Snowden's impact

“It was easy to read the message in his entrails. Man was matter, that was Snowden’s secret. Drop him out a window and he’ll fall. Set fire to him and he’ll burn. Bury him and he’ll rot, like other kinds of garbage. The spirit gone, man is garbage. That was Snowden’s secret. Ripeness was all.” (pg. 440)

This is the deepest passage in the entire text from Yossarian in relation to the entire book. This is said when we find out about how his close friend and comrade Snowden died in his arm after being hit with flak on one of their flying missions. As Snowden’s body is oozing out on Yossarian, Yossarian gives his all to save his friends life as opposed to worrying about saving his own and escaping. As this is occurring he realizes and gains a deeper understanding of what life is worth. As he reminisces about his friend’s death close to the ending of the entire book, we get a look into Yossarian’s sense of fears from death as well as his fragility towards preservation of his life and others. He realizes to himself that without a soul or passion to live and experience, the body of man is useless and dispensable. This can be associated to the common soldier in his camp who may be throwing his body into combat without a spirit to truly live and simply locking himself into the war camp. Through the line, “ripeness was all”, we can see the motivation and spirit to survive as opposed to waste away, which in Yossarian’s case is occurring the war. By understanding this secret from Snowden, it is unarguable that this is the final piece of motivation that he needs to cling onto, in order to live for himself and not for the army.

The Catch

“Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. 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. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.” (pg. 46)

This is the first time where Catch-22 is first mentioned with a description of its rules or law. Catch-22 is referred to many times later on throughout the entire book but in many different contexts other than that mentioned in this quote. As the meaning is described here, the reader immediately gets a sense of the lax and “unofficial” military environment and rules that everything occurs in. A rule such as this would obviously not be in order in modern time war camps. Going on through the book however, you realize that this catch is nothing but a paradoxical law, meaning that it is absurd and stupid but is actually accepted and taken into account by the wartime soldiers/characters we meet. However this mention of catch-22 to the main character Yossarian is specifically important as he has a different initial response to the law as opposed to his opinions on the catch later on. At this point when it is first referred to, it seems to Yossarian as a persuasive and logical law. He is very intrigued at the ingenuity of the idea and respects it. However going on, we realize that this catch is associated to many different aspects of the war, and it is nothing but a trap of words that begins to be used as an excuse in many dangerous and unnecessary situations...

Yossarian...

“He wondered often how he would ever recognize the first chill, flush, twinge, ache, belch, sneeze, stain, lethargy, vocal slip, loss of balance or lapse of memory that would signal the inevitable beginning of the inevitable end.” (pg. 173)

This quote relates to the topic of fear and death, that is consistent throughout the entire book specifically in reference to Yossarian. He constantly has the idea of death on his mind, always thinking about scenarios in which he might be killed or people that could potentially kill him by their actions during missions etc. Also, Yossarian shows a sense of paranoia to the idea of death, in the sense that he thinks about highly unlikely methods of dying, such as the failure of his lymph glands, disease of his head, chest or intestines, or the deterioration of the cells on his body every night. Such thoughts as these in the war camp, truly paranoia Yossarian and provide as a mental excuse for him to leave and go live in the camp hospital where he feels he will always be monitored and less likely to suddenly die. Due to this fear, he has become fragile and extremely vigilant and caring to his own life (which is his top priority throughout this entire book). Do to all this thinking of death, he further feels trapped in the war due to all the possibilities of different deaths and catch 22. This passage gives an insight into Yossarian’s emotional instability.

Branagh vs. Zeffirelli's

After viewing both films, it is clear that both films contrast each other through the use of different elements. One of the methods that we can this occurring is through use of different language elements. In both films the Shakespearean language is still used however, in Zeffirelli's version we can see that some lines are cut and/or altered. This is noticeable through key parts of character soliloquies or character interaction. When watching Branagh's version, almost every line is similar to the that of the text and usually never altered during character to character conversation. In Hamlet's first soliloquy in Zeffirelli's version many lines are altered and the soliloquy is thus shortened. Not only are the lines different in the earlier version but we are also in a medieval setting as opposed to Branaghs 19th century atmosphere. It seems that in the earlier version of Hamlet, we are able to see more of the medieval atmosphere as we are taken to different settings in and around the castle walls. In Branagh's version it seems that when characters move around and interact we are restricted to certain rooms and places in the castle as opposed to outside. Zeffirelli's version lets us see the rest of society during the time in which his movie is portrayed as opposed actually focusing on main character conversation and language, similar to that of the text. In Branagh's version it is unique to note the luxuriousness of the throne and its people as we are in a later time period as opposed to the less advanced era that Hamlet and others are in through Zeffirelli's film. By the use of different props and outfits in both films we can notice this. By the differences in elements between both films, it seems that Zeffirelli's version of the film is more "hollywood" oriented, not only through actors and actresses, but from the original text and Branagh's more true-to-the-text film.

The Best Tool

"Above all, your mind-set makes the difference. You can take care of yourself and pay attention to your surroundings. You can persevere with willpower." pg. 287

This excerpt from the final chapter of the book (The Survivors Club), really encompasses everything that this book has been getting at. Through reading each of the different survival stories of different people and the science behind each situation encountered, this specific quote is the backbone to all. As described by survivors, scientists and doctors, the concept of being in the proper state of mind is of the utmost importance when it comes to showing adversity and tackling life's challenging hurdles. This "advice" does not only have to be applied to situation survivals but can relate to students and adults alike. No matter what tough times we are going through now and in the future a simple switch in the mind can change how everything turns out. As many throughout this book have said, it is the most useful tool at our disposal.‏ The second part of the quote, taking care and paying attention to surroundings is something that is hard to ignore after reading such a book. The message however is not to keep you so cautious that you are paranoid of your surroundings but to always be in a mental state of alertness depending on where you are, simply because of the fact you never know when your life can all of a sudden be at risk. Its something many of us should take into account in our daily lives, when we are alone traveling, etc. Again, to do this your mind must be set in the right direction in order to stay clear and organized. Alot can be accomplished when absorbing this entire message.

Art of Luck

"Most people define luck as an unpredictable phenomenon that leads to good or bad outcomes in life. In this view luck is something that happens by pure chance. If you look more closely, there may be more to the story than dumb luck."pg.190

This passage taken from the chapter on the science of luck, investigates a topic that many people of different ages all tend to cross. Specifically in this quote, the author Ben Sherwood goes a little bit more in depth with the art of luck and its misconception. He brings up the point of surviving an airplane crash in one seat while the person beside you dies. Many would think this is pure luck however although this survival might have been by chance, what really could have been a true factor of the person's survival was their attitude and actions that may have increased their odds of surviving. As skeptic as it may sound in this situation there is proof provided to back up the statement. For example, this person may have paid attention to the safety briefing, plan an escape route, and evacuated without waiting or mourning. This I find is a unique way of looking at the idea of luck. Many of us assume that certain things occur just by dumb luck but sometimes, not all the time, we don't pay careful attention to what the underlying cause was in order to make that person lucky. Sometimes we assume certain things happen because of luck. However, this is just a hypothesis of one of the ways that luck can be overlooked or analyzed. There are also many cases where luck just occurs, in these cases sometimes there is no explanation. But one piece of advise that the researcher of luck leaves off with, is that (he believes) 90% of luck is truly defined by your state of mind and the way you think as opposed to 10% being pure randomness. In many cases, it is believed that your attitude and behaviour towards life are what create luck for you. Does more control over our lives really mean a better chance of creating luck for ourselves?

What It Takes To Survive

"Whoever survives a test, whatever it may be, must tell the story. That is his duty."

This opening quote to the first chapter of the book really has set the tone for what this book is really about. By reading through the first five chapters I've been introduced to survival stories of different "survivors" around North America. Some of the situations that many of these people have been through are so unimaginable and are certainly situations that many of us would never like to experience in our lifetime. So far, some of the stories I have read so far range from A Knitting Needle through the Heart to The Mystery of the Unopened Parachute & The Woman who fell from the sky.

Reading through these stories, not only have I felt a great sense of safety and security for not being in such positions but there’s also a sense of admiration for what the people would have gone through in order to survive for their lives. After reading these stories, its unique to read the subtopics listed under each story. Under these headings, the author, Ben Sherwood, goes into deeper research and science of what allowed the survivors to adventure through their struggles. Some of these topics range from the survival formula (which is a math equation that can determine your chances of surviving in an ER) to psychological topics such as the myth of hopelessness and panic. Its really unique to understand and relate to the topic of panic and how and when it strikes us. What is even more useful about studying this topic is how we can overcome it and reduce its negative impact. Some of the neat things I have also encountered are the side stories relating to the world in general. One of the cool stories encountered so far is, what your flight attendant really thinks of you and how their job is truly not to just serve you drinks and pillows. On top of this I know the safest place to sit in a plane to avoid death during a crash. What's even more unique is that with every snap of a finger, three people are rushed into the ER somewhere in the US. Even neater is what I read about the best/safest place to suffer a heart attack. You would think any place in a hospital but in fact it is a casino. Why is this? This is because there's cameras everywhere in a casino and within 2.8 minutes there's a trained staff member over you performing CPR if you ever go into cardiac arrest.

Going through the first five chapters I have really gotten a great sense of knowledge and insight into topics of everyday survival that are relevant to all people. Also, I've learned some intriguing facts that are quite unique to keep in the back of your mind. I find that the facts and ratios of deaths and chances of survival in different scenarios backed up by scientific evidence as proof are what make what I am reading more than a book of just random facts. Better than that, it is amusing and inspiring to read about the people who survive with all odds against them.

Literature's Audience

"There is no direct address in literature: it isn't what you say but how it's said that important there." pg 24


This quote shows an important aspect of literature that I thought we don't usually think about to often, that being how literature can be perceived. Frye is explaining in the entire passage about how language and literature can be passed on and create imagination and how this imagination created is what shows that the information has been passed onto the listeners. Frye is correct in the sense that there is no direct address in literature due to the fact that we can continuosly address people with different form of literature but if it is not spoken or written in a manner that will create imagination or get the attention of the listeners/readers than the literature is not getting addressed anywhere. This is something that many of us tend to forget when it comes to presenting various types of work that we have. Overall i think Frye is trying to show us how literature can be better understood so that it actually does become more interesting than it actually is, no matter what type of literature it is.

Literature's Possible Future

”Is it possible that literature, especially poetry, is something that a scientific civilization like ours will eventually outgrow?" This question by Frye is one that is very relevant to us as students in our generation as well as those in generations to come. Frye in this chapter does talk quite a bit about the topics of science and the topic of art. As we are in a time where science and technology is becoming more and more prominent, to us as youth the answer to this question very much seems to be yes, it could. In the chapter he compares the ideas behind science and the arts and compares there "motives" very thoroughly. He says, "Science learns more and more about the world as it goes on: it evolves and improves...But literature begins with the model of experience, producing the literary model we call the classic." He then says that literature doesn't evolve or improve or progress. This analysis by Frye on literature's state is one that I never really thought about, but it is true . In this day and age we as a human race are learning so much about our planet, creating new technologies to get rid of the old methods of doing things, and using science to improve everything around us. This is something that classic literature in Frye's words, will not happen. If everything including science improves but poetic type of literature itself wont become anything greater than its classic ancestors, this type of literature may potentially be left out. The line, "Writers dont seem to benefit much by the advance of science..", is a line that I see as very important as to whether or not all types of writers will survive in the coming time. Although literature may vanish in paper form, novelists and writers of today, more closer to today's way of life will be around to give us there views and run our imagination. In relation to McCullough's speech, he says to take seriously and read closely to the books that have stood the test of time and to continue studying masterpieces and thoroughly analyze them. The real question is if poetry or literatures of olden ages (classics) will continue to follow us in a time where the new is in and the old is out. Will we really care to pay attention to such types of writing in the coming times?