Devastation_of_War

Devastation of War The novels “For Whom the Bell Tolls” by Hemingway and “Catch 22” by Heller, have a similar but not identical theme. Both novels emphasize the corruption and detrimental effects of war. In addition, both novels demonstrate the fact that war presents the reality of the inevitability of death. “For Whom the Bell Tolls” showed the devastating effects that war had on people and their loved ones. It also showed how there was very little innocence in war. This novel followed a serious tone, showing the reader how close many are to death (For Whom). tay alive or die trying. This was obvious when Yossarian came to his conclusion that there were bigger problems than death (Catch). In both “For Whom the Bell Tolls” and “Catch-22”, the reader experienced multiple reactions and attitudes of people regarding the various detrimental effects of war. Hemingway used repetitive themes and ideas in his book. By using the reoccurring ideas in “For Whom the Bell Tolls”, he was able to make his views clear on specific issues. This forced the reader to understand his thoughts more clearly. The theme of war was his most notable reoccurring theme. Hemingway used the war concept as irony in this book, trying to tell the reader what he thought about war (Hemingway). He emphasized the misconception of war by discussing how there were no real winners- war is an equal game. What goes around comes around in a never-ending cycle of stupidity (For Whom). The setting took place during the Spanish Civil War, in the 1920-1930 time period, on the battlefields in a Spanish countryside. Here again, Hemingway does not idealize either side and does not refer to their political beliefs, but refers to the fact that each side was very much the same. Both sides consisted of sad and depressed men who have been shipped off to war. Hemingway’s satirical punch at war was evident when he made it clear that both sides were human, with no line separating the ‘saints’ from the ‘sinners’ (Hemingway). Disillusionment was another idea that was connected to his war concept. A victory for any army was not truly a victory if it involved the loss of human life. Barbaric behaviors were committed by otherwise compassionate and peaceful people, since they were forced to do so by their ‘sides’. The author satirized the ‘illusion’ that people found war to be glorious and heroic. At the same time, it was said that even a victory was a defeat, since so many died in an effort to achieve that victory. He said that war was, in fact, legalized murder and that it had no place in human life (Hemingway). The final demonstration of war was the theme of equality, ‘what goes around comes around’. Hemingway showed the never-ending circle of war, where people fight, die, fight, and die, with many pointless revolutions. For the soldiers, there was little escape. What one side did to the other was usually returned. The balance of sides had to be maintained. The best example of this was Lieutenant Berrendo, who killed Sordo. Later on, Robert Jordan killed Berrendo, completing the circle of escists, only to lose many of their own. Another example of irony was the ‘causes’ that both sides fought for- Communism and Fascism. Both causes were unfair, with unequal ways of life (Hemingway). Many of these themes and terms were also found in “Catch-22”.       In “Catch-22”, every man, situation, and institution was referred to as “insane”. At the core of the accusations was Yossarian, who served as both the accuser and the accused. Yossarian was like the many men he encountered throughout the novel, that saw themselves as sane, but acted in a contrary manner. Many times, the apparently sane seemed even crazier than the apparently mad, while each character was accusing each other of lunacy. The definition of madness became blurred and the thin line between sanity and insanity disappeared (Heller). Yossarian expressed his views early in the novel, saying that war was full of insanity. He told the chaplain that the hospital, the army, and the world were full of insane people. He contended that the concept of a complete stranger wanting to murder him was utterly mad. Clevinger, who represented the ideology of the military system and society as a whole, judged Yossarian as crazy for his paranoia and diagnosed him with "an unreasonable belief that everybody around him was crazy...and an unfounded suspicion that people hated him and were conspiring to kill him (Heller).” Clevinger's assessment of Yossarian represented the first instance of conflicting interpretations of madness. Society judged him as ‘crazy’ for being paranoid about something as mundane as war. It was understandable that Yossarian was not comfortable with the fact that people were trying to kill him. But Clevinger, who did not sense a direct threat to his life, deemed Yossarian's fears ‘absurd’. Therefore, it was ironic that Clevinger was among the first killed in the fighting, an occurrence which Yossarian snidely pointed out as "the flaw in his argument". Clevinger and society's idealistic assessment of Yossarian's fears was that they were unreasonable and did not stand up to evidence of reality. Clevinger's death proved Yossarian's fears to be well founded, making his insane idea seem true (Heller). The blurred distinction between sanity and insanity in the novel was drastically furthered with the introduction of the first ‘catch-22’. His peers viewed Yossarian as crazy. So, he decided to ask Dr. Daneeka to spare him of flying further missions by declaring him mentally unfit. Dr. Daneeka informed him that such a desire to be exempt from fighting was a sure sign of sanity. On the contrary, any sane man willing to fly must surely be insane. The contradictory definitions of sanity and insanity made it impossible to distinguish the sane from the mad. In another assessment, Dr. Stubbs concluded that Yossarian was, "that crazy bastard may be the only sane one left". Dr. Stubbs was one of the few men within the societal system that saw Yossarian's actions for what they were. Rather than random acts of madness, Yossarian's differences consisted of a methodical defiance of the system. Dr. Stubbs felt that this was the only sane way to save ones self. His diagnosis of Yossarian was in contrast to that of Major Sanderson, who judged Yossarian to be insane, but was clearly insane himself (Heller). Yossarian's actions did not conform to society's definition of acceptable behavior and he was considered ‘mad’. After Snowden's death, Yossarian refused to wear a uniform; instead he walked around naked. After being attacked by Nately's whore, Yossarian decided to walk backward in order to prevent anyone from sneaking up behind him. These actions appeared crazy to those 's fault. The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them (Heller)." Yossarian's ‘madness’ inspired those around him, although they were afraid to admit it openly that they had begun to see him as not only sane, but truly enlightened. They requested, in private, that Yossarian kept them informed of his success, for they too might want to save themselves (Heller).