U.S. Government and Politics
Signature Assignment: Catch-22
Maryann Vasilyeva
October 29, 2015
“Catch-22" is a funny book--vulgarly, bitterly, and savagely funny. Its humor, I
think, is essentially masculine. Few women are likely to enjoy it. And perhaps "enjoy" is
not quite the right word for anyone's reaction to Mr Heller's imaginative inventions.
"Relish" might be more accurate. One can relish his delirious dialogue and his ludicrous
situations while recognizing that they reflect a basic range and disgust." This is a review
I found on Catch-22, and I think it greatly expresses how many felt when reading this
book. I however (aside from most women) found it interesting, at times slightly
confusing, but rewarding in the end. Catch-22 itself is a situation that an individual
cannot escape because a set of certain rules; in this scenario, the soldiers can’t be
drafted home because the number of combat missions Colonel Cathcart keeps setting.
Throughout the read you get to know each character and see how Catch-22 affected
each one individually. You learn that characters of this book are not something you
could hold on to, for almost each and every one that you suspect will make it...don't; and
the ones that you almost want gone, end up sticking around. The characters in Catch22 can be compared to individuals nowadays, which is what I focused on throughout the
book, as well as the most important takeout from the book (that I will reveal at the end).
The characters that Joseph Heller created in this of this book is essentially what I
found most fascinating because each individual had a characteristic that dominated and
that many people living today could relate to. When reading and finding the uniqueness
of each person you start to realize that these “characters” aren’t too different from you
and me. Just like in our world right now, each person was unique in their own way,
bringing something special to the book, yet with their deaths bringing the reality of the
situation at war; it showed that if we were sent to war, we wouldn’t be too different from
all these men. There were a lot of characters mentioned in this book, but several really
caught my attention.
Milo was unique in the sense that he found his purpose in the war, as a reader
you tend to like Milo because in one if the biggest economical crisis’s during war, he
was able to make an impressive amount of money. Yet later when Milo makes a deal
with the Germans and bombs his own squadron leaving many wounded and killed; you
question not only his motives, but you see that his act is pretty much as bad as Colonel
Cathcart’s for consistently raising the number of combat missions. I found Milo as an
example of the common man, he using his abilities/talents to make a profit off both his
friends and enemies (depending on which would be more profitable at the time) to
satisfy his own self. He is a fresh example of the famous and well known quote "money
is the root of all evil".
Nately, originally enlisted to serve in the Air Corps, is a 19 year old Lieutenant
from a rich and respected family. He is the "golden boy" of the book, always ready to
fight and deeply believing in the morals of his country. However his one huge fault is
that he fell in love with a whore living in Rome. He is optimistic, believing that he could
marry the whore and help her kid sister go to college in the States. However, when
Nately dies a tragic death on a combat mission you see the reality of situation. Nately
was just kid that fell in love, that believed it bigger goals, but stands as an example of
the many that lost their lives in the combat missions assigned by Colonel Cathcart.
What characteristic I noticed in Colonel Cathcart was his hunger for power. He
desperately wanted to become general and in turn was the reason behind the constant
raising in number of combat missions for the men to fly, thinking that it will help him in
some way. I found it funny that he himself only flew two missions (one was completely
accidental). He hates anyone that gets in his way, which is the root of why he dislikes
Yossarian. When Yossarian was caught AWOL in Rome, Cathcart was more than
happy to have him court martialed and imprisoned, anyway to get rid of this "obstacle"
in his fight for power.
The big challenge for me was finding a place for Yossarian as a character in this
book. Each person fit into the story like a piece in a puzzle. Yet Yossarian was the only
one that seemed too sane and real to be part of this. Milo was the "in it to win it" kind of
character that is common in most people. Nately was the perfect example of a young
adventurous soldier in the army; one that is in-love and optimistic about life. Colonel
Cathcart easily fits with his hunt for power, to be on top of the pyramid, which is very
common among people in the business world. I guess one big way I could relate to
Yossarian is that he avoids everything that could bring risk in his life. His primary goal in
his combat missions is to survive, and although many find that cowardly, it really just is
logical. Yet, I just wanted to point out that before the war, these were “ordinary” men we
see every day, each people unique but common characteristics today.
My main take out was the soldier in white, even though he didn’t seem like a big
role in the book, in my opinion he is the biggest. He is soldier wrapped entirely in gauze,
with the exception of a hole for his mouth. No one really know that suffering he endures
inside that body cast, and when he dies in the first half of the book, they’re not even
sure when it happened. However the soldier in white serves a symbol of the inhumanity
and unfairness of how the bureaucracy treats its own men. They see the men as tools,
they are the soldier in white, nameless, faceless and feeling-less. The bureau has one
goal, to win; they don’t care about the unique individuals like Milo, Nately, Colonel
Cathcart or Yossarian. They see an army of soldiers in white, all the same, as tools of
how to win the war, one soldier at a time. This settled a question in my mind; if we were
to go to WWIII tomorrow, would the bureaucracy see their soldiers as “soldiers in white”
like they did back then? Each person should be able to answer that for themselves, but I
found my answer in the ending of the book; when Yossarian didn’t find equality and
fairness in the army, so he decided to leave (well, escape) to be free and not be just
another “soldier in white”.
Citations:
 SparkNotes. SparkNotes. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.
 PRESCOTT, ORVILLE. "Books of The Times." NY Times. 23 Oct. 1961. Web.
26 Oct. 2015.
 Shmoop Editorial Team. "The Soldier in White as a Symbol of the Inhumanity
with Which the Bureaucracy Treats Its Men in Catch-22." Shmoop.com.
Shmoop University, Inc., 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.