Well here we are: the third and final blog entry for Catch-22. The good news is I’ve finally gotten a handle of the five-million characters in the novel. The bad news is….actually, there is no bad news. Here’s some more observations on Catch-22:
1.
Besides its sardonic wit, one of the most noteworthy aspects of Catch-22 is the use of the suspension of time and reality. By crafting a plot that does not follow chronologically and does not come full circle until the end of the novel, Heller is able to highlight the sense of skewed reality created by war and keep the reader in the dark about aspects of Yossarian’s true nature.
Throughout the novel, Heller uses representations of people and things in place of the actual object in order to twist reality. Names stand in place of actual characters and create confusion. For example, Major Major has an identity crisis when he finds out in kindergarten that his name is not Caleb Major, and Yossarian instigates a full investigation when he assumes the pseudonym “Washington Irving” to censor letters. In the letters themselves, Yossarian “obliterates” modifiers, punctuation, and names of people and places, as though they were actual objects. Furthermore, Yossarian postpones the attack on Bologna by moving the line on the map, creating the illusion that the city had already fallen. By referring to actual things by mere representations, Heller furthers the sense of confusion in wartime.
2.
While reading, I found a quote that completely sums up Yossarian’s views on war and mortality:
“Catastrophes were lurking everywhere, too numerous to count. When he contemplated the many diseases and potential accidents threatening him, he was positively astounded that he had managed to survive in good health for as long as he had. It war miraculous. Each day he faced was another dangerous mission against mortality. And he had been surviving them for twenty-eight years (175).
3.
Yossarian is often identified with the powerless everyman in war, subject to the whims of his superiors; however, it is Yossarian who is responsible for virtually every major event and catastrophe in the novel. Yossarian’s signing of “Washington Irving” to letters creates a world of trouble for Major Major. He indirectly poisons all of the men in the camp with soap flakes, provides the fruit for Milo’s business dealings, postpones the attack on Bologna, kills Kraft and the rest of his crew over Ferrara, and gets the chaplain kicked out of the captain’s club. The novel’s convoluted and discontinuous plot keep the reader in the dark about Yossarian’s true abilities until he is fully able to realize them at the end of the novel.
4.
Something else I noticed while reading Catch-22 was the frustratingly absolute nature of the corrupt military administration that causes all of the problems. Colonel Cathcart is able to arbitrarily increase the number of missions in order to simultaneously increase his reputation among his superiors. War so completely changes reality that even doctors are disillusioned about saving lives, as Doc Dankeea says, “It’s not my business to save lives” (174). Yossarian turns against religion, saying that God isn’t “working at all. He’s playing. Or else He’s forgotten all about us” (179).
5.
And I still think the novel is one of the funniest things I have ever read.
And here are some sources:
The Night Journey in Catch-22
Minna Doskow
Twentieth Century Literature, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Jan., 1967), pp. 186-193
Published by: Hofstra University
"Catch-22" and the Language of Discontinuity
Gary W. Davis
NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 66-77
Published by: Novel Corp., Brown University
"It Was All Yossarian's Fault" Power and Responsibility in Catch-22
Stephen L. Sniderman
Twentieth Century Literature, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 251-258
Published by: Hofstra University
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
You Must Be Crazy
I read a good portion of Catch-22 while sitting on a train in New Jersey. It was quite lovely, zipping past huge flowering trees and fields of grass while reading a classic American novel. How romantic. I will admit I was constantly forced to refocus my attention on Catch-22 and away from the flora of the American Northeast.
But anyway, I’ve found that Catch-22 discuses how the experience of war alters our perception of sanity. Heller uses the words “crazy” and “insane” many times throughout the text, especially in the dialogue between the characters. Clevinger yells, “You must be crazy!” (20, Nately asks Yossarian, “are you crazy?” (125), and Havermeyer additionally tells Yossarian, “you must be crazy” (47). Even a light bulb is described as “swinging crazily on its loose wire” (130). Heller’s constant repetition of this idea signifies the importance of insanity in the text.
Although the other characters in the novel view Yossarian as being mad, his is the most appropriate response to war. A captain whose goal is to avoid flying the ever-changing number of required missions, he is one of the few characters who seems to understand the realities of war. He says, “They’re trying to kill me” (16), and argues that even though everyone is being shot at, people whom he does not even know are trying to kill him. He is one of the only characters who questions the arbitrary decisions of the military bureaucracy, saying of Colonel Catchcart, “He never sends anyone home, anyway. He just keeps them around waiting for rotation orders until he doesn’t have enough men left for the crews, and then raises the number of missions and throws them all back on combat status.” (102).
Similarly, the characters who are in positions of power are the ones who are the most out of their minds. Captain Black’s Glorious Loyaty Oath Crusade is excessive to say the least (112), and the only time Major Major feels good about his decisions is when he has lied (97). When Clevinger is put on trial, Major Metcalf and Lieutenant Scheisskopf (I looked up the meaning of his name—a comment on military administration in itself) make little sense and treat Clevinger completely unfairly (75).
The crazy, backwards logic of “Catch-22” itself is a testament to the mixed-up nature of war. According to Catch-22, insanity constitutes grounds upon which a soldier can be discharged, but he must ask to be released; however, as soon as he asks, he is proven to be sane. Thus, the army is full of crazy people like Hungry Joe who probably should not be handling planes or guns.
Through Catch-22, Heller is able to comment on the insanity of both the administration in war and the effect combat has on the soldiers. By portraying the characters that are the most “crazy” as the ones whose responses are the most appropriate, he paints a chaotic picture that reveals much about the nature of war.
P.S. Mr Coon: I am currently out of town and am having trouble accessing JStor. As such, I will have my sources up on my next blog. Thanks, Lauren.
But anyway, I’ve found that Catch-22 discuses how the experience of war alters our perception of sanity. Heller uses the words “crazy” and “insane” many times throughout the text, especially in the dialogue between the characters. Clevinger yells, “You must be crazy!” (20, Nately asks Yossarian, “are you crazy?” (125), and Havermeyer additionally tells Yossarian, “you must be crazy” (47). Even a light bulb is described as “swinging crazily on its loose wire” (130). Heller’s constant repetition of this idea signifies the importance of insanity in the text.
Although the other characters in the novel view Yossarian as being mad, his is the most appropriate response to war. A captain whose goal is to avoid flying the ever-changing number of required missions, he is one of the few characters who seems to understand the realities of war. He says, “They’re trying to kill me” (16), and argues that even though everyone is being shot at, people whom he does not even know are trying to kill him. He is one of the only characters who questions the arbitrary decisions of the military bureaucracy, saying of Colonel Catchcart, “He never sends anyone home, anyway. He just keeps them around waiting for rotation orders until he doesn’t have enough men left for the crews, and then raises the number of missions and throws them all back on combat status.” (102).
Similarly, the characters who are in positions of power are the ones who are the most out of their minds. Captain Black’s Glorious Loyaty Oath Crusade is excessive to say the least (112), and the only time Major Major feels good about his decisions is when he has lied (97). When Clevinger is put on trial, Major Metcalf and Lieutenant Scheisskopf (I looked up the meaning of his name—a comment on military administration in itself) make little sense and treat Clevinger completely unfairly (75).
The crazy, backwards logic of “Catch-22” itself is a testament to the mixed-up nature of war. According to Catch-22, insanity constitutes grounds upon which a soldier can be discharged, but he must ask to be released; however, as soon as he asks, he is proven to be sane. Thus, the army is full of crazy people like Hungry Joe who probably should not be handling planes or guns.
Through Catch-22, Heller is able to comment on the insanity of both the administration in war and the effect combat has on the soldiers. By portraying the characters that are the most “crazy” as the ones whose responses are the most appropriate, he paints a chaotic picture that reveals much about the nature of war.
P.S. Mr Coon: I am currently out of town and am having trouble accessing JStor. As such, I will have my sources up on my next blog. Thanks, Lauren.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
HAHA....I don't get it.
As of right now, I am really enjoying Catch-22. It is absolutely hilarious, but in that “intellectual I have to go back a re-read that sentence to fully get the joke” kind of way. The book’s hilarity lies in the sarcastic tone in which Joseph Heller describes the horrors of war. Nothing is safe from his dark humor,
I will admit, the book was a little difficult to get into. Yossarian, Dunbar, Clevinger, Orr, and all of the others appear to make little sense and talk about seemingly random things; however, after reading more, I began to realize that Heller discusses events from multiple perspectives. For example, the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade that is mentioned in passing at the beginning of the book is not fully explained until Chapter 11. Additionally, there are so many characters that it is hard to keep them all straight. Everyone is a Colonel or a Major or has such a small role when first mentioned that I forget all about him by the time he appears later on in the book.
The story is focused on the bombardier Yossarian, a man who is constantly trying to get out of flying his never-ending number of missions. He is one of the only characters who questions the hierarchy of the military, the arbitrary nature of command, and the ridiculousness of war. During one of his vain attempts to get out of flying, Major Major asks him if he would like to see his country lose the war. Yossarian replies, “We won’t lose. We’ve got more men, more money and more material. There are ten million men in uniform who could replace me. Some people are getting killed and a lot more are making money and having fun. Let somebody else get killed” (103). His observations can come across as joking (although not so much in this example) but give depth to the story.
It is Heller’s astute observations that give a dark edge to his humor. His descriptions of the characters such as Major Major Major Major who “had a difficult time from the start” (82) literally had me laughing out loud as I read the book. Heller’s humor can be very telling, however. For example, when, before the “Bologna incident,” Dr. Stubbs says, “I used to get a big kick out of saving people’s lives. Now I wonder what the hell’s the point, since they all have to die anyway” (109). In the context of the up-beat conversation, the comment is slightly funny but speaks of the cruel realities of war.
And then there’s the issues of “Catch-22,” a contradiction that prevents men from ever leaving the army. Yossarian describes it simply by saying, “That’s some catch, that Catch-22” (46). The confusing paradox speaks to the twisted and misleading nature of the army administration itself. The army administration is embodied in Colonel Cathcart, the man who arbitrarily increases the number of flights each bombardier must go on and who appoints Major Major to squadron commander and forces him into the life of a recluse. In other words, Cathcart is “the man.”
The true essence of Catch-22 comes from Heller’s satiric sense of humor. The irony with which he approaches all aspects of the book allows him to effectively criticize the mechanisms of war through a fast-paced story. I don’t think I’ll have any trouble getting through the book, as long as I find a way to keep all of the characters straight. (577)
I will admit, the book was a little difficult to get into. Yossarian, Dunbar, Clevinger, Orr, and all of the others appear to make little sense and talk about seemingly random things; however, after reading more, I began to realize that Heller discusses events from multiple perspectives. For example, the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade that is mentioned in passing at the beginning of the book is not fully explained until Chapter 11. Additionally, there are so many characters that it is hard to keep them all straight. Everyone is a Colonel or a Major or has such a small role when first mentioned that I forget all about him by the time he appears later on in the book.
The story is focused on the bombardier Yossarian, a man who is constantly trying to get out of flying his never-ending number of missions. He is one of the only characters who questions the hierarchy of the military, the arbitrary nature of command, and the ridiculousness of war. During one of his vain attempts to get out of flying, Major Major asks him if he would like to see his country lose the war. Yossarian replies, “We won’t lose. We’ve got more men, more money and more material. There are ten million men in uniform who could replace me. Some people are getting killed and a lot more are making money and having fun. Let somebody else get killed” (103). His observations can come across as joking (although not so much in this example) but give depth to the story.
It is Heller’s astute observations that give a dark edge to his humor. His descriptions of the characters such as Major Major Major Major who “had a difficult time from the start” (82) literally had me laughing out loud as I read the book. Heller’s humor can be very telling, however. For example, when, before the “Bologna incident,” Dr. Stubbs says, “I used to get a big kick out of saving people’s lives. Now I wonder what the hell’s the point, since they all have to die anyway” (109). In the context of the up-beat conversation, the comment is slightly funny but speaks of the cruel realities of war.
And then there’s the issues of “Catch-22,” a contradiction that prevents men from ever leaving the army. Yossarian describes it simply by saying, “That’s some catch, that Catch-22” (46). The confusing paradox speaks to the twisted and misleading nature of the army administration itself. The army administration is embodied in Colonel Cathcart, the man who arbitrarily increases the number of flights each bombardier must go on and who appoints Major Major to squadron commander and forces him into the life of a recluse. In other words, Cathcart is “the man.”
The true essence of Catch-22 comes from Heller’s satiric sense of humor. The irony with which he approaches all aspects of the book allows him to effectively criticize the mechanisms of war through a fast-paced story. I don’t think I’ll have any trouble getting through the book, as long as I find a way to keep all of the characters straight. (577)
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Art of Losing (may or may not be hard to master)
In her poem “One Art,” Elizabeth Bishop explores the struggle of coping with loss. She utilizes a variation of the villanelle as a vehicle for demonstrating the gap between her outward portrayal of her feelings and what she really means. At first glance, the poem appears to be a spiteful renunciation of her relationship, an almost writing-off of the pain of love lost; however, a shift in tone and a deviation from the standard rules of the villanelle in the sixth stanza of the poem indicate a different sentiment.
The first five stanzas of “One Art” are told in a firm, determined tone. Bishop is so adamant in her belief that “the art of losing isn’t hard to master,” that she repeats it three times in the first fifteen lines of the poem. Only in the final stanza does Bishop’s resolute attitude falter. Subtle changes in the repeated lines of the poem reveal her true feelings. She pauses (as denoted by the dash) before beginning to talk about “losing you.” Rather than her classic adage, she says, “it’s evident the art of losing’s not too hard to master.” When saying “it’s evident,” it is almost as though she is trying convince herself of the insignificance of her loss. By saying it’s “not too hard to master,” she concedes that the mastery of “the art of losing” was somewhat difficult. Furthermore, when she says “Even losing you,” she gives the reader yet another clue as to how much she valued the love.
Throughout the poem, Bishop lists things she has lost. As the poem progresses, the size and importance of the lost possessions increases. They go from the mundane, such as door keys and a watch, to the more complex, like places and names, to “vast” realms and cities, and finally, to love. That Bishop builds the poem to culminate with the loss of love demonstrates the importance she places on it even though she addresses each item with a similar nonchalance. Although she would like us to believe otherwise, Bishop does not really view house keys and love as being comparable; however, through such comparisons she attempts to convince herself that they are equals as a means of coping with the overwhelming loss.
As per classic villanelle conventions, the final line of each stanza is an alternating word of opposing meaning (think back to the repetition of “night” and “light” in “Do Not Go Quietly into That Good Night”). Bishop is either the “master” of her pain or it will cause “disaster.” Only in the final line is this pattern broken when Bishop repeats the word “disaster” alluding to her true feelings. Also in the final line of the poem, the speaker interrupts herself with a parenthetical command, one that is italicized, capitalized, and followed by an exclamation point. Clearly, it is an important interjection. By having to order herself to “Write it!” it is as though she is resistant to saying that losing a love is not hard to master, but forces herself to do so.
“One Art” demonstrates a method of coping with the pain of loss. By convincing herself that the loss of a love was “not a disaster,” and trivializing and masking her grief, Bishop forces herself to survive. By using an altered villanelle form, she draws attentions to the clues that reveal her true feelings, giving the reader insight into what she really means.
Discussion Questions:
1. What does Bishop mean by the cities, realms, rivers, and continent? Should these possessions be meant literally? If not, what do they represent?
2. What do you think Bishop means when she says “I shan’t have lied”?
3. Do you think the speaker has successfully convinced herself?
4. How is the speaker portrayed? Do you like her or dislike her by the end of the poem?
The first five stanzas of “One Art” are told in a firm, determined tone. Bishop is so adamant in her belief that “the art of losing isn’t hard to master,” that she repeats it three times in the first fifteen lines of the poem. Only in the final stanza does Bishop’s resolute attitude falter. Subtle changes in the repeated lines of the poem reveal her true feelings. She pauses (as denoted by the dash) before beginning to talk about “losing you.” Rather than her classic adage, she says, “it’s evident the art of losing’s not too hard to master.” When saying “it’s evident,” it is almost as though she is trying convince herself of the insignificance of her loss. By saying it’s “not too hard to master,” she concedes that the mastery of “the art of losing” was somewhat difficult. Furthermore, when she says “Even losing you,” she gives the reader yet another clue as to how much she valued the love.
Throughout the poem, Bishop lists things she has lost. As the poem progresses, the size and importance of the lost possessions increases. They go from the mundane, such as door keys and a watch, to the more complex, like places and names, to “vast” realms and cities, and finally, to love. That Bishop builds the poem to culminate with the loss of love demonstrates the importance she places on it even though she addresses each item with a similar nonchalance. Although she would like us to believe otherwise, Bishop does not really view house keys and love as being comparable; however, through such comparisons she attempts to convince herself that they are equals as a means of coping with the overwhelming loss.
As per classic villanelle conventions, the final line of each stanza is an alternating word of opposing meaning (think back to the repetition of “night” and “light” in “Do Not Go Quietly into That Good Night”). Bishop is either the “master” of her pain or it will cause “disaster.” Only in the final line is this pattern broken when Bishop repeats the word “disaster” alluding to her true feelings. Also in the final line of the poem, the speaker interrupts herself with a parenthetical command, one that is italicized, capitalized, and followed by an exclamation point. Clearly, it is an important interjection. By having to order herself to “Write it!” it is as though she is resistant to saying that losing a love is not hard to master, but forces herself to do so.
“One Art” demonstrates a method of coping with the pain of loss. By convincing herself that the loss of a love was “not a disaster,” and trivializing and masking her grief, Bishop forces herself to survive. By using an altered villanelle form, she draws attentions to the clues that reveal her true feelings, giving the reader insight into what she really means.
Discussion Questions:
1. What does Bishop mean by the cities, realms, rivers, and continent? Should these possessions be meant literally? If not, what do they represent?
2. What do you think Bishop means when she says “I shan’t have lied”?
3. Do you think the speaker has successfully convinced herself?
4. How is the speaker portrayed? Do you like her or dislike her by the end of the poem?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
