After reading the first five chapters of Catch 22, I can get a sense of Joseph Heller’s use of deadpan humor to criticize war and the military. From the beginning Heller’s repetitive, dry voice becomes apparent. In the third paragraph on the first page, Heller uses the word “jaundice” five times. Heller satirizes military figures of authority when he writes, “This is all voluntary, of course. I’d be the last colonel in the world to order you to go to that U.S.O. show and have a good time, but I want every one of you who isn’t sick enough to be in the hospital to go to that U.S.O. show right now and have a good time, and that’s an order” (28). By displaying a colonel speaking ridiculously and contradicting himself, Heller takes ethos from Colonel Cargill, and the military as a whole, making them less credible. I do not think that it is as funny as I was anticipating, but I see the humor. I also see the dark nature of the writing in the way Heller writes about such horrible events as war and sharing a tent with a dead man as mundane happenings.
I like how Yossarian is a little smart-alec, like when he was talking about his duty censoring letters. "On those he didn't read at all he wrote his own name. On those he did read he wrote, 'Washington Irving.' When that grew monotonous he wrote, 'Irving Washington,'"(8). The conversation between Yossarian and Orr in the beginning of chapter three about how Orr used to stuff crab apples in his cheeks was a necessary interruption of humor. I agree with Ellery that it is not as humorous as I expected, but it definetly makes otherwise gloomy situations like sharing a tent with a dead man seem light and enjoyable to read. Since Heller makes these situations light, I don't find this a very dark book. I guess the humor is a little dark because this subject is uncommonly written as humorous, but its not a sinister humor.
Joseph Heller's voice is apparent right from the beginning; a very dry smart humor, subtly expressing his hate for the army. Heller has a mocking and degrading comment for everything. Also, Yassarian's conversation with Clevinger darkly pokes fun at the people that went insane while in the army. He writes, " 'They're trying to kill me'...'Then why are they shooting at me?' Yossarian asked."(16) Talking about someone who has insane thoughts so nonchalantly and jokingly is further proof of his dry and dark humor. Overall, though I expected a different kind of humor from this book, I think it is still humorous though in a darker way then I expected.
After reading the first 50 pages or so, we definitely get a sense of Joseph Heller's style of writing. Depending on the type of reader, his style may come off as funny or ignorant. From what I have read so far, I personally feel his satiric writing gets a little wordy at some points. For example, I took notice to the overuse of repetitive phrasing. For example when someone would ask a question or say anything for that matter, the other character would most likely repeat the exact same sentence. For example on page 22, Yossarian asks the chaplain “even those in the other words?” and the chaplain responds “even those in other words.” Although this is part of Heller’s style of writing, I feel it gets to be a little much at some points. I agree with Sam in that I also anticipated a different kind of humor; it is more dark than I expected.
DISCUSSION PROMPT #2: Is it becoming a better read? Easier? And is it getting more story-like, or is it continuing as a collection of anecdotes? Why or why not (i.e., provide evidence for your answer, and consider WHY the author would make these decisions)?
After finishing my third reading assignment, I realized the book continues to be a hard read. I think Catch 22 is a book that may attract certain people but repel others; it depends on the type of reader. Personally, I feel it is very hard to “get into” the story because the storyline changes frequently, often leaving me confused and unsure of what happened. For example chapter ten begins with a man named Clevinger who was presumed dead after he did not return from a “weekly milk run to Parma” (114). From here, the story quickly shifts from Clevinger to a man named Wintergreen. The dramatic shift of the story occurs when: “…he had gone running outside in elation to carry the exciting news to ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen” (114). This left me questioning what happened to Clevinger and why his story ended so abruptly. On a different note, I started to analyze certain parts of the story to get a better understanding as to why Heller chose to write a collection of anecdotes rather than a story. The title of several chapters for example was all people’s names. I then took notice to how the author really focused on the people involved and their thoughts and feelings rather than the gruesome storyline. Additionally, the constantly-changing storyline shows how crazy and unpredictable war truly was.
I agree with Cherelle on many points. I think that Catch 22 does continue as a collection of anecdotes, but now that I have gotten used to that idea, rather than expecting a storyline, I find it easier to read. I think that there are themes which tie the individual chapters and rants together. They are all the experiences of Yosarrian and his comrades during the war and most of them involve a “catch 22.” As shown in chapter 11, each of the seemingly random events involves contradictory information which serves to criticize war. On page 112, Heller depicts a captain saying “The important thing is to keep them pledging…It doesn’t matter whether they mean it or not.” Most people would probably disagree with this statement. As we learn in elementary school, “Actions speak louder than words.” Heller constantly shows war and those involved in it as crazy and irrational, going against the most basic principals of logic. He shows them using catch 22s as an excuse for these unreasonable situations. Captain Black says, “Defense is everybody’s job…the whole program is voluntary…we need you to starve them to death if they don’t [sign the oaths]…It’s just like Catch-22” (113). This ties all the stories back into the book.
I concur with Cherelle and Ellery, the book clearly continues as more of a collection of anecdotes then a clear cut story. I feel that It has become easier to read because our knowledge of the author increases and we get a better understanding of the flow of the book. I'm starting to feel like the book is less a story of someones life, but a recount of the army during World War II and the attitude Heller had towards it. He still has a mocking tone especially when speaking too high ranking officials. An example of this is on page 119 where the colonels talk about the capture of Bologna and keep repeating each other and stupidly not understanding the situation fully. By sarcastically mocking the army officials, our understand of the narrator and the mediocrity of the army come out.
I cannot call this book a bad read, considering I don't usually choose this genre to read on my own, it's not bad. I would prefer a clear but story though. Since we all agree that this is a collection of anecdotes, I would like to point out that the transitions between them are rather smooth. For example, the drunk driving at the end of chapter twelve transitions smoothly to Hungry Joe in his tent. I think this is noteworthy considering he was suddenly introduced into this erratic scene. Ok, maybe not the best example but you all took the best ones! Writing in this style gives the book a unique perspective and makes it seem realistic. The great amounts of dialogue given at one time add to that as well.
DISCUSSION PROMPT #3: How does Heller use irony? Is it effective? (Note that you'll want to explain what you mean by "effective"; what effect does he achieve through irony.) Why or why not?
Heller effectively uses irony in his book Catch 22 to portray his views of what he thought was absurd about the war. For example, one of his chapters is entitled “Bologna”. Of course the chapter is not about bologna rather it is about a mission that Yossarian, the main character, calls bologna. Many know the phrase “that’s bologna!” which most nearly means “that’s absurd” or “that’s crazy?” Clearly, Heller use the term “bologna” to portray how absurd and crazy he thought the mission was. Another example of irony is on pages 122 and 123, when the “Glorious Loyalty Oath” was mentioned. The oath was put into effect by Captain Black after he announced his mistrust for Major Major, saying he was a “communist” (122). Captain Black made so many of these useless oaths that “every time they turned around there was another loyalty oath to be signed” (123). The Glorious Loyalty Oath is a perfect example of irony because it had nothing to do with being loyal to their country, but rather to Captain Black.
I agree with Cherelle that Heller’s naming of mission Bologna is used as irony to make it seem absurd. I also agree that there is irony in the loyalty oaths. I, however, thought that they were ironic not in who they were showing loyalty towards, but the fact that Captain Black does not care if they actually feel or agree with the loyalty they are pledging, as I addressed in my last post. Another time Heller uses irony is on page 169. He has a “dashing young fighter captain” who “cheated [his] way through prep school and college, and just about all [he’s] been doing ever since is shaking up with pretty girls who think [he’d] make a good husband.” This man is in charge of other people’s lives and is in a position that so many others are working towards, yet he has not worked for anything he has. Heller uses irony effectively to show the corruption and lack of order in the military. You would expect that the most deserving, well-trained, qualified people would be in higher positions, but Heller puts the cheating, manipulative, misogynistic people in the powerful positions to show the problems with the military.
I would just like to say that detecting irony in literature is not easy for me, but I definetly recognize it with the examples previously given by Cherelle and Ellery. Especially with the Glorious Loyalty Oath. I think the use of irony helps portray the corruption, for lack of a better word. What I mean by that is the fact that the Glorious Loyalty Oath is not taken seriously by anyone, even the ones encouraging others to take the oath. This shows "moral perversion," (a dictionary.com definition of corruption).
(1) How does Heller portray Yossarian as the antithesis of his generalized military figures? What does this show about Heller's feelings about the war?
(2) Do you think this book was worth reading, even if you didn't like it? Why or why not?
Note from Ms. K: Don't forget to quote the novel and respond directly to each other. It's okay to disagree, too; it keeps things interesting!
Heller portrays Yossarian as a cunniving smart-alec looking for any excuse to get out of war before completing his duties. Starting from the first page when Yossarian was faking pain just to stay in the hospital, it was evident that he wasn't the expected military figure that boasts about how war turns boys into men or something like that. I'm not sure if this shows Heller's support for war or not, but it definetly shows that Heller is able to read between the lines. He knows that the soldiers do not always enter war with immense pride that drives them to great victory, but they are afraid and some are looking for excuses to get the hell out (before it became trendy to be a draft dodger during Vietnam, of course). The quote at the end of chapter 41 shows that maybe Yossarian has come t a little more acceptance about the war, "man was matter, that was Snowden's secret...the spirit gone, man is garbage. That was Snowden's secret. Ripeness was all," (440). This is a depressing attitude to have but it ends with 'ripeness was all,' which sounds positive and hopeful.
This book wasn't a bad read. It wasn't on my list of choices but I don't feel like it was difficult in any way. It was a differeny writing style than what I typically choose, so I had to get used to that. It was a nice change from the many memoirs of one's struggle to survive during wartime.
I agree with Michelle about Heller portraying Yossarian as one who does not fit the soldier stereotype, especially when she talks about war not making men out of boys. I think that Heller actually shows how war can do just the opposite; make boys out of men. Yossarian seems to do whatever he can to trick, manipulate, and maneuver his way out of flying, the same way little kids avoid tasks they do not want to do. Yossarian also switches places in the hospital when he “climbed up into his bed and became Warrant Officer Homer Lumley” (300). In addition to not acting the role of a brave, strong, manly man, Heller uses Yossarian to question the way the military is run. Yossarian successfully moved a map line without people noticing for awhile, he is called crazy again and again for trying to make sense of war and of his peers, and he is shut down whenever he voices his fear of being killed or his lack of understanding as to why the people who are being hurt deserve to be injured or killed.
I struggled with the speed of our reading at the beginning, but I have grown to appreciate this novel for its humor and progressive attitude. Heller spoke out against war with a wry tone and a comical storyline. I am glad to have had the opportunity to read Catch 22.
I also agree with Michelle that Yossarian doesn’t quit fit in the soldier stereotype. Ellery also made some great points as well. I especially liked how she mentioned that war doesn’t make men out of boys, that it actually does the exact opposite. The generalized stereotype of a soldier is like Ellery said, strong, manly and brave and Yossarian does not exemplify any of these qualities. For example, earlier in the book we read about how Yossarian actually poisoned his squadron by putting laundry soap in their food just so they wouldn’t have to go on one of the missions. In addition, on page 312 when Dunbar was talking to Yossarian, Dunbar asks Yossarian if he “is man enough to take it [bad news],” and Yossarian replies with “God no! I’ll go right to pieces!” This clearly shows how Yossarian is not ashamed to go against the stereotypical image of how a soldier should act. We get a sense of ho Heller feels about the war mainly through Yossarian but also through Dunbar when he says “You’ve been unable to adjust to the idea of war” (312). This seemed a little absurd to me because are any soldiers really able to adjust to war? I definitely think this book is worth reading; however I feel it is hard to enjoy it when you have to read it within a certain time frame. I think this book would be a great free-read and would recommend it to anyone
I agree with Ellery and Cherelle, I think that Yossarian does not fit the typical soldier stereotype. On the other hand I don't think he is the opposite of every soldier, but instead an exaggerated fear of war that every soldier has. I think that the fear that every soldier faces is covered by their nationalism and pride in their country. Heller is trying to portray the fear that every soldier has in a comedic way through Yossarian. Soldiers in the army probably wouldn't hide in the hospital from fighting but I'm sure most soldiers have wanted to go home and have been too afraid to do some mission. Yossarian portrays Heller's view of war as meaningless and not worth anyone's life. Yossarian clearly does not think his country or fighting the war is worth his life and thinks the whole thing is a silly game played by the people with high ranking positions. The higher ranking Generals also had a distaste for Yossarian and his "sensibleness," General Dreedle for one fells, "Yossarian - the very sight of the name made him shudder...It was not at all like such clean crisp honest, American names as Cathcart, Pecken and Dreedle." Dreedle's opinion of Yossarian further shows how different Yossarian appeared in the army because of his lack of American pride and willingness to die for his country.
I thought the book was pretty good, I enjoyed the satirical humor and the "I'm smarter then everyone else" attitude of Yossarian. I think it portrayed the army in a way that most people would never think of it.
I was born and raised in Saint Louis, Missouri and first moved to Massachusetts to attend Amherst College, where I majored in both English and Russian literature. After graduation, I accepted a Fulbright Scholarship to the University of Tartu in Estonia, where I studied children's literature and semiotics ("the study of signs and symbols"). I returned to the United States to spend a few years exploring the wide world of business, but the classroom kept calling. It was high time to earn my Masters in Education from Tufts University and join the staff at Arlington High School.
Please don't hesitate to email me; I love to hear from my students and their caregivers. I look forward to getting to know you!
Just a friendly reminder that class calendars are subject to change. Sometimes I make mistakes (it's true!) and sometimes we just move a little more or less quickly than predicted. I will announce any changes in class and try to post them as quickly as possible on the blog. You are responsible for any updates made in class.
DISCUSSION PROMPT #1: So, what do you think? Was it funny? Was it dark? Was it darkly funny?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first five chapters of Catch 22, I can get a sense of Joseph Heller’s use of deadpan humor to criticize war and the military. From the beginning Heller’s repetitive, dry voice becomes apparent. In the third paragraph on the first page, Heller uses the word “jaundice” five times. Heller satirizes military figures of authority when he writes, “This is all voluntary, of course. I’d be the last colonel in the world to order you to go to that U.S.O. show and have a good time, but I want every one of you who isn’t sick enough to be in the hospital to go to that U.S.O. show right now and have a good time, and that’s an order” (28). By displaying a colonel speaking ridiculously and contradicting himself, Heller takes ethos from Colonel Cargill, and the military as a whole, making them less credible. I do not think that it is as funny as I was anticipating, but I see the humor. I also see the dark nature of the writing in the way Heller writes about such horrible events as war and sharing a tent with a dead man as mundane happenings.
ReplyDelete-Ellery
I like how Yossarian is a little smart-alec, like when he was talking about his duty censoring letters. "On those he didn't read at all he wrote his own name. On those he did read he wrote, 'Washington Irving.' When that grew monotonous he wrote, 'Irving Washington,'"(8). The conversation between Yossarian and Orr in the beginning of chapter three about how Orr used to stuff crab apples in his cheeks was a necessary interruption of humor. I agree with Ellery that it is not as humorous as I expected, but it definetly makes otherwise gloomy situations like sharing a tent with a dead man seem light and enjoyable to read. Since Heller makes these situations light, I don't find this a very dark book. I guess the humor is a little dark because this subject is uncommonly written as humorous, but its not a sinister humor.
ReplyDelete-Michelle
Joseph Heller's voice is apparent right from the beginning; a very dry smart humor, subtly expressing his hate for the army. Heller has a mocking and degrading comment for everything. Also, Yassarian's conversation with Clevinger darkly pokes fun at the people that went insane while in the army. He writes, " 'They're trying to kill me'...'Then why are they shooting at me?' Yossarian asked."(16) Talking about someone who has insane thoughts so nonchalantly and jokingly is further proof of his dry and dark humor. Overall, though I expected a different kind of humor from this book, I think it is still humorous though in a darker way then I expected.
ReplyDelete-Sam
After reading the first 50 pages or so, we definitely get a sense of Joseph Heller's style of writing. Depending on the type of reader, his style may come off as funny or ignorant. From what I have read so far, I personally feel his satiric writing gets a little wordy at some points. For example, I took notice to the overuse of repetitive phrasing. For example when someone would ask a question or say anything for that matter, the other character would most likely repeat the exact same sentence. For example on page 22, Yossarian asks the chaplain “even those in the other words?” and the chaplain responds “even those in other words.” Although this is part of Heller’s style of writing, I feel it gets to be a little much at some points. I agree with Sam in that I also anticipated a different kind of humor; it is more dark than I expected.
ReplyDelete-Cherelle
DISCUSSION PROMPT #2: Is it becoming a better read? Easier? And is it getting more story-like, or is it continuing as a collection of anecdotes? Why or why not (i.e., provide evidence for your answer, and consider WHY the author would make these decisions)?
ReplyDeleteAfter finishing my third reading assignment, I realized the book continues to be a hard read. I think Catch 22 is a book that may attract certain people but repel others; it depends on the type of reader. Personally, I feel it is very hard to “get into” the story because the storyline changes frequently, often leaving me confused and unsure of what happened. For example chapter ten begins with a man named Clevinger who was presumed dead after he did not return from a “weekly milk run to Parma” (114). From here, the story quickly shifts from Clevinger to a man named Wintergreen. The dramatic shift of the story occurs when: “…he had gone running outside in elation to carry the exciting news to ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen” (114). This left me questioning what happened to Clevinger and why his story ended so abruptly. On a different note, I started to analyze certain parts of the story to get a better understanding as to why Heller chose to write a collection of anecdotes rather than a story. The title of several chapters for example was all people’s names. I then took notice to how the author really focused on the people involved and their thoughts and feelings rather than the gruesome storyline. Additionally, the constantly-changing storyline shows how crazy and unpredictable war truly was.
ReplyDelete-Cherelle
I agree with Cherelle on many points. I think that Catch 22 does continue as a collection of anecdotes, but now that I have gotten used to that idea, rather than expecting a storyline, I find it easier to read. I think that there are themes which tie the individual chapters and rants together. They are all the experiences of Yosarrian and his comrades during the war and most of them involve a “catch 22.” As shown in chapter 11, each of the seemingly random events involves contradictory information which serves to criticize war. On page 112, Heller depicts a captain saying “The important thing is to keep them pledging…It doesn’t matter whether they mean it or not.” Most people would probably disagree with this statement. As we learn in elementary school, “Actions speak louder than words.” Heller constantly shows war and those involved in it as crazy and irrational, going against the most basic principals of logic. He shows them using catch 22s as an excuse for these unreasonable situations. Captain Black says, “Defense is everybody’s job…the whole program is voluntary…we need you to starve them to death if they don’t [sign the oaths]…It’s just like Catch-22” (113). This ties all the stories back into the book.
ReplyDelete-Ellery
I concur with Cherelle and Ellery, the book clearly continues as more of a collection of anecdotes then a clear cut story. I feel that It has become easier to read because our knowledge of the author increases and we get a better understanding of the flow of the book. I'm starting to feel like the book is less a story of someones life, but a recount of the army during World War II and the attitude Heller had towards it. He still has a mocking tone especially when speaking too high ranking officials. An example of this is on page 119 where the colonels talk about the capture of Bologna and keep repeating each other and stupidly not understanding the situation fully. By sarcastically mocking the army officials, our understand of the narrator and the mediocrity of the army come out.
ReplyDelete-Sam
I cannot call this book a bad read, considering I don't usually choose this genre to read on my own, it's not bad. I would prefer a clear but story though. Since we all agree that this is a collection of anecdotes, I would like to point out that the transitions between them are rather smooth. For example, the drunk driving at the end of chapter twelve transitions smoothly to Hungry Joe in his tent. I think this is noteworthy considering he was suddenly introduced into this erratic scene. Ok, maybe not the best example but you all took the best ones! Writing in this style gives the book a unique perspective and makes it seem realistic. The great amounts of dialogue given at one time add to that as well.
ReplyDelete-Michelle
DISCUSSION PROMPT #3: How does Heller use irony? Is it effective? (Note that you'll want to explain what you mean by "effective"; what effect does he achieve through irony.) Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteHeller effectively uses irony in his book Catch 22 to portray his views of what he thought was absurd about the war. For example, one of his chapters is entitled “Bologna”. Of course the chapter is not about bologna rather it is about a mission that Yossarian, the main character, calls bologna. Many know the phrase “that’s bologna!” which most nearly means “that’s absurd” or “that’s crazy?” Clearly, Heller use the term “bologna” to portray how absurd and crazy he thought the mission was. Another example of irony is on pages 122 and 123, when the “Glorious Loyalty Oath” was mentioned. The oath was put into effect by Captain Black after he announced his mistrust for Major Major, saying he was a “communist” (122). Captain Black made so many of these useless oaths that “every time they turned around there was another loyalty oath to be signed” (123). The Glorious Loyalty Oath is a perfect example of irony because it had nothing to do with being loyal to their country, but rather to Captain Black.
ReplyDelete-Cherelle
I agree with Cherelle that Heller’s naming of mission Bologna is used as irony to make it seem absurd. I also agree that there is irony in the loyalty oaths. I, however, thought that they were ironic not in who they were showing loyalty towards, but the fact that Captain Black does not care if they actually feel or agree with the loyalty they are pledging, as I addressed in my last post. Another time Heller uses irony is on page 169. He has a “dashing young fighter captain” who “cheated [his] way through prep school and college, and just about all [he’s] been doing ever since is shaking up with pretty girls who think [he’d] make a good husband.” This man is in charge of other people’s lives and is in a position that so many others are working towards, yet he has not worked for anything he has. Heller uses irony effectively to show the corruption and lack of order in the military. You would expect that the most deserving, well-trained, qualified people would be in higher positions, but Heller puts the cheating, manipulative, misogynistic people in the powerful positions to show the problems with the military.
ReplyDelete-Ellery
I would just like to say that detecting irony in literature is not easy for me, but I definetly recognize it with the examples previously given by Cherelle and Ellery. Especially with the Glorious Loyalty Oath. I think the use of irony helps portray the corruption, for lack of a better word. What I mean by that is the fact that the Glorious Loyalty Oath is not taken seriously by anyone, even the ones encouraging others to take the oath. This shows "moral perversion," (a dictionary.com definition of corruption).
ReplyDelete-Michelle
DISCUSSION PROMPT #4:
ReplyDelete(1) How does Heller portray Yossarian as the antithesis of his generalized military figures? What does this show about Heller's feelings about the war?
(2) Do you think this book was worth reading, even if you didn't like it? Why or why not?
Note from Ms. K: Don't forget to quote the novel and respond directly to each other. It's okay to disagree, too; it keeps things interesting!
Heller portrays Yossarian as a cunniving smart-alec looking for any excuse to get out of war before completing his duties. Starting from the first page when Yossarian was faking pain just to stay in the hospital, it was evident that he wasn't the expected military figure that boasts about how war turns boys into men or something like that. I'm not sure if this shows Heller's support for war or not, but it definetly shows that Heller is able to read between the lines. He knows that the soldiers do not always enter war with immense pride that drives them to great victory, but they are afraid and some are looking for excuses to get the hell out (before it became trendy to be a draft dodger during Vietnam, of course). The quote at the end of chapter 41 shows that maybe Yossarian has come t a little more acceptance about the war, "man was matter, that was Snowden's secret...the spirit gone, man is garbage. That was Snowden's secret. Ripeness was all," (440). This is a depressing attitude to have but it ends with 'ripeness was all,' which sounds positive and hopeful.
ReplyDeleteThis book wasn't a bad read. It wasn't on my list of choices but I don't feel like it was difficult in any way. It was a differeny writing style than what I typically choose, so I had to get used to that. It was a nice change from the many memoirs of one's struggle to survive during wartime.
-Michelle
I agree with Michelle about Heller portraying Yossarian as one who does not fit the soldier stereotype, especially when she talks about war not making men out of boys. I think that Heller actually shows how war can do just the opposite; make boys out of men. Yossarian seems to do whatever he can to trick, manipulate, and maneuver his way out of flying, the same way little kids avoid tasks they do not want to do. Yossarian also switches places in the hospital when he “climbed up into his bed and became Warrant Officer Homer Lumley” (300). In addition to not acting the role of a brave, strong, manly man, Heller uses Yossarian to question the way the military is run. Yossarian successfully moved a map line without people noticing for awhile, he is called crazy again and again for trying to make sense of war and of his peers, and he is shut down whenever he voices his fear of being killed or his lack of understanding as to why the people who are being hurt deserve to be injured or killed.
ReplyDeleteI struggled with the speed of our reading at the beginning, but I have grown to appreciate this novel for its humor and progressive attitude. Heller spoke out against war with a wry tone and a comical storyline. I am glad to have had the opportunity to read Catch 22.
-Ellery
I also agree with Michelle that Yossarian doesn’t quit fit in the soldier stereotype. Ellery also made some great points as well. I especially liked how she mentioned that war doesn’t make men out of boys, that it actually does the exact opposite. The generalized stereotype of a soldier is like Ellery said, strong, manly and brave and Yossarian does not exemplify any of these qualities. For example, earlier in the book we read about how Yossarian actually poisoned his squadron by putting laundry soap in their food just so they wouldn’t have to go on one of the missions. In addition, on page 312 when Dunbar was talking to Yossarian, Dunbar asks Yossarian if he “is man enough to take it [bad news],” and Yossarian replies with “God no! I’ll go right to pieces!” This clearly shows how Yossarian is not ashamed to go against the stereotypical image of how a soldier should act. We get a sense of ho Heller feels about the war mainly through Yossarian but also through Dunbar when he says “You’ve been unable to adjust to the idea of war” (312). This seemed a little absurd to me because are any soldiers really able to adjust to war?
ReplyDeleteI definitely think this book is worth reading; however I feel it is hard to enjoy it when you have to read it within a certain time frame. I think this book would be a great free-read and would recommend it to anyone
-Cherelle
I agree with Ellery and Cherelle, I think that Yossarian does not fit the typical soldier stereotype. On the other hand I don't think he is the opposite of every soldier, but instead an exaggerated fear of war that every soldier has. I think that the fear that every soldier faces is covered by their nationalism and pride in their country. Heller is trying to portray the fear that every soldier has in a comedic way through Yossarian. Soldiers in the army probably wouldn't hide in the hospital from fighting but I'm sure most soldiers have wanted to go home and have been too afraid to do some mission. Yossarian portrays Heller's view of war as meaningless and not worth anyone's life. Yossarian clearly does not think his country or fighting the war is worth his life and thinks the whole thing is a silly game played by the people with high ranking positions.
ReplyDeleteThe higher ranking Generals also had a distaste for Yossarian and his "sensibleness," General Dreedle for one fells, "Yossarian - the very sight of the name made him shudder...It was not at all like such clean crisp honest, American names as Cathcart, Pecken and Dreedle." Dreedle's opinion of Yossarian further shows how different Yossarian appeared in the army because of his lack of American pride and willingness to die for his country.
I thought the book was pretty good, I enjoyed the satirical humor and the "I'm smarter then everyone else" attitude of Yossarian. I think it portrayed the army in a way that most people would never think of it.
-Sam