..And Lieutenant Scheisskopf had noticed that people with minds tended to get pretty smart. Such men were dangerous...(71)
To die or not to die, that was the question...(68)
[Scheisskopf] manipulated boxes of chocolate soldiers until they melted in his hands...(72)
"Then answer the question. When didn't you say we couldn't find you guilty?
"Late last night in the latrine, sir."
"Is that the only time you didn't say it?"
"No, sir. I always didn't say you couldn't find me guilty, sir. What I did say to Yossarian—"
"Nobody asked you what you did say to Yossarian. We asked you what you didn't say to him..." (80)
"I'll tell you what justice is. Justice is a knee in the gut from the floor on the chin at night sneaky with a knife brought up down on the magazine of a battleship sandbagged underhanded in the dark without without a word of warning. Garroting." (80)
There were no volunteers for this blog, so I did it. Don't feel too bad about it. I enjoy writing these. Javier has the Thursday blog. There are two next week before spring break. Keyes, Ruby, and Molly: you're up. Go ahead and volunteer for the two next week. Unlike what happens in the book, it won't kill you or drive you mad. I don't think. And by the way, impressive answers to the questions since we left school. Looking forward to seeing you tomorrow. Fingers crossed.
Heller had to have had Groucho Marx and the Marx Brothers in mind when he wrote the trial of Clevinger in this chapter. No matter how often I've read it it still makes me laugh out loud. Its word play and absurdity and satire is pure Groucho. The scene is from their classic Duck Soup (1933).
There is so much going on in this novel, which has been frustrating for some in reading this without class (and lines all above the white board). What is the story? Who are these characters? What do they even look like? How do we tell General Peckem from General Dreedle and Colonel Cathcart from Colonel Cargill? The similarity of names has to be deliberate: we are supposed to be confused, I have to think. And so we are often. This is such a rich book: I'm highlighing nearly half of each page. And I think that's part of what Heller wants too: to overwhelm our senses in the way the characters' senses are overwhelmed.
For me, the book begins to cohere thematically in Chapter 8. We're given a lengthy introduction to the famously named Lt. Scheisskopf (if you don't know what this word means, google it). We're given one of the first lengthy coherent comedic section of the novel, the trial of poor Clevinger. The trial elucidates some key themes of the novel.
1. What moment or image particularly jumped out at you in this chapter?
2. So what is this chapter about? What theme or conflict does it particularly define? What does it do to make clearer what this sprawling narrative is "about"? Feel free to quote for both questions.
3. I think this is the funniest writing so far in the book—it's war as done by the Marx Brothers.
My question: am I overstating the humor of the chapter? Am I the only one who finds it truly funny? If so, what was particularly funny in it for you? If not, why not?
That's enough. TOMORROW: have a question ready for the class when we video conference (a term I never expected to use ever). 8:30 in the AM. Have your coffee ready. I will. Take care all. DUE by 10 tonight.
The moment that jumped out at me was when Clevinger was put on trial, and Scheisskopf was his prosecutor, judge, and attorney. These conflicting roles were even more problematic because we had just learned that the Lieutenant wanted Clevinger prosecuted and was only missing a charge to pin on him.
ReplyDeleteThis chapter--more than any other so far--illustrates and criticizes the unruly, illogical bureaucracy in the US Army. I marked down at least six specific instances of overt criticisms of this bureaucracy in this chapter alone. One such example is how Clevenger was charged--among many other things--with high treason for stumbling during a march. This criticism of the bureaucracy is one part of what seems to be an overarching, satirical narrative of war, the Army, and American society.
No, you are not the only one who found this funny. The section with the Coronal made me laugh out loud multiple times--it’s even better with an audiobook accompaniment. I found the sheer incompetence hilarious: how the major gives contradictory commands, how the Coronal yells at the major, and how Clevinger sat there saying “No sir” so many goddam times. It was very funny.
1. I think that the descriptions of women— specifically Dori Duz and Scheisskopf’s wife— in this chapter were particularly eye-catching to me, both because they’re so specifically transparent in terms of expressing how the men feel about women and also because they are so consistent across the board. Each female character we’ve been introduced to so far has been described in the same way: sexually and as if they are inferior. This is no surprise, considering the time period and the existence of sexism, but I can’t help but roll my eyes every time a Heller chooses to describe the shape of a girl’s breasts when it has absolutely nothing to do with what’s happening in the story. Yay, misogyny! How boring it is.
ReplyDelete2. A lot of this chapter consisted of strange arguments that didn’t seem to have any beginning, middle or end. Granted, I’ve been unable to understand most of this book so far (my reading comprehension skills have taken a turn for the worst in this quarantine and this confusing book is not helping), but it doesn’t seem like there’s much of a reason for most of the conflict in this chapter. Clevinger’s trial doesn’t appear to have any solid reasoning, and yet it lasts for an incredibly long time. There’s a good chance this is a metaphor or slight nod to how strange war is, and how lost in conflict people can get, to the point of forgetting why it originally began. I’d imagine with that lense, the arbitrary nature of this chapter seems to make a more solid point.
3. I often find myself laughing not at the jokes (which consistently go over my head) but rather just how strange and randomly-structured this book appears to be. I really could not tell you what has happened so far, but I could definitely remember at least five instances in which the book’s absurdity made me laugh. So maybe I wouldn't say the book itself is funny, at least to my understanding. But it's so ridiculous and confusing that I can’t help but laugh at myself for trying to understand it.
The moment in this chapter that particularly stuck with me is the absurdity of Clevinger’s trial. From Lieutenant Scheisskopf, who was both a judge, prosecutor, and officer defending Clevinger, to the colonel yelling for him to speak up while keeping his “stupid mouth shut” and to say “sir” when he’s not sir-ing him, its baffiling for both the reader and for Clevinger, but it appears to be designed that way. There is no logic to the trial, and because of that lack of logic, they can punish anyone for everything and for nothing (one of his charges was “listening to classical music” (76) for crying out loud!). The fact that, in an American military, the country where the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” is common knowledge, they could accuse anyone of any crime, and they would be presumed guilty was astounding to me. “Clevinger was guilty, of course, or he would not have been accused, as since the only way to prove it was to find him guilty, it was their patriotic duty to do so” (81)
ReplyDeleteFrom the trial I described in my answer to the last question to Lieutenant Scheisskopf’s wife sleeping with various people as he worries about doing well in parades, this chapter seems to have the strong theme of the military as a system poorly run by bad leaders without proper priorities. They are too concerned with a muddled trial against a man who has done nothing wrong and preparing men for parades to concern themselves with preparing them for the war that they will have to face in a few weeks. They even go as far as calling Scheisskopf a “military genius” because he found that “proper” marching includes men not moving their hands more than three inches from their sides: “There were few who did not hail him as a true military genius for his important discovery” (74). They are preparing them to go and be “heroes,” without telling them that a “hero” looks like Hungry Jack, a man who clearly isn’t happy or mentally healthy.
I agree this book is very funny, I have found myself writing the word “ha” over and over in the margins. I think it is the absurdity that makes it so funny, it makes no sense but it is still funny. It reminds me of British comedian named James Acaster (yes, I am going off on a bit of a tangent). Unlike most comedians, who tell about their life, in his stand up (which is on Netflix), he just makes up the craziest things. For example, one of his themes is the fact that he is in witness protection due to his old job of buying and reselling honey. His stories are absurd and unexpected, which makes them even funnier. (His actual life is absurd too, here he is on a British tv show (truthfully, as it turns out) telling a story about how his arch enemy is a young boy that “cabbaged” him—skip to the 3:40 markif you want to watch it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ct40CLTCC7A)
1) One part of the chapter that jumped out to me was Lieutenant Scheisskopf’s obsession with the parades. The section describing his efforts to win made me laugh because his ideas were so absurd. He wants to use all these gruesome contraptions to make his men march correctly but decides not to because of timing, not because it would be excruciatingly painful for the men. I also liked that after he made them walk with non-swinging arms, “there were few who did not hail him as a military genius for his discovery” (70). This is such a silly passage, but I think it tells a lot about what Heller thinks the military values.
ReplyDelete2) I think this chapter is about how messed up and confusing war truly is. It is full of ironies and paradoxes. I believe the main theme that this chapter defines is that the confusion and faults of war exist within individual militaries. The members of the so-called enemy militaries that our characters are fighting against don’t really seem to be causing the central problems of the book. When Clevinger is sentenced, he realizes that “these men who hated him spoke his language and wore his uniform” (77). Other people in the men’s own military community can hate them in a way that German soldiers cannot because they know them on a personal level, which is such a bizarre realization.
3) I agree that the chapter is humorous in parts. The parades and the trial are silly, and I enjoyed reading both of these sections. Overall, I like the humor, but it is often a bit confusing for me. I found myself reading passages over and over before I got the jokes, and by the time I understood them, I wouldn’t find them that funny. However, if I were watching these scenes acted out, I would definitely laugh at them (the humor in the Duck Soup videos is a lot easier for me to understand).
1. Similarly to Claire, the thing that stuck out the most for me was the unequal dynamics that exist in the relationships between men and women. So far, there are no prominent female figures in this book, and the introduction of Dori Duz and Lieutenant Scheisskopf’s wife is no different than the descriptions of the Italian whore who Orr is in love with. In yet another one of Heller’s paradoxes, he describes women only in terms of their sexuality, yet simultaneously degrades Scheisskopf’s wife for her “dirty, sexual desires.” It seems as if regardless of what they do, women cannot win in this book.
ReplyDelete2. Although it had been simmering beneath the surface all along, I think that this chapter really brought Heller’s sharp critique of the military and American bureaucracy to the forefront. There are so many instances in this chapter that illustrate how irrational, and often stupid, are the priorities of those in charge. The first example that comes to my mind is Lieutenant Scheisskopf’s obsession with marching parades. He dedicates all of his time scheming about the parade, and all to win a simple, useless pennant. Although I’m not exactly sure what roles one has when designated to the rank of lieutenant, it seems as if Scheisskopf should be focused on more important issues, especially given the fact that the United States is involved in a world war.
3. I agree, this book is humorous. The structure is so tangential and strange and confusing that the sheer absurdity of the story is funny. I also really appreciate the circular dialogue that accompanies all of the characters’ petty arguments, especially in this chapter with Clevinger’s trial. (This section reminded me a lot of the one-act play “A Marriage Proposal” because the characters are so stubborn and argue over such seemingly trivial and pointless issues that it becomes funny.) However, while I laughed several times, the arguments and miscommunications became rather monotonous — I just wanted some sort of resolution to be reached. Extrapolated beyond the humorous context of the trial, I think that that feeling of frustration is an important one because it reveals just how broken the system is.
1. I think the moment that stuck out most for me from this reading was the pages-long trial of Clevinger. It was up and down, absurd, bipolar, frustrating, and baffling. There was absolutely no logic to the trial, which is ironic because a trial is supposed to be a fair judgement of someone based on non-biased evidence. This was the opposite of that. It was interesting in the last little paragraph of the chapter when Yossarian expressed that it makes no difference whether Clevinger is Jewish or not, because they are after everybody. This whole trial portion of the reading highlights the unfairness as well as complete absurdity of war.
ReplyDelete2. I think the goal of this chapter was to highlight how backwards the priorities of the army are. Everyone seems to be focusing on the unimportant parts and missing out on the grand scheme of things or bigger picture; everyone seems to only focus on the nit-picky things and cares about random parts of life in the army but doesn't actually focus on the task at hand or what is usually deemed important in civilian life. Lieutenant Scheisskopf cares more about proving Clevinger guilty just to prove a petty point than actually finding the truth and serving justice. He also dedicates a whole time in his life to winning the marches and suggests some strategies that are so absurd and yet I'm not sure if he was being serious or not. The theme is that everything is off and backwards.
3. I'm not sure if I thought it was really that funny or if I just thought it was just absolute bs. I feel like at this point in this chapter, Heller is messing with us and cannot be taken seriously. Honestly it was just kind of funny how absurd it all was. The whole trial with Scheisskopf contradicting everything he says pretty much every other sentence and how serious Scheisskopf was about the marches, I think reading that section I was just like you have got to be kidding me; so I would say yes, this chapter was pretty funny.
Lt. Scheisskopf’s little cowboy figurines he keeps locked up stand out to me. I was instantly reminded of two things: The Texan from chapter 1 and Doc’s reproductive body parts he keeps locked up in separate places (male away from female) to avoid scandal. It’s like Tastee-Freeze. Fake versions of things and manufacturing things as fill-ins for other things. It’s as if we have become unable to manipulate or work with real things, so we must replace them with fake versions.
ReplyDeleteI think this chapter and much of the book is encompassed by Yossarian narrating on the subject of Clevinger’s “predilection for staring fixedly at one side of a question and never seeing the other side at all” (69). Many, if not most, of the characters have this disposition, including the entirety of the Army and society as a whole. Orr distracts from crab apples with rubber balls, Clevinger pays attention only to Lt. S’s literal words rather than their actual meaning, Lt. S focuses on only the parades but not his wife, Hungry Joe refuses to admit he has nightmares because “everyone has nightmares,” Clevinger says Yossarian isn’t being shot at because everyone is being shot at, nobody cares about what Clevinger but only what he didn’t do. This is (one of) the problem(s) with human beings and perspective in general. We can so easily warp things to fit our best interests and to discount others, and this reading really points out how frustrating and unproductive this folly is.
I think this book is hilarious and I am truly enjoying it; however, I found this chapter to be mildly infuriating. This is perhaps the only chapter I have not enjoyed so far. Heller most definitely is aiming to frustrate me, and I don’t like it. It feels like a betrayal that I have to witness in order to go further in the relationship as the reader.
1. The moment that stood out for me during this reading was the men marching in the darkness, practicing not swinging their arms. I think this was definitely Heller making fun of Lieutenant Scheisskopf for being overzealous. The entire scene is just ridiculous. I especially liked the part where Heller says, “Lieutenant Scheisskopf’s first thought was to have a friend of his in the sheet metal shop sink pegs of nickel alloy into each man’s thighbones and link them to the wrists by strands of copper wire with exactly 3 inches of play” (74). As strange as the idea sounds, Heller refutes it by saying that there was not enough time and copper was sparse during wartime, which I thought was Heller being sarcastic.
ReplyDelete2. Similar to Molly, I think that this chapter is about values. Take Lieutenant Scheisskopf for example. Men, including Yossarian, are sleeping with his wife and all he can do is focus on winning a meaningless parade. Heller even comments on how absurd wanting to win is; he says, “No money went with them, no class privileges. Like the Olympic medals and tennis trophies, all they signified was that the owner had done something of no benefit to anyone more capably than everyone else” (72). Juxtaposed with the previous 7 chapters about flying dangerous missions in B-25s, this chapter seems very meaningless. Not meaningless to the story, but the things done in the chapter don’t seem to have a real purpose. This theme is even shown through the Action Board’s trial where they totally discard logic and throw around meaningless accusations to anyone like Popinjay. I think that this makes clear that the narrative is about perspective on life. Throughout the book, we see Yossarian really struggle because he wants to live so badly and now we have seen how meaningless life can seem. I think Heller is making the reader think a little more about what Yossarian wants to be alive for so badly. Also I think that Heller is showing that sometimes war makes more sense than civilian life.
3. I thought the part about the parade was funny. My favorite part of the chapter was when Lieutenant Scheisskopf asks his wife to march around the room and she says, “Naked?” (73). These strange interactions are funny, but I didn’t find the end of the chapter as funny. The trial itself was a little bit harder for me to see the humor in. I think I was trying really hard to find purpose in the words of the Action Board, but it just wasn’t there (or I couldn’t find it). I think the last part of the chapter was a little more frustrating than funny.
1. What moment or image particularly jumped out at you in this chapter?
ReplyDeleteI think the very beginning of the chapter jumped out to me a lot. Heller puts so much description into Clevinger, bringing in more character depth and details for the audience. Before the war, Heller makes Clevinger seem like the one who does everything, and is busy non-stop. He never had any free time because he was always occupied in doing something else. He seemed very politically active, yet when it came to a political side, he couldn’t choose one, and both sides hated him. Everything is just ironic about him. He seems to be very smart, a Harvard undergraduate, yet Heller writes, “Clevinger was one of those people with lots of intelligence and no brains, and everyone knew it except those who soon found it out” (68).
2. So what is this chapter about? What theme or conflict does it particularly define? What does it do to make clearer what this sprawling narrative is "about"? Feel free to quote for both questions.
I think this chapter goes along with the themes of inevitability and the paradoxes and contradictory ways of life. Towards the end, the men had to answer, yet they also had to be quiet. In order to answer, they stop being quiet, but if they aren’t quiet, they can’t answer the question. Either way, they lose. In a sense, they just chose how they lose, by talking or by not talking at all. It is as heller states, “That men would be a matter of necessity; which men would die, though, was a matter of circumstance” (68). There are some situations that the outcome is already predetermined, just the destination it takes to get there could be different.
3. I think this is the funniest writing so far in the book—it's war as done by the Marx Brothers. My question: am I overstating the humor of the chapter? Am I the only one who finds it truly funny? If so, what was particularly funny in it for you? If not, why not?
I did find it funny how ironic everything was. One example was how Scheisskopf was so dedicated to the parade that he never had time when he was the only one who really cared about it. I also found it funny, like dry humor, in the contradictory argument and how no matter what, the soldiers were screwed if they did anything, and Scheisskof was responsible for that. Every Time they spoke, he told them to speak up, but they scolded them for speaking in the first place. It is almost like a sick game, just like Catch -22.
1. ‘“Naked?’ she asked hopefully. Lieutenant Scheisskopf smacked his hands over his eyes in exasperation. It was the despair of Lieutenant Scheisskopf's life to be chained to a woman who was incapable of looking beyond her own dirty, sexual desires to the titanic struggles for the unattainable in which noble man could become heroically engaged” (73). This scene stuck out to me for a couple reasons. One, the fact that Scheisskopf’s wife wants to dance around naked in front of her husband, but he only wants to play with his toy soldiers struck me as amusing. Seeing as Porim was only a few weeks ago and my family just made hamantaschens (without me because I had too much homework :( ) The story has been on my mind. As I explained in my recounting of the tale at hamantaschen baking, the beginning of the story is Vashti refusing to dance naked in front of the friends of her husband, the king of Persia. But here, Scheisskopf cannot believe that his wife would want to do such a thing. Two, the narrator is clearly making a jab at Scheisskopf for his obsession with winning this stupid marching award when he could be focusing on other more enjoyable things. That is one of the aspects of the book that I really appreciate--everything and everyone is absurd. It is very egalitarian in that way. Like what Ruby and Claire said, the portrayal of women in this chapter is certainly not glowing, but I personally found it very amusing, we will see if I continue to find it as such.
ReplyDelete2. This chapter enforces the presence of two central themes: the theme of bureaucracy and the theme of language. Clevinger’s absurd, confusing, and frustrating interrogation illustrates bureaucracy's refusal to listen to any reason. Scheisskopf and Metcalf never even let Clevinger state his innocence because they are too busy correcting the language Clevinger uses. But, Clevinger does use the proper language!
“I don't think it’s a joke, sir,” Clevinger replied.
“Don’t interrupt”
“Yes, sir”
“And say ‘sir’ when you do,” ordered Major metcalf.
“Yes, sir.”
“Weren’t you just ordered not to interrupt?” Major Metcalf inquired coldly. (75)
We see how nonsensical this bureaucratic system is and how language is used to circumvent logic rather than to clarify. All of these aspects show how absurd war can be and the irrational people in charge of it.
3. Currently, I do not find the book that amusing. I may read several lines in the span of a few pages that I can appreciate and make me smirk, but nothing has made me out right laugh, or really smile for that matter. Maybe if I understood more of what was going on I would find it more amusing. I also think that this is just not my kind of humor. These conversations with no meaning and that continue on in a circular fashion annoy me more than humor me.
ReplyDeleteThe description of Clevinger stuck out to me, especially the quote, “He knew everything about literature except how to enjoy it”(69). Just like almost everything else in this novel, this quote is very counter-intuitive. When I read this, I wondered if Heller was just writing in his normal nonsense fashion or if he was trying to critique overeducated and pretentious people. I think Heller is forcing us to question the validity of what it means to be “harvard educated” and have pretentious titles. Although Clevinger is obviously intelligent, his intelligence is shallow.
When reading this chapter, especially during the trail, I felt like I was a hamster in a never ending hamster wheel. An interaction such as the one in during the trial started with “When, sir?” and ends in a similar place of frustration, “‘Yes, sir.’ ‘And say sir when you don’t,’ ordered Major Metcalf.” There is no point to this scene besides emphasising the absurdity of war. I agree with Ruby that this chapter exposes the irrationality of war in every scene. Again, Heller choses to describe war through these illogical scenes in order to make the point that war ultimately is one great absurdity. By including these absurd scenes, Heller shows that a soldier’s life is really not about war at all.
I agree that this book, and this chapter especially, is very humorous. I enjoy the way Heller is able to write with so much energy even though at times it is frustrating. I think that the frustration I feel as a reader is purposeful and is supposed to reflect the frustration involved in war. I appreciate the way Heller uses irony to expose the absurdity of war, and I think the paradoxical explanation of the “catch-22” explains the whole novel.
Like Claire, I noticed how the two women in these chapters were portrayed. If I remember correctly, this is the first chapter that has really devoted any particular space to them. That being said, we’ve already heard of Orr’s incident with a prostitute who went at his head with a high heel (am I remembering this correctly?) and the prostitutes throwing themselves at Hungry Joe and his camera. Insofar as this book has been a satire of everything and everyone, I suppose that there’s justification for making caricatures out of the women. However, it’s so much more one dimensional than anything we’re seeing of Clevinger, Dunbar, or anyone else. Nor do any of them get names. In particular, I was chuffed by the depiction of Lieutenant Scheisskopf’s wife. She’s described as always having a book, and as being “a crazy mathematics major from the Wharton School of Business who could not count to twenty-eight each month without getting in trouble.” Which is funny, sort of, but so damn condescending. From her pretentions and education, I rather expected something like the female version of Clevinger: out-of-touch with reality, annoying, a “dope”, but all-in-all, an understandable person confused by understandably bewildering circumstances. Instead, the femaleness takes precedence and her stupidity is seemingly ascribed to her nature, not her environment. Sure, she’s not in war in the same way the soldiers are, but as we know from Siobhan Fallon, that doesn’t mean that the wives of soldiers don’t ever have to deal with insane circumstances and trauma. Even the “smart” woman is completely incompetent, sex-crazed, and all-around stupid. The sense I’m getting so far is that all women are manipulative whores who only think about sex, which is not particularly thrilling. Again, going back to Claire’s comment, I think misogyny is an accurate term to be using here and not just sexism. There really does seem to be a contempt and, arguably, hatred of women. At the very least, there’s the failure of seeing them as anything but sex objects.
ReplyDeleteI think the dysfunction of the military leadership and bureaucracy is emerging as a main theme in this chapter. John has said we’re spending this semester on atrocity. We haven’t seen Americans killing Germans and Germans killing Americans in quite the same unforgettable detail as it happens in Slaughterhouse Five. Or at least, less time is spent on it in comparison the the pilots on the base in between runs. I’d argue that the waste of lives and torture that the leadership is putting these soldiers through is the atrocity of this novel. As Clevinger realizes at the end of this chapter, “These three men who hated him spoke his language and wore his uniform, but he saw their loveless faces set immutably into cramped, mean lines of hostility and understood instantly that nowhere in the world, not in all the fascist tanks or planes or submarines, not in the bunkers behind the machine guns or mortars or behind the blowing flame throwers, not even among all the expert gunners of the crack Hermann Goering Antiaircraft Division or among the grisly connivers in all the beer halls in Munich and everywhere else, were there men who hated him more.” Heller comes right out and says that the men in charge who are supposed to be on their side and are in charge of their lives hate the soldiers more than the enemy trying to kill them does. And we see evidence of this in everything, from the arbitrary trial and parading in this chapter to the eponymous Catch-22 of the novel. They (not quite the same as a Kovic “they” but close) are exploiting and, indeed, killing men with their actions for their reputations and other meaningless concerns. War’s bad enough. But what really struck me in this chapter is how a group of stupid, puffed-up men contrive to make it so much worse.
It’s funny in the way that I simultaneously am chuckling out loud and want to bang my head on something when I'm reading. The irony is so deep it hurts, but the dry tone and inanity of it all is pretty hilarious. Two things in particular in this chapter: Clevinger’s trial and Lieutenant Scheisskopf’s “military genius.” Like Keyes, the farcical repetition and utter nonsense of the trial was hilarious. There was absolutely nothing anyone was doing right whatsoever, unless you were the highest commanding officer in the room and no one could gainsay you. And the sheer arbitrary detail of Scheisskopf finding the regulation, passing out printed copies, and blowing people’s minds by not swinging their arms just makes me laugh.
DeletePrompt One: I thought that the trial scene was hilarious. I loved how Popinjay kept cheekily reading back the incorrect last lines. Furthermore, the way Clevinger was caught in a trap where each “No sir,” would dig him deeper into a hole of trouble was just absolute absurdity. America is at war, yet all these men -- and their superiors -- can do to pass the time is these pointless shows.
ReplyDeletePrompt Two: I think that this chapter really showcases all the miscommunication. I think of Scheisskopf, his wife, her friend, Yossarian, and how they are caught in cycles of revenge to which the others are oblivious. I think about the scribe at the trial, and I think about how Scheisskopf is obsessed with parades in the middle of a war. These people are all selfish, disregarding their surroundings and picking whta;s best for them. I am reminded of the scene in Tim O’Brien’s How to Tell a True War Story when the men out in the jungle hear a concert and call in bombs to destroy it. No one in command knew why this was ordered, yet it happened anyway. I don’t think there was actually a concert. Similarly to bombing an empty forest, the interests of the men in Catch-22 do not align with what is at stake.
Prompt Three: This part was very funny. I enjoyed all the contradictions, but most of all, the trial scene and the cheeky scribe.