Milo

   One of the most controversial characters in Catch-22 the cook for the squad, Milo Minderbinder. He is a sweet but intelligent man who stands for many ideals, and his acts represent a juxtaposition between capitalism and communism or socialism. 

   Milo starts off as only being a good cook and a successful businessman, but this judgement quickly spins when the reader learns more and more about him. Claiming "everyone has a share", he explains his business process as a cycle and never-ending switching of hands of his products, at the point where it seems logical and tangible that he can buy eggs at seven cents-a-piece in Malta and make a profit by selling them at five cents-a-piece in Bologna. This system includes a very complicated process of buying and selling, trading and creating goods. 

   Just when the reader thinks that Milo's system is very efficient and a part of the perfect mix of socialism with capitalism and that Heller is a perfect candidate to a Nobel prize in Economics, the book transcends to the dark and gloomy part of Milo's economic system. It comes to the extreme where his own planes and bombs attack their own squadron, killing and injuring many of the group, just because Milo made a lucrative deal with the Germans. This shows the cruelty of the economic system, where men will do literally anything in order to make a profit. 

   Milo Minderbinder is the perfect example of the cruel capitalist system, where people make business with friend or foe depending on which is the most profitable. The juxtaposition between the two most recent economic systems just helps in the analogy of the current one, where morals and values are less and less taken into account. 

   

Living in the Wild

   We always tend to feel more comfortable in the place we call home, or the places we visit often on our daily routine. This being true, it seems perfectly normal to feel a little homesick and strange when we are away from our homes. We are sometimes away from our homes, but not for as much time as the characters were away from their's in Catch-22. This loss of ownership of one's own special place is felt hard in both spirit and mind. 
   
   In Catch-22, the characters introduced by author Joseph Heller have all someway or another been shocked by the loss of their own home. They have all been transfered into a different environment where the things they used to know and cherish are all gone, and they must learn to deal with this new setting as they will stay there for a long period of time. Some seem to not be so grief-stricken by this change and have learned to embrace their new location as their second home. The chaplain is one example of this: he loves his new home and has learned to make the most out of it by enjoying the loneliness he is faced with by reading and doing other more productive activities. He has even put his personal touch on it, like planting an herb garden close to his tent. Some have not embraced their temporary home so much and it is evident they have not adapted well to this change. Doc Daneeka is a demonstration of this; he obviously has not handled his relocation very well. He constantly complains about his drafting, and he misses his life back home more than anyone else. Although his motives might seem materialistic, the reader gets the general idea that he is a homesick man. 

   There are also cases where individuals completely lose their minds from being away from the place they call home and the society that comes with it. This is seen in Heart of Darkness' character, Mr. Kurtz. He had been deep in the Congolese jungle for many years when Marlow and his crew finally reach him. They found a man who had totally lost his identity and adopted a new behavior that is very strange, at the very least. This version of Kurtz is an effect of, along with greed and loneliness in Kurtz' instance, being away from one's home. Living in the wild obviously changed Kurtz, but he is the extreme case of what is seen in Catch-22's characters.      

   

The Catches in Catch-22

   Catch-22 is a satirical novel that portrays the mishaps and bizarre situations a group of American soldiers face in the midst of World War II. With its snide comments and ridiculous circulating humor, it has proven to be one of the best books I've ever read; I have really enjoyed it up until now. I have found the part where Heller explains the Catch-22 very amusing and only now realized that the book contains many catches, hidden at plain sight since the reader doesn't realize the many different connotations and definitions of the word catch.

   The first small catch in the book, which is not a part of the novel, is that the novel itself is a great catch. It is very entertaining, full of great stories and metaphors and an excellent piece of literary work worth reading. The story line and Joseph Heller's great description, syntax and diction will definitely catch your attention and soon you will find yourself caught in its fantastic web of adventures and inconveniences. 

   But there are also another use of "catch" that lies inadvertently in the novel. Aside from its use in the infamous Catch-22, catching is also a big part of a theme that is introduced in the novel: justice and getting what you deserve. In a part of the novel, the soldiers are talking about what if every person each received what they had coming, and one interjects to say that this is true, that he got malaria when he was having sex on the beach when he should have gotten an STD. Then another soldier replies that he got his STD when he went out to do a casual errand and he ended up having sex with a woman he didn't even want to have sex with. They both caught what was not coming their way, and maybe even their fates crossed roads and exchanged goods, as the second soldier suggested. They were just mere observers as their life got a little bit more screwed up than before, and not exactly the way they intended (more like deserved) to. 

   The vocabulary in these type of novels can contain more than what is seen at first glance,    as seen here. This is why it is important to analyze elements like these; the different meanings of the word "catch" add more meaning to the novel and more philosophical arguments to be explored.        

 

   

   

   

A Serious Procrastinator

   As stated in the BBC article "Viewpoint: Why do we procrastinate so much?", procrastination, or leaving everything for the last minute, is wired into every human's brain. This is not surprising, since I imagine most people have procrastinated at some point like I have (in fact, I procrastinated a little on doing this blog, but that is not the point). This is seen in Shakespeare's play Hamlet. He procrastinates on his decision of avenging his father's ghost and killing of his uncle Claudius. But due to the circumstances, one must question: was Hamlet really procrastinating, or is it just pure indecision lead by feelings and morale?

   The procrastination seen in Hamlet is of a very severe kind, if it is considered as procrastination. He lets the vengeance of his father's memory for another day all throughout the play, and if it was not for the opportunity that Claudius' and Laertes' plan gave him, he may have never killed his uncle in revenge for what he did. This proves that Hamlet is a serious procrastinator; not a chronic one, or not that we know of because we can´t know this based only on the play, but he has a very grave condition in this department. Avenging your own father is not something that many people would procrastinate on. This is exactly what TS Elliot meant by saying that his actions were disproportionate to the circumstances; a normal person would not hesitate that much on taking action on something related to a parent's memory. Sure, this action would not be murdering your father's brother but still, the passion for a father makes people do horrendous things. He is surely procrastinating on a subject that is clear as crystal.

   There is also another side to this argument. One that states that his procrastination on the subject is lead by his over-thinking mind, which makes him consider things one too many times before doing them, and his morale, which inhibits him of making such a horrible act. This second one is not so present, but it is a big part of it. This proves that Hamlet was not procrastinating, he is just processing his thoughts on when is the best time and way to do it. He is planning it out, something a procrastinator would not do until the last moment. His head is clearly in the game throughout the play. This argument shows that Hamlet is not a procrastinator, he is just thinking it through and planning it out thoroughly.

    In my opinion, the first argument is the correct one. Hamlet had no point in thinking something so basic and so instinctive so much. He is procrastinating because he is afraid of committing avunculicide (killing one's uncle) and its consequences. As the photo states, I believe Hamlet puts the "pro" in procrastinate. 

Continuing Big Hutch's Metaphor

   The podcast Act V, by Jack Hitt for The American Life, is about an enactment done by prison inmates of the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center of Shakespeare's famous play Hamlet. He not only follows the development of the play, but he also gets into a deeper level with them. He interview the cast, which are actual inmates from the facility, and talks with them about their motivation, their understanding and their past life to get a better and more profound grasp of what the play means to them. The part that caught my attention the most (of the topics related to the play, of course) is the one where he interviews Big Hutch. Big Hutch plays Horatio in the prison production and he introduces a new location for the play with new circumstances for Hamlet to act under. This makes podcast's followers wonder: what if this play were really true? What would be other things that would have to change?

   Big Hutch sets his play in a prison, more specifically in the prison yard and involving the whole society that surrounds it. He says that Claudius would be an inmate that loves power and wealth, that Polonius would be someone who adores people with power and that Rosencratz and Guildenstern would be rats who go to the prison administration snitching on everybody else. Aside all the new plot turns that surround Hamlet's situation with Claudius, many other things would change. For example, the royalty of Denmark could be extrapolated and played as the top members of the gang that rules the prison. England, place where Hamlet is sent to be left for dead, could be some kind of reclusion room, or even an unjust death penalty sentence set up by Claudius and his gang. Basically the entire play could be set up using these parameters.

   There are still some elements in Hamlet that are very difficult to insert in this new prison environment, or some that would require a little change. For example, Gertrude would not be able to appear since most prisons are for men or women only; the same would go for Ophelia's character. They may fit into it by being outside the prison and visiting it regularly or whatever. Also, the gravedigger would not fit in in his original role, but it would be interesting to see how they play it out. This would be especially interesting in order to see the element of comedy and sanity that he possesses and how it develops in another gloomy environment like the correctional facility. Many other tiny aspects can also be complicated to insert into this new setting.

   Fortunately, Shakespeare's plays possess that universal quality that makes it adaptable to any new situation. We have seen Hamlet adapted to a lion kingdom (The Lion King), Romeo and Juliet put into a jail setting or in a New York City setting (West Side Story), and so on. This has not been a problem for many artists who can twist Shakespeare's stories into their own, leaving out some details for their and their audience's good. 

Hamlet vs. Prufrock

    The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, by T.S. Elliot, is a magnificent poem about the thoughts of the afore mentioned character, who goes back and forth in his mind about his love towards a woman. He has many us and downs (mainly downs) throughout the poem and ponders upon his self appearance and his future acts to impress her, diminishing his self-esteem and self confidence. Hamlet, the main character in William Shakespeare's play Hamlet, is referred to in this poem. Towards the end of it, Prufrock compares himself to Hamlet, or even better, he discredits himself with Hamlet's image. He states that he is "... not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;" (111) From my point of view, Prufrock actually is a lot like Hamlet according to his thoughts in the poem. 

    T.S. Elliot does a great job in revealing Prufrock's thoughts in his "love song", and thanks to this we can see Prufrock's resemblance to Hamlet. When Prufrock is deep in his spiraling mind, he says: "And indeed there will be time To wonder, “Do I dare?” and, “Do I dare?” Time to turn back and descend the stair" (37-39) This thought is very much something that Hamlet would think, as he actually does in Shakespeare's play. He doubts between obeying the king's orders and continue on his journey to England or go back and avenge his late father by killing Claudius. In fact, most of the play after the player's act in the castle goes by with Prince Hamlet still not deciding if he should obey Hamlet's ghost. Finally, he decided to go back, as Prufrock pondered upon in this quote, which shows that they are indeed very equal to each other. The difference here is that the reader knows that Hamlet went back, but he or she never knows if J. Alfred Prufrock had the guts to take such an action. 

    Prufrock is also similar to Hamlet in another aspect. As T.S. Elliot writes in his poem, Prufrock felt: "At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—Almost, at times, the Fool." (118-119) This is a clear resemblance between Elliot's character and Shakespeare's hero. Although Hamlet doesn't demean himself as much as Prufrock, like thinking he: "should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of silent seas." (73-74), they both share this quality of thinking they are of no value and "almost ridiculous". This is seen in Hamlet when he is acting like a mad man and also when he encounters Fortinbras and his army heading to battle. Here, he doubts about his own bravery and of his life's value; he certainly feels ridiculous in this moment. Prufrock also has this tendency to think less of himself and, as mentioned before, his case is more extreme than Hamlet's. Throughout the poem, he doubts of his self value and his acts in a border-line schizophrenic way, and he often feels like a joke, a fool. 

    Hamlet and Prufrock are very much alike in the way they hesitate about their moves and how they both feel like fools in their reflections. Although they share these qualities, the reader may see that Hamlet has a moderate deviance in the way of thinking we have analyzed and that Prufrock symbolizes a hyperbole in the expression of these same feelings. They both possess these characteristics, but one is different from the other in the degree of severity.