Catch-22 is truly a remarkable piece of literature that constantly reminds me of those iconic comedy/tragedy masks. You know, the ones that are said to symbolize great theater or something along those lines. Now, I'm not suggesting that Catch-22 is on par with some grand Italian opera. All I mean is that the book masterfully oscillates between the absurdly humorous and the deeply tragic.

It kicks off on the hilarious side. There are passages that had me laughing out loud, even in rather embarrassing situations when I was surrounded by others. For example, the description of the colonel being bombarded by specialists trying to figure out what was wrong with him: "The colonel dwelt in a vortex of specialists who were still specializing in trying to determine what was troubling him. They hurled lights in his eyes to see if he could see, rammed needles into nerves to hear if he could feel." Ha! That one still cracks me up.

However, the constant laughter has led some people to think I'm crazy. But I guess that's the price you pay for enjoying good literature. As the story progresses, it's like in a great Italian opera. You start longing for the intermission because your legs are going numb and you really need to use the restroom. This is when the humor starts to wear off, and seemingly random events are thrown at you haphazardly. You wonder if the story is going anywhere or if it's just one absurd situation after another.

But then, you finally reach Act III and discover that those seemingly unrelated events are actually part of an ingenious narrative structure that Heller has carefully planned from the beginning. The jokes that were set up earlier now deliver their punch lines, only to realize that they're not funny anymore. In many ways, Heller's writing is similar to that of Kurt Vonnegut, with similar subject matter wrapped in absurdity. But while Vonnegut focuses on the horrors of war, Heller's main gripe is with the War Department's bureaucracy. It's the red tape that really gets on his nerves. Well, and war too, but mostly the bureaucracy.

Anyway, this book is intelligent and well-written. It would be extremely difficult for me to think of another author who could write such perfectly contradictory sentences and still make so much sense. It's a literary masterpiece that will continue to be studied and enjoyed for years to come.

I've not been pulled through the spectrum of emotion quite as enjoyably as this in some time. Heller, with the charm of a magician, ingeniously switches tones on a dime. One moment, I find myself giggling, and the next, my jaw is clenched at the vivid descriptions of war. Thankfully, for my taste, Heller leans more towards the comedic side.

Reading Catch-22 is like watching a brilliantly shining coin flip in slow motion over the course of a majestic parabola. It makes its way to the ground, with someone's fate resting on whichever side it falls. But it's not just a gimmick. Both tones are crucial and equally pleasing throughout the story.

Catch-22 may not be perfect, but it's close. It reminds me of a Confederacy of Dunces, with scenes that many people simply won't laugh at without a certain sense of humor. It is what it is - taste, like all art. At times, if you don't lock into the tone, it can be a bit of a struggle. But if you rise above the chaos and insanity and tune into the frequency, you'll enjoy it thoroughly.

Yossarian and Dunbar pretty much represent how my friends and I would have handled a similar situation - with a sane amount of insanity necessary in the face of such horror and idiocy. Yossarian has to be the best anti-hero I've come across. The way Heller is able to spin illogical conversations, rules, and situations into logical nonsense and back again is simply fantastic.

I'm rambling now, but this book is truly laugh-out-loud great. Among too many hilarious moments to name, Clevinger's interrogation and the moaning at the briefing were comedic gold. But if you're not in it for the humor, rest assured it's also an "intellectual" book. In fact, often the humor is funny precisely because it crosses that line of pure horror and absurdity, leaving nothing else to do but laugh. It touches on all of life's "Big" questions in its own unique way, and there's plenty of psychology to examine - just filtered through absurd bureaucracy and the evils of war. And I must say, the final scene with Snowden was incredible.

I really can't say enough about this beauty. Trust me and see for yourself. This was my second attempt to read it, after ditching it about 30 pages in a year ago. Honestly, part of that first failure was likely due to reading all the bashing reviews before starting and letting them color my perception. But it's all in the eye of the beholder, and once I settled down and gave it an honest shot, it took off. So I highly recommend giving it a chance. I'm certainly glad I did.

I also think Heller's prose is underrated. There were some lines in there that really knocked me out. I'll definitely read this again and always recommend it to friends. This one pulled me in so well that it's one of the rare books that has genuinely made me wish characters were killed off painfully....fucking Milo.

Hmmm. So, one of my Goodreads groups had WWII as a theme, and this was one of the books we read this month. I hadn’t read this before, so was keen to try it. It is a classic, after all, so I thought it would be interesting.

I downloaded this on Audible. The book itself is wonderfully read by Trevor White, who did much to make this outing bearable. My husband watched warily as I downloaded the title, said blankly, “you won’t like that,” and turned back to the snooker. This shows that, at least, he knows my tastes, as I really found this a struggle.

This is, of course, the story of Yossarian, and his squadron, who are doomed to fly never-ending missions in WWII. The number of missions keep increasing and, it seems, that Yossarian – who, understandably, feels that everyone is out to get him killed – will never manage to get sent home.

Without doubt, this is a clever satire. The enemy, as far as Yossarian is concerned, are his superior officers, all colluding in what he sees, all too clearly, as his future demise. There are a host of other characters, and it takes some time to work out who is who and what their place in the storyline is. Some of these characters are female, but – well – they are hardly part of the story.

I suppose you expect banter, and sexist talk, in a novel written in this period. The sort of behaviour, shrugged off as ‘locker room’ talk, not that long ago. Just about every female who ventures, warily, into the pages of this book is grabbed, groped, abused and insulted. Women are on the game, out for money, looking for sex and play no other role than to excite violent sexual talk, dreams and behaviour, in the men. Somehow, this goes well beyond casual sexism.

Had I found this book funny, then perhaps it would have helped, but I didn’t really. It could have just been me, but I found this an uncomfortable, unpleasant read. Maybe it was because the sexist portrayal of women was so prominent and offensive. Or perhaps it was because the constant barrage of war and the seemingly hopeless situation of Yossarian and his squadron just wore me down. Whatever the reason, I can’t say that I would recommend this book to others. However, I do recognize that it is a classic and that many people have found it to be a great read. So, if you’re interested in WWII literature or satire, you might want to give it a try and see what you think.

I originally read this approximately 15 years ago. When I joined Goodreads and added the books I had previously read, I recalled it as a 3-star book. However, I'm not certain if it's because I'm 15 years older now or the fact that I listened to the audiobook this time around, but it is now easily a 5-star book!

The first thing that came to my mind after reading a few chapters of this was the show “Seinfeld”. Always touted as a show about nothing, this book is kind of about nothing too. It consists of a series of smaller anecdotes, usually somewhat silly, that don't really have a specific function in advancing the plot. It's a satire about war, red tape, the chain of command, etc. and the inherent futility involved. While war and the tragedy associated with it are typically not regarded as amusing, this feels like a therapeutic, tongue-in-cheek jab that needed to be made to maintain sanity.

There are a plethora of characters – some of which are more like caricatures – that might initially make your head spin. Fortunately, Heller gives them all memorable names, which helps to keep them organized easily. Maybe that wasn't his intention, but when you need to remember if it was Milo Minderbender or Major Major Major Major (yes, that is his name – my spell check didn't like me repeating a word four times!) who did something, the reader is definitely provided with naming tools to keep them straight!

I mentioned that there isn't necessarily an overall story, but there are definitely themes. One is doing what's best for you regardless of who gets stepped on in the process. Another is twisting the facts to ensure that the ultimate outcome is what works best for you. And, of course, the BIG idea that has become a common colloquialism (I know I use it almost every day) is the situation of Catch-22. Early in the book, the first example of Catch-22 is that if you say you want to fly bombing missions, you must be crazy so they will take you off the missions – only someone crazy would want to fly missions. But, if you're not on the missions, your sanity is no longer in question so they will make you fly them. If you say you don't want to fly them, you're sane so you'll have to fly them. Basically, no matter how you feel about flying missions, you'll end up flying them anyway! Situations like this are repeated throughout the book where there is no good answer to the situation at hand – often with hilarious and frustrating results.

Now, I mentioned that the book is humorous satire, but it does have many dark moments as well. This kind of ties back to my mention of the discourse within the novel being therapeutic. War is crazy and what can happen is brutal. Oddly enough, a Jimmy Buffett quote from Changes in Latitudes, Changes in Attitudes comes to mind: “If we weren't all crazy we would go insane.” That pretty much sums up the book in a nutshell!

So, should you read this book? Well, I think that question is a Catch-22 in itself. I think about 50% of the people who attempt this will hate it or dnf it. I think the other 50% of the people who read it will love it, quote it, and put it on their favorites list. The Catch-22 is that I think any person has the potential to be in either category depending on their current mindset. If I recommend it to you now, you may hate me, or you may thank me profusely. In 10 years, it would be the opposite! I do think the audiobook helped me appreciate it more and it is now in my favorites. Will that happen for you? I definitely can't be the one to decide that!

Just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not after you.

I have high-functioning anxiety, which I've had for most of my life. Usually, I can manage it quite well, but it sometimes has the oddest side-effects. I first read "Catch 22" during a very serious high anxiety period. Over the years, I've noticed that when that happens, I read at more or less my normal pace, but as soon as I finish the book, I immediately forget it. It's as if my brain's capacity to record things just short circuits. And this was before Goodreads, so I wasn't taking notes or sharing thoughts about books with anyone, leaving nothing for my memory to hold on to.

My husband loves this book very much. He was baffled when I told him that I couldn't remember much about it and that I hadn't really found it good or funny. Earlier this year, we watched the miniseries on Hulu, and I decided I had to re-read it. Because it's a great story, it's funny, and it's weird - all the things I like! Now, I'm really ticked off at my anxiety for erasing this from my brain because barely 10 pages in, I was giggling and shaking my head.

This episodic novel tells the woe of young Captain Yossarian, a bombardier in the 256th US Army Air Squadron. He and his squadron are based on a small island in Italy at the tail-end of World War II, and they are all going crazy in their own ways. Yossarian is trying to use his slow descent into insanity as a way out of active service, but anyone who can file a request for relief of duty on the basis of insanity is considered of sound mind, so such requests are never actually granted.

This Kafkaesque anti-war book features a wide cast of characters all coping with their circumstances in odd ways. They are all, in their weird ways, kind of endearing and kind of detestable. I don't know how one can adequately summarize a novel like this, but let's just say that corruption, war profiteering, and forgery are part of this story, as well as love, grief, and the very real trauma that many men lived through during this very violent period of history.

It's a tough book to read because the narrative is non-linear and all over the place, but you have to trust Heller. This isn't messy; it's done very deliberately. By the end, the final pieces of the puzzle fall into place and paint the full picture of why this squadron is as crazy as it is. I don't think it's a perfect novel. It drags in places, and some jokes get a bit repetitive, but that's also done on purpose to give readers a sense of the tedium experienced by the characters. Even with its flaws, though, I think this book easily falls into the mandatory reads pile because its skillful illustration of the absurdity and violence of war, and of the bureaucratic morass that is the military industrial complex, is a relevant and important subject, as is the effect of such events on the mental health of people who go through it. Coincidentally, I was reading it during Remembrance Day. It put a bit of a different spin on this holiday, but I think it was a good perspective to have.

Very recommended, as is the Hulu series - though the different ending changes the tone of the overall story a little bit.

Milo, you need to understand that you have no authority over me.

You can't simply dictate my actions. I have my own choices and decisions to make.

I am determined to continue fighting, not just in a physical sense but also in my own personal growth and development.

And yes, I have my own private moments of self-pleasure, which is a natural part of human sexuality.

But I refuse to let myself become just a statistic.

I strive to be unique, to make a difference in my own way.

So, Milo, back off and let me be who I am going to be.

I will not be held back by your attempts to control me.

This is a re-read as part of an occasional foray back to favourites from the past.

Bought in 1981, it predates college, career, my wife, my children. My copy is a little battered. The spine, once a vivid red, is now sunburnt to a light pink. The pages are liver spotted, and the book has that musty old bookshop smell. It has followed me from my parents' home, to college, and on to five addresses in Cambridge. I have read this book many times but had not touched it for several years.

Yossarian is a bombardier in the USAF. He has a problem. Everyone is trying to kill him - the Germans, the Italians, and even his own colleagues. Part of the problem is that every time he reaches enough combat missions to be sent home, his zealous superiors raise the threshold to make themselves look good.

Heller does a great job in exposing the sheer futility of war, the waste of men and materiel, and the cynical distortion of the war effort by self-aggrandising and self-seeking "leaders" - usually from the comfort of a desk far behind the front line.

The book is confusing, rumbustious, freewheeling, funny, repetitive, wise, and weary. Underlying it all is the idea of Catch 22 - basically "they" (the authorities) can do anything to you that you cannot stop them doing to you.

Perhaps the best way to give a flavour of the book is to provide a few quotes.

“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.”

“That's some catch, that Catch-22,” he observed.

“It's the best there is,” Doc Daneeka agreed.

The book is chock full of outrageous characters. Amongst my favourites are Milo Minderbinder, the mess officer who creates a vast black market paean to free enterprise which somehow involves bombing his own side for a fee from the Germans; Major Major Major Major, destined to be a major by virtue of his name alone, with the help of a confused IBM mainframe; General Scheisskopf, a martinet interested only in parades who is promoted far beyond his competence; and Chief White Halfoat, an itinerant native American - his family was moved on from wherever they tried to settle as oil was struck as soon as they stopped there.

A great book. Do read it.

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.

Maybe there's a reason this book is usually required high school reading;

it reads like it was written by a 17-year-old. Someone who clearly finds himself to be hilarious, and no one ever had the heart to tell him differently.

I never felt for any of the characters. I never laughed. I never cried. In fact, halfway through the book, I couldn't take it anymore. So, I skipped ahead to the last chapter, and yet it still made sense. I'm sorry, but if nothing happens in the second half of a book to impact the ending, then something is very wrong.

I know there are a lot of people out there who think this is one of the classics and that everyone should read it. But it just doesn't hold up to any of the classics I've read thus far. Hell, it doesn't even hold up to Sheep in a Jeep. That book, although for a younger audience, has more charm and substance. This so-called classic seems to lack the depth and emotional resonance that true classics possess. It's just a mediocre read that fails to engage the reader on any meaningful level.

REREAD

There are two satirical novels that readers tend to have strong opinions about, either loving or hating them. These two novels are: A Confederacy of Dunces and Catch-22. The unique styles and themes of these books often polarize readers.

A Confederacy of Dunces presents a vivid and humorous portrayal of the absurdities of life and the eccentric characters that inhabit it. The protagonist, Ignatius J. Reilly, is a larger-than-life figure whose antics and idiosyncrasies provide plenty of fodder for satire.

On the other hand, Catch-22 is a classic of modern literature that explores the futility and absurdity of war. The concept of the "catch-22" has become a widely recognized term for a no-win situation.

As for me, you can easily tell by my rating which camp I belong to. Whether you love or hate these novels, there is no denying their impact and significance in the world of literature.

Yes, I am fully aware that it is a remarkable satire novel.

Undoubtedly, the humor within it reached great heights at times.

However, despite the truly outstanding narration by Jay O. Sanders, I still endured the novel with some difficulty.

The story, while filled with interesting and thought-provoking elements, had its moments that made it a bit of a struggle to get through.

Perhaps it was the complex nature of the characters or the convoluted plot that presented challenges.

Nevertheless, I can't deny the overall quality of the novel and the talent that went into its creation.

Even with the hardships I faced while reading, I was able to appreciate certain aspects of it.

The satire was sharp and incisive, offering a unique perspective on various social and political issues.

Jay O. Sanders' narration added an extra layer of depth and enjoyment to the experience.

His ability to bring the characters to life and capture the essence of the story was truly remarkable.

Overall, it was a novel that had its ups and downs, but one that I'm glad I took the time to read.

I'm truly astonished that I awarded this book a score of 6 out of 12. You see, I have always been quite vocal in bemoaning just how much I didn't relish it. The satire and humour within it, I found to be a touch too juvenile for my personal taste.

So, I suppose what must have contributed to my rating would be the way the non-linear storyline constructs a complete picture as one delves into the book. Whether I'm fond of it or not, it undeniably stands as a modern classic, and I can fathom the reasons behind that.

It's simply not the kind of thing that I'm particularly drawn to. A score of 6 out of 12.

Read in 2007