For so many of us growing up in the USA, our high school teachers assigned us Joseph Heller's "Catch-22" as required reading, and I was among those assignees. I'm not sure why the requirement, other than perhaps some Catch-22 type of logic that everyone else was assigning it, so there, must be great, must read. I don't particularly remember liking the novel then, perhaps with no more substantial of a reason than -- just not my style. Reading the novel now, in midlife, my opinion (or my literary style) has changed little, but today, I can attempt to add to "not my style" perhaps a few deeper insights.

In this second read, I realize what so fails to appeal to me is Heller's slapstick, absurdist, repetitive and dizzyingly circular style of storytelling. At the same time, I fully realize this is also the appeal of the novel for many: it's absurdity. Indeed, time has tested Heller's topic of war having little logic or reason in the real world, mostly born of individual and governmental insanity, power plays and mere whim, male ego clashing and chest thumping. Few wars seem to have good reason for happening when one considers all the other possibilities of resolution. While leaders sit safely in secure offices on fortressed hilltops, the common soldier takes all the risks, offers up his/her body for battering, endures indescribable torments in battle, and often gives the ultimate sacrifice of life. Shall we debate the virtues of boxing rings for political leaders instead? Yes, war is absurd. And Heller captures this "crazy-making" truth in a crazy-making novel in which characters dance to illogical commands, spin in frustration, and dig themselves in ever deeper as they try harder and harder to dig themselves out. You know... as in war.

So I slogged through the pages like a good soldier. Characters leapt forward and backward in time, one event led to no other event, resolution rarely made a showing, and the dance of insanity kept the main lead. Even as I slogged, I could not deny what an excellent reflection of warring reality Heller's writing proved to be. Kudos for that. Redeeming factor.

And then, somewhere towards the final pages, I was somewhat won over. Without losing his voice of absurdity, the author had Yossarian, key player, say lines so absurd they rang true to the core, e.g. "but we don't want what we want!" and I could only shake my head and echo, oh indeed. We don't. When offered a bounty of temptations to sell out his soul, Yossarian denied them all, and in his crazy way, spoke utter sanity. How common is it to want something desperately much of our lives, only to realize we don't want it at all when fantasy turns into reality? A gold star for the author. Other episodes of Yossarian struggling to keep a fellow soldier alive even as his guts spill out, the sheer horror and despair and helplessness of the situation, hit target. Bravo.

This, and Heller's commentaries on man being little more than meat, fodder for the brutalities of war, resounded with such painful truth that today's reader can only look up at current events and current disasters and realize -- we are living in a world ruled by absurdities even today. History has taught us nothing.

And so, I could be convinced that Heller's novel is a classic. Perhaps it is.

Αυτή ήταν η τρίτη απόπειρα που έκανα να διαβάσω το Catch 22. Συνήθως γύρω στις 100 σελίδες το άφηνα αν κ πάντα γελούσα μέχρι εκείνο το σημείο. Αν θυμάμαι καλά, η έλλειψη ενός κεντρικού plotline με έκανε να πιάνω ένα άλλο βιβλίο, κ μετά ένα άλλο μέχρι που έφτανα σε ένα σημείο που δεν θυμόμουν τίποτα πια κ έπρεπε να το ξαναξεκινήσω. Αυτή τη φορά, κάπου στη σελίδα 180, σκέφτηκα κ πάλι να το αφήσω αλλά η παράλληλη ανάγνωση του comic book του Delisle με ξεκούραζε αρκετά ώστε τελικά να συνεχίσω χωρίς να το έχω ακριβώς αποφασίσει.

Η αλήθεια είναι λοιπόν ότι για τις πρώτες 250 σελίδες δεν είχα ενθουσιαστεί κ πολύ αλλά ταυτόχρονα δε με ενοχλούσε κάτι ιδιαίτερα. Σιγά σιγά προχωρούσα. Τελικά διάβασα τις τελευταίες 300 σελίδες μέσα σε ένα 24ώρο γιατί δεν μπορούσα με τίποτα να αφήσω απ'τα χέρια μου ένα τόσο ιδιαίτερο βιβλίο, ένα κείμενο τόσο καλό που φαινόταν ότι ο Heller είχε υπολογίσει την παραμικρή λεπτομέρεια. Δεν λέω βέβαια κάτι καινούργιο, ούτε πρόκειται να το κάνω στη συνέχεια. Τώρα πια, ούτε ο Heller λέει κάτι που δεν γνωρίζουμε ήδη αλλά παρ'όλα αυτά βλέπουμε τα ίδια πράγματα να επαναλαμβάνονται.

Το Catch 22 είναι κάπου μεταξύ Pynchon κ Vonnegut, χωρίς βέβαια να υπάρχει η ιδιοφυία (κ το χάος) του πρώτου ή η αμεσότητα (κ το ανυπέρβλητο χιούμορ) του δεύτερου. Ο Heller στήνει μια στρατιά χαρακτήρων που αντιπροσωπεύει κάθε κομμάτι της κοινωνικής δομής της εποχής (τον ιερέα που αμφιβάλλει για τον θεό, τον γιατρό που δεν καταλαβαίνει γιατί είναι στον πόλεμο κοτζάμ επιστήμονας, τον ραδιούργο σιτιστή που χτίζει το μοντέλο αισχροκέρδειας του πολέμου, τους φιλόδοξους αξιωματικούς που δεν νοιάζονται για τίποτα κοκ), οι οποίοι είναι φυσικά μονοδιάστατοι για να κάνουν τον κεντρικό ήρωα, τον αξέχαστο Γιοσάριαν κ κύριο πρωταγωνιστή να λειτουργεί ως αντίβαρο στο παραλογισμό που συναντά, όχι μόνο στον πόλεμο αλλά στην ζωή την ίδια όπως την "καταντήσαμε".

Όλα αυτά γίνονται με μπόλικο χιούμορ αλλά κ πολύ αίμα, κ όταν αυτό ξεκινάει ο Heller είναι ασταμάτητος. Ακόμα κ αν το πρώτο μισό φαίνεται σχεδόν μάταιο, αν το εξαιρετικό κατά τ'άλλα φινάλε γίνεται λίγο διδαχτικό, μην έχετε περαιτέρω αμφιβολίες. Είναι εξαιρετικό βιβλίο.

"Τι φριχτός κόσμος! Αναρωτήθηκε πόσοι άνθρωποι ήταν άποροι εκείνη τη νύχτα ακόμα κ στη δική του πλούσια χώρα, πόσα σπίτια ήταν παράγκες, πόσοι άντρες ήταν μεθυσμένοι κ πόσες γυναίκες κακοποιημένες κ πόσα παιδιά ήταν τυραννισμένα, κακοποιημένα ή εγκαταλελειμμένα [...] Πόσοι ειλικρινείς ήταν ψεύτες, πόσοι γενναίοι ήταν δειλοί, πόσοι πιστοί ήταν προδότες, πόσοι ηθικοί άνθρωποι ήταν διεφθαρμένοι, πόσοι άνθρωποι σε ��μπιστευτικές θέσεις είχαν πουλήσει τη συνείδησή τους σε αγύρτες για πενταροδεκάρες, πόσοι δεν είχαν ποτέ συνείδηση; [...] Αν τα πρόσθετες όλα αυτά μαζί κ έπειτα αφαιρούσες, θα έμενες μάλλον μόνο με τα παιδιά κ ίσως με τον Άλμπερτ Αϊνστάιν κ κάποιον γέρο βιολιστή ή γλύπτη".

детально розказую на моєму ютубі: https://youtu.be/knSdVe2gUoI?si=7oFCf...


— Вони хочуть мене вбити, — спокійно мовив Йосаріан.
— Ніхто не хоче тебе вбити, — вигукнув Клевінджер.
— Тоді чому вони в мене стріляють? — спитав Йосаріан.
— Вони стріляють у всіх, — відповів Клевінджер. —Вони хочуть убити всіх.
— А в чому різниця?

…

хоч це і сатира, але сатира гірка.

як на мій погляд, то смішного в книзі мало, адже куди не глянь — всюди пастка. пастка-22.

Геллер показує нам армію як окрему верству населення, яке живе за правилами, неписаними для цивільних.

в тексті є боротьба внутрішня і зовнішня, жага до життя і таке відчайдушне бажання бути просто звичайною людиною, а не солдатом.

на жаль, книга буде актуальна доти, поки людство воює. а, отже, ще багато час��.

У 18 років мені було весело читати книгу.
У 23 чи 25 мені було цікаво перечитувати цю книгу.
У 35 мені було сумно перечитувати цю книгу. Життєво, абсурдно, іронічно, щемко.

Одна з найкращих книг в моєму житті.

It was a slow read. I wanted to put the books aside many times but finally, I finished it. And I found out its power on the unconscious level: two nights I was tortured by dreams about war. On the surface, the book looks like a mess of comical and satirical, and cynical moments, spread in time and space. Nevertheless, after deep thinking, all the comical elements become tragical, because we are talking about the WWII and about human life which is wasted so pointlessly. Nobody wants to fight, but everybody does for the freedom and for the world, and for America - all the loud words people in power like to apply to offer excuses for any of their actions. Most of the heroes of the book die as they lived - in a strange way, and you don't notice the cruelty of their deaths until you realise it is death we are talking about. The main hero is the only one who started to fight against the system and only, in the end, we see Heller's hope for escape from this bloody unfair mess.

In Kafka’s The Trial, towards the end of his bureaucratic ordeal, Joseph K. is accosted by a priest who tells him a strange parable. A man came to the gate of the Law, but a watchman was guarding the way. The man asked if he could enter — the gatekeeper said yes, “but not yet”. The man sat by the door and waited to be admitted. He waited for a long time. He tried to bribe the watchman — the watchman accepted the man’s presents, but still didn’t invite him in. The man gave up all his belongings, all in vain. Time went by. The man kept waiting. He grew old and frail, too weak to move. On his dying breath, the gatekeeper finally addressed him: this door was meant for him, but since he never made up his mind to walk in, he would then shut the gate, forever.

You won’t find Joseph K. in Catch-22, but you will meet Yossarian, Joseph H.’s alter ego, an officer in the U.S. Air Force, stationed on a small island off the coast of Italy in 1944. He too is waiting, waiting to be discharged and sent back home. His commanding officer says yes, “but not yet”. The more combat missions Yossarian completes, the more missions his C.O. demands from his men before they can go home. Time goes by; men die; Yossarian is getting hopeless and weak. The Law is absurd, paradoxical, arbitrary, impenetrable, deadly. But, at least, that writ has a name: it is called Catch-22.

Joseph Heller published only a couple of novels in his whole career. But Catch-22 quickly rose to the pantheon of twentieth-century American literature as one of the greatest war novels. Possibly because it was the right novel at the right time: when the USA, at the very height of the Cold War, was getting bogged down in Vietnam. Consequently, the 1960s’ anti-war counter-culture generation embraced Catch-22 and turned it into one of their cult novels.

Heller writes in a unique, unconventional way: his prose is taut, jumping frantically from one situation to the next, from one character to another, with a constant sense of agitation. In particular, his dialogues often feel like a succession of sentences repeated ad nauseam, where all arguments are falling on deaf ears. This technique creates, at the same time, a sense of absurdity, a rhythmical pattern, and ultimately an aftertaste of confusion, exasperation and insanity; quite similar to the works of Céline, Beckett and Ionesco.

The events depicted in the book reflect the hysterical quality and rambling, circular, recursive, repetitive (borderline infuriating) structure of Heller’s writing. These events occur during the Italian campaign of World War II. Danger is ever-present, each mission is life-threatening, men behave erratically, the military is, at its core, a dysfunctional bedlam, victims and casualties pile up. Despite all that, the various characters in Heller’s book are trying to retain a sense of meaning and make the best of an awful job. Most of the time, in vain. Still, Heller’s grotesquely satirical, anti-dramatic, anti-heroic, anti-romantic tone throughout the novel tends to lessen the situation’s acuteness. That is, until the very last couple of chapters, where the horror grabs you by the throat.

Heller’s story is not just about wartime and the military. Heller himself declared that Catch-22 was “an encyclopaedia of the current mental atmosphere”. Indeed, his book still does mean something to us in peacetime, because it reveals a social system designed for efficiency that has nonetheless become inadequate and toxic. We are not facing an external enemy anymore (or are we?), the negative, alienating, schizophrenic forces are now corrupting the system from the inside. Try replacing the privates and officers in the U.S. regiment by employees and managers in a post-modern, late-capitalist corporate bureaucracy, and you’ll understand how visionary and apocalyptic this book is.

Heller’s Catch-22 has often been compared to Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five. Indeed, both authors share a similar experience on the battlefield and a knack for snappy prose, irony, surreal situations and “gallows humour”. It seems quite obvious, as well, that Catch-22 has been a major source of inspiration for Cold War dark military comedies such as Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

In the end, Yossarian manages to denounce the law of Catch-22 and miraculously paddles away to Sweden — to freedom? Who knows... For those of you who remember Crime and Punishment, Svidrigailov also managed to escape to America — with a loaded revolver inside his coat.

Signed: Washington Irving

PS: A massive thank you to my friend Michelle here, who has been kind enough to “buddy-read” this book with me. Please check out her review.

I'm really surprised that I gave this book 6 out of 12, as I have always vocally bemoaned how much I didn't enjoy it. The satire / humour I found a tad too infantile for me, so I guess what must have earned my rating, would be how the non-linear story line builds up a whole picture as you read the book? Whether I like it or not it is a modern classic, and I can see why; It's just not my cup of tea. 6 out of 12.

2007 read

E YOSSARIAN PRESE IL FUCILE NEL MATTATOIO N° 6


La miniserie TV in 6 episodi, prodotta e in parte diretta da George Clooney.

Romanzo manifesto dell’antimilitarismo, col tempo è diventato l’emblema dell’assurdità e della demenza militare, e il suo titolo, che oltre al comma intende una trappola, un tranello, è diventato uno slogan.
Eccolo qui il famoso comma 22: solo chi è pazzo può chiedere di essere esentato dalle missioni di volo, ma chi chiede di essere esentato dalle missioni di volo non è pazzo.
Che magnifico paradosso! L’affermazione di un principio e l’immediata negazione dello stesso.
Figlio diretto del paradosso per eccellenza: la frase seguente è falsa - la frase precedente è vera.
L’effetto comico è assicurato.
Ma, forse, molti lettori l’hanno trovato ripetitivo, monotono, il ritmo sostenuto non è certo il suo pregio più appariscente. Rimane opera di teatro dell’assurdo, del grottesco, una satira feroce, nella quale è bello perdersi, ghignare, e farsi percorrere da brividi: perché quello che Yossarian sente e pensa e dice è angosciante e terrorizzante, suscita paura anche se fa ridere.



La storia si svolge in Italia verso la fine della seconda guerra mondiale.
Yossarian, ufficiale dell’aeronautica militare USA, pilota bombardiere di B25, è sull’isola di Pianosa per compiere incursioni sulle linee nemiche e proteggere l’avanzata degli alleati.
L’ambientazione italiana si suppone si debba al fatto che lo stesso Heller fu puntatore a bordo di un bombardiere B-25 Mitchell dell'aviazione americana operante dalla Corsica durante il secondo conflitto mondiale.

Il protagonista è l’antieroe per eccellenza, ossessionato dal fatto che migliaia di persone sconosciute, alle quali lui personalmente non ha fatto nulla, tentino continuamente di farlo fuori.
Il romanzo è popolato di personaggi stravaganti e maniacali che applicano la disciplina militare con zelo meticoloso, inconsapevoli di mettere in ridicolo la folle logica del Comma 22.



C’è chi lo considera uno dei primi romanzi post-moderni dato che il racconto non procede per ordine cronologico, uno stesso evento è narrato più volte dal punto di vista di diversi personaggi, alcuni concetti vengono ripetuti da un interlocutore all’altro e a furia di rimbalzare creano una circolarità che diventa un dialogo dell’assurdo.



Insieme a Mattatoio n° 5, E Johnny prese il fucile, All’ovest niente di nuovo, entra di diritto nei più celebri romanzi contro la guerra. Anche se più che questi suoi degnissimi fratelli di lotta, a me fa venire in mente Kafka (Il processo), Orwell (1984), o Hašek (Il buon soldato Sc'vèik).

Pubblicato per la prima volta nel 1961, e inizialmente stroncato dalla critica, anche quella importante (New Yorker, New York Times), fu con l’edizione tascabile e l’uscita in UK che divenne un best-seller da 10 milioni di copie.

Ai tempi del Vietnam molti dei pacifisti che manifestavano davanti alla Casa Bianca portavano sul petto una spilla con lo slogan "Yossarian vive".
In Italia invece approdò sulle pagine di Sturmtruppen i cui soldati lo enunciano tale e quale al romanzo: Chiunque sia pazzo può chiedere di essere esentato dalle azioni militari, ma chi chiede di essere esentato dalle azioni militari non è pazzo.



Il regista Mike Nichols poteva permettersi quello che voleva dopo il successo de Il laureato, anche la quinta flotta aerea del mondo, trenta veri bombardieri B-25 “Mitchell” a disposizione, anche un cast da brivido (Alan Arkin, Anthony Perkins, Charles Grodin, Martin Balsam, Art Garfunkel, Buck Henry, Martin Sheen, Jon Voight, Bob Balaban, e last but not least, un indimenticabile Orson Welles), tempi interminabili di ripresa, location sperdute del Messico dove il grande direttore della fotografia David Watkin (più tardi premiato con l’Oscar per La mia Africa) aspettava le 14:45, l’unico momento del giorno con l’illuminazione perfetta. Nichols si diverte in regia, sperimenta, piani sequenza, campi lunghissimi, coreografie degli enormi B-25…
Ma il film fu un flop, non resse la competizione con M.A.S.H., uscito cinque mesi prima, che ebbe invece grande successo.


Candice Bergen e Peter Bogdanovich in visita sul set di Catch 22: mentre la Bergen scatta foto, Bogdanovich e Orson Welles lavorano al celebre libro intervista

This is one of those books that people think is either totally brilliant or just annoying. As one can tell from the rating, I fall into the latter catergory. Maybe I just can't appreciate the genius of Heller's prose, but I prefer character developement and plot to rambling confusing anecdotes that go nowhere.
War is a paradox. WE GET IT.

Read for: 12th grade AP English

From cleaning my TBR project. Not my type of humour, I guess. Tried to read it a few times and I think is time to let go of this classic. It is too long to battle through it.

4.5*

Ξεκαρδιστικά τραγικό.Νομίζω κάπως έτσι θα χαρακτήριζα το Catch-22 αν έπρεπε να το περιγράψω με δυο λέξεις.Γέλασα πολλές φορές διαβάζοντάς το και σφίχτηκε το στομάχι μου πολύ περισσότερες.
Bρισκόμαστε στο νησάκι Πιανόζα στη Μεσόγειο,σε μια αμερικανική βάση βομβαρδιστικών,κατά τη διάρκεια του δευτέρου παγκοσμίου πολέμου.Στο πρώτο μισό του βιβλίου έχεις την εντύπωση οτι το νησί κατοικείται απο τρελούς.
Στο δεύτερο κομμάτι σιγουρευεσαι:ναι ,είναι όλοι τρελοί.Τους τρέλανε ο πόλεμος.Τους τρέλανε η φρίκη,ο θάνατος,ο φόβος.
Ο Γιοσάριαν έχει μπλεχτεί στα γρανάζια της πολεμικής μηχανής,όπως και τόσοι άλλοι,αλλά αυτός είναι αποφασισμένος να ζήσει για πάντα ή να πεθάνει προσπαθώντας.Είναι ο πιο τρελός απο όλους;Ή είναι ο μόνος γνωστικός;Έχει κάνει το καθήκον του προς την πατρίδα,και με το παραπάνω,αλλά δεν μπορεί να ξεφύγει.Δεν τον αφήνουν.Οι ανώτεροι του ,μεθυσμένοι απο εξουσία,αυξάνουν συνεχώς τις απαιτήσεις τους.Οι φίλοι του πεθαίνουν ο ένας μετά τον άλλο.Και υπάρχει πάντα η παγίδα,το Catch 22,η παράνοια.Δεν μπορείς να ξεφύγεις.Ή μπορείς;
Παρόλη την τρέλα του( ή εξαιτίας της) είναι ένα πολύ αληθινό βιβλίο και μέσα απο το μαύρο χιούμορ του αναδεικνύει τον παραλογισμό του πολέμου.
Στο πρώτο μισό του ,που είναι και το πιο αστείο,η αφήγηση είναι μια παράνοια,πετάγεται απο το ένα θέμα στο άλλο,πάει μπρος πίσω στο χρόνο,οι διάλογοι είναι εντελώς παράλογοι,χαρακτηρες πάνε κι έρχονται,επικρατεί ένα χάος.Πάνω που αρχίζει όλο αυτό να κουράζει,η αφήγηση σιγά σιγά αλλάζει,περιστατικά που έμοιαζαν άσχετα μεταξύ τους αρχίζουν να δένουν και καταλαβαίνεις οτι όλα είχαν τη θέση του σε αυτήν την ιστορία.Τίποτα δεν ήταν ούτε τυχαίο,ούτε περιττό.

I suffered through about 60 pages, and finally put it down. I very rarely ever leave a book unfinished.

The author narrates and introduces us to Yossarian, who does not want to fly in the war. I get that. I get the whole catch 22 scenerio... You have to be insane to fly the plane. If you can get a dr to say you are insane, you wont have to fly. But in order to tell a dr that you are insane, this actually means you are sane. So you must continue to fly... which makes you insane. blah blah blah.

What I couldnt get past was the author's constant bouts of Attention Deficet Disorder.... He went off on tangents, introducing a new character seemingly every paragraph, and seemed to lose his train of thought only to regain it 2 pages later.

I couldnt take all the jumping around, and was completely lost the whole time... at times rereading the prior page thinking I missed some important tie-in somewhere....

Am I the only one on this planet who is asking myself what heck everyone was smoking when they read this book and actually enjoyed it?