IndexIntroductionComparative analysisConclusion IntroductionThe political context of any novel is crucial to understanding relationships between characters, the exploration of significant themes, and how the reader derives their own meaning from the text. Furthermore, they create a set of conditions by which authors can explore the meaning of different social circumstances on characters and, by extension, on the human condition. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The two novels to analyze, Franz Kafka's The Trial and Josef Heller's Catch 22 both involve relevant discussions of the injustices present in totalitarian societies – and more specifically, how states govern and control individuals. Through contrasting and comparing accounts of injustices, in which the protagonists of both novels interact with powerful officials as a means of protecting themselves, this essay will examine what both authors gain from their imagined settings. The importance of these texts for readers comes from the cynical truths that the novel reveals about the totalitarian government, such as its general ineptitude, ineffectiveness, or internal contradictions about situations. Through book comparison, this essay will identify how current systems of control influence and distort justice and even indoctrinate people, consequently resulting in a series of terrible events arising from an endlessly complex and dysfunctional bureaucracy. Comparative Analysis Kafka's depiction of the state is vague, generic and inaccurate to any geographical specificity, although set in the early 20th century during Kafka's Life, making it arguably a mirror of the industrialization of the Czech Republic. The novel describes a monolithic authority that instigates paranoia in the population due to its opaque internal mechanisms. There are many angles from which to interpret the novel. For this investigation the most relevant points of interest will be a legalistic vision and political and sociological interpretations. Through this lens, comparing it to Catch 22, with similar perspectives on the state, which mirror how real-world institutions work. The protagonist, Josef, experiences the injustice and oppression of this system, from the very early stages of the novel when two officers arrest and prosecute him, without the nature of his crime being revealed. He becomes even more desperate when he appears among many sordid court judges when his numerous attempts to obtain an official conviction do not end, plunging into the famously oppressive world of the "Kafkaesque". Joseph Heller's novel, Catch 22, is a satirical account of the incompetent wartime bureaucracy of the United States, starring the part of the 256th Squadron of the US Air Force during World War II. He is frightened due to the amount of near-fatal situations he and his comrades encounter during brutal flying missions, along with the inhuman qualities of character that commanding officers prize. «This lawyer and his colleagues, however, are nothing but small lawyers; the great lawyers, of whom I have only heard but never seen, stand incomparably higher than the little lawyers than those than the despised crooks. ”This clash creates conflict situations, as we can see in K's character, where K's urgency to find protection against the court results in the hiring of incompetent and “petty” lawyers, provided to the majority of thepopulation. K's middle-class status prevents him from accessing lawyers of higher "rank" and prestige, which could potentially alleviate his situation. This ends with K denouncing the “corrupt” and “senseless” proceedings, which form the backbone of a judicial institution that aims solely to prosecute “criminals”. K meets a businessman who has hired five "little lawyers" and is negotiating with a sixth, however, his justification is that "he must not overlook anything that might be useful to him", which highlights the true gravity of K's desperation those who are unjustly persecuted. of the scene, the empathetic closeness we gain with the businessman is the same that K receives. The scene emphasizes to the reader the ineffectiveness of hiring low-status lawyers, but, more importantly, how this does not allow no individual to exceed the system's goal of prosecuting individuals deemed criminal. In essence, the reality is that there is a small-scale, self-perpetuating bureaucracy that stops change and continues to replicate. When K approaches the court, he is completely reluctant to change, just like we see with Yossarian, where the war continues to drag on and nothing changes. The reason for this lies in the bureaucracy that underlies the court: when K looks for a lawyer who can navigate the labyrinthine legal system, they cannot help him because they are incompetent. AK seems like the court is against him and absolutely doesn't want him to appeal. Because it is difficult to circumvent the legal system, K seeks help, as a rational response to an inscrutable system. In fact, lawyers exist only because the legal system is not intuitive, in this sense the work of dealing with the court exists because its difficulty requires the interpretation of the system as a profession. They therefore make it difficult for him to appeal due to the systems' lesser inability to prevent him from appealing, almost as if the lawyers within the lower bureaucracy were just extensions of the system. The only people within the lower bureaucracy capable of effecting change are powerful and competent lawyers who are really only accessible to wealthy individuals. This makes it clear that, simply due to the nature of his place within a rigid social framework, he cannot manipulate the system, however, the fact that rich and powerful people can escape crime does not mean that the system changes, it appeals to the system wealthy population who does not need to change the system because it is already at its best. This is important to identify because often the underlying causes of a problem are not clear or obvious. It is also clear that everyone involved in the matter at that time has a rational mindset, which would not make it right to condemn the malevolence of the system, but rather a system that prioritizes effectiveness and is consequently amoral. The random trial process is similar to the Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy hearings in the 1950s. The result of which resulted in a nationwide witch hunt against anyone associated with the Communist Party. Catch 22 paragraph 1Although Catch 22 is a satire of the bureaucratic idiocy of World War II, this is important because the artistic intention within the book is to expose real-world tragedy as the result of bureaucracies. There are certain truths within the reality constructed by the author that make the reader wonder how the characters survive within their society and why the system fails them, on a moral level. The characters in Catch 22 see their government as completely meaningless, due to increased media coverage. and prioritize and dedicate every action as a means to winthe war. This larger social motive contrasts with Yossarian's basic individual instinct: to avoid death. This is very different from K's goal, which is to escape the state apparatus, get his job back, and return to a normal life. At the same time, Yossarian questions why the war broke out, because the state provides very little justification or explanation for the purposes the soldiers are actually serving. Without any coherent understanding of the situation, Yossarian takes the violence personally when hostile military forces “fired cannons at him every time he flew in the air” to bomb them. Furthermore, during a court martial, the bureaucracy carries out the assembly of the soldiers with very little prodding and a general lack of consideration for the mentality of the soldiers. For example, when Dunbar states that there is “no patriotism” and Yossarian shouts back “not even matriotism”. ' makes Yossarian and his comrades seem completely apathetic about the broader justifications for the war. From the reader's point of view, the occurrence of most tragedies results from an absurd and inscrutable bureaucratic logic, which speaks more of disillusionment and ridicule at the state's incompetence than of fear of state power - although officials authorized to within the state continue to make malicious decisions that lead to the death of people. The Trial sees an opaque and irrational regime shrouded in a layer of secrecy, yet brutally effective and equally malevolent. In both cases, the law functions as a means of imposing and regulating certain behaviors. Administers right and wrong actions through a “just” punitive system as a means to an end, which focuses only on a primary goal, such as winning the war, without considering secondary goals, such as minimizing American soldier casualties . Both novels explore these issues from the perspective of non-beneficiaries of the system. Yossarian's role in the lowest rank of the army also allows for a critical view of the system's distortion of justice that clashes with its integrity, while K's role as a convict explores the grossly unfair and unconventional tactics used to try him. As an investigation, making a comparison between these two bureaucracies is important to expose the different areas of moral concern within them, one being a legal bureaucracy and the other a military bureaucracy. Catch 22 illustrates to the reader how interactions reflect the unbalanced power dynamics between characters as a result of an unprincipled system. The crux of K's tragedy is that the hierarchical structure of the courts is infinite in size but also has opaque and “faceless” leaders, which is at the heart of why institutions can arguably instigate paranoia in other individuals, without any direct responsibility. Chapter 2To what extent is it worth achieving a primary goal at the cost of a large loss? The State has a clear and defined purpose to give priority to everything in its power to win the war. The system is used as a method of effectiveness as it limits an individual's actions to work for the state. The effectiveness of the system comes from employing extreme measures to ensure the state takes advantage in situations, in the process, confidentiality makes it easier to convict people, not only that, but it means that court documents can be shrouded in secrecy. Furthermore, K's dignity is compromised by inefficient bureaucratic practices within the bureaucracy which masquerades as something virtuous but actually limits individuals by keeping them under control, which leads him to court to "raise a public discussion about a public wrong ", to which he arrives at a precious answer,simply because the unspoken dangers of speaking against the logic of the system can cause you to “cut the ground beneath your feelings and fall,” while the system remains intact, if not “more resolute.” ”Evidently the “law” in the Trial creates a highly irrational system, since justice within the court does not implement fairness where it is due, furthermore, its stagnation makes the damage it causes eternal, because the officials within they are only concerned with completing their duty in the process. Which we often see people in power follow blindly, because the common and wrong conception is that individuals are placed in a framework based on talent, experience and competence, when the reality of the facts is that they are selected based on their astuteness policy that is judged quantitatively. Similarly, in Capture 22, the more “loyalty oaths” a man signed, the more he demonstrated his loyalty to the state. inhumane because what judges an individual's righteousness is the value of quantitative information, which satisfies a singular but he also pays the price of significant moral considerations at play. Within the military ranks in Catch 22, absurdity arises from the irrationality that accumulates after two rational goals collide, such as Cathcart's ambition to become a great war general that causes him to abuse his power" increasing the number of missions required" to return home, and the squadrons aim for survival and self-esteem. Essentially, the system is only concerned with producing quantitative statistics that do not address social issues such as inciting paranoia and suspicion. Hungry Joe becomes disillusioned with Cathcart's rule when the "number of missions required before returning home" increases as he reaches the amount required just to restore his power and his command "is filled with pride and joy", meanwhile Hungry Joe “rewrote his letters home,” revealing the injustice of systems inconsistency. Questioning, “Is it worth achieving a primary goal at the cost of an inexplicable loss?” In both cases the oppressed they feel alienated after being deceived by an absurd system, which imposes the challenge of accepting their society for what it is due to its mysterious nature, isolating them in anxiety in fear of being overwhelmed by an inconceivable omnipotent evil seemingly malicious intentions of the State, every member who works for the system has a rational mindset and turns a blind eye to moral ambiguity to maintain the simplicity of duties. Therefore the system is amoral, simply because its nature is not complicit in making judgments immoral, but judgments useful for the purpose of the role. This is why, in a sense, the state can be characterized as an entity since its far-reaching power is possible thanks to a framework of characters. This leads Kquestion e to confront the officials a lot in the novel because there is never one person to blame except for almost everyone, including the people who try to help him, like his lawyer. A bureaucracy is programmed to complete a simple task, the loss is calculated by quantifiable things, lives taken in war and criminals prosecuted, but since losses such as alienation, paranoia and fear creation exist, it often results in a loss of dignity. Malevolent Irrationality This is all-encompassing when considering Heller's paradox of repeating irrational decision-making, which mostly prioritizes safeguarding the prosperous and consolidating power over the masses. Signature 22 within the novel serves as a premise on how the mechanisms of bureaucracy impose rules that make things obligatory. “Orr would have been crazy to fly more missions andhe would have been in his right mind if he hadn't done it, but if he had been in his right mind, he should have done them. If he had let them fly, he would have been mad and shouldn't have done it; but if he didn't want to, he was in his right mind and should do it. Yossarian was deeply moved by the sheer simplicity of this Catch-22 clause and blew a respectful whistle. "The emphasis of fighter pilots' rational thinking while under the impression that they will subject themselves to dangerous and life-threatening situations carries over into most scenarios in which Yossarian feels out of control. The malicious irrationality lies in the unjust law of Kafka's fictional reality, when K "admits that he does not know the law" and at the same time "insists that he is innocent", during a conversation with the agents who arrest him in his home, the agents attest that to claim innocence it is necessary consistently understand the boundaries of what is not permitted, yet we sympathize with K. as a character and are faithful that the "crime" he "committed" "lacks legitimacy and truth, so there is an absolute law within reach hand that is not justifiable. This is part of the theme of absurdity, to understand this, firstly, absurdity is the quality or state of being unreasonable or ridiculous, therefore, in this context the way administrative decisions are implemented in practice in the respective novels is the absurdity. In addition to this, both the protagonists of the novel and most of the characters are victims of bureaucracy, for this reason the perspective from which the novel is told characterizes the state government from the eyes of oppressed individuals, which is crucial since this does not mean only intuition is an honest reflection of civilian experience, but in addition, the integrity of the main characters is not predisposed to corruption and abuse of power. The bureaucracy is a singular mono-let, with communication occurring through letters and notes from its like-minded members. It is homogeneous because, as stated before, members of the ranks are not chosen for their competence or efficiency, but rather for how politically astute they are. At the same time, his motivations can be understood by the purpose of his existence to serve a means to achieve a goal, therefore, the enemy is never focused on because he is not an antagonist. The problem is that it's not really rational because it doesn't do it. I don't really care, yet you can never know whether he is rational or not, because he lacks human characteristics (lacking motivations and incentives). It seems irrational to the observer because the relationship between K and the state becomes dependent on the process of the justice system and whether or not our personal judgment of the court seems irrational or rational. This leads to a secondary question, because it is not to say that there is anyone directly at fault for K's misfortune and illogical and unfair decision making, because it is possible for rational humans to come together and create irrational systems. Cathcart, an ambitious army officer, is a key example of a man who blindly succumbed to obedience to the bureaucratic rank structure and did whatever was necessary to achieve a single goal in mind. Due to the fact that Cathcart has perverse incentives to willingly and enthusiastically send his men to war, this casts the bureaucratic mentality in a bad light, although Cathcart's actions in his head are supported by right reason and logic. In chapter 8, we see the two colonels in a scene arguing with Yossarian about his dismissal from military service. In one scenario, they simply can't send him home due to his reluctance to do more missions as it would seem like a reward and.