Is the end of the semester causing anyone to feel a bit like Yossarian?

I think that we were able to come up with some interesting ideas in our discussion today.

To that end, let me start this party off by ask why the lable "crazy" is so prevelent in the book? That is to say, how does it function?

I feel like the word crazy is used as a label predominately in this novel to function as a device to keep the reader feeling if they might as well be crazy for reading the novel; a literary device to allow the audience to empathize with the Yossarian. It strives to provide a pivotal time to readjust one’s traditional view of crazy. Who is crazy in this novel? Why are they thought to be crazy? I think Yossarian is seen as a person who is more of the ideal than the other character’s striving for them.

 

 

 My question: Yossarian wants to live a long time. To this I ask who is he living for, what is his purpose in living if we all must die anyways? Is this simply an act of selfish cowardice or is he trying to challenge the moral compass of the culture?

Crazy.  Crazy is me.  I assume crazy is us.  This whole, "end of the semester," everything due to everyone thing is killing me.  You have to be crazy in order to think you can make all the paper deadlines at the same time, and teachers may well be likely to work with/excuse someone who's crazy, but if you ask the teachers for an extension, you thereby prove your sanity, and thus you are undeserving of an extension. 

I think I know how everyone in the book feels.  Crazy is everyone and everything.  The war is crazy, the people are crazy, the enemy is crazy.  "Crazy," because it is everything, is treated as if it is nothing.  Crazy is like absolute zero, with regards to the actual applying of the term to people's request for leave.  It exists in theory only.  The is a metaphor for what is happening on a larger scale.  People may fit the bill for this or that, but they are being denied.  The question is, where would things stand if people weren't being denied?  Catch 22 plays heavily on social commentary, but it doesn't much address what would happen if the Army allowed the pilots to get off the look and out of the jumpseat.  If the pilots stopped flying, the war could very well be lost.  In other words, denying the people this particular "good" works out for the good of everyone.  Craziness is thus a necessary evil.

 

So here's a question: How could things have been done differently?  How could the craziness be mitigated, accounted for, or dealt with in an approrpiate manner?

I think that crazy is, for the most, a state of mind. Right? It has to be. That's where it gets its traction. This is to say that in order for crazy to thrive, it requires a symbiotic relationship with the mind. Heller's crazy story was formed in his mind. Yes? You can't write something if you don't think about it first...or can you? If you could, that'd be craaaaazy.

So, here's my question (a simple, un-crazy one):
Where are the women here? What is their role? Is there a reason why their roles "seem" limited?

---

Sincerest and warmest of regards,

Sean C.

Where are the women here? What is their role? Is there a reason why their roles "seem" limited?

Thank you Sean!!

The women in Catch-22 are sex objects mainly.  One of the big reasons for this is because according to that time period, they don't really belong in the war at all.  Women stayed at home knitting socks, nursing, or being the whores that followed the soldiers. The women that were on the warfront became an outlet for the frustration and needs of  the men.  Women are often used as a tool by men to manipulate or taunt other men, i.e.  General Peckem's Nurse and his son-in-law Moodus,  Colonel Black's taunting of Nately because he sleeps with the girl Nately's in love with.

The society that these men are in does not value women--women don't fly airplanes, drop bombs, engage in any war activity other than nursing and they don't even have an opinion on the war activities happening around them.  So according to these men, women are less than human, less than a man--if the man though about it!-- and objects used for sexual pleasure.  It is interesting to note though that yossarion never forces himself on a girl and that the men that do are portrayed as beastlike.  I hope Aarfy died a slow painful death and is still in Hell--even if he is a character. I think it also has to do with the lack of respect for human life that war entails and the hierarchy of power that the military used. Women weren't even on the hierarchal totem pole.

A side note-- I read that interview between playboy and heller/vonnegut and those are two old men I would not want to have lunch with because they reminded me of an intellectual version of my grandpa.  However, if I was a man, I would eat lunch with them.

"So here's a question: How could things have been done differently? How could the craziness be mitigated, accounted for, or dealt with in an approrpiate manner?"

I think the only way to deal with craziness is to avoid it. You can't reason with lunacy. Lunacy is void of reason, that's what makes it lunacy. Or, perhaps, you could destroy it. But isn't that what is going on? One crazy army fighting another crazy army. Maybe crazy is normal. Maybe that's what a fallen world is, to throw down a little theology. Maybe. But maybe some of us are simply going sane in a mad world. Maybe. Maybe it is just the end of the semester and I am sick as a dog, i.e., a dog with a brutal sinus infection.

---

Sincerest and warmest of regards,

Sean C.

I think that the word crazy is used so much in catch 22 that it loses its traditional meaning. Everyone is called crazy at some point in the story, making one question what or who exactly is sane. It reflects the postmodern notion of relativism. What exactly is sane? what exactly is crazy? In truth, there is no set notion of crazy or sane. Its different for everyone. What one person finds completely sane another finds crazy and vice versa. How do I know that my "sanity" is not in actuality craziness? How do I know for sure that the schizophrenic on the street doesn't see the world for what it really is and i'm not the crazy one?


my question:
why does Yossarian fall in "love" only with women he knows will never love him back?

---

-Irving Washington

Sorry I was so excited about answering Sean's question I forgot to post my own:

Why is this book so radical--was it really one of the first anti-war books written?  what's funny to me is that in searching for information about the book I came across an article where this military squadron/section was honoring Heller for Catch-22--despite the negative portrayal of the military.  one of the main spins in the story was how the military appreciated his satiric expose of the fatheadedness of the military leaders and the men following the orders. umhmmm. interesting.

Do you see any parallels to Ulysses--either the myth or the James Joyce story?

Do you think Heller's message is still applicable to today's military situation--say the war in Iraq?

Derek's question:

Yossarian wants to live a long time. To this I ask who is he living for, what is his purpose in living if we all must die anyways? Is this simply an act of selfish cowardice or is he trying to challenge the moral compass of the culture?

I think the character of Yossarian is one of hope.  The fact that he wants to live does, in fact, show that he wants to find justice and "challenge the moral compass of the culture".  Unlike most anti-war novels, Catch-22 leaves a little room for optimism, and I think it is a cautionary work in comparison to many other works that were written after. 

My question: (This may seem like a cop-out for posting a real question, but it's really not) Dissect this paragraph (pg. 39) - "Well, maybe it is true," Clevinger conceded unwillingly in a subdued tone.  "Maybe a long life does have to be filled with many unpleasant conditions if it's to seem long.  But in that event, who wants one?"

"I do, " Dunbar told him.

"Why?" Clevinger asked.

"What else is there?"

This is a response to Karen's question about the dialogue between Clevinger and Dunbar on p. 39: 

 "Well, maybe it is true," Clevinger conceded unwillingly in a subdued tone.  "Maybe a long life does have to be filled with many unpleasant conditions if it's to seem long.  But in that event, who wants one?"

"I do, " Dunbar told him.

"Why?" Clevinger asked.

"What else is there?"

I think that this passage is demonstrating the effects of war on people and human sanity. All Yossarian's fellow soldiers are insane in some way. The constant danger of losing his life has caused Dunbar to realize how precious his life is because there  he has nothing else. So he doesn't care how boring his life is as long as he can make it slow enough to make it last as long as possible. He would rather have a meaningless, long life than a short "purposeful" life. He has been told his life would be honorable and purposeful if he were to die for his country, but he realizes that living for himself is infinetly perferable. This "purpose" is ambiguous to him and he doesn't want it; the "purposes" that are meant to drive men to fight for their country are ambiguous and and anything but honorable.

My question: Explain the relationships that the higher officers have with the lower officers and how this is satirical commentary on the military and how wars are run.  

Michele Goedinghaus