Lady MacBeth was an allegory to Queen Elizabeth’s reign

The control of Lady Macbeth throughout the play, first possessing a strong grip upon her husband but diminishing as he becomes increasingly independent, reflects the social circumstances and governmental situation of the time of its composition. Lady Macbeth can be viewed as an allegorical Queen Elizabeth I of England, holding vast amounts of power because she does not embody the typical characterization of aristocratic women. The suicide of Lady Macbeth, which renders to the reestablishment of a patriarchal monarchial system, mimics the transition, although bloodless, from Queen Elizabeth I to James VI of Scotland, her chosen successor, reinstalling the line of male sovereignty. Written between the years 1605 and 1606 to be performed before King James VI shortly after the death of Queen Elizabeth in March of 1603, the story of Macbeth along with the characterization of its leading lady offers a celebration to the restoration of male-dominated normalcy in Renaissance England.

The instability of the Tutor monarchy, plagued by events preceding the coronation of Queen Elizabeth, is presumed to be a result of female rule and thus is inherently dangerous for the state. The belief that a woman can not effectively lead a nation into war, exercise power over male subjects, or become wed without transferring her power to her husband and to his family all produce anxiety regarding the ability of women to rule and thus left it a culture yearning for the stability represented by a king, not a queen. To cure this insurgent hesitance and to express confidently the needed attributes to occupy power, Queen Elizabeth, much like her counterpart, Lady Macbeth, could not act in a womanly manner. The “Virgin Queen” as Elizabeth I was dubbed, resulting from her desire to strip herself of feminine sexuality, could nevertheless escape her femininity because of her appearance and the bias that existed against women in power at the time. Through the examination of the political attitudes against the late Queen of England, one can identify the parallels that Shakespeare conveyed through his character, Lady Macbeth.

Lady MacBeth’s desire for power

Lady Macbeth possesses unbridled ambition and an insatiable hunger for power, typical male sentiments which are deemed unladylike when compared to the traditional characterization and role of women. Women during this era are expected to be quiet and opinion-less in speech, gentle individuals who watch over home and servants, functioning to primarily please their husbands. This idea is further concurred by Joan Klein in her essay entitled “Lady Macbeth: ‘Infirm of Purpose,” as a result from Eve’s original seduction of Adam, all “women were bound by nature and law to obey their husbands as well as their God,” distinguishing Lady Macbeth as an oddity (168). Instead of fitting this mold, Lady Macbeth operates as the manipulative character in this play, pushing to obtain great power for personal gain through her husband’s lethal deeds. Following the slaughter of Cawdor in battle, Macbeth becomes alarmed when he learns that King Duncan’s son, Malcolm, not himself for his heroic actions, will be the next heir to the throne. After this meeting, Macbeth composes a letter to his wife, informing her of his resentment, and quickly she learns that King Duncan will be paying a royal visit to their castle, Inverness. To hasten the prophecy outlined in her husband’s letter, one that proclaims Macbeth will first be named Thane of Cawdor and then king, Lady Macbeth devises a plan to murder the King. Through the derision of her husband’s weakness, and the brilliancy of her plan, which seems to be fated by destiny, Lady Macbeth convinces Macbeth to commit regicide against a king he once followed. Such manipulation of events and the greed, which drew her to seek out to kill the king, are ultimately characteristics are typical of a man, rather than a woman. With this ploy, Lady Macbeth assumes the absolute power of the state, behaving as if she is to not be held accountable and deserves no blame. Her disruption of political stability stems from her own ambition, and it is this ambition that makes her standout as unnatural for her gender.

To gain credibility in her abilities and in the confidence that although she is a woman, she is capable of hungering for such power and seizing this power from others, Lady Macbeth must remove all aspects of femininity from herself. If the lady wishes to sway others into believing that she is perfectly competent of exercising leadership, she feels that the spirits must literally deprive her of femininity, thicken her blood, and halt her ability to weep openly. She begs these specters to strip away the attributes that make her a woman in crying out, “Come, you spirits / That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, / And fill me, from the crown to the toe, top full / Of direct cruelty.” (I, v, 41-44). She desires for her blood congeal so that she can no longer be harmed by her own guilty conscious, “Make thick my blood, / Stop up the access and passage to remorse, / That no compunctious visiting of nature / Shake my fell purpose nor keep peace between / The effects and it!” (I, v, 44-48). If Lady Macbeth can halt any inhibitions of guilt that may result from any of her deeds, she can consider herself more of a man, as men do go out into battle and kill without inflicting their souls with compunction. She then begs that the physical characteristics that make her a woman be removed, “Come to my woman’s breasts, / And take my milk for gall, your murthering ministers wherever in your sightless substances / You wait on nature’s mischief.” (I, v, 48-51). When Lady Macbeth desires to be “unsexed” in both emotional and physical terms, her words reveal the noted discordance between the supposed archetype of feminine nature and political ambition. Despite this, Klein suggests, “[She] is never able to separate herself completely from womankind – unlike her husband, who ultimately becomes less and worse than a man,” (169). Shakespeare must de-feminize Lady Macbeth to some extent to give her ambitions credibility and, therefore, maintain in the minds of the audience that she as a character to be taken seriously.

How Lady Macbeth dominates her husband

Through the bullying and chastising of her husband, Lady Macbeth drives Macbeth to dismiss his own fears, which ultimately leads to his own downfall.  Shakespeare transforms the longing of Lady Macbeth into that of a masculine nature and by doing so, through her actions and words, places Macbeth in a passive role.  The playwright allows Lady Macbeth to dominate her husband to show that such reversal of sexual relations is also a reversal of political order, reflecting the issues of female involvement in the government and the aptitude possessed by women to reign over men as a monarch.  Throughout the first portion of the play, it can be noted that Macbeth is continuously forced to assert his manliness to his wife, first in writing a letter to her from the battlefield hailing his accomplishments and then by murdering King Duncan.  The initial probing exposes a more feminine side of Macbeth, one of doubt and hesitation, when he asks, “If we fail?” (I, vii, 58).  Lady Macbeth replies sharply, “We fail? / But screw your courage to the sticking-place / And we’ll not fail.” (I, vii, 59-61), attempting to assuage his fears.  Lady Macbeth continuously berates her husband for his lack of conviction, deeming him a weak man who can easily be exploited.  She becomes angered when Macbeth determines that he will not claim the crown by treacherous means, “If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me / Without my stir.” (I, iii, 143-144).  Although a man well versed in the sentiments of the battlefield, having hunted down traitor Macdonwald and “unseamed him from the nave to the chaps and fixed his head upon our battlements,” Macbeth is plagued by the insistence of a guilty conscience.  Lady Macbeth proceeds to mock him because of his apparent remorse following the murder of King Duncan saying, “My hands are of your color [blood], but I shame / To wear a heart so white.” (II, ii, 62-63).  Lady Macbeth finishes the deed of her husband herself, considering him not manly enough to go back and place the bloody daggers in the dead monarch’s bedchamber.  It is through the frequent insults and stabs against his manhood, that Shakespeare brings to light what a strong personality that Lady Macbeth possesses, one strong enough to assume the masculine role of acquisition of power. Upon asking the spirits to unsex her otherwise feminine emotional state and body to gain standing as a power-craving individual, Lady Macbeth acknowledges the single trait that still separates her from masculinity, at least in her mind, the ability to bear children. To remove this capacity would eliminate every aspect which would be considered womanly and, therefore, leave her a neutral ruler, unable to be influenced by the prospect of having children, which was condemned a weakness by the society. The disgust Lady Macbeth holds for any child who originates from her flesh can be noted in, “I have given suck, and know / How tender ‘tis to love the babe that milks me: / I would, while it was smiling in my face, / Heave pluck’d my nipple from his boneless gums, / And dash’d the brains out, had I so sworn as you / Have done to this.” (I, vi, 54-59). This astonishing revelation also reflects the way she treats those she judges more vulnerable than herself, both man and child alike, influencing them to do horrific crimes for her personal gain. To distance herself from every preconceived notion regarding womanhood, Lady Macbeth has chosen to remain a “barren scepter”, (II, i, 62) denying herself the right to give birth in exchange for a masculine mystique, which allows her the power she is searching to gain. Macbeth, on the other hand, insists that she bear an heir to the throne if he is to occupy it, taking a more practical, parental role a compared to his wife. “Bring forth men-children only!” he proclaims, “For thy undaunted mettle should compare / Nothing but males.” (I, vii, 72-74). The allusions made to the childlessness and the demands for a son to ascend the throne in this marriage can be found echoing in the minds of the first audience following the death of Queen Elizabeth, who died without hereditary heir. Devoid of the capacity or desire of neither Queen Elizabeth nor Lady Macbeth to yield children, each female ruler in the position of power maintains her credibility as a leader through a masculine form and nature.

Lady Macbeth’s suicide

Once Lady Macbeth succeeds in convincing Macbeth to undertake the unspeakably horrendous act of murdering King Duncan, her domineering nature can no longer keep him under her spell. Macbeth realizes his strengths stemming from the initial regicide and no longer needs her to fuel his ambition. As in all human nature, a manipulative mind must have a weak soul by which to prey on, but once this soul loses its inhibitions and gains independence, the manipulative mind shall crumble. Admitting to having killed the guards of the king’s chamber, Macbeth breaks free from the original plan devised by his wife and thus emerges out of her scheme a self-sufficient figure, causing Lady Macbeth to faint in disbelief. While Lady Macbeth is seen to be reexamining the events of the previous murder, Macbeth looks ahead, anticipating the next murder, that of Banquo, which he has not informed his wife of yet. Gradually Macbeth distances his mind from the grip of Lady Macbeth, tasting the spoils of victory independently, and then actively seeking them out, ending the lives of Banquo and Macduff’s wife and children, securing that his wife have no place in the masculine acts of treason and revenge. Upon ascending the throne, “he, the man, so fully commands Lady Macbeth that he allows her no share in his new business. No longer his accomplice, she loses her role as housekeeper.” (Klein, 175). Once Macbeth realizes his strength and no longer needs her or is in awe of her, Lady Macbeth, stricken and without an object to carry out her manipulation through, falls into periods of madness and sleepwalking. She becomes obsessed with removing the blood from her hands, as to her they appear stained, signifying a personal trial underway upon her soul. Lacking an individual to bestow upon her evil intentions and to achieve her ambitions, Lady Macbeth is forced to turn the evilness upon herself, eventually culminating into suicide as a result of relentless guilt. After losing the power of manipulation over her husband, Lady Macbeth loses her rank in the political institution of the monarchy and therefore, ultimately ceases to exist, without the control.

The anxieties of gender role manifested in Shakespeare’s Macbeth decisively present that even such a powerful character as Lady Macbeth, or Queen Elizabeth herself, can not overcome the traditions of a patriarchal system through acceptable means. In the conclusion, Malcolm, son of Duncan, is restored to the throne and thus re-establishing normalcy in the line of succession, as deemed appropriate by the British people during Shakespeare’s time. Through the allegorical representation of the political ethos of Renaissance England, Shakespeare examines and resolutely determines that positive involvement of women within the political structure is not feasible, as demonstrated by the evolution of Lady Macbeth.

The post Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth as an Exploration of Female Leadership appeared first on Rare Essays.

Holden Caulfield is not a particularly accomplished individual; he finds no purpose in anything, not even his love life. He has already failed three prep schools, not including his current school of Pencey. Holden Caulfield thinks everyone, and everything is fake; anyone who does not understand Holden is phony. He contradicts himself in the book, as he does many of the things which he describes as being fake. He is constantly searching for the object that will aid him in finding purpose, but first he must discover his own true self. In J.D. Salinger’s novel The Catcher in the Rye he uses allusion, metaphor, and symbolism to prove that the search for identity is an integral part of one’s livelihood.

Allusion in Catcher in the Rye

Allusion is very prevalent in The Catcher in the Rye and shows that identity is an establishment reached by a select few. “–but Mercutio, he was–it’s hard to explain. He was very smart and entertaining and all.” Holden speaks of Mercutio with the two nuns which he runs into at the train station, while he is living his life outside of Pencey. He seems to have a distinct interest in Romeo and Juliet and speaks of the novel for quite some time with the nuns. This excerpt shows Holden’s appreciation for Mercutio as Holden believes that Mercutio has found his identity; Mercutio’s identity is crucial to the role he plays in Romeo and Juliet. Another example of allusion which Salinger uses is excerpted from later in the book. “I wouldn’t mind calling this Isak Dinesen up.” Holden is in a state of thoughtfulness and describes various literature such as the one by Isak Dinesen, Out of Africa. He wants to call Dinesen to find out more information about him, namely Holden is curious about the type of identity Dinesen has. Holden thinks that, because he is a good author, he would be a good person to try and model his own identity from, though Holden decides not to call him. This may have been because Holden briefly realizes that everyone has their own identity, even if it is not entirely unique. Another example of allusion which Salinger uses correlates with the title, The Catcher in the Rye. Salinger alludes to the poem Comin Thro’ the Rye. “You know that song ‘If a body catch a body comin’ through the rye’? I’d like–’ ‘It’s if a body meet a body comin’ through the rye!’ old Phoebe said. ‘It’s a poem. By Robert Burns.’” Holden is trying to explain a dream he had to his little sister Phoebe and she immediately interrupts when he incorrectly quotes the poem. Holden’s dream is about children, he must save children from falling who are not paying attention to what they are doing. This again shows Holden’s search for identity, as he seems content with just being useful at saving little kids from an untimely [death].

Metaphor

Another strategy which Salinger uses in The Catcher in the Rye is metaphor. “If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born, what my lousy childhood was like… and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth.” This quote shows that life is not realistic. David Copperfield, like Holden, has struggled in his life and in his search for self-identity. Since Holden has not “found” his own identity yet, he assimilates his childhood to David Copperfield’s childhood. Another metaphor which is used in The Catcher in the Rye is “That’s the nice thing about carousels, they always play the same songs.” Holden speaks of this while Phoebe is riding the carousel. Holden always enjoys watching his little sister go around the ride and enjoys the songs it plays due to their inability to change. This is a metaphor to describe the way in which Holden thinks. He hates change; he is a very immature boy, who does not ever want anything to change and is scared to death of it (and fears death itself). Another metaphor is extended as Holden views himself as the “catcher”. The excerpt “What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff–I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going, I have to come out from somewhere and catch them.” shows Holden’s take on life: he believes that he is himself the Catcher in the Rye. This is a metaphor, as he wants to do something that never changes and is repetitious, something that will prevent death. He has not quite found his identity yet, but he sees himself as a guardian of the children.

Holden’s Identity

Salinger also uses symbolism to reveal the importance of finding one’s identity. “I took my old hunting hat out of my pocket while I walked and put it on. I knew I wouldn’t meet anybody that new me.” Holden reflects upon various aspects of his life while thinking of and putting on the hat. The hat is symbolic of his innate personality and reveals his insecurities. He is ashamed of his “identity”. He does not wear the hat around most people, as he does not want people to make fun of the hat. This shows that Holden is not comfortable with his current identity. Another example of symbolism which Salinger uses is “Certain things should stay the way they are. You ought to be able to stick them in one of those big glass cases and just leave them alone.” The museum is symbolic of Holden’s search for identity. Holden wishes to have an identity where nothing changes, much like a (the) museum. Holden speaks of the fact that the museum will remain virtually unchanged throughout the rest of his life. For this reason, the museum may represent how Holden wants his life to remain pure and unchanging. Salinger also uses the title of the book symbolically. Holden is the Catcher in the Rye, and it is symbolic of Holden’s personality, life, and search for identity. “That’s all I’d do all day. I’d just be the catcher in the rye and all.” This symbolizes Holden’s search for identity because he yearns for the same old thing every day, regardless of what has happened. He can also save the children and realize the importance of life in this way.

Conclusion

In Salinger’s novel The Catcher in the Rye he uses allusion, metaphor, and symbolism to prove that the search for identity is an integral part of one’s livelihood. Death is probably the scariest thing to Holden. This may be one of the main reasons he wants to know where the ducks go when the pond freezes over. He cannot quite grasp the sudden disappearance of them. Holden talks about how Death does not scare him so much as the disappearance of a person does. When something disappears, a major change occurs, such as the one when his brother Allie dies. He seems to be obsessed with the mummies in the museum, for example, because although they are dead, they have remained almost entirely unchanged through the centuries. Despite going through many issues and never being able to quite become the “identity” he wishes to achieve, Holden Caulfield can express how life ought to be. “Holden’s” narrative shows that you can be who you want to be and not be “fake” about it. Through this, you can see that although Holden’s search for identity is integral to his life, and even though he has an identity and does not realize it, you do not have to be socially accepted to make an impact. This is like today, as many people conform to the social “standards” and do not express themselves as they should as they are afraid of the judgment one might face from another peer. Just as Holden would be lost without his “search for identity” many people today are lost in trying to be socially normal and not trying to impact the world.

The post A Rhetorical Analysis of J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye appeared first on Rare Essays.

Hamlet’s Suspicions

In Shakespeare’s play, Prince Hamlet first appears on the scene with skeptical doubts about his new stepfather and many suspicions. His already doubting mind becomes completely shattered when his dead father’s ghost appears and warps his view of reality. He remains home after the funeral of his father, and begins to suspect his stepfather, King Claudius, thinking that Claudius is treating him far too personally, calling Hamlet his own son. “A little more than kin, and less than kind.” (I, ii, 65.) He also suspects his mother for marrying Claudius so soon after her own husband’s funeral: “That it should come to this! But two months dead: nay, not so much, not two: So excellent a king.” “Why, she would hang on him, As if increase of appetite had grown By what it fed on; and yet, within a month, Let me not think on’t: Frailty, thy name is woman! A little month…married with mine uncle, My father’s brother, but no more like my father Than I to Hercules.” He also notes the incestuous part of the marriage: Claudius married his sister-in-law, and the Queen, in marrying him, married her dead husband’s actual brother. (I, ii, 135-155) So far, we see that Hamlet has somewhat validated reasons for suspicion. Marriage of the dead King’s wife to the dead King’s brother not two months after the King’s death is indeed odd. However, objectively looking on things, this is no actual proof or reason for Hamlet’s final and ultimate belief, that King Claudius murdered Hamlet’s father. So, when Prince Hamlet is finally met by the spirit who puts on the form of his dead father, a mind brooding with suspicion is a perfect fertile setting for the words of the ghost to settle well in.

The Ghost in Hamlet

Hamlet’s mind becomes shaken upon seeing the ghost, so much so that he threatened his friends with death when they tried to stop him, warning him away from the ghost. (I, iv, 85.) He is desperate to hear the words of the ghost, his mind thirsting for what he already has suspicions for in his mind. Upon the word revenge, and murder, he is aroused; when the ghost declares, “Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder;” so much so, that he immediately replies upon the spot, “Haste me to know’t, that I, with wings as swift As meditation or the thoughts of love, May sweep to my revenge.” (I, iv., 30.) He not only listens to the ghost’s lengthy epilogues but also takes them up with fiery emotions. Mr. Eliot, a critic whose main goal was to show that Shakespeare took on a work too much for him, notes how “Hamlet (the man) is dominated by an emotion which is inexpressible, because it is in excess of the facts as they appear.” (Eliot) After he sees the ghost, his emotions rise to overflowing and he acts very oddly with those he knows, making no sense at times. He is bold and brazen, unkind and uncouth; alternating between all at once. Some in King Claudius’ court interpret it as lovesickness for Ophelia, who eventually loses her own sanity and kills herself, and Hamlet is called insane. In his emotional state, Hamlet even doubts himself: “Yet I, a dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak, Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause, And can say nothing.” (II, ii, 575.) “In effect Hamlet is creating a paronomasia of performance, moving from politeness to brutality; and it seems to come out almost unbidden.” (Brown) He comes to such a low point that he becomes suicidal, his warped mind eventually turning suicidal to solve his problems. “To die: to sleep; No more; and, by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, ‘tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish’d.” (III, i, 60.) Mrs. de Grazia, PhD in English, observes of Hamlet’s problem: “Hamlet falls short of dialectical self-realization,” and “advances against his own until in the final scenes, he is ‘bandied from pillar to post’ and ends up ‘sandbanked.’” (Grazia) He talks to himself constantly, fails to kill King Claudius at an opportune moment, kills another by mistake, and eventually dies from a poisoned stab wound in a duel fought with Ophelia’s brother, Laertes. In the end, the idea planted by the spirit in his already-suspicious mind influences him enough to cause the deaths of not just one, but several people.

The turning of Hamlet’s mind and heart to the surreal is the very work of an evil spirit, who works in men’s minds to cause evil. In the play, Hamlet ponders this very fact: “The spirit that I have seen May be the devil: and the devil hath power To assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps Out of my weakness and my melancholy As he is very potent with such spirits—Abuses me to damn me.” (II, ii, 605.) But he did not take this thought to heart and try to rid himself of the Satanic overclouding from his soul. It eventually led him to do desperate actions, and his own sad death. “Through Hamlet, this tragedy affirms the world of the mind over against the world of matter, the unresolved and independent conscience over against the answers that can be provided by others or demanded by society in its political, religious or familial manifestations.” (Brown) With truly beautiful language and eloquent poetry, Hamlet is a fascinating read; but once read through in its entirety, it is depressing and dark as well. The reader is taken up in the downward path of Hamlet’s life, and into the very intricacies of his fertile, but infected, mind. Mr. Coleridge said that in the conversations found in this play is “a proof of Shakespeare’s minute knowledge of human nature.” (Coleridge)

References

Brown, John Russell. “Multiplicity of Meaning in the Last Moments of Hamlet.”

Connotations. http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/connotations/BROWN21.HTM

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. “Lectures and Notes on Shakespeare and Other English

Poets.” Shakespeare and His Critics. 2001. http://shakespearean.org.uk/ham1-col.htm

Eliot, T.S. “Hamlet and His Problems.” Bartleby Great Books Online. 2010.

http://www.bartleby.com/200/sw9.html

Grazia, Margreta de. “Hamlet’s Thoughts and Antics.” Early Modern Culture. 2001.

http://emc.eserver.org/1-2/degrazia.html

“Hamlet.” Wikipedia. May 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet

Shakespeare, William (2006). Hamlet. New Jersey: Wiley Publishing

The post Reality Versus Imagination in Shakespeare’s Hamlet appeared first on Rare Essays.

Overview of Catch 22’s characters and structure

The book is sub-divided into 42 chapters, each primarily about an individual character and frequently with reference to Yossarian. There is little adherence to chronology and the book frequently shifts in time, and characters from all chapters appear in the others. Of course, no absurdist portrayal of war would be complete without a colorful cast. Yossarian, who frequently complains that millions of people are trying to kill him, is the paranoid bombardier who is obsessed with living and immortality and intently avoids flying combat missions. Milo Minderbender is a mess officer who runs an international black-market syndicate under several premises of the general breed of Catch-22. Colonel Cathcart is Yossarian’s commanding officer, who ambitiously risks his men’s lives on dangerous missions as part of his plans to become a general (his last name, interestingly, is an anagram for “Catch-art.”) Doc Daneeka is the flight surgeon who bitterly hates his duties because he was forced to leave a lucrative practice at home to join the military. Huple is the fifteen-year-old pilot who lied about his age to join the military. Major Major Major, formerly Major Major, is the officer who was promoted because of an IBM computer error caused by his unfortunate name, and who jumps out of his office window to avoid visitors. Among many others are Chief White Halfoat, the illiterate intelligence officer whose oil-striking Native American family was followed everywhere by speculators; Appleby, the pilot and former Ping-Pong champion from Iowa; Aarfy, the frat-boy navigator with a poor sense of direction; and Lieutenant Schiesskopf, the parade-fanatic officer who transfers from Yossarian’s cadet school to Pianosa.

By its nature, military lends itself to the whims of necessity. War is a form of emergency, and military is the means by which we survive such an emergency. The necessary power structure for military, then, is one that requires expert understanding of military affairs and that can adjust quickly. Operations certainly can not be conducted effectively in a democratic or decentralized manner, so the only effective arrangement of a military is one with a strict command hierarchy (dictatorships which answer to dictatorships). Naturally, any dictatorial structure of permanence- which could provide for the livelihood of individuals staffing it- often becomes subject to arbitrary wills that go beyond the necessity of emergency and into the luxury of personal interest.

Bureaucracy and control via language

Catch-22 is a book about such a system. Consider that emergency and necessity can often be construed as leading to a vacuum of civilization and a sea of coercion. Appropriately, the book is set in an island air force base and most of the plot items relate to the non-combat elements of war, which are no exception. Officers and military brass fight each other for power while enlisted men try their best to shirk their duties. Strange occurrences, such as the dead man in Yossarian’s tent who remains there for days, persist as a result of holes in the rigid military bureaucracy.

The absolute power of bureaucracy is a primary target of Heller’s criticism, as it sets the stage for most of the conflicts in the book. The bickering Generals, Peckem and Dreedle, are engaged in constant abuse of their powers in order to gain the upper hand over one another. Meanwhile, their inferior officers also have squabbles of their own. Caught in the middle are the enlisted men, who are used as pawns in their superiors’ games. The premise of the central plot is that Yossarian’s commanding officer, Colonel Cathcart, in a bid for promotion, tries to compete with other Colonels by volunteering his men for the most dangerous and numerous missions while simultaneously raising the number of missions required to earn an extended leave home as his men complete them.

The notion of language as a means of control also appears on several occasions. Part of Cathcart’s never-ending missions involves the use of regulation Catch-22:

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to.

The meanings of “crazy” and “sane” are wildly equivocated to create a rule which works to the advantage of the greater premise of Catch-22, which is that the men must do what their superiors say and they have no say in the matter. Language provides the loophole by which persons of authority can pass off their own arbitrary wills as laws; it is the means by which semantic parallelism or other parlor tricks can be passed off as reasoning (see John Stuart Mill’s justification for Utilitarianism!) When the Chaplain Tappman is accused of stealing a tomato, his denial of guilt is answered, “then why would we be questioning you if you weren’t guilty?” The faux-reasoning of the authorities in Catch-22 are part of a greater ridicule by Heller of distorted justice, possibly with contemporary overtones directed toward McCarthyism.

Heller also attacks greed and excessive ambition through Milo Minderbinder, the mess officer turned savvy black market entrepreneur. When Milo buys a stock of Egyptian cotton that no one wants, he runs out of funds. Desperate for money, he makes a contract with the Germans to bomb his own airbase. Milo often speaks of “the syndicate,” his company, and claims that “everyone has a share.” In other words, “what’s good for the syndicate is good for the country.” This is clearly a perversion of the concept that profit-seeking companies, if successful, provide a greater benefit to society at large. The concept actually entails production, which is precisely the opposite of what Milo’s operation was doing. In fact, Milo conducts most of his trade between parts of his own company, and collecting money upon each transaction- the greater benefit only reaching him.

Catch 22’s plot is a vehicle

Plot is only a tertiary attribute of Catch-22. It is merely a vessel by which Heller is given reason (however little, at times) to reveal one of many nonsensical characters who commit nonsensical acts. The story is plagued by accidents and mishaps, often caused or exacerbated by absurd behavior by eccentric characters. These include the tragic deaths of some of the soldiers, such as Kid Sampson, who is killed when the prankster McWatt flies close by a beach and slashes him in half with a propeller. McWatt, traumatized, then proceeds to fly the plane into a mountain, killing himself. There are many sub-plots, usually related to a particular set of minor characters. Often in the book, these sub-plots are connected with each other via means of revelation much later. Major —- de Coverley’s missing eye, for example, was poked out by a rose at a parade in Rome, which is later discovered to have been thrown by the old man who ridicules America at the brothel where the airmen go on leave.

Catch 22’s setting

Setting plays little role in the development of Catch-22. There are few scenic descriptions or “auras” for any given scene. The details, such as the base being on Pianosa or the period being that of World War II, are contingent and would not alter much of the story if they were otherwise. In fact, it would be more adequate to say that the characters form the backdrop for the main plot, which is centered about Yossarian. Dialogue fuels thematic development by exposing the petty, deluded, insane, or otherwise illogical thoughts and plans of the characters that Heller intends to ridicule. Colonel Cathcart characterizes his “wins and losses” as “feathers in his hat” or “black eyes.” Character back-stories, usually told in their respective chapters, also contribute to the general nonsense.

Catch 22’s plain, yet effective style

Stylistically, Catch-22 was brilliant for its time and is extremely entertaining today. It is often funny and frequently subtle, yet all of it is couched in a relatively plain American prose. Contradiction, paradox, irrationality, and eccentricity are what make the book humorous in the end, but these are more thematic than stylistic characteristics. Of course, Heller’s presentation effectively conveys his themes, which do not require parallelism, complex imagery, or rhyme to be expressed; plain statement suffices. Overall, Catch-22 is a fairly long, detail-rich read full of humorous insights into logical fallacy and its forced legitimacy by authority. It is a story of a fairly reasonable person, Yossarian, who is caught between death from the enemy’s flak guns and death from his superior officers’ displeasure. Moreover, it is a universal story of a rational individual forced to exist in a system that operates by irrational rules. Ironically, the conclusion of Catch-22 ultimately undermines the authority: when Yossarian is presented with his ultimatum- betray his comrades, or face court-martial- he chooses neither and escapes. At last, the closed and never-ending loop of poor logic, the Catch-22, is broken.

The post Summary and Analysis of Joseph Heller’s Catch 22 appeared first on Rare Essays.