Catch 22 Blog Post 2

The novel Catch 22 shares certain similarities with Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. They are both a harsh critique on the absurdity of war and destruction. And how the people in charge often abuse people below them. However Catch 22 does this in a hilarious, very satirical way. Heart of Darkness is quite opposite; it is a very serious and harsh novel. The two main characters-Yossarian and Marlow-are similar too since they are so critical and skeptical of society and bureaucracy that they reject their environment completely.

            Although the novels are set in different time periods the idea they convey is very similar. In Heart of Darkness the ruling people are abusing someone else they consider inferior and imposing their “superiority” on them. In Catch 22, the war is against a clear enemy and some would even dare to say it was a righteous war. The abuse, in this case, happens from the ruling bureaucracy to their own soldiers. The point made is still very similar. They both state the hypocrisy and absurd nature of war and imperialism. As Marlow travels to the jungle he realizes how evil this enterprise is and how it is ironically masked for good. The “white man’s burden” creates a cover for the atrocity and economical convenience that imperialism brings. It is a very ironical concept, by trying to help someone they are actually brutalizing them. In Catch 22 this ironic element is also very present in the concept of catch 22. Anyone who is sane wouldn’t want to stay in the war and would express this desire, however the only way to get discharged is by asking. The army needs all the sane men they can have, so if you request your discharge you are assumed sane and effectively not discharged. This irony reflects again the absurdity present in both novels. Using deceptive circular reasoning “catches” you avoid having anyone discharged. The men are trapped in a satirical circle that abuses them and uses them for warfare. In both novels we see how the upper ruling classes, enjoy the luxuries of the big cities or the better tents or Milo’s best over-priced eggs. This happens while the slaves in the Congo, or the enlisted men in Italy die and are abused by the system.

            Yossarian and Marlow are rebels to this system, they of course have certain differences. Yossarian is funnier and more sarcastic and ironical. He is what many people would consider a coward. But how can anyone not be a coward in that situation? He expresses this very well, when he mentions that they are trying to kill him and McWatt rejects this statement. And Yossarian replies that he is being shot from everywhere by everyone, how is it that they aren’t trying to kill him. What McWatt means is that they aren’t trying to kill him in particular, which is even more absurd. They are trying to kill him and they don’t even know who he is. Yossarian is a the human representation of the absurdity of war: it is so ridiculous that it naturalizes the idea of unknown people being ordered to shoot each other for matters not of their own.

            Marlow is also against his surroundings. He hates the idea of imperialism and in some way takes a part in it, much like Yossarian. Marlow takes a different stance, he endures and conforms with the horror around him. His way of rebelling is by telling a story and expressing his rejection of imperialism. His point of view as a narrator is so insightful and deep that he shows a very cruel world in a very impacting way. He sees in the darkness that is the wole hypocrisy of imperialism, yet he truly does nothing.

            Both novels critique their environment’s cruelty, they do it through different ways: Comedy and Drama. Their characters are in similar situations, involved in a war they detest. However Yossarian hates the idea of war and is more concerned for his own well-being, practically not giving a damn about others. Marlow is more conscientious and reputes the cruelty towards others, given that he isn’t in as much danger as Yossarian he doesn’t fear for his life. Both characters are used to portray the criticism exerted on the practices of what Chief Bromden might call the “Combine”.