Some great points here.

@Keely - I like your comment about television scripts.

@Aaron - I agree. The character development is absolute genius.

Overall, I think some people have to relax and go with the flow when they read. A good book like this is a very complicated piece of art, and you can only view the work one small segment at a time. For Catch-22 especially, your most ultimate moment of sitting back and enjoying the work is when you're finished and you reflect on the novel as you apply the view to your own life.

Stay well all.

The chronology of the story is perfectly clear and straightforward, if you read it attentively. It jumps around in time a good deal, but a good reader will generally be able to keep their bearings, with a bit of thought.

Catch-22 isn't difficult to read because it is un-American or because the previous poster is an unaccomplished reader. I've read more than my fair share of the classics, the majority of which were just for fun. It's difficult to read because there is NO continuity. Each section of it's own is hilarious. The characterization is amazing, but Heller went to such lengths to prove his point of the absurdity of war by shuffling the time line that it's nearly impossible to follow what point in the story the action is taking place.

Well, if it's any consolation, its probably un-American to be reading a book for pleasure in this day and age, anyways. That isn't to say that the morning bus isn't filled with people who appear to be reading books, but if I may let my elitism show for a moment, I will assure you that they are nothing of the kind: they are television scripts with a cover jacket.

It's not shocking if a person doesn't find Catch-22 to be engaging or a pleasure to read. Like most of those oft lauded 'great classics' the thing can be hard to read without training. I'm glad for the two years of Latin I picked up in high school, because without them, Paradise Lost would not have been quite such an enjoyable read. That's not to say you aren't an accomplished reader, or to pass any judgment on such skills; we all have classics we cannot read.

Though on your latter point, it could be noted that Catch-22 is rather un-American, itself. It's anti-war, anti-populist, anti-politics, and anti-business. You can't get much more opposite of the American ideal than that. It's a book about the weak and helpless being cheated by the sorts of liars and crooks who invariably seem to end up in positions of authority.

I suppose it shows a rather sad state for the world, and perhaps should raise questions about the sanity of those like myself, who find it one of the most amusing, laugh-out-loud texts in the language.

Im sorry. I couldnt get past the first 40 pages. i just kept reading and rereading them, thinking i was missing something vital... The book was making absolutley no sense to me at all. The author jumped from character to character every 3 minutes, barely stayed on track.... he seemed to have so much to say and only a little time in which he alloted to say it, and just went off on 20 different tangents at the same time. I ended up with a headache and had to close the book.
And that is something i very very rarely ever do.

Somehow this makes me feel very unamerican.
:(

I agree with you 100%. I first read this book almost six years ago and reread it every year. It is hands down my favorite novel. I cannot even bring myself to write a review of it Good Reads because nothing I say could possibly articulate how brilliant Catch-22 really is.

NC

great quote by joseph heller:

"When I read something saying I've not done anything as good as Catch-22 I'm tempted to reply, 'Who has?'"

Well, I personally have trouble defining this as the funniest book ever written, I would say it is tied with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It seems to me that humor can be, in this case, divided into two varieties. The first variety, represented in Catch-22 is a type of humor that is based upon real absurdity and the nature of reality. It deals with the unfair, the misunderstood, the irrational, the tragic, and the non-sequitur.

It is a biting humor, one that forces us to consider the nature of the world, pain and all. Often, the only way to deal with such pain is to laugh. Hitchhiker's is another example of humor based upon difficulty, confusion and pain. So is George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Dave Chapelle, the aforementioned Kurt Vonnegut, The Marx Bros, South Park, or Fight Club. It is the acerbic tongue of Satire and it is definitely an honest and intellectual humor.

A lot of people don't like that kind of humor, because it unearths things that they are not comfortable with. They prefer the second class: the avoidant. This would be humor purely for humor's sake, and often takes the form of nonsense or, in the modern vernacular the 'random'. Penguins, Ninjas, Cheese, Pants. We all recognize the type. It is non-threatening and non-thought-provoking. Interestingly enough, though, all of these concepts are based upon the first, but in a much more abstracted and less recognizable way.

I used to carry a copy of Catch-22 with me all the time. I'd open to a random page and just have a good laugh. There may be a point where the truth of such humor could hit so close to the mark that I might not be amused, but I hope that doesn't happen. I have always thought that anything we can't laugh at, we have ceased to think about in an objective manner.

chirag has hit the nail directly on the head - this is officially THE funniest book ever written.

hey, where you all going? come back here and eat your liver...

Catch-22 is an amazing book. And though I love Vonnegut I thought Slaghter-house IV was too tied to its history, diminishing its capacity to deliver its pithy profundity being more tied to history than I've read in his work( an ironic statement I suppose when the main character is un-tuck in time). I see the beginings of Yossarian in Falstaff in Henry IV part one. (do I make any sense)

I think Yossarian is an intellectual in the true sense of the word or else why would he want to save his own skin when everything is so absurd?

The book is highly ironic and really funny but then that is the real face of the war. There is nothing noble or logical about it, and Yossarian is one of the few people in the book who actually recgnize the absurdity of the situation and want to get out. It is the best book I have ever read.

Good point. I tend to think of SH5 of being a sci-fi (sort of) so apply a different standard of absurdness. But I think irony is better concept to describe what I meant.

"Billy Pilgrim has come un-stuck in time..."
LESS of the absurd?
They're both great, they're both funny and tragic at the same time. I'm not sure SH5 is less absurd though...I would say moreso actually...but Catch-22 is certainly heavier on the irony.

I agree with Chirag that this is a very funny, laugh-out-loud book, while at the same time it deals with very serious issues about life, war, military etc. (I wonder if MASH writers were influenced by it?) The only book I've read that is somewhat similar in tone and sense of humor is The Confederacy of Dunces. I think Slaughter House Five is darker and has lesser of the absurd element.

Y'know existentialist ideas aside, and even ignoring the numerous conventions the book broke.. I'm surprised the one thing few people mention is how funny it is. I love reading, but rarely have I read a book, much less those touted as classics, that I have laughed out loud at.

It catches us unawares, as we laugh at tragedy and absurdity in a situation which in hindsight appalls us. I've read the Vonnegut's Slaughter-House Five (also amazing) but it just doesn't read nearly as well. This is book you can enjoy slowly over days, because it keeps building, as you see more and more.

I think its very rare that book makes you feel the same breadth of emotions with such potency.

I didn't like this book. I understand why it is so beloved, the ideas it brings out are important and interesting to discuss. But just reading it, I did not enjoy.

I agree with you. It is very rare that we see media representations of people who have a greater sense of self-preservation than of nobility, solidarity or honor, which is strange because really, most people can relate to the drive to protect themselves. This book just says it much louder than we usually do.

exestentialism.

On a personal level, I believe this is the perfect book. The characters are developed in such a way that we feel for each one of them. You almost want these men to be real.

For the time it came out this book broke all kinds of conventions. It still does. Instead of a supportive member of the greatest 'generation' Yossarian wants to be out of the war. He doesn't care who wins the war. He does care about anything by saving his own skin. About staying alive and maybe getting home.

This is radical for WWII. We have always been shown a certain brave and nobal soldier who is willing to lay down his life for something bigger than himself.

What do you think?