Jump to content

Talk:Catch-22/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Quotes not actually quotes?

In the article, it states that " Other forms of Catch-22 are invoked throughout the novel to justify various bureaucratic actions. At one point, victims of harassment by military police quote the MPs' explanation of one of Catch-22's provisions: "Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating." Another character explains: "Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."" However, neither of these are actually quotes from the book, which you can confirm by searching them on Google Books. I don't understand Wiki policy but this seems to be wrong - can a more experienced editor take a look? 151.213.177.190 (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

SPOILERS

somebody needs to put spoiler warnings before plot development please. I don't know how.

Trial by drowning

I wasn't comfortable adding this to the article since I know so little about it, but this reminds me of the old witch-hunting policy: Submerge her under water. If she is a witch, she will not drown, so we must burn her at the stake. If she is not a witch, she will drown, but at least her soul will be saved. Not sure how to phrase that, since I only know the anecdote, and not the historical evidence... -- Wapcaplet 14:55 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I've created Trial_by_drowning and added a link. Jay 13:00, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Catch-22 a success?

bdesham, looks like your minor edit makes a major difference in meaning.
" .. (Catch-22) was not regarded as a great success earning less money and acclaim than MASH". "earning" has been changed to "as it earned". Now it'll appear that Catch-22 didn't earn as much money as MASH because of which we can declare it a failure. MASH had nothing to do with Catch-22's failure. Jay 15:55, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment you made on my talk page-- I thought that Catch-22 was not regarded as successful, precisely because it earned less than MASH. If this is not the case, what was it supposed to say? In any event, the original was gramatically incorrect, which is why I changed it-- I'm a huge pedant when it comes to that type of thing :-) Feel free to change the page to whatever you think makes sense. --bdesham 23:40, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I think what the author meant was that Catch-22 did not make enough money to be counted as a success. Period. And to emphasise the fact, he added a reference of another war comedy which happened to make more money than Catch-22. So to link the failure of Catch-22 with the success of MASH is incorrect.
btw, how was the original line grammatically incorrect ? I often use such sentences myself. If its wrong, I'll have to change my writing style. Jay 10:20, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
OK, I think I understand now. The original sentence was a run-on (or something similar); there should at least have been a comma there: (Catch-22) was not regarded as a great success, earning less money... --bdesham 13:33, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)


the book has somer readership in Germany. To those who are unsure of the title: "What's the catch?" translates to "wo ist der Haken?" so catch-22 might be §22 ZDV (zentrale dienstvorschrift der bundeswehr) Frank A

Orson Welles

Any idea whose character did Orson Welles play in the movie ? Jay 13:00, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He played Brigadier General Dreedle. Czolgolz

A fan

What a great book i just love that yossarian. Yammy Yamathorn

Greatest book ever I say! --KingZog 05:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I love the book dearly. I don't know if this is really the space for people's opinion of it, though...

As someone who did spend 5 years in the Air Force this is a surprisingly accurate description of what military life really is like. FLJuJitsu 22:42, 29 Aug 2007 (UTC)

I read the book twice, once before I went into the army, the second after I got out of the army. I got a lot more out of it on the second reading. JHobson3 (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Pages for every character?

Much as I love the book, do all the minor characters like Major --- de Coverley really need their own pages?Harry R 21:18, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

IMO there should be a summery in this page, where the characters can be mentioned in context. The notable character names can then redirect to this page. Spreading the story over lots of pages with the characters doesn't work well. Thue 21:46, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Why aren't we supposed to add articles for characters

and only add characters to the Catch-22 list? --user:Alan.h

Why do the characters merit individial pages? --Elijah 00:37, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
I'm not very comfortable with creating a zillion stubs. I'd rather merge all those stubs into one big page like Catch-22 characters -Shoecream 22:21, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
If you do that, though, please add appropriate "#redirect" pages for the individual characters. There's no reason why "Yosarian" (sp?), "Hungry Joe", "Milo Minderbinder", et al. shouldn't map to the "Catch-22 characters" article, given that most people who seaarch for "Yosarian"or "Hungry Joe" or "Milo Minderbinder" are probably looking for the Catch-22 references.
Atlant 23:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I, in one of my rare inclusionist moments, disagree strongly with these changes. Wikipedia is not paper. These characters merit their own articles, and they have the potential to grow into quality articles eventually. I'm inclined to revert this massive change. — Dan | Talk 01:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I won't stop you. But, as I wrote in my talk page, I don't feel that a good deal of these minor characters (like, say, Mrs. Daneeka) deserve their own page, so I've merged the minor ones into one page. I fully intend to move the major characters back once i've straightened things out -Shoecream 01:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, I'll wait and see if anyone else has an opinion on the subject. — Dan | Talk 02:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge them. Mrs. Scheisskopf looks pretty pointless to me, especially as it really needs a spoiler before it. --Henrygb 17:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then instead of deleting articles, why doesn't someone merge them? I'm a little sore at having my article deleted rather than merged. Keep in mind, other non related articles are linked to those specific characters.

We should merge the articles on minor characters into one big List of characters in Catch-22 article in accordance with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fiction. Some of the major ones might might warrant their own articles, though. In a day or two I'll go ahead and do some merging myself and see how it works. Bryan 08:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Could I suggest that we group the characters somehow instead of giving them separate pages, maybe the women, senior army people, he support staff, people Yossarian meets in Rome. They'd need better titles, but each of those groups lends itself to discussion and analysis. Bandraoi 22:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • All of these characters have their own chapter, which in almost all cases means there is enough to know about these people to fill at least 3 paragraphs, surely big enough for a seperate article. Plus it are clearly seperated subjects. There isn't that much double information. --137.120.222.64 11:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is the disambiguation included in this page?

This has to be fixed. This page should be the disambig and a specific created for each other meaning. Come on people -_- Lockeownzj00 01:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

no germans?

the article states, "One of the many strange aspects of this book is that, despite the fact that the (official) villains are the Germans, no German soldiers ever actually appear in the story."

wouldn't the air strike ordered by milo count as german soldiers appearing in the story? i don't have the book with me, but i thought those were germans milo contracted. do they not count because they were in airplanes, or is it because they weren't named individually? i think the claim should be modified, at least in some way, if they were germans. now that i think about it though, is there even a reason for the statement at all? it's not strange that a story about the USAF (or whatever it was called) doesn't deal with the enemy individually. they bombed them from the air! it's central to the point of the story that killing was a bureaucratic, "impersonal" action, by drones following orders from people they hated. i think we should zap the statement entirely. SaltyPig 00:52, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

The German military is part of the story. In another scene, Yossarian argues that "they" are trying to kill him, by shooting at him. But there aren't any German characters to villanize, which I think is the point. Twinxor 01:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
okay. thanks. now how is that strange? SaltyPig 06:11, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
It's strange because the Germans, who are painted as responsible for untold evil, and additionally stole your Shift key, are not the evil ones. Traditional propaganda says that our side is purely good, heroically battling the unredeemably nefarious opposing side; Catch-22 reverses that, making the Germans fairly benign and the Americans malicious. Twinxor 08:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
my shift key is present and works fine (obviously). i like what you wrote. can you work that into the article instead of what's there now, maybe calling it unusual instead of strange? SaltyPig 10:57, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
The airstrike ordered by Milo was conducted by the Allied squaddron itself, after the bombing they land back at the island. --137.120.222.64 12:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a scene where Milo comes back from behind enemy lines with a group of German bombers. Milo is furious when Cathcart attempts to have the pilots arrested and their planes confiscated (they were part of the syndicate, you know). Czolgolz 13:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The planes were German but I don't think the bombers were? --137.120.222.64 12:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The planes were M&M Enterprises aircraft (and were so painted in the movie, as well), but the crews were never identified as I recall...

Mark SubletteMark SubletteMark Sublette

The incident where Cathcart confiscates the planes isn't the "bombing the base" incident, but a minor part of the story detailing the growth of M&M Enterprises. Behold:

One day Milo flew away to England to pick up a load of Turkish halvah and came flying back from Madagascar leading four German bombers filled with yams, collards, mustard greens and black-eyed Georgia peas. Milo was dumbfounded when he stepped down to the ground and found a contingent of armed M.P.s waiting to imprison the German pilots and confiscate their planes. Confiscate! The mere word was anathema to him, and he stormed back and forth in excoriating condemnation, shaking a piercing finger of rebuke in the guilt-ridden faces of Colonel Cathcart, Colonel Korn and the poor battle-scarred captain with the submachine gun who commanded the M.P.s.

'Is this Russia?' Milo assailed them incredulously at the top of his voice. 'Confiscate?' he shrieked, as though he could not believe his own ears. 'Since when is it the policy of the American government to confiscate the private property of its citizens? Shame on you! Shame on all of you for even thinking such a horrible thought.'
'But Milo,' Major Danby interrupted timidly, 'we're at war with Germany, and those are German planes.'
'They are no such thing!' Milo retorted furiously. 'Those planes belong to the syndicate, and everybody has a share. Confiscate? How can you possibly confiscate your own private property? Confiscate, indeed! I've never heard anything so depraved in my whole life.'

And sure enough, Milo was right, for when they looked, his mechanics had painted out the German swastikas on the wings, tails and fuselages with double coats of flat white and stenciled in the words M & M ENTERPRISES, FINE FRUITS AND PRODUCE. Right before their eyes he had transformed his syndicate into an international cartel.

— Vintage Classics edition, pg. 291
There. Problem solved. The planes and their pilots are both German, but they get swallowed up by M&M Enterprises. That quotes also very good at emphasing the effective "non-existence" of Germany in the novel.

While there are mentions of Germans being physically present, they don't have speaking roles, nor are they given names. To all intents and purposes, there are no German characters in the novel.--Artiste-extraordinaire 23:39, 13 July 2006 (AEST)


The statement is misleading, as there are no German enemies, but Lt. Scheisskopf is German.

No, that statement is misleading, as Lt. (or Gen.) Scheisskopf is an American officer, who happens to have a German name - which, incidentally, is German for "Shithead", as Lt. Engle, one of the other officers at the training base calls him. --Artiste-extraordinaire 23:39, 13 July 2006 (AEST)

Weird formatting in categories

One of the cats seems to be displaying as "Modern Library 100 best novels[hide]", where clicking hide makes the TOC go away. Anyone know why the link from the TOC somehow got put down there? Twinxor 16:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Article 58?

This seems like a horrible law, but I'm not sure how it's a Catch-22 type law. Could the person who inserted the edit explain it? If not, it should come out.

M*A*S*H

A lot of the comedy and ideas in the M*A*S*H tv show are borrowed from Catch-22.

More than that. MASH the book and MASH the movie made from it are wholly different in tone, etc. The makes of MASH the movie wish they had written that book before Catch 22.--Buckboard 10:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's peculiar that neither this article nor the one on MASH mentions that the book/series was anti-war, though essentially that was the whole point of the author(s). Nor that they both were set anachronistically in an earlier popular war with the negative atmosphere of the 1960s; in MASH's case, the very unpopular Vietnam War.
I've read of several instances in World War II where a soldier is awarded a high medal for valor, continues fighting and goes on to be killed later. This couldn't happen in the 3 scratches/purple hearts and you're home free environment of Vietnam. Student7 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it true that being wounded three times sent you home from Vietnam, or is this just leftover anti-Kerry propoganda? As for MASH, author Hooker was an avowed right-winger and was disgusted with the leftist stance of the TV show.Czolgolz (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be merged?

All the other character's have their own page, why does Dreedle need to merged into the main section?

Overhauling of merges for characters - main and minor

I think this article would look superb if the characters had short introductions and major details of each with a section for the main characters, and another for the minor ones. A link could lead to a comprehensive listing of all the characters in each section. Some bios are so short we could merge the articles straight onto the page.

Movie

Someone should write a descriptive few paragraphs about the movie: actors, plot differences, stats about how well it did and such; that would certainly expand greatly on this article, improving it significantly.

I would strongly suggest that the Movie is kept in a different article altogether.

I thought the movie did an excellent job of capturing the spirit of the novel, although there were some important things left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.79.239 (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Willing to help

I recently read the book in its entirety, so, I can aid if aid is needed to add more info on the book or characters. I greatly enjoyed the book and would like to work as extensively as I can, so if anyone has any ideas, let me know!

Strongfaithin1 20:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)strongfaithin1

I don't understand this article

There doesn't seem to be an attempt at a plot summary anywhere in the article. Wikipedia's most coherent description of this book's events can actually be found in the various, inexplicable articles that have been created for each of Catch-22's characters. Yes, I know the book's plot is not completely straightforward, but there's no reason this article can't be.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest starting a new page called Summary of Catch-22, but I'll post all that in a section at the bottom of the pagr. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 06:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"the book was allegedly refused by 22 publishers,"

I've removed this unsourced addition, which was added on 14 July: Also, the book was allegedly refused by 22 publishers, hence the reason "22" was chosen for the renaming, rather than another number.

It sounds like a bit of folklore to me, but we can put it back if someone can source it properly. --Tony Sidaway 13:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The book was originally to be titled Catch-18 but the publisher already had a book coming out that year with "18" in the title, so Heller was made to choose another number

The "other" 18

The "other" 18 was in the title of Leon Uris' Mila 18.

Mark Sublette 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ex-PFC Wintergreen

Why should Ex-PFC Wintergreen not have his own page as all the other Catch-22 characters do. He is an important and regular character throughout the book. Indeed his page probably needs expanding e.g. add his skill of digging holes and filling them in as punishment for going AWOL, and his phone conversations with the Generals playing them both.

Cheers

--Lethaniol 09:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He does have his own page, under the Ws. Czolgolz 12:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can see, but there is proposal to merge it with the Catch -22 main page - see top of Catch-22 page (also Lt/Col Scheisskopf has been suggested for merging).

--Lethaniol 12:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I agree with you. He's a major character, though some of the others could stand to be merged. Czolgolz 15:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As only Czolgolz and I seem to be talking about this, and are in agreement - I have deleted the Merge of ex-PFC and Col/Gen Sch. There is a few too many characters listed - maybe somecould be merged with each other - e.g. General Dreedle and his Girl, Nately's Whore and the little sister - basically any characters that are always connected to each other. Also some characters are missing e.g. would suggest Ward Patients catergory to cover, obviously, the Ward paitents in Yos and Dunbar ward in hospital. Will come up with a detailed proposal in due time. Lethaniol 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree...I'd be happy to help with this. Czolgolz 18:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging and New Character Sections

Cool, I could do with the help I think. If there is anyone esle that wants to help please shout out. Currently I am rereading the book and updating all the characters - adding detail and depth, heading, quotes etc... Putting them all in the same format e.g. See Clevinger, Orr, The Chaplain - basically attempting to wikify them. If there is any suggestions as to a better format or headings or catergories etc then do say.

Okay my ideas on Characters to merge:

  • The Chaplains wife to be added to the Chaplain
  • Lt/Gen Scheisskopf, his wife and Dori Duz (also add in the two Lt Engle and Travers re comments about parades)
  • The Doc and his wife, and the newlyweds
  • Nately, Nately's whore and the little sister
  • Dreedle and Dreedle's girl and Colonel Moodus
  • The girl with lime coloured panties and Luciana with Yo-yo.
  • Any minor characters including the dubious prostitutes that we meet on Milo's trips.
  • Michaela into Aarfy (Note Michaela does not even have her own page anyway - it goes to it as a generic girl's name
  • Nurse Duckett and Cramer
  • Colonel Nevers another officer killed that Yo-yo remembers. - add into Kraft??? - add in Snowden??? - Kid Sampson??? all are characters that we never really meet but all die on Yo-Yo, and greatly affect him.
  • Corporal Kolodny into Captain Black.
  • Doctor Stubbs and Major Sanderson would fit better in with the Daneeka as different takes on medical care.

My ideas on new Character categories:

  • The other hospital patients - merge in the Texan.
  • The big fat colonel and Metcalf (who interogate Clevinger)


Okay thats my ideas for the mo. Hopefully they all make sense either because the characters are always associated or because there is a common theme. This would help cut down the number of links to be a bit more managable.

Cheers

Lethaniol 11:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Expanding Character Sections using Template

(This refers to a question I asked on Temlakos's talk --Lethaniol 10:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)) user:Lethaniol Hello, Lethaniol:

I've never read Catch-22, nor seen the film version. So I can't comment on any of the characters.

My fictional-character template is intended for use with major characters in a novel. Using it to sort out the various motivations and goals of each character in a complicated work is entirely appropriate, and would probably help the reader understand the work better.

The insights on the craft of fiction by author Randy Ingermanson form the basis of my template. He taught me that all good novels are character-driven--and that creating a character means settling on his motivations, goals, conflicts, and who stands in the way before you set down a single word. The headings in my template are the attributes of a character that its creator must have had to decide. --Temlakos 20:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I am looking to use the following template (reccomended by the Novel Wikiproject) for each of the major characters see here, and a modified one for the minor characters. I have already put Doc Daneeka into this format. As this takes a lot of time - please can people say if they don't like it (or if they do). If it is good then I will seek to expand all the other characters in the same way :):) --Lethaniol 10:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC) user:Lethaniol

Expanding Characters and Merging

Dear All - as no one has suggested otherwise, I will go ahead with introducing the character template (see Orr and Doc Daneeka, Aarfy and Hungrey Jow will be done in next few days). Also will merge minor characters that are only relevant with respect to other characters e.g. see Doc Daneeka where I have merged in Dr Stubbs and MRs Daneeka. I have though, for easy of navigation, given them section headings each, all will try to do so for all other merged characters. Cheers --Lethaniol 17:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge The list of characters should be merged with the main article, they are already very similar. DrKiernan 12:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not Merge. As said before, and it is what I have been trying, I admit slowly, to do, is condense down the list of Characters on the Main page to only the most important, but still have the link to a full list of characters. Lethaniol 13:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have cut down the section in the main article to include just the major characters. This makes it easier to read and navigate, and with the extra page for the complete list, still enables a comprehensive following. Hopefully people will find this okay. Will update List with the named characters that are still missing e.g. Colonel Nevers who is killed on mission to be replaced by Cathcart. If I have made any glaring omissions please correct. Cheers Lethaniol 15:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why 22?

The book was originally to be titled Catch-18 but the publisher already had a book coming out that year with "18" in the title, so Heller was made to choose another number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.127.38 (talk • contribs) 25 September 2006

Is there a source for that claim? --ZeroOne 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the best website link I can find for it [1]. Search in Google for Catch-18 and this info seems to be common knowledge, though it might be urban myth. The only way to be sure is to contact/find info from original publisher: New World Writing. Lethaniol 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC):
Finally might be able to lay this issue to rest. From SOURCE: Nagel, James. “The Early Composition History of Catch-22.” In Biographies of Books: The Compositional Histories of Notable American Writings, edited by James Barbour and Tom Quirk, pp. 262-90. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1996. Here is a piece that all may find interesting. I am currently rewriting this page and so will look to include this info in soon. Cheers--Lethaniol 08:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
One point that should be made at the inception of any discussion of the stages of composition of Heller's first novel is that from beginning to end the title of the book was “Catch-18,” a title with somewhat richer thematic overtones than “Catch-22.” The early drafts of the novel, particularly the sketches and note cards, have a somewhat more “Jewish” emphasis than does the published novel. In Judaism, “eighteen” is a significant number in that the eighteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, “chai,” means “living” or “life.” Eighteen thus has a meaning for Jews that it does not have for other people: the Mishnah promotes eighteen as the ideal age for men to marry, and Jews often give personal gifts or charitable contributions in units of eighteen. Thematically, the title “Catch-18” would thus contain a subtle reference to the injunction in the Torah to choose life, a principle endorsed by Yossarian at the end of the novel when he deserts.
It is also clear that the title was changed not because Heller had second thoughts but because a few weeks before the scheduled printing of the novel, Heller's publisher learned that Leon Uris, who had earlier written Exodus, was coming out with a novel entitled Mila-18. A change had to be made, and there was discussion of using “Catch-11” in that the duplication of the digit 1 would parallel the structural use of the repetition of scenes. But “11” was rejected because of the movie Ocean's Eleven and the now familiar concern for using a number already current in the public imagination. Then Heller found a new title he liked, “Catch-14,” and on January 29, 1961, he wrote to his publisher in defense of it: “The name of the book is now CATCH-14. (Forty-eight hours after you resign yourself to the change, you'll find yourself almost preferring this new number. It has the same bland and nondescript significance of the original. It is far enough away from Uris for the book to establish an identity of its own, I believe, yet close enough to the original title to still benefit from the word of mouth publicity we have been giving it.)” For whatever reason, and legend has it that Robert Gottlieb did not find “14” to be a funny number, the title was finally changed once again, this time to “Catch-22,” recapturing the concept of repetition. Since the central device of the novel is déjà vu, with nearly every crucial scene, until the conclusion, coming back a second time, the title was once again coordinate with the organizational schema of the narrative. As Heller remarked, “the soldier in white comes back a second time, the dying soldier sees everything twice, the chaplain thinks that everything that happens has happened once before. For that reason the two 2's struck me as being very appropriate to the novel.” On this logic, and a decidedly accidental series of events, the phrase “catch-22,” rather than “catch-18,” became the term for bureaucratic impasse the world over.
There are now three sections on the use of 22, some of the answers are repeated. My suggestion is that these sections are merged. The same question was more or less asked and answered on the disussion page accompanying Mila 18. It may be sensible to merge all these and create one section which is subsequently referred to. --83.160.198.125 (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The final choice of 22 was probably a reference to Rule 22, a rule of procedure in the US senate which was the subject of much negative attention in the press at the time this novel was written because it was used repeatedly to scuttle civil-rights legislation. The similarity is mentioned in Caro's MASTER OF THE SENATE: "Like the seniority system, the filibuster was protected by a very powerful force: itself. Since the loophole in rule 22 allowed any motion to bring a bill to the floor to be filibustered, bringing a civil rights bill to the floor would require a change in rule 22. And changing rule 22 would require a motion to change it- which could be filibustered. This was perhaps the ultimate legislative Catch-22: any attempt to close the loophole allowed the loophole to be used to keep it from being closed. And because of it there was no realistic possibility that the filibuster would be changed." I'm not aware of any citable reference about this, but I'll keep an eye out. Unfortunately, if there is such a reference it's probably hidden away in the stacks of some university library in somebody's doctoral thesis. I suppose Buck Henry might know, but I doubt he'd fess up to it.Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ron Rosenbaum, at Slate, wrote an interesting article about Catch-22 that appeared on August, 2, 2011, that included an intriguing notion regarding 'why 22?' To summarize, he focuses on the importance of the "I see everything twice" chapter (chapter 18 in the book), concluding that "Maybe it was unconscious, but think of the number 22: It's seeing two, twice." The article in full can be found at: http://www.slate.com/id/2300576/pagenum/all/#p2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.65.247 (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Source of name ?

I had heard that it was based on a foreign word, "katcha" (spelling unknown) meaning something like "subsection". The story is that there was a list of laws, and one of them "katcha 18", perhaps, said that "we can ignore any of these laws and make up new laws as we see fit, without notifying anyone", thus effectively invalidating the rule of law entirely. This may have been for Italy under Mussolini. The meaning and number later morphed into the current catch-22 concept. Is there any truth to this story ? StuRat 15:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Military ranks of characters

Were these characters Captains, Lieutenants, Corporals, Sergeants, Privates or any other rank ? Aardvark, Appleby, Clevinger, Dobbs, Dunbar, Gus & Wes, Havermeyer, Huple, Hungry Joe, Kraft, McWatt, Orr, Kid Sampson, Snowden, Wintergreen

Also what was Yossarian's rank before he was promoted to Captain ? Jay 20:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Aardvark: Captain, Dobbs: Captain, Dunbar: Captain, Gus and Wes: Captains, Havermeyer: Captain, Joe: Captain, McWatt: Captain, Orr: Captain, Sampson, never stated, but probably a captain, Snowden: don't know, but he was an enlisted man, Wintergreen ex-PFC (private), later promoted to ex-sergeant (corporal). Appleby, Clevinger, and Huple were were officers, though I don't know if it ever stated their rank. Not sure about Kraft, he was only referred to.

Yossarian, I suppose, would have been a first Lieutenant before his promotion to captain.

Czolgolz 23:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I wanted to create a table with the characters vs. their ranks, and I couldn't figure out the ranks of the above. By the way, are the ranks for the characters you're sure of, specifically mentioned in the book ? Jay 20:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Dunbar was a Lieutenant, as can be seen from first chapter when the Chaplain ask "if that is Lt Dunbar" of Yossarian.Lethaniol 18:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, Czolgolz, I think if they're officer friends of Yossarian you can assume they're lieutenants, not captains, since they tend not to have the Cathcart-ist drive to be promoted. Orr isn't a captain, as far as I'm aware. They're only in the war for a year-ish through the whole book, and they start off graduating as lieutenants. Only Yossarian gets promoted. If anyone else would have been a captain, it would be Havermeyer, since they are the only two who are mentioned as being lead bombadiers, and from what I can tell, this is what Yossarian got into when he got captaincy.Artiste-extraordinaire 15:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Gus and Wes: Captains? Probably not. They were subordinate to doc Daneeka. He was a doctor, so probably a captain. G&W were probably enlisted man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.87.130.3 (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's always seemed to me that there's a correlation between rank and character, or that rank is indicative or revealing of character. Those closest to Yossarian's own rank of Captain are the most "normal" characters in the book. The further they get from Captain, the crazier/more incompetent/dangerous/malevolent they become, whether above the rank of Captain (Major, Cathcart, Peckem, Dreedle) or below it (Scheisskopf, Minderbinder, Wintergreen). Does this hold up, and is it worth mentioning in the article? Dodiad (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Reformat based on Wikiproject Novel

Hi All - you will notice that the article now looks a bit different - dont worry I have not removed any information (except the bit about the Playboy article which I have moved to Closing Time as it is more related to that as far as I can work out) - I have only moved it around.

I have added a number of sections, some with sectionstubs - in agreement with the Wikieprojects article template. If you can then please add details to each of these sections - if not I will work on them when I get time. Please do not revert unless you have a really good reason. Cheers --Lethaniol 12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Poorly written, simple errors and lack of info

I have noticed that many of the sentences in this srticle are either very weakly written or have problems with basic grammar. I will make an effort to correct these when I see them. I also notice lack of information where it could be added to some of the more inor characters. --I Am The Walrus 05:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your help would be greatly welcomed - if you see some of the talk above I have discussed what to do about various minor characters - if you are adding lots of material consider using the Wikiproject:Novels Character template e.g. see Major __ de Coverly. Lethaniol 10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Very poor quality book cover.

The cover picture looks like shit. I have a copy of the book that is more presentable, and might scan it in and replace the one there.--I Am The Walrus 05:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be great, but it should be the first edition cover if possible. Lethaniol 10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

are the sections that have no content necesary

i understand that it would be nice to have a trivia section but there is no content there and thus it only says its a stub non wiki-editors read this so this section is worthless to non-editors

I understand what you are saying, but I have only just implemented this Wikiprojects Novel template, and I thought we should give it a go for a couple of weeks to see if people can fill in the extra info. If after that the section remains blank then it can be deleted. Actually I will delete trivia now, as this probably is not necessary but leave the rest.Lethaniol 13:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

I have found a good reference that explains the timeline of Catch-22 and the mistakes/inconsistencies made by Heller in this. Now I will work on this, rewrite so as not to plagiarise, but what do people think about its location. It could either be put here with the main article, in Yossarian's article (as it mostly relates to him) or both. Thoughts please, cheers --Lethaniol 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That'll be useful. It definitely can be a section in the main article, as the article can do with a lot more. Yossarian's timeline is Catch-22's timeline, there should be a mention in both. Jay 20:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that there have been a few critics who have come up with timelines which contradict each other. I found this book at school (which I've since left, so bummer) which examined and poked holes in all the various timelines and presented one of its own. So hmm. Oh, and the timeline on the Yossarian page looks like it belongs more on this one; there's a lot of stuff there (e.g. Milo setting up M&M) that is largely irrelevant to Yossarian's story. Just a suggesto.Artiste-extraordinaire 13:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Artiste - I agree the timeline does belong on the main article, but I was hesitant to do so before checking if people were happy even attempting to do so. It would be great if people could find sources for other timelines - because even if there is disagreement over it - it is certainly note-worthy and deserves to be in Wikipedia. Cheers Lethaniol 14:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

There are two potential problems I see with the timeline. Three, even. The first is that for those curious souls who wish to hold Wikipedia accountable to its sources, it isn't possible for them to view the original document of the inimitable Clinton S. Burhans, Jr. it its entirety, owing to fact that not everyone has unfettered access to JSTOR. I for one would love to read it, but as it is I once again march along with the majority in not being able to veiw anything but the first page. The second is that (and I believe I've brought this up elsewhere, not going to czech, though) there are conflicts and inconsistencies between the chronologies produced by various critics, so even Mr. Burhans, Jr. is not a completely reputable source. Namely, there are Doug Gaukroger (which is viewable for some sort of free spam trial here [2]) and Stephen W. Potts, who made exactly what we are looking for here [3] since it details what are solely Yossarian's actions in the story. The third is that it is structured poorly, with repeated dates on every point. That can be easily fixed by someone with The Know-How, perhaps into a table of some sort, a la Potts, but with care not to plagiarise. Enjoy. Artiste-extraordinaire 13:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In answer to these points - 1) is irrelevant if inconvenient, Wikipedia will reference many sources that people do not have easy access to. In this case I am happy to cut and paste various short segments of the document, or the whole original timeline if needed. By the way if you can get access to this document it is well worth a read, especially as the most interesting bits are on the structure of themes in the novel, yet to be added to Catch-22 article.
3)Okay I need to improve the structure/format and will get round to it soon. I was not going to spend a lot of time on this at first in case people just deleted it as to controversial/impractical to start off with.
2)This is the most valid and interesting point that deserves great attention. I have not read any other timelines, so I could only comment on this one intially, I will go find out about this Doug Gaukroger version soon.
There are a number of ways to address this issue - one would be that we merge all the timelines we find but this is likely to break WP:NOR so I would suggest against it. Another way would be to compare and contrast the most notable of timelines, hence no original research. The other way is to have no timelines at all but to say there are a number out there and reference them. I think the timeline is interesting and notable enough for this encyclopedia, hence I think we should go with the compare and contrast option. Obviously this would mean a fair amount of text, and would probably fit best on its own page e.g. Catch-22 timelines. Then the Catch-22 and Yossarian articles can link to this. What do people think? Note I will cut and paste this whole discussion to Talk:Catch-22. Cheers Lethaniol 13:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilting Against Mortality, has Heller's original charts/timeline for the book...

P.S Anyway chance of finding that book that poked holes in all the other timelines mentioned above Artiste-extraordinaire - even if it just the name/author. Cheers Lethaniol 13:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not; I found the book at the library at my high school last year, which I've since left.Artiste-extraordinaire 02:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Illiad

"Largely influenced by "The Illiad"." This statement appears out of nowhere. How? Why? It's referenced in the next section but it should be expanded in the "Influences" section. Zuracech lordum 12:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Have removed Joseph Heller used the Iliad as the basis for this book with Achilles as the inspiration for the character of Yossarian. - as it is probably a load of nonsense - especially as Achilles is very brave and Yo-yo is essentially a coward. Cheers ZL Lethaniol 12:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No I have added back in with some citations - they are not the best in the world but I think the info deserves to stay - will look for primary interview source from Heller later, add Template:fact if you want. Cheers Lethaniol 12:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

All good in the hood; I've done you one better and quoted from the novel itself. But yeah, it did look a bit thin saying it's the "basis". And while we're at it, can someone find a critical study saying that Yossarian's walk through the streets of Rome near the end is Dostoesvky-esque? I read it somewhere, but I can't find it and would go well in the allusions part, especially next to the Raskolnikov bit. Artiste-extraordinaire 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Have got a better ref for the Iliad basis - right from the horse's mouth so to speak - In Interview with Heller - here:
Contemporary Literature, Vol. 39, No. 4. (Winter, 1998), pp. 507-522.
Unfortunately I can only access with Athens password, will add in ref later. Cheers Lethaniol 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Have added!
D'oh you read about the Dostoesvky-esque walk actually in chapter 39 itself - where it says:
On the other side of the intersection, a man was beating a dog with a stick like the man who was beating the horse with a whip in Raskolinov's dream. Yossarian strained helplessly not to see or hear.
Will add this is into the section. Cheers Lethaniol 02:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary Page

I just finished reading this book, today in fact, and loved it. I was thinking that this book should have a summary page. This would have to be an individual page because of its size. I would think that the best thing to do would be summarizing by chapter rather than in chronological order of events (that would be hell to figure out). This is the only way I can see it being done because of the inconsistency of the setting in the plot. Does anyone have any thoughts, objections, comments? RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 06:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Have been working on Catch-22 and its characters for a while - and I would say it is hard work. You may want to look at Yossarian which has a timeline, taken from citation which will probably also transfer into the plot section here. At the moment work really needs to be done on the concept section and themes section, before any separate section for a summary is written. Or if you want you can expand the plot summary. Any work on the main article would be greatly appreciated, but as we are trying to cut down the number of pages at the moment -making more might not be the best idea. Cheers Lethaniol 12:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Character Template

I was a-thinking, that seeing as how the big problem with wikifying Catch-22 is the character numbers, perhaps someone with skillz could whip up a template to put at the bottom of each character page? I know not of how such magic is done, and couldn't be asked to go to the effort even if I did.Artiste-extraordinaire 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been answered in an above section see Talk:Catch-22#Expanding_Character_Sections_using_Template. I have already used this template on some Major characters - Orr, "Aarfy" Aardvark, and Doc Dandeeka, and a smaller modified one for Minor characters Major de Coverly, Scheisskopf and Huple. I can supply the code/text if needed. Cheers Lethaniol 16:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I probably got the word wrong, because I didn't mean a standardised article layout. Actually, I was talking about those nav boxes that you'll often find in, for example, series of band articles, like this big boy. Maybe we, and by we I of course mean you, could work something like that out to chuck at the bottom of Catch-22-related pages to make them look a bit more professional. I would myself, but I have neither the time nor the inclination/know-how. Artiste-extraordinaire 14:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Have not made one before - but should be no problem - will get to it - what do you think such a navigational box should contain? Obviously a list of the Major and Minor characters, link to the main article but what else??? Cheers Lethaniol 14:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Closing Time and a link to the film. I can't think of anything else. I just think it'd be good to have an easily accessible list of characters, instead of having to go back to the main article from a character page.Artiste-extraordinaire 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay have done see example on Yossarian or see Template:Catch-22 - edit at will. To use on a page - put {{Catch-22}} right at the bottom. Cheers Lethaniol 00:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Allusions/references in other works

For starters, the 'reference' in Marsden looks more like its referring to the logical catch-22 which spawned out of the novel, rather than the book itself. Any objections to getting rid of that section if no one can come up with something else?Artiste-extraordinaire 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed have removed the reference - no place to put it in logical catch-22 so deleted. Have added <!--Including mention of major characters but not the Catch-22 concept, unless central to the work--> under Influences on other works section - so that people can add influences/allusions to major characters there, and influences/allusions to Catch-22 concept only if key to the work in question. If someone wants a List of works using the Catch-22 concept then create the article! Cheers Lethaniol 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's really worth making. I don't think I've ever come across any allusions to Catch anywhere else. Artiste-extraordinaire 14:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Playboy omitted material

I have deleted [4] information omitted from original Catch-22 that is supposed to have been published in Playboy see link. I can not find a single source to back this up - let alone a reliable one. Suggest that this section is not added back unless a WP:RS is found, or multiple people can confirm the existence of these publications. Cheers Lethaniol 11:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The sections in question can also be found in Catch As Catch Can: The Collected Stories and Other Writings. Drysarcasm 07:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Things to do

Have done a fair amount of work on this over the last 24hours. I think all the major sections that we need are now well on there way (though Plot developments may need a new title), but it would be nice to have some help. 1. On the plot development section and the themes sections. Both need to be backed up with WP:RS, and in the themes section it would be great to link to the characters that apply to that theme. Cheers Lethaniol 12:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Professionalism

Edited the last sentence in the last paragraph of the first part, because it sounded as though it came off the back of the book.

Bizznot 02:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)!!!!


Influences on Other Works

Umm. I noticed that none of the works listed there have articles about them or their authors (blue links go to other people), which suggests non-notability. Also, there is no justification other than one non-accessible source. Not that I'm dissing the source, but it'd be good to see some evidence that Catch-22 influenced it. I don't want to {fact} every single point, because that always looks vaguely insulting to me. I'm for just deleting the section, like we did with the former Influences section. Artiste-extraordinaire 11:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC) [edit: so I did.Artiste-extraordinaire 12:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)]

I agree, that was a lot of original research there. Czolgolz 15:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Blogspam

It appears that two of the external links are pointless and poorly written blogs on the subject of this novel. Not only are they unintelligent, but also unnecessary. DanMcScience (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

add to Also

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)

Shjacks45 (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


citations of 'Greatest Novel of the 20th century'

It appears to me that among a lot of geniuses, they almost uniformly identify Catch 22 as the greatest novel of the 20th century--(however limited my sample size, this may be). I know that Saul Bellow, in a speech at Chapman University this summer, declared Catch 22 the greatest novel of the 20th century. i could manage to cite the lecture. Can anyone else cite examples of literary figures or Nobel laureates or the like making similar statements? I would like to alter the introduction paragraph to say that Catch 22 is frequently cited as one of the greatest literary works (and sometimes as 'the' greatest literary work) of the 20th century. I know it's not written strongly--give me a break; we'll write it out better when finally putting it up. Calling for citations.Itsnoteasybeingbrown (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Literary references

Article needs editing to include Heller's references to Villon's 'Ballade des dames du temps jadis'. The lines come up when Yossarian is watching Snowden die in the plane, and during Yossarian's intelligence lessons: "...then there was Yossarian with the question that had no answer: 'Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?' The question upset them, because Snowden had been killed over Avignon when Dobbs went crazy in mid-air and seized the controls away from Huple. The corporal played it dumb. 'What?' he asked. 'Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?'"

Heller: "Où sont les neigedens d'antan?" / Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?"

Villon: "Mais où sont les neiges d'antan! / Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear!" (Source: Ballade_des_dames_du_temps_jadis)

I'll edit article to show this when i have a text in front of me. Any comments, especially on effect/significance and Heller's intent here would be very welcome. thanks Mazzamang (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical Sources for the Events in the Novel

(copy/paste from personal website removed)

A detailed examination of the historical sources for the novel, Catch-22, can be found here:

http://home.comcast.net/~dhsetzer/heller_index.htm

Dhsetzer (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks interesting, but it is wp:original research. That means it can't be included in the article, unless you can get it published somewhere else first. I suggest you attempt to do so, and then repost on this talk page when you are successful. NJGW (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Adaptations" section

I changed the "Adaptations" section to bullet-style, similar to the section before it. Feedback is welcome. Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


Congratulations!

To the Catch-22 team: you're doing a superb job improving this article in the year since I first read it, bringing clarity and meaning to what is otherwise confusing and seemingly absurd. Clowns and comics often use humor and silliness to disguise serious social commentary. Heller plays the role of the "madman" to say the unsayable. Whether Heller was saying these things in all seriousness or jocularly, or whether he had become imbued with that persona or if he was always that way may never be known for sure. Keep in mind he was writing during the worst hysteria of the Cold War, and he was writing a critique of the sacrosanct and revered military and about a war almost everyone believed was necessary and just--the absurdity allowed him to say what couldn't be said otherwise. (Gen. Sherman said briefly, re the Civil War, that War is Hell. Catch-22 is Heller's book-length version of it). And as with all complex systems, including social systems or subsystems like the military, if they lack an adequate means of feedback to correct errors (like the governor on a steam engine or a thermostat)they will inevitably become crazymaking and use confusion as a form of social control.

Your editing is succinct and eminently readable. Putting Concepts right after the Introduction really helps.
But then, in that section, you mention "double bind." As an editor of the WP article on DB I invite all of you to examine it (which still lacks sufficient clarity) and if you would, explain the similarities and differences between Catch-22 and Double Bind Theory and Crazymaking. --Margaret9mary (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

The Synopsis section seems to be lifted from SparkNotes (http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/catch22/summary.html, Plot Overview section). I suppose it could be the other way around, but either way....

beverson (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Then let's sue sparknotes. Shamefully, I was going to use Catch-22 as an example of how badly wikipedia novels editors do their OR plot summaries versus the fairly accurate, if not fully developed, ones at sparknotes, until I got here and saw it lifted. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I replaced it with the last edit before it was copied from sparknotes and put in this article. The sparknotes page has a copyright notice on it, and this usage must be explained or kept off of wikipedia. It appears to be a straight forward copy vio. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No question about the copyright violation. Wikipedia's version was created by this wholesale addition on May 1 2009. Sparknotes version goes back to at least 2000 including this version from August 22 2008. Thanks for reverting to the previous non-copyvio version. I'll add a cclean template below. — CactusWriter | needles 09:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/catch22/summary.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — CactusWriter | needles 09:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A. Fortiori?

Why does A. Fortiori redirect to Catch-22? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarauh (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Because there's a minor character in there by that name. He is confused with Youssarian by the Psychiatrist, resulting in Fortiori going home because Youssarian acts crazy.

The novel is set in 1944, not 1943

I'm surprised to see that Catch-22 is described as being set in 1943, when references to the invasion of the French Riviera and the liberation of Rome mean it is clearly set in 1944. It would be very difficult, to say the least, for Yossarian and co to go on R&R in Rome with the Germans in possession of the city (Rome was liberated on June 4th, 1944). Can this be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.25.173.122 (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right. And they specifically mention the Battle of the Bulge. I've changed it.Czolgolz (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, as the book describes three distinct Thanksgivings, the book covers 1942-1944. Czolgolz (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No he didn't

I also want to discuss the above quote from the article. I teach numerical analysis and want my students to understand that they can't trust data they see in the Internet. And my primary example is this quote, which is misattributed to Heller. It actually comes from Blake Bailey's review in the New York Times 

(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/books/review/the-enigma-of-joseph-heller.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=bookreviews): "Vonne­gut had to survive the Allied bombing of Dresden to write “Slaughterhouse-Five,” whereas Heller flew 60 bombing missions between May and October 1944, a feat that should have killed him three times over, statistically speaking, since the average personnel loss was 5 percent per mission."

However, the real problem is that Bailey misinterpreted data from the book "JUST ONE CATCH A Biography of Joseph Heller" By Tracy Daugherty. The death rate for airmen per mission of 5% was correct for the STRATEGIC 8th US Army Air Force, whose job was to attack targets primarily in Germany, but it was only true up to 1944. In 1943 the bombers' fighter support had to turn back an hour before they arrived at their target: "For example, on August 17, 1943, 376 B-17s from the 8th Air Force were dispatched to the ball-bearing works at Schweinfurt and the Messerschmitt Me09 production factories at Regensburg in Germany. Their fighter support ended an hour away from the targets; the Luftwaffe attacked continually with more than one fighter per bomber, along with flak, until fighter support was reestablished hours later. The statistics were: 26 bombers aborted, 315 bombed the targets, 60 were shot down, and 168 were damaged. And on October 14, 1943, 291 B-17s were dispatched to Schweinfurt again: 37 aborted, 229 bombed the target, 60 were shot down, and 138 were damaged --- and only 28 German fighters were shot down! A rough rule of thumb for this time frame was that 5-10\% of the bombers were shot down on each mission, with approximately half of these airmen killed and half captured." (from my article) However, at the start of 1944 external fuel tanks were added to the P-47 Thunderbolt fighter and the P-51 Mustang came into production. Once fighters could protect the bombers to the target and back again, the losses were much smaller. In addition, as the war continued, the Luftwaffe could not replenish its planes, and so its attacks were not as effective, but they still had to face intense flak. However, this has nothing to do with the tactical 12th USAAF which was responsible for bombings around the Mediterranean. The references used here are "Historical Sources for the Events in Joseph Heller's novel, Catch-22" by Daniel Setzer and "True Story of Catch 22" by Patricia Chapman Meder. In particular, on his 60 missions there was flak on only 33 of them, and accurate flak only on 13. Even more important, German fighters only appeared on 2. It is true that the ships were usually only at an altitude of 10,000 feet or so, unlike the long-range bombers, so their accuracy was much higher. On the other hand, the flak crews knew where the bombers were heading and that the ships would have to fly in a straight line above the target at a reasonably low altitude, so they were sitting ducks until their bombs were away. Missions were frequently two hours long each way, so any injured crewmen had that long to wait for medical care, and a damaged plane would have to try to stay airborne for that time. I couldn't find any records for the 488th Bombardment Squadron, but there is a squadbook for the 489th (http://www.warwingsart.com/12thAirForce/page.html). It lists 85 deaths from December, 1942, through March, 1945. It also lists all the personnel in the squadron during this time, but does not indicate the airmen. However, there are pictures (or, at least, names) of all the flight leaders, pilots, navigators, and gunners, which totalled about 380. This gives something over 20% of the airmen killed (and not all in combat situations). This is definitely a high number, but it is nowhere close to being "killed three times over"! In fact, the death rate per person per mission was approximately 0.4% if each airman flew 60 missions. (I cannot believe that Heller ever said anything like the sentence which is attributed to him, because he knew how many men were dying, and had died before and during his time in combat.) In fact, the Wikipedia article on Heller states: On his return home he "felt like a hero ... People think it quite remarkable that I was in combat in an airplane and I flew sixty missions even though I tell them that the missions were largely milk runs" (Mallory, Carole (May 1992), The Joe and Kurt Shoe, retrieved 2007-08-30)

The next sentence of Bailey's, "Instead, the experience turned him into a fiction writer and a tortured, funny, deeply peculiar human being" may very well be true, but it wasn't because his chance of dying was high on each mission he flew.

So please take that sentence out. overman@math.ohio-state.edu

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catch-22. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catch-22. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


Not Funny?

Is it true Heller didn't mean for Catch-22 to be a comedy or funny? I've read that he stated that he never thought that it was funny when writing it. Can someone clarify this, and if it's true, include it in the article?

Well, since it is a satire, it's not necessarily supposed to be just "funny" per se, but perhaps an attack upon whatever the author things has gone so horribly wrong? So maybe in his mind it wasn't so much funny as sad, though that doesn't change that the readers end up finding it amusing. Still, no question that he would have known when he wrote it that those who read it would find it funny.

I have never heard this, I doubt that Joseph Heller truly believed that it was not funny - some scenes are designed to be inherently comical.

It's likely Heller was making a joke.


Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catch-22/Archive_1&oldid=1140574246"