Some Positive Class Analysis

In the course of our history as AP English students, we as a whole have become a fairly critical bunch.  When we discuss characters in the novels we read or the world around us, we tend to use our analytical skills to find flaws in these areas.  However, in class today, we gave McMurphy a fairly favorable review.  We hypothesized that he was attempting to help the patients as he felt more hopeless with his stay at the ward, and saw him as something of a martyr for how he selflessly attempted to teach those around him a lesson in self confidence.  At the start of tonight’s reading, however, McMurphy’s fellow patients gave him a much less favorable review- they began to see him as a selfish individual eager to con them out of their money.  This made me extremely curious- why had we taken it so easy on McMurphy?  Why had we not, as we do with most characters in the novels we read, assume his intentions impure, when those in the novel were so quick to judge him this way?  After thinking on this for a few hours, I came up with an idea- McMurphy is the leader of a rebel movement, going against authority, and a all around likeable character.  I think, for once, we want to believe that he truly wants what’s best for his peers and admire his rebellious spirit, and, as such, give him a less critical review.  It will be interesting to see if, by the end of the novel, he deserves the positive analysis we gave him, and what it will end up saying about us for seeing him this way.  I also wonder how this will affect the book’s overall purpose- will McMurphy stand as a synecdoche of individuals who rise to the occasion, or those who bring up the hopes of those around them, only to bring them crashing down in the end?