On the first page of the second chapter (page 16), Yossarian is talking to Clevinger, trying to convince him that he is not, in fact, going insane:
“They’re trying to kill me,” Yossarian told him calmly.
“No one’s trying to kill you,” Clevinger cried.
“Then why are they shooting at me?” Yossarian asked.
“They’re shooting at everyone,” Clevinger answered. “They’re trying to kill everyone.”
“And what difference does that make?”
In this instance and in many others throughout these first few chapters, Heller introduces the concept of sanity. Yossarian seems to suggest that war itself is insane, but his comrades are convinced that he is the crazy one. We’ve talked a lot in class about soldiers being part of a completely different world than civilians, and how an adjustment is necessary in order for regular people to become soldiers, and for soldiers to return back to normalcy in civilian life. But, maybe Yossarrian’s friends are right. Maybe war should be considered natural and human because it occurs so often. Maybe, when compared to regular life that fights against the natural instinct of conflict, war is sane.
1. What do you think of this argument between Yossarian and Clevinger? Is war crazy? Or is Yossarian? In a similar sort of comparison, is civilian life crazy? Or is war?
This book is incredibly satirical. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, and often it seems like characters are mocking war and soldiers in general. The pages-long discussion between Yossarian and Orr about stuffing crabapples in a person’s cheeks is a primary example of this kind of confusing but clearly intentional humor.
(Pictured here are some lovely crabapples, perfect for cheek-stuffing).
2. Going back to our class discussions of absurdity from the past few weeks, I’m curious to see how these chapters compare to Slaughterhouse Five. What instances of absurdity do you see so far in Catch-22? Think about what points Vonnegut made in his book through his use of absurdity— you’ll remember the Tralfamadorians. What do you think Heller is trying to say with this kind of writing?
3. What do you think of Dunbar’s goal of extending his life through boredom? Is this a valid reaction to war, or does wanting to live a miserable life for a long time seem self destructive? Can you relate to Dunbar’s wishes at all, or is he completely insane?
That’s all for these chapters. Hope y’all are doing well.
Sincerely in social distancing,
Claire :)
1. I think that both Yossarian and Clevinger, along with their respective view points are crazy. It is abundantly clear that Yossarian has been pushed beyond his breaking point and now he is left to live in a constant state of paranoia. I do not think that given his own personal experiences (didn’t he fly more than 60 missions during WWII?), that Heller would in any way advocate for a pilot such as Yossarian to continue on more missions, and in this way Yossarian’s paranoia serves as a justified critique of the priorities of the American military. Clevinger, on the other hand, also presents a reasonable case as his nonchalant attitude forces us to reevaluate the significance of war as the common denominator of human existence.
ReplyDelete2. I feel as if I have noted many similarities between Heller’s Catch-22 and Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five. For one thing, both novels are full of bizarre, twisted characters, and so far we have not met a single admirable character in Heller’s novel. While I am not exactly sure what Heller is trying to say by this, he — like Vonnegut — is certainly not trying to paint a heroic image of humanity. Along with his highly critical view of humanity, Heller also highlights the absurdity of interpersonal relationships in war such as Yossarian’s living situation with the dead man, his apparent dislike of nearly all of his companions, and his friendship with Doc Daneeka who “would do just about nothing in his power to help him” (28).
3. I do not think that Dunbar is insane. On the contrary, I think that he is actually one of the more grounded, rational characters that we have met so far. While Dunbar’s desire to live a long, unpleasant life can be viewed as self-destructive — and it certainly is not an optimistic or healthy approach to living — given his experiences this is a reasonable philosophy. Similarly to Tim O’Brien, Dunbar examines the strange juxtaposition between life and death that occurs only during war, and as we have seen repeatedly throughout our different readings, close proximity to death often enhances one’s intense desire to live, even through atrocious conditions. Although I do not agree with Dunbar, I think that he argues his points well, especially within the context of his experiences.
1) I think that war is crazy and that it makes people go crazy, too. I agree with Yossarian that it shouldn’t matter why someone is shooting at you. The situation is still awful whether your attacker has something personal against you or not. However, Yossarian also seems a bit insane. Most of the time, his logic makes no sense, which shows that being in such a nonsensical environment (war) makes people go wild. I think civilian life is also partially crazy, but I don’t think it is as crazy as war. Civilian life is more structured and has moral codes, laws, etc. These things create order in a society, which makes it easier for people to make sense of life.
ReplyDelete2) I agree that there is a lot of absurdity so far in this book. One similarity between Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse-Five is that the rationales of the main characters are oftentimes bizarre. Yossarian mentions that “everyone who knew [Appleby] liked him” but then says that he hates him (13). There are several other contradictions like this one. I also think the war is absurd. The soldiers are not even educated about Hitler, so they are participating in a war effort without knowing what they are fighting or fighting for. I think this is Heller’s point. Like Vonnegut and many of the other stories have shown, war is not clear-cut and almost never makes any sense. The people in it are rarely fighting for the right reasons, whatever those might be.
3) I don’t think Dunbar is completely insane, and I think his reaction, while self-destructive, is also valid. Like Billy with the Tralfamadorians, Dunbar needs a coping mechanism, and I think this is his. It gives him a goal and makes him feel like he has power over his life. While his method of coping is a little silly, it makes sense in the weird and twisted context of the war. Despite being miserable, he gets satisfaction from things going wrong, and there is so much wrong with war that he must feel like he is succeeding all the time. Also, I think most soldiers during wartime probably have miserable lives anyways, so Dunbar has just found a way to cope with it, even if it destroys him in the process.
1. Everyone in this book thinks that they are the only sane person surrounded by a bunch of people who are crazy. I agree with them, and think that they are all crazy. That raises the question, though, of what made them that way. As they readily admit, every time they go up on a mission, they are putting themselves incredibly close to death, which obviously affects how they see the world. Yossarian is seen as crazy because he thinks that his life is always at risk, that total strangers are out to kill him, but in his profession that is true. Every time he goes on a mission, there are total strangers trying to kill him, in the same way he is trying to kill strangers himself.
ReplyDelete2. Like Slaughterhouse Five, this book jumps around a lot, telling stories that are anything but chronological. Heller also shows characters that aren’t heroic—they are confused, flawed, and crazy. They are human. I think that this is Heller’s point, he is showing that war, and life, is truly absurd and telling of incredibly human characters.
3. I do not know what it is like to be in a position where you can die at any moment, so I don’t know what it is like to be concerned with stretching your life out for as long as possible, because you know you don’t have a lot of time left. Because of this, I think that trying to extend your life through boredom doesn’t make a lot of sense, as I think that I would try to enjoy whatever time I had left. I do think, though, that as Dunbar is in a position where there isn’t really much that he enjoys, I can see why he thinks having a bad, long life, might be better than a mediocre short one.
Claire, thank you for the picture of crab apples. I wish I had a sense of their size. Can one actually out them in their cheeks the way Orr does? Then again, little stands in the way of Heller's satire. Except for death.
ReplyDelete1. I think Yossarian is right. What difference does it make who is being targeted when if they hit, you die all the same? No one bombing Dresden thought they were killing teenage girls in tanks of boiling water. They may have had second thoughts if they thought that. It doesn't matter: death is very personal. To address Claire's question of is there a similar comparison to civilian life, I would say yes. The cutbacks on social services proposed by our present administration are aimed at an idea—to get people to work, to not depend on government help. If a child is hungry, if a mother or father cannot get the work, the effect is totally personal. I think Heller is taking the abstractions if war and life and making them concrete—and personal. This is the farthest thing from crazy.
2. Wow! This may be the most absurd classic literature ever written. Every page has an absurdity. "Under Colonel Korn's rule, the only people permitted to ask questions were those who never did" (35). Heller doesn't need to invent aliens who look like toilet plungers: he sees absurdity everywhere around him. If you want obedience, only invite the obedient. Or allow disobedience on your own terms (school walk outs, anyone...).
3. Dunbar and Vonnegut—and Heller—I think would all agree. "What else is there" but life—even when filled with "many unpleasant conditions" (39)? I think Dunbar is sane as the day is long. Or as Yossarian thinks: "he had decided to live forever or die in the attempt" (29).
1. I would argue that war is crazy, and thus Yossarian is the sanest person we have met to a great extent so far in the novel. Yossarian is no Captain Miller with his speeches about “winning the war” because Yossarian has the clarity of mind to realize that winning the war means nothing to him. Yossarian has come to a perfectly reasonable and logical conclusion that he would like to live and that he will not let some abstract set of wartime values get in the way of that. In that regard, he is very much like Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov, but less willingly murderous.
ReplyDelete2. Virtually everything that Orr has said and done is quite strange. The coronal who loves losing money and driving businesses into the ground is quite strange. Vonnegut used absurdity of soldiers to mimic the absurdity of war, and I think that Heller is doing the same thing.
3. I think he is acting quite illogically in pursuit of a logical goal. He wants to live as long as possible--probably because he sees life as having inherent value--yet his conversion of life into boredom deflates the inherent value of living in the first place. I think it is just a panicked reaction to the reality that he may die soon. I do not relate to his method of extending his life, but his goal seems perfectly reasonable.
1. What Yossarian is saying in this conversation makes a lot of sense because the situation is crazy and it doesn't matter if they mean to kill him specifically, bullets are still flying and is still being shot at. However, I do think Yossarian is similar to Vonnegut in that the war has most definitely gotten to him. Throughout these first few chapters, Yossarian has displayed extreme paranoia as well as this feeling of kind of viewing the world differently (with possible PTSD). He picks up on random details and is very selective about the people that he likes and his reasons why.
ReplyDelete2. I think Heller is making a similar point to Vonnegut; he is demonstrating pure absurdity. I have literally seen so many parallels between Slaughterhouse-Five and Catch-22 so far that I have even found myself expecting a "so it goes" after Heller mentions something about death. Yossarian reminds me a lot of Billy. They are both just so different; their view of the world is so abstract and random and traumatized. There's no hero, there's no good guys versus bad guys, there's not even someone who is really that likeable at all. There's not really that much of a storyline; it is all kind of scattered kind of like what I would imagine is like the thoughts in Yossarian's head. I think this story, just like Slaughterhouse-Five, is wholeheartedly human; nothing is edited out or sugarcoated to appear better than it is, what you see is what you get with the characters, and both civilian and soldier life is crazy and random and absurd.
3. I was actually thinking a lot about Dunbar throughout the story and how much sense his philosophy makes on paper. Honestly, I would say that his goal of extending life is pretty genius and admirable. While I don't actually think it would work out and I would certainly not apply this philosophy to my own life, it makes sense. He wants to live longer. He wants to feel like he has some say or input in determining the course/length of his life. He would rather live longer and be bored because at least he is still living, right? I'd say his view on the world is pretty optimistic because he is taking and advantage of and looking at the bright side of the worst situations. I am a fan of this method of coping.
1. I find it interesting that Clevinger thinks Yossarian is crazy after Yossarian said in the first chapter that he was in “the only sane ward in the whole hospital” (14). Clevinger seems to exemplify the impersonal nature of war that an outside perspective sees, whereas Yossarian thinks that the men are “trying to kill [him]” specifically (16). Yossarian sees himself as above the rest of the world, which makes him think everyone is aiming at him. He even refers to the rest of the world as “Nathaniel” just after Celvinger tells him he has a “Jehovah complex.” I also looked up “Raskolnikov” and Clevinger seems to be entirely correct in calling Yossarian that. Raskolnikov believed he was above the rest of the population just as Yossarian does. Still, I don’t see Yosarian as crazy. He seems like he is the most sane of the characters we have met because his first priority for a mission is “to come down alive” (29). In this context, valuing your own life over others is considered crazy, but it seems like the most rational thing to do in my opinion. That’s why I think war is crazy because in valuing your own life, you are considered to have a god complex.
ReplyDelete2. There is definitely absurdity in Catch-22. Similar to Slaughterhouse Five, it comes in the small moments that don’t have an explanation in the story yet. In particular, the moment when Orr explains why he sticks crabapples in his mouth to make his cheeks bigger. Yossarian cannot stick around long enough to hear the end of the story so we are left to guess the point. Like Vonnegut, I think Heller will call back on these small moments later in the book to create a point that can’t be seen this early on. Overall, I think this style of writing is very logical for a war story because it highlights the small moments that we have seen soldiers cling to that don’t seem to make sense until the entire story is written. Heller uses this style to create a narrative that is more accurate to a soldier looking back on his/her time in war rather than a story told in real time.
3. Especially in the context of war, boredom doesn’t seem like such a bad thing. In theory, the longer you are bored the longer you will live (unless being fired at is boring to you like it is for BIlly Pilgrim). I think the time that Dunbar and Yossarian spend in the hospital shows that boredom is favorable over war in some ways. They don’t seem to complain a lot about their job censoring letters and it is peaceful, but they do return to war. Maybe, this shows that boredom is worse than war after a long period of time because at least in war you have a purpose. However, I can relate to Dunbar because it seems like a survival tactic, so in this way he is just as sane as Yossarian whose only goal is to make it back alive from missions.
1) This argument, like much of what I have read in this book, first made me confused, then made me laugh, and then made me think. I love the line on the next page, “As always occurred when he quarreled over principles in which he believed passionately, he would end up gasping furiously for air and blinking back bitter tears of conviction” (17). I read this article the other day about how the people who believe most strongly about a political issue often do not know all the facts about it, and when they are presented with the full facts of the issue they generally have more moderate and less polarized views on it. I think this is often what happens when talking about war, as war is politics by other means. Both war and Yossarian are crazy. Yossarian is crazy because of war. War is crazy because of the people who are incharge of it--the “theys.” Civilian life can seem crazy, but because I live in it, I think it is less crazy than war; however, I can see how one could think the opposite. During war, one has a set mission and goal that is trying to be accomplished. Civilian life has milestones such as marriage, job promotions, etc., but it is not the same.
ReplyDelete2) I saw so many parallels to Slaughterhouse-Five in these chapters. First, the long food descriptions: “There was shish-kabob for lunch, huge, savory hunks of spitted meat sizzling like the devil over charcoal after marinating seventy-two hours in a secret mixture Milo had stolen from a crooked trader in the Levant, served with Iranian rice and asparagus tips Parmesan, followed by cherries jubilee for dessert and then steaming cups of fresh coffee with Benedictine and brandy” (21). Second, all of the random and nonsensical conversations between characters, such as the apple cheeks discussion. In both stories, the absurd conversations create a parallel with the point of both authors about the absurdity of war. Both stories are quite satirical and criticize the reader’s preconceived notions of America, patriotism, and war. This line reminded me a lot of Vonnegut, “He was a self-made man who owed his lack of success to nobody” (27).
3) In a way it makes sense. Time flies when you’re having fun and all, but it also seems absurd. I, personally, do not understand it, but I can already tell that that will be a common theme with this book. Why would we want to live out his life in misery just to make it seem longer? I do not think I would call it completely insane because I suppose I understand where he is coming from, but I absolutely could not live my life that way.
I must admit, this book has a strange way of making me feel incredibly sane. My current opinion is that everyone and everything (war, civilian life, people in general…) in this novel (in life???) is crazy, but I may change my mind. Yossarian keeps saying “they” are trying to kill him, and Clevinger keeps asking who the hell “they” is, but Yossarian’s answer is “everyone” which is basically the same thing as “nobody” to some degree, which I think is Clevinger’s point of view, which is kind of scary because it is surprisingly easy to discount the unfathomable (especially when it’s due to just sheer size.) I think that in war (and in life/the universe in general), there are many “they’s” which we associate with the many things we do not understand. In Slaughterhouse Five, Vonnegut actually assigns a “they” in the form of the Tralfamadorians, which helps to explain many concepts in the novel. Why can I pretend that ____ (fill in the blank) isn’t actually dead? Because “they” told me I can. Why does the world end? Because “they” push the button. In Catch-22, we have no “they,” and Yossarian is hell-bent on identifying them.
ReplyDeleteThis book feels like Alice In Wonderland in a war setting. Half the characters remind me of the Cheshire Cat and the other half reminds me of the many soldiers we have seen in other books/movies in this class. Orr is absurd. All the colonels who have no idea who T.S. Eliot is are absurd, pranking each other just to make themselves feel better about their own ignorance. The scene where Yossarian says, “I think everyone is Nathaniel” and then asks “Nathaniel who?” when Clevinger asks, “Who’s Nathaniel?” has stayed with me because it is so strange. I feel like I’m being let in on a joke as the reader but without any context, so it still makes no sense to me. I’m not yet sure what Heller is saying.
I think Dunbar’s perspective is sad and sounds absolutely un-liveable and a waste of a lifetime from a civilian perspective, at least, where my life is not threatened every day. Gotta say, it is the complete opposite of Billy, so that’s new. I do not relate whatsoever; however, I do not believe he is insane. Dunbar and Doc are perhaps the most sane characters in the book so far (and maybe the Texan, too.) I think Dunbar has already given up on life. It seems to me to be one of those things where you almost convince yourself you’ve done something just by saying it or thinking so often, and you keep doing it because you’re so close to convincing yourself, but in the end, you never accomplish anything. Unfortunately, being alive has been reduced to the act of breathing (even if it has to be done with a machine, etc.), so in that sense, Dunbar is doing a great job.
Prompt One: Yossarian cries “They’re trying to kill me.” Clevenger asks “Who are they?” And Yossarian answers “Every single one.” I think back to the stories of “Door kickers” we read in When the Men Are Gone. They need to be faster on the trigger than the person with whom they come face to face. There can be no hesitation in the killing of their opponent. Yossarian is not crazy. Just how he realizes his best method to survival (not caring about whether the bombs hit), so too have those who shoot at his plane realize these actions could save them. This intensity with which the opponent fights to live is traumatic. Yossarian has already flown 44 times. The reason he is called out as insane is because he does not cooperate with the mechanics of the army.
ReplyDeletePrompt Two: I see absurdity in all the stories about these men at camp. BUt most of all it’s in the figures of authority. Men who say it’s not an order to attend a concert, but then make it an order. Men who don’t know of T. S. Eliot. These are just fools in charge of countless people’s lives. This is the point I think Heller wants to make.
Prompt Three: Definitely by stretching out his moments he can achieve a certain longevity in the dangerous profession. High stakes moments, certainly flying a plane, must pass by so quickly. Only be savoring the mundane can he live -- not at risk -- and end enjoy his time. I think this is the action of someone sane.
ReplyDeleteIt’s an interesting argument, one that gets me thinking. In a sense, I can see both sides. For Yossarian, there are people physically shooting at him, and in the end, if that is the case, that’s all that matters. However, when Clevinger says that they are shooting at everybody, he makes it sound like it doesn’t matter. They don’t know Yossarian or anybody they are shooting at for that matter. They are just doing their job. It is a very cynical point of view. However, it seems like everything is crazy right now. Even in civilian life, like Orr with the woman in the apartment, everything seems crazy, no matter the circumstance.
In a sense, it feels as though many, if not all, of the characters are absurd. They all have eccentric characteristics to their personalities that make them, them. They all remind me of the Nazi cowboy in Slaughterhouse Five in some way or another. This once again showcases the absurdity of war and how anything can happen. It also shows how detrimental war can be on the psyche. As Slaughterhouse Five can be seen as Billy trying to cope, Catch-22 can be seen as others trying to cope as well. However, I think this is also why so many characters are being seen as “crazy” because they are trying to cope with something even crazier: war.
In a sense, it does seem self-destructive, but I can understand where he is coming from. In war, you don’t know when you might die, and life comes in a fleeting moment. At least when you are bored and life feels slow, you still know that you are alive enough to experience the boredom. It is kind of a wake up call that you have to deal with. I think Dunbar is scared to experience joy or “non-boredom” because as the saying goes, time flies by when you are having fun. The quicker time flies by, the closer you are to death. He says that it felt like yesterday that he was back in college. I think he feels as if the good times that you cherish don’t last, and in war, there is nothing good to cherish but your life, so might as well take a crappy boring life rather than not having one at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jordyn that so far everything in this novel has been crazy. The argument, like the novel, is a paradox. What Yossarian says totally makes sense. They are fighting in a war, so of course people are trying to kill him. In the context of war this statement makes sense. When taken out of the context of war, the idea of people murdering each other for no specific reason is completely absurd. Through this argument, I think Heller is illustrating that people are crazy. I don’t really think that he is saying war is crazy and civilian life is normal because he shows the absurdity of humanity in every context.
Catch-22 definitely reads very similar to Slaughterhouse Five. With both novels, I feel like the conversations and scenes are only cohesive enough to point out the fact that nothing makes sense. As people have been saying on the blog the incoherence of the novel illustrates the absurdity of not just war but life in general. Both novels are filled with contradictions that make the reader challenge their previous notion of what makes sense, for example, “Dunbar liked Clevinger because Clevinger annoyed him and made the time go slow”(19). This claim makes absolutely no sense just like Billy’s passivity and willingness to be with cruel people like Weary. I am interested to see how Heller plays with the idea of perspective and how different characters see and perceive absurdity. Unlike Slaughterhouse Five, Heller seems to flesh out his several characters rather than focusing on one incredibly lame protagonist.
I think Dunbar’s goal of extending life through boredom is very counterintuitive to how one would think a soldier would “extend life.” In many of the short stories we have read, the only way for soldiers to live a bearable life is through taking risks to avoid boredom. This reaction is valid, though very unusual because, from what we have read, it seems that soldiers do not actually have a heightened importance of living after coming so close to death. This discussion takes me think back to the values in The Sun Also Rises. Is it better to live a short life of quality like Pedro or live a prolonged life of boredom like Jake? I really don’t know!
Honestly, it feels as if Heller calling people crazy is almost the equivalent of Vonnegut saying, “So it goes”. It applies to everyone and everything and occurs about five times per page. Right after we hear Yossarian being called crazy, the narrator says, “There were many principles in which Clevinger believed passionately. He was crazy” (26). I think that this is a world where the men’s lives are governed by nonsensical circumstances, from the petty bureaucracy and rules governing things like who is admitted to the hospital (as well as the eponymous Catch-22), to the underlying craziness of war, where people are trying to kill you. In this situation, you’d have to be crazy to be sane, it seems. Yossarian, at least, seems a lot more perceptive in his brand of “craziness” than Clevinger is. At the very least, he reminds me of the Hem’s Jake: the veterans who are aware of how meaningless the world is. And I agree with John that everyone is indeed trying to kill Yossarian; it doesn’t matter if it’s happening to lots of people in the larger picture of war. War happens to many individuals. I’m not sure what to make of some of what he says, but in general, his attitude seems to be that of someone trying to survive the war and who is painfully aware of a lot of the absurdities surrounding him. Perhaps poking at people like Clavinger and at the system with more nonsense (such as his questions in class) is his way of coping.
ReplyDeleteI’ve definitely said this before about other books, but I still think it’s true: it’s kind of like surrealism after WWI, or perhaps scifi in Slaughterhouse Five. Sometimes, reality isn’t enough to capture the truth and horror and weirdness of something like war. This is his way of making it as true of a war story as he can. More specifically, there are definitely more focused messages in the absurdity. There are certainly moments that stand out with startling clarity. I don’t have any clue what was going on with the crabapple thing, but the irony of Colonel Korn’s rule about questions that shuts down the educational sessions because, “Clevinger, the corporal and Colonel Korn agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything” (44) savages the view that these people in charge of the lives of other men do things in logical and fair fashions. Let’s also not forget the whole bit on everyone yelling TS Eliot back and forth. It’s so funny and stupid and dastardly and clever and sad. I think a lot of it is a critique on the senseless bureacracy of the army. Things like the fact a temperature of above 102 is required to go to the hospital, as well as the eponymous Catch-22. And beneath it all the absurdity that yes, strangers are trying to kill Yossarian and the other bombers, just as they are trying to kill strangers in what becomes a rote and seemingly meaningless exercise in just trying to survive each mission.
I mean, as a currently bored human being stuck at home and feeling a little stifled despite the amount of work I am failing to get done, I can’t very much relate to ever wanting to be bored. That being said, I think it’s totally reasonable to want to not die when you’re facing a war where you might be shot down at any minute. He seems to be an exaggeration of the idea that the good die young. After all, he cites as proof for his theory:
Delete“'You're inches away from death every time you go on a mission. How much older can you be at your age? A half minute before that you were stepping into high school, and an unhooked brassiere was as close as you ever hoped to get to Paradise... Zip! They go rocketing by so fast. How the hell else are you ever going to slow time down?'” (48).
This is his attempt at finding a hint of control over his life, his coping mechanism to deal with the fact that war is a massacre of children that makes young men old before their time, or dead. If he is bored enough, he will have lived past his own childhood and not have been killed before his time. And since living for a long time seems like it should be the opposite of self-destructive, in a very twisted way, his logic seems to almost make sense. As miserable as he might be, he thinks he is keeping himself alive as long as possible.