| Author |
Message |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:21 am
Post subject: Re: Catch 22 |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Brader wrote:
The meaning is similar to "Damned if you do, damned if you
don't".
... It is particularly appropriate when some authority has
engineered
the rules so that you cannot win.
The defining passages from the novel are in the alt.usage.english
FAQ: http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxcatch2.html
They don't explain the odd name "Catch-22", though. That's
because
nothing in the novel explains the name.
We can plausibly conjecture that the characters are talking about
section 22 in some set of army regulations, and that it acquired
this nickname because it was a "catch" (a concealed difficulty or
complication, as M-W puts it). But, as I say, the book doesn't
say.
Did I dream it, or did it start out as Catch-21, but his editor or
somebody persuaded him that 22 was better? Or something like that?
|
But I'm sure I didn't dream that when an interviewer suggested that
he had never managed to write anything better since Catch-22, Heller
replied "No, but neither has anyone else." I'm often inclined to
agree.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:34 am
Post subject: Re: Catch 22 |
|
|
Mike Lyle:
| Quote: | Did I dream it, or did it start out as Catch-21...
|
Again, please read first, then respond. Specifically, please read
the FAQ file entry that was cited.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "It was too crazy to be true,
msb@vex.net | and too crazy to be false." --Tom Clancy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: Catch 22 |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | Did I dream it, or did it start out as Catch-21, but his editor or
somebody persuaded him that 22 was better? Or something like that?
|
It started out as Catch-18, but Leon Uris published *Mila 18*, so
Heller changed it. YCLIU.
He insisted that the numbers were arbitrary.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who has read Catch-22 three times, making it Catch-66 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Catch 22 |
|
|
Mark Brader wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Brader:
They don't explain the odd name "Catch-22", though. That's because
nothing in the novel explains the name.
Nancy G.:
Are you sure? I thought "Catch 22" was ...
Please read first, then respond.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "I wish to God these calculations had been
msb@vex.net | executed by steam!" -- Charles Babbage, 1821
|
I guess that it is in the "Play it again, Sam" category. It is so
obvious that it was said that nobody notices that it wasn't.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Catch 22 |
|
|
Mark Brader wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Lyle:
Did I dream it, or did it start out as Catch-21...
Again, please read first, then respond. Specifically, please read
the FAQ file entry that was cited.
|
Ooh, I love it when you get gratuitously severe! But I'll do it my
way, thank you: that means I may or may not look at FAQ pages during
an informal conversation on a trivial subject. Particularly when the
FAQ reference appears, in itself, to lead to excerpts from a novel I
used to know in detail: these could have had no bearing on my
question. But I now see that it was not 21, but 18: in a sunnier mood
you could simply have told me that and saved us time.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArWeGod
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Catch 22 |
|
|
"nancy13g" <nancy13g@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1131577313.154888.146840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Mark Brader wrote:
They don't explain the odd name "Catch-22", though. That's because
nothing in the novel explains the name.
We can plausibly conjecture that the characters are talking about
section 22 in some set of army regulations, and that it acquired
this nickname because it was a "catch" (a concealed difficulty or
complication, as M-W puts it). But, as I say, the book doesn't say.
Are you sure? I thought "Catch 22" was the regulation that said you
could only get out of the Army if you knew you were crazy, but if you
were sane enough to question your own sanity, you obviously weren't
crazy, and thus had to stay in the Army.
|
Well, since they were pilots, you may want to reconsider...
Yossarian later goes to a whore house that was closed down and the
excuse is Catch-22. In addition to the first description by the doctor
re: "discharge for crazy/must ask for discharge/therefore not crazy" he
finds out that they "can do whatever they want to do, as long as you
can't stop it" (note quotes are not from the book, just grouping). He
then goes on to say that he doesn't believe there IS a Catch-22.
He is convinced there is no such thing. I find that part to be the
funniest part!
--
ArWeNakedInATreeAtAFuneral |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Post subject: Re: Catch 22 |
|
|
ArWeGod wrote:
| Quote: | "nancy13g" <nancy13g@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1131577313.154888.146840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mark Brader wrote:
They don't explain the odd name "Catch-22", though. That's because
nothing in the novel explains the name.
We can plausibly conjecture that the characters are talking about
section 22 in some set of army regulations, and that it acquired
this nickname because it was a "catch" (a concealed difficulty or
complication, as M-W puts it). But, as I say, the book doesn't say.
Are you sure? I thought "Catch 22" was the regulation that said you
could only get out of the Army if you knew you were crazy, but if you
were sane enough to question your own sanity, you obviously weren't
crazy, and thus had to stay in the Army.
Well, since they were pilots, you may want to reconsider...
|
They were army pilots, specifically, members of the United States Army
Air Forces. The Air Force wasn't made a separate branch of the military
until 1947.
| Quote: |
Yossarian later goes to a whore house that was closed down and the
excuse is Catch-22. In addition to the first description by the doctor
re: "discharge for crazy/must ask for discharge/therefore not crazy" he
finds out that they "can do whatever they want to do, as long as you
can't stop it" (note quotes are not from the book, just grouping). He
then goes on to say that he doesn't believe there IS a Catch-22.
He is convinced there is no such thing. I find that part to be the
funniest part!
--
ArWeNakedInATreeAtAFuneral
|
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:50 am
Post subject: Re: Catch 22 |
|
|
ArWeGod wrote:
| Quote: |
"nancy13g" <nancy13g@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1131577313.154888.146840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mark Brader wrote:
They don't explain the odd name "Catch-22", though. That's because
nothing in the novel explains the name.
We can plausibly conjecture that the characters are talking about
section 22 in some set of army regulations, and that it acquired
this nickname because it was a "catch" (a concealed difficulty or
complication, as M-W puts it). But, as I say, the book doesn't say.
Are you sure? I thought "Catch 22" was the regulation that said you
could only get out of the Army if you knew you were crazy, but if you
were sane enough to question your own sanity, you obviously weren't
crazy, and thus had to stay in the Army.
Well, since they were pilots, you may want to reconsider...
Yossarian later goes to a whore house that was closed down and the
excuse is Catch-22. In addition to the first description by the doctor
re: "discharge for crazy/must ask for discharge/therefore not crazy" he
finds out that they "can do whatever they want to do, as long as you
can't stop it" (note quotes are not from the book, just grouping). He
then goes on to say that he doesn't believe there IS a Catch-22.
He is convinced there is no such thing. I find that part to be the
funniest part!
I find it difficult to believe anyone could find a funniest part in that |
book. About the only time I thought he really lost it going over the top
absurd was when they bombed their own airfield. Curiously, that was
handled very well in the movie.
--
Why do sequels seem not to continue the story but instead retell the
original? I still want to see a real sequel to "Universal Soldier" where
the new girlfriend and the reanimated soldier who has to take a break
and recharge in a special recharge machine every few days, and might
melt if he gets too excited, learns to live within his limitations,
perhaps getting a job selling life insurance nine to five while starting
his own country western band as an evening outlet, finally taking the
time out in his life for romance and smelling the lovely flowers. Have
some guts Hollywood, turn a full out violent action movie into a woman
friendly romantic comedy sequel! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in