Without struggle, life is pointless. The men in Joseph Heller’s novel “Catch-22” are extremely familiar with the concept of struggle. No matter how hard they work, there is always a setback. No matter how good it seems to be going for the men, the bad is soon to catch up with them. This novel follows the course of several men in the United States Air Force that are stationed in Italy during World War II. The vast majority of war stories rely heavily on emotion in order to convey the intended message.
To look at a war story with the guidelines of New Criticism calls for the removal of any emotional attachment to the novel and purely focus on the text itself. There is no need to incorporate any background on the author or include personal reactions. New Criticism is designed to analyze a work on its own, completely isolated from outside opinions. While examining Catch-22 with these blinders of sorts, it is clear to see that Heller uses irony, a limited omniscient point of view and a plethora of juxtapositions to show that no matter what, there will always be a catch.
The title of the novel itself is Catch-22 and in this squadron, no matter what is going on there is always a catch. The idea of a catch 22 specifically is first introduced by Doc Daneeka in a conversation he is having with Yossarian after he has asked to be grounded and that catch 22 is that, “a concern for one’s own safety I the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions,” (Heller 47).
Then there is the never-ending catch which is implemented by none other than Colonel Cathcart. Every time a soldier comes close to finishing their required number of missions, that number of missions is raised. No matter how close they are to finishing the previously set requirement, even if that requirement was met, before they are able to go home the number of required missions is raised yet again. There is no escape. Even on at a one-on-one level, there is always a reason for something not to work.
When Yossarian is released from the hospital after his leg injury he is finally ready to kill Colonel Cathcart, since the mission requirements were once again raised in his absence. However now that he finally feels like there is no other way out, Dobbs, who was the original conspirator, tells Yossarian, “I’d have to be crazy to get mixed up in something like this now that I’m out of combat,” (Heller 315). No matter what the severity, the men in this novel are always face with a catch however, not all of the catches are so blatant.
Heller uses a wide variety of literary devices in order to convey to the reader that practically everything these men do involves a catch. One of these literary devices is irony. One of the most ironic parts of this work is that the soldiers care more about the war than the officials do. Colonel Cathcart is the prime example of this kind of irony. As a Colonel he controls the lives of the men in his squadron. He forces his men to fly additional missions because he believes that it will help him advance his rank and make him seem more important.
By the end of the work the required number of missions is eighty. (Heller 383). However, while his men are expected to die for him and his lust for power his lack of involvement is made clear within his conversation with Milo when he says, “It’s a generally known fact that you’ve only flown two missions,” (Heller 380). The irony of this situation is so obvious. The man in charge of raising all the mission requirements not only does not meet his own requirement, but does not even come close to meeting the requirement set by the Air Force. His main goal is to make himself more popular no matter what the means.
This is made clear by a conversation he has with the chaplain when he asks, “You’ll let me know if you can think of anything for getting out names into The Saturday Evening Post, won’t you? ” (Heller 202). Cathcart represents the corruption of society. He represents all the other high ranking officials and the way they view the war. The catch is while these men sit in their comfy chairs and watch their men go off to fight, soldiers and their friends are being killed and the colonels and generals are being rewarded for the bravery it took to send these men into combat.
While irony is a very powerful device used to convey the constant of a catch, it is not the only one. Heller also employs a limited omniscient point of view. This means that the reader is able to see what any given character is thinking at any point in time. It is an interesting method of showing the constant presence of a catch but nonetheless it is very effective. For example, when Colonel Cathcart raises the mission requirement he sees it as a way to better his standing amongst his peers and win the war.
In his conversation with Milo, when he bans him from flying more missions so he can remain the best mess officer and continue his business, Cathcart has the idea to raise the number of missions yet again. The Colonel really thinks he is doing what is just which is proven by his statement to Milo, “But why not the men in the squadron, Milo? ‘ Colonel Cathcart exclaimed. ‘After all, you’re doing all this for them. They ought to be willing to do something for you,” (Heller 383). He sees nothing wrong with requiring a higher number of missions; he would even consider it a feather in his hat.
However, while the constant raising of missions seems like a novel idea to Cathcart, when the reader is allowed into the mind of the soldiers, a completely different response is found. Earlier in the work when Cathcart raises the mission requirement to sixty Yossarian is finally on board with killing him as Dobbs has often suggested after the increase in missions. All the soldiers are furious and scared because, like Yossarian says, “I may not live through sixty,” (Heller 315). While one party is happy, the other suffers. The same effect occurs when Yossarian refuses to fly anymore missions after they are raised to eighty.
To all the soldiers, Yossarian is representing what they wish they had the courage to do. Yossarian is providing hope and making those around him question their authorities. The most explicit sign of change comes from Appleby when talking to Yossarian about him not flying any more missions, “I hope you get away with it,’ Appleby whispered with conviction. ‘I really do,” (Heller 409). While this is great for the soldiers, the officials are at a loss. Yossarian is discussing his refusal to fly with Colonels Korn and Cathcart and Korn explains how Yossarian’s initiative is taking a toll on everyone else. ‘You know, you really have been making things horribly difficult for Colonel Cathcart… the men are all unhappy and morale is beginning to deteriorate,”‘ (Heller 430). While the lack of morale is good for the men, it reflects poorly on the colonels because it looks as though they are unable to control their troops. That is the catch; someone always ends up unhappy. An additional literary device that is employed in order to prove the constant existence of a catch is juxtaposition. Throughout this work Heller relies heavily on the use of juxtapositions.
A prime example of this is the way Colonel Cathcart feels about his rank as a colonel; he, “… was conceited because he was a full colonel with a combat command at the age of only thirty-six; and Colonel Cathcart was dejected because although he was already thirty-six he was still only a full colonel,” (Heller 192). His emotions about his age and rank are complete opposites. He is happy that he is young and ranked highly, but unhappy that he is young and ranked lower than younger men.
There were even juxtapositions within character descriptions as Cathcart is described as, “… ashing and dejected, poised and chagrined,” (Heller 191). Heller uses completely contrasting adjectives in order to describe the colonel. For every good trait he possesses there is a bad one to even it out. These types of juxtapositions can even be found in descriptions of characters that are not even involved with the war. For example, “Nately’s mother, a descendant of the New England Thortons, was a Daughter of the Revolution. His father was a Son of a Bitch, (Heller 255).
Nately’s mother is a well-respected member of society. In direct contrast to her good qualities, is his father, who ossesses the poor qualities. The fact that they are married shows union. One represents good and one represents bad and they are married together. There is no way to obtain the good without the bad and that is the catch. Catch 22 is a novel designed to point out all the flaws within the bureaucratic system. The way the system is set up; there is no escape from it. Even when Yossarian decides to desert at the end of the work, it is well known to him that he will always be pursued by the US Air Force, (Heller 463). Even with escape there is a catch.
There’s always a catch and in order to prove this Heller relies on the use of irony, a limited omniscient point of view, and juxtapositions. The irony of it all is that those who are not faced with death get the credit for forcing their troops to face death and watch their friends die. The limited omniscient point of view proves that no matter what is good for one, it is bad for another. This works hand in hand with the juxtapositions which prove that there’s a catch with every good thing that exists because the bad will always equal it out.