Catch-22

So as I'm reading this book I'm noticing so many contradictions. Every character tells a story and in the next chapter says that didn't really happen. Or if a character is said or shown to always behave a certain way, then in the next paragraph they'll behave the completely opposite. What I'm thinking is that the author is trying to make fun of the fact that war is a contradiction. You'll taught your whole life not to kill and then your  awarded medals for killing people for your country. I believe the book is a satire because the author is taking the contradiction and confusion of war and is making fun of it by personifying those traits through the characters. When readers read the book and realize how ridiculous the characters are because of how they behave it's basically the authors way of saying war itself is ridiculous.

CATCH-22

So I really love the book so far, but I have a question: Is the "dead man" in Yossarian's tent real? It seems to me that Yossarian is crazy so you have to watch how much you believe of his stories and tellings of things. He tries to make his stories as crazy as possible so that the reader believes that everyone but him is crazy. That being the case, it's hard to tell what really happened at what didn't. So I'm trying to figure out if the dead man in his tent is real or not. If it isn't, McWatt wouldn't be able to use the dead man's gun to shoot mice at night. But then again, maybe that's really McWatt's real gun and Yossarian's just trying to come up with another crazy story by saying McWatt stole the gun from a dead man...

Frankenstein 2

In short, Frankenstein is a story about a man who was obsessed with life, and decided to create his own. His curiosity into this subject lead to his discovery of the secret of life, which is never revealed to us. He lives in fear of the monster, who goes off to live his own life. But, on the way to living a 'normal life', the monster kills off members of his creator's, Victor, family. Victor realizes this, and eventually is confronted by the monster, who is seeking partnership. Victor, in a backwards threatening kind of way, agrees to make another monster. He runs away to Scotland to create the female, yet when he reaches near completion, he decides against it, realizing his previous mistake. The monster is furious and eventually they chase each other back and forth across the arctic promising to kill each other. On one of the runs across the ice, Victor meets a sailor, to whom he recounts the whole story to, and who later buries Victor. I'm not sure if, at this end, I like the book. I was certainly surprised, that's for sure, continually by the way that this one event, the creation, pretty much ruined Victor's life. He set out to do something grand, something earth-shattering, but ends up with the exact opposite; an abnormal if horrendous end. His greed and judgement prevent him from ever finding happiness.

Native Son

Native Son was really interesting but I was kinda dissapointed. I thought the plot line was pretty predictable. Let me stop now and try to explain that I am well aware that books aren't purely for entertainment and I have never been the kind of person to reject a book simply because it didn't keep me on the edge of my seat the whole time, but still. I felt like the plot for the book was really predictable. Again I also realize that the plot was more to make a point and show a situation from the troubled, young African American's point of view and show how poverty will greatly effect the well-being of people and the racism endured by African Americans during the early to late 1900s, I just felt like the plot was very unoriginal. Native Son was very similar to books like The Ghost of Mississippi and To Kill a Mockingbird and I guess I just expected a little bit more from it. Am I being shallow in my thinking?

Ramblings (Frankenstein)

My previous knowledge of Frankenstein was limited. I believed Frankenstein to be the monster, a green, moldy almost, looking human, scarily symmetrical for his supposed puzzle-piece past. Having a friend just read the book and hate it, I was very excited (note the attempt at sarcasm) to read the book. I have been slightly surprised when reading this book. The words form an undeniable picture that expresses excitement, hollowness, exuberance, and grief. Victor creates something which he becomes afraid of and runs away from - a sin against man-kind, creating something like he does. He was so excited and dedicated to studying science and the creation of life, and this inner joy, throughly expressed, then turned to a deep seeded disjointedness. His creation became the source of his pain and his separation from the real world. Like many books, Frankenstein has it's highs and lows, but as a whole, so far, I would give it a seven out of ten stars.

Moral message of Frankenstein

Does anybody else have theories on possible messages behind the story? I personally think there's a bit of a "Monsters aren't born, they are created" theme going on here. The monster's violent side seems more swayed by Victor's rejection than anything. What do you think?

Estella has actual feeling for Pip which becomes apparent when they talk about the boys she makes follow her. She expresses how she doesn't want Pip to be one of those boys, and this expression of feeling shows a rebellion against Miss.Havisham. But Estella's feelings aren't the only ones that mean something. Pip's love for Estella is also rather odd, with him loving her no matter how cruel she is to him. This could link with how Pip's sister was abusive to him but she was the only family alive to love and care for Pip.