Catch-22, by Joseph Heller

[sommerumarmung]

Hey guys, I am new to this forum. Anyway, Im am new to the book scene, as I am 17 and just starting to appreciate great literature. I live in Denver, Colorado, and I play drums and I'm a member of the Remo and Pearl drum forums.

Anyway, I just finished this book, and I am very interested on what the people on the board think of this book. Particularly the charecter 'Milo' - I think that, although a diffacult book, that it is generally about human greed and the pointlessness of life. Milo ties in directly with this, as he demonstrates this through selling eggs to himself to make a profit (weird), and buying parachutes off of soldiers to make money off of them.

What do you think?

[imthefoolonthehill]

I think that as soon as I am done with my huge report of 1984 and Brave New World (so far I have 8 pages... just starting :) ) ... I will have to re-read catch-22. I love the book, but have only read it once :(

[sommerumarmung]

I usually only read books once. Sure, you miss some things, but I would rather readt two books once than one book twice.

[imthefoolonthehill]

thats interesting... when I really like a book (1984, Brave New World, Dune, Tom Clancy) I usually read it twice... at least... It seems to me that any good book is worth reading twice :-)

by the way... happy birthday to Joseph Heller (May 1, 1923)

[sommerumarmung]

Is it really his birthday?

Didn't he die?

Anyway, Heller is an amazing writer. Most of the book Catch-22 is ludicrus, which is exactly the point. It is showing the pointlessness of life, and the pointlessness of human greed, and all humans are striving for is all for naught.

[imthefoolonthehill]

what was the name of the main character :-P

never mind... Yossarian:-) you can delete this if you want admin

[Robert E Lee]

never mind... Yossarian:-) you can delete this if you want admin


Catch 22 is one of the worst books I've ever had to read

[imthefoolonthehill]

ah... I am glad you said that. Now ALL the people who respect your opinion (0) will be sure to avoid the book.

[Admin]

Be nice

[imthefoolonthehill]

*tries to be nice*

[Munro]

Lol.
If you hate so many books with so much aggressive passion, why do you bother to read at all, Robert E Lee? Every second message I read from you you're abusing a novel or author violently. Who do you consider a good writer, and what are some good books in your opinion? I'd be interested to know.
In fact, how many of the books that you criticise have you read? How much do you read on the whole?

[imthefoolonthehill]

*wonders why no one answered munro's question*

[Robert E Lee]

Lol.
If you hate so many books with so much aggressive passion, why do you bother to read at all, Robert E Lee? Every second message I read from you you're abusing a novel or author violently. Who do you consider a good writer, and what are some good books in your opinion? I'd be interested to know.
In fact, how many of the books that you criticise have you read? How much do you read on the whole?

I read 1500 pages a month, more or less.

some good books I've read this year:
The Demons - Fyodor Dostoevsky
War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy (finished it last weekend)
Nostromo - Joseph Conrad
The Satanic Verses - Salman Rushdie
The Idiot - Fyodor Dostoevsky
Portnoy's Complaint - Philip Roth

I criticize every book I read at least to some extend, but I dislike about one in three.

[imthefoolonthehill]

*posting for the sake of posting*

Interesting.... I wonder what other people's ratio of liked/disliked books are.

[angel52pd]

This novel proved to be a difficult read for me. I found that I had to keep chugging through it, even though I didn’t always feel that I had a clear idea of what was going on. It would be an interesting experiment to read the novel in a non-sequential way, meaning, read chapter 10 first, then skip to chapter 27. It is my thought that the novel would end up with the same message and clarity for the reader using this new approach as compared to the logical reading of text in order.

I think that the brilliance of the novel, lies in the way Heller manipulates the novel to reflect the process of thought. He uses the past, present, and future, constantly weaving them in and out of each other. The thought process can often times be like this – as we will for one minute think of one subject, and the next minute another.

[gidget]

I agree with your idea that Milo is a character used to portray the idea of human greed and selfishness, but I also have another thought to go with that. What about the idea that the overall meaning in the novel is more about survival than greed. The characters in the story are just trying to survive everything going on around them, and inside themselves. In the end it is survival that wins out too, Orr escapes the horror of the war, therefore somewhat becoming the hero of the novel because he survives. So maybe it is not a sole focus on greed but more of a deeper idea of "survival of the fittest".

This is in response to the fact the Robert E. Lee seems to dislike quite a few books...like I said in my response to your feeling that "Their Eyes Were Watching God" was a terrible book ( which I don't agree with at all), you obviously don't enjoy or appreciate Postmodern literature becuase "Catch-22" ( just like "Their Eyes..." is also a work of Postmodernism...so once again I would recommend you stick to more traditional novels, then maybe you won't have so much to criticize.

[den]

Hey call me a cynic, but I'm more critical of writing than not, I like to pick things apart, it also helps me find more of what I do like in a book when I allow myself to dislike parts of it. I rarely pick up a book first and just start reading. I want to know something of the author, I want to know a lot about the book first before I even consider reading it. So, maybe I pass up books I'd otherwise give a chance because I make up my mind about it before getting into the second chapter. (Depending on how long the chapters are mind you :P)

[corpswife]

I wasn't very excited about this book when I first started reading it. It was twisty, hard to follow, and I wondered if it was going to lead anywhere. I am a big M*A*S*H fan and I happened to catch some of the re-runs while I was in the midst of this book. I started looking at every chapter as a different episode, just like M*A*S*H. Every chapter had one common thread (at least) and that was WWII. There was comedy and tragedy and ultimately survival. I think what I get from both, the book and the show, is that even the most noble and valiant causes can yield some insanity and confusion. I believe America's involvement is WWII was right but I think we sometimes get caught up in how these situations affect America and don't think about the effect on the individual American. This book outlined the motivations and reactions of individuals within a unified campaign.

[imthefoolonthehill]

in case anyone wondered... I did go back and reread catch-22... and it was worth every minute.

[Sindhu]

I'm also in the grop who can't stop rereading- so much so that it often interferes with reading new books! Sigh- if only there was world enough and time! I agree with gidgett about the survival of the fittest- in a demented world, you play along with even more demented schemes as Milo does and those are the ones who survive!

[imthefoolonthehill]

I think you are partiallay correct. There is genius in the Heller's flashbacks and forshadowing. However, the true genius lies in the cynicism which defines the entire book.

[Sindhu]

I think angel52pd is talking more about the TECHNICAL brilliance of the novel, while imthefoolon the hill is referring more to the tone or world view. Personally, I look for the atter primarily in a work, though ofcourse it is the former which makes the book "readable" :D

[Diceman]

I am currently on page 140 of Catch-22, having finally picked it up after years of promising myself to read it one day.

Gotta say, I'm less than impressed with it. I do like Heller's style of writing, very Milliganesque - but where is the plot? Nothing is happening. It's just a whole bunch of blokes hanging around doing nothing - and there are so many of them, it's hard to remember which is which.

Anyone else think that this book doesn't live up to the hype?

[Tabac]

Like you, I picked it up after many years of ignoring it and found it dreadfully dull. My limit for a book to "grab" me is 50 or 60 pages. You've done better than I did.

[katealaurel]

Well, I had to read the book for AP English last year, but I actually liked it. I'm not sure I would have picked it up on my own- or, if I had, whether I would have finished it- but I liked it once I got through to the end. Maybe Heller's jumbled plot (there -is- a plot, though you have to dig around some- it deals with the degeneration of Yossarian's base and troop.. and there -is- a coherent ending.) is problematic, but it makes more sense the further you get into the book- most of the confusion comes from the way the novel jumps around in time.

I'd say it's worth the effort. :-)

-K

[subterranean]

personally i love catch 22-
you'll find lots of themes there, from insanity, friendship, stupidity, hope, pragmatism. many stupid conversation between characters yet those conversations have deep meanings. i got this book from a charity event, and didnt knew who heller was till i read this book. is a great book. webster college dictionary even put the word 'catch 22' in its list of words.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Catch-22 is genious... if you have the mental capacity to enjoy it... (it doesnt take much, guys... hang in there)

[simon]

fool and sub know where the taste of chaos is expereinced, just keep reading it, part of the point is in that jumble

[Prof]

2004.09.25 07:45(gmt+2)

Of course I agree with everyone! Having read all of Mr Heller's writs, the problem appears to be that Catch 22 specifically has not "aged" very well. Seriously, up to 20 years after its publication this book appears to have been more widely acclaimed than it is today. Simply put: man's perception regarding what constitutes a good read has passed C22 by.

The good news being that one can still enjoy an excellent read in somewhat similar vein: "Castle Keep" ( by William Eastlake) is about a small detachment of soldiers, during the second world war, occupying a castle to strenghten a line of defence.Said castle eventually representing life itself, representing each and every occupant's reason for existence.

Make no mistake: you will laugh and laugh and laugh, crying for each and everyone you will meet, remembering them as being part of yourself. All characters are mad, madly believable, making the most of life, living it to the fullest extent possible.

In some regards it is not unlike Catch 22, but has aged much better, and a gem is to be found on virtually every page.The uniques of these gems are that you will split your sides laughing at the seriousness of life!

I must include this book on my list of one of the ten most enjoyable I ever had the privilege to read. Now, if only one of you would read it!

Sincerely your's,
Prof.

[Scheherazade]

Gotta say, I'm less than impressed with it. I do like Heller's style of writing, very Milliganesque - but where is the plot? Nothing is happening. It's just a whole bunch of blokes hanging around doing nothing - and there are so many of them, it's hard to remember which is which.

There is a plot, which runs through the book and several different threads as well... It is true that it requires careful reading, but it is worth the effort. It is a little like eating walnuts actually... You have to struggle to break the shell but once you are in there, it is delicious :nod:

Please don't give up and carry on reading!

[Prof]

2004.09.25 21:20(gmt+2)

My dear lady,
The plot being the absurdity of war! and the absurd lenghts some of us would go to in order to cope with such. Mr. Heller did write a sequal to C22, but as I have preciously opined: the time has passed his type of character by, to such an extent that they have become boring.

Oh, can anyone sneak in an answer to whether there is somewhere around here where one can post a writ? (Not poetry).

Thanking you,
Prof.

[Capnplank]

I found it pretty slow (and confusing) for the first one or two hundred pages, but somewhere around 300-400 I couldn't put the thing down and it became one of my favorite books. Up to you if you wanna struggle through, since you may not like it in the end anyways.

[IRIAF]

Hi. I'm new here and I'm reading Catch-22 in my school.

My teacher gave me this assignment. Below is the assignment.

[Choose a character in the novel that you think needs some "psychological help." Take on a persona of a psychiatrist, counselor, etc.

What are some of the questions that you would want to ask this person?
Why?
How do you think the character would respond?

Develop at least 10 questions. After each question, determine what kind of answer the character would make and write that response. The question that follows should be a response to the character's answer to question 1. All of the remaining questions should be done the same way. ]

Now, I need help from you guys who have read the book. Here is what I have so far and tell me if it is a replica of Yossarian's character.

1. Do you not want to fly anymore missions?

I surely do not because I’m mentally crazy.

2. What makes you think that you’re mentally crazy?

I just want to go home and if you’re crazy, they let you go home.

3. But why do you want to go home? Don’t you want to fight for your country?

I don’t. Everyone’s trying to kill me.

4. Well, everyone’s trying to kill everyone. It is war, is it not?

Yes, but still, people are trying to kill me. They’re trying to poison me and shoot me down.

5. What do you think about the commander who raises the number of misions that you have to fly to go back home.

I think he’s a crazy lunatic who just wants to kill me.


Do you guys think it's good. Please give some comments and try to add more. I can't think of anything else.

Thank you.
Bye.

Hi.

Someone please help.

Thank you.
Bye.

[Scheherazade]

I think I would have chosen the Chaplain but it is your choice :)


I think he’s a crazy lunatic who just wants to kill me.
Why do you think he would like to kill you?

You come up with the answer and I will try to help you with the questions as long as I am here... Deal? :)

[Viridis]

Hello, all - this is my first post. Obviously it is aimed at those who have read the Joseph Heller novel.

As I stated in the topic line, this is probably the craziest interpretation of the novel. I've searched the internet to see if there was any other analysis like mine, but apparently I'm alone. Still, here it goes...

I have to present this right now as only a "what if..." commentary, as I don't feel I have enough evidence yet to really make this a strong thesis. While I was reading the novel, I was struck by the chapter in which Nately's whore tries to kill Yossarian repeatedly. The whole novel has an absurd, surreal quality to it, but this chapter seemed to go even farther. They push the woman out of a plane with a parachute in northern Italy, and in the next scene she's attacking Yossarian outside his tent on Pianosa. The impossibility of this chapter made me go back and rethink the novel, particularly Snowden.

When Snowden is fatally wounded, Dobbs seizes the controls of the plane, puts them in a dive back into the flack, and yells over the intercom "Help him! Help him!" When Yossarian asks, "Help who?" Dobbs replies, "Help the bombadier!" But Yossarian himself is the bombadier. Why did Heller add that confused shout of Dobbs? Yossarian makes his way to the back of the plane where he sees Snowden lying with a gaping wound in his thigh. Of course, the fatal wound is hidden by the flack jacket.

Now, later in the book we learn that Yossarian himself was wounded on another mission. Where was he wounded? In the upper thigh - the same area as Snowden. Hmmm. At Snowden's funeral, Yossarian is sitting naked in a tree; the chaplain sees him there but does not realize it is Yossarian. He thinks he is seeing a vision; he wonders if it is an angel, a ghost, or the dead man's soul.

Perhaps you're starting to see where I'm going with this. There are constant references to the dead man in Yossarian's tent. When Yossarian's new tent-mates at the end of the novel finally get rid of the dead man's belongings by simply throwing them out, Yossarian leaves the tent as well. When Yossarian is stabbed by Nately's whore and is rushed to the hospital, he starts to regain consciousness and smells formaldehyde - the main ingredient in embalming fluid.

Is it possible that there is a subtext to Heller's novel - a second level of meaning in which Yossarian actually is dead during much of the novel? There are some further hints of that possible reading. When Doc Daneeka officially "died" in McWatt's plane crash, he goes to have his temperature taken again by Pilchard and Wren. As always his temperature is too low (96.8), and they offer the theory that he is dead, that maybe he has been dead the entire time and they didn't realize it. Is this a hint to the reader to look at the novel this way? At another point, Orr says that Appleby has flies in his eyes, and that prevents him from seeing things as they really are. This introduces the idea that things may not be as they appear, and flies are traditionally associated with death.

This odd reading of the novel gives another meaning to the ending. Perhaps Yossarian's soul has a choice - to remain in the eternal city of man, full of vice, pain and death (see the chapter of that name, which refers literally to Rome) Orr (intentionally misspelled to make the reference to Yossarian's tent-mate) to escape to a better place, a paradise of sorts: Sweden. Just remove the "Sw" and you have a deeper meaning. Plus, we already have a reference to Eden earlier in the novel, again when Yossarian is in the tree at Snowden's funeral. When Milo climbs the tree to talk to Yossarian, he asks what kind of tree it is. Yossarian replies that it's the Tree of Life, and of the knowledge of good and evil, both of which were in the garden of Eden.

As I said, this is a lot of circumstantial evidence; I would need to reread the book and do more research to truly support it. Still, the idea intrigues me. I have a little more to say on the matter, such as the roles of Major ____ de Coverly as God and the old lecherous man in the brothel as the devil, but I'll add that when I work out the details more.

Please let me know if I'm completely crazy with this alternate reading.

P.S. This reading of the novel was influenced by the movie Jacob's Ladder, in which a soldier has to come to terms with the fact that he is actually dead.

[Geoffrey]

this had made me want to read catch-22 again, immediately.... very interesting ideas.

[PeterL]

Perhaps you're starting to see where I'm going with this. There are constant references to the dead man in Yossarian's tent. When Yossarian's new tent-mates at the end of the novel finally get rid of the dead man's belongings by simply throwing them out, Yossarian leaves the tent as well. When Yossarian is stabbed by Nately's whore and is rushed to the hospital, he starts to regain consciousness and smells formaldehyde - the main ingredient in embalming fluid.

Is it possible that there is a subtext to Heller's novel - a second level of meaning in which Yossarian actually is dead during much of the novel? There are some further hints of that possible reading. When Doc Daneeka officially "died" in McWatt's plane crash, he goes to have his temperature taken again by Pilchard and Wren. As always his temperature is too low (96.8), and they offer the theory that he is dead, that maybe he has been dead the entire time and they didn't realize it. Is this a hint to the reader to look at the novel this way? At another point, Orr says that Appleby has flies in his eyes, and that prevents him from seeing things as they really are. This introduces the idea that things may not be as they appear, and flies are traditionally associated with death.

This odd reading of the novel gives another meaning to the ending. Perhaps Yossarian's soul has a choice - to remain in the eternal city of man, full of vice, pain and death (see the chapter of that name, which refers literally to Rome) Orr (intentionally misspelled to make the reference to Yossarian's tent-mate) to escape to a better place, a paradise of sorts: Sweden. Just remove the "Sw" and you have a deeper meaning. Plus, we already have a reference to Eden earlier in the novel, again when Yossarian is in the tree at Snowden's funeral. When Milo climbs the tree to talk to Yossarian, he asks what kind of tree it is. Yossarian replies that it's the Tree of Life, and of the knowledge of good and evil, both of which were in the garden of Eden.

As I said, this is a lot of circumstantial evidence; I would need to reread the book and do more research to truly support it. Still, the idea intrigues me. I have a little more to say on the matter, such as the roles of Major ____ de Coverly as God and the old lecherous man in the brothel as the devil, but I'll add that when I work out the details more.

Please let me know if I'm completely crazy with this alternate reading.


There certainly is meaning other than the literal. The novel is about absurdity of life in an absurd place/situation. There is question at many points as to who is alive and who is dead and what the difference is. I wouldn't identify anyone as god or the devil; everyone seems to be in between the extremes. It's been a couple of years since I read Catch 22, but, as i recall ir, most chapters are largely disconnected from the rest of the book, and some chapters are pure fantasy, while other chapters recount events. The sequence with the whore is mostly a dream sequence, I think.

Whether you are completely crazy and whether your reading is absurd are two completely different questions.

[Jantex]

Well, that is really a very interesting point of view :thumbs_up

Now, I`m wondering why the author chose to do that and what it is supposed to mean.

(Also, he might not mean that, but as we/you can find evidence...it is a fact;) )

[Ella]

Wow, Viridis. I never thought Yossarian & the others as being 'dead' before. Snowden's death forces Yossarian to think beyond his corporeal 'existence', mortality to find his essence, his soul. Rome, the center of Western religious beliefs is illustrated as godless where the absurd is normal, a blatant reference to Dante's Inferno. I don't want to say he's in purgatory but he must decide where he wants to go. He decides to ensure both his physical & spiritual existence by heading to Sweden/eden but we know that he won't get there. "The spirit gone, man is garbage," I hope this excerpt helps explain my ideas.

But I'm interested in exploring the scene of the tree of knowledge more. Back to Genesis.

[ennison]

Catch-22 is a brilliant novel and your reading of it is very interesting. With such a fertile and powerful imagination working at full power Heller may have had several ideas coming together which he himself perhaps had not followed through to synthesise but which the reader may be able to do by disentangling the possibilities of interpretation. Creativity is both conscious and unconscious. As Coleridge tried to point out a long time ago.

[Silo]

I'm currently 100 pages into the book, and despite some confusion with exactly who's who, I find Catch-22 quite funny and generally enjoyable. I'd really, however, love to understand the novel more deeply and there are several things that I am questioning...

1) Is the letter writing symbolic? As in when Yossarian and Major Major Major use Washington Irving/John Milton to sign, often using this letter-signing as a way to pass time? Could it be a hint that war somehow makes you loose your identity?

2) What is the meaning of all the absurdity of the actions/sayings?

These questions, I realize may sound infantile, but I'm working on improving my reading/writing skills so please bear with me! =)

[tudwell]

I'm not so sure about the letters, I just took them for what they were. But the absurd humor is meant to be a reflection of the absurdity of war, which is what the whole book is really about. It's good stuff, and if you've enjoyed it so far I'm sure you'll enjoy the rest (although it tends to get a bit redundant).

[Bii]

Catch 22 messed with my head, and I had to stop reading before the men in white coats turned up. What I gleaned from when I was reading it was that it was a very effective way of showing what being in a war does to your mind; the confusion, the circular events, the desperation. War makes you crazy - that was the message I received all too clearly! Enjoy, and good luck!

[Yendor]

I'm a hugh fan of Joseph Heller, and my favorite title is Catch 22. I cherish my Franklin Library copy of Catch 22 (http://www.leatherboundtreasure.com/author/heller_joseph.html).

[metal134]

this had made me want to read catch-22 again, immediately.... very interesting ideas.
Ditto. Very interesting theory!

[Don Quixote Jr]

Hey guys, I am new to this forum. Anyway, Im am new to the book scene, as I am 17 and just starting to appreciate great literature. I live in Denver, Colorado, and I play drums and I'm a member of the Remo and Pearl drum forums.

Anyway, I just finished this book, and I am very interested on what the people on the board think of this book. Particularly the charecter 'Milo' - I think that, although a diffacult book, that it is generally about human greed and the pointlessness of life. Milo ties in directly with this, as he demonstrates this through selling eggs to himself to make a profit (weird), and buying parachutes off of soldiers to make money off of them.

What do you think?

I don't think Catch-22 is about the pointlessness of life, nor do I think it is a difficult book (to understand). Of course, one sign of great literature is that it lends itself to numerous and often conflicting interpretations. As for Milo, he certainly seems to be greed personified. In regards to his egg sales, a CPA told me that Heller's explanation of how Milo made a profit via purchasing eggs for more than he sold them for was in fact accurate.
One of the recurring themes in Catch-22 is the often amazing stupidity and/or capriciousness of the bureaucracy, (in this case the US Army) in it's treatment of Doc Daneeka and Major Major, among others.
In the end, Yossarian's going AWOL strikes me as an affirmation of life that does have a point and is worth saving.

[metal134]

Yeah, that's how I saw it. It's very Kafkaesque.

[worddance]

Catch 22 is one of my all time favorite novels. It takes a bit of effort to get through, but it's well worth it.

Viridis, your take on the novel is very interesting. It's been some years since I read it last but I remember wondering about the plot points you mentioned too. I think you could be on to something.

Prof, I wonder what makes you say the novel hasn't aged well. The novel's themes are certainly relevant and I think the absurd humor holds up. So what is it about the novel that the modern reader rejects?

I may have to give this another read too.

Mary

[Dionido]

Catch-22 is definitely one those books that stands apart from others for the impression it left on me. I was truly fascinated by what I like to think of as a "comic epic". Epic, because Heller created a giant picture made up of many side-plots, memorable characters, spanning over a long period of time (even though I don't think it specifies how long in the novel), and all of it held together by the presence of our highly likeable hero, John Yossarian. And all this with the obvious antiphrastic intention of ridiculising the futility of war and society in general. Yossarian, from the beginning, is presented as one of the very few to have a clear view of how things truly are and in fact our hero is frequently defined as "crazy" by the various authorities (this is a very old concept; the "fool" as the only one to be free; see Hamlet, La Casa de Bernarda Alba, and others I can't think of).

Also, Heller's genius in using irony just kept me smiling through the whole book. I found it irresistible.
But it's interesting how in a few occasions Heller lets that irony fall, and clearly exposes the pure brutality of war, for example in the recurring descriptions of Snowden's death, that assume an almost dream-like vividness as throughout the novel we get a more complete image of the scene ("I'm cold"). This technique gives these images an incredible dramatic (actually almost poetic I find) strength, since they're in such stark contrast with the satirical prose whith which they are seamlessly bound.


Oh well just a few thoughts.

[chum]

Hello, all - this is my first post. Obviously it is aimed at those who have read the Joseph Heller novel.

As I stated in the topic line, this is probably the craziest interpretation of the novel. I've searched the internet to see if there was any other analysis like mine, but apparently I'm alone. Still, here it goes...

I have to present this right now as only a "what if..." commentary, as I don't feel I have enough evidence yet to really make this a strong thesis. While I was reading the novel, I was struck by the chapter in which Nately's whore tries to kill Yossarian repeatedly. The whole novel has an absurd, surreal quality to it, but this chapter seemed to go even farther. They push the woman out of a plane with a parachute in northern Italy, and in the next scene she's attacking Yossarian outside his tent on Pianosa. The impossibility of this chapter made me go back and rethink the novel, particularly Snowden.

When Snowden is fatally wounded, Dobbs seizes the controls of the plane, puts them in a dive back into the flack, and yells over the intercom "Help him! Help him!" When Yossarian asks, "Help who?" Dobbs replies, "Help the bombadier!" But Yossarian himself is the bombadier. Why did Heller add that confused shout of Dobbs? Yossarian makes his way to the back of the plane where he sees Snowden lying with a gaping wound in his thigh. Of course, the fatal wound is hidden by the flack jacket.

Now, later in the book we learn that Yossarian himself was wounded on another mission. Where was he wounded? In the upper thigh - the same area as Snowden. Hmmm. At Snowden's funeral, Yossarian is sitting naked in a tree; the chaplain sees him there but does not realize it is Yossarian. He thinks he is seeing a vision; he wonders if it is an angel, a ghost, or the dead man's soul.

Perhaps you're starting to see where I'm going with this. There are constant references to the dead man in Yossarian's tent. When Yossarian's new tent-mates at the end of the novel finally get rid of the dead man's belongings by simply throwing them out, Yossarian leaves the tent as well. When Yossarian is stabbed by Nately's whore and is rushed to the hospital, he starts to regain consciousness and smells formaldehyde - the main ingredient in embalming fluid.

Is it possible that there is a subtext to Heller's novel - a second level of meaning in which Yossarian actually is dead during much of the novel? There are some further hints of that possible reading. When Doc Daneeka officially "died" in McWatt's plane crash, he goes to have his temperature taken again by Pilchard and Wren. As always his temperature is too low (96.8), and they offer the theory that he is dead, that maybe he has been dead the entire time and they didn't realize it. Is this a hint to the reader to look at the novel this way? At another point, Orr says that Appleby has flies in his eyes, and that prevents him from seeing things as they really are. This introduces the idea that things may not be as they appear, and flies are traditionally associated with death.

This odd reading of the novel gives another meaning to the ending. Perhaps Yossarian's soul has a choice - to remain in the eternal city of man, full of vice, pain and death (see the chapter of that name, which refers literally to Rome) Orr (intentionally misspelled to make the reference to Yossarian's tent-mate) to escape to a better place, a paradise of sorts: Sweden. Just remove the "Sw" and you have a deeper meaning. Plus, we already have a reference to Eden earlier in the novel, again when Yossarian is in the tree at Snowden's funeral. When Milo climbs the tree to talk to Yossarian, he asks what kind of tree it is. Yossarian replies that it's the Tree of Life, and of the knowledge of good and evil, both of which were in the garden of Eden.

As I said, this is a lot of circumstantial evidence; I would need to reread the book and do more research to truly support it. Still, the idea intrigues me. I have a little more to say on the matter, such as the roles of Major ____ de Coverly as God and the old lecherous man in the brothel as the devil, but I'll add that when I work out the details more.

Please let me know if I'm completely crazy with this alternate reading.

P.S. This reading of the novel was influenced by the movie Jacob's Ladder, in which a soldier has to come to terms with the fact that he is actually dead.

I think you are close to getting the meaning...but Yossarian is not dead, he is almost dead!
My theory is the entire novel is what Yossarian is dreaming while in surgery...he is "near death" and seeing his life pass before him...this also explains how the novel seems to jump around a bit with each chapter. To me this is the only thing the film adaptation did right...It showed Yossarian being stabbed at the beginning...think about it! Also, I might point out, that Yossarian is alive in Heller's horrible so-called sequel "Closing Time"!

[milktea]

Interesting interpretation, never considered it. I took the absurd at face value which I figure Heller wants the reader to do. Anyway in the preface of my copy to quote Heller directly:

"I've just completed, Closing Time (that fleeing cartoon figure is again on the book jacket of the American edition, but wearing a businessman's chapeau and moving with a cane), his is again still alive, more than forty years older but definitely still there." --Joseph Heller, 1994

In regards to multimedia inspired interpretations, I'd opt for Monty Python instead of Jacob's Ladder... "I think I'll go for a walk now..."

[dfloyd]

If you find it a hard read you probably lack experience in reading such works. It may be that younger people who have not served in the armed forces lack an understanding of the novel. It is not so much about human greed, but an ironic statement about life in the service. The movie can give a better understanding of the novel and its irony. Bob Newheart gives a remarkable performance as Major Major. Comparing it to Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky is ludicrous.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I liked Catch 22, but like is as far as it goes. The book was about a hundred pages too long for me, as the various stories and comedic scenes just grew a bit tiresome.

Also, I can totally understand this being a difficult read for a 17 year old, especially with such a meandering timeline. Good for you on sticking it through, though. Now go read Ulysses! (Joke).

[chum]

I liked Catch 22, but like is as far as it goes. The book was about a hundred pages too long for me, as the various stories and comedic scenes just grew a bit tiresome.

Also, I can totally understand this being a difficult read for a 17 year old, especially with such a meandering timeline. Good for you on sticking it through, though. Now go read Ulysses! (Joke).

I first read Catch-22 when I was 14. It was the first book I ever read that I could not "put down"...it kept me up all night and I missed school the next day. So maybe not so much a difficult read for a 17 year old...

Funny thing is, I may have never read it, if it were not for my parents coming home one night after seeing the movie and telling me how much they hated it! My stepfather said something like "that was the weirdest movie I ever saw"! So, of course, since I could not go see the movie, I bought the paperback as soon as possible! I knew I would like it just because of their description!;)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I first read Catch-22 when I was 14. It was the first book I ever read that I could not "put down"...it kept me up all night and I missed school the next day. So maybe not so much a difficult read for a 17 year old...
It's pretty unfair to make a statement like that. People are at different reading levels at different ages. Just because it was at your level at 14 does not mean it should automatically be at the level of a 17 year old.

[Dodo25]

I read 'Moby Dick' when I was 8.

I love the book (Catch-22, not Moby Dick), great irony and very funny. I'm kinda wondering whether Heller had some issues with women though.. Is there a single woman in the story that doesn't have sex with pretty much anything that moves?

[dfloyd]

Italian women during WWII would have probably gone to bed with any American who gave them cigarettes, chocolate etc. They would have prostituted themselves for very little in those days. The prettier they were, the more they could bargain for. Several of the Italian movie stars went through WWII. Sophia Loren was only 12-14 years old when the war ended. I'm not saying she was a prostitute, but life for the Italians was tough in those days.

Catch 22 is a great novel! I read it after I had served two years in Japan in the early fifties. Some of the circumstances I found myself in (in Japan) could have been just as hilarious. I imagine Heller actually knew people like Yossarian, Milo, Major Major etc. Heller just relied on his memory, some exageration of circumstances, and a sense of irony. In other words, there is no secondary plot and all the symbols you read into this hilarious novel are your own, not Heller's. The closest literary piece to Heller's novel is probably The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling. The great 18th century picaresque novel with sustained irony.

[Syd A]

Catch 22 is one of the worst books I've ever had to read

As this is coming from someone who chose Robert E. Lee as his handle, I'm not surprised. I'm interested in knowing what is the best book you've ever read.

[wat??]

Yeah, that's how I saw it. It's very Kafkaesque.

You think? I don't find that Heller's criticism of bureaucracy is Kafkaesque, but instead rather realistic. Tolstoy in War and Peace writes similarly about military bureaucracy with the notable difference that he more often describes the situations from above instead of from within.

Unlike Kafka, but like Tolstoy, Heller describes exactly, the thought process and reasoning of the generals and higher officers. Many of the themes present in Catch-22, like delegation of responsibility to subordinates, putting men at risk or in harms way for no reason other than medals and prestige (or feathers in your cap) are found in War and Peace.

Both Tolstoy and Heller were soldiers and the way they describe the average fighting man as subject to the petty whims and ambitions of superior officers strikes me as more realistic than Kafka's dream like blurring of reality. Where in the latter it's usually taken for granted that the bureaucrats and those in charge have no logical motivations or reasoning for their actions.

[twit]

Hated it. Didn't find it funny and I would like to punch Yossarian in the mouth. I thought the message was cliche and shoved in the readers face with no finesse.

[wat??]

No.

(character limit)

[bohn]

The book was about a hundred pages too long for me, as the various stories and comedic scenes just grew a bit tiresome.


+1

Few funny bits here and there, but overdone and far too long. Did not enjoy it overall, and you could even say it was the worst book I have ever read.

[Gregory Samsa]

I have read 150 pages in this book, and I must say I am doubtful what I really think about it. Sometimes it's very funny, very absurd, and I like that. But I also think it's too many characters that make the plot a tad confusing and too much slapstick for my taste.

[dfloyd]

If hey had, they would understand that rather being about the pointlessness of life or about human greed, it is instead an ironic novel. Heller understood the types he parodied because he had met them in his stint in the service. I doubt if this novel can be comprehended in total by young people never having served in one of the armed sevices.

[Paulclem]

I read catch-22 on a beach in Goa, and so I have fond memories of scaring the local kids and the melon sellers by laughing out loud.

I liked the film too. It had the absurdity of it and I liked the comedic paranoi. Have you forgotten how funny it is?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLNnWw1YHGg