Catch-22
discussion
I can't get past the first two chapters - is it worth pushing through?!
message 51:
by
Penny
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Jan 06, 2013 03:47AM
I read this book last year as I thought I had better at least try to read one of those "Iconic" books we hear about! And I have to say I found it quite hard going, like a farce in many ways, but it really did bring home to me the futility of war, and no matter how hard you try you will never win because you always have to answer to someone else!
reply
|
flag
Yes Rebecca, perservere with this novel, you will enjoy it immensely. I almost gave up on 22 in the first chapter, i though t it was a confused attempt at smart alecky writing but I'm glad I continued on. This book just keeps giving and giving in terms of its razor sharp satire on the futility of war, it's economic imperative and the destructive effect it has on its participants. On top of that it is funny as hell, especially the way it lampoons military hierarchy and the psychology of military planning. Not bad considering the subject matter.
Rebecca wrote: "I'm an avid reader, and not shy of trickier reads, but I just cannot seem to get past the first two chapters of this book. I've tried twice now, and each time I'm left feeling either bored, confuse..."Yes yes yes! It's a fantastic book. You just have to put your conception that a book has a beginning, middle and end to one side and enjoy the ride.
YES DEFINITELY! I found it hard to get through the sequel to catch 22 but it is a fantastic book
Totally worth it. This one one of my first "real" reads... it takes a while to get through the first section, and even once you do things get a bit jumbled, but in the end its well worth it.
Catch-22 is very different from any book out there, Rebecca. You see, as long as you're reading it you're allowed to stop and put it down; but when you put it down you're required to start reading it again. Okay, what I said above doesn't make sense now, but keep reading the book and it will all one day make sense.
Yup, agree with all the people encouraging you to keep trying. I first read it when I was 18, I think (so a long time ago...), and distinctly remember struggling with it. The narrative style is exactly the opposite of a nice, linear style. It refers to characters and events that haven't been introduced or explained yet, and then it repeats things incessantly. So for a good long while it feels like nothing is ever going to happen.
BUT: there is a very good reason for this mad style, and hopefully you will appreciate it by the time you reach the end.
I'm not sure at what point in the book I started to really get into it - I suspect it was over half way. What I do remember is that it was on the second reading that I *really* started to love it. And I also remember that I started the re-read almost immediately. Not many books that I would do that for now! Enjoy.
(However, whilst we're here... Has anyone read and enjoyed his next book "Something Happened"? Now there is a book I HATED. Does anyone like it? Anyone at all?)
I read Something Happened simply because it was written by Heller, and although I didn't hate it I felt it was vastly inferior to Catch-22. I have no desire to ever read it again, whereas Catch-22 is a novel I want to return to again and again.
I won't pussyfoot around, or beat-around-the-bush as other respondents have done in this thread. I'll state it as bluntly as I can: if you can't hack this novel, you're a loser. Give up. Stick with Stephanie Meyers. Turn in your library card and stick to watching Youtube videos. Landmark books which define contemporary consciousness are just not your cup of tea.
i also found it difficult at the start but have read it many many times now and it is one of my favourites. i love it to bits. it could help to watch the film a few times and then try the book again. i think the film and book work well in conjunction with each other, unusually.
Penny wrote: "I guess it's all been said before Catch 22 being such an iconic book. But it was the first time I had read it and like everyone else that has reviewed it, I found it very funny, but also quite of s..."i couldn't have said it better myself!
Norman wrote: "Nately's whore, I believe it was. Context is everything.
Remember these are young American soldiers on a Mediterranean island just off the coast of Italy during the mid 1940's. If that is the ..."
Okay. I think you have blown my sole criticism, which wasn't even really a criticism, way out of context. I also said that this was one of my favorite three novels of all time, and I am a literature teacher. Yes, there was irony involved. I got that the first time. But for some who grow up with extremely conservative ideas about language (which I no longer have, but did when I first read the book), it comes from nowhere and causes offense, even though, within a literary context, none was meant.
The original question we were addressing was whether a reader who describes herself as "avid" should push past chapter 2 even though she isn't having fun yet, and I suggested that she should keep going.
Questions?
Glenn wrote: "Yadvendra wrote: "The story connects better with people with a military background."Some elements of it, perhaps, but you don't have to be in the army to get Heller's message that war is futile.
..."
This is one of the most powerful anti-war novels of all time. How could it ring better with someone from a military family?
At the time I first read it, I knew very little about WWII beyond the stories my father and his friends told when they were drunk (and my dad never left the USA; he was young enough that the war ended before he was done training his men).
I later became a history major and received my undergrad degree in that field, but I loved Catch-22 WAY before that! I may read it again, having gained a lot of background knowledge that I didn't have before I read it. But the so-what of the book doesn't require any military knowledge at all.
Feliks wrote: "I won't pussyfoot around, or beat-around-the-bush as other respondents have done in this thread. I'll state it as bluntly as I can: if you can't hack this novel, you're a loser. Give up. Stick with..."I find your response to be misguided and unjust. I can't fathom how you feel it is acceptable to call me a 'loser' because I don't like Catch-22 at first (okay, and second!) read, and assert that I should 'stick to Meyer'. For your information, I've never read 'Meyer', or seen Twilight (I had to Google her to find out what you were talking about) and am astounded that you feel the need to label me, based on my failed attempts to read Catch-22. Well if the dictionary definition of 'loser' entails not liking the supposed literary triumph that is Catch-22 then you're obviously right.
Personally I think it's far more worthwhile to encourage people in life than belittle them with callous jibes and your suggestion that I should 'stick to watching youtube videos' (thanks for that intelligent advice on what I should be doing with my life - what an incredible nugget of wisdom to behold).
I see your enthusiatic reading of 'landmark books which define contemporary consciousness' have really helped you with your social skills and ability to empathise. (that was sarcasm, just in case you misunderstood me - I know I'm clearly lacking in brain cells in your estimation).
Right, off I go to enjoy some chick-lit and watch youtube.
Pfft.
Thank you to everyone who has been actually interested in persuading me to try again - I think I've been unfair on Heller, and not given him fair trial. I will dig in again, but not quite yet. For now I'm enjoying a bit of Life of Pi and one of Osteen's (yes I know, two at once is not advisable!).
This is one of my favorite books. I noticed a classmate carrying it around in high school and decided to give it a try. I didn't think that I would like it since it was a war story. Once I started reading it I loved it. I do like satirical, funny books. I think it is definitely worth reading.
it takes sometime to get adjusted to Heller's total satirical style of writing. But once you adapt yourself you truly enjoy this read. Even I had some troubles understanding what the hell is going on in the mind of the author. Just read it patiently and in a fun mood. Take your time reading this novel don't hurry in on the story, if you don't feel like reading, stop, read sometime later. This book is meant to be enjoyed fully. While you read this never forget what you have already read, dialogue pieces I mean. Heller often mentions earlier pieces.
Stick on the book, you'll cry, have anger and smile, big smile.Best book ever, in the 25 All Time List.
Trust me
^^^boy, I was pissed off at something or somebody that evening. Apologies for my vehemence
I read it when I was 15 and loved it - that was in the mid 1970s. In my memory it's brilliant. I should probably re-read it sometime. In any event, and in answer to the original question, you should definitely stick with it. Two chapters is nothing. If it's still not happening for you after 100 pages then perhaps put it to one side. Life's too short to read entire books that you don't enjoy or find interesting.
Catch-22 will either be your favourite book of all time or you will hate it with a passion. Nothing in between. It generates incredibly polarised opinions. I love it, my favourite book. Only one to make me laugh out loud and also incredibly moving and sad. Please give it a go or you'll regret it.
The reason I get frustrated with people who are ready to give up on this book is that indeed, it is so thoroughly singular. I mean there's really only one like it. Like, if you're reading Vonnegut and a particular title of Vonnegut's doesn't grab you; you can choose another one. Not so with Catch-22. Its unparalleled.Maybe I said this earlier--if so, sorry, but it deserves saying again: if you're going to give up on this supreme expression of Americanism--this magnum opus--what book would you choose to 'stick with'? What soft, easy read would you switch to, in its place? It's one of the top five books ever written about this country and its way of life. Marginalize it, set it aside, in favor of what? What else can stand in for it? If there's one book you gotta see through; it should be this.
It helps if you have a Military background. This makes for a better understanding of what is going on.
Short answer is Yes. Long answer is Ye-e-e-e-s! Though the fact that I loved it is probably clouding my judgement. The miltary background isn't vital - I've got none - though it could be useful, I admit.
Feliks wrote: "^^^boy, I was pissed off at something or somebody that evening. Apologies for my vehemence"Apology accepted...and I hope you've simmered down now - I don't fancy another round!
Funny and dark.If you've ever felt that you were keeping your head while everyone around you was losing theirs, to paraphrase Kipling, this is the book for you.
Many years ago I went to watch Monty Python's "Holy Grail" with my sister and her husband. As early in the movie as the opening credits, my brother-in-law and I were chuckling or even laughing out loud; my sister, meanwhile, not only never laughed once but fell asleep during the movie. My point is this: if Catch-22 doesn't amuse you or catch your interest from the first few pages, put it down (or fall asleep if you like) and don't bother picking it up again. Different strokes for different folks.
I like it a lot. I compare it to the old comedy movies where all the characters are talking a mile a minute and the situation gets more and more ridiculous. Or Monty Python...
Feliks wrote: "Maybe I said this earlier--if so, sorry, but it deserves saying again: if you're going to give up on this supreme expression of Americanism--this magnum opus--what book would you choose to 'stick with'? What soft, easy read would you switch to, in its place? It's one of the top five books ever written about this country and its way of life. Marginalize it, set it aside, in favor of what? What else can stand in for it? If there's one book you gotta see through; it should be this."A 'supreme expression of Americanism' doesn't really mean much to anyone who isn't an American. Also, it's not like the only choice in reading matter is Catch-22 or trash. There are thousands of good books out there. A person may not like a particular writing style, but that doesn't mean they don't appreciate good literature.
There are thousands of good books out there.Disagree. There are very few 'essential' or 'pioneering' books in comparison to thousands of well-written but ultimately pointless, conventional titles. Lots of books describe what it is like to 'live in America' --America as the backdrop to some domestic tale--but few novels entertain by taking up the topic of our society, nation, and culture in itself, as subject matter. America as a presence on the world stage--what is quintessentially American? Not a typical theme, safe to say.
doesn't really mean much to anyone who isn't an American.
Disagree. Since we've been the mightiest country in the world for a long time now--and brought both harm and good on just about every corner of the globe--changed the fortunes of just about every society--we even saved the entire damn world at one point--you'd have to live in an underground cavern system not to attach some meaning of your own when you hear a phrase like, 'supreme expression of Americanism'.
The question is not the quality of Catch-22, or an abstract concept like Americanism, but simply the idea that not all books/styles/authors appeal to all readers. It doesn't mean they are less rigorous or less thoughtful if they don't like a book that you do.
I would definitely encourage you to push thru and read the whole book. If you liked M*A*S*H* at all, this has a lot of the same flavor. Having said that, you might find it helpful to listen to an audio book version first. I know there are tons of free audio books online, and this is one that you could obtain for free.
That's my suggestion, anyway.
Honest writing in terms of characterization, military life and the horrors of war. Like Johnny Got His Gun by Dalton Trumbo, this should be mandatory reading for anyone considering military service.
Fred wrote: "The question is not the quality of Catch-22, or an abstract concept like Americanism, but simply the idea that not all books/styles/authors appeal to all readers. It doesn't mean they are less rigo..."I still disagree; and I'll state why (with no hard feelings, I hope).
Whether it appeals to them or not is similarly, not the issue. The crux is that people absorb--if they're capable-- a rather necessary and vital work of literature--if any literature can be considered (by them) vital for what it delivers, than this is that novel for our era.
Said another way: if you're at all a serious reader and not just reading vampire books--if you're a mature, informed, adult and read books to grow your intellect; then you don't 'give up' because Catch-22 isn't as 'easy' as you thought it would be.
'Rigor' can often mean, being diligent; comprehensive; being complete in what you do.
Anyone who claims that America or Americans "even saved the entire damn world at one point" is unlikely to have a more liberal or enlightened attitude to the literary tastes of others. A "mature, informed" reader relies on his or her own judgment when choosing what books to read or not read.
It would be rather ironic in a discussion about Catch-22 to state that a reader mature enough to know what he wants to read could only be considered mature if he acquiesced to what someone else tells him he must read!
Put another way: You have to be mature to know that you do not want to read Catch-22. The only way you can prove you are mature, however, is to read Catch-22.
You should continue to read this book!!... You may be confused but I think that is kind of the point. I had to mentally slow myself down while resading this because it was very easy to get caught up in the twisting dialogue and after two or three pages ask, "what did I just read?" and I would have to go and reread the pages. But this is a great book and I highly suggest that you read it cover to cover
Everyone wants to get in on the act, eh? Okay, I'll humor you.Norman wrote: "Anyone who claims that America or Americans "even saved the entire damn world at one point" is unlikely to have a more liberal or enlightened attitude to the literary tastes of others."
Rather clumsy inference-drawing. I'm pretty sure I can do better. Try this: "Anyone who can't comprehend that a human mind can look at a historical episode from several possible angles at once; is unlikely to be able to offer worthwhile input in a thread about 'Catch-22' ".
My attitudes are as liberal as they come; its rather irrelevant because what I drew Fred's attention to was the plausibility inherent in the principle itself; one which many people ascribe to and demonstrate freely on their own.
The alternative (posed by Fred) was--if one had to choose which of the two--to label 'unenlightened' --that would probably have been his honor; because his suggestion was for the individual to remain isolated to the narrowness of his own reflexes.
Isn't it better to at least hear others' suggestions before insisting that you 'refuse to stray from your tastes' no matter what? How would a person even be able to choose what to read unless they are receptive to suggestions from others as to what a book is about? Or why it might make them better? From there, let them choose. What you're suggesting is that we never recommend a book at all to anyone if it goes against their customary choices. Frankly ludicrous.
Norman wrote: "It would be rather ironic in a discussion about Catch-22 to state that a reader mature enough to know what he wants to read could only be considered mature.."
As a person's reading tastes mature, there are plenty of points along the way to make mistakes; or correct mistakes in one's impulses; hone one's tastes; develop one's palate.
Suggestions and tips that improve one's reading habits..are actually what the Goodreads site is in large part, designed for.
Lo and behold, even mature individuals usually welcome such tips; and don't bristle or style suggestions as 'commands'. You seem not to allow for this innocuous type of exchange.
Norman wrote: "if he acquiesced to what someone else tells him he must read!"
You're taking the light/facetious way I put the matter and made it an 'absolute'; mutually exclusive of all those stages along the way. Its really a continuum, not a Venn diagram, Norman. You can be 'mature' and still be 'open' to input from others. Especially when its a widespread bit of common sense which may have eluded a person, thus far. It happens.
According to you, though(?) it shouldn't even be broached lest it impinge on the person's existing habits. Great way to progress, that.
Norman wrote: "Put another way: You have to be mature to know that you do not want to read Catch-22. The only way you can prove you are mature, however, is to read Catch-22."
I suggest putting it in a way that actually clarifies the positions, rather than simply sounds cute. Here's one I can send back: "any thread about Catch-22 inevitably attracts people looking to coin more catch-22s; whether they fit or not..."
Further egregiousness: the way you're arranging the rest of your premises. You made elements dependent on each other which were not. Fred and I were talking abstractly, first of all. Thus, its not 'my personal consideration' (of anyone's intellect) which counts; or my 'telling someone what they should read' which should compel any readers to do anything.
Their own urge to be a certain kind of reader--if that's how they can come to perceive themselves--would (its safe to say) simply be in conformance with a lot of other readers who found that same route to the book. Quite a lot of people.
I pointed it out this obvious aspect, because it rings much sounder than the 'hey just follow your laziness' recommendation espoused above. Readers can of course, suit themselves as to whatever they want to do.
Norman wrote: "A "mature, informed" reader relies on his or her own judgment when choosing what books to read or not read."
No, a mature, enlightened reader first of all, doesn't stick his head in the sand. And then as a 'likely' possibility; yes they might want to read 'Catch-22' because that turn-of-mind is what the book is often about, content-wise.
1) When exactly did America "save[...} the entire damn world"?2) Why choose to ignore that there could be several 'mature' readers who tried reading Catch-22 (whether on someone else's advice or not is immaterial) and did not enjoy it or want to finish it? It was simply not their cup of tea.
This discussion is headed by the question: "I can't get past the first two chapters - is it worth pushing through?"
From several of us who love this book comes the answer, "Yes!" because for US it is worth it, but this may not necessarily be the case for others with vastly different ('different' does not mean 'inferior') tastes in literature. Why is this so hard for some people to understand...or accept?
I want to discourage you, Rebecca.Speaking of what America has done, I am not sure whether it saved the world, but the world that we live in right now is saved by America. Without America, we would be living in another world. Let's not act like we know which world is better.
Feliks wrote: "Disagree. Since we've been the mightiest country in the world for a long time now--and brought both harm and good on just about every corner of the globe--changed the fortunes of just about every society--we even saved the entire damn world at one point--you'd have to live in an underground cavern system not to attach some meaning of your own when you hear a phrase like, 'supreme expression of Americanism'. "Thanks for revealing that you're nothing more than a troll. That way, we don't have to waste our time trying to reply to you intelligently, or even bothering to read your narcisstic diatribes at all. Feel free to go back to saving the world, and leave the rest of us alone to discuss good books.
Norman wrote: "1) When exactly did America "save[...} the entire damn world"?When exactly? Surely you've heard of WWII and WWI. Even the harshest critic of America and American imperialism (I am probably the harshest of anyone in this thread) can not disagree that our material resources and manpower helped turned the tide in both those conflicts.
Whether we saved the world for the better (or simply furthered our access to international markets) is a separate aspect; nevertheless we influenced events to a profound degree by participating in both those conflicts. Esteem for the USA was nearly worldwide, shortly after WWII. This is nothing more than historical fact.
Norman wrote: 2) Why choose to ignore that there could be several 'mature' readers who tried reading Catch-22 (whether on someone else's advice or ..."
I'm not ignoring anything. The points you and Fred raised were simply not adequate rebuttals. You got your terms mixed up because perhaps you didn't like my distinction of readers of this book as 'mature'; I suppose.
So let me revise my earlier answer; which was admittedly long-winded (even for me). It was late and I was tired. The simple explanation is this:
1) Mature = "knowing one's own tastes"
2) Mature = "knowing one's tastes BUT not blindly sticking to them to the point where other suggestions are not even accepted
3) Mature = the maturity of the reading audience who wisely sought out and grew from the experience of reading Catch-22 and other books of that caliber.
What you did was confuse these three items.
Norman wrote:This discussion is headed by the question: "I can't get past the first two chapters - is it worth pushing through?"
I gave my advice to the OP; and provided a rationale for that advice. Fred and yourself quibbled with it; and believe me if you had a valid contradiction I would embrace it. Instead you pounced a little hastily in trying to 'Catch-22' me. There really wasn't any grounds for it.
Norman wrote:From several of us who love this book comes the answer, "Yes!" because for US it is worth it, but this may not necessarily be the case for others with vastly different"
So why should we not encourage the OP to press on with his attempt; as the gains from doing so are so rich? As opposed to not-even-finishing-the-book... what kind of course of action is that to recommend? What's even worse is saying, "that's okay, don't finish the book; if its not your style". Absolutely balmy. If he completes the book and then still doesn't like it, fine.
Norman wrote:('different' does not mean 'inferior') tastes in literature. Why is this so hard for some people to understand...or accept?"
But that's not even relevant. At issue --if anything-- is much more simple: flexible reading habits or inflexible reading habits. Not inferior taste or inferior intellect. You got totally tangled up by what you perceived as a slur. It wasn't. Can anyone conceivably be offended by someone suggesting they allow an atypical title to be added to their reading habits?
Mitali wrote: "Thanks for revealing that you're nothing more than a troll. That way, we don't have to waste our time trying to reply to you intelligently, or even bothering to read your narcisstic diatribes at all. Feel free to go back to saving the world, and leave the rest of us alone to discuss good books. ..."How is mentioning a historical fact--merely in passing, among a ton of other comments--'trolling'? Every time you hear something you disagree with, it must be 'someone trolling'? Thanks for revealing that you're nothing more than a cop-out. If you can't come up with anything valid to say; then yeah take the first easy exit out, the way you just did.
Stand up and show your own mettle somewhere on this site, if you want me to take your complaint seriously. I certainly don't take your intelligence (you seem to disagree with basic US history) much less, your powers of observation seriously so far. Fred and Norman *asked* me to explain and clarify my points above; my original comments to the OP were quite brief.
Whatever narcissism you mistakenly suspect in my tone; nothing's worse than not knowing America's role in two world wars. Has the internet rattled your brains that much?
"Saved the entire damn world" becomes "turned the tide" becomes "influenced events to a profound degree." Perhaps there was just a hint of hyperbole in your original statement?To assume that World War II involved the "entire world" is bad enough; suggesting World War I was a world-wide event is completely delusional.
And then the dictionary according to St. Feliks, who more and more seems to be a character Heller somehow left out of C-22...perhaps Captain Black's lackey?
Mitali wrote: "and leave the rest of us alone to discuss good books. ..."Whoop! Hey Norman...this Mitali character seems to be expressing a value-judgment here..he seems to be drawing a line between superior and inferior books.. go get 'im! :)
Norman wrote: ""Saved the entire damn world" becomes "turned the tide" becomes "influenced events to a profound degree." Perhaps there was just a hint of hyperbole in your original statement?..."I forced myself to come up with a still accurate, but slightly 'milder' phrase for you, specifically, since you now seem to want to pounce on any possible inflection in any of my statements, and somehow use that to hoist yourself up with. Apparently my temperance worked, because your ammunition (below) seems to be drying up.
Norman wrote: "To assume that World War II involved the "entire world" is bad enough; suggesting World War I was a world-wide event is completely delusional."
Now who's using hyperbole? Its pathetic, really. You can't find any more cogent element in what I said for you to successfully contradict me on, than this? Quibbling about what the phrase "the whole damn world" might precisely encompass? Don't even talk to me about delusional, kiddo.
Pray tell, what part of the world would you cite as having been *completely* untouched by the economic, military, political, technological, ethical, demographic, or social changes wrought by two world wars? Antarctica? Tristan da Cunha? The intersection of Front St & Wabash Ave in Winnipeg, Ontario? Nevermind, don't bother. You're not that good. My statements stand (that is, if you're through hair-splitting them).
Norman wrote: "And then the dictionary according to St. Feliks, who more and more seems to be a character Heller somehow left out of C-22...perhaps Captain Black's lackey?"
H'mmm. Maybe you're just not used to someone who --shockingly--backs up his statements. Suggestion: spend some more time away from the internet.
Not sure if you NEED another comment on here, BUT I've got some somewhat UNCONVENTIONAL ADVICE for you: Start with the movie! Whhhaaattt?!?!? Yes, the 1970 movie starting the brilliant Alan Arkin is a great starting point, I know because that's where I started. The movie is not as complex as the book and it arranges events more linearly, but it does capture the satiric tone and hectic pacing quite nicely. Plus, it gives you the opportunity to bond with the characters in a way the first two chapters of the book are not currently doing for you, which is important. Keep in mind, this is NOT advice I would normally give, but I love Catch-22, both the book and the movie as their own separate entities. And I've read the book 3 times if that's any indication as to whether you should push through or not!
Norman wrote: "Let me put it another way: concern for plot development is the process of a rational mind...."Pot/kettle/kettle/pot?
Winnipeg is in Manitoba. The breadth of your ignorance is astonishing at times.
There is a phenomenal audiobook version narrated by Trevor White who has just nailed every inflection and pattern. I would advise giving it a listen if you can't get into it or even if you are a fan already. http://www.audible.co.uk/pd/ref=sr_1_...
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Off the Grid: The Catalyst (other topics)
God Knows (other topics)
Something Happened (other topics)
Something Happened (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
The Stranger on the Train (other topics)Off the Grid: The Catalyst (other topics)
God Knows (other topics)
Something Happened (other topics)
Something Happened (other topics)
More...
