Constant Reader discussion
Classics Corner
>
Catch 22- The discussion
This is my first time reading it and I'm about 2/3 the way through. Ann, what you said about it being funny, angry, horrifying and disparing is absolutely true. I've been through all those feelings with the book's "heroes" as they steal, manipulate, and coddle while working through their severe inadequacies. I'll definitely remember it, but I don't know if I think it's one of the best books of the 20th century.
Gina, Sometimes I think books get on the best of the best lists because their style was very unique when they were released. The crazy dark satire of Catch-22 was something new in war novels.
Some parts of the book I liked better than others. I loved the absurdity of Chapter 9 "Major Major Major Major" and got a kick out of the send-up of the government farm support program (even more of a relevant issue today with the spread of corporate farms).
Do you think that this book appeals more to male readers than female?
What did you think of Milo Minderbinder?
MESSAGE FROM KAT:I'm not rereading but have been following the thread because I loved this novel so much years ago. But I think what we find funny is one of the most mysterious and least changeable aspects of our literary taste. (I think our sense of humor may change as we grow and age, but not in ways we can design.) If it's not funny to you, it's not. I simply howled reading Catch-22. (But thought the movie Borat was a one-joke horror.) I still tell other people about Yossarian's conversation with Dorrie Does regarding God. I wonder if I would find it as funny today? Hmm.
MESSAGE FROM ELIZABETH:I think it isn't funny in the way we normally take it, but full of sardonic, black humor, which is designed to not just show the chaos of war an its impact on the human psyche, but help the writer deal with his own surpessed issues. PTSD was unknown then, men came home and didn't talk about the war. This book was the first that really addresses the psychological impact of war and man's survival instinct.
Regarding the black sardonic humor. I'm "getting" it more this time around, maybe because of the life experiences of having a medically fragile special needs child, who is now 15, and having developed my own black humor that fits within the environment of support group of which I'm a part.
(Sorry for the iffy grammer/spelling. I'm participating from a tablet and hate typing on this thing)
Hi Ann and Gina,I also loved this book as a young woman, and have reread it several times. For me, it is one of the best of the 20th century. Somehow Heller managed to write a satire that has, at its core, the pain of war and senseless death. And though it's satire, I'm still engaged by the characters as if they were living and breathing. It's a pretty neat trick. I don;t know how he did it.
I hope more people join this discussion - I'd love to hear what others have to say, especially first time readers.
Kat,I loved the conversation Yossarian had with Scheisskopkf's wife. Both are avowed atheists, but of different stripes. Yossarian is bitter about the pain and suffering that God "creates" and allows to continue.
S's wife is appalled at the reckless way he is talking: "You'd better not talk that way about Him, honey...He might punish you"
Yossarian:..."I thought you didn't believe in God."
S's wife: " I don't," she sobbed bursting violently into tears. "But the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make Him out to be."
Yossarian: "Let's have a little more religious freedom between us...You don't believe in the God you want to, and I won't believe in the God I want to. Is that a deal?"
I think this part can only appeal to you if you have suffered from religious doubts and confusion.
Hello All - I'm a first time reader of this book and am only on page 32 - just started today - and so far I'm enjoying it. I laughed out loud at the description of Colonel Cargill's ineptitude. That sentence just flowed beautifully to me, "It made him proud to observe that twenty-nine months in the service had not blunted his genius for ineptitude." Love it!
Elizabeth and Jasmine,I think the ability to appreciate that kind of sardonic humor might increase with age, but some lose patience with the circular contradictions.
I also agree that Heller did an excellent job dealing with the psychological costs of war. It took me awhile, but I came to care deeply about many of the characters myself. Outside of Yossarian, my favorite was the chaplain - a decent man with all that religious confusion. And I absolutely HATED Colonel Cathcart and General Peckam.
In spite of the humor, the underlying messages are very serious.
Ann wrote: "S's wife: " I don't," she sobbed bursting violently into tears. "But the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make Him out to be."..."This made me laugh out loud. The sentence Kathryn quoted is funny too. I guess that is a good sign for me. :-) This seems to be one of those books people either love or hate. Unfortunately I can't fit it in at the moment in order to join in the discussion, but it is on my list for the near future!
I didn't reread it for this discussion, but I could relate a bit to Fran and Ruth's comments in the prediscussion thread. I liked the concept of the book far more than I enjoyed the process of actually reading it.
I find Catch-22 harder to read than I once did. The issues it addresses were fresh to me as a young man, just because I was young. Now years have gone by and things are not better but worse and I'm old and tired and disgusted and cynical and I no longer think any of this stuff is funny or even bearable. Yes, it is an important book of the second half of the last century if nothing else but the way it has become part of the culture, its presence taken for granted. Yes, I can read it for the way it's written, admiringly. But it reminds me of an idealistic time when we thought satire might change something, when we believed that the world was full of Yossarians with whom we might make common cause. I guess this shows the power of the book and the depth of its understanding.
Charles - I understand where you are coming from. I never saw this book that way. I see it more as delving into the psyche of issues of war, classes, prejudices, and the I'd verses ego. While a lot of the issues are still poignant today, there's a certain amount of value in looking at the history. Your reminder cynicism and losing our idealism can also be seen progression of characters in the book.
I see what you mean, Charles. There's more honesty today about the craziness of war, the mistakes and randomness and costs, both psychic and material. Yet it doesn't keep us from fighting. Instead of rallying around our soldiers without having any idea of what they're going through, as in WWII, most or at least many of us live our lives as though the world were at peace, but perhaps carry an underlying depression about the hopelessness of it all. Different varieties of denial. A more hopeful pov might be to see Catch-22 as a turning point on a path that we're still on--to believe that we're not at the end point yet, and that there will someday be more progress. I believe some institute that evaluates these things recently said that, comparatively, there is less war in the world than there has been for some time. But I can't quote the source, and given my memory, that should be taken with a grain of salt.
This was originally posted in Oct. of 2011, I believe.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10...
So it could be worse. Or maybe it is by now...
I'm only on page 150, but I just finished the section on the bombing of Bologna. For me, this is the best thing in the book so far, perhaps because it's written in a relatively straightforward manner. However, it also felt very, very real probably because Heller was a bombadier himself. I've appreciated the humor in the earlier part of the book, but I was getting tired of the introduction of all of the characters and kept getting them confused. Part of this may be because I've only had time to read in bed at night. Today, I sat down in the middle of the afternoon and devoted a couple of hours to it.Another thing that strikes me is that, in many ways, this could be the story of any big bureaucracy. The events would be different, of course, but individuals frequently get lost in any big organization. My bias is that, when that occurs, good things rarely happen.
Well, I'm rereading after all, though I don't know how far I'll get. Barbara, I see it the same way re bureaucracy, and not just confined to the military. Col. Cargill, the bad marketing executive, was sought out because businesses needed losses for tax purposes. It's as though Heller is saying, you think how things work in the world is meaningful, rational, fair? Everything's the opposite of what you would expect it to be. So Cargill's proud of not losing his ineptitude and Yossarian's proud of not building the officers' club and decisions get made by PFC Wintergreen in the mail room.
Barb and Kat,Good points that the book is about much larger issues than just the military - including bureaucracy in general and the frequent irrationality of life.
Kat, I am so glad you weakened :) and decided to reread at least part of the book.
At first I was confused by all the characters, too, Barb, but later I got to know them more as individuals. Certain stories are threaded throughout the narrative - the bombing run over Bolonga, the apparent mindless stupidity of Orr, and, especially, the death of Snowden. Finally, Heller gets to chapters that explain these incidents in detail and they make a big impact.
No spoilers, but the most shocking, emotional, straight and honest, and I believe central, is coming up. It's this in particular which validates what people are saying about this book being about more than war, more than bureaucracy and rapacious practices, more even than absurdity and rationality. More I will say not, except that what I was cynical and despairing about was not just war, but about all these things on which the book is so wise and I, it seems, am not.
We don't, in these discussions, talk about style or the technical matters which interest me as a writer. But I would point out the plainness of it, and that unlike such epigones of plain style like Hemingway, that none of Heller's significant points are made through style but are in the scenes and the plot. Aside from a certain archness that carries the satiric voice, there is very little which is "literary" here. Which is of course, literary. It's a perfect embodiment of the dictum "show, not tell".
Yes, on the whole I agree, though I notice as I reread that there are some literary allusions that I missed when I first read it (before I had read much else). For instance, Yossarian talks about "unspringing rhythm" as he censors letters in the hospital, and later has a throwaway reference to ignorant armies clashing by night.
Quite right, Kat. But notice that these remarks belong to Yossarian, and help to place (loosely, characterize) him. Another author would indulge himself by saying those things in his own voice about Yossarian. This sort of thing, which stands behind the subject matter, is I believe one of the reasons this is a strong book and has held up.
I'm listening to the audiobook. Bad decision. It's very easy to get lost in everything.
Charles, very interesting points about Heller's writing style. In some previous discussions, we've talked more about technique and I always appreciate it. Please continue to contribute those kinds of observations.I keep thinking that the circular quality of the narration must have been fairly innovative for that time period when this book was published too. By that, I mean the way in which he introduces an event and then keeps circling back to supply more and more information. I keep thinking that it must have been done before but can't think where.
Laurin wrote: "I'm listening to the audiobook. Bad decision. It's very easy to get lost in everything."Laurin, I love audiobooks, but agree that it would be a difficult way to experience this book.
Kat,Here's another literary allusion. This time, Heller borrows from Shakespeare's description of Shylock in THE MERCHANT OF VENICE. He is talking about the chaplain (Chapter 25, page 270 of the 50th Anniversary edition):
Why couldn't anybody understand that he was not really a freak but a normal, lonely adult trying to lead a normal, lonely adult life? If they pricked him, didn't he bleed? And if he was tickled, didn't he laugh? It seemed never to have occurred to them that he, just as they, had eyes, hands, organs, dimensions, senses and affections..."
I know I missed some of the references to historical events the first time through. Colonel Black's insane loyalty oath campaign is a reference to the anti-Communist Loyalty Oath campaign during the Truman administration, and the interrogation of the Chaplain in Chapter 36 is very reminiscent of the McCarthy hearings, and even more so of Stalin's show trials against his political enemies.
"That's a very serious crime you've committed, Father," said the major.
"What crime?"
"We don't know yet," said the colonel. "But we're going to find out. And we sure know it's very serious."...
He wished they would tell him what they wanted so that he would know what to confess.
Charles and Barb,I know little about literary style, but I think what was new about CATCH-22 was its combination of non-stop, cutting satire with a serious underlying story of fear and horror.
That circular, repetitive technique fits in with the theme of the absurdity of life. We can never really progress because of the constant use of Catch-22's by those in power, so we run around in circles.
These questions of how it was at the time are of course resolvable by going back to read the reviews. I haven't done this, but now I may. I don't myself remember. As to the idea of the Absurd, from Wikipedia "The Absurd refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible". This certainly applies to Catch-22. The idea goes back to Kierkegaard and his struggles with belief, but is associated with post-war (!) Existentialism, which had gone somewhat out of favor by the early 70s. Camus, a religious man, disagreed with the concept on some points -- all of which suggests that one ought to look into what Yossarian thinks about God. Distant and unhelpful? Intrusive and meddling? A source of solace? Not a source? -- Anyone?
Charles,I think you are right about the links between Catch-22 and existentialism. People who confronted their inevitable mortality, without the comfort of God and an afterlife, have trouble finding meaning in existence.
Yossarian says that he is an atheist. He is angry at the God that he doesn't believe in because of all the evil he allows in the world. (Just one of the many, many contradictions in the novel).
The crux of the story is that Yossarian has a very realistic fear of being shot down after he has done way more than his fair share of flights. But I think he has a deep fear of death in general.
Chapter 32 (page 345): At night when he was trying to sleep, Yossarian would call the roll of all the men, women and children he had ever know who were now dead. He tried to remember all the soldiers, and he resurrected images of all the elderly people he had known when a child--all the aunts, uncles, neighbors, parents and grandparents, his own and everyone else's, and all the pathetic, deluded shopkeepers who opened their small, dusty stores at dawn and worked in them foolishly until midnight. They were all dead, too. The number of dead people just seemed to increase. And the Germans were still fighting. Death was irreversible, he suspected and he began to think he was going to lose.
Here is a review from the New York Times commemorating the 25th anniversary of this novel. It cites early reviews to show that it wasn't universally appreciated (as is true today), although from the beginning it had some strong supporters. It was first published in 1961.http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/02/15...
The book really caught on with young people because it spoke to their anger at the military-industrial complex and their opposition to the Vietnam War. Joseph Heller wrote, "Vietnam was a lucky coincidence --lucky for me, not for the people. Between the mid and late Sixties, the paperback went from twelve printings to close to thirty."
(Catch 22 - 50th Anniversary Edition,p. 471
Thanks for bringing up absurdity, Ann and Charles, I think that's key. When I read Catch-22 originally it was my first exposure to the absurd, and I think it held a fascination from that alone, though of course Vietnam and the general anti-establishment sentiments of the times were also powerful factors. Heller clearly repudiates meanings assigned by institutions and society. Do people think he repudiates all meaning in life? I don't get that so far, but would want to be further along in my rereading to venture an opinion.
It could be the other way around from what Ann says about Yossarian being an atheist. I don't see a contradiction. He is an idealist who is angry about how the world works and he is angry at God for allowing it all, so he says all right for you, God, you're outa here. Isn't there a scene in a church? I can't find it. Is this a plausible reading of Yossarian?
Charles,I don't remember a scene in a church. I agree that anger at God could possibly lead to rejection and atheism.
Barb,You wrote "I keep thinking that the circular quality of the narration must have been fairly innovative for that time period when this book was published too."
I was at the library today returning overdue books, and I looked at CONTEMPORARY LITERARY CRITICISM. Clinton S. Burhans, is quoted from an article entitled "Spindrift and the Sea:Structural Patterns and Unifying Elements in Catch-22" from 1973.
First he mentionsthe more familiar "expository flashbacks made once for informational purposes or repeated for thematic effect. Then he goes on to describe "a different kind of flashback, one which I have not encountered elsewhere. The best way to describe them, I think, is to call them foreshadowing flashbacks..."
Up to this point I really like the idea of 'foreshadowing flashbacks' because it helps explain the repeated references to incidents that are only described in detail much later. But then he goes on to really confuse me. Here is a continuation of the quotation.
"a different kind of flashback, one which I have not encountered elsewhere. The best way to describe them, I think, is to call them foreshadowing flashbacks; that is, again whether simple reference or detailed episode, most of them after the first add links in a chain of information drawn out and completed at some length. Thereafter, references to these subjects become conventional flashbacks repeated for thematic effect."
Huh?? At times like this, I am glad I did not major in English. This reminds me of a quote about Clevinger in Catch-22: "He knew everything about literature except how to enjoy it." (Chapter 8, p. 69)
Does Heller repudiate all meaning in life? What a great question, Kat. I think not, but that depends on your interpretation of the ending.
Ann wrote:I was at the library today ret..."
I can't sort this out. Perhaps what he is saying is that the first foreshadowing establishes the event as one of those significant matters, the population of things which get repeated for thematic effect. Thematic effect meaning establishing the themes and maintaining them by repetition. Which is a lot of talk for 1) listen up, this is important, and 2) you remember I told you that...
Anyway, I think this solves the question of whether Heller's procedures were regarded as innovations. Apparently they were.
Kat wrote: "Heller clearly repudiates meanings assigned by institutions and society. Do people think he repudiates all meaning in life? I don't get that so far, but would want to be further along in my rereading to venture an opinion. "I get really cautious when someone is said to repudiate all meaning in life, because often what is meant is that what the speaker counts as meaning is repudiated. Also, it's necessary to distinguish "hard materialism" (we are just meat and wires) from a view that life could or does or ought to mean something or other but this is undiscoverable. (You're a child, your parents are talking, you assume they mean something by it, or you hope they do, but you don't know what it is -- you assume your will find out eventually. OR you despair of ever finding out, or perhaps come to think you can't, because you are denied such knowledge. Because you haven't eaten the apple, for example. So here's three kinds of nihilist: that there is no knowledge, that we are incapable of knowledge, that knowledge is forbidden or postponed. I think Yossarian belongs to the second group. He is too despairing to accept the third option and because he is despairing he can't belong to the first. [I myself regard 'nihilism' as a scare word, a bogey intended to keep people away from threatening ideas.]
I normally wait until I finish a book to read the discussion here. But, in this case, it is adding immeasurably to my appreciation of it. Literary allusions need to be extremely obvious for me to catch them because I get too caught up in the flow. Ann, your literary criticism excerpt is classic. When I get a sense of what an author is doing, but can't express it, I feel frustrated. But, I think I would prefer my own limited explanations to such obscure wordiness.
I just finished the chapter on Milo's food buying practices, buying eggs for 7 cents and selling them for 5, but somehow making a 2 cent profit for the "syndicate." I've been having a lot of ideas about what Heller is spoofing here, but what did you all think? Is this only about what happens in a big bureaucracy like the military and large corporations or is it more?
The loyalty oaths craziness was absolutely perfect and tied in perfectly with what I've read about and even experienced of communist paranoia.
And, thanks, Ann, for the NYTimes article. I've printed it out to read.
Heller's criticism's can hardly be limited to the army or the conditions of war or anything like that. They are comprehensive indictments. Milo Minderbinder is too complex to be a straightforward denunciation of anything. He's corrupt, rapacious, venal, selfish -- but what do we say to his cheerful belief in himself and the proposition that if everyone did as he does the world would be a better place? It's not that he thinks he's doing the right thing -- that notion of right is not in his vocabulary. But he does feel he is doing the right, the correct, the smart thing. I don't think we're ambivanelt about him, but we're forced to deal with a disjunct.
This is truly timeless, isn't it? I feel like I've known a number of Milos.
Yes, Milo seems like a caricature of capitalism itself. I haven't reached him yet in my rereading, but I remember him vividly--esp. the chocolate cotton balls. (It's interesting how much I remember from my first reading--generally I am pretty forgetful pretty fast.)Charles, can you explain why despair makes the "no knowledge" option impossible? I would think believing that there is no knowledge could cause despair.
Milo gets a lot more sinister as the novel progresses. He represents big business at its worst. He justifies all his shady dealings with the reminder that everyone owns shares in the syndicate, so everyone benefits. He takes the old adage that what's good for business is good for the country to its furthest extremes. After removing the carbon-dioxide cylinders that are used to inflate life jackets so that he can use them to make ice cream sodas, he leaves a note: "What's good for M&M Enterprises is good for the country." (Chapter 28, p. 307, 50th anniversary edition.)
Does any of this sound familiar?
Lauren,I like the names too. There is the very aptly named Lieutenant Scheisskopf, the parade fanatic. His name means "sh*t head" in English. I also loved Major Major Major. Since reading this, I have encountered a couple of people on TV whose first name is "Major." Fortunately, their last name is not.
Reading this reminds me of M*A*S*H*. I haven't figured out yet who ferret face is.
Laurin - I think MASH may have been loosely based on this book, with its haphazard, comical approach to war. but I'm not 100% sure...
Kat's question on despair. If one believes that nothing can be known then it is pointless to continue the search. Despair is the obverse of hope; if one is despairing then one hopes it may not be so. One can't be cynical, for example, unless one feels that something is being withheld, or that the world could be a better place if only. Lacking these convictions means to shrug and put oneself in the power of other forces: biology, history, the supernatural, etc. I think we can agree that Yossarian is not like that.
Thanks, Charles. Still makes no sense to me, but philosophy isn't my strong suit. I would have thought you could still despair simply because you would WANT there to be knowledge, even if there's not.
Hi Kat,But if you believe that in fact there is not, then to want what there is not is simply neurotic. Or perhaps you are fooling yourself out of a fear of despair by pretending you don't care. If in some way you hope there is then you believe there is -- is something to hope for. I don't think (check me) that in Catch-22 we get much information on Yossarian's thinking on this, except indirectly. He is not one to drop the protective screen and talk directly about his anguish. But he does want things, and knows why he can't get them, and those are clues. Underneath I take Yossarian to be a spiritual person.
Laurin and Jasmine,MASH was actually based on a book too, although I haven't read it: Mash: A Novel About Three Army Doctors by a surgeon writing under the name of Richard Hooker.
Constant Reader
Books mentioned in this topic
Beyond Black (other topics)Wolf Hall (other topics)
MASH: A Novel about Three Army Doctors (other topics)
Heller said that this book didn't really reflect his feelings as a bombardier during World War II, but it did show his feelings about the postwar period and the Cold War in the 1950's, when most people thought a 3rd World War was inevitable. It is not only anti-war, but in many ways anti-capitalism, anti-government and anti-religious. At times it can be maddely repetitious. It is a funny, angry, horrifying and in many ways dispairing book.
The more I read the more I appreciated it (and I'm not just saying it because I'm the discussion leader :)).
Some have placed this book among the best books of the 20th century.
What do you think?