I believe the word prostitute is pejorative in this context and that it should be removed.  
I am not against prostitutes in general.  As I mentioned, I had a Roman Catholic education.  I required the help and assistance of a small army of prostitutes to overcome it!  I required their help and assistance to liberate myself.  They were all very fine ladies (with one or two notable exceptions).  I am proud to have know them.  Nevertheless, I do not like the implication that any woman who would have sex with someone like Randle McMurphy (and or Billy Bibbit) must be a prostitute.  Although the circumstances under which Candy has sex with Billy are unusual, to say the least, I don't recall any money changing hands.
P.S.  For those who feel my final paragraph, above, is "too much information", I reply, I wish you to know exactly where I am coming from when I object to the word "prostitute" in this context.    Richard Gillard (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They are prostitutes. When arranging the fishing trip, MacMurphy tells the big nurse they will be accompanied by his old aunts, then tells the Chief and George they are actually hookers. And he charges Billy money to sleep with Candy. Bkatcher (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Bkatcher is correct about the first mention of Candy being a prostitute.  Why would someone not look back to the text before expounding in near sanctimonious tone on a point of contention that is absolutely moot?  There WAS money that changed hands.  Billy complained to McMurphy of feeling he was being taken advantage of for the rate being charged (a direct response to a seed planted in the patients' minds by Ratched).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IcehouseCover (talk • contribs) 02:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Prostitutes 

message: I'd like to see some explanation for why the book shifts from present to past tense in several places. I couldn't understand the pattern when I read it. Yeanold Viskersenn 23:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bkatcher, but would also add that the use of tenses is a specific literary device deliberately employed.  Examining the transitions of tense reveals artful quality of the story.IcehouseCover (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Narrative style and tense

message: The plot summary was recently rewritten to better describe the "tone and intent of the contents of the story". While I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's rulings by any means, I don't believe rewriting the summary to just show this interpretation is all that great, but even if it's fine the plot summary is just too long, far too detailed, and very biased. I think it should probably be reverted to the previous version. Promestein (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Summary