This drama, which I have been studying in school, underlines the danger of the American Dream and prognoses challenges that the phrase will have in the 21st century.
In addition, when we look in the past, we realize that since WW II, the possibility of great wealth has become more a distant dream for the citizens of the USA. “During the 1990s and 2000s, a period of remarkable wealth for the U.S., an increasing amount of people confess having lost faith in the American Dream.” (Wikipedia) I believe that this is explainable, because the American Dream focuses on the success of the individual and does not focus on the wellbeing of the entire society. Therefore, even in times where the government and industry feel like they bring wealth to the country, many people do not feel anything from it. Especially the younger generation has lost faith in the American Dream (cp. Wikipedia).
Since the attacks on September 11th 2001, international and domestic stability in the USA is undergoing a severe change. (cp. Wikipedia)
But already before that, the literature reacted to historical changes and there was a trend in postmodern literature of writing about an anti-hero.
“In literature and film, an anti-hero is a central or supporting character that has some of the personality flaws and ultimate fortune traditionally assigned to villains but nonetheless also have enough heroic qualities or intentions to gain the sympathy of readers.” Anti-heroes can have different characteristics such as being pitiful, weird, unpopular or disagreeable.
However, “the concept of the anti-hero has grown from a tendency of modern authors to present villains as complex, even sympathetic, characters whose motivations are not inherently evil and sometimes even good.” Actually, the term anti-hero is used for the hero in a novel which secondary has many non-heroic qualities. Therefore, even though the protagonist of the novel lacks the quality characteristics of a traditional hero, he or she is popular. To understand what an anti-hero really is, you can shortly think about the features of a hero: Heroes are supposed to be very courageous, strong and self-sacrificing and usually experience quiet a lot of fortune. The term anti-hero is rather new in the modern American film industry, while there are many movies made, which picture the typical superhero. It is very common in Hollywood movies that there is a main character who sacrifices his life for his country: Armageddon, Titanic, The Guardian or The Day after Tomorrow are just a few examples which present ‘heroes’ that die at the end.
You can also hear the sentence “He was a very brave man” or “He died for a reason, he died for his country” or “He saved all the others”. It always seemed that especially the American society is very proud of its military heroes in real life.
Interestingly, the more modern production of movies and the writings in literature change. The readership enjoys books like James Joyce’s novel Ulysses, Joseph Heller’s Catch-22, Miguel de Cervantes‘s Don Quixote and Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones. “Many modern anti-heroes possess, or even encapsulate, the postmodern rejection of traditional values symptomatic of Modernist literature in general, as well as the disillusion felt after World War II and the .
It has been argued that the continuing popularity of the anti-hero in modern literature and popular culture may be based on the recognition that a person is fraught with human frailties, […], and is therefore more accessible to readers and viewers.”
This literature shows the reality of life. The difficulties people have to survive nowadays, the problems at work, the raising percentages of depression and fears in our society and, of course, the truth about serving at war are being demonstrated.
Who says that people wanted to be called “heroes” when they truly did not want to sacrifice their lives, but had no chance to survive the cruelty of war.
A famous anti-hero is Sisyphus. You can find the Sisyphean concept in many American and postmodern novels. Actually, Sisyphus became an allegorized figure. Even though it is pointless and absurd to keep rolling the stone up the hill, he persists.
Postmodern works write about the common man that we can identify with. The anti-hero might be depicted as a weak and confused character at times, and this indeed is what makes the concept of the anti-hero more real and better approachable for the reader in the 20th and 21st century. Men of the modern and postmodern times are in a hurry all the time and mostly not satisfied with their lives and careers.
The choice and interest of audience and readers changed completely and that is why the world of entertaining had to adapt to those wishes in order to satisfy them. The concept of the anti-hero is an important change in literature and film. The traditional hero had been used for a very long time in our history and many fairytale stories were being watched and read. Eventually, authors and filmmakers tried to educate people and show the reality and truth of life. Now, there are many books that portray a main character, who is still seen as a hero in the literary work in some sort of way, even when he or she is depicted with anti-hero qualities.
The modern reader is more proud of a protagonist who realizes in what kind of world he lives in than somebody who sacrifices his life. It just makes more sense and it can even produce more pleasure seeing that the real life is being shown, which is very often written in a humorous or satirical way. The reader gets the chance to laugh at others (in the book or in reality) who still think the world is a place where everything is possible if you work hard enough and were fairytales happen every day.
- Postmodernism
What is postmodernism? In which ways is the term being used? Can we find an easy definition?
Well, as I have been reading opinions from different writers, it becomes clear that when people talk about postmodernism the problem they will always have is that “they are referring to something very elusive and slippery.” (Mizrach)
In the following, I will give various definitions of the term postmodernism and will compare it to modernism. In order to do so, I will talk about postmodernist and modernist literature and their differences.
At first, I would like to mention the slight difference between the term postmodernism and postmodernity.
Postmodernity refers to the economical state of a society after modernity, “postmodernism is an aesthetic, literary, political or social philosophy, which was the basis of the attempt to describe a condition, or a state of being, or something concerned with changes to institutions and conditions […] as postmodernity.”
In other words, postmodernism is more a movement and philosophy that describes than the state or condition itself.
Especially in the academics, postmodernism is “best understood as a new Weltanschauung - a new organizing principle in thought, action, and reflection, connected to many changing factors in modern society.” (Mizrach)
Sarup (1988: 118) agrees with this opinion and concludes: “Postmodernism is in part a description of a new type of society but also, in part, a new term for post-structuralism in the arts.” Some time after the Second World War this new kind of society developed, which is “labeled in various ways […]: consumer society, post-industrial society, society of the spectacle” (Sarup 1988: 130) or the society that emerged was called postmodernist society.
The term postmodernism was being used to describe a movement as a reaction to “the failure of modernity – the betrayals of the modernist movement in the arts, […] but also modernity understood as a social process - industrialization, urbanization, centralization, and 'progress' and 'civilization'.” (Mizrach)
Steve Mizrach states that the postmodernist movement could have almost called 'antimodernism', but it was not because it was not seen as a rejection of modernity as a whole. Postmodernist literature tries “to combine the best of the modern world with the best elements of the traditions of the past, in an organic way that eliminates the worst parts of both.” (Mizrach)
In his book “Postmodernist Fiction” Brian Mc Hale also claims a difference between modernist and postmodernist literature: Hale suggests that modernist fiction is epistemological while postmodernist fiction is ontological.
Modernist fiction arouses questions like:
“How can I interpret this world of which I am a part? And what am I in it?” or “What is there to be known?; Who knows it?; How do they know it?, and with what degree of certainty?; How is knowledge transmitted from one knower to another, an with what degree of reliability?; How does the object of knowledge change as it passes from knower to knower?; What are the limits of knowable?” (Mc Hale 1987: 9)
On the other hand, typical questions that would emerge from the postmodernist strategies are “Which world is this? What is to be done in it? Which of my selves is to do it?” (Mc Hale 1987: 10)
Mc Hale concludes that modernism and postmodernism are distinguishable by their most significant characters of each period.
We could say that modernist writing focuses on the issues of time and consciousness, while postmodern literature “often parodies popular literary genres to emphasize the “exhaustion” of traditional “grand narratives” and literary forms and thus it acquires a status of an intramural critique of these genres […]”.
(Kusnír 2005: 19)
Even though postmodernist literature often criticizes past events, those works contain irony and self-reflectivity, tend to privilege undecitability and show an increase of uncertainty. In my view, contemporary American fiction refreshes traditions of literary narrative. Postmodernist narratives undo the convention of realist and modernist narratives. It is, for example, very common for postmodernists to treat serious subjects in a humorous way. Postmodernism clearly seems to be opposed to Modernism, still there is a connection:
McHale sees postmodernist fiction emerging from modernist fiction with "historical consequentiality." (1987:5) It emerges from "the dominant" of modernism, which is the preoccupation with the grounds of knowledge, or epistemology. The "dominant" of postmodernism turns away from an interest in epistemology and starts to face the challenge to write about the grounds of being, ontology.
John Barth also analyses the differences between modernist and postmodernist writing. He says that “the ground motive of modernism […] was criticism of the nineteenth-century bourgeois social order and its world view” (Barth: 199) while, in his view, the postmodernist fiction “emphasizes the “performing” self-consciousness and self-reflexiveness of modernism…” (Barth: 200). He adds that postmodernist narratives are “more and more about itself and its processes, less and less about objective reality and life in the world.” (Barth: 200)
Postmodernism is, in its origins, a philosophical critique of the trends that became cultivated by the 19th and 20th centuries; it is a reaction to modernism.
With their postmodern works and new narrative strategies, authors like Joseph Heller, Thomas Pynchon and John Bart “expressed a critique of traditional literary techniques, forms and genres [and] gave a critique of consumerism, of the worshipping of traditional national icons, of the stupefying effect of popular culture and, last, but not least, a critique of current political and social ideologies and the socio-political situation.” (Kusnír 2005: 15)
By the use of absurdity, irony and parody, the clear vision of reality is undermined (cp. Kusnír 2005: 19). Therefore, in postmodernist literature “the instability of both the perception and the position of postmodern man in the contemporary world” (Kusnír 2005: 19) are being demonstrated.
- Theories of humor
Before I will start with the different theories that exist concerning the term humor, I will first give a short description what humor in general is:
The topic of humor belongs to the discipline of philosophy and really well known philosophers have discussed more than 2500 years about what constitutes humor without finding a common answer for that foundational question.
Indeed, humor is a difficult field of research and it brings about many questions.
Is there a distinction between humor and laughter? How do humor and comedy connect? Why do we laugh? Does humor produce laughter or only a smile or both? Do we think about psychological or cognitive shifts by talking about humor?
Most definitions of humor try to make a list of important and sufficient conditions. Others try to isolate a certain common element that can be found in all cases of humor.
In the following, I shortly present four different schools of humor theories that could give answers to these questions by focusing on different problems and explanations.
The origin of the superiority theory could be found by Plato, Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes. The philosophers discuss about why people find something funny and study the role of feelings of superiority that are examined in many cases of humor.
According to Plato “ignorance is a misfortune that when found in the weak is considered ridiculous.” (Internet encyclopedia of philosophy) In comedy, we laugh about the misfortune of a character and take malicious pleasure from the ludicrous. In a similar manner, Aristotle describes that “we laugh at inferior or ugly individuals, because we feel a joy at being superior to them.”
An emphatic version of explanation is given by Thomas Hobbes who suggests that “laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others [...].” (Internet encyclopedia of philosophy)
In opposite to the superior theory Robert Solomon develops an “inferiority theory” of humor and says that feelings of superiority are not a necessary condition of humor. He describes the “self-recognition in the silly antics” and the comparison of “our current with our former selves [...] as a source of virtuous modesty and compassion.” (Internet encyclopedia of philosophy)
The relief theory offered by Herbert Spencer and Sigmund Freud states that laughter results from a release of tension or energy. They describe humor as a tension-release model, but their explanation of it differs. In his strong version, Spencer speaks about a “theory of nervous energy” and in this case, “laughter can serve as the expressive route of various forms of nervous energy.” (Internet encyclopedia of philosophy) In his opinion, nervous excitation needs a kind of physical movement.
Sigmund Freud who assumes three different sources of laughter named joking, comic and humor gives a fine-grained version of the relief theory. In each case, the goal is to save psychic energy that had been wrongly produced by false expectations. “In joking, the energy that would have been used to repress sexual and hostile feelings is saved and can be released in laughter. In the comic, cognitive energy to be used to solve an intellectual challenge is left over […].The humorous involves a saving of emotional energy [...].”(Internet encyclopedia of philosophy)
The incongruity theory traces back to Aristotle who leads his audience to laugh by setting up an expectation and then producing a surprise or a contrasting fact to the hearer.
Kant says that only something absurd – and that could be the role of incongruity in humor - can evoke a sudden laugh. “Laughter is an affection arising from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing” (Internet encyclopedia of philosophy) is Kant’s statement about incongruity and humor. Additionally, Arthur Schopenhauer explains that we can feel an incongruity when “the particular outstrips the general” and that the element of surprise is important, too.
John Moreall underlines that humor is a way of “taking pleasure in a cognitive shift” and so he wants the incongruity theory to be “recognized as a response focused theory.” (Internet encyclopedia of philosophy)
Overall, Henri Bergson’s theory tries to connect the ideas of superiority and incongruity theories. He states that “humor involves an incongruous relationship between human intelligence and habitual or mechanical behaviors. As such, humor serves as a social corrective.” (Internet encyclopedia of philosophy)
3. Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 as a postmodern novel
On the one hand, Cach-22 was the turning point in Heller’s career, on the other hand, it was a major sensation for the readership. “As the blurb inside the book jacket of the first hard-cover edition notes, “CATCH-22 is like no other novel we have ever read. It has its own style, its own rationale, its own extraordinary character. It moves back and forth from hilarity to horror.” (Potts 1989: 6)
To get a better idea what the novel is about I will start with a summary in the following.
- Plot summary
The novel Catch-22 is about Captain Yossarian who is an American bombardier stationed off the Italian coast during the final months of the Second World War. Paranoid, he believes that everyone around him is trying to kill him. With that theory in mind, he is not only talking about the enemies who are continuously bombing their station, but also about the own American supervisors.
Yossarian has only one thing in mind: He wants to complete his duty, fly the required number of missions and then wants to be sent home. The problem is that Colonel Cathart keeps raising the number of required missions every time somebody is close to reaching them. The soldiers must kept fighting on, because Colonel Cathart wants to prove that he is a better leader than others and he tries to demonstrate his power and glory while he lets the men fight longer than it was supposed to. The Colonel does not care about the danger of war or the lives of his soldiers, the only thing he wants to obtain is acceptance and compliments for staying the longest at war.
All the soldiers that are introduced in the novel seem not to care about flying missions. They do not talk about being afraid of death or wanting to go home. The only exception to that is Yossarian who employs different measures to avoid combat flights. Faking a liver condition, he checks into the hospital regularly. In addition to that, he figures out a way to get the dangerous mission over Bologna cancelled. Yossarian just moves the bomb line over Bologna on a map of Italy, which causes the general belief that Bologna has already been captured and there has to be no more mission over it because it is already won. The novel introduces many characters that are around Yossarian, but no one else is as determined to leave war as he is. “Heller describes a dilapidated, destitute Rome. Its citizens are miserable, buildings are destroyed, starvation is the norm, and soldiers are dying by the thousands.” (Vasatka) The only fun soldiers enjoy is going to bars and seeing prostitutes.
When a young soldier named Nately crashes in an emergency mission and Yossarian tells his beloved prostitute in town about his death, she starts attacking him and tries to murder him through the entire novel because she is heartbroken.
Therefore, Yossarian is really surrounded by people who want to kill him- no matter if directly or indirectly.
Yossarian refuses to play a role that is expected from him. He keeps refusing things: He decided to parade without his uniform and he refuses to don his uniform when being ordered to. He does not want to buy a dinner jacket for an occasion he is asked to (cp.Seed 1989: 30). Moreover, he appears naked at Snowden’s funeral and climbs up a tree. He seems to act a little odd to the reader and someone might call him crazy, but he wants to underline his “individual existence.” (Seed 1989: 30)
By the end of the novel, Colonel Cathart offers Yossarian a deal: The Colonel will send him home if he promises to praise his commanders. Once again, Colonel Cathart worries about his reputation only and wants to send Yossarian home with personal, self-seeking reasons in his mind. Thus, his first option is “to accept the deal offered him by Colonels Korn and Cathart to become a war hero, in effect a PR man for the American army.” (Seed 1989: 31) First, he wanted to accept it, but then when hearing the details of Snowden’s death he feels like he cannot do it. He does not want to talk good about commanders that have been more enemies to him than anybody else has. Yossarian realizes that this offer would betray all his fellow soldiers and he decides to remain an individual as he always aimed to.
Yossarian receives the news that Orr, his former tent mate, is in Sweden. Yossarian understands now why Orr crash-landed nearly every mission and regrets not having accompanied him ever. Orr was actually rehearsing for his escape. This gives him hope and Yossarian decides to run away and follow Orr to Sweden. Yossarian is alive at the end of the novel, but we do not know if his escape will be successful or not. The novel does not have a certain closure.
3.2 Absurdity as a postmodern narrative strategy in Catch-22
Catch-22 belongs to the Literature of the Absurd; Joseph Heller uses absurdist features “to describe his novel’s absurd and disjointed world.” (Riepe) Heller prefers to protest against the absurdity he writes about rather than just accepting the universe as absurd. And with what can you protest the best against the absurdity of the world and show your disapproval? Yes, Heller uses absurdist features on purpose to rebel against the absurdity of war.
“To the American post-World War II Absurdists, man is not able to meaningful direct his own affairs […]. Morality is narrowly self-centered and man’s choices are selfish and heavily rationalized.” (Riepe) Yossarian’s plan was to avoid as many missions as possible in order to survive. In addition, he will follow this mission and in the worst case, he will die while trying to survive. However, he is not accepting the war and its happenings.
He says in the novel that there “was Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo, for example, and they were all out to kill him.” (Riepe) An Army doctor tells him that he is not adjusting to the concept of war and that he does not want to accept the fact that he could be shot any second. The reader wonders how anyone could expect soldiers to accept something as absurd as that. That is the absurdity of war itself. Another doctor formulates a shocking sentence in the novel: Dr. Stubbs says “I used to get a big kick out of saving people’s lives. Now I wonder what’s the point, since they all have to die anyway.” (Riepe) This demonstrates the frustration of the doctor and the helplessness and hopelessness in his thoughts. His sentence does not only sound cruel, but also like something that is very absurd to say. Shouldn’t a doctor still try his best in saving people’s live? Maybe he is still doing that, but I doubt it when I hear him talk like that- it seems like he does not see much sense in his work anymore. Everyone in the military system develops a sense of indifference: The doctors and the tired, fighting soldiers. The inhuman leadership also shows behavioral traits of indifference, but not to themselves but to the life of all the inferiors. Especially in the hard time of war, togetherness and support should play a big role, but it does not. In contrast, “soldiers are not meant to fight, win and survive but they are expected to die, to willingly give up their lives without questioning war or its reasons.” (Riepe)
This is the most sorrowful and craziest believe that I have heard about war times. In addition to that, it is so crazy and loaded with irony that it makes it not only illogical, but also absurd.
Leon F. Seltzer (2001: 101) goes even further and says that the absurdity in Catch-22 functions as moral insanity. He states that “the label most frequently adopted in describing the themes and methods of Joseph Heller’s contemporary classic, Catch-22, is without doubt “the absurd”.” In his view, the novel illustrates very well that “it is an irrational, sometimes nightmarish world in which one’s superior (and even inferior) officers constitute a greater threat to one’s life and sanity than the enemy […].”(Seltzer 2001: 101)
Most of the book’s action makes no sense, neither the consumption of chocolate-covered cotton nor the signing of meaningless loyalty oaths (cp. Seltzer).
There is a relation between Heller’s presentation of the world and the “philosophical perspective to that of Kafka, Sartre, or Camus, or to dramatists working in the “Theater of the Absurd” tradition.” (Seltzer 2001: 101)
Franz Kafka was “the figure who most shaped the absurd literary tradition in the twentieth century […].” (Potts 1989: 58) His works Metamorphosis, The Trial and The Castle, the stories of protagonists that are all of a sudden confronted with something odd and absurd were very successful. That is why “the adjective “Kafkaesque” has come to be applied to any situation in which the individual is up against overwhelming complexities and absurdities, usually institutional/bureaucratic in origin; […].” (Potts 1989: 59)
Catch-22 is “overloaded with examples of moral and rational disability” (Seltzer 2001: 103): In the world of Catch-22, people are only allowed in to see the major in his office when he is not in there and question in meetings are only accepted from those people who have not any questions. In my opinion, just this sentence has to be read over repeatedly to understand and feel the absurdity.
The Colonels Cathart and Korn scathe Yossarian for his misdoing in flying over a bridge twice on a single mission. The obvious reason for criticism would be that this mission, in which Yossarian desperately tried to succeed and then did with the second attempt, caused the death of his crew. However, the Colonels were only in rage about it, “because it will look “lousy” in the report that must be filed with the Headquarters.” (Seltzer 2001: 103)
The solution to this problem, which is “perfectly calculated to satisfy the moral insanity of the reigning bureaucracy” (Seltzer 2001: 103) is as absurd as the problem itself. Colonel Korn wants to promote Yossarian to captain, because he experienced that it is good to act proud of somebody and talk large of something that they are, in secret, ashamed of (cp. Seltzer 2001: 103). Yossarian only gets a medal in order to cover-up the shame of the Colonels; how absurd is that?
Heller himself describes the state of things in the novel as insane. He mentioned that it is indeed “a moral book dealing with man’s moral dilemma”. (Seltzer 2001: 103)
Furthermore, he states that “people can’t distinguish between rational and irrational behavior, between the moral and the immoral.” (Seltzer 2001: 103)
Yossarian is an outsider, a ridiculer and an anti-hero; he tells the truth in underlining that it should not only be about winning the war, but also keeping alive.
The novel demonstrates very well the absurdity of war, the absurdity of the
Catch-22 that seems not even to exist and the absurdity of bureaucracy.
“The fact that young men die for the old men in power, presented as it is in the novel, is […] unnatural and absurd.” (Riepe)
3.3 Usage of black humor in Catch-22
The absurd “makes free use of exaggerations, surreal circumstances, and a grotesque and frequently unpleasant humor.” (Potts 1989: 58) In other words, we can say that the absurd provides a basis for humor. After looking at the impact from the absurdity, I can hardly understand how I was able to laugh several times by reading the book. My answer to that is that, probably, Heller wants us to laugh and to feel puzzled at the same time.
“It was the first novel to transform World War II from a human tragedy into an absurdist comedy […].” (Sexton) Heller succeeds portraying the seriousness of war as a comedy without ridiculing the matter. With the humor used, Heller wants to show that the patriotic military and war itself is a misconception (cp. Sexton).
Black humor is a dark and disturbing mode of comedy, which is found especially in antinovels and absurdist literary works.
With the grotesque representation, it usually expresses hopelessness in the novel. The reader is asked to think of what he might have just smiled about.
“Repetition and circularity constantly draw our attention to the operative conventions of discourse which are being parodied […]. “(Seed 1989: 58)
Several discussions from the beginning return later in the novel and if there was a problem, no solution is found. Officers’ repeat other officers’ words and demonstrate their inability to take a decision or to think individually (cp. Seed 1989: 58).
The different characters are only there to represent one piece of a comical and absurd system. The names that are given are already ridiculous and define their character traits: Hungry Joe, Lieutenant Scheisskopf, Major Major, Milo Minderbinder, Corporal Whitcomb, Nurse Duckett, Dobbs, Dunbar, Snowden and Yossarian. Some of them are just weird, others funny. The persons introduced “are what Heller himself has called ‘cartoon eccentrics’ designed to represent the ‘caricatures produced by war’.” (Seed 1989: 36) In addition, they express different points of view and thoughts.
Very often Heller uses humor to stress serious themes that follow.
“The darkly-edged comic sensibility of the book is not there merely to draw gasps of outrage or shock, rather it is to lampoon the pinnacle of absurdity in human existence: that the most precious thing we have, life, is the price that must be paid for everything else we want.” (Sexton)
Several conversations and passages are filled with irony or humor:
Hungry Joe does not want to admit his nightmare problems, but still asks for help. The major says, “Don’t come in for anything unless you’re sure I’m not here.” (Heller 1994: 130) Dr. Stubbs says about Yossarian “That crazy bastard may be the only sane one left” (Heller 1994: 144), but wouldn’t we normally relate the term ‘crazy’ with insane? It sounds very ridiculous when Doc Daneeka tells Yossarian that it is not his business to save lives. The doctor tries to convince him to fly more missions, because it would look stronger to refuse flying after fifty-five missions (cp. Heller 1994: 224). A scene at the hospital can produce quite a lot of laughter.
After Yossarian pretended to see everything twice, he changes his plan and continues like this:
“‘I see everything once!’ he cried quickly.
A new group of specialists came pounding up to his beside with their instruments to find out if it was true.
‘How many fingers do you see?’ asked the leader, holding up one.
‘One.’
The doctors held up two fingers. ‘How many fingers do you see now?’
‘One.’
The doctor held up ten fingers. ‘And how many now?’
‘One’. The doctor turned to the other doctors with amazement. ‘He does see everything once!’, he exclaimed. ‘We made him all better.’” (Heller 1994: 233)
The dialogue about Appleby having flies in his eyes and that this is the reason why he cannot see them is repeated and still humorous in its unique way.
“When Captain Black says signing the loyalty oath is completely voluntary, but then immediately asserts that anyone who does not sign will be starved to death it is funny, but it also has an element of truth in it.” (Sexton)
It is vulgarly funny when Orr is popping horse chestnuts and crab apples into his mouth and “by engaging in business with the enemy, Milo ultimately serves to prove beyond a doubt that war is utterly meaningless.” (Sexton) Countries always start to trade goods again and reconcile.
Men who are afraid of death search their release within sexual adventures. This connection is portrayed in “darkly comical ways as well.” (Sexton)
The women in the book are regarded as sex objects: Nurses and prostitutes take care of the men, sometimes the typical roles being assigned to them even seem to change. The fact that nearly everyone calls somebody else crazy is weird. The word ‘crazy’ is used so often that the reader starts to wonder what it really means and why it is used permanently. The word ‘crazy’ eventually starts to lose its meaning.
It is much more normal to be crazy in the novel than to be clever or thoughtful.
The humor in Heller’s novel adapts parody and satire at the end when Yossarian meets the old woman. Soldiers came before and took the young girls away that took care of her. She is very sad and when Yossarian asks her why the authorities did it, the best and at the same time outrageous definition of the Catch-22 comes from her: “’ Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing.’” (Heller 1994: 514)
Yossarian cannot see any reason for what happened and keeps wondering:
“’ Didn’t they show it to you?’ Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. ‘Didn’t you even make them read it?’
‘They don’t have to show us Catch-22, ‘the old woman answered. ‘The law says they don’t have to.’
‘What law says they don’t have to?’
‘Catch-22’
‘Oh, God damn!’ Yossarian exclaimed bitterly. ‘I bet it wasn’t even really there.’ (Heller 1994: 514- 515)
The authorities took the girls with no reason, they even told them that they did not do anything wrong (cp. Heller 1994: 514), but they chased them away anyway, because of the Catch-22.
Catch-22 is a principle that justifies any official action; moreover, it is “a replacement for rationality itself, all justifying and self- concealing.” (Seed 1989: 58)
“The use of black humor in Catch-22 is a perfect example of its very intention, which is to temporarily distract from the principle serious of a situation by lightening the load, only to come back full force with an even deeper appreciation of that serious.” (Sexton)
Heller’s produced absurdity and the use of dark humor go quiet well with what Kant thinks about the development of humor. It seems that Heller had his novel and the effect from his narrative style exactly planned and, I guess, that is what spots a good writer. As depicted before, Kant said that only something absurd could evoke a good and sudden laughter. This is what Heller did: with his brilliant grasp for absurdities in our lives, Heller introduced many bizarre and strange situations, but he narrates them in a humorous way in order to distract the reader temporarily from the ugliness of it all. (cp. Sexton)
While the first conversations about the Catch-22 are very funny, we have to keep in mind that we are left with something different later on: The tone of the novel changes, it gets darker than before. The book drops all the investment in humor and develops into a satirical ending, which uses wit and sarcasm to expose humanity’s defects and quirks.
However, at least Yossarian demonstrated that he was not fooled by the forged existence of the Catch-22: “Catch-22 did not exist, he was positive of that, but it made no difference. What did matter was that everyone thought it existed, and that was much worse…” (418).” (Potts 1989: 103)
It is unbelievable that something like the Catch-22 where nobody knows who formulated it, can function so well. It is common to pity Yossarian and the other men at the end of the novel. Maybe even only Yossarian, because most of the others did not even question the answer that constantly justified everything: the Catch-22.
4. Conclusion
Catch-22 is a novel that entirely takes place at war and it “became the chosen text of the anti-Vietnam War protest movement.” (Seed 1989: 22)
Even though the book is filled with comedy, it describes the physical and emotional pain of war.
After working on this assignment, it seems even more obvious than before that the reader is almost tricked to laugh at certain situations that later are revealed to be quite serious and emotional. The reader does not realize what they are laughing at until the novel is completed and Heller’s true vision is revealed.
As I pointed out before, the tone changes at the end of the novel and the tragic information about the Catch-22 is being presented.
“Regardless of whether catch-22 truly exists (Yossarian maintains that it does not), the common man has no control over anything.” (Vasatka 2009)
“As in Kafka, the human institutions of Catch-22 – bureaucracies ostensibly created to preserve ideals and order – only end up serving the cosmic fact of death and injustice.” (Potts 1989: 65)
Many topics in the novel formulate the anti-war theme. Seek for power, glory and money is seen everywhere and the corruption of soldiers in the novel tell us how dangerous and absurd war really is. Heller uses satire in order to get the point across from a rather comedic standpoint.
Catch-22 is a very powerful anti-war novel. However, Joseph Heller insisted in many interviews “that the true subject of Catch-22 was contemporary and that it was only obliquely about the last World War […].” (Seed 1989: 59)
Catch-22 wants to shock and to challenge the readership. “On the surface, it appears to be an outcry against war, but Heller criticizes not only the absurdity of war, but also capitalism and religion.” (Vasatka 2009)
“Catch-22 is a metaphor for an ordinary person trapped in the insanity of war or life in general.”(Vasatka 2009)
Yossarian is an anti-hero who does what his only way out of the war and his chance of survival is: he runs away at the end of the novel.
There are allusions to the American Dream as well. Even when soldiers work hard enough and fly their required missions, they do not get sent home. They cannot expect to have a happy life back at home. For the common man, especially at war times, the American Dream does not come true or we could say that the belief supports the wrong ones. Only the glory-seeking and corrupt superiors get wealthier and have more freedom.
The term ‘American dream’ underwent many critics and does not sparkle in the same way as it did a long time ago.
Heller’s words are definitely still important today, because “in modern society, decisions are still made by the Milo Minderbinders, Colonel Xatharts, and politicians. They are not on the front lines sacrificing their lives.” (Vasatka 2009) They are the ones who do not have to be afraid, because they are secure while earning money.
Postmodernist fiction questions the hierarchy and organization of the principles of our society through literature. This is exactly what Heller did: He questioned the social, economical and political condition of World War II, but still relates this to the present. At least, he claims that some transfers to present events can be made and I can agree with his statement. Unfortunately, injustice, sorrow and suffering are found in our modern society in many cases. Nevertheless, Heller’s novel is especially a “clear-cut satire on contemporary American life.” (Potts 1989: 115)
It is very common for postmodernist works to treat serious topics in a humorous way and after looking at the text more closely, I can say that this is also accomplished in his novel. Along several funny scenes or black humor producing situations, the main concept of Heller’s masterpiece is the irony of the “Catch-22” itself.
The novel contains other postmodern features as well: There is an increase of uncertainty, because we do not know what will happen to Yossarian.
Moreover, there is no real closure at the end of the book. Heller succeeds to use irony, sarcasm, black humor, the absurd and the tragic in one novel. Many characters create the feeling of polyphony; the reader gets information from all of them. In my opinion, Catch-22 is a very good example for a postmodern novel, because it keeps the typical conventions and expectations of a postmodern book.
Besides, it is worth reading.
In fact, Catch-22 is seen “as one of the first and most original creations of literary postmodernism and as an artefact of the social and political culture of the sixties, it is still regarded by many as the best novel of the decade.” (Potts 1989: 8) Thus let me just add to this that I believe another reason for its popularity must exist: because we still live in the world of Catch-22.
(Words: 8705)
Bibliography
- Book resources
-
Barth, John (1985): The Friday Book: Essays and other nonfiction. Perigee Trade.
-
Heller, Joseph (1994 ): Catch- 22. London: Vintage.
-
Kusnír, Jaroslav (2005): American Fiction: Modernism-Postmodernism, Popular Culture, and Metafiction. Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag.
-
Mc Hale, Brian (1987): Postmodernist Fiction. London and New York: Routledge.
-
Pinsker, Sanford (1991): Understanding Joseph Heller. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
-
Potts, Stephen W. (1989): Catch- 22. Antiheroic Antinovel. Boston: Twayne Publishers.
-
Sarup, Madan (1988): An Introductory Guide to Post-structuralism and Postmodernism. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
-
Seed, David (1989): The Fiction of Joseph Heller: Against the Grain. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
-
Seltzer, Leon F. (2001):”Milo’s “Culpable Innocence”: Absurdity as Moral Insanity in Catch- 22.” Modern Critical Interpretations. Joseph Heller’s Catch- 22. Ed. Harold Bloom. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers.
-
Internet resources ( all accessed on 3/10/2009)
-
Mizrach, Steve “What is postmodernity?”
-
Riepe, Jan(2003) “Absurdity in Joseph Heller’s Catch-22”
-
Sexton, Timothy (2007) “Black humor and negation in Catch- 22”
-
Vasatka, Kyle (2009) “Book Review: Joseph Heller’s Catch- 22”
- Encyclopedia knowledgerush
- Encyclopedia Britannica
- http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Anti-hero
- The internet encyclopedia of philosophy
-
cp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
cp. http://www.ego4u.com/en/read-on/countries/usa/american-dream
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream
http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Anti-hero/
http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Anti-hero/
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Anti-hero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
http://iep.utm.edu/h/humor.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_humor