Of Absurdity and Bitterness

The book Catch 22 by Joseph Heller deals with one of the most absurd behaviors found in humanity: warfare. In this satirical novel, Captain Yossarian goes through daily life in the military during World War II, aiming towards life after the war. His objective is to live or leave, whichever comes first. He has completed every mission he should have completed to leave the army and has never failed to hit the target. Considering all of the statistics, he should be able to abandon the military and get on with his life. There is a catch however: Catch 22. Catch 22 says that “you’ve always got to do what your commanding officer tells you to.”(pg. 58) Even though the Twenty-seventh Air Force says the soldiers can go home after forty missions, it doesn’t say they have to go home, it does however, say they have to do what they are ordered to do; so Yossarian can’t go home. Furthermore, Yossarian is deemed insane by society because he participates in the war, yet he wants to leave, which deems him sane enough to stay in the army. The concept of Catch 22 has become larger than the pages of the novel, making its way into the dictionary where it is defined as “a paradoxical situation in which an individual cannot or is incapable of avoiding a problem because of contradictory constraints or rules.” The absurdity of Catch 22 lies not only in the concept it breaches, but in the dialogue, the characters, and even the military ideals. Catch 22 critiques warfare by re-enacting and analyzing it without the scope of tragedy that is normally used to examine it, turning instead, to absurdity.

The interesting thing about making something absurd is that it can make the reader shake his head and chortle, without realizing how commonplace absurd behaviors are in reality. During the first pages of the novel, the reader is just getting used to the way life works at the military camp where Yossarian spends his time. Eventually Captain Yossarian himself starts to become a more defined character, characterized by hypocritical and absurd thoughts. One of his main absurd beliefs is that everyone is out to kill him: of course they are. He is in war; the enemy will shoot at any target from the opposing band they can find. Yossarian however takes this as a personal attack, and claims that he has proof for it because “strangers he didn’t know shot at him with cannons every time he flew up into the air to drop bombs on them” (pg. 17). The absurdity of this statement lies in the fact that he is moving into the air to kill them, yet for some reason this is not as bad as it would be if they were dropping bombs on him. Therefore he takes it as a personal offence when they defend themselves, given that he has done nothing to deserve it. Obviously. He also states that their shooting at him isn’t “funny at all”, and neither is his life at camp. In fact, Yossarian seems to find everything quite bleak, contrasting heavily with the satirical and absurd tone of the novel. In a certain way, his gloomy attitude makes the situations in the book even more humorous; after all, what is more humorous than another person’s pain? As the novel begins to develop, it is easier to relate Captain Yossarian to military officials and captains in reality. He represents those that slander the enemy country because of their “outrageous murders”, “countless massacres”, and “violent war strategies”, ignoring that these acts are all committed in self-defense, or against a country that has committed them as well.

Yet another facet of absurdity in Catch 22 can be seen in the character’s goals, and what they are aiming towards after the war. Many of them have absolutely no desire to leave the war, and don’t really care about what their fate is in the conflict. Others, like Dunbar have other things in mind. “He was working hard at increasing his life span. He did it by cultivating boredom. Dunbar was working so hard at increasing his life span that Yossarian thought he was dead.” (pg. 9) This counterproductive goal is one example of how absurd humans can be when they really want something. Dunbar wants to live a long life, but he attempts to do so by wasting the life he’s got. There is no point to living if you seem dead, just as there is no point to dying without having lived, so why does he do this? What kind of person would cultivate boredom and choose to live his/her life in a comatose state? As a reader, one immediately starts thinking that no one could possibly be this stupid, but… aren’t we all? We are the race that bombs in the name of peace and tries to control a country in the name of democracy. We are the only beings on earth capable of hypocrisy to such extents. In Catch 22, Heller is making this counterproductive, hypocritical, and absurd way of thinking a personality trait of a single character, making it more evidently stupid than in is when applied to a big conflict. This way of proving a point is consistent throughout the novel: portray big human errors on small things and render the stupid beyond any logical explanation. As far as ridiculing humanity and our conflicts, it is very effective.

The novel Catch 22 is characterized by various themes, all of them used in different ways in order to ridicule warfare and the reasoning behind it. In doing this, the author manages to ridicule humanity as a hole. Our goals, our beliefs, even the things we believe are being done for all the right reasons seem pointless if Catch 22 logic is applied to the situation. The logic of this book is brimming with absurdity, up to the point where it can barely be considered logic anymore. The New Republic defined Catch 22 as “one of the most bitterly funny works in the language…explosive, bitter, subversive, brilliant.” As you delve deeper into the novel, it becomes impossible to disagree.

Ehhhh

Procrastination is the act of leaving important work for the last minute, and always forgetting that it’s not a good idea. People all like to say that they are responsible and dedicated, but this doesn’t exempt them from procrastination. As far as I’m concerned, procrastinating is the one act no one in the world can escape. Whether it is leaving a homework assignment undone until the late hours of the night or refusing to call your mother until long after a fight under the delusion that she may have calmed down before the call, we have all procrastinated. The issue is not that we are unaware of the repercussions of such an act; it is that we conveniently forget them in the name of laziness or fear. We all know doing the homework very late at night is going to be annoying at the very least, just as we all know the time she is kept waiting is exactly equivalent to our mother’s built up rage when we finally do call her; does this make us stop procrastinating? Not even close. According to the article Why do we Procrastinate so Much? in the BBC Viewpoint, Hamlet is one of the most accomplished procrastinators in fiction, pushing off his uncle’s murder until a rapier was practically shoved in his hand.  Still, the author indicated that Hamlet’s trials and tribulations would have been even more wildly put off in the world we live in today, seeing as “he’d have to tweet his fears and try them out on facebook friends.” It is true that Hamlet pushed his actions until he had no choice but to pull through with it, if that had not happened however, there would be no story, and ultimately, that is what matters most. Should we stop procrastinating and turn ourselves into robotic, scheduled beings? Not really.

In the article, the author states that every human being has surely felt the “horror of crippling indecision and compulsive delaying tactics.” This is the author’s way to describe the effects of procrastination, and to a certain extent, it is impossible to disagree. The effects of leaving work undone until the last minute can vary, but usually find themselves somewhere within the spectrum form mildly stressful to absolutely horrifying. This however, does not necessarily have to be the case. I am a firm believer in the value of procrastination, and frankly think that procrastination is valid depending on what you do whilst engaging in it. I for one, am an avid procrastinator. I read when I should be taking notes for biology, I write when I should be studying for a test, and then I read some more before I even consider opening my backpack to grab the necessary note books. Unlike the author of this article, I feel that there is nothing wrong with this merciless habit as long as the consequences are taken in stride. Sure, I sleep a lot less than I should, but I also get more out of a day than most people do.

The author of the article stresses two specific strategies to stop procrastination. The first one is to separate a big task into small steps and then get through it methodically, the second is to “give a trusted friend £50 and tell them that if you don't complete the task you have undertaken they can give it away to a political party or cause you hate.” The first strategy is understandable, and it may even work for big projects which would be impossible to achieve in one day. The second one I am more sceptical about. First of all, that strategy is assuming that I have that amount of money to give a trusted friend. I had to ask my parents for money to buy a water bottle just a few minutes ago, so that’s the first flaw in the plan right there. The second flaw lies in the fact that I have the fortune to have the type of friends that would just keep the money for themselves, thus defeating the whole purpose of the scenario. Over all I just don’t think that these strategies are viable because humanity is prone to procrastination, I agree with Piers Steel when he states that “humankind is hardwired to procrastinate."

The author of the article makes it very clear that a change must be made in our procrastinating ways, but I think otherwise. I think if procrastinating helps you unwind and spend time doing what you really want to do you should go on right ahead and do it. “So, if the question is, "To procrastinate, or not to procrastinate?" my answer is” eh… I’ll think about it later. 

Of Minnows and Killer Whales

In his autobiography The Life and Letters of Berlioz, Hector Berlioz says: “…imagine anybody having lived forty-five or fifty years without knowing Hamlet! One might as well spend one’s life in a coal mine.” This holds true today for every person who knows how to read. Not because Shakespeare’s Hamlet is literary genius (although it is), or even because it reflects the indecisive and rather pathetic nature of humans (although it does), but because it is one of the most famous works of literature ever written. The amount of people that hate it is as high as the amount who love it, and that is the nature of fame: if one is hated or love, one will be known; the problem lies in not being at either end. The level of Hamlet’s fame is such that it has been staged all over the world. Poor communities, illustrious theatres, high school plays, and thanks to a woman named Agnes Wilcox; prisons. A recent podcast by This American Life took the time to ask Jack Hitt, the man who studied the process of staging Hamlet in the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center, how this play evolved before his eyes as he saw men who were living out the consequences of committing a crime stage a play that portrays a man pondering said consequences.

The most interesting issue covered in the pod cast has to do with the actors in the staged play, and the way the characters in the play seemed to trespass Shakespeare’s world and invade the prison. . According to Jack Hitt, prison is just like Denmark in Hamlet’s world. According to Hamlet, “Denmark is a prison.” There are Claudius-like personas in the Missouri Eastern Correctional, those that crave power and do anything they can to obtain it.  There are Polonius-like characters which quietly stick to the ones with power for their own protection. There are Hamlets, who wonder aimlessly through the prison wondering what they should do. There are even some Horatios, who remain loyal to whomever they decide to attach themselves to. In the words of “Big Hutch,” who plays Horatio in the play even though he is one of the most powerful skin heads in the prison when he’s offstage, there are minnows and killer whales in the prison as there are in the world, and the minnows need to learn to hide or run if they want to survive. The truth is that the prison is just like any society in the modern world. One would like to think that it isn’t, that the people that got themselves locked up work differently, live differently; but the truth is they don’t. These people are as human as the rest of the world is, and crimes notwithstanding, they work the same way any human society does. Consider the world for a second, it may be divided up to any scale: a country, a city, a children’s playground or a high school classroom; in every society there is a hierarchy. Some are minnows and some are killer whales, some have the confidence of “Big Hutch” and call themselves the blue whales, claiming that they can “eat up the minnows” if they ever feel like they should. One can only hope to be a killer whale, or very good at hide-and-go-seek.

Furthermore, the podcast brings up a new way of seeing Hamlet which people living free lives never consider: Hamlet is nothing more than a man pondering the consequences of a violent deed, in this scenario we see his story portrayed by men who are living out these consequences, and clearly didn’t ponder them before. Hitt mentions and some point in the podcast that he didn’t really know anything about Hamlet until he saw the staging of this play, the process of making it all work. Seeing people like “Big Hutch” fully embrace acting and portray such a simple character as Horatio must be incredibly daunting and exiting at the same time. Surreal at best. Edgar Evans, who played Claudius in the fifth act of this staging says “if felt almost like {he} was praying {the} speech to God” as he acted it out. When he was incarcerated, he felt like he let down his wife and kids, and wanted them to hear that soliloquy more than anyone else It is more than likely that of the famous and prestigious actors that have starred in Hamlet had such a strong connection to the character, such a strong personal desire to make the act perfect.

Nearing the end of the podcast Hitt comments on the moment when he checked all the inmate’s files and finally got the full extent of what they had done to end up in jail. The charges fluctuated wildly from armed robbery to murder, rape, and even sodomizing young children. Hitt speaks about this experience as one of the hardest moments in the whole process, it was impossible for him to look at them the same way he had before knowing that these acts were real and committed by them only a few years or before he knew him. Before curtain he finally confronts one of the inmates about it: Brad Jones. He had been in prison for thirteen years before having the opportunity to act in the play where he took the challenge of portraying Hamlet along with other three men. He said that prison had changed him, that he couldn’t relate the man he had been before to the man he was after thirteen years of prison. Jones mentioned that all he knew was that the play kept him sane, that he figured “exercising his mind kept him from losing it” and that he knew that he had reached the lowest point of his life before; now he just had to reach the highest. When a prisoner is able to speak so deftly of his condition, it is impossible not to think that it might be time to set him free; he had learned what he should. It is harder to believe this when you think about what this an did, whether it was murder or rape, does this man deserve to be out with the rest of the world?

The truth is that there is no guaranty to the nature if good an evil inside a person, and one act cannot define one’s future as much as one word cannot describe one’s thoughts. Still it’s hard to forgive. Rape isn’t a normal every day evil act, it is worst that that by a lot. How can one forgive a man who raped? Is it possible to forgive such an animalistic, decadent act of power? “Why do we put people in jail, to rehabilitate them… or to punish them?” Even if it was the former, do we have the ability to forgive, forget, set the free, and move on?  

Flawed

In the 2003 remake of the movie Freaky Friday, there is one small scene in which a high school class is asked the question “Who was Hamlet?” to which a student responds: “A man who couldn’t make up his mind.” When explained in such a simple way, Hamlet seems to be a trivial character, not any different than a man living in this day and age. This however, doesn’t subtract from the brilliance of Shakespeare. The beauty of Shakespearean plays is precisely that simple demonstration of humanity. Each of Shakespeare’s characters be it a villain or a hero, is first and foremost a human being. This human component is why Shakespeare’s characters have been mirrored through time in different works of literature, movies, and even art; there is something tangibly human in all of his characters, which makes them relatable no matter the time that has gone by since their creation. Hamlet has been called many names since Shakespeare brought him to life: Simba in The Lion King is one of them; J. Alfred Prufrock from T.S Elliot’s poem The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock is another. Hamlet, when stripped from his historic title of tragic hero, is merely a man who can’t make up his mind. The situation he finds himself in is the only thing that differentiates him from J. Alfred Prufrock, T.S Elliot’s aimless ditherer.  

Hamlet and Prufrock can be seen as two completely different characters. One of them is in a complicated situation which involves politics, family ties, honor and revenge; the other is simply trying to get the courage to ask a girl out. Even so, they are identical in their approach to the conflict: endless questioning and loops. “To be or not to be- that is the question” ( Hamlet- Act 3, Scn 1) which burdens Hamlet throughout the whole tragedy, meanwhile J. Alfred Prufrock claims that there is “time yet for a hundred indecisions, and for a hundred visions and revisions…” (line 31) before actually making a decision. Throughout the poem and the play these two characters have surprisingly similar dialogues as the ones shown above which make Hamlet seem as pathetic as J. Alfred Prufrock. Is he though? Is Hamlet just another aimless ditherer? Most people seem to think he isn’t because he is considering murder, and act which amounts to much graver consequences than asking a girl out. His extensive soliloquies are certainly more articulate than the mixed thoughts of J. Alfred Prufrock, but they say basically the same thing: “’Do I dare?’ and, ‘Do I dare?’” (line 38)  Does Hamlet dare to commit this crime for his father? Does Prufrock dare to ask the girl out? Does Hamlet dare even say whet his uncle did? Does Prufrock dare to eat a peach? Even though the wording seems more pathetic and less complex coming from Prufrock, the main idea of the character’s thoughts is the same. They are wondering if they dare to do it, and hating themselves for it as time passes by.

Even though many similarities between the characters can be identified in their monologues, Prufrock claims that he “is not Prince Hamlet, nor was {he} meant to be…” (line 11) Why did T.S Elliot decide to create such a distinction between the two characters in the poem? This phrase makes the reader wonder whether T.S Elliot wanted Prufrock to be like Hamlet, or whether he really was saying that he wasn’t meant to be. In the end, what the author wanted his poem to mean, and what the poem is interpreted to mean end up being very different things. Hamlet is Prufrock. Prufrock is Hamlet. Situation non-withstanding, honor held in the back of the mind, serious consequences ignored, they are the same character. T.S Elliot could have just as easily included the association to Hamlet in such a way to bring attention to it, instead of meaning to push it away. Regardless of what the author was trying to do, the outcome is only one. The two characters are practically identical. Hamlet wouldn’t have killed Cladius if the situation had not surprised him. Without being forced to act, Hamlet would have done nothing. Just like J. Alfred Prufrock, Hamlet in an aimless ditherer. Just as ever human being on earth, Hamlet is an aimless ditherer.

Does this mean that Shakespeare failed in his attempt to make a tragic hero? Does the pathetic nature of the characters’ indecision make Hamlet or The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock any less worthy of the literary acclamation they have received? No. On the contrary, each character makes the work more worthy of being read. Each character gives the most important human factor to the work: flaw. Flaws and indecision make us human. We’re all versions of Hamlet and Prufrock in our daily lives: we are scared, we doubt. We are aimless ditherers defined by our indecisiveness and flaws. 

The Danger of a Single Story

In Chimamanda Adichie’s Ted Talk, I found many elements of stereotypical values that even I have fallen for. We all think of Africans with the same sort of pity she described, even though we don’t mean it to be degrading. Even though I have never described Africa as a country, I have thought of it as one entity of countries that all suffer the same trials and catastrophes. Needless to say, this embarrasses me more than anything else, especially because I come from, and have lived all my life, in a country that suffers the same problem Africa does. Colombia has a single story throughout the world: the story that was born with Pablo Escobar and the M19.

As Colombians, we are all seen and judged by the endless guerrilla wars, the drug traffic, the violence and the insecurity of our country. This judgement can be seen in things as trivial as pop stars not coming here to perform, and in things as personal as people being surprised of where I come from when I have talked to them in English. People tend to view Colombia as a country of violence and drug lords. They see Bogota as it was shown in the first five minutes of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, a desolate town with no hope or future.

Why is it then, that we still do the same for other people around the world?

Even within our same country we have the fear of a single story, people who refuse to go to the south of Bogota because of the tales of poverty and insecurity in that part of the town, people who don’t want to visit Choco because they imagine it as a poverty stricken place full of starving people. True, Colombia is far from peaceful, Choco is very poor and the south of Bogota is not the safest place; but this doesn’t mean that we are hopeless.

Furthermore, I have noticed that there may also be a kind of positive single story, which may also be a danger in the world, “The American Dream” being a prime example. The fact that the U.S is a prosperous country, doesn’t mean that everyone in it is rich and has two cars, a suburban home and a perfect family. This stereotype is, as all others, incomplete.

There is a single story about every country in the world, good or bad, and as this Ted Talk demonstrates: neither of them is good, yet we still fall. 

Oh the Horror!

“The horror! The horror!”

This phrase, repeated by Kurtz as a dying mantra, is the most famous quote taken from Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. The reason behind its fame is the meaning behind it, for this quote is proof that short is in no way synonymous to simple.  Kurtz doesn’t give a final speech, in fact he doesn’t talk much in the whole novel (there is more talk done about him than by him) but he doesn’t need to. Even though he physically appears only in the last part of the book, even though he doesn’t say much, even though “Kurtz” is German for “short”, this character is the largest in the whole book. This character shows humanity, imperialism, lust, greed, and every other theme that is important in the story. Knowing this, only one question remains: what is the horror?

Is it the crimes committed against the Africans in the colony? As far as history is concerned, that could be the horror Kurtz is referring to. The colonization of Africa and the industry of ivory that was created from it are probably one of the most violent examples of colonization in recent history. The crimes in Africa ranged from murder to rape and torture. In the book they are shown since the first time Marlow sees an African, and continue throughout the story up to the skulls put up around Kurtz’s camp. This aspect of the novel is definitely a horror.

Is it the fact that no one in the “civilized” society did anything to stop it? When Marlow gets back to Europe, he talks about the people he finds when he gets back. He talks about not being able to relate to them anymore because he finds the petty and generally annoying. How is it that this could happen to someone who originally comes from that society? This could be related to what happens to many soldiers after they come back home from war, they no longer understand how people can live so peacefully and lounge around all day doing nothing in their comfortable beds, they can no longer understand why people complain about such trivial things as homework and cold food. The horror these people witness are so bad, that it is hard for someone who hasn’t seen it to believe it. You may think it sad that many native Africans were killed for something as materialistic as the ivory industry, but you will never grasp how bad it was until you see it. One of the biggest problems in the world is that no one sees what’s going on, and this is most certainly a horror.

Is it his intended, and the fact that she had no idea who he really was? When Marlow gets back to his native country and seeks out Kurtz’s intended, he lies to her about his final words, claiming that “it would have been too dark”  to tell her the truth. As he talks to her, it also becomes apparent that she had no idea who Kurtz really was. She had no idea who she was going to marry or what he had done. This, is also a horror.

Finally, is the horror the fact that we are reading this book, years later, trying to analyze irony and symbolism with no apparent care or feelings for what happened to the people in that colony? The fact that we are sitting here, writing blogs and searching for a deeper meaning without realizing that this actually happened, that people actually died, our continuous cycle of murder and claims for power even when history has shown us the consequences?

For some reason, I think it’s the last. 

"Oh light please try to hold your ground..."

In the song above, Rachel Sermanni tells the story of a woman who is caught when the darkness of her heart is at its most powerful moment.

“Mercy, mercy, I’ve been caught lying with my darkest thought.” As I continue reading Heart of Darkness, I have begun to discover what is behind the title of the novel, and why this meaning is so crucial to the understanding of the book.  One of the interpretations that can be given to the title is literal: The Heart of Darkness is the center of the African wilderness they are trying to penetrate. Darkness in this case, would mean under-development, uncivilized people, wilderness, and literal darkness within the forest. The second interpretation of the title is, to me, much more important to the work. The Heart of Darkness is the heart of every single person within the story; it is the heart of anyone reading the story as well. The song Fog by Rachel Sermanni delves into the same aspect of humanity and how each person reacts to different circumstances. This song and the book are exploring the dark side of the human heart, and what conditions are needed for us to act on its impulses rather than on our lighter, rational thoughts.

“He’d be richer if he just became a thief,” says Sermanni of a little boy that sings for money in the streets of her neighborhood. At the beginning of Part 2 of Heart of Darkness, Marlow eavesdrops on a conversation in which it is revealed that The Company believes Kurtz is stealing Ivory. When we relate this conversation to the song, a new question begins to form inside our heads: Is Kurtz and evil person, or are his circumstances forcing him to act upon his darker impulses?  Abandoned in the African country, it is impossible to think that Kurtz would remain completely sane, and thus he cannot be qualified as a “bad guy” in the book.

The African natives are also in a situation in which they have been forced to attack colonizers because of the damage they have done to their lives. As they become more and more human to Marlow, the Africans become more “right” in the reader’s eyes. After all, who would not fight back in that situation?

Furthermore, there is no way to even understand who the “bad guys” are in the novel, mostly because Conrad has made the line murky. Kurtz is evil to The Company and to the natives, because of what he has done in Africa and the success he’s having. The Company is evil to the African natives because it has conquered their land. The natives are evil to The Company because they are rebelling against their rule and attacking them from within the fog. Western civilization is evil to us as we read the book because no one does anything about the brutality in Africa. And on and on it goes.

How can right and wrong be defined? In reality, it all depends on point of view. The only thing we can be sure of as we continue to read this novel, is that there are certain circumstances, like the one Kurtz is in; like the one of the oppressed natives; and like the one of all the colonizers, in which acting on rational thoughts and looking for the light within the human heart is impossible.

“The din creeps ‘neath my skin and I can’t hear no goodness speak.”