RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING: Select a scene from the novel and analyze the impact of Heller’s choice of a satiric writing style. Explain Heller's purpose for utilizing satire in the scene. How does he achieve a satirical outcome (think about the literary devices at work in the scene: imagery, diction, symbolism, characterization? Would the scene/book have been as effective if it had been written in a more serious manner? How might readers’ responses to the scene/novel have been different? Would the scene/book have the same meaning if the style were different?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Satire can be, at times, hard to ascertain in novels as talented authors often infuse it so well into the text that it can be easily overlooked. However, when I found myself laughing out loud while reading the scene that unfolded during Clevinger's trial it was hard to miss.
ReplyDeleteHeller introduces the scene and the subsequent satirical environment by depicting the head of the Action Board overseeing Clevinger's trial in a manner that inspires little to no faith in the authenticity or professionalism of the hearing that is about to take place. Given no name, the colonel is described rather by his "bloated" appearance and is noted for his "big fat mustache", neither of which comes across to the reader as flattering features or ones that support the notion that he his is a competent commanding officer. Instead, Heller’s portrayal of this unidentified character serves to undermine the authority of the proceedings altogether before they have even begun.
The trial that unfolds takes the reader through a laughable roller coaster of misunderstandings and angry outbursts from the colonel as he desperately tries to get a handle on what Clevinger did or did not say concerning his impending punishment. Clevinger, as Michael had stated in one of his previous posts, thinks logically and throughout the questioning tries in vain to answer all questions presented to him as honestly as possible, all the while getting reprimanded in the process. The absurd line of questioning, culminating with the time table for what Clevinger had not in fact said as well as the overbearing and irrational sequences by the colonel, only continued to strengthen the satire presented in the opening moments of the trial.
The light hearted nature in which Heller sets this scene for readers allows them the capability to analyze the message he is trying to render more efficiently. Heller’s inclusion of this hair-pulling, over the top scenario in Catch 22 serves to illustrate the absurdity of a justice system in which those accused of a crime are seen as guilty in almost the same breath. As Yossarian put it so candidly to his friend, “you haven’t got a chance, kid.”
In most novels, satire is a rare delicacy served to a reader occasionally, for a brief change of pace. For Heller in Catch-22, satire is breakfast, lunch and dinner and a reader must look no further than Heller's description of "Catch-22" itself as Doc Daneeka explains why he can't ground Yossarian.
ReplyDeleteDoc Daneeka says Yossarian is wasting his time asking to be grounded. When Yossarian wants to be grounded because he is crazy, Daneeka replies "I have to ground anyone who's crazy."
At this point, logic would suggest Yossarian, who could very easily contend that he was crazy, would be grounded. But, as is evidenced numerous times, logic is easily bent through the filter of Catch-22.
Because Yossarian has the presence of mind to ask for grounding to get out of the dangerous war, he is sane and cannot be grounded. If he had not asked, he would have been considered crazy and would have been a candidate for grounding if he asked for it.
Of course, the truth of this barrel of contradictions is that no one will ever be grounded.
After the explanation of the paradox, Heller adds that "Yossarian saw it clearly in all its spinning reasonableness."
Not only does Heller state the paradox, but he qualifies it by giving the support of an illogical character, thus weakening it further. This cements both the foolishness of "Catch-22" and the consistently irrational thought proccess of Yossarian.
In a broader sense, Heller's novel launches an assault on military procedure as a whole. This attack would not have been nearly as effective if Heller had opted for direct rather than satirical commentary.
Heller highlights military infighting which takes away from the fight against a common enemy. Yossarian questions the need for systematic carnage and goes further to question why he, in particular, must be a sacrifice of war. Doctors and soldiers co-conspire to find inexact ailments that will save them from entering battles, making a mockery of 20th century medicine.
Heller wanted these issues acknowledged, and ideally acted upon. With a touchy subject like the military, satirical humor was an effective way of getting his concerns out in the open.
In most novels when there is the occasional hint of sarcasm, the reader often does not perceive the piece as satirical due to the lack of certainty in its tone. Heller’s satire, however, is hard to miss. Every chapter is filled with at least some sort of parody filled with his personal views. All of his satire clearly expresses his point of view to the reader because of how absurd he portrays certain scenes to his audience. The scene in which such foolishness was most evident to me, besides the ones that Michael and Alexis previously pointed out, occurs in Chapter 20 when Corporal Whitcomb confronts the chaplain about the issues he has regarding their relationship.
ReplyDeleteThe encounter starts off by Heller setting the scene for the Corporal and the chaplain’s bond (or lack thereof). He briefly explains that Corporal Whitcomb disapproves with the fact that the chaplain believes in god and hates “his lack of initiative and aggressiveness”. The reasons for the chaplain’s lack of “aggressiveness” are reasonable to the reader however; he merely is not that kind of person because his sympathy and virtue overrides those kinds of characteristics. The fact that the Corporal is his assistant is the foundation for the irony in their relationship, though. The Corporal is described as an atheistic figure and although the chaplain questions his faith in God throughout the novel, he is still a chaplain nonetheless. The circumstance in which these two are teamed up together is what sets the pace for their unconventional affiliation.
Throughout the scene and all of the accusations the Corporal makes against the chaplain, the reader really receives a lot of insight into Heller’s mind and his beliefs that he or she simply would not get if the satire were omitted. Through the satire, we pick up the irritation that Heller has with lack of trust and consideration that opposite viewpoints have with one another. Such opinions are easy to pick up because of the fact that Heller makes his satire so obvious, expressing characters’ absurd points of view and problems with communication. For example, the fact that Corporal Whitcomb tries to help the chaplain out of trouble while his actions reflect the exact opposite of his “intentions” shows the lack of thought that some people possess in certain situations. They are so wrapped up their own personal affairs; they don’t realize that what they are doing is hurting someone else why they are trying to get ahead. The resentment that evolves from the unconventional relationship between the chaplain and Corporal Whitcomb expresses Heller’s opinion of the flaws in such relationships and communication.
Right off the bat, Heller spells out the kind of journey on which the reader is embarking. In setting this satirical tone, Heller has established a weapon to which he can (and does, quite frequently) return to later, whether it is to provide a comic relief in an upsetting plot, to evoke frustration and anger in the reader, or shed light on the weaknesses of certain characters, situations, or organizations.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite scenes comes on page 45, when a few Colonels and Generals are involved of a game of phone tag in an unusually literal sense. Their prank calls revolve around the words "T. S. Eliot", and at first, provide all the characters (reader included) with a little confusion. Soon, as the reader watches the message travel and eventually find its way back to Wintergreen, the comedy of the situation emerges. Part of the scene’s satirical success is due to the short, quizzical dialogue between the characters in the middle. What is more, the variant diction by which the conversation is described is creative and entertaining, and adds to the imagery of the scene. Instead of the usual “he said, she said”, Heller uses the words “replied”, “informed”, “repeated”, “reflected”, “wondered”, “mused” and “echoed.” Each word has a slightly different feel, and the reader cannot help but picture the confusion on the face of each character.
By adding this scene, Heller points out some of the ignorance of the characters—which is more ironic, because these are the seemingly less intelligent ones, and they happen to be the ones in charge. If the reader sees the scene more as a communication issue than one of intelligence, then again, the weaknesses of those in power are revealed. Either way, the scene reveals more about the characters, and provides a laugh to the reader.
The most memorable scene of satire in the novel, to me, would be when that Chaplain saw Yossarian sitting naked in the tree at the funeral.Unlike everyone else, the chaplain has shown through out the book that he looks up to Yossarian and sees him as almost saintly. Believing that he has had a vision from god, the chaplain is one of the only people who thinks that Yossarian is sane. Being a man of god, he immediately sees the symbolism in the vision. Yossarian was sent from god.
ReplyDeleteThis scene is extremely satirical because Yossarian, being the crazy person that he is, was actually sitting naked in the tree. If the Chaplain actually knew that Yossarian was real and not a figment of his imagination, he would probably think that Yossarian was a crazy fool.
By showing the subtle difference between reality and a figment of a person's imagination, Heller pokes fun at religion and the naivety of some people in believing what they think they see. Also this could be a way for Heller to voice his own opinion about Yossarian. Maybe Heller actually thought that Yossarian WAS the only sain person at the camp and that he was "sent by god" to show the other enlisted men how totally corrupt their systems were.
Without a doubt, Catch-22 is the funniest book I have ever had to read for an english class. Throughout every chapter of his novel, Heller intertwines doses of satire that force the reader to laugh out loud at a scene's ridiculousness and lack of logic.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite satirical moment is when the Chaplain is being interrogated about being "Washington Irving." The logic used to convict the Chaplain is completely fallible, and any sane reader can understand how ridiculous the whole situation is. Heller deliberately does this in an effort to portray to the reader how ludicrous army logic can be. And while it is obviously a gross exaggeration, the reader still understands Heller's point that people will use any form of logic to lay blame to a scapegoat just so they can look good for "catching the bad guy."
Heller even continues with the satire when the chaplain is not even punished for his crime of forging Washington Irving's name. It is apparent that the interrogating officers just wanted to be able to report to their superiors that they completed their job.
Without satire, however, this scene's effectiveness would be nullified. If taken seriously, the only result would be an enraged reader at the injustices put upon the chaplain. But since the absurdity of the situation is meant to be funny, the reader can understand how equally absurd the less drastic, yet real situations are.
By putting the military's faults in a humorous light, Heller is able to convey his feelings about the injustices occurring during his time. Had he used a more serious tone, he could not have had the same message without undoubtedly offending.
An example of satire in Catch-22 is when Yossarian is in the back of the plane with Snowden and he is trying to get the morphine from the first aid kid but finds instead a note form Milo explaining that “what’s good for M & M Enterprises is good for the country.” The irony in this situation is that anyone who is in need of morphine will have no care about the success of a business and only about the pain they are in. Heller put in a lot of effort to make this scene work; he had to first establish Milo as an uncaring businessman who only thinks about how he can make a profit. The scene would not have been funny if we had not gotten to know Milo and how absurd his reasoning is.
ReplyDeleteWhen Hiller is describing the scene he uses harsh painful words like “gaping” and “numbing shock” when talking about Snowden and his wound and a calm tone to describe Milo’s indifference to the needs of others. This contrast in tone helps create the satirical mood; if both had been in a state of seriousness the reader would lose the comedy of the situation. Hiller has this part about Milo in the book to point out how corrupt big business is. The powerful are stealing from the ones who need things under the pretense that if the business profits, eventually everyone will get a share.
If this book did not contain satire the point would be lost. If read seriously every character in Catch-22 would seem to be insane for no apparent purpose. But, with satire in the book each character stands for a different group in society and how preposterous their ideals are. The book would not have been as effective if everything was taken seriously. The book shows a horrible world but in a comical light that pokes fun at society. I feel if it were more serious then is would no longer be relatable to reality and therefore lose its value. It would be a much harder book to read if it was not dripping with irony and satire.
One chapter with an incredible amount of satire is “The Cellar,” where the Chaplain is being interrogated for deeds he didn’t do. To begin, Heller ironically has who is supposed to be the most righteous person there be accused of a crime that has plagued the whole book. Furthermore, he has the interrogator so ignorantly idiotic that everything the Chaplain says is used against him. Everything the Chaplain says is wrong, even though it is the truth. Heller portrays the interrogators, or the government, to be completely moronic and unfair; they already call him guilty before they even know what the accusations are. Later, they invent absurd reasons for him to be guilty, such as identifying the Chaplain’s handwriting.
ReplyDeleteHeller gives us a very pure hearted character, one who defends Yossarian while being cruelly interrogated, and has him unjustly accused of an illogical crime. He wants to satirize the foolishness of the government and their broken judgment system. He mocks occasions such as Joseph McCarthy’s dominance and how it seems like innocent people are constantly being incarcerated for crimes that they didn’t commit. Just like most of this book satirizes various public systems, this one bashes on the justice system and how unjust it really is.
This scene is also meant to add the madness in the latter parts of the book where all the likeable characters are being unfairly wronged and the society spirals out of control. Any reader of this scene would be angry that the chaplain is being set up by Whitcomb and that the superiors are so quick to charge someone with a crime with really no evidence. Without this chapter readers would not feel so empathetic towards the Chaplain and there would be less hatred for Whitcomb and most importantly their government.