Cents? Who kneads it?

Compared to other "classic" novels, Catch-22 is striking. It is also hilarious. It is hilariously striking.

It is striking in the sense that many of its paradoxical conundrums are so out of this world that they cannot be taken seriously; but at the same they make perfect logical sense. Heller does an extraordinary job of taking ridiculous situations and pulling very legitimate social critiques out of them. Beneath Yossarian's fearful and dread-filled anecdotes of the war lies a kind of sick hilarity. And it is beneath that hilarity that many perplexing questions lie.

Through the loose timeline of the book, each chapter tells a sort of mini-story. Although not chronologically-bound to the thread story, the mini-stories end up eventually tying into the bigger picture. Each chapter adds an insight that makes the grand scheme of things slightly clearer-- although not necessarily make any more sense.

The novel has no real plot. But that is the plot. See, the plot of the story is that there is no plot. While reading I have to make sense out of things that make no sense.... I love it (and I love this)! Heller wrote the book with the purpose of adding his own two cents into every chapter that internally makes no sense. Through the mayhem, I try and figure out Heller's purpose. And the ride through the mayhem is a grand ole time. It is gloriously fun.

I have a serious job on my hands to write a paper that does this wonderful book justice. But I have come this far in my thinking: Any paper that encapsulates Catch-22 shouldn't make any sense-- at least in the sense of how a traditional paper makes sense. Don't get me wrong...my paper will have serious points, but I'm not going to go on a traditional path. Catch-22 deserves something out of the ordinary.
If you’re confused, then I’m glad. That’s the fun of Catch-22 and I hope to capture it.

Laertes: Not as Bad as Hamlet

Laertes is not a villan. It's simple as that. He fights Hamlet for legitimate reasons, essentially the same exact reasons Hamlet fights Claudius. Laertes has such drive and passion to kill Hamlet because he must avenge his father's (Polonius) death. Hamlet empathizes with both the emotional feelings and the situation Laertes is in. In Act V Scene II, Hamlet expresses how he is "very sorry ... that to Laertes [he] forgot himself. For by the image of [his] cause [he] sees the portraiture of [Laertes’s].” Even Hamlet, the very man whom Laertes wants to kill, understands that Laertes cause is a justified and noble one.

Although Laertes resorts to the use of a poisoned foil tip, he for the most part acts nobly while trying to get revenge upon Hamlet. Laertes goes so far as to give the Prince a duel with odds in Hamlet’s favor. Upon his own death, Laertes states, “I am justly killed with mine own treachery.” Laertes does use treachery and questionable methods to exact his revenge, but doesn’t Hamlet do that as well?

Hamlet kills the innocent Polonius, sends Guildenstern and Rosencrantz to their deaths, and interferes with a mourning Laertes as a brother laments the loss of his sister. Hamlet has actions that a just as dubious as Laertes, if not more so. So if you consider Laertes a villain, is Hamlet not also a villain?

Just Do What's Right (Antigone by Sophocles)

Sophocles riddles this play with moral dilemmas. Not just Antigone, but nearly every major character is faced with a tough decision somewhere in the play. Each character supplies a rationalization for their heart-tearing choice, usually in the form of a justification to another character with an opposing viewpoint.

The audience can feel the anguish and internal turmoil of Ismene when she must either forsake her brother’s burial ritual or disobey the law. She loves her brother and wishes the best for him in the afterlife, but she finds herself unable to help Antigone since she deems herself “helpless” before authority. She explains to Antigone that her own punishment, which would be death, is not the right method with which to demonstrate her love for Polyneices. If Ismene saved her brother’s body and appeased the gods but died in the process, would that make her deceased brother rest in peace? Would Polyneices want his sister to give her life in order for him to rest in peace, or would he rather have her live her own life in happiness? There is no definitive answer to this dilemma, as shown by Antigone and Ismene during their exchange in the Prolouge.

Scene III begins with Haiman displaying his utter and complete obedience to his father. Haimon repeatedly states how much he values Creon’s judgments and explains how “no marriage means more to [him] than [his father’s] continuing wisdom.” At the start of the scene, Haimon is willingly able to surrender his love for Antigone in return for his father’s approval. By the end of the scene, nothing could be farther from the truth. Following their argument, Haimon curses and defies his father, “you will never see my face again.”

So what happened? What brought about Haimon’s attitude reversal so quickly? In his monologue, Haimon respectfully pleas that Creon realize his opinion is not alone in the right. In a subordinate fashion, Haimon tells the King to not be unchangeable or unyielding to overwhelming reason. Haimon explains that it is a folly to not “learn from those who can teach.” Here Sophocles places an emphasis on keeping a level head; he preaches the understanding that even the wisest still can gain wisdom from others.

Creon’s immediate disregard to the advice of Haimon and the Choragos disturbs the son. By saying that as King he alone is the voice of the city and that Haimon, along his logic, have undeniably been corrupted by Antigone, Creon demonstrates his uncompromising obstinacy. It is at this juncture that Haimon decides to diProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

ance himself from his father. He stands behind what he believes to be justice, although by doing so he dissents from his father’s idea of justice. Taking this step away from total subordination to his father is a major event in Haimon’s life. Sophocles uses the dramatic tension of this situation to show how reason and logic can sometimes be even more powerful than love or family bonds, both of which the Ancient Greeks happened to value very highly.

Sophocles uses these morally and logically trying situations to comment on many things: government, sexism, religion, etc. Above all, Sophocles recognizes that there are many logical sides and valid arguments to every dilemma. No single man is always alone in the realm of reason and logic, not even Sophocles.

'Tis Why

'Tis Why

Because I shall endure what time does take
From all, legacy is my desire
Eternal life through minds and thoughts raptured
Filled with those words of mine ne’er dying self

With only short time to love, look, linger
All fair beauty seen I treasure greater
Since time will dull precious sheen held daily
Brevity is beauty on an infinite scale

So ‘tis why when I have fears of that end
Love and fame float e’er higher above flesh
I shall not lament but Live even more
For Death will come, and i will cease to be.

Kurtz and the Magistrate: Related by Distance

Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Coetzee's Waiting for the Barbarians have two similar characters. Although these characters are portrayed in different lights, the two of them share a significant amount of resemblance. One of them is a man of the company, an agent gone rogue who quests for ivory like no one else ever has. He becomes obsessed with his cause that he loses touch with reality and his European roots, preferring a life in the heart of Africa. The other is a man of the Empire, but not a man for the Empire. He plays the role of Magistrate in a far-off town on the frontier of the Empire, but as the story progresses we being to see that he does not believe in the Empire he has served for almost thirty years. He becomes obsessed with finding an answer to his question, as well as a meaning and purpose for his life. Both men are complex characters who are difficult to fully understand and comprehend.

Even though Conrad’s Mr. Kurtz and Coetzee’s Magistrate are in similar situations as men with a position of power in a remote part of the world, they evoked strikingly dissimilar emotions in me. I see Mr. Kurtz as a greedy man who will do anything for the betterment of his ivory output. However, there are brief moments where Kurtz is sympathetically viewed as a good man who was twisted by the “heart of darkness” that is the wilderness in Africa. On the other hand I see the Magistrate as a caring man who thinks about more than just himself. The Magistrate is a compassionate character who takes pity on the prisoners, respects history, and puts what is morally righteous over his own personal gain. In my mind the two characters are in similar situations, but have strikingly different personalities.

Kerr explains the similarities and difference between the two characters in his article and explores how they “went wrong.” But upon finishing both books I believe the biggest difference is the way in which the characters are portrayed to the reader. The Magistrate is the narrator of Waiting for the Barbarians, so naturally the reader connects to, empathizes with, relates to, and understands him. Conversely, Kurtz is seen through the eyes of the, as Kerr puts it, “prosaic, pedestrian reporter” of Marlow. The way Marlow portrays Kurtz there is emotion felt by the reader, in my case one of tragedy; but it is not nearly as strong as the extreme emotions I felt for the Magistrate. Kurtz and the Magistrate are two characters that share many common themes, but are portrayed and interpreted by very different means.

a c0nFuSed OLd mAn

Waiting for the Barbarians is told in the first-person narrative. Its content is in chronological order. It reveals almost all of the narrator's thoughts. How much simpler can it get?

A lot.

The story is told by an old man who doesn't know what he's looking for. Repeatedly in the story the old man searches for physical objects and well as ideas that may bring him a sense of clarity and purpose. But they almost always seem to elude him. Or rather he doesn't understand what little he finds. The old man is too confused about his own sense of purpose to comprehend himself.

He lives on the frontier of an Empire he doesn't believe in. He "protects" the Empire from barbarians he doesn't even find barbaric. Talk about mixed messages.

He finds great pleasure in unearthing artifacts from the past. The barbarian ruins near the town fascinate him. So much so that he even pays money out of his own pocket to those who will search the site for him. The 256 pieces of wood he finds make no sense to him. The number is "perfect," as both a square and a very common multiple. It seems so perfect, like the Empire, but he can't make out the meaning of it. His fascination of the past is apparent, but why is he fascinated so?

Another example of his purposelessness is when he goes hunting early one morning. The old man feels alive again with "all the strength and swiftness of [his] manhood." (38) He encounters a ram during his hunting trip, but pauses before he shoots it. He doesn't understand why his pulse doesn't quicken and why the hunt is "robbed of its savour." Before he knows it the ram has run off and he is left "trudg[ing] on purposelessly for an hour before [he] turn[s] back" home. (39)

But the number one example of his confusion is the semi-blind native girl he keeps in his room. In an ritualistic fashion, he rubs her with oil each night as he massages her. They sometimes talk, but usually he is lost in his own mind, enraptured in an almost stupor-like state. Although the thought sometimes comes to mind, he never "enters her." What does he do this nightly routine for? He doesn't understand why at all, and my bet is she understands even less. And then why does he go on a quest to return her?

This man has no idea what he's looking for, much less what he wants. He speaks of his enjoyment of the quiet aspects of life, his hobbies and recreations. But then he goes searching for trouble when the Empire enters the town. By broaching the subject of barbarians with the new lieutenant and truly answering what he believes the barbarians want, the old man goes searching for trouble. He searches for trouble by fostering his relationship with the native girl. And walks right into trouble when goes into the barbarian land.

What a crazy, confused old man. But I guess that makes the story.

(509)

Hegel's African vs. Darwin's Homo Sapien

The African Character:
Hegel

-it is hard to judge the Africans because in reference to "white" ideals they are totally different

-must lay aside all reverence and morality, in a sense all human feeling, to comprehend the African

RELIGION:
-requires the conception of a "Higher Power," which makes man feeler humbler and weaker
-Hegel argues that blacks, in their "magic and sorcery," attempt to control Nature and disregard the notion of a Higher Power

IMMORALITY:
-Negroes act in contempt of humanity
-"Tyranny is not regarded as wrong" and "cannibalism is quite customary and proper"

SLAVERY:
-Hegel says slavery with Europeans or Americans is not nearly as bad as life in Africa
-men are a Thing...parents sell children...children sell parents...whoever has the first opportunity
-polygamy is common among negroes, leading to no family unit (and any remaining family is sold into slavery)

POLITICAL CONSTITUTION:
-there exist no universal "spiritual laws" (guiding morals)
-Hegel says a despotic ruler must lead since it is the only way to control a rampid "sensuous barbarism"
-Roles in negro government:
KING- leads with despotic power
CHIEFTAINS- counsel that guides King. King must gain the chieftains respect and consent
EXECUTIONER- kills whomever the King wishes, until the Negroes depose the King and have him executed

DISPOSITION:
-Hegel says Negro easily go into frenzied states
- "Destruction is the consequence of their excitement"
-after the King's death riots and mass groups of Negroes ritualistically kill each other, "authorities hurry to proclaim a new governor, simply to put a stop to the massacre."
- they have no regard for human life


In conclusion Hegel says the only link between Europeans and Africans is slavery, since all other aspects of "humanity" are lost on the Negroes. He states the slavery benefits the savages because it humanizes them. Hegel offers the idea to leave Africa and never return again. He says that historically and developmentally the area is insignificant and useless.


On the Races of Man
Darwin

-says that there exist two different anthropological standpoints, all human races are one species (monogenist) or human races are different species (polygenist)
-Darwin explores the vagueness of the term "species" and how it couldn't be differentiable since there was not just a single interpretation of the word.
-says that bodies and minds of certain races are different, but have remarkably similar "little traits of character"

SIMILARITY EXISTS:
-men of all races, tastes, dispositions, and habits share certain aspects
-all have ways of painting, tattooing, piercing, or decorating themselves
-all have a common set of inarticulate sounds and accompanying facial movements to express certain emotions
-strikingly dissimilar to monkeys who have very different sounds and expressions compared to another species of monkey
-human races all over the world independently bury their dead. perhaps shows a common thought process of symbolic thinking?

DIFFERENCES:
-differences in skin color and odor exist, but are due to acquired traits from geographic separation
-the common ancestor changed a little in each geographic region, but only on some minor levels including body stature and certain traits that proved more successful in their environments


Language plays an important role. The universal ability to use language is a key that shows the connection of species since it would not have emerged, or evolved, on multiple occasions.