Name: Catch-22
ISBN: 0552991953

Joseph Heller

Catch-22

clara

“I’m not old.” “You're inches away from death every time you go on a mission. How much older can you be at your age?”

Catch 22.

Douglas Adam's first and only historical fiction!

Tristan Currie

Jennifer

I can see why this is a classic. It demonstrates the absurdity and humor in personalities and circumstances, especially when you put a bunch of strangers in a group together in the instance of the travesties of war. There are a lot of characters in this book and it’s hard to keep track, even though the descriptions of each character are great. There are also a lot of “who’s on first” type jokes and clever wordplay which all reflect the title. The story is still relevant and has parallels with this current presidential administration. I can definitely see why they’re making it a miniseries with George Clooney. I’m excited to watch it! (I know there’s a movie of it too so maybe I’ll get around to watching that also) I feel like a good song equivalent to this book would be “Ironic” by Alanis Morissette. Where things aren’t really ironic per se, but just really unfortunate. I kept falling asleep while reading this, so, four stars.

Heller, Joseph

this book is hilarious, and making me more sure i am into war satire, like Svejk and this one

Stas

Catch-22 is like no other novel. It is one of the funniest books ever written, a keystone work in American literature, and even added a new term to the dictionary. At the heart of Catch-22 resides the incomparable, malingering bombardier, Yossarian, a hero endlessly inventive in his schemes to save his skin from the horrible chances of war. His efforts are perfectly understandable because as he furiously scrambles, thousands of people he hasn't even met are trying to kill him. His problem is Colonel Cathcart, who keeps raising the number of missions the men must fly to complete their service. Yet if Yossarian makes any attempts to excuse himself from the perilous missions that he is committed to flying, he is trapped by the Great Loyalty Oath Crusade, the hilariously sinister bureaucratic rule from which the book takes its title: a man is considered insane if he willingly continues to fly dangerous combat missions, but if he makes the necessary formal request to be relieved of such missions, the very act of making the request proves that he is sane and therefore ineligible to be relieved. Catch-22 is a microcosm of the twentieth-century world as it might look to some one dangerously sane -- a masterpiece of our time.

„Imagine a man his age risking what little life he has left for something so absurd as a country.“

„And anything worth dying for, is certainly worth living for.“

Emilia

„Imagine a man his age risking what little life he has left for something so absurd as a country.“

„And anything worth dying for, is certainly worth living for.“

Toes the line between comedy and tragedy. A real page-turner. You never know whether you'll laugh or cry next. Maybe even both. God. 

Throckmorton

Katerina

Definitely the most different book I've read. A genre of its own, if you ask me. It had me laughing uncontrollably at first and then once I got attached to the characters, it had me shiver with shock and sadness because of all the horrors of the WWII. Catch 22 is a very absurd book. The story goes back and forth a lot - introduces future and past events all the time until it catches up with the present or the present catches up with the future. This is what was the most different aspect of it for me because I've never encountered this contrivance before. But I enjoyed it a lot. I enjoyed the absurdity of catch 22 (as this is a real thing that is taking place in the book). It's both sad and happy, negative and positive. The whole damn book is one Catch 22.

Timeo Williams

I loved the satirical/ paradoxical humor in this book. Was filled with small gems of wisdom, in otherwise trash.

Sarah Sammis

While the individual chapters are amusing the emphasis seems to be too heavily on the strange characters in the squadron and not enough on creating a coherent plot. Each chapter can be treated as a short story unto itself rather than part of a greater whole and after awhile that approach began to get on my nerves.

Eugene

Middle part of felt like a repetition of itself. The same stories over and over, but I guess that’s how it feels for the characters being told all the lies and excuses over and over. The ending was worth the wait

Vicky  Nuñez 

I am baffled by the fact that so many people dislike this book. It was in my opinion one of those perfect books, the kind that make you laugh and sigh and exasperate you, but in the end it's all worth it.

** spoiler alert **
           I don't think I'm qualified to review this until I reread it, but man. That was good. War isn't just hell, it's a psych ward in hell. Nothing makes sense, and men are shot down indiscriminately every day-- by people they will never meet. I think my favorite aspect of the novel has got to be the ending. There's so much uncertainty, but an assurance everything will be alright. Frantic hope and resolve is in the air, and for the ones that make it out alive, it's cause for some unexpected (cautious) optimism. Yossarian is faced with another Catch-22, and this time he can outsmart it. This time, he realizes he has the freedom to leave, or at least the chance to live through the leaving. No matter how his surroundings threatened him with madness and immorality, Yossarian hasn't left his humanity or sanity behind. In the end he's terrified, but as Danby reassures him, this just means he's still alive. Still, though, this ending (however great it is) distracts from the truth of the book--it's a tragedy, through and through. The subject matter is so ridiculously awful you can't help but laugh through all these men's pain, and there's no justice for the men killed on the missions overseas. Still though, it's good to know at least one spirit was saved, as Yossarian's self-preservation ideal was revealed to be a cover for how much he really cares about the men he flies alongside. The war machine could not make Yossarian compromise his morals, and Chaplain Tappman gets to punch people. Come on, he's deserved it by now. Anyway, great book. 10/10 would read again for a college course someday.

hileahrious

Finally finished this book... it’s frustrating to read, not because it’s bad, but because it was written to be frustrating to read. At least that’s how I see it. Every moment throughout the story reflects the ridiculousness of war and the nonsensical things people will do. I can’t say I really enjoyed it because it’s not a book you’re supposed to enjoy. Heller is kind of a genius. A grand work, I’d say, that will be applicable always, because humans.

Just as good the millionth time as the first, what a classic for a reason. Read this for the first time in the hospital and it's a good book to be trapped with because it's easy to lose the thread or set down and not pick up again until you know it really well. I'm probably also biased because this book came into my life in such a desperate and specific time that it's hard to be objective about it, but who cares anyway? God he's so funny. Audiobook not recommended for this one btw, tried it and it loses most if not all of the charm. Also I think Yossarian is hot, for which I'm giving it an extra half star xoxo

Kaye Barnett

Presents the contemporary classic depicting the struggles of a U.S. airman attempting to survive the lunacy and depravity of a World War II base

A Novel

Lamia Hajani

I had several dull moments with this book. Throughout a little over the first half of the book, I almost fell asleep and gave up. The build-up is confusing and takes a very long time. I suppose this is to show us how war feels.

The second part of the book, however, is very interesting. It's also a little confusing, but you get used to the writing style by then. I became invested in some of the characters without realising it.

Overall, because of the first half, I had to dock the book a couple of stars. I couldn't really get through it, and I had trouble finishing the book in general. I'm glad that I did read it though.

Colleen

2 Stars

I have been trying to fill in the gaps of Classics I have not read, and Catch-22 was one such book. I was eager when I started it but quickly lost any enthusiasm. But I tried so very hard to be engaged with this story. I tried both the hard copy and audio book versions. I sludged through it for over four months! And each time it was more and more tedious to convince myself to read even one more chapter. If this was not such a lauded classic, I would have given up very early on in the story.

Catch-22 is quite possibly the most nonsensical book I have ever read. The story all loosely revolves around Yossarian, a bombardier in WWII who does not want to fly any more missions. The story jumps randomly through time with each chapter focusing on a different character. Very few of the chapters focus on any one character repeatedly which leads to a mind-boggling amount of characters. The description of humor combined with the horror of war made me think of "MASH." Well, it is absolutely NOTHING like MASH; let's get that delusion out of the way. Instead it is an absurd lump of asinine gibberish. Half the time I wondered if the author was sky high on drugs when he wrote this.

I've come to realize that I do not like "unreliable narrators." They just do not suit my reading tastes. But Catch-22 is more than just one unreliable narrator. Every single character in the entire book is crazy. Which gets old after a couple pages. The dialogue (of which there is a lot) is babbled nonsense. It was like reading 500+ pages of "Who's on First." Whatever was not absurd dialogue was massive dense paragraphs of random descriptions. There was one paragraph that was over two pages long! Any comedy is savagely murdered by the complete severing of ties to anything sane or rational. I think somewhere under all the rubbish and ruble there was a good story, but I could not dig through the preposterousness to get to it. Maybe all those readers who love this book were able to see what I could not. Or maybe they just loved all the lewd, detailed descriptions of women's bodies.

I am only bumping it up to two stars because there were a couple of good quotes in there. However they were surrounded by complete and utter nonsense. I could say a lot more about this book, however given the laborious months that I spent trying to read it, I just do not want to spend another minute on it.


RATING FACTORS:
Ease of Reading: 1 Star
Writing Style: 2 Stars
Characters and Character Development: 1 Star
Plot Structure and Development: 1 Star
Level of Captivation: 1 Stars
Originality: 2 Stars

Bouke van der Bijl

This book is absolutely laugh-out-loud hilarious at times, and depressing at other times. It is also quite confusing, and I think it deserves a second reading in a couple years

Matthew Royal

Irritatingly juvenile, though I understand the role it served at a point in US history. DNF

Micah

I wish I could give zero stars.

Joseph Heller should've been told that he talks too much as often as possible. There was no reason this book had to be that long. The concept of telling the story out of chronological order was interesting and did make it so I was less likely to put the book down, but I was so frustrated with how repetitive the book was that I wanted to quit. Literally the only thing keeping me from DNFing this was that it was a prompt-fill. It was supposed to be satire, I get that, but it bordered on incomprehensible at times. All the male characters were annoying, awful, and should have never been romanticized and immortalized by Heller. All the male characters but Chaplain Tappman and Snowden got what they deserved, and I hope the surviving characters died gruesome deaths. I sincerely hope Yossarian died, and I will not be reading the sequel to find out. All the female characters only served three purposes: 1. To be sexually assaulted by the male characters, 2. To be flaunted around by male characters to make other male characters jealous, and 3. To be used as fodder to further a male character's pain. Pathetic.

Nelson Zagalo

"Catch-22" avança com uma premissa de excelência que é um conjunto de regras que se definem como paradoxo lógico. Neste paradoxo temos uma lógica para a ação que é definida por regras que se opõem e que por isso impedem a ação de decorrer. Exemplificando, o protagonista, Yossarian, quer deixar de fazer missões aéreas enquanto em guerra, para o que precisa de ser declarado insano pelo médico da companhia, contudo esta declaração só pode acontecer a pedido do próprio, ora se o soldado está em condições de fazer um pedido de avaliação de insanidade, não pode estar insano, logo não pode deixar de fazer as missões como pretende. Esta armadilha de regras está presente naquilo que no livro é conhecido por artigo nº22 do código militar, e que define a lógica subjacente à vivência em tempo de guerra que Joseph Heller procura trabalhar ao longo de todo o livro, e no fundo conduzir à sua conclusão maior, de que as guerras são em si mesmo paradoxos de lógica.

Não discordando em nada, admirando a premissa e a sua aplicação ao cenário de guerra, assim como estimando a enorme qualidade da escrita e estrutura apresentadas pela obra de Heller, é com muita pena que chego ao final apenas com a racionalização do que li. Ou seja, não senti o universo nem os seus personagens, os seus problemas não me tocaram, nem me demoveram. Li o livro até ao final porque me obriguei, porque é um livro extremamente citado, referenciado em dezenas e dezenas de listas, e por imensas pessoas que respeito, e por isso senti que poderia acontecer alguma espécie de revelação mais perto do seu desfecho. Na verdade pouco mais acontece, sim há um pouco mais de comoção, mas o livro é isto, e no meu caso nunca senti qualquer vontade de virar páginas, nunca senti que queria saber mais sobre Yossarian.

Sim, a guerra é algo sem sentido, obtusa, não existe qualquer lógica que se lhe aplique, está errada do início ao fim. E até podia dizer que por isso julgo que é algo contra o qual devemos lutar com maior sensibilização dos leitores, mas estaria a incorrer em erro. Não foi por isso que não me liguei, não senti qualquer menosprezo de Heller por quem teve ou tem de combater em guerras, antes senti uma elevação acima do quotidiano daquilo que as guerras criam, e uma tentativa de compreender algo que não é compreensível, tornando mesmo a premissa de "Artigo 22" extremamente significante. Contudo, e apesar de reconhecer tal, reconheço-o apenas no seu racional.

Dito isto, poderia ter lido um livro não-ficcional sobre o tema, filosofando sobre a problemática, e talvez me tivesse aproximado mais. A opção de seguir pelo humor, a sátira, não funcionou comigo. Senti-me a olhar para algo vazio. Teria preferido um conto sobre o assunto, que me pudesse dar a compreender o ardil, e não tivesse exigido tantas horas para oferecer o mesmo que tinha oferecido ao fim de 100 páginas. Dito isto, e porque não quero que esta análise sirva para demover alguém de ler uma obra que continua sendo tão amada, passado mais de meio-século, recomendo que leiam o primeiro terço do livro, se não sentirem qualquer ligação, então podem encostar, não vai acontecer nada de muito diferente depois disso.

Publicado no VI: https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...

Nadia Serrano

This book is so freaking weird. One moment they are talking about something and the next they are in a whole different country. Not for me.

Jayme Bosio

There is a laughter about this book, but it is a maniacal laughter. If we did not laugh, we might just go insane. Heller does an amazing job of using humor and irony without glossing over the atrocities of war.

Cams Campbell

I tried twice with the audiobook version of this book and maybe got one third of the way into it before quitting. It was brought to me by the Verge bookclub, so I thought I'd persevere with it, and bought the Kindle version. That's when it began to make sense. I guess some books just aren't suited to the audiobook format for me. 

As with Les Misérables last year, which I gave up on twice, this has become the book of the year for me. This is no throwaway pulpy book. The language itself is utterly gorgeous. It kind of has a Python-esque wit and humour to it, intelligent and dense, while seeming somehow shallow. It's difficult to explain. I found myself highlighting phrase after phrase in the Kindle app and laughing out loud in parts. It's the sort of writing that makes you want to share the phrases with loved ones. If only I could read this in a group and talk about it like we used to talk about Spitting Image on a Monday morning in the playground. 

Again, as with Les Misérables, this is a book I would dearly like to return to and to have a nice printed copy of. It's the kind of book that, having read it through once, it would be useful to have in a Kindle app to dip in and out of in a waiting room or at a bus stop. The language is that good. 

I loved every bit of it. The message to take away from this is that, more often than not, classics become so for a very good reason and that perseverance really can pay off!