Literary Essays?

[SDNess]

Hey, would it be alright if I posted essays that I have writen on novels? I have a bunch I wrote for my independent study and would like feedback.

 

[littlemissattitude]

Hey, would it be alright if I posted essays that I have writen on novels? I have a bunch I wrote for my independent study and would like feedback.

I love reading essays. Being more a nonfiction than a fiction writer and all.

 

[SDNess]

Ok. Here's one on Catch 22:

Satirical Advantages​

War is the most insane idea conceived by human kind. It is dominated by bureaucratic, power hungry bodies who only seek destruction – the military. In the satirical novel, Catch 22, Joseph Heller illustrates of the cynical dysfunction created by the United States military in World War II – ultimately leaving the reader with an antiwar sentiment. The novel’s broad satirical style is comical, dark, detailed, and episodic. These elements strongly support Heller’s argument in that war a surreal and macabre element of the human character.

Throughout Catch 22 there is a distinct comical element to the writing and the storyline. Heller’s prose is hilarious to the point where the reader is forced to laugh out loud. Doc Daneeka, the base’s military physician, describes a moment when he instructs a young couple about sexual matters: “They were just a couple of young kids, and they’d been married, oh, a little over a year when they came walking into my office…I found out she was a virgin…he couldn’t wait to get her home…a few days later he came back…and punched me in the nose” (51). The satirical attitude, however, is useful for more than just entertainment. First off, Heller is making a statement about war – he thinks that war, in general, is always insane and ludicrous. Therefore, the comical aspect Heller communicates shows the true reality of war. His point is that, in reality, war is really a deranged and foolish experience. The romantic, idealistic versions of war, in other words, are unreal and are really just propaganda. In addition, Heller uses a comical attitude because it allows him to get a larger audience reading his novel. A comical novel is much more inviting than, for example, a horror novel, because most people think a comical novel is probably lighter hearted and more enjoyable to read. Catch 22 is much more complex than the standard comical novel; but having the comical attitude, overall, helps. “Hungry Joe collected lists of fatal disease and arranged them in alphabetical order so that he could put his finger without delay on any one he wanted to worry about” (182). Heller’s humor is easy to laugh at and sometimes seems randomly placed – which helps lighten the mood. Along with allowing the novel a larger audience, the user of satire makes it easier for Heller to get his point across. When a reader laughs, his brain makes a mental note of the scene because it was strong enough to elicit a reaction. Comedy is the most fitting style for Catch 22 so Heller’s choice was ideal.

Though the novel’s narrative is comical, there is also a very dark undertone to the material. Heller is trying to show the dark environment created by war. Despite the fact that he ridicules the military and war, he is trying to convey to the reader that there is seriousness within the ridiculousness. Military life is harsh. “Clevinger was dead. That was the basic flaw in his philosophy…no trace was ever found…in the morning there was no more Clevinger” (114). The existence of Clevinger is, in a sense, forgotten. His memory is purged by the other soldiers, as it would only bring despair. They have no time to lament as it would decrease morale and divert them from their task at hand. Likewise, a soldier must do his part until the war is over. “All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to” (55). Here, the meaning of the phrase “Catch 22” is explained to Yossarian, a b-52 bombardier who is the novel’s protagonist. The corrupt, hypocritical military officials put him in a quandry with no solution. Also, Heller’s depictions of the military accidents in the novel might seem far fetched, but they are not. All are conceivable disasters that could have taken place during World War II or any military conflict. “McWatt gave him one day with the plane that came blasting suddenly into sight out of…Kid Sampson, his naked sides scrawny even from so far away, leaped clownishly up to touch it at the exact moment some arbitrary gust of wind or minor miscalculation of McWatt’s sense dropped the speeding plane down just low enough for a propeller to slice him half away” (348). Heller’s writing in this scene is stark and for a reason: realistic accidents like this happen during war – having similar ramifications.

Heller’s narrative is also very detailed. From characters to settings to battle scenes, the reader always has a crystal clear picture of what is going on – with the majority of the descriptions being pessimistic and gritty. Heller describes Yossarian as he experiences a terrifying trek through the woods. “He hurried away from them with a shiver of eerie alarm and did not slacken his pace until the soil crumbled to dry sand beneath his feet and they had been left behind. He glanced back apprehensively…” (153). Heller uses this descriptive style of writing in order to add validity and depth to his work. People might mistake Catch 22 for a low key, no brain comedy with its ever-present, amusing humor, but his sharp illustration of war is very realistic. Heller does not idolize the soldiers and officers of World War II by regarding them as angelic heroes. Instead, he shows them for what they really were: confused, scared boys lost in a treacherous, nonsensical battle. In addition, he portrays the battlefield for Catch 22’s pilots – the sky – as a dangerous, blood-filled arena of death. After reading Heller’s words, no sane person would romanticize on Heller’s lugubrious, authentic world.

Catch 22 is divided into a total of forty two chapters, which gives the novel an “episodic” feeling similar to that of a television show. The events in each chapter are nonlinear and vaguely related. Chapter twenty seven ends with Doc Daneeka and Yossarian discussing the meaning of Catch 22. Then, chapter twenty eight begins with a totally different scene – McWatt flying his air stunts. An onslaught of connected, yet unconnected stories are thrown at the reader – consequently confusing them. However, this confusion serves a legitimate purpose. The episodic chapters give the novel a zany feeling, thus intensifying the crazy depiction of war that Heller tries to convey all over the novel.

Overall, Joseph Heller’s satirical style in Catch 22 works brilliantly. The description, episodic chapters, and comical, but dark tone are the key elements of his style. Heller wrote Catch 22 in order to educate the following generations of the world about the terrible atmosphere and ramifications of war. It can serve as a testimony for the scarred soldiers of World War II and as an example for generations to come. Heller warns the entire world of the corrupt, hypocritical military bureaucracy, the destructiveness of war, and the other shameful acts, such as committing genocide, that occur during the armed conflict.

 

[littlemissattitude]

Write more of these essays SNDess, please. I enjoyed this one a lot. I haven't ever read "Catch-22"; I certainly will now, due to your essay.

I like the way you make the whole flow from one idea into another. While I haven't, as I said, read the book, I think that your explanation of why Heller chose to use the comic mode is quite insightful - I can see your point about why he would have made that choice quite clearly. I saw the same thing in the book, film, and television series, "MASH". That approach worked quite well there. I can also see why an episodic telling of the story would work as an imitation of how life in a war unfolds. Certainly, the stories my father told of his experiences as a radio operator on a bomber in World War II and as a "guest" of the Nazis (as a prisoner of war) after his plane was shot down over Italy, support many of the ideas you express in your analysis of "Catch-22".

I did see a couple of technical problems with your essay, but they were few and very minor, and I will not comment on that aspect of your writing unless you specifically ask for that. Just write more, and these little technical problems will eventually work themselves out. (Just so you don't worry that I've made this comment, I'll tell you that of the most glaring problems that jumped out at me, two were probably an artifact of paying attention to spell and grammar check [which you shouldn't always trust] and the other was a dropped word that very well could have been a typographical error. All three occurred in the first paragraph of the essay).

All in all, however, a very good essay.

 

[SDNess]

Thank you very much. Yes, you should definetly read Catch 22. This next essay is very similiar to my first one. I used a similiar approach in each.

Games of Chance
​

The government in power of the Soviet Union during Stalin’s purges of the True Believers was corrupt and treacherous. Even many of the revolutionaries who supported the Union were later destroyed because of their actions during the revolution. In the novel, A Tomb for Boris Davidovich, the author, Danilo Kis, illustrates the cynical dysfunction of communism through seven dark, connected short stories – ultimately leaving the reader with an anti-communist sentiment. The novel as a whole lacks description, dialogue, character connection, and an optimistic tone. However, these factors do not hinder Kis’s writing; rather they aid him in supporting his argument that communism is a flawed and insidious system.

Throughout the novel there is a distinct lack of description. The reader is left to make up the fine details for himself. “Gould Verschohyle was born in one such suburb of Dublin within reach of the harbor, where he listens ship’s whistles, that piercing howl which tells the righteous young heart that there are worlds and nations out there…injustice are more heavily oppressive than anywhere else” (19). Kist starts of his second short story, The Sow that Eats Her Farrow, with this information about the main character, Gould Verschohyle. However, the information he provides does not tell what he looks like or much about his past. Instead Kis uses the area where Verschohyle “listens to ship’s whistle” in order to talk about the oppressiveness of other governments in the world – alluding to the communist regime in the Soviet Union. Kis communicates to the reader that communism is a terrible system. He illustrates a scene, in which there is a murder or an instance of government corruption, without detailing it too much. Therefore, the reader will not get confused or lose track and end up forgetting the main point. “Illusions do not play games with those who have seen a dead body arise. Miksha took the entrails out of the corpse to prevent it from rising to the surface, then shoved it into the water,” (11). The reader never is provided a full description of the dead body or what the water into which the body was thrown looked like. Kis states this disturbing fact and allows the main character to carry out what he needs him to do.

Similarly, Kis’s does not write poetically. Instead, his writing is factual like a textbook. “A. L. Chelyustnikov was arrested in Moscow in September 1938, four years after the murder of Kirov (and in connection with it), and a little less than four years after the Herriot incident” (50). Kis never graphically explains the arrest of Chelyustnikov or the death of Kirov. As an alternative he states the events and treats them like events recorded in a history book. This helps Kis strengthen his argument. His readers never form the opinion that communism is productive, because all of the detrimental facts or information that Kis is providing are against communism. “In the bluish haze of the cell’s semidarkness, where clouds of smoke rose in spirals, the four cardplayer-criminals reclined like boyars on bunks infested with bedbugs, turning a dirty straw between their chipped yellow teeth or sucking tobacco wrapped into a think, slobbery cigar” (67). The atmosphere that Kis’s stories take place in is dreary and depressing. This is indicated by phrases like “cell’s semidarkness” and “where clouds of smoke rose in spirals”. Kis might have written A Tomb for Boris Davidovich descriptively and poetically, but he would have had to counter every argument that supported communism so that it definitely did not support it. The method Kis chose was the most effective because the reader clearly cannot form a positive opinion of communism after reading A Tomb for Boris Davidovich.

All seven of the main characters in each of the short stories do not leave strong impressions on the reader. In other words, the reader does not feel for the characters as they experience their adverse revolutionary events. One possible reason for the thinness of the characters is that the length of the stories do not allow for adequate development of the character because of length. A more likely reason, however, is that Kis intended for the characters to be thin so that the reader will not feel any empathy for the characters because they are communist revolutionaries and, in most of the stories, are the ones committing the cruel acts of corruption or violence. “This brave man [Novsky] died on November 21, 1937, at four o’clock in the afternoon. He left a few cigarettes and a toothbrush” (108). The reader’s impression of Novsky is that he is brave, but also a joke because all he had left in the world after he died was “a few cigarettes and a toothbrush.”

Kis’s writing in each of the short stories of A Tomb for Boris Davidovich is always dark. He never comments on the happiness or positive attributes of a character or setting. There is always some sort of corruption going on. Kis chose this dark mood because it genuinely helps him stress the point that communism is a terrible system. “Dr. Taube, Karl Georgievich Taube, was murdered on December 5, 1956, less than two weeks after his formal rehabilitation, and three weeks after his return from Norilsk prison camp.” Kis constantly talks about murders, which leads the reader to pair murdering with communism. Any potential benefits of communism are never mentioned. In addition, Kis’s pessimistic mood causes the reader to dislike the communist system. No sane person would enjoy living in the gritty, lugubrious world that Kis creates.

All in all, Kis effectively uses his writing to emphasize the point that communism is disastrous. He uses a lack of description, factual narration, thin main characters, and a pessimistic mood in order to convey the disastrousness of communism. The reader is given factual information against communism that can not be countered. Kis wrote A Tomb for Boris Davidovich in order to educate the people of the world about the terrible events of the Russian communist revolution. It can serve as a testimony for the oppressed people of the Soviet Union and serve as an example for other countries not to follow. Kis warns the world of communist and totalitarian government’s corruption, the meager society they create and the reprehensible acts, such as Stalin’s purges, that follow in the wake.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

These are really good essays, SDNess, and a cool choice of books too!

I have to admire your grasp of detail in both essays. When I write about a book, I generally wind it up in about 300 words or so - I find it very hard to expand beyond that. Then again, it may be a side effect of those huge critical essays I was forced to do when I was studying Literature in college.

 

[SDNess]

Thanks. If you find anything wrong with the essays and have time to comment - please do. Another: (you might notice that these essays have a similiar agenda. The books as well.)

Kafka’s Adversarial Bureaucracies
​

Politics in society are in constant evolution. New forms of government and political thought are conjured quite often. In the existentialist novel, The Trial, Franz Kafka, illustrates and warns of the excesses of modern bureaucracy in cooperation with the institution of political power. The bureaucracy prolongs its existence by devouring the rights of its citizens whom it is suppose to serve. Monstrous in its grasp upon citizens, the bureaucratic mind is sustained by the revolving mechanics of government work and the blasphemous rhetoric of bureaucrats. The main character, Joseph K (“K”), experiences a first hand account of the bureaucracy’s power.

K is accused of a crime, but the “authorities” do not tell K what he is charged with. Throughout the novel, the court’s function remains a mystery. Nevertheless, it is clear that court symbolizes an unusual bureaucracy. The central struggle K faces is finding his place within the law. At the beginning of the novel, K thinks he is above the law. He is not afraid of the law and is unwavering in his belief in exercising his own rights. “K knew there was a slight risk someone might sat later that he hadn’t been able to take a joke…if this was a farce, he was going to play along” (7). Here, K questions whether the affair is real or not. He persists in believing that he is equal to the law and is free to do whatever he wants. As his trial progresses through the story K loses this perception of the law and is thrown into a state of confusion. “There was an immediate knock on the door and a man he’d never seen before entered…he remained eminently practical, although its purpose remained obscure” (4). The warders hired by the court barge into K’s bedroom. K becomes puzzled because he continuously recalls that he has been charged with some unidentified crime. He is exiled from society. In other words, K still physically exists in the same chaotic world, but is confined in an invisible net placed by the political machines of K’s world. K is destroyed by the net that is controlled by the bureaucracy.” He is unable to exercise the “civil rights” that he was given when he became a citizen.

Kafka’s title offers two meanings. Either way, the bureaucracy has total control in both situations. The first meaning is the trial that K becomes wrapped up in. This trial exists only in interaction with the government. Its purpose is to determine K’s sentence for the unnamed crime that he is accused of. “…required to examine you…however, I’ll make an exception today” (43). The examining magistrate remarks that he was suppose to examine K earlier, but has made an exception. After this scene, K and the examining magistrate throw back barbs at each other; making no progress in the case. The second deals with K also experiencing a mental trial of chronic anxiety, which begins at the beginning of the novel. Despite its mysteriousness, the crime is destructive because it is unnamed. “The thought of his trial never left him now. He had often considered whether it might not be advisable to prepare a written defense and submit it to the court” (111). This quote shows the obsessive attitude that K develops. The trial serves as evidence of the precarious environment that forms because of the irresponsibility of bureaucracies.

The symbolic nature of the unnamed crime is to make K feel guilty about something he did in the past. The agents of the court want to make K feel that his overall behavior as a human is a crime.

The political machines of bureaucracies prey on their citizens by planting sentences upon them. K directly experiences this. “…what has happened to me...what has happened to me is merely a single case and as such of no particular consequence, since I don’t take it very seriously, but it is typical of the proceedings being brought against many people” (47). The political machines are programmed like computers to carry out their actions. In some respects they do crave a sense of moral certainty – but it is distorted because of the programming. “You’re quite mistaken…these gentlemen and I are merely marginal figures in your affair, and in fact know almost nothing about it…I can’t report that you’ve been accused of anything, or more accurately, I don’t know if you have” (14). The inspector explains to K that the two warders and the inspector are just servants of the court – they have little if not zero input in the cases.

Bureaucracies have no loyalty and are powered by corruption. They punish all malefactors - even if they work for the bureaucracy. “Sir! We’re to be flogged because you complained about us to the examining magistrate!” (81). Here, the two warders cry out to K and ask K to tell the whipper to stop punishing the warders. In this case, the bureaucracy is punishing its own workers. The warders are ignorant of their crimes and lament because of this ignorance.

K visits a painter named Titorelli near the conclusion of the novel. “He’d only said he would write Titorelli to show the manufacturer that he appreciated his recommendation and that he would seriously consider the possibility of getting together with Titorelli…” (137). In this quote, K considers meeting with Titorelli. The painter claims that K will experience one of three outcomes of the trial. “I forgot to ask what kind of release you want. There are three possibilities: actual acquittal, apparent acquittal, and protraction” (153). Actual acquittal is being cleared of all charges. Apparent acquittal is similar to actual acquittal, but different in the fact that K would only be cleared in words and not physically. Protraction is the extension of K’s case. When K hears these recommendations he is motivated to buy three paintings from the Titorelli – one for each outcome. “He would have liked to leave the paintings in the cab, but he was afraid he might have to account for them to the painter at some point. So he ordered them taken into his office and locked them in the bottom drawer of his desk…” (165). On the way home, He realizes that his actions are feckless. This is because buying the paintings will have no effect on the bureaucracy. In addition, he learns that bureaucracies are very powerful and that there is no way out of their trap. K forms a sense of hopelessness because of these realizations.

Consequently, K is killed in a dramatic ending scene. “But the hands of the man were right at K’s throat, while the other thrust the knife into his heart and turned it there twice” (231). His death is the end of both the political and mental trials he was experiencing. The nightmarish feud between K and the bureaucracy ended. He escaped the net and ended up on the same level, except now he was dead.

Overall, Kafka’s dark narrative warns of the excess of bureaucracy along with totalitarian government. The Trial is a prophetic warning that should be read by all. In a different sense, however, it is as much a narrative on political thought as it is commentary on the loss of one’s self. Therefore, it can serve as a modern archetype of social and political function to modern day governments of the current age. If Kafka’s warnings are understood, then the governments of today’s world will not take on the characteristics of K’s corrupt government; thus, helping to make a better society for the current generation and the generations of the future.