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.