So it's gone

Joseph Heller's narrative from Catch-22 resembles that of Slaughterhouse-Five, by Kurt Vonnegut. Both of these works are narrated in non-linear ways that convey different meanings to their stories. In Slaughterhouse-Five the jumping narrative is structured like that because the main character, Billy Pilgrim, travels between different times of his life. As of now, Catch-22's narrative style has no connection to a single character, but one could say that to all of them: war has made them only one. Whether it is Billy Pilgrim or the vast array of characters in Yossarian's squadron, their unhinged ways of living and the different views on death are conveyed by the narrators.

Slaughterhouse-Five recounts the events of Billy Pilgrim's life in an odd fashion that certainly shows his detachment from life.  This behavior is embodied after he came "unstuck in time" and in the way he saw life go by: "so it goes". Billy's beliefs that life happens all at the same time is constantly occurring are manifested by the narrator's soothing and easing recount. Furthermore, when Billy was abducted by aliens in the middle of war he detached himself from human customs and embraced alien ones. War disrupted Billy's rationality to an extent where he no longer appreciated life. Indifference is his new way of life. His indifference in front of death is certainly opposing to Yossarian's fear of it. Every time someone dies in Slaughterhouse-Five the narrator says "So it goes", showing how every death is just another death and nothing more. Billy feels no pity or fear of death, whereas Yossarian does everything in his power to avoid death. The repetition of death and the indifference towards it, portray its inevitability in war.

Catch-22 jumps along different perspectives and parts of Yossarian's experience in war. Characters come and go in a very fast paced manner with their peculiar behaviors, but as the story progresses one gets a sense of similarity in all of them. It is a feeling of inanity that makes these soldiers relatively equal in from of one thing: death. "Of course you're dying. We're all dying. Where the devil else do you think you're heading" (chapter 18) said a doctor to Yossarian. This rather explicit quote from one of the few apparently sane characters (who was present only at that situation),encapsulates the narrator's apprehension of the inevitable death. Disregarding their rank and their mental state they are all facing death and it shall come. The narrator presents a variety of characters who essentially face the same problem to equalize them and define war not too far from death.

Both Slaughterhouse-Five and Catch-22 depict the inevitability of death throughout different narration styles. One does it in a very indifferent manner and the other in a much more dooming one. Slaughterhouse-Five's indifference expresses the unimportance of life since it is constantly vanishing, whereas Catch-22's conglomeration of characters captures an essence of equality in front of death. The dehumanization and ferocity of war is presented via similar concepts of death in both works, expanding on war's broadest exit: the inevitable death. 

Masters of Satire

In Catch-22 Joseph Heller excels at satirizing war by presenting absurd situations that remark how illogical war may be. Heller's style shares many qualities with Stanley Kubrick's film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, which satirizes the nuclear scare from the Cold War. Both of these works extend war to absurd situations that show a perspective of war on inhumane aspects of war that pass unseen. 

One of the striking similarities between these satires is the vast power that high rank officers acquire. The "purpose" of war is even set aside by these overpowered men's desires, exemplifying the irrationality in war. In Catch-22 Colonel Catchart obliges the American soldiers to fight indefinitely by constantly raising the number of missions needed for them to be dismissed. In Dr. Strangelove General Ripper unchains an irreversible nuclear attack on Soviet Russia because he believed they were polluting "precious bodily fluids". While Colonel Cathcart has his men fight and possibly die endlessly, Ripper gave the Russians reason to annihilate all human and animal life with the "doomsday machine". The excess of power that these officers have is not just abusive, but absurdly excessive, yet they accomplish their goals. The purpose of war, even though some may argue Kubrick and Heller imply there is none, is irrelevant to the war when leaders put their own interests before those of war. 

In both stories there is nothing humanity can do to prevent total devastation from happening. War has no exit in either situation because one way or another there will be massive destruction. Whether it is catch-22 that prevents Yossarian from leaving war, or the doomsday machine from the Soviets in Dr. Strangelove, everyone is on the brisk of failure or death. In Catch-22 Major Major told Yossarian there was nothing he could do to help him be dismissed so Yossarian is awaiting death even more. Similarly in Dr. Strangelove General Ripper said there was nothing anybody could do about the nuclear bombs he released and he was proved right. In these satires whatever absurd situation is present, it is bound to happen. The logic of catch-22 is fulfilled in both of these works as there are unavoidable constraints that all lead to a problem. These situations provide an insight in the illogicality of war by showing how war is the same trap for everybody, disregarding their side.

Kubrick's masterpiece and Heller's work are both enchanting satires that mock war by depicting it in a more comedic and exaggerated way. Ironically, their characters are completely serious and and sincere, but this is all to build up the satire. For many, war has been the inhumane inner and outer struggle depicted in both works. The satirization and exaggeration of these events is a conduct for the sense that war lacks and a corroboration of the mutually-assured destruction of war. 

Shakespearean Convicts

The story of prison inmates performing Act V of Hamlet makes me wonder how prison transforms people. Seeing that the play was performed by criminals living out the consequences of crimes similar to Hamlet's, I am curious about these inmates' behavior and character changing as they undergo Hamlet. This reminds me of the film Das Experiment, the portrayal of a psycho-social experiment that explored violence and ultimately dehumanization. Any contact with prison transforms people, but then how does Hamlet transform inmates? 

While Das Experiment depicts the loss of humane behavior in an attempt to temporarily study volunteer guards and inmates, the production of Hamlet in jail civilized and humanized real criminals. After some of the inmates got "intimate" with Hamlet, they spoke with their own ghosts. They contemplated their past crimes like Hamlet contemplated his own, resulting in a deep and personal connection with themselves. Hamlet  allowed them to understand themselves better and their thinking at the time they did their wrongs. In Das Experiment the case is quite the opposite. Some "clean" civilians experiment with prison life and end up committing crimes similar to the crimes in Hamlet. 

The play served as a therapy for the criminals to relieve themselves from the regret and pain of their crimes. Danny Weller, one of the inmates performing Hamlet, chose to perform as the ghost because he felt that a man he killed talked to him through the ghost. "He wanted me to know what I put him through", said Waller as he explained the impact of Hamlet in him. The perpetrators of violence in Das Experiment go berserk and immerse themselves in a civil war. Playing to be convicts, they committed savage crimes whereas real convicts reincorporated into civil society enacting Hamlet's violence.

Madness?

In these two examples one sees different how different types of violence may lead to change in human behavior. Studying Shakespeare's violence helped inmates know themselves better and find tranquility after having committed their crimes. In Das Experiment some innocent men were mutated by a prison into savage criminals. In prison, Hamlet serves as an aid to men in need of forgiveness, company and revitalization. It will not change who they were or what they did, but it was a "rehearsal", said Jack Hitt in the podcast. This is a rehearsal of civil life and possibly to prepare some of the actor to reintegrate themselves into society. Something that prison alone never taught either in Das Experiment or at the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center. Seeing the coarse ferocity that prison is (not saying that people don't deserve it), Hamlet is a therapy that may cure or relief the stigmas of confinement. 

The Bliss of Failure

T.S Elliot's "The Love song of J. Alfred Prufrock" presents someone's inner struggle to take action, ultimately failing. This struggle echoes Hamlet's dilemma in Shakespeare's Hamlet since the indecision that Hamlet endures prevents him from avenging his father before everyone wanted him dead. Even though Prufrock rejects the idea that he is like Prince Hamlet, he suffers from a heavier burden. While Hamlet died relieved after avenging his father, Prufrock grows old as a fool that is unable to decide on the matters of his life. This indecisiveness is a constant theme in both works, but Hamlet was more successful than Prufrock.

Like Hamlet, J. Alfred Prufrock has plans, but his indecision and delay prolong the execution of these forever. Both of these characters question themselves, but Hamlet took a stand and eventually avenged his father. Unlike Hamlet, Prufrock remains unable to approach his beloved. When Hamlet saw Fortinbras's attitude towards his fathers death, he resoluted he would act. While Prufrock asks "Do I dare Disturb the universe?" (lines 46,47), Hamlet determined "O, from this time forth, My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!" (IV.IV.67). Hamlet was madly obsessed with the murder of his father and was unable to confront the culprit until he witnessed Fortinbras's bravery. There Hamlet decided he would avenge his father. Prufrock suffers from a similar obsession, but with a potential lover. While both are extremely pusillanimous, Hamlet moved on and died whereas Prufrock never expressed his feelings. 

Prufrock cannot approach this person and express himself so he concludes he cannot be like Hamlet. He accepts he is a fool and accepts he has been trying to be something he is not. Hamlet decided he would be a killer, something he was not. Prufrock says "I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be; Am an attendant lord", suggesting he cannot force himself to go against his nature the way Hamlet tried. He is a better fool than lover so he accepts it. Hamlet denies his true nature and tried to be vengeful, resulting in the avenging of his father, but his death too. These two failures raise many questions, most prominently, was this a true failure? Indeed they both failed, but they both attained satisfaction and peace of mind. Prufrock by isolating himself of the world and Hamlet by passing on his legacy and his story.