Catch-22 : black comedy or satire ?

Résumé du document

Catch-22, often considered as one of the literary masterpieces of the twentieth century, is also often analyzed as being either satirical, or characteristic of the theater of the absurd, or even both. At first sight, this appears to be totally irrelevant, given the subtle but still significant differences between satire and black humor. Indeed, even though both are aimed at criticizing the absurdity of life and at drawing an acerb portrait of society and mankind, satire differs from black humor in that it does so with the intention of triggering a fundamental change. Hence, whilst the theater of the absurd develops a hopeless, disillusioned vision of the world, satire is full of hope, and is aimed at moving from this regrettable society to an idealized world, relieved of its imperfections. However, a deep study of the novel inexorably raises important questions. It seems true that Catch-22 contains elements of both the theater of the absurd and that of traditional satire.

Extraits

[...] Nevertheless, the conclusion isn't exclusively satirical. As a matter of fact, it contains indeed some elements proper to black comedy such as, for instance, a latent skepticism about Yossarian's chances of success, that himself shares: to Danby who claims that Yossarian will “never make that “it's impossible” and “almost a geographical impossibility to get [to Sweden] from [Pianosa]”, Yossarian answers that he that” but that least [he]'ll be trying” (Heller 452). To conclude, although Catch-22 is often described as a satire of war and American bureaucracy, this isn't so obvious at first sight, and only appears at the end of the novel. [...]

[...] Don't you see? Don't say uncle when I tell you to say uncle. Okay? Say uncle.” she said. don't say uncle. Say uncle.” (Heller 352) In a nutshell, language, in the world of Catch-22, as in the world of the theater of the absurd, doesn't connect humans: it is, basically, a dialogue of the deaf that only brings interlocutors to go round in circles. This absence of logic and primacy of irrationalism is prevalent not only in oral, but also in written “communication”. [...]

[...] Beside its tragicomic aspect, Catch-22 embodies other features proper to the theater of the absurd. It displays at several occasions, for example, senseless language and omnipresence of wordplay. Thus, Clevinger's questioning by a colonel after being accused by Scheisskopf of causing trouble to the parades results in a meaningless conversation: “Will you speak up, please? I still couldn't hear you.” sir, I said that I didn't say that you couldn't punish “Just what the hell are you talking about?” “I'm answering your question, sir.” “What question?” what the hell did you mean, you bastard, when you said we couldn't punish you?'” said the corporal who could take shorthand, reading from his steno pad. [...]

[...] Man is matter, and thus doomed to disappear. The passage is also characterized, at its beginning, by a glimpse of bitter humor: dying with “delicacy and taste” is flagrantly a stroke of cynicism, proper to black humor. Another acerb portrait of mankind appears in Chapter 25, with the description of the chaplain's horrific nightmares about his whole family dying in atrocious conditions. The chaplain's “morbid fantasies” crudely describe the ugliness of human condition and society, in a very fatalist way. [...]

[...] Catch- 22 epitomizes, through its title, this Kafkaesque no-win situation. Indeed, is supposed to be a rule that has multiple implications but that, mainly, asserts that mad soldiers are allowed to go home if only they ask for it, but that soldiers that ask for being grounded are, consequently, totally sane, since they care for their lives. This is as typical no-win situation: totally absurd, but totally ironclad. There's no rational way of escaping it. This inextricable situation is perfectly associated with the theater of the absurd. [...]