mazza57's review against another edition
4.0
This is a book that definitely stands the test of time. Heller writes with abandon skipping backwards and forwards dragging the reader with him. It is the war novel to end all war novels capturing adroitly the insanity of war.
bookwormerica's review
4.0
easily the best classic I've read so far. loved all the nonsense especially major major major lol
clellman's review
4.0
very clever
lovely words and sentences
like phantom tollbooth for grownups, in a way
lovely words and sentences
like phantom tollbooth for grownups, in a way
pablox's review
adventurous
funny
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
4.0
bremchmel's review
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
zoethrasher's review
dark
funny
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.25
trilobite's review
4.0
Catch-22 is a dark, satirical look at WW II and a bomber-pilot who desperately strives to survive the war by getting "grounded" and thus excused from flying additional missions. But military regulations dictate that a doctor can ground pilots when two conditions are met: 1) The pilot has been declared "insane" and 2) the pilot requests to be grounded due to insanity. What's the catch? Catch-22! Catch-22 declares anyone who would ask to be grounded on the basis of insanity must not truly be insane because the truly insane keeping flying more missions!
With this circular reasoning and hundreds more just like it, Heller exposes the absurdity of capitalism, the military-industial complex and ultimately human nature.
When Catch-22 was published in 1961, it was a rare, new approach to war: that of humor turning to horror. Although the novel did not win any awards, and never appeared on any best-seller lists, it was an important work because it seized the sense of dread and paralysis silently screaming under the surface of American Life. It was published at a time when fiction was expected to portray a hallowed view of America and its institutions.
Initially, Heller's satire reminded me of Twain, but I later learned his writing style and form were influenced by Nabokov's glib approach to tragedy, which led Heller to blend comedy and tragedy. He was also influenced by Céline's experimentation with time, structure and informal speech.
I'm not gonna lie. This book also brought Mike Judge's 2006 movie Idiocracy to mind. "But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes."
It's also interesting to note that Heller's satirical treatment of WW II inspired the film and t.v. show M.A.S.H.
Heller's descriptive writing is also impressive. Here's a few examples:
"Major ----- de Coverley straightened with astonishment at Milo's effrontery and concentrated upon him the full fury of his storming countenance with its rugged overhang of gullied forehead and huge crag of a humpback nose that came charging out of his face wrathfully like a Big Ten fullback."
"He was a sad, birdlike man with a spatulate face and scrubbed, tapering features of a well-groomed rat."
His description of Colonel Cathcart cracked me up the most:
"Colonel Cathcart was a slick, successful, slipshod, unhappy man of thirty-six who lumbered when he walked and wanted to be a general. He was dashing and dejected, poised and chagrined. He was complacent and insecure, daring in the administrative stratagems he employed to bring himself to the attention of his superiors and craven in his concern that his schemes might all backfire. He was handsome and unattractive, a swashbuckling, beefy, conceited man who was putting on fat and was tormented chronically by prolonged seizures of apprehension....The fact that there were thousands of men his own age and older who had not even attained the rank of major enlivened him with foppish delight in his own remarkable worth; on the other hand, the fact that there were men of his own age and younger who were already generals contaminated him with an agonizing sense of failure and made him gnaw at his fingernails with an unappeasable anxiety..."
So why am I giving this novel four stars instead of five? The book is a bit repetitive, with a multitude of characters that are difficult to keep track of. Also, Heller is sexist in his treatment of female characters. You could say that I'm confusing the author with his characters and you could be right. You could also say that Heller was likely a product of his time: 1950's America. Yes, Catch-22 was subversive, but in 1961, the sixties were just beginning.
With this circular reasoning and hundreds more just like it, Heller exposes the absurdity of capitalism, the military-industial complex and ultimately human nature.
When Catch-22 was published in 1961, it was a rare, new approach to war: that of humor turning to horror. Although the novel did not win any awards, and never appeared on any best-seller lists, it was an important work because it seized the sense of dread and paralysis silently screaming under the surface of American Life. It was published at a time when fiction was expected to portray a hallowed view of America and its institutions.
Initially, Heller's satire reminded me of Twain, but I later learned his writing style and form were influenced by Nabokov's glib approach to tragedy, which led Heller to blend comedy and tragedy. He was also influenced by Céline's experimentation with time, structure and informal speech.
I'm not gonna lie. This book also brought Mike Judge's 2006 movie Idiocracy to mind. "But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes."
It's also interesting to note that Heller's satirical treatment of WW II inspired the film and t.v. show M.A.S.H.
Heller's descriptive writing is also impressive. Here's a few examples:
"Major ----- de Coverley straightened with astonishment at Milo's effrontery and concentrated upon him the full fury of his storming countenance with its rugged overhang of gullied forehead and huge crag of a humpback nose that came charging out of his face wrathfully like a Big Ten fullback."
"He was a sad, birdlike man with a spatulate face and scrubbed, tapering features of a well-groomed rat."
His description of Colonel Cathcart cracked me up the most:
"Colonel Cathcart was a slick, successful, slipshod, unhappy man of thirty-six who lumbered when he walked and wanted to be a general. He was dashing and dejected, poised and chagrined. He was complacent and insecure, daring in the administrative stratagems he employed to bring himself to the attention of his superiors and craven in his concern that his schemes might all backfire. He was handsome and unattractive, a swashbuckling, beefy, conceited man who was putting on fat and was tormented chronically by prolonged seizures of apprehension....The fact that there were thousands of men his own age and older who had not even attained the rank of major enlivened him with foppish delight in his own remarkable worth; on the other hand, the fact that there were men of his own age and younger who were already generals contaminated him with an agonizing sense of failure and made him gnaw at his fingernails with an unappeasable anxiety..."
So why am I giving this novel four stars instead of five? The book is a bit repetitive, with a multitude of characters that are difficult to keep track of. Also, Heller is sexist in his treatment of female characters. You could say that I'm confusing the author with his characters and you could be right. You could also say that Heller was likely a product of his time: 1950's America. Yes, Catch-22 was subversive, but in 1961, the sixties were just beginning.
jazzzzzzz's review
challenging
dark
funny
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
4.5
lphiebs's review
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
Or 4.5
waiehse's review
4.0
Fantastic! Hilariously written! A really fun ride with really lovable characters!
And of course great themes and symbolism and blah blah but without reading too much into it (haha) it was just plain fun sometimes.
And of course great themes and symbolism and blah blah but without reading too much into it (haha) it was just plain fun sometimes.