22 Ponderings

So, Catch-22...a paradoxical, ironic, sarcastic, hilarious novel that seems superfluous on the outside but really has much substance within it. I've actually really enjoyed it so far. I had first been hooked by the knee-slapping humor in the first few chapters of the novel, but as I began to turn on my AP Lit thinking, I realized I didn't really understand the whole purpose of the chapters so far. Everything just seemed disjointed in a connected way--paradoxical yet funny at the same time. It was only after I had read through the ten chapters we had assigned for reading twice that I realized the (seemingly) random jumps from character to character and from time to time were intentional, to subtly tell the reader something. Sure, I believe the novel will be a great read even if I don't take the time to figure out the author's real meaning behind it all. The novel has a unique way of storytelling that really seems to captivate me. I'm not sure why, because I usually dislike books with only mainly male characters, and on top of that, this is a war novel. I hate war, war novels, war...anything, really. Oh, I can stand gore, and blood, and murder, and other gruesome things. It's just that the subject of war...eh. I've never understood war, why two countries have to fight each other, losing the lives of innocent men in the process. Why killing is deemed "okay" during a war, why soldiers have to suffer so much in patriotism. And I guess, in that sense, I'm kind of like Yossarian. He can't seem to understand the reason for the war, and I love the way that he tries to get out of everything. I found it interesting that Yossarian is the main character of the novel--and then he's not. We are introduced to him first in the novel, and I just assumed he would be the main character, as he is the one with the most action, the most thought processes lined out, the most development...And yet, he's not exactly the main character. We don't really get any of his background, whereas we do for the other characters. Each chapter focuses on a different character--all but Yossarian (at least so far). And thinking back on this, I feel like Heller was trying to tell us something. War is, with no doubt, a joint effort. No one man is significantly more important than the other man, and I feel like Heller was trying to tell the reader that in death, nothing else is really more significant than life. As Yossarian points out in almost every chapter, the men in the war are so close to death. Each of them deals with it in his own way, namely Dunbar, who tries to make time slow down so that he may die later. Though Yossarian seems the cowardly, overly sarcastic and overly worried character in the novel, maybe he has a point in his seeming cowardice. He actually understands that his life is in danger, that his life is precious. In admitting that he wants to save his own life, he is brave, not cowardly; he is a paradox. Life is a paradox in itself.

The Catch...22

The literature-lover in me is itching to get into Catch-22, arguably one of the best war novels of the twentieth century. I read the introduction to the novel yesterday, and I was struck by the absurdity of the logic of the Catch-22 itself. A Catch-22 is a situation in which a man is considered insane if he willingly puts himself in danger, but is considered sane if he takes himself out of danger. The catch is that if he is considered sane, he is ineligible to be relieved from service. I've always loved paradoxes, and I'm sure that I'll love this one as well. Scanning the first few pages of the war novel, I was intrigued when Yossarian says that he fell in love with the chaplain. A chaplain is defined as a member of the clergy attached to a private chapel, institution, ship, or a branch of the armed forces. The chaplain seems to be a male figure...what exactly is going on?
I already love the style of the novel. Heller writes in a style that is very active and sarcastic, and I imagine his character Yossarian, who is narrating the novel, to be the same way. I can understand why Yossarian would be slightly crabby and sarcastic, as he is fighting a war he doesn't want to fight, and in order to avoid his predestined fate, must remain cramped up in a hospital room feigning sick.
I found it interesting that Yossarian had to pretend to be sick in order to evade the war. Though I understand that the premise of the Catch-22 is that Yossarian has no choice but to remain in the hospital, I feel like the theme of seems vs. is will be prevalent throughout the novel. Yossarian obviously has a fun-loving and interesting personality, and I am excited to see how he handles the monotony of the hospital and faking his illness and whether he will even be able to stay in the hospital for the duration of the war.
One major idea that I came across even in reading the first few pages was whether or not Yossarian is a coward. At this point in the novel, I feel like he is a bit of a coward. True, I don't know his entire story, of why he even needs to get away from the war in the first place. But I believe, as a man, he should live up to his own masculinity and stop the Catch-22 madness. I mean, isn't that what all male heroes do in war novels? Fight to the death against the enemy, win, and go back home to his true love? Yet, I'm getting a good feeling about the anti-fairy tale this novel has taken on.

Little Love Songs: Gaming Version (In Spenser Terms)

I think I'm in love. With sonnets, that is. Oh, the irony. And while I love the beautiful imagery and double-meaning words the poet weaves into each little song, I cannot seem to understand why poets--Spenser specifically--would want to describe his woman as "the hunt," "the game," or any other animal-like name. I understand that love is a game. And the poet feels like a hunter. And the lady runs away, like a deer. Or flies away like a bird. I really get it, I do. But does courtship always have to be a hunt? A chase? One person pursuing and the other fleeing? I know this was the 15th and 16th century, when men called on beautiful women, but for some reason, it just doesn't feel right hearing woman continuously being called--to be frank--an animal.
An animal is defined as a multicellular organism part of the kingdom Animalia, a person who behaves in a bestial or brutish manner, a person considered with respect to the physical nature, a person having a specified aptitude or set of interests, or relating to human instinct. I don't know...most 16th century women just don't seem very "brutish" to me...
Now to Spenser. I found it interesting that his Sonnet 67, like that of Wyatt, described "the hunt" of the fair lady. He describes himself as a "huntsman after a weary chase," and I couldn't help but wonder, 'Why chase, then?' I have to applaud Spenser for his (assumed figurative) long and weary chase, even though he could have never imagined that the "gentle deer" would behold him with a "milder look" and let herself go with him.
But what is Spenser trying to comment about women? Even though he describes woman as a deer, the doe being associated with woodland goddesses, gentle, caring, and intelligent, is Spenser trying to say that even if a woman has these wonderful qualities, at the end of the day, she is still an animal? If that is the case, perhaps the doe's "own will beguiled" was her succumbing to the chase, allowing herself to be led by the man because that is her instinct: to submit herself to a man--any man--in order to be protecting from future hunters. I'm really not sure, just posing questions and answering...myself.
What I found even more interesting was that Spenser remains a human throughout the sonnet. While the woman oscillates in description, from being described as a deer to someone with hands, to something that can fly, Spenser remains the huntsman. From a feminist lens, Spenser could be commenting that woman can change personas and attitudes so quickly; woman is easily influenced.
Other than this discrepancy, I really enjoyed the sonnet as a whole. What really hooked me about this sonnet was the use of the word "game" in so many different contexts. Like a game, so many things in life and love can change in an instant. But what remains constant? Love will always be a game.