/J-^
BLACaC HUMOR:
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
AND THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
by
KATHY E» LAMOREAUX, B.A^
A THESIS
IN
ENGLISH
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Approved
Acc^Tp^d
August, 1972
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am deeply Indebted to Dr, Richard Crider for the encouragement
and incredible patience he has shown in the direction of this thesis.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I.
ii
INTRODUCTION
1
II. LAURENCE STERNE AND PETER DE VRIES
III. VOLTAIRE AND KURT VONNEGUT, JR
IV. JONATHAN SWIFT AND JOSEPH HELLER
v.. CONCLUSION
VI,
8
24
34
48
BIBLIOGRAPHY
55
111
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Michael R, French, in an essay on the contemporary American novel,
maintains that "to explain everything being written today, it would be
necessary to go back to the 18th century,"
not quite that large.
The scope of this paper is
It is an attempt, however, to show through the
works of three contemporary writers that a relationship indeed exists
between the literature of the eighteenth century and that of our own.
The term that is currently in vogue to describe a rather important
movement in contemporary literature is "black humor,"
This term, how-
ever, is woefully inadequate for a number of reasons. First of all,
it is much too broad to be of any definitive use, for there are almost
as many variations of black humor as there are black humorists. Also,
the term leads to many false impressions; the untutored masses fail to
understand how a novel can be classified as black humor if it has
nothing to do with Negroes,
(These people usually expect something on
the order of Amos and Andy.)
Finally, the term as it is used seems to
indicate that black humor is a type of literature when in fact it is
a technique, Hamlin Hill observes that "a starting point for defining
black humor is the insistence that it is a technique, not a form."2
This point is extremely important and cannot be over-emphasized.
Black
humor depends upon a certain viewpoint toward life and its absurdities;
such a viewpoint is not limited to the twentieth century, nor is it
limited to the art of writing.
As Scott Byrd points out, "the darkly
ironic vision of human life in terms of largely unrelieved bondage is
hardly a new one or an exclusively fictional or American one."-^
These
two points will be discussed at length, but first it might be valuable
to form a working definition of black humor as it is used as a technique.
The black humorist sees the world as absurd and society as chaotic.
There are no truths -- except perhaps the self —
and therefore no
security to be found in societal institutions, which in fact enslave
man.
Trying to explain life under such circumstances is obviously a
futile activity.
The problem of man, then, is to find a means by
which to cope with his society, and in so doing, accept it.
of coping which the black humorist offers is laughter.
The method
If man can
learn to laugh at the sad human condition, he will move a step closer
toward alleviating it, Mark Twain, in The Mysterious Stranger, makes
the following observation:
Your race , . , has unquestionably one really effective weapon
-- laughter. Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution
— these can lift at a colossal humbug -- push it a little -weaken it a little, century by century; but only laughter can
blow it to rags and atoms at a blast,4
The black humorist operates on the basis of this proposition; as a
result, his vision is a juxtaposition of the tragic and the comic.
Blac.^ humor, then, is the process of dealing with life's absurdities
and tragedies by laughing at the::..
If we recognize black humor as a technique, it becomes obvious
that it is a very old technique. Many of the eighteenth century writers
had the outlook toward life that is associated with black humor.
Frequently, critics have pointed out the similarities between twentieth
century black humorists and such eighteenth century figures as
Jonathan Swift, Laurence Sterne, and Voltaire,
In addition, if black
humor depends upon a certain outlook, one would expect to find evidence
of it in art forms other than fiction, and such, indeed, is the case.
One finds a juxtaposition of the comic and the tragic in the
illustrations of eighteenth century painter William Hogarth.
twentieth century, we find many examples.
In the
Salvador Dali recently
exhibited a sculpture of a woman who had drawers in each breast and
drawers in her stomach.
The knobs consisted of white fur balls.
Certainly this sculpture is a humorous representation of a tragic
reality.
In contemporary music, the compositions of John Cage reveal
the outlook of the black humorist.
Cage's music is chaotic organi-
zations of noise, musical instriiraents scored to play against eggs being
broken into frying pans, guns firing, and recordings of jackhammers.
In film, even HolljTWOod has produced examples of black humor, such as
the movie Hospital.
The cartoons of Gahan Wilson reflect black humor
in their amusing grotesqueness.
Finally, there is Lenny Bruce, truly
one of the best examples of a great artist of black humor.
If black humor is not a type of literature —
rather obvious that it is not —
and it seems
then a new name must be found to
describe the literary movement which now bears that name, William
Sherman suggests the name "comic anarchy,"
Sherman uses the word
"anarchy" to describe the strategy used by these heroes to cope-with
life.
By describing the literary movement in this fashion, we are
- 1 — ' .
Ill
free to restore the term "black humor" to its proper use as a name for
a technique.
The comic anarchy movement uses the technique of black
humor in combination with satire, the picaresque, and the grotesque.
Although this paper will concentrate on the satiric use of black humor,
it is necessary to briefly examine the comic anarchy movement in its
various manifestations before going on to the more specific comparison
of satiric comic anarchy and eighteenth century satire.
Comic anarchy always makes use of black humor.
The various sub-
divisions of the literary movement depend upon what other method is
combined with the black humor.
Picaresque comic anarchy is exemplified
in the works of Elliot Baker (A Fine Madness), J, P. Donleavy (The
Ginger Man), and Terry Southern (Candy),
The protagonist of each of
these novels is a rogue hero who indulges in all sorts of sexual
misadventures and is isolated from the mainstream of society.
In A Fine
Madness, the hero, Samson Shillitoe, is forced to undergo a lobotomy
because of his outrageously individualistic and insulting behavior
toward the masses who fail to understand himi. The lobotomy, however,
fails to produce any change in his behavior.
In The Gin^^er Man, the
protagonist, Sebastian Dangerfield, is a drunken, bawdy heel who has
little regard for anyone or anything except himself and his search for
meaning in his existence.
Despite his wretched behavior toward his
wife and child, Dangerfield emerges as a humorous character.
In Candv,
the protagonist, Candy Christian, travels from one sexual adventure to
another, each more absurd than the last, until the reader realizes
that she is humorously encountering all the world's perversities.
overall tone of all three books is the tragic and comic blend
The
characteristic of black humor, in combination with the rogue-hero
characteristic of the picaresque novel.
Grotesque comic anarchy is exemplified by the works of Anthony
Burgess (A Clockwork Orange), John Hawkes (Second Skin), and Williain
Burroughs (The Naked Lunch),
In these novels, the violent and gruesome
becomes the subject of comedy.
In A Clockwork Orange^ the protagonist,
Alex, is inspired to acts of extreme violence by listening to the music
of Beethoven,
In Second Skin, the protagonist. Skipper, imagines that
an attack of iced snowballs to which he is subjected is actually the
work of vengeful wild birds and so submits to having his face greatly
disfigured.
The Naked Lunch is a montage of narcotics addiction and
sexual perversion, humorous in its depiction of an insane society.
In
all three works, the blackness almost obscures the humor; the nightmare
vision is the dominant quality.
But the humor is there, even though it
is a cruel humor tinged with pain.
Satiric comic anarchy is exemplified by Joseph Heller's Catch-22 .
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. 's Cat's Cradle, and Peter De Vries ' The Vale of
Laughter,
The emphasis in these three novels is on the ridicule of
society's insanities.
In Cat's Cradle, the accidental end of the
world due to a scientific "advancement" becomes the topic of humorous
satire.
In Catch-22, the insanity of war and military organization is
satirized and serves as a metaphor for American society as a whole.
In The Vale of Laughter, the institutions of society are satirized
through the antics of Joe Sandwich, the clowning protagonist.
In all
three works, satire is cor:.bined with black humor, which results in a
comic critici...-n of tragic realities.
It is important to note that all of these subdivisions of comic
anarchy are flexible; the various techniques can be blended.
For
example, a novel which is primarily picaresque comic anarchy might
also use satire to a certain extent.
The subdivisions indicate merely
the dominant qualities of the work in question.
In some cases, one
author will vary his technique from one novel to the next, Barth,
for example, uses all three types of comic anarchy:
Giles Goat-Boy is
primarily satiric comic anarchy. The Sot-Weed Factor is primarily
picaresque comic anarchy, and The End of the Road is primarily grotesque
comic anarchy.
One must, therefore, resist the temptation to regard
the categories of comic anarchy too rigidly.
This brief background provides a framework for viewing the
similarities between satiric comic anarchy and eighteenth century
satire.
In both cases satire is being used with black humor, although
differences exist because of the differences in the society of the
eighteenth century and that of the twentieth century.
In general,
eighteenth century satire has objective norms whereas the twentieth
century has subjective norms; the eighteenth century writers are a
bit more optimistic about the possibility of reform than those of
the twentieth century.
—
But the writers with whom this paper will deal
De Vries, Heller, Vonnegut, Sterne, Swift, and Voltaire —
share
the same absurd vision of life and use laughter as a means of coping.
We have already seen the relationship between De Vries, Heller, and
Vonnegut.
A similar relationship exists between Sterne, Swift, and
Voltaire,
i'larie-Louise Coudert maintains that in Swift and Voltaire she sees
I ' -1
.^ ..!>l.
7
the "rencontre de themes et rencontres d'hommes hantes par la meme
exigence profonde de demystifier, de donner a leurs semblables
1'exigence de voir par leurs yeux. . . . lis usent pour cela d'une
strategle de meme nature . . . qu'elle se decoche sous les scintillements
ratlleurs de Voltaire, ou qu'elle corrode par le vitriol implacable de
Swift,"'
(meeting of themes, meetings of men haunted by the same
profound exigency to de-mystify, to give to their fellow man the
necessity to see through their eyes. . , , They use for this a strategy
of the same nature . , , that shoots out under the mocking scintillations
of Voltaire, or that erodes by the implacable vitriol of Swift,)
Further,
Melvyn New suggests that "there are several aspects of the relationship
between Swift and Sterne which one is tempted to investigate," for
example, ""the satirical devices of Swift's work as they reappear in
Tristram Shandy -- the persona, satiric inversion, learned wit, scatology,
and grave irony."8
Certainly there are similar views of the world and
humanity evidenced in Candide, Gulliver's Travels and Tristram Shandy.
In fact, Candide and Tristram Shandy were both published for the first
9
time in the same year, 1759.
None of the characters in the three
works are shown to be in complete control of their own destinies.
Rather, they are tossed about by a capricious universe and find themselves in all sorts of absurd predicaments which make the reader laugh
in spite of the tragedy involved.
It will be the purpose of the remainder of this paper to examine the
relationship between these six writers and to show not only that their
world views are similar but also that they all employ the technique of
black humor.
CHAPTER TWO
LAURENCE STERNE AND PETER DE VRIES
Of the fiction of Peter De Vries, John P. Marquand has said, "I am
willing to submit that one must go back to Laurence Sterne and Tristram
Shandy and close to Cervantes to find the same quality of wisdom combined with slapstick drollery.""^
observation.
There is much truth in Marquand's
De Vries' work is a contemporary anachronism, just as
Tristram Shandy was during the eighteenth century,
Sterne and De Vries
can more appropriately be compared with each other than with authors
during their respective time periods.
Both The Vale of Laughter and Tristram Shandy are satiric, but
neither can be considered pure satire.
The view of human nature in both
works lacks the acidity of undiluted satire, but satiric targets are
present.
Both De Vries and Sterne use black humor as a technique.
The
human condition is recognized in all its absurdity, but laughter is used
to soften the effects of the vision, to create some kind of order out
of the chaos. One method of imposing order, both authors suggest, is
the ability of people to develop obsessions, or "hobby-horses," as they
are called in Tristram Shandy,
Ian Watt, in an observation about
?.;istram Shandy which is equally valid for The Vale of Laughter, states
uliat there is a "contrast between the inner imaginative yearnings of
both Toby and Walter, and the sordid realities which they are fated to
8
encounter; and the distortions in their perception of reality also
have the effect of preventing too brutal a collision of their Ideal
worlds and the real one, at least in their own consciousness,"^
Finally, both authors, using their protagonists as mouthpieces, ascribe
the same purpose to their writing.
It would be appropriate at this
point to examine in detail the similarities of The Vale of Laughter
and Tristram Shandy.
There are many common elements in characterization.
Certain
characters in The Vale of Laughter correspond to characters in Tristram
Shandy; others are composites.
more than coincidence.
In both cases, the resemblance is much
The personality traits and experiences of De
Vries' characters almost seem to derive from Sterne.
For example, two
misfortunes which befall Sterne's protagonist are echoed in the life of
De Vries' protagonist,
Tristram explains that his father, Walter Shandy,
places great importance on the shape of a person's nose.
It is a great
misfortune, then, when Walter is told that the man midwife who presided
at Tristram's birth was building
a bridge for master's nose,
In bringing him into the world
with his vile instruments, he has crush'd his nose, Susannah
says, as flat as a pancake to his face, and he is making a
false bridge with a piece of cotton and a thin piece of
whalebone out of Susannah's stays, to raise it up.3
As a result of this mishap, and his father's attitude toward it,
Tristram considers his nose a source of frustration.
Similarly, Joe
Sandwich, the protagonist of Part I of Th^ Vale c>f Laughter, also
considers his nose a source of frustration, although for the opposite
reason!
10
The nose does not attain full growth till adulthood, but
even now I was heading for the tapering snout he CJoe's
father] was going to leave me, whatever else I was to
inherit in the way of mortuary memories and valedictory
mots. , , . There was no doubt that my pointed nose
was lengthening, . , .4
The other misfortune shared by Tristram and Joe is an accident
with a window.
Tristram, as a small child, is beseeched by the maid-
servant Susannah to ignore the absence of the chamber pot:
Cannot you contrive, master, quoth Susannah, lifting up
the sash with one hand, as she spoke, and helping me up
into the window seat with the other,—cannot you manage,
my dear, for a single time to **** *^A->V ** *** irk^k-Jrk'i
X was five years old,-—Susannah did not consider
that nothing was well hung in our family^-—so slap came
the sash down like lightening upon us;—-Nothing is left,
---cried Susannah,—-nothing is left—for me but to run
my country.---(p. 284)
As it turned out, Tristram was merely circumcised, not castrated.
scene is echoed in The Vale of Laughter.
The
Joe explains the situation:
It was a waist-high chest of drawers standing against
one window. You had to lean across it to raise the
sash. Once I tried to do that on a hot summer night
just after stepping out of the shower. The top drawer
of the chest was partly open, just enough for the
family jewels to slip through, for I was of course
naked. At the same time, as I bent forward to raise
the window the pressure of my upper legs pushed the
drawer shut, A howl of pain brought Naughty CJoe's
wifej running, to find me holding myself with both hands
as I hopped about the room. It was a while before she
could quiet me down, and a good deal longer before she
could recover a straight face. Of course nothing would
do but that she let me take measures to make certain
everything was all right.
They were not successful, (pp. 144-5)
Again, the damage is overestimated; Joe spends only one impotent
night, owing, no doubt, to his wife's amusement and a certain amount
of physical pain.
11
Two other misfortunes that Tristram suffers appear in The Vale
of Laughter in connection with Joe's son, rather than Joe himself.
The first of these misfortunes concerns Tristram's conception.
Walter ^handy on the first Sunday of every month, winds his clock
and performs his connubial chores. Tristram describes the occasion
of his own conception as follows:
Pray, my dear, quoth my mother, have you not forgot to wind
up the clock?---Good ^ — i cried my father, making an
exclamation, but taking care to moderate his voice at the
same time,---Did ever woman, since the creation of the world,
interrupt a^ man with such a silly question? Pray, what was
your father saying?
Nothing.
—-Then, positively, there is nothing in the question,
that I can see, either good or bad.
Then let me tell you.
Sir, it was a very unseasonable question at least,—because
it scattered and dispersed the animal spirits, whose business
it was to have escorted and gone hand-in-hand with the
HOMUNCULUS, and conducted him safe to the place destined for
his reception, (p, 4)
Thus, Tristram is conceived while his father is upset with being
interrupted at his work.
The corresponding scene in The Vale of
Laughter is a bit more complicated.
Naughty has volunteered herself
and Joe as subjects in a research study on the physiology of sex.
The study '"measured the somatic changes—respiratory, circulatory,
epidermal—characteristic of the erotic experience, with the laboratory
instruments necessary to record these phenomena affixed to the
participating subjects." (p. 151)
Joe explains further:
Abandoning oneself to erotic pleasure is sometimes difficult
without encumbrances. I felt like someone about to swim the
English Channel, then dive back into it in order to demonstrate
feats of survival underwater, and finally to be bundled into
a space capsule for transmission into orbit. There were
Naughty's normal inhibitions, such as we were in part trying
to compile constructive data on, and they were hardly
ameliorated because we were in a sense more fully clothed than
usual. To be ravished in a thicket of tubing, to the
12
accompaniment of throbbing machinery, quivering needles and
digital beeps offers hazards enough to a person of normal
sensitivity. It was obvious that even more precoital play
than advised by Robin Weems in his marriage manual was
necessary (assuming one could find what he was looking for),
and preliminary relaxing before even that could be undertaken. . , , as I approached the bed, tripping over strands
of rubber vinework, I felt like some computer-age Dionysus,
enacting a rite propelling us onward into a future in which
the machines would do the actual screwing for us, and
consciousness be refined into some kind of abstract numerical
bliss, through which we would float eternally as through a
heaven of pure equation. Pi in the sky, don't you know.
Meanwhile we must make do with the gross organs and exuded
dews we wished to supersede,
"So you're the new personnel manager," I said, ogling
her, "I trust you have a little opening for me."
To shock without offending had been from the first the
keynote of my re-education of Naughty. , . . This would
turn out to be a fine revel yet, our very trappings and
caparisons part of the lark, provided we were not electrocuted in the process, '*Now I would like to introduce an upright member, one of long standing, who is a firm candidate
for congress," I said, and pitched forward on top of her.
The bed was like a platter of noodles. It was a tangle
of wires and cables such as marks a power failure after a
violent windstorm, , . . The hum of machinery commenced.
Mercury rose in tubes, needles fluttered. There was a
muffled clatter like that of a teletype machine, making me
suspect we might be going out on the A,P. wire, if not on
some closed circuit television. The bellows began to breathe
beside me, like a disconnected lung, , , ,
"I'm tired," I said. Tt've been taking my pleasure in
snatches."
, , , The machinery began to throb with an account of
impotent hilarity. The very bed shook beneath us. The
band for respiratory elevations encircling my chest became
tumescent, threatening to strangle me like a boa constrictor.
I was going to look good on the records. This in itself
encouraged me. "Something seems to be caught around my —
ah, there, it's loose," I said, and after a little beating
around the bush, so to speak, I managed to find what I was
looking for, and sank gratefully into it.
The telephone rang, I was expecting an important call
from a man named Farber, a valuable source of information
to me on special situation stocks. There was one in
particular on which I had to have the data tonight, for a
report due next morning, which he had promised to get to
me without fail,
"Excuse me, darling," I said, taking it on the bedside
extension, without dismounting her, as it seemed to me that
13
would have been crude. I knew that everything was useful as
to the data being collected here; that records of "interruptions" were also desired wherever obtainable. . , .
"Hello?"
"This is Miss Lynd, Mr, Farber's secretary?" said a throaty
feminine voice I knew very well, and whose possessor I had
often tried to visualize from the sound of it. I had always
found it extremely seductive over the telephone.
"Yes," I said, my pulse quickening. Out of the tail of
my eye I could see the cardivascular needle scribbling away
furiously on the graph paper, while on my other side the
artificial lung began to luff.
"He's at home with a cold, trying to catch up on some
stuff, and I'm working late at the office. He just remembered he wanted to get these figures to you, and called me
to get them out. They're the figures on Consolidated Potash?"
"Oh, yes. Could you hold the wire a minute while I get
a pencil and paper?"
"Certainly."
I wedged the phone against my shoulder, in the manner of
busy executives everywhere, while I fished for these objects
on the nightstand with my free hand,
"O.K. Shoot, Now, do you have the pretax earnings for
the year?" I asked, my voice hoarse with passion,
"Yes, Nine million five hundred and thirty-seven thousand
dollars, or a dollar twenty-two cents a share. Of that, sixtyfive cents a share was paid out in dividends, of which seventy
per cent is taxable while thirty per cent constitutes a return
of capital and is not subject to federal income tax as ordinary
dividend income,"
I jotted these figures down as best I could under existing
hazards, not the least of which was, as I say, a voice so
intimate and suggestive as to leave by no means certain that
the interruption would not have to await an interruption of
its own. The lung was panting ominously. It was touch and
go. I found it really quite difficult to control myself. At
last it was clear that the tide of excitements could not be
stemmed, and I said, "Hold the phone," again and quickly
dropped it. (pp, 172-7)
It is in this hilarious manner that Joe's son is conceived; one is
tempted to wonder what effect that must have had on the poor homunculus
and its "animal spirits."
The final misfortune which befalls Tristram is his name.
Walter
Shandy, in an attempt to counteract all the bad things which have
happened to his son, decides that he must have his son christened with
14
the luckiest of all names. According to Walter, "Trismegistus" is a
name of great stature. Unfortunately, Susannah cannot remember the
name.
The curate, whose name is Tristram, lets his ego influence him,
and the child is christened "Tristram,'^ the worst of all possible
names.
Walter Shandy is unable to prevent the mistake because he is
busy trying to find his trousers,^
Joe, on the other hand, wants to name his son after his Uncle
Hamilton, At first, Naughty agrees. Then, one night,
"You really would have gone through with it, wouldn't
you?" she said.
"What?"
"Ham Sandwich. That's what he would have become. . . .
Meanwhile you could secretly amuse yourself thinking of the
Ham Sandwich in my stomach," (pp. 181, 184)
Despite Naughty's anger, however, their son is named Hamilton, a gesture
which enables Joe to become heir to his uncle's great wealth.
Significantly enough, one of Uncle Hamilton's first gifts to his
nephew is rejected by Joe, for he felt that "a hobby-horse was
grotesquely premature" (p. 199). Joe's own hobby-horse is collecting
funny names. He lists them by categories in a notebook which he reads
whenever he needs a little cheering up (or whenever he feels someone
else needs cheering up).
In fact, he induces labor in his wife by
reciting to her in the hospital:
Jasper and Suzanna Quonkle, Pearl Handel, Nan Tucket, Nina
Knight, 0. U, Mann , . . Carlos Di Ploma, Lily Lipsake, . , .
Mr, and Mrs, Bunsnatcher, Lester Poorcock , , . Lord and
Lady Pishcredit. , . . Dr, Demensha. . , (pp. 187-8)
Actually, both De Vries and Sterne have indulged in a bit of
suggestive nomenclature themselves. Uncle Toby, in Tristram Shandy>
15
and Uncle Ham, in The Vale of Laughter-, are corresponding characters.
Both names are slang terms meaning "posterior,"
The two characters,
however, have more in common than their names. Uncle Toby is an exmilitary man whose hobby-horse often interferes with reality.
Every-
thing reminds Toby of military maneuvers. For example, Walter removes
his wig with his right hand and attempts with his left hand to retrieve
the handkerchief in his right pocket,
Tristram explains that
when my uncle Toby discovered the transverse zig-zaggery
of my father's approaches towards it, it instantly brought
into his mind those he had done duty in, before the gate of
St. Nicolas: -—the idea of which drew off his attention so
entirely from the subject in debate, that he had got his
right hand to the bell to ring up Trim, to go and fetch his
map of Namur, and his compasses and sector along with it,
to measure the returning angles of the traverses of that
attack, ---but particularly of that one, where he received
his wound upon his groin.
My father knit his brows, and as he knit them, all the
blood in his body seemed to rush up into his face -—my
uncle Toby dismounted immediately, (p. 120)
J, M. Stedmond maintains that "Toby's hobby-horse originates in fact in
his inability to communicate, to express himself clearly, to explain
to his visitors how he came by his wound,"°
The hobby-horse, in turn,
intensifies Uncle Toby's inability to communicate.
Uncle Ham's hobby-horse is old movies, which has only a minor
effect on his behavior.
Ham is literally incapable of communication;
he has been dull for so long and is so accustomed to interruption that
he can no longer finish his sentences.
In fact, he begins his engage-
ment announcement in the following manner:
X didn't plan to say this now, but now I feel like it. When
you get to my time of life you either. Or you can do the.
But I am not choosing the course of retreat, rather that of,
(p. 204)
16
To compensate for his inability to communicate verbally. Uncle Ham
marries an old movie actress, with whom he does not need to communicate
verbally.
The couple communicates through Uncle Ham's hobby-horse:
watching the old movies in which his wife starred.
As one can see, many of the characters in The Vale of Laughter
and Tristram Shandy have hobby-horses which are connected, in one way
or another, with communication and language, Joe's father, to cite
still another example, spends ten years trying to decide on his last
words.
During a thunderstorm, lightning strikes extremely close to
the Sandwich home, which prompts Joe's father to exclaim "Jesus H,
Christ,"
While Joe is perusing the house for signs of damage, his
father dies,
Joe explains
When asked about the circumstances of his passing, I was
naturally pressed for details about his last words, I
freely related the ejaculation with which he had taken
leave of this life, omitting the middle initial which
struck me as irrelevant, (p. 31)
Joe's father had felt that one's last words were important, but his
theory made little difference in reality.
Similarly, Walter Shandy's
theories were of little importance in reality.
His theories on
animal spirits, birth position, and names were meaningless in the
case of his own son. His wife did not understand his theories. Uncle
Toby misinterpreted them, and his friends avoided listening to them
whenever possible.
Walter would twist reality to fit his theories;
he only understood abstractions,'
Wally Hines, the protagonist of Part II of The Vale of Laughter.
resembles Walter Shandy in this respect. Wally is a professor
17
specializing in the psychology of humor.
subject, however, is abstract.
His understanding of the
He himself does not possess much of a
sense of humor; Wally, strangely enough, takes his subject seriously.
For example, he spends his honeymoon working on a study of the double
entendre, attempting to correlate the theories of humor of Kant
("laughter is an affectation arising from the sudden deflation of a
strained expectation into nothing") and Schopenhauer ("laughter is a
sudden expression of the incongruity between a concept and the real
objects which have been thought through it in some relation")
(p. 260).
Strangely enough, what Wally expounds as theory, Sterne had put
to use in Tristram Shandy.
Ian Watt maintains that "no one has been
more skillful than Sterne in suddenly undermining the expectations which
o
he has aroused in the reader."°
A. R. Towers, on the other hand,
applies Schopenhauer's theory to Sterne:
"His comedy leaps out from
the mad juxtaposition, the sudden antic, the sublime incongruities of
thought and word and posture and situation, just as it lurks in the
double entendre, the equivocal meaning."^
Eugene Hnatko synthesizes
the two theories:
The larger elements of Sterne's wit, then, are the stock in
trade of a language juggler, growing out of a purposeful
confusion of modes of reality, a reliance upon heterogeneous
terms in similitude, the irony of an assumed identity, and
a tongue-in-cheek displacement of emphasis on some aspect
of discourse. All of these procedures depend . , , upon
novelty, surprise, and a certain amount of shock growing
out of a frustration of expectation.•'•0
The same observations could also be applied to De Vries.
Through the character of Wally we get a more well-rounded view of
18
Joe Sandwich, for Wally eventually (and with justification) applies
his two theories to Joe. Joe, like Tristram, is a master at double
entendre.
In Wally's class, a student comments that
"In the end, whatever sets the artist in motion remains a
mystery. Not even the psychoanalysts can tell us. We'll
never know what makes Sammy run,"
"Or Saul Bellow," piped up Sandwich . . . (p. 251)
On another occasion, when asked to name the gross national product, Joe
replies "Deodorants" (p. 68). Tristram, of course, goes on at great
length on the implied meaning of the word "nose." In fact,
Slawkenbergius' Tale (pp. 183-203) is amusing only because of the
double entendre.
It must be conceded, however, that Tristram is not
the only character in Sterne's novel who uses double entendre.
One
of the funniest interchanges in the book is that between Walter and
Uncle Toby.
'Tis a pity, said my father, that truth can only be on one
side, brother Toby, -—considering what ingenuity these
learned men have all shewn in their solutions of noses.
-—Can noses be dissolved? replied my uncle Toby. (p. 178)
The widespread use of the double entendre in Sterne, however, does not
negate the basic similarity of Tristram and Joe in this matter.
It
might be pointed out, too, that Tristram and Joe share a certain
bawdiness which is often disconcerting to the other fictional
characters (and in the case of Sterne, to the critics),
Joe is actually a composite character, though.
He shares traits
not only with Tristram and Walter Shandy, but also with Yorick, the
preacher.
Yorick is a jester whose jokes make enemies.
For example,
when he picks up, with some wry amusement, the hot chestnut that had
19
rolled into Phutatorius' open fly, Phutatorius immediately assumes that
Yorick was responsible for the accident.^^
is a clown of sorts.
Of course, Tristram, too,
Towers points out that Tristram "ingratiates
himself by playing the buffoon.
He constantly draws attention to
himself and apparently does not mind in the least if he loses his
dignity and self-respect in the process."^^ But Tristram, for the
most part, only makes enemies of hypocritical readers and critics;
both Yorick and Joe make enemies of other fictional characters. Joe,
like Tristram, "plays a buffoon," but his clowning alienates his wife
and his former teacher, and eventually leads to his death.
Wally says
of Joe:
he was one of those people who cannot take reality neat,
whether out of anxiety or its second cousin, self-consciousness, and who must therefore knead it continually into
nonsense shapes. They seek, they cultivate, the gap between
abstract and conceptual reality, the recognition of which,
we have seen, leads according to Schopenhauer to the nervous
discharge known as laughter, (p, 265)
The observation is equally true of Tristram,
It can be seen through this examination of characterization and
technique that there are definite similarities between Sterne and De
Vries,
An examination of theme reveals more resemblances. As was
mentioned earlier, Sterne and De Vries, or at least Tristram and Joe,
profess the same intent in writing.
Tristram says that his book is
written
against the spleen; in order, by a more frequent and more
compulsive elevation and depression of the diaphragm, and
the succussations of the intercostal and abdominal muscles
in laughter, to drive the gall and other bitter juices from
the gall-bladder, liver, and sweet-bread of his majesty's
subjects, with all the inimicitious passions which belong
to them, down into their duodenums. (p, 225)
20
In other words, Tristram wishes to give pleasure to his readers.
Joe tells us:
I must succeed in setting myself down; I must manage to
catch my own essence, that is the main problem. I don't
want a million bucks, and don't let me handle your portfolio
if that's all you're after. I want only to give pleasure,
to spread sunshine whether people like it or not -- a great
leviathan of an ideal that will serve me for a lifetime,
and that I pursue with a tenacity no one escapes, (p. 8)
«
In both cases there is a desire to bring pleasure and amusement to the
reader.
As we read, we begin to discover that there is another motive:
both Tristram and Joe wish to edify their readers. Their satiric
thrusts bear witness to this desire. Both Tristram and Joe attack
science.
Tristram's attack centers on obstetricians.
The entire scene
involving Dr, Slop and the forceps is satiric; we know when Toby wounds
his hand that- the forceps- are dangerous. But Walter places blind trust
in the doctor, with disastrous results. Lucky, indeed, for Tristram
that his head appeared first, instead of his hip.-*-^ Joe attacks science
in at least two ways.
already seen.
First, he satirizes the sex study, as we have
Secondly, Joe satirizes psychiatry.
The first psychiatrist
he consulted was a cousin of his who, in his high school days, had
"organized a mass meeting to protest student apathy.
showed up,"
with Joe:
(p. 35)
Four people
The psychiatrist cousin was equally successful
he changed a healthy person into a neurotic.
The next
psychiatrist Joe consults becomes depressed when he is unable to solve
a riddle Joe poses to him.
After Joe finally reveals the answer, the
doctor's depression disappears and Joe is allowed to go home.
21
Catholicism is ridiculed by both Tristram and Joe.
Tristram's
digression on intrauterine baptism^^ is obviously satiric.
father's ridicule of Dr, Slop's cursing.^^
Catholic.
So is his
Joe Sandwich is himself a
He is, however, rather unorthodox.
His clowning begins at
church, when he insists on recounting his good deeds in the confessional, '
His neurosis involves a substitution of ridiculous rituals and magic
nimibers for religion, again a satiric jab at Catholic doctrine.-^^
Finally, both Tristram and Joe attack pedantry,
Tristram's most
effective attack is perhaps centered around his father's theory of the
North west passage to the intellectual world. , , . The
whole entirely depends, added my father, in a low voice, upon
the auxiliary verbs. . , , (pp, 305-6)
The whole idea is, of course, ridiculous.
Similarly, Joe ridicules the
pedantry of Wally Hines by cutting up in class, especially the incident
of the paper,
Joe, in compliance with Hines' request for some
"original comic writing," turns in 3000 words worth of funny names.
Hines naturally gives Joe an "F" but remains tormented for several days
in an attempt to duplicate Joe's work himself.
19
Both novels, then, utilize similar techniques and themes. The
impact of both derives principally from the juxtaposition of comedy
and tragedy, which is the essence of black humor.
Ben Reid points
out that "tragedy and comedy achieve their richest effects when one
is played against the background of the other, so that a double ironic
imbalance is manipulated."^^
Both De Vries and Sterne use humor as
a bridge, "not only to support us over the harmless little comic ravine
between the normal and the hyperbolic, but to persuade us over the
21
gaping tragic crevasse between the real and the ideal,"
22
The vision of mankind in both Tristram Shandy and The Vale of
Laughter is tragic.
For example, Tristram says:
Time wastes too fast: every letter I trace tells me with
what rapidity Life follows my pen; the days and hours of
it, more precious, my dear Jenny.' than the rubies about
thy neck, are flying over our heads like light clouds of
a windy day, never to return more --— every thing presses
on —
whilst thou art twisting that lock, —
see.'
it grows grey; and every time I kiss thy hand to bid
adieu, and every absence which follows it, are preludes
to that eternal separation which we are shortly to make.
(p. 469)
Similarly, Joe explains to one of his co-workers that
"Tragedy and comedy are basically the same, did you know
that, Fido? Like love and hate. All the authorities say
so. They have a common root. Do you know what that is?
, , , Desperation. . , , It's all JLa vie. You know -life. Now I'll give you a couple of dual-choice questions,
or examples, and you tell me whether they're sad or funny,
A man got killed on the Thruway the other day in an
accident he got into trying to fasten his safety belt. Is
that sad or funny?"
"Ask him. He knows as well as I do,"
"An excellent answer, Fido, You don't know." (pp, 210-11)
One must cope with the problem of life somehow.
Joe describes his
own solution in this way:
One bends in order that he does not break -- the whole point
I am trying to make in a nutshell. There is nothing
"narcissistic" about it whatever, since our all being in the
same boat is never lost sight of. One sees it through by
frankly and freely embracing the total human farce of which
he forms a modest part, a miniscule fragment in a hostile, or
at any rate incomprehensible, whole, (p. 124)
In his dedication, Sterne refers to his book as one which
is written in a bye corner of the kingdom, and in a retired
thatch'd house, where I live in a constant endeavour to
fence against the infirmities of ill health, and other evils
of life, by mirth; being firmly persuaded that every time a
man smiles, — b u t much more so, when he laughs, that it adds
something to this Fragment of Life, (p, 2)
23
In both Sterne and De Vries, the tragedy of life is kept at a
distance by laughter.
De Vries' title suggests, at least, the
possibility of word-play:
"the veil of laughter"?
couldn't it just as easily have been
Certainly Joe uses humor to hide behind.
When
Tristram, on the other hand, mentions the masks in his story about Aunt
22
Dinah,
one wonders if Tristram himself is not wearing a mask -- a
mask of laughter.
B. L. Reid feels that
Shandeism is in fact a pose -- a stance, an attitude, a
particular histrionic inclination of mind, body, and the
facial muscles. But the pose rises out of a serious purpose. '^Fence" is Sterne's operative word here. The pose
of Shandeism is a fence of wit, and it is called for because
there are terrible things in the landscape which must be
contained, that they may not overrun us. , , , The witfence confines the terrible within the region of laughter,
that it may not irrupt into the region of tears. The fence
does not obliterate the terrors; it is of open mesh and they
show through, but they are held on the other side, where they
may be lived with,23
One always feels, beneath the humorous surface of both novels, an
undercurrent of fear which constantly threatens to break through.
The
reminder is there in the chaotic ordering which Sterne effects through
digression and De Vries effects through episodes.
There are differences between the two books, De Vries is basically
chronological and Sterne is not; De Vries' prose is less complex than
Sterne's,
De Vries' satire reflects the twentieth century's lack of
concrete norms, while Sterne has eighteenth century benevolism and
liberal Anglicanism to provide norms for Tristram Shandy.
Despite these
differences, however, the central message of the two books is basically
the samel
fear.
the human condition is frightening, but laughter allays the
CHAPTER THREE
VOLTAIRE AND KURT VONNEGUT, JR,
Robert Scholes maintains that "if you look for a prescription of
Vonnegut at your local apothecary's, you should find it on a shelf
not too far from Voltaire."^
Scholes seems to be accurate, especially
in regard to his choice of the words "not too far from," through which
the differences, as well as the similarities, between Voltaire and
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. are emphasized.
The two authors share a similar
outlook and use similar stylistic devices; both make use of satiric
black humor. Vonnegut, however, allows his characters in Cat's
Cradle an awareness of black himior, which they themselves use as a
method of coping with reality, whereas Voltaire allows the characters
of Candide little share In his own authorial awareness.
Candide and
Cat's Cradle are useful, then, as examples of the similarity in outlook of their respective authors, but are not closely analogous in
terms of characterization.
Both Vonnegut and Voltaire use a deceptively simple style of
writing, exploiting effectively the short sentence, the short paragraph,
and the short chapter.
Scholes points out that Vonnegut's prose is
"capable of startling and illuminating twists and turns,"^ an observation
which applies equally to Voltaire.
Vonnegut's
In Cat's Cradle, for example,
protagonist, John, observes:
24
25
And I remembered The Fourteenth Book of Bokonon, which I had
read in its entirety the night before. The Fourteenth Book
is entitled, "What Can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on
Earth, Given the Experience of the Past Million Years?"
It doesn't take long to read The Fourteenth Book. It
consists of one word and a period.
This is it:
"Nothing."3
Similar verbal dexterity can be observed in Candide when Pangloss explains the geneology of the syphilis he has contracted:
It is indispensable in this best of worlds. It is a necessary
ingredient. For if Columbus, when visiting the West Indies,
had not caught this disease, which poisons the source of
generation, which frequently even hinders generation, and is
clearly opposed to the great end of Nature, we should have
neither chocolate nor cochineal.
Such twistings and turnings are characteristic of black humor, which
frequently derives "from presenting the materials of satire in a comic
perspective."^
Both Cat's Cradle and Candide are episodic.
It is possible that
this characteristic is related to the simple style of both authors,
but it is equally possible that these episodes are necessary in order
to present the pluralistic view of reality possessed by Voltaire and
Vonnegut.
With a pluralistic approach, the division between illusion
and reality is blurred and the impossibility of ever discovering
absolute truth is postulated.
Both Cat's Cradle and Candide enumerate
the various "truths" to which man can subscribe, with the result that
none of them seems true. Max Schulz points out that Cat's Cradle
"refuses to confirm what is reality -- neither what we say it is nor
what it insists on being despite our words,"°
Similarly, Voltaire's
philosophy in Candide is that of one who has "'no fixed principles on
26
the nature of things, who Ldoesl not know what is, but who ^knowsj very
well what isn't,'"7
In Cat's Cradle, John explains the "cruel paradox"
of his religion, Bokononism:
"the heartbreaking necessity of lying
about reality, and the heartbreaking impossibility of lying about it"
(p, 229). Voltaire repeatedly reminds us of "the unresolvable conflict
between the clocklike order of a rational, mechanical universe and the
mad confusion of an illogical, capricious actuality."^
Both authors,
in essence, show that it is quite impossible for man to obtain
knowledge about his purpose in life.
Consequently, coincidence plays a large part in the plot structure
of both books.
Often the action moves forward through incidents which
possess a deus ex machina quality.
Candide is reunited with Cunegonde
when she "^just happens" to witness his public flogging at the hands
of the proponents of the Inquisition (p, 43). John "just happens" to
be on the same airplane, headed for the same destination, as the two
people whom he had been trying to contact for a year, without much
t\
success (pp. 95-6).
Vonnegut explains such coincidences through the
religion of Bokononism:
We Bokononists believe that humanity is organized into teams,
teams that do God's Will without ever discovering what they
are doing. Such a team is called a karass. . , . "If you
find your life tangled up with somebody else's life for no
very logical reasons," writes Bokonon, "that person may be a
member of your karass." (p. 14)
Voltaire makes no attempt to explain his coincidences, nor does he
need to (neither does Vonnegut, for that matter).
The coincidences
do not need to be believed in order to serve their purpose of showing
that life is capricious and man has little control over his destiny.
27
In both Cat's Cradle and Candide, then, the problem is the same:
what is the purpose of man and his suffering?
discovered —
If no purpose can be
and both authors seem to imply that this is the case --
how is man to deal with his life?
Voltaire and Vonnegut use similar
means to a similar end; Vonnegut invents a religion and Voltaire
develops a pragmatic philosophy.
It might be fruitful at this point to
examine these two systems of thought and the conclusions to which they
lead.
Vonnegut's Bokononism is a religion intended to comfort man in an
absurd world.
It is based on lies.
"Live by the foma [harmless
untruths^ that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy" (p. 5 ) ,
When Bokonon was shipwrecked on the island of San Lorenzo, his first
plan was to improve the standard of living of the poverty-stricken
inhabitants.
sible.
He soon discovered, however, that such a task was impos-
"Truth was the enemy of the people, because the truth was so
terrible, so Bokonon made it his business to provide the people with
better and better lies'^ (p. 143), Similarly, Voltaire believed in the
necessity of lying.
He was himself, in fact, "^a constant double
dealer, he lied and believed in lying that he might live to lie again
another day.
In this way alone, he believed, he could be useful and
work for humanity."
Such behavior on Voltaire's part was already
apparent during the writing and publication of Candide.
William
Bottiglia explains that Voltaire's own social philosophy recognizes
the need for
a double standard of truth, one for leaders and potential
leaders, whom he hoped to persuade by appealing to their
reason, another for the untutored masses, whom he hoped to
28
keep under control by preaching publicly useful doctrines
which were the equivalent of Plato's royal lies.^^
For both Vonnegut and Voltaire, lying becomes a protective device, one
which aids in promoting human happiness. Vonnegut feels that man must
lie and believe in lies in order to ever be happy, Voltaire, however,
sees lying as unfortunate, but necessary in order to maintain one's
freedom to engage in work and co-operative endeavor,
Bokonon's version of the creation of man reads as follows:
In the beginning, God created the earth, and he looked upon
it in His cosmic loneliness.
And God said, "Let Us make living creatures out of mud,
so the mud can see what We have done," And God created
every living creature that now moveth, and one was man.
Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close as mud as
man sat up, looked around, and spoke, Man blinked. "What
is the purpose of all this?" he asked politely.
"^Everything must have a purpose?" asked God,
"Certainly," said man.
"Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this,"
said God. And He went away, (pp, 214-5)
This concept is similar, though not quite as benevolent, as
Voltaire's belief in Deism.
We see in the Eldorado episode in Candide
that God, the supreme watchmaker, cannot interfere with the world.
Therefore, the old man of Eldorado explains to Candide that "We never
pray . . . we have nothing to ask of God, since He has given us everything we need.
But we thank Him unceasingly" (p, 79). In a Utopia, of
course, there is much more to be thankful for than there is in the
world as it exists. Voltaire's main point, however, is that man can
gain nothing by praying to God, because God will not answer.
The
best man can do is to thank God for the privilege of being alive, then
go about his own business of creating purpose in his life.
Both
29
Vonnegut and Voltaire conceive of a God who is neither malevolent nor
benevolent, leaving man to discover for himself his raison d'etre.
Even granted the existence of an indifferent God, however, the
problem of evil still remains to be explained.
Vonnegut borrows the
concept of dynamic tension from Charles Atlas, with whom Bokonon is
familiar, to explain the function of evil:
"It was the belief of
Bokonon that good societies could be built only by pitting good against
evil, and by keeping the tension between the two high at all times"
(p. 90), Voltaire
pondered life at length, and his ponderings, taking into
account circumstantial variations, brought out a predominance of evil, although, all things considered and
carefully judged in conformity with the modesty which is
imperative for man, a certain equilibrium is established
or rather can be assumed, if only to make the whole
endurable.^2
Here, of course, is the goal toward which Vonnegut and Voltaire are
striving:
how can human life be made bearable?
Both authors see the necessity for three basic values.
First
is the sanctity of the individual. Vonnegut's protagonist makes this
important discovery about Bokonism:
"What is^ sacred to Bokononists?" I asked after a while.
"Kot even God, as near as I can tell,"
"Nothing?"
"Just one thing."
I made some guesses. "The ocean? The sun?"
'Man," said Frank, "That's all. Just man." (p, 173)
Raymond Naves points out that
More than anyone else during the century, Voltaire demanded
a respect for the individual. . . , From one end of his
production to the other there is but one concern: man; but
one reality: man. He chastised and maltreated man in every
possible way, but he chastised him as one does when one loves,
with the desperate impatience and sarcasm of a father molding
30
a rebellious child.^^
Love is the second essential value.
Stanley Schatt explains that
"Bokononism is a man-centered philosophy that is based on the need for
both human love and self-deception."^^ Vonnegut himself begs us
"to believe in the most ridiculous superstition of all: that
humanity is at the center of the universe, the fulfiller or
the frustrator of the grandest dreams of God Almighty. If
you can believe that and make others believe it, human beings
might stop treating each other like garbage."^5
Voltaire regards beneficence -- love and compassion for one's fellow
man —
as true virtue.
Thus in his expression of the ideal in the
Eldorado section of Candide, people show love and concern for one
another. Most symbolic of this characteristic, perhaps, is the method
of being presented to the King:
As they approached the throne room, Cacambo asked one of the
lords-in-waiting how he should behave in saluting His Majesty;
should he fall on his knees or should he grovel, should he put
his hands on his head or his behind, or should he lick the dust
off the floor; in short, what was the procedure?
"The custom is," said the lord-in-waiting, "to embrace the
King and kiss him on both cheeks." (p. 81)
The third essential value is philosophic disdain. Vonnegut illustrates his belief in this principle through Bokonon's description of
the proper attitude toward life's catastrophes:
If I were a younger man, I would write a history of human
stupidity; and I would climb to the top of Mount McCabe and
lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I
would take from the ground some of the blue-white poison
that makes statues of men; and I would make a statue of
myself, lying on my back, grinning horribly, and thumbing
my nose at You Know Who, (p, 231)
For, as Scholes observes, "to see life as joke is to see it as having
a form which makes it tolerable,"^^
At the end of Candide, the Old
31
Turk tells the protagonist and his friends that "work banishes those
three great evils, boredom, vice, and poverty" (p, 143), an aphorism
which leads Martin to conclude "We must work without arguing . , .
that is the only way to make life bearable" (p. 144).
As Bottiglia
observes, Voltaire is implying "that men of good will should turn their
backs on public abominations in a gesture of philosophic disdain."^^
Man must ignore the things he cannot alter and work toward improving
the few things that he can,
"If, as Vonnegut suggests in his fictional
universe, God does not care about things, then man cannot . , , passively
await divine action but must actively seek to improve his Ninevehs,
his San Lorenzos and Ilium, New Yorks."^°
Or, as Candide puts it,
"we must go and work in the garden" (p, 144),
The greatest difference between the two authors is that the main
thrust of Voltaire's attack is toward metaphysics, whereas Vonnegut
attacks society as a whole. Voltaire retains a limited optimism and
replaces metaphysics with the concept of working in one's garden.
Vonnegut invents a metaphysic, which he ridicules, but which he feels
is essential if man is to retain any hope whatever in life. Both
authors are concerned about making life bearable for man.
Their
difference in outlook in regard to metaphysics is a result of the
time period in which each author is writing.
For Voltaire, science
is a solution to man's problems, a replacement for metaphysics.
But
Vonnegut, two hundred years later, has seen the abuses of science and
the part it has played in the dehumanization of man.
So for Vonnegut,
a metaphysic based on lies grants more hope for mankind than a science
32
which is based upon horrible truths and which operates amorally.
Thus,
Vonnegut's vision is darker than Voltaire's, but both authors
emphasize the relative insignificance of God, and the importance of
man, human love and compassion, and an attitude of philosophical
disdain in the face of absurdity.
The method used by these two authors to express their philosophies
is satirical black humor. Vonnegut and Voltaire use ridicule and
laughter to cope with the absurdities of life, and invite the audience
to laugh along with them.
The catastrophes visited upon the characters
^^ Cat's Cradle and Candide are related humorously, giving us the
juxtaposition of comedy and tragedy which comprises black humor.
For
example, in Cat's Cradle, the world is accidentally frozen solid by a
substance called ice-nine.
In seeking an explanation for the mass
suicide by freezing of the inhabitants of San Lorenzo, John finds the
following note from Bokonon:
To whom it may concern: These people around you are almost
all of the survivors on San Lorenzo of the winds that followed
the freezing of the sea. These people made a captive of the
spurious holy man named Bokonon. They brought him here, placed
him at their center, and commanded him to tell them exactly
what God Almighty was up to and what they should now do. The
mountebank told them that God was trying to kill them, possibly
because he was through with them, and that they should have
the good manners to die. This, as you can see, they did. (p, 220)
Similarly, in Candide, a storm comes up while the protagonist and his
friends are on a ship in the Lisbon harbor:
The Anabaptist gave what help he could in directing the ship's
course, and was on the poop when a madly excited sailor struck
him a violent blow, which laid him at full length on the deck.
The force of his blow upset the sailor's own balance, and he
!;'
33
fell head first overboard; but, in falling, he was caught on
a piece of the broken mast and hung dangling over the ship's
side. The worthy James ran to his assistance and helped him
to climb on board again. The efforts he made were so strenuous,
however, that he was pitched into the sea in full view of the
sailor, who left him to perish without taking the slightest
notice. Candide was in time to see his benefactor reappear
above the surface for one moment before being swallowed up
for ever. He wanted to throw himself into the sea after the
Anabaptist, but the great philosopher, Pangloss, stopped him
by proving that Lisbon harbour was made on purpose for this
Anabaptist to drown there. Whilst he was proving this from
first principles, the ship split in two . . . (pp. 32-3)
These two passages also illustrate the main differences between
Vonnegut's use of black hiraior and Voltaire's use of black humor.
S
First, we can see clearly the different targets of the two authors.
Vonnegut depicts a totally absurd world and uses black humor to make
this absurd world bearable. Voltaire, on the other hand, uses black
humor to eradicate the illusion that life can be explained totally.
Second, Vonnegut's characters are aware of black humor themselves,
and use it frequently.
Voltaire maintains ironic distance from his
characters; they are unaware of the humor in which Voltaire and his
audience indulge.
But, as in all black humor, the audience is
aware of one Important concept: while the subject matter is meant to
be amusing, the author's message is meant to be taken seriously.
Both
Vonnegut and Voltaire see farcical elements in the universe, and
they attempt to cope with that reality by laughter and ridicule.
A
world which is arbitrary, capricious, and lacking in absolute truth
or knowledge is a difficult world to handle. There is little security
and even less sense.
But hope remains. Vonnegut and Voltaire laugh,
and allow us to laugh, at the absurdity of it all, in order that hope
might survive.
I
CHAPTER FOUR
JONATHAN SWIFT AND JOSEPH HELLER
The satire of Jonathan Swift has a special quality which sets it
apart from most other satire of the eighteenth century.
Swift can be
corrosive with his satire as well as comic, but it is the comic spirit
which predominates; Swift never allows his blackness to obscure his
hiraior. Even in Gulliver's Travels, the corrosive fourth book notwithstanding, the overall impression is comic, or more specifically, the
Juxtaposition of comedy and tragedy which comprises black humor.
One
of the few twentieth century writers who comes close to Swift's type of
satire is Joseph Heller in Catch-22,
Most contemporary writers who
indulge in corrosive satire allow their acidity to envelop the comic
elements of their work.
Heller, however, is corrosive, but his comic
element never is totally obscured, and it is this quality which renders
htm comparable to Swift,
As Norman Podoretz points out,
"Though ostensibly about an air force squadron in the Second
World War, Catch-22 is actually one of the bravest and most
nearly successful attempts we have yet had to describe and
make credible the incredible reality of American life in the
middle of the 20th century."^
Similarly, Gulliver's Travels, a scathing satire not only of British
life but mankind as a whole, is regarded by many middle-class American
parents as a travel fantasy for children.
34
Despite the disguises, the
35
satiric purpose of both authors is to denounce their respective contemporary societies.
In both Catch-22 and Gulliver's Travels disorder
and chaos are depicted as the everyday condition of reality.
The world
in both works is shown to be turned upside down and chaos is then made '
the object of humor.
This technique, as we have seen, is the stock-in-
trade of the black humorist.
In both Catch-22 and Gulliver's Travels,
the barrier between fiction and reality is broken; the reader tends to
relate the narrative to his own world.
For example, the world of
Gulliver, when fully comprehended, becomes "far more our own than we
had imagined; the same paradoxes, riddles, and contradictions are
common to both,"2
The society of Catch-22 brings much the same reaction
to the reader.
These two elements -- reality as chaos and the merging of fiction
with reality —
are basic to both Gulliver's Travels and Catch-22,
Both premises are ordering devices in the works being considered; the
reader's understanding of Heller and Swift depends upon his recognition that disorder is a controlling idea, especially in Gulliver's
3
Travels,
According to Patrick Gleeson, "Swift uses repetition and
episode in his employment of the themes and incidents within the limits
of the topic, the world upside down, to persuade the reader that the
view of the world presented in Book III is potentially comprehensive,
i, e., that an infinitely long narrative would display all possible
instances of worldly disorder, and nothing but instances of worldly
disorder."^
Similarly, in Catch-22. "the war itself is only a
microcosm of the society which operates by no reasonable rules whatever
36
and brazenly asks in return that the individual be prepared to give
up his life in a cause he cannot comprehend because reason and
purpose are not viable to the I,B.M, machine.
lesson relentlessly."^
Heller drives home the
It can be seen that the concept of disorder
plays an important part in both works,
A framework of disorder is carefully built in both Catch-22 and
Gulliver's Travels, This feat is accomplished through the use of certain
key satiric targets and the exploitation of the cumulative effects
of the satiric attacks.
It would be fruitful at this point to discuss
a few examples of this procedure and the results which are obtained.
One important topic which is satirized is society's lack of
reason.
In Catch-22, logic is so twisted and perverted that, although
the form remains, the content is little more than nonsense.
For
example, Yossarian asks the flight surgeon to ground him:
"Can't you ground someone who's crazy?"
"Oh, sure. I have to. There's a rule saying I have to
ground anyone who's crazy."^
"Then why don't you ground me? I'm crazy. Ask
Clevinger,"
"Clevinger? Where is Clevinger? You find Clevinger
and I'll ask him."
"Then ask any of the others. They'll tell you how
crazy I am,"
"They're crazy,"
"Then why don't you ground them?"
"Why don't they ask me to ground them?"
"Because they're crazy, that's why."
"Of course they're crazy," Doc Daneeka replied.
"I Just told you they're crazy, didn't I? And you can't
let crazy people decide whether you're crazy or not, can
you?"
Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another
approach, "Is Orr crazy?"
"He sure is," Doc Daneeka said.
"Can you ground him?"
'*! sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That's
part of the rule,"
37
"Then why doesn't he ask you tx)?"
"Because he's crazy," Doc Daneeka said, "He has to be
crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close
calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has
to ask me to."
^That's all he has to do to be grounded?"
^Ihat's all. Let him ask me."
"And then you can ground him?" Yossarian asked,
"No. Then I can't ground him,"
"You mean there's a catch?"
"Sure there's a catch," Doc Daneeka replied.
"Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't
really crazy."^
Similarly, In Gulliver's Travels, logical form is used in coming to
Illogical conclusions.
While living in Brobdingnag, Gulliver reveals
to the king the secret of gunpowder:
This I humbly offered to his Majesty, as a small Tribute
of Acknowledgment in return of so many Marks that I had
received of his Royal Favour and Protection.
THE King was struck with Horror at the Description I
had given of those terrible Engines. , , , he would rather
lose Half his Kingdom than be privy to such a Secret; which
he commanded me, as I valued my Life, never to mention any
more.
A STRANGE effect of narrow Principles and short Views.'
that a Prince possessed of every Quality which procures
Veneration, Love and Esteem; of strong Parts, great Wisdom
and profound Learning; endued with admirable Talents for
Government, and almost adored by his Subjects; should from
a nice unnecessary Scruple, whereof in Europe we can have
no Conception, let slip an Opportunity put into his Hands,
that would have made him absolute Master of the Lives, the
Liberties, and the Fortunes of his People. Neither do I
say this with the least Intention to detract from the many
Virtues of that excellent King; whose Character I am
sensible will on this Account be very much lessened in the
Opinion of an English Reader: But, I take this Defect among
them to have risen from their Ignorance; by not having
hitherto reduced Politicks into a Science, as the more acute
Wits of Europe have done./
Related to the topic of absurd logic is the degeneration of
language.
One Is reminded immediately of George Orwell's essay of
1946, '*Politics and the English Language,"
Orwell maintains that the
38
degeneration of society aids in the degeneration of language, and vice
versa,°
Politics is closely allied to this process, for "political
language . , , is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wtnd."°
It is such a situation that we find in both Catch-22 and Gulliver's
Travels.
For example. Major Major
sijmmoned Sergeant Towser.
"From now on," he said, "I don't want anyone to come
in to see me while I'm here. Is that clear?"
"Yes, sir," said Sergeant Towser, 'l)oes that include
me?"
"Yes,"
"I see. Will that be all?"
"Yes,"
"What shall I say to the people who do come to see you
while you're here?"
"Tell them I'm in and ask them to wait,"
"Yes, sir. For how long?"
"Until I've left."
"And then what shall I do with them?"
"I don't care."
"May I send them in to see you after you've left?"
"Yes."
"But you won't be here then, will you?"
"No."
"Yes, sir. Will that be all?"
"Yes,"
(p, 102)
This passage from Heller brings to mind a similar passage in Swift, in
which Gulliver is explaining the concept of law and lawyers to the king
of the Houyhnhnms:
I ASSURED his Honour, that Law was a Science wherein I
had not much conversed, further than by employing Advocates,
in vain, upon some Injustices that had been done me. However,
I would give him all the Satisfaction I was able.
I SAID there was a Society of Men among us, bred up from
their Youth in the Art of proving by Words multiplied for the
Purpose, that White is Black, and Black is White, according as
they are paid. To this Society all the rest of the People
are Slaves. <p, 202)
39
Logic is not the only thing that is misused by society, according
to Heller and Swift. Various types of knowledge become perverted when
reason is lost.
Scientific and technological discoveries become
degradations rather than advancements when they are put to improper
uses.
Catch-22 as a whole is an indictment of war, especially a war
which relies greatly on technology.
Heller seems to feel that man's
power of flight could be employed for activities more benevolent than
bombing villages.
Swift also condemns the misuse of science.
The
I I
Laputlans possess knowledge which enables their island to fly.
Un-
fortunately, the Laputlans use this knowledge to strengthen their
dominion over Balnibarbi:
IF any Town should engage in Rebellion, or Mutiny, fall into
violent Factions, or refuse to pay the usual Tribute; the
King hath two Methods of reducing them to Obedience. The
first and the mildest Course is by keeping the Island hovering
over such a Town, and the Lands about it; whereby he can
deprive them of the Benefit of the Sun and the Rain, and
consequently afflict the Inhabitants with Dearth and Diseases.
And if the Crime deserve it, they are at the same time pelted
from above with great Stones, against which they have no
Defence, but by creeping into Cellars or Caves, while the
Roofs of their Houses are beaten to Pieces. But if they
still continue obstinate, or offer to raise Insurrections; he
proceeds to the last Remedy, by letting the Island drop
directly upon their Heads, which makes a universal Destruction both of Houses and Men. (p, 135)
A misuse of science can lead to a misuse of power, but the result
of such a phenomenon Is not necessarily absurd.
Heller and Swift make
ridiculous the people in power in society by satirizing the methods by
which that power is gained.
For example, in Catch-22, an inept
officer. Major Major, is promoted in the following manner:
"You're the new squadron commander," Colonel Cathcart
had shouted rudely across the railroad ditch to him, "But
don't think it means anything, because it doesn't. All it
.^r^etmyFsnwm
I
i
40
means is that you're the new squadron commander."
Colonel Cathcart had nursed an implacable grudge against
Major Major for a long time. A superfluous major on his rolls
meant an untidy table of organization and gave ammunition to
the men at Twenty-seventh Air Force Headquarters, who Colonel
Cathcart was positive were his enemies and rivals. Colonel
Cathcart had been praying for just some stroke of good luck
like Major Duluth's death. He had been plagued by one extra
major; he now had an opening for one major. He appointed
Major Major squadron commander and roared away in his jeep
as abruptly as he had come.
For Major Major, it meant the end. , , . People who had
hardly noticed his resemblance to Henry Fonda before now never
ceased discussing it, and there were even those who hinted
sinisterly that Major Major had been elevated to squadron
commander because he resembled Henry Fonda. Captain Black,
who had aspired to the position himself, maintained that
Major Major really was Henry Fonda but was too chicken-shit
to admit it. (p, 91)
Swift satirizes the acquisition of power by describing the methods used
in Lilliput:
THIS Diversion is only practiced by those Persons, who are
Candidates for great Employments, and high Favour, at Court.
They are trained in this Art from their Youth, and are not
always of noble Birth, or liberal Education. When a great
Office is vacant, either by Death or Disgrace, (which often
happens) five or six of those Candidates petition the Emperor
to entertain his Majesty and the Court with a Dance on the
Rope; and whoever Jumps the highest without falling succeeds
in the Office,
(p. 20)
When those in power are selected without regard to qualifications
or ability, there is obviously bound to be a miscarriage of Justice.
Heller makes this point quite clearly in a scene where Yossarian
discovers that his friend Aarfy has Just thrown a servant girl out
the window after raping her:
"T only raped her once," he explained,
Yossarian was aghast. "But you killed her, Aarfy.'
You killed her.'"
"Oh, I had to do that after I raped her," Aarfy replied
In his most condescending manner, "I couldn't very well
41
let her go around saying bad things about us, could I?"
"But why did you have to touch her at all, you dumb
bastard?" Yossarian shouted. "Why couldn't you get yourself a girl off the street if you wanted one? The city
is full of prostitutes."
"Oh, no, not me," Aarfy bragged. "I never paid for
it in my life."
"Aarfy, are you insane?" Yossarian was almost speechless, "You killed a girl. They're going to put you in
Jail.'"
"Oh, no," Aarfy answered with a forced smile. "Not
me. They aren't going to put good old Aarfy in Jail.
Not for killing her."
"But you threw her out the window. She's lying there
dead in the street."
"She has no right to be there," Aarfy answered.
"It's after curfew."
"Stupid.' Don't you realize what you've done?"
Yossarian wanted to grab Aarfy by his well-fed,
caterpillar-soft shoulders and shake some sense into
him. "You've murdered a human being. They are going to
put you in jail. They might even hang you.'"
"Oh, I hardly think they'll do that," Aarfy replied
with a jovial chuckle, although his symptoms of nervousness increased. He spilled tobacco criraibs unconsciously
as his short fingers fumbled with the bowl of his pipe.
"No, slrree. Not to good old Aarfy," He chortled again.
"She was only a servant girl. I hardly think they're
going to make too much of a fuss over one poor Italian
servant girl when so many thousands of lives are being
lost every day. Do you?"
"Listen."' Yossarian cried, almost in joy. He pricked
up his ears and watched the blood drain from Aarfy's face
as sirens mourned far away, police sirens, and then
ascended almost instantaneously to a howling, strident,
onrushing cacophony of overwhelming sound that seemed to
crash into the room around them from every side. "Aarfy,
they're coming for you,'^ he said in a flood of compassion,
shouting to be heard above the noise. "They're coming
to arrest you. Aarfy, don't you understand? You can't
take the life of another human being and get away with it,
even if she is just a poor servant girl. Don't you see?
Can't you understand?"
"Oh, no," Aarfy insisted with a lame laugh and a weak
smile. "They're not coming to arrest me. Not good old
Aarfy."
All at once he looked sick. He sank down on a chair
in a trembling stupor, his stimipy, lax hands quaking in his
lap. Cars skidded to a stop outside. Spotlights hit the
windows immediately. Car doors slammed, and police whistles
42
screeched. Voices rose harshly. Aarfy was green. He kept
shaking his head mechanically with-a queer, numb smile and
repeating in a weak, hollow monotone that they were not coming
for him, not for good old Aarfy, no slrree, striving to convince himself that this was so even as heavy footsteps raced
up the stairs and pounded across the landing, even as fists
beat on the door four times with a deafening, inexhorable
force. Then the door to the apartment flew open, and two
large, tough, brawny M.P.s with icy eyes and firm, sinewy,
unsmiling jaws entered quickly, strode across the room, and
arrested Yossarian.
They arrested Yossarian for being in Rome without a pass.
They apologized to Aarfy for Intruding and led Yossarian
away between them, gripping him under each arm with fingers as
hard as manacles, (pp. 427-9)
Swift's example is only slightly different.
Gulliver, during his visit
to Lilliput, ends a war and puts out a fire in the royal palace.
These
two good deeds, however, are twisted and exploited by a minister of
Lilliput, who accuses Gulliver of treason.
The Lilliputian government,
through fear that Gulliver's superior strength might someday be used
against it rather than for it, decides to convict Gulliver.
One of
Gulliver's friends reports to him the following:
as Treason begins in the Heart before it appears in OvertActs ; so he LBolgolam]] accused you as a Traytor on that
Account, and therefore insisted you should be put^ to death
. . . his sacred Majesty, and the Council, who are your
Judges, were in their own Consciences fully convinced of
your Guilt; which was a sufficient Argument to condemn you
to death, without the formal Proofs required by the strict
Letter of the Law, (pp. 47-8)
Thus Gulliver, instead of being rewarded for his helpfulness, is condemned to death on the basis of a few technicalities.
When society becomes illogical, when knowledge is misused, when
Justice no longer reigns, man's very existence is severely threatened.
The governing body is then without regard for human needs and is motivated by obscure theory, private whim, and personal aggrandizement.
43
Yossarian's army is an example. Mtlo Minderbinder absconds with the
flying personnel's parachutes (p. 385) and morphine from the first
aid kits (p. 448), using them as commodities for barter in his moneymaking schemes. Milo also
contracted with the American military authorities to bomb the
German-held highway bridge at Orvieto and with the German
military authorities to defend the highway bridge at Orvieto
with antiaircraft fire against his own attack. . . . The
arrangements were fair to both sides. Since Milo did have
freedom of passage everywhere, his planes were able to steal
over in a sneak attack without alerting the German antiaircraft gunners; and since Milo knew about the attack, he was
able to alert the German antiaircraft gunners in sufficient
time for them to begin firing accurately the moment the planes
came into range. It was an ideal arrangement for everyone but
the dead man in Yossarian's tent, who was killed over the
target the day he arrived, (pp. 261-2)
When Milo really got into financial trouble with his syndicate, he
landed another contract with the Germans, this time to bomb
his own outfit, Milo's planes separated in a well-co-ordinated
attack and bombed the fuel stocks and the ordnance dump, the
repair hangars and the B-25 bombers resting on the lollipopshaped hardstands at the field. His crews spared the landing
strip and the mess halls so that they could land safely when
their work was done and enjoy a hot snack before retiring. They
bombed with their landing lights on, since no one was shooting
back. They bombed all four squadrons, the officers' club and
the Group Headquarters building. Men bolted from their tents
in sheer terror and did not know in which direction to turn.
Wounded soon lay screaming everywhere. (p. 264)
This type of chaos is what Heller calls "catch-22," which means "they
have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing" (p. 416).
The results of a society run on the basis of catch-22 are sjmibolized
by the actions of Nately's whore. Yossarian is forced to bring her
the news of his friend Nately's death. Her violent reaction against
Yossarian, and her persistent efforts throughout the remainder of the
novel to assassinate him are totally inappropriate and illogical, just
||i(
44
as the society governed by catch-22 responds inappropriately and
illogically.
In regard to Gulliver's Travels, Samuel H, Monk points out:
The Flying Island is . . . a mordant image of the concentration of political power in the hands of a clique remote
from human needs, motivated by pure theory, and given to
experiment and improvisation. Laputa . . . is a symbol of
such government: it is controlled by madmen who govern
scientifically, not morally; it is a flying island, and
hence out of touch with subject territories, which it
exploits and tyrannizes over by means of what we call today
air power; it can withhold sun and rain as a punitive device,
or can harass through bombing raids, or even tyrannously
crush all opposition by settling its great weight upon the
land below. •'•^
Swift and Heller depict similar situations. The worlds of Gulliver's
Travels and Catch-22 are controlled by groups of people who have no
regard for human needs and who govern by whim.
In both books the
powers-that-be prostitute their values in order to gain or retain
power.
Thus, both Swift and Heller use the metaphor of the whore to
describe the condition of government.
Nately's whore becomes a symbol
of catch-22; "la puta," Spanish for "the whore," becomes in Swift the
island of Laputa, a symbol of corrupt and capricious government.
Finally, both Swift and Heller demonstrate that the effect of
chaotic society renders man totally insignificant.
For example, in
Catch-22, Colonel Cathcart demands that the chaplain
write a letter of condolence for me to the next of kin of
every man in the group who's killed, wounded, or taken
prisoner. I want those letters to be sincere letters. I
want them filled up with lots of personal details so there'll
be no doubt I mean every word you say. Is that clear?"
The chaplain stepped forward impulsively to remonstrate.
"But, sir, that's impossible]" he blurted out. "We don't
even know all the men that well."
45
"What difference does that make?" Colonel Cathcart demanded, and then smiled amicably. "Corporal Whitcomb
brought me this basic form letter that takes care of just
about every situation. Listen: 'Dear Mrs., Mr,, Miss, or
Mr, and Mrs.: Words cannot express the deep personal grief
I experienced when your husband, son, father or brother was
killed, wounded or reported missing in action.'" (pp, 288-9)
Swift makes the same point with Gulliver's visit in Houyhnhnmland.
Gulliver is explaining to the king the causes of war:
If a Prince send Forces into a Nation, where the People are
poor and ignorant, he may lawfully put half of them to
Death, and make Slaves of the rest, in order to civilize
and reduce them from their barbarous Way of Living. It is a
very kingly, honourable, and frequent Practice, when one
Prince desires the Assistance of another to secure him against
an Invasion, that the Assistant, when he hath driven out the
Invader, should seize on the Dominions himself, and kill,
imprison or banish the Prince he came to relieve. Allyance
by Blood or Marriage, is a sufficient Cause of War between
Princes: and the nearer the Kindred is, the greater is their
Disposition to quarrel: Poor Nations are hungry, and rich
Nations are proud; and Pride and Hunger will ever be at
Variance. For these Reasons, the Trade of a Soldier is held the
most honourable of all others: Because a Soldier is a Yahoo
hired to kill in cold Blood as many of his own Species, who
have never offended him, as possibly he can. (p. 200)
Man is insignificant when the world is turned upside down.
Catch-22 and Gulliver's Travels have similar conclusions:
Yossarian flees to Sweden and Gulliver withdraws from the human race.
Both make their escape by sea, Yossarian in a rubber boat and Gulliver
in a canoe made of Yahoo skins.
The main difference is the author's
attitude toward the actions of the protagonist.
approve of Yossarian's decision.
Heller seems to
Swift, on the other hand, makes
Gulliver appear ridiculous in his extreme misanthropy.
Although this
particular interpretation of the fourth book is open to debate, it seems
to be the most logical one to accept.
John F. Ross reminds us that
46
Swift not only wrote the first nine chapters of Voyage IV;
he also wrote the last three. . . . The horses and Gulliver
have it all their own way for the first nine chapters of the
last voyage. Yahoo-man has been presented in all his horror;
Swift has achieved the most blasting and unrelieved satiric
attack possible, and at great length. . . . At this point
of the satiric attack many readers have ceased really to
read the book, and have concluded that this was Swift's final
word because it is Gulliver's final word. Swept away by
the force of the corrosive attack on Yahoo-man, they conclude
that Gulliver is at last Swift. . . . In the last three
chapters, however. Swift shows that Gulliver's word cannot
be final.^^
Larry S. Champion calls attention to the figure of Pedro de Mendez and
concludes that "Gulliver's inability to respond to such human kindness
.defines the extent of his misanthropy and clearly indicates that
Swift's final evaluation of human nature is not that of Lemuel
Gulliver."^2
so although the actions of Yossarian and Gulliver are
similar, the attitudes of Heller and Swift are different.
Swift, after
all, is more complex than Heller and is able to satirize his own
position as satirist.
Heller lacks this kind of depth.
The point of both works, however, is the same. Both Heller and
Swift denounce society and picture the world as chaotic.
In addition,
"numerous satiric thrusts serve as the occasion, perhaps the
justification, for a comprehensive aim:
the general probing of the
very values upon which satire depends. Reality itself is questioned,"
and one is forced to acknowledge "the unreality of the believable and
the truth in the incredible."^-^
Finally, this disorder becomes comic in its absurdity through
the use of black humor.
As David Galloway observes, "Heller
persistantly juxtaposes terror and laughter. "•'•^ Similarly, Swift sees
horror in the world, but copes with it through laughter.
According to
47
Roger Asselineau,
En depit de ses sursauts de revolte, il en souligne I'absurdite
plus qu'il ne s'en indigne. Au moins en apparence, 11 se
resigne et cela grace au baume que 1'humour verse sur ses
plaies. . . . II nous fait rire et nous amuse et s'amuse
luimeme, mais 11 est en meme temps tres serieux et plein tout
au fond de lui-meme d'une "farouche indignation" et tres
desespere puisque son sujet, qui n'est rien d'autre tout au
long que la condition humaine, est infiniment tragique.''^^
(In spite of his feelings of revolt, he underlines the
absurdity of it more than he is indignant of it. At least
in appearance, he resigns himself to the balm that humor
pours over his wounds. , , , He makes us laugh and amuses us
and amuses himself, but he is at the same time very serious
and full of a "fierce indignation," very despondent since his
subject, all along nothing else than the human condition, is
infinitely tragic.)
Swift is, in Asselineau's words, "un humoriste noir" -- a black humorist.
So is Heller,
11
I':
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
This paper has been an attempt to demonstrate a relationship
between,certain eighteenth century satirists and certain twentieth
century satiric comic anarchists.
emerged.
Several points should by now have
First is that laughter is used as a salve.
Sterne and De
Vries use laughter as a means of coping with the tragedy and chaos
that is reality; Voltaire and Vonnegut use ridicule and laughter to
make an absurd reality bearable; and Swift and Heller denounce chaotic
society with laughter.
Second, in all six works there is a juxtaposition
of comedy and tragedy, which indicates a use of black humor as a
technique.
Finally, all six authors share a similar view of the world:
it is chaotic, absurd and capricious. No absolute truths emerge,
except perhaps the concept that it is futile to attempt to explain life.
As we have seen, this particular outlook is characteristically a prerequisite for black humor.
There are differences between these authors, to be sure.
Sterne
and De Vries tend to be relatively benign with their use of satire and
black humor; they share a rather benevolent view of man immersed in
his foibles and tragedies. Voltaire and Vonnegut seem to be a bit more
detached.
There is cruelty in their work, as well as a certain sympathy,
but man is viewed neither malevolently nor benevolently.
Swift and
48
(
i
49
Heller tend to be vitriolic and although they sympathize with man, the
thrust of each writer's attack is unflinching in its refusal to
spare erring man.
As a result, they are harsh in their honest
appraisals of what they see in man and his society.
however, are individual.
These differences,
They result from similar views which are
filtered through separate intelligences and then presented through the
use of similar techniques. Any classification of literature can do no
more than approximate, for classifying cannot be absolute and rigid.
It still', however, can serve a useful organizational function.
The purpose of this paper has been to demonstrate similarities in
style, technique and viewpoint, as well as to show that art is never
static.
It moves in cycles and repeats itself in variations when
societal conditions are conducive.
If one is able to gain an under-
standing of the evolution of particular methods in writing, one learns
perspective and can perhaps discover greater meaning in a literary
work.
It is not so much that the human condition changes, but rather
that man's perception of it changes.
Occasionally, as in the authors
herein discussed, a particular perception recurs and we find that the
visions of authors two hundred years apart suddenly coincide. For the
moment, at least, black humor seems to be the most applicable method
of dealing with the predicament of man, just as it was in the eighteenth
century for Sterne, Voltaire, and Swift,
FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER ONE
Michael R, French, "The American Novel in the Sixties," The
Midwest Quarterly, 9 (1968), p, 367.
2Hamlin Hill, "Black Humor:
Quarterly, 17 (1968), p, 58.
Its Cause and Cure," Colorado
-'Scott Byrd, "A Separate War: Camp and Black Humor in Recent
American Fiction," The DSF Language Quarterly, 7, No. 1-2 (1968), p. 10.
^Quoted in College English, 25 (1963), p, 176.
5see Scott Byrd, pp. 7-10; Robert Scholes, "'Mithridates, he
died old': Black Humor and Kurt Vonnegut, Jr,," The Hollins Critic,
3, No. 4 (1966), pp. 1-12; Edwin T, Bowden, "Peter De Vries -- The First
Thirty Years: A Bibliography, 1934-1964," Texas Studies in Literature
and Language, 6 (1965), p, 543; and Marjorie Ryan, "Four Contemporary
Satires and the Problem of Norms,'^ Satire Newsletter, 6, No, 2 (1969),
pp, 40-46,
William D, Sherman, "The Contemporary American Novel:
Comic Anarchy," Diss, SUNY Buffalo 1968, pp, 27-28.
Beyond
''Marie-Louise Coudert, "Les trois rires: Rabelais, Swift,
Voltaire," Swift avant, pendant, apres Gulliver," in Europe, 463
(1967), p. 98.
"Melvyn New, "Sterne and Swift: Sermons and Satire,"" Modern
Language Quarterly, 30 (1969), p. 199.
^New, p. 206.
CHAPTER TWO
•"•Quoted in Edwin T. Bowden, "Peter De Vries — The First Thirty
Years: A Bibliography, 1934-1964,"" Texas Studies in Literature and
Language> 6 (1965), p. 543.
50
51
2
Ian Watt, in an introduction to Laurence Sterne, Tristram
Shandy (Boston, 1965), pp. xxii-xxiii.
Laurence Sterne, Tristram Shandy, ed. Ian Watt (Boston, 1965),
p, 159. All subsequent references will be taken from this edition, and
will be indicated by page numbers within the text of the paper.
^Peter De Vries, The Vale of Laughter (Boston, 1967), p. 19.
All subsequent references will be taken from this edition, and will be
indicated by page numbers within the text of the paper,
^Sterne, pp, 215-216.
^J, M. Stedmond, "Satire and Tristram Shandy," Studies in English
Literature, 1, No. 3 (1961), p. 59.
'Watt, p, xxi,
^Watt, p. XXX.
^A. R. Towers, "Sterne's Cock and Bull Story," Journal of English
Literary History, 24 (1957), p. 19.
^OEugeiie Hnatko, "Tristram Shandy's Wit," Journal of English and
Germanic Philology, 65 (1966), p. 64.
^^Sterne, p. 244.
•"•^Towers, p, 17.
l^sterne, pp. 138-139.
l^De Vries, pp. 112-113.
l^sterne, pp. 44-48.
^^Sterne, pp. 129-133,
^^De Vries, pp. 9-15.
ISpe Vries, pp. 39-55,
l^De Vries, pp, 256-257.
20Ben Reid, "The Sad Hilarity of Sterne," Virginia Quarterly
Review, 32 (1956), p. 111.
I
I
52
^^Ben Reid, p. 129.
22sterne, pp. 416-417.
2 3 B . L . Reid, "Sterne and the Absurd Homunculus," Virginia
Quarterly Review. 43 (1967), p. 75.
CHAPTER THREE
Robert Scholes, "'Mithridates, he died old': Black Himior and
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.," The Hollins Critic. 3, No. 4 (1966), p. 12.
"^Scholes, p. 9.
^Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Cat's Cradle (New York, 1963), p. 199. All
subsequent references will be taken from this edition, and will be
indicated by page numbers within the text of the paper.
Voltaire, Candide, trans. John Butt (Baltimore, 1965), p. 30.
All 3Ubsequent references will be taken from this edition, and will be
indicated by page numbers within the text of the paper.
^Scholes, p. 4.
% a x F, Schulz, "The Unconfirmed Thesis: Kurt Vonnegut, Black
Humor, and Contemporary Art," Critique: Studies in Modern Fiction,
12 (1970), p. 20.
^Voltaire on philosophes, quoted in William Bottiglia, "Candida's
Garden." Voltaire, ed. William Bottiglia (Englewood Cliffs, 1968),
p, 89.
^Bottiglia, p. 101.
^Norman L. Torrey, "Duplicity and Protective Lying," Voltaire,
ed, William Bottiglia (Englewood Cliffs, 1968), p. 18.
lOBottlglla, p. 108,
llWilliam Bottiglia, Introduction to Voltaire, ed. William
Bottiglia (Englewood Cliffs, 1968), p. 8,
12Raymond Naves, "Voltaire's Wisdom," Voltaire, ed. William
Bottiglia (Englewood Cliffs, 1968), p. 154,
13jjaves, pp, 160, 163.
53
^^Stanley Schatt, "The World of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.," Critique;
Studies in Modern Fiction, 12 (1970), p. 57.
^^Quoted in Schulz, p, 24.
l^Scholes, p. 6.
^^Bottlglia, "Candide's Garden," p. 94.
^^Schatt, p. 61.
CHAPTER FOUR
^Quoted in Paul Levine, "The Intemperate Zone: The Climate of
Contemporary American Fiction," Massachusetts Review, 8 (1967), p. 519.
''Patrick Gerald Gleeson, "Gulliver's Travels as a Version of
Grotesque," Diss. University of Washington 1965, p. 120.
Gleeson, p. 106.
^Gleeson, p. 108.
^David Galloway, ""Clown and Saint: The Hero in Current American
Fiction,'^ Critique: Studies in Modern Fiction, 7, No. 3 (1965), p. 51.
^Joseph Heller, Catch-22 (New York, 1970), pp. 46-47. All subsequent references will be taken from this edition, and will be
indicated by page numbers within the text of the paper.
^Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels and Other Writings, ed.
Ricardo Quintana (New York, 1958), p. 103. All subsequent references
will be taken from this edition, and will be indicated by page numbers
within the text of the paper.
^George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," in A
Collection of Essays. (New York, 1954), pp. 162-172,
90rwell, p. 177.
lOSamuel H, Monk, "The Pride of Lemuel Gulliver," Sewanee Review.
63 (1955), p. 63.
^Ijohn F. Ross, "The Final Comedy of Lemuel Gulliver," Swift; A
Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Ernest Tuveson (Englewood Cliffs,
1964) , pp, 82, 84.
^^Larry S. Champion, "Gulliver's Voyages: The Framing Events as
a Guide to Interpretation," Texas Studies in Literature and Language.
10 (1969), p. 535.
y*-'".l^
54
13
•^Gleeson, p. 146.
^^Galloway, p. 51,
^^Roger Asselineau, "Satire et humour noir," Swift avant. pendant.
apres Gulliver, in Europe. 463 (1967), pp, 81-82.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Baker, Elliot.
Barth, John.
1967,
A Fine Madness. New York:
The End of the Road.
Garden City, New York:
,
Giles Goat-Boy. New York:
•
The Sot-Weed Factor.
Burgess, Anthony.
1972.
De Vries, Peter.
1967.
Hawkes, John.
New York:
The Naked Lunch.
Doubleday,
Fawcett Crest, 1966.
Grosset and Dunlap, 1966.
A Clockwork Orange. New York:
Burroughs, William.
Donleavy, J. P,
Fawcett Crest, 1966.
New York:
The Vale of Laughter*
Ballantine Books,
Grove Press, 1959.
Boston: Little, Brown and Co.,
The Ginger Man. New York: Berkley Medallion, 1965.
Second Skin. New York: New Directions, 1964.
Heller, Joseph.
Catch-22«
Southern, Terry,
Candy,
Sterne, Laurence,
Press, 1965.
New York: Dell, 1970,
New York: Dell, 1964.
Tristram Shandy.
Ed. Ian Watt.
Boston: Riverside
Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver's Travels and Other Writings. Ed. Ricardo
Quintana. New York: Modern Library College Editions, 1958.
Vonnegut, Kurt Jr.
Voltaire,
Candide.
Cat's Cradle. New York: Dell, 1963.
Trans, by John Butt, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965.
Secondary Sources
Asselineau, Roger, . "Satire et humour noir," Swift avant, pendant.
apres Gulliver in Europe, 463 (1967), pp. 77-82,
55
^JIWIIHLJ, I
56
Banks, Loy Otis. "Moral Perspective in Gulliver's Travels and
Candide: Broadsword and Rapier?" Forum (Houston), 4, No, 7
(1965), pp. 4-8.
Barksdale, Richard K. "Alienation and the Anti-Hero in Recent American
Fiction." College Language Association Journal, 10 (1966), pp. 1-10,
Bottiglia, William F. "The Eldorado Episode in Candide." PMLA, 73
(1959), pp. 339-347.
, ed. Voltaire.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968,
Bowden, Edwin T, "Peter De Vries - The First Thirty Years: A
Bibliography, 1934-1964," Texas Studies in Literature and Language.
6 (1965), pp. 543-570.
Brewer, Joseph E. "The Anti-Hero in Contemporary Literature." Iowa
English Yearbook, 12 (1967), pp. 55-60.
Bridgman, Richard, "Satire's Changing Target," College Composition
and Communication, No, 16 (1965), pp. 85-89.
Brown, Harcourt, "Science and the Human Comedy: Voltaire."^ Daedalus,
87, No. 1 (1959), pp. 25-34.
Byrd, Scott. "A Separate War; Camp and Black Humor in Recent American
Fiction." The USF Language Quarterly, 7, No, 1-2 (1968), pp. 7-10.
Champion, Larry S, "Gulliver's Voyages: The Framing Events as a
Guide to Interpretation." Texas Studies in Literature and Language.
10 (1969), pp. 529-36.
Coudert, Marie-Louise. "Les trois rires: Rabelais, Swift, Voltaire."
Swift avant, pendant, apres Gulliver in Europe, 463 (1967) ,
pp, 93-98.
French, Michael R. "The American Novel in the Sixties." Midwest
Quarterly, 9 (1968), pp. 365-79.
Galloway, David D. "Clown and Saint: The Hero in Current American
Fiction." Critique: Studies in Modern Fiction, 7, No. 3 (1965),
pp. 46-65,
Gleeson, Patrick Gerald, "Gulliver's Travels as a Version of Grotesque."
Diss, University of Washington, 1965.
Greiner, Don, "Strange Laughter: The Comedy of John Hawkes,"
Review, 56, No. 4 (1971), pp. 318-328.
Southwest
Groke, Edwin P. "Discontinuous Aspect in Voltaire's Candide." Modern
Language Notes. 82 (1967), pp. 334-46.
57
Hall, Joan Joffe. "The Hobbyhorsical World of Tristram Shandy."
Modern Language Quarterly, 24 (1963), pp. 131-143.
Hasson, Ihab. "The Dismemberment of Orpheus." Learners and Discerners.
Ed. Robert Scholes. Charlottesville: University Press of
Virginia, 1964, pp. 137-165.
Hill, Hamlin. "Black Humor: Its Cause and Cure." Colorado Quarterly,
17 (1968), pp. 57-64.
_. "Modern American Humor." College English. 25 (1963),
pp. 170-176.
Hnatko, Eugene. "Tristram Shandy's Wit." Journal of English and
Germanic Philology, 65 (1966), pp. 47-64.
Huish, Lois R. Review of The Vale of Laughter by Peter De Vries.
Library Journal, 92 (Oct, 1, 1967), p. 3443.
Jellema, Roderick. Peter De Vries: A Critical Essay. Contemporary
Writers in Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Eerdmans, 1966),
Johnson, Maurice. "Remote Regions of Man's Mind: The Travels of
Gulliver." University of Kansas City Review, 27 (1961), pp, 299-303
Keehan, Anne, Review of The Vale of Laughter by Peter De Vries, Best
Sellers 27 (Dec 1, 1967), p, 303,
Kern, Jean B, "American Satire, the Elusive Muse,'^ Western Humanities
Review, 14 (1960), pp. 201-208,.
Klinkowitz, Jerome. "Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. and the Crime of his Times."
Critique: Studies in Modern Fiction, 12 (1970), pp. 38-52.
Levin, Martin. "Do Human Beings Matter?" New York Times Book Review
(April 25, 1965), p. 41.
Levine, Paul. "The Intemperate Zone: The Climate of Contemporary
American Fiction." Massachusetts Review, 8 (1967), pp. 505-23.
McDonald, James L. "I See Everything Twice: The Structure of Joseph
Heller's Catch-22." University Review. 34 (1968), pp. 175-80.
Monk, Samuel H. "The Pride of Lemuel Gulliver."
63 (1955), pp. 48-70.
Sewanee Review.
Navasky, Victor S. ""The Forest and De Vries." New York Times Book
Review (Oct 15, 1967), p, 4.
58
New, Melvyn. "Sterne and Swift: Sermons and Satire." Modern Language
Quarterly, 30 (1969), pp. 198-211.
. "Tristram Shandy as a Prose Satire."
27 (1967), 3432A-33A (Vanderbilt).
Dissertation Abstracts.
Orwell, George. "Politics and the English Language." A Collection of
Essays. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1954, pp. 162-177.
Owens, Robert Reiley. "Jonathan Swift's Hostility to Science."
Dissertation Abstracts, 16 (1956), 115-116 (Minnesota).
Piper, William Bowman. "Tristram Shandy's Digressive Artistry." Studies
in English Literature, 1, No. 3 (1961), pp. 65-76.
Reid, Ben. "The Sad Hilarity of Sterne." Virginia Quarterly Review.
32 (1956), pp. 107-130.
Reid, B. L, "Sterne and the Absurd Homunculus." Virginia Quarterly
Review, 43 (1967), pp. 71-95.
Ryan, Marjorie. "Four Contemporary Satires and the Problem of Norms."
Satire Newsletter. 6, No. 2 (1969), pp. 40-46.
Schatt, Stanley. '^The Whale and the Cross: Vonnegut's Jonah and
Christ Figures." Southwest Review, 56, No. 1 (1971), pp. 29-42.
_. "The World of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr,'^ Critique: Studies in Modern
Fiction, 12 (1970), pp. 54-68.
Scholes, Robert. '"Mithridates, he died old: ' Black Humor and Kurt
Vonnegut, Jr," The Hollins Critic. 3, No. 4 (1966), pp. 1-12.
Schulz, Max F. "The Unconfirmed Thesis: Kurt Vonnegut, Black Humor,
and Contemporary Art,"^ Critique; Studies in Modern Fiction, 12
(1970), pp. 5-27.
Sherman, William D. "The Contemporary American Novel: Beyond Comic
Anarchy." Diss. SUNY Buffalo, 1968.
Stedmond, J, M, "Satire and Tristram Shandy." Studies in English
Literature, 1, No. 3 (1961), pp. 53-63.
Tallman Warren. "Swift's Fool: A Comment Upon Satire in Gulliver's
Travels." Dalhousie Review, 40 (1961), pp. 470-478.
Tanner, Tony. "The Hoax that Joke Bilked,"
(1967), pp, 102-109.
Partisan Review, 34
59
Thomas, W, K. "'What Difference Does it Make:' Logic in Catch-22,"
Dalhousie Review. 50 (1970), pp, 488-495,
Thorpe, Peter. "Thinking in Octagons: Further Reflections on Norms
in Satire." Satire Newsletter, 7, No, 2 (1970), pp, 91-99.
Towers, A, R. "Sterne's Cock and Bull Story." Journal of English
Literary History. 24 (1957), pp, 12-29.
Tuveson, Ernest, ed. Swift; A Collection of Critical Essays.
Englewood Cliffs: PrentTce-Hall, Inc., 1964.
r.