Catch-22, by Joseph Heller

[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.