Book Review I - Catch-22

Book Review I
Catch-22 (published 1961)

Somehow I came out alive this semester. After blundering through in an almost never-ending pile of garbage, I made it out. The relief is immense, but I suppose the stress will only be completely eradicated once I get my grades for all my classes (only two and three labs to go!). During the end of the semester and finals, I was so down to write reviews about anything, but I knew I should actually prioritise my study time. I was going to review Forbidden Planet, but it's been so long that all I can say it's thumbs way up so definitely check it out. Then with Prince's death, I was going to review Purple Rain, but I watched it at least one year ago, probably more like two, and it was actually just plain boring (except for Sex Shooter - love that song!). And, well, I haven't watched any films in a while, so instead I'm here to review something new - a book!

I'm a pretty avid reader, and if I really like a novel, I can speed through it pretty quickly. Though lately I have been trekking through classics, like Le comte de Monte-Cristo (finished tome 1! Only another six hundred pages to go) and The Divine Comedy (which I am reading in English because my Italian is level zero), so my reading has been limited. Usually I don't really have much to say about classics except a yay or nay because either it was to my liking or it wasn't, or it was so darn long and weird that maybe I actually can't say anything. But sometimes I come across a classic where I have a lot to say, and that's the case with Joseph Heller's Catch-22.

Catch-22 tells the story of John Yossarian, part of the air forces during World War II, who wishes he could be anywhere but Italy in the middle of a war. In an attempt to leave the forces forever, he is faced with the now famous Catch-22: any man who continues to fly missions is deemed insane, and thus is free to leave, but any man who doesn't want to fly is sane, and must stay.

From this alone, we know the book is anti-war. I found it hilarious since I bought Starship Troopers (the novel, not the movie!) at the same time as this guy, and let me tell you, Starship Troopers is definitely pro-military. But whatever, I mean, I would never join the forces/national guard/reserves/whatever everything is referred to in your country. Maybe to help out through my knowledge of optical devices or lasers (or xasers! I know they're called x-ray lasers, but the "l" stands for "light" and I take it as visible light, not just electromagnetic radiation, so eff you guys. Although I just found out that our gamma lasers are going to be called "grasers", not "gasers", which upsets me... TANGENT), but I'm not ready to face any training associated with joining those guys (I like the physical aspect, but chemical warfare exposure? People exploding in your face? No). And I agree that World War II and the Vietnam War messed people up and war itself is hideous - hence why I would never join - but I also believe that human civilisation will always use war and fighting to sort problems, nor can we expect other peoples to not want to come rushing with guns. I would hope that psychological benefits would be offered to any participant in a war without a bat of the eye, but, well, that isn't always the case. Either way, while I agree with the global "make peace, not war", I also believe it's naive to think the movements will actually work. Unless the politicians are the ones stuck fighting, they'll continue.

Anyway, here I am criticising the message of the book without even giving it a chance. Well, okay, the book does present the same point I said (and it probably inspired it) - the commissioned officers who sit on their asses and don't do shit will obviously up the missions because it doesn't damage them in any way - they care about the status. But I found it a bit offensive how the book took it. I mean, every person I have spoken to who has participated in the military can be... somewhat crazy (seriously, you're joining the army - what do you expect?), but completely respectable people who had some level of intelligence - at least those who Catch-22 shames with banalities and stupidities. If I was in the forces, I don't know how I would appreciate the book. Anti-war, fine, but to say everyone in the army is a moron is massively exaggerated. "But the book is a satire! It's funny and exaggerating!" you will say. Yes, that's true, but unlike the portrayal of an Irishman as a drunk, a stereotype, this one feels like it has no basis. It's like portraying an Irishman as a voodoo witch doctor - it's off and doesn't make sense. At least to me - maybe you'd see it differently.

Now, let's say the message aside. I mean, I'm actually only thinking about this now that I've sat down and started writing and thinking about it. Because I thought the book was funny. I laughed at the contradictions, I laughed at the mannerisms of some people - that is, until the book started dragging. Catch-22 if nothing else, was longer than it should have been. The catch-22's throughout the book died off once you knew exactly what everyone was going to say. It reminded me of Heart of Darkness. Let me explain - Heart of Darkness was a novella and it explained the sanity of man and the animalistic nature that cannot be escaped (see: Apocalypse Now). That novella could have gone on and on about the man's journey through the Congolese jungle, but it didn't - the novella was short, to the point, and told me what I wanted to know. But Catch-22 went on forever. Dude, seriously, as much as I laughed at the Champlain and the crazy behaviour of Yossarian, by page 200, I was wondering how this could go on any longer. And it went on for another three hundred pages about. Jesus, are you serious? It literally taught me nothing new and the whole paradoxical style died. It was gone. It was over. Sure, the whole time you're wondering what the hell is up with Orr (read the book to get it), but seriously, this thing was unnecessarily long. And it pissed me off because it was so long. I just wanted to finish it, to say I was done, and it went on.

I don't really have much else to say about Catch-22. I can see why the paradoxes brought it to fame, but I think the book should not be considered a classic. Its message is a bright light blinding you, and then it drags on for way longer than it should have. I didn't agree with the way the message was portrayed and honestly, I didn't get the end - what the hell does it mean that Yossarian runs away from the war? Honestly, it feels like a cop-out - I stayed until the end, so should the protagonist. It's like the book itself couldn't escape and just ran away... But seriously, what does it mean if a captain just leaves its crew? Yossarian feels bad because he's leaving everyone after the commissioned officers tell him he's free if he tells fabulous stories about them, but then it's like, "Eff it, I'll run away, that means I don't have to feel bad." Court-martialed and just bullshit all around.

Anti-war is fine, but Catch-22 was kind of bullshit in its way of going about the subject. Slaughterhouse-Five? Sure, that was cool. But don't read Catch-22 - the synopsis will tell you the highlight of the book, and that's all you need.