My first book is Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. As noted earlier it placed #7 on the Modern Library List of 100 greatest novels and #15 on Radcliffe’s Rival list. This is one of those books you always hear about, the name of the book has entered our language, above is the definitition from Webster's. I had been avoiding this book for quite awhile but did manage to get through the movie version some time in the past thinking that would suffice. After reading the book I can say it did not. I remember the movie only vaguely, it didn’t make much of an impression on me. The book I would call brilliant. That is not a word I use a lot.
Reading this book, at first, is a lot like walking into a movie that has already started. For the first few chapters I was pretty confused and disoriented. There are several key events in the life of the main character Yossarian, a bombardier serving in World War II, that are crucial to understanding him and these events slowly come into focus. You have to get used to the constant contradictions in the narrative which at first are annoying but soon are a big part of the flow of the book. There are some honest-to-goodness laugh out loud moments as well as the kind that fill you with an incredible, impotent rage.
Here is basically what you need to know about Yossarian, “Yossarian was a lead bombardier who had been demoted because he no longer gave a damn whether he missed [the target] or not. He had decided to live forever or die in the attempt, and his only mission each time he went up was to come down alive.”
In addition to the constant contradictions are the themes of rationalization and when that doesn’t work, just adopting the philosophy to not think about the things you are doing or being asked to do. None of this goes over very well with Yossarian who wants to make sense out of stuff there will never be any way to make sense of. The debacle at Ferrara and the death of Snowden are defining moments for him.
There are lots of insane, hypocritical self-involved characters in this book. One of the worst is Milo Minderbender. Milo’s list of accomplishments include working with whoever has a buck . He “contracted with the American Military authorities to bomb the German-held highway bridge at Orvieto and with the German military authorities to defend the bridge at Orvieto with antiaircraft fire against his own attack.” And more significantly,for Yossarian, Milo replaces all the morphine in the first aid kits aboard the men’s planes with notes stating “What’s good for M & M enterprises is good for the country.”
When Yossarian finally just refuses to fly, his commanding officers try to talk him into relenting because he is affecting morale. Other guys in the squad are starting to think about refusing to fly and we can’t have that!
“Won’t you fly for your country?” Colonel Korn demanded…”Won’t you give up your life for Colonel Cathcart and me?” Yossarian tensed with alert astonishment when he heard Colonel Korn’s concluding words. “What’s that?” he exclaimed. “What have you and Colonel Cathcart got to do with my country? You’re not the same.” “How can you separate us?” Colonel Korn inquired with ironical tranquility. “That’s right,” Colonel Cathcart cried emphatically. “You’re either for us or against us. There’s no two ways about it.” “I’m afraid he’s got you,” added Colonel Korn. “You’re either for us or against your country. It’s as simple as that.” “Oh no, Colonel. I don’t buy that.” Colonel Korn unruffled. “Neither do I, frankly, but everyone else will. So there you are.” Does that sound vaguely familiar, or is it just me?
I’ll leave you with two exchanges in the book:
“The chaplain had sinned, and it was good. Common sense told him that telling lies and defecting from duty were sins. On the other hand, everyone knew that sin was evil and that no good could come from evil. But he did feel good; he felt positively marvelous. Consequently, it followed logically that telling lies and defecting from duty could not be sins. The chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization, and he was exhilarated by the discovery.”
In a conversation between Dunbar and Doc Stubbs, two of the men who almost have consciences Doc Stubbs tells how he
“used to get a big kick out of saving people’s lives. Now I wonder what the hell’s the point, since they all have to die anyway.”
“Oh, there’s a point, all right,” Dunbar assured him.
“Is there? What is the point?”
"The point is to keep them from dying for as long as you can.”
“Yeah, but what’s the point, since they all have to die anyway?”
“The trick is not to think about that.”
Perhaps it is the fact that my particular cynical world view is reinforced by this book or the fact that it really is a great book, but I would recommend giving it a try.
Next week: We talk about "Lord of the Flies"
No comments:
Post a Comment