A Peaceful Stature

Catch 22 and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest present the idea that men wish to weaken the control women have over them because it threatens their capacity as men.

These two novels share common themes throughout but it is the scenes in the hospitals that offer an insight into the clash against women. Both Heller and Kesey show that at first the men can only discuss their sexual attraction to the women in secret just between each other. We can see this when McMurphy and Harding discuss the ladders wife once she’s left the room, “She’s got one hell of a set of chabobs”. The same happens when Yossarian and Dumbar discuss the experience of touching Nurse Duckett. The author’s idea that the men lack the strength to talk to woman down at first, highlights their cowardly attitude. They continue this cowardly attitude in the way they try to undermine the women, physically. Lacking the strength to do so through words, the men recur to the physical sexual aspect to diminish the women. By using the physical aspect they devaluate the women from a person into an object or so they believe they do:

“I didn’t grab Nurse Duckett by the bosom,” said Yossarian.

“I Grabbed her by the bosom,” said Dunbar.

 Heller’s replacement of her name for a pronoun proposes the devaluation of them from an individual into just a female. The authors’ highlighting on the strategy these men use hints it is ineffective. Even though it might initially weaken a women’s stature she will continue being an individual and eventually re-emerge.

Heller and Kesey develop the relationship between man and woman as a constant love-hate relationship in which both gender’s which to acquire total power yet do not wish to see the other gender suffer. The existence of Harding’s wife as a woman who he loves yet hates paints am almost incomprehensible relationship between them. Harding loves the essence of his wife but hates that she tries to break from his control. At one point she says, “I hate Mrs. Harding, Mack; why don’t you call me Vera?” As readers we can identify that the reason for her hatred of “Mrs. Harding” is because of the way it ties her to Harding almost as if he owned her.  The reaction from the male’s is hatred as Major Sanderson puts it, “you love her and hate her so much you don’t know what else to do,” In effect the authors’ imply that any struggle for power will end in hating the opposite party despite the fact that you previously loved the opposite party that the hatred for the opposing party will always be generated because of them being the opposing party. Perhaps these conflicts for power are necessary for they generate equality among people but we must find a method to avoid such conflicts by establishing equality beforehand.

Heller and Kesey present stature as a weakness for the human race because of the ridiculous importance given to it. Generating nothing but conflict, stature should be forgotten to create a peace.

“That’s all for today, Monsieur Antichrist” (Camus 71)

Throughout modern literature there is no topic more common than the existence of God. Authors feel the need to include their beliefs into their writing. It is then that because of analytic insufficiency we should turn to comparative literature to find the unusual meaning. Catch-22 and The Stranger offer a wide range toward the understanding of God creating a very vivid picture of the almighty.

Heller’s and Camus’ explanation of God is significantly different but the reasoning behind their atheism provides a redefinition of hope. The Stranger, with a more existentialist thematic, questions the idea of God. Meursault doesn’t just neglect God, he has lost hope in having hope. The novel just seams to flow through, it asks no futuristic questions for it sees no point in the future. The Magistrate asks Meursault, Do you want my life to be meaningless?” (69) Almost as if Meursault’s life was meaning less because of the lack of God even though as readers we know his life  does have a meaning.  The Magistrate’s question suggests that Meursault’s society categorizes God as the meaning of life and his lack of it disrupts others’ existence. Camus forms a critique on the way others wish to impose their beliefs. Heller exposes a similar relationship when Yossarian and Lieutenant Scheisskopf’s wife discuss God. Even though she is an atheist she is bothered by Yossarian’s conception of God for she claims, “the God I don’t believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God”. Heller takes the concept of oppression upside down to emphasize what people have lost hope in. The conclusion these two author’s make is that people have turned into realism. No longer do we feel an almighty god watching over us. Hope has not been destroyed, it has been revaluated.

The two novel’s develop a critique on religion and at the same time hold core values  as a necessary morale. Heller and Camus take religion almost as a concepts or templates, they suggest that one’s values should build upon them yet not with them. Both authors’ form critiques on religion, Camus develops the Magistrate as a frustrated and angry man that shoves crucifixes at people’s faces while Heller creates the chaplain, a frustrated and sorrow man that lives secluded in the forest. Meanwhile these characters create a great offensive against religion, the authors seam to valor the Christian hopes of spreading wellbeing. Heller writes that for the Chaplain the other aspects of illogical religion “tormented him. Yet they never seamed nearly as crucial to him as the question of kindness and good manners” (268) Not excluding, Camus believes that it would be illogic for God to forgive anyone if he really wanted to make people do good deeds.  They both believe that humans should propagate goodness and that the essence of religion should be conserved.

Although Catch-22 and The Stranger are considered harsh critiques on religion, their revaluation of faith and their unearthing on the essence of religion form them to be testaments towards human faith. The authors suggest religion will serve to propagate good but might end up withdrawing what it initially stood for.

A Dramatic Catch

A character’s situation and his understanding of it creates allusion without disrupting the story. Joseph Heller’s Catcht-22 uses dramatic irony to redefine the idea of absurdity as a whole. The author’s repetitive use of irrational situations paints the idea that anything can happen and that it is only those who understand this that may remain sane.

The novel’s characters are used as a sample of individuals with different levels of understanding on illogicality to demonstrate the effects of expecting random events versus assuming certain ones.  The squadron’s required mission count serves as a great example, “I’m all packed now and I am waiting to go home, I’ve finished my sixty missions.’ ‘So what?’ Yossarian replied. ‘He’s only going to raise them again.’ ‘Maybe this time he won’t’” (307). Dobbs, the first to speak, is cheerful for he expects what would be normal: for him to go home. Yossarian, who is clearly more experienced, knows this to be false and hopes to prevent Dobb’s misery when they inevitably raise the mission count. What is important to note is the mood in which these characters find themselves. Dobbs is ignorant and cheerful while Yossarian is knowledgeable and therefore depressed. The author wishes to contrast them to emphasize the influence knowledge has on mood. Even though Yossarian’s and Dobb’s fate may be the same, their perception over it determines their current existence as being great or terrible. Heller’s character development serves him to develop absurdity as subjective idea. His characters have widely different expectations and the results can be both amusing and usual.

Heller’s dramatic irony takes on more complex idea of absurdity through paradoxical events in the novel. Once the idea of subjective absurdity is understood by the reader, Heller introduces the concept of ‘circular’ absurdity with paradoxes. These paradoxes are self-conflicting, they seam impossible. How can you visit Major Major if he doesn’t allow anyone to see him when he is in his office and it is only when he leaves that people are allowed to enter? Much like the chaplain anyone who confronts such a set of ruled is startled, but unlike characters readers are able to identify it as a paradox. There really is no way a visitor can see Major² without him making an exception to his rules. Heller paints the idea that there is something of an impenetrable fortress. Is absurdity such a fortress? One that cannot be accessed unless given exclusive permission? Which leads to question what the exception of the Chaplain towards the Major’s rules means. Absurdity is a fortress of such; it holds only invisible doors that can be only be accessed through exceptions made by others.

Absurdity becomes part of a dramatic irony. Any beholder becomes a character unaware of the situation he finds himself in and it is up to an external force to pull him from it. People must transform from character to reader in a sense of perspective viewing the situation from a much wider view. Once a subject understands absurdity they become sane: aware of their surroundings and in a way depressed.