September 2009 Archives

The Central Market Book Club is affilated with Great Books founded by Mortimer Adler in 1952. Never more than last night (September 14, 2009) did our group reflect that affiliation with our discussion of CATCH-22 by Joseph Heller. It was my third time to read the book with the first time being 40 years (or so) ago and the second time being last year when it was discussed by Montrose Great Books. I remembered a fair amount of the story this time allowing me to focus more on details that I had been fuzzy about before. My enjoyment level was even better the third time, a classic indication that a book is truly a Great Book (uppercase "G" and "B").

Scott led the discussion of fourteen attendees beginning with some brief biographical information about the author, Joseph Heller including the fact that it took him eight or nine years to write CATCH-22. The story is basically about American servicemen during the latter part of World War II. Scott's opening question to the group was one asking us what we thought about how the story unfolded. There were quite a few comments about the "time regression" in the story which caused me to be confused and as I said in the group, if confusion is obvious when reading a book, then in my experience, it is confusion that the author intends us to feel. There was no resolution about why the author chose to be so "non-linear" though I remember someone remarking that the confusion we felt was to help us relate to the confusion that Yossarian, the protagonist felt in such a chaotic world.

A question was asked about the numerous repetitions of various vignettes, or events, or visual cues. Someone said they thought this plot device of using so many repetitions was related to the insanity of the characters. And also, that the time regression which actually seemed circular in many cases reflected the circular nature of a catch-22, which is basically a no-win situation as it is known today.

In the book, "catch-22" primarily though not totally focuses on Yossarian wanting to be grounded and not allowed to fly any more missions. Being crazy is a criteria for being grounded but since Yossarian was sane enough to want to be grounded then that meant he wasn't crazy afterall resulting in him being required to fly more missions, as many as Colonel Catchcart required.

And the number of missions required before a serviceman can go home on leave kept increasing every week, in some cases every day or every hour. Which was crazy but only Yossarian seemed to be willing to seriously complain.

It was clear to me that if you are someone who only enjoys stories that are linear with a protagonist and antagonist(s) who are relatively normal, you will not enjoy this book. Checking the web for reviews, I found many social network literature forums where comments were very negative. Since this was one of the best books I've ever read in my life, it is hard for me to believe there are those who disagree so vehemently but ..so it goes.. As we went around the circle at the end of our discussion as we normally do, there were those in our group as well who were not as enthralled with this book as I was. But I didn't hear anyone express actual dislike. But sometimes people reserve their opinions more than I seem to be able to do.

The book starts with a chapter titled THE TEXAN corresponding to a "good-natured, generous and likable" character who joined the hospital ward where Yossarian and his buddy Dunbar were staying after being admitted because of false complaints they conjured up. The chapter includes the comment: "In three days no one could stand him." There were comments in the discussion that Yossarian was crazy because he said so many opposite things like this. I commented that I thought that this device of "opposite comments" was used by many of the characters, not just Yossarian. This story was about the insane world of the military and therefore, the author took every opportunity to illustrate craziness that he could. Most (or maybe all) of the characters at one time or another called all of the other characters "crazy" or "insane" on nearly every page. And if they weren't calling others "crazy", they were describing crazy behaviour or they themselves were acting crazy.

As we were talking about the character of Yossarian, one attendee in our group who had been in the Air Force, flown and was shot at shared that he had the same experience that Yossarian had when he was shot at, that he took it personal. He said he got angry about the person in the plane shooting at him who didn't even know him. It was amazing to me how this compared so well with how the author describes Yossarian's experience.

The character of the Chaplain was introduced into our discussion as second most important to Yossarian. Some thought there might be some kind of "yin and yang" set up between Yossarian and Chaplain. Both characters are caught up in the war in a very negative way and both have lots of self-doubt. The book starts with both Yossarian and the Chaplain and it ends with both characters as well after they have changed their personalities and have learned how to survive more effectively. Some in the group reminded us of how the chaplain did in fact speak up about the requirement for flying missions as being too severe, that he wasn't a total coward that some mentioned. And that he, like Yossarian, was a bit of a recluse, living in a tent away from the base camp just as Yossarian lived in a tent without a roommate and was very resentful when he lost his privacy to new roommates after his old roommate, Orr was lost on a mission.

The most difficult part of the discussion was covering all the topics of the book or even most of them. The book was very dense and somewhat long at four hundred fifty pages. But we did the best we could. It is never possible to cover a book entirely.

We talked about Doc Daneeka who was declared "dead" because of a screwup in the Air Force bureaucracy and as a result, he couldn't communicate with his wife and she couldn't communicate with him. Though this was very comical, it was also part of the process of the author making the humor darker and darker. As we got to know the characters better, the comical disasters seemed more tragic and not as funny. Also, it wasn't simply a process of the reader getting more involved in the book, the author was intentionally allowing the reader to see the tragedy of events and not just the comedy as most of us agreed in our discussion.

Other topics we discussed were:

  • the character of Milo Minderbinder who made a contract with the Germans to bomb his own squadron and was forgiven by his commanding officers because of all the profit he made. Some one in our group commented that the character of Milo was very believable if you know people like that. (and everyone laughed.)
  • the changes Yossarian went through and the changes the reader was allowed to see gradually such as the death of Snowden and its effect on Yossarian. The event surrounding Snowden's death as it gradually was told played a very major roll in Yossarian becoming less passive with respect to following orders from his commanding officers, IMO
  • the mission of Ferrara where the character Kraft is killed, after which Yossarian received a medal but he admits he stopped being brave
  • the mission of Avignon where Snowden is killed and Yossarian explains to the reader that he "lost his nerve"
  • some of the examples of Yossarian's decency even in light of a military that was "trying to kill him" such as his attempt to find Nately's Whore's sister who was only twelve years old and lost in Rome and in serious danger of not being able to survive (he didn't find her which was more of the dark part of the story the author keeps revealing to us
  • the question of whether Yossarian was "normal"
  • the women in his life such as Lucianna and Nurse Duckett revealing a more tender side
  • ridiculous orders from Air Force leadership such as using a "tight bombing pattern" only because it photographs well and not because it might be a more effective wartime tactic
  • character of Colonel Scheisskop who thought marching was the only important activity and he ended up being the top man in charge (not saying much for leadership)
  • the numerous experiences of Yossarian in the hospital
  • McWatt, the young reckless pilot who killed another character named Kid Sampson in a very gruesome manner by flying too low with his plane
  • Yossarian's walk in Rome and how credible were his experiences; someone commented "by that point in the book, nothing is unbelievable" though others thought he was halucinating
  • the "magical realism" of Nately's whore and how she trys to kill Yossarian and how she manages to be in so many places - seemed unreal and dark but still very funny at the same time
  • final resolution of Yosarian's dilemma (no spoilers here)

Normally in my writeups about our discussion, I try to list all the topics here even if I don't go into our comments very much on the topics but in this case, there were so many more, I will stop here and say once again that the book was very "dense". It was hard to do it justice in one discussion.

One last note about my own understanding of the book includes my epiphany when I realized how many platitudes were used in the story. Usually on every page. So many such as:

  • "..should care what people think.."
  • "..Appearance is more imporant than what's inside.."
  • "..some of my best friends are enlisted men.."
  • "..Trust in God.."
  • "..go to Russia (if you're not happy).."
  • "..There's a war going on.."
  • "..always done it that way.."
  • "..what's good for the syndicate is good for the country.."
  • "..everybody has a share.."
  • "..remember your mission.."
  • "..almost as good as new.."
  • "..risking your life for your country.."
  • "..patriotism.."
  • "..better to die on ones feet than to live on ones knees.." (said by the old man, maybe shouldn't be in this list since I believe it's true)
  • "..old money is better than new money.."
  • "..getting everything you buy for nothing.."
  • "..when is policy of American Govt to confiscate property of citizens?" (said in outrage by Milo)
  • "..bomb for your country.."

In most cases, these platitudes were used by someone trying to convince Yossarian or the Chaplain that they shouldn't be sane, that they should join the other crazies in the story for some superficial reason as given in the particular platitude being used at the time. It would not be illogical in my opinion to speculate that the author wrote the story using a collection of such platitudes as the foundation especially considering his background at a small advertising agency before he was first published,

Looking forward to our next discussion on October 12 at Houston Central Market in the community room upstairs. We'll be discussing THE GOOD SOLDIER by Ford Madox Ford. For more info about the Central Market Book Club check out our web page at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket/.

The Montrose Great Books discussion of UBIK by Philip Dick was enlightening for me. It was a confusing book for many of the 14 people who attended last night's discussion (September 3, 2009) at the Freed-Montrose Library but afterwards, I can honestly say that I was less confused. That's as good as I can say about my confusion but I also believe that the author intended for us to be confused.

Brian led the discussion with a few interesting bits of biographical information such as the author, Philip Dick considering himself a "fictionalizing philosopher". Brian then began with a question about the beginning of the book asking "how effective is the writing in the beginning?" (or something to this effect.)

Everyone who responded to Brian's initial question mentioned how the language was "ordinary". Most of us did not have a background of reading much science fiction. I say this because I wonder still if the technique of using ordinary language to write about extra-ordinary things such as telepaths, half-lives, moratoriums and talking doors isn't often used by other science fiction authors. Hopefully some day I'll be able to answer this question once I have more experience with the genre. In the meantime, I delighted in the juxtaposition of these two contrasting worlds. When I say ordinary, I mean things like the bureaucracy of the moratorium, the problem of coming up with the coins to put in the machine to get coffee, the problem of having a messy apartment (such as that belonging to Joe Chip, the chief protagonist), the problem of finding where the bathrooms are when they arrive on Luna where they've never been before.

Some of us thought the use of the ordinary language made the world described very mundane and boring. The ordinary language for me was a great prelude to the part of the story where a group of characters are standing around waiting to go to Luna on the space ship and Pat Conley after being asked to show her talent, proceeds to project everyone into the future, including Runciter as someone who has had a heart attack and has retired. This part is written so skillfully that one really feels how the author is playing with the reader's mind. It is easy to get lost before coming back and understanding what is going on. This was the point when I really started enjoying the book. Great fun, in my opinion.

As a result of more questions from Brian, we transitioned into an extensive discussion of half-lives. What is a half-life as it is used in the book? Someone suggested that it didn't coincide with a "half-life" as known in the world of chemistry. Another suggested that perhaps it was meant to be the opposite of a "full life". In any event, Runciter who was Joe Chip's boss and another major character in the book wondered on page 12 "How did it feel to be in half-life?". I was one in the group who thought this was a precursor to a major theme of the book. Does anyone understand what a half-life is? Do any of the characters OR readers? My answer is no. According to some paragraphs in the book, it is an amorphous experience where our normal concept of language is not used. This last made me think of Jung's "collective unconscious". In other paragraphs, there is an indication that battles go on in cold-pac, the place where half-lives are restricted to in order to keep vital signs of those in half-life from going completely dead. Some in our discussion thought the whole concept and how it was described was the result of nonsensical drug-induced mindlessness of the author.

It was revealed near the end of the book that as a result of the battles, some half-lives in cold-pac invented Ubik, a spray that would help in the war against the more agressive domineering half-life members. We discussed briefly how this kind of invention could be invented while in half-life. And this discussion led us further down the path of being totally confused about what half-life was like. We fairly quickly left off discussing this concept of "invention in half-life" just as we did with other topics that were about the logistics of how things existed such as inertials, precogs and Pat Conley's talent of being able to change the future which everyone who spoke agreed was a red-herring. It was concluded that she was one of several red-herrings that had us thinking she was the bad guy in a mystery about whether or not Runciter was dead or in half-life and whether or not the others of a group of 11 who experienced an explosion on Luna would be dead soon as a result of some evil force. And who or what was the evil force? (More about that later.)

It was to Brian's credit and also to the credit of the members of the discussion that we didn't get bogged down in talking about all the logistics of the story that did not make sense. Instead we chose to talk about larger issues such as "what would happen if we could talk to others after death?" as was described in the story. And "What impact would this have on our experience of grief?"

We spent a fair amount of time talking about Joe Chip who was an ordinary guy who seemed to be a pawn used by others more devious or smarter than him. Some members of our group objected to his character as very unexceptional. Others thought the depiction of him as an anti-hero and as someone who was likable, cynical, "under the radar" and who eventually showed how smart he was and how powerful he was, was well done by the author. Others suggested he was a "classic dick" and we all laughed. Someone else reminded us of the fact that he called himself "the norm". As usual, there is no rule that we have to agree so we didn't spend a lot of time disagreeing.

Someone asked what was the significance of the author giving us the viewpoint of Joe Chip only. (Actually Al Hammond's thoughts and viewpoint, another one of the eleven who went to Luna at the beginning of the story, was briefly revealed at one point but not for long.) Some observed that because we had Joe Chip's viewpoint and not the viewpoint of one of the characters with special paranormal talents, it limited us in being able to solve the mystery causing some frustration but also increasing the tension of the story, not a bad thing.

Brian asked us "what were the opposing forces" at play? We couldn't answer directly, which made this a good question, by the way. There were numerous characters in the book, Hollis was identified as a hostile force but the author didn't give us enough information to be clear that he was in fact the bad guy that needed to be destroyed or at least caught. Pat Conley also was a possibility but in my own experience, the author tried so hard to lead us in her direction as the "bad guy" that I wasn't taken in. Guess I've read too much Agatha Christie.

We talked about the product called Ubik (which is short for ubiquitous). Some thought the Ubik advertisements at the beginning of every chapter were Ella, Runciter's wife who was in half-life talking to us. Others thought it was God in the form of Ubik talking to the world in a very commercialized way because that was the only way the world could understand since it was so mundane, boring and concerned only about money. If Ubik is God, why does Ubik spray last for only about an hour? - We didn't have the answer for that.

The topic of money comes up very often in the story in the form of Joe Chip (or others) constantly needing coins to open their door, to get a newspaper out of a machine which they have in their own apartment, to get coffee from machines and also to hire a plane to fly to DesMoines for Runciter's funeral. Coins are often used in the various story lines. Some are out of date, some are totally invalid because they have Runciter's picture on them, even a coin shop is included a couple of times. We weren't sure about the significance other than to symbolize crass commercialism.

Other themes and questions we talked about included:

  • Reason the group went to Luna in the first place
  • Conflict between Jory and Ella
  • Why is Jory bad? (some didn't think fact that he ate people bad, yikes!)
  • Time regression and the World of 1992 vs world of 1939
  • Theology issues in the story
  • What is reality
  • Moneyed sector of society - Ella can be reborn out of half-life because her family has paid for it.
  • Why didn't Ella make mass quantities of Ubik?
  • Where are the telepaths when the characters in the story need them?
  • Who put the eleven inertials in cold-pac?
  • What is significance of picture of Joe Chip on coin in Runciter's possession in the last paragraph of the book?

Most of our group enjoyed the book. As a minimum they found it entertaining. Some loved the book. Several thought it was disappointing and at least one thought it was nonsense and commented that "just because a book is published doesn't mean it's not nonsense." Several in the group as we were going around in the circle at the end evaluating and adding final comments, thought that the book had too many holes to have credibility. From having read some of the background of the author, I would agree with this last statement about the "holes". Philip Dick wrote this book along with 10 others in the space of 5 years, a time period that didn't allow for much proofreading and "dotting i's" and "crossing t's", in my opinion.

The book may not have been a Great Book (uppercase G and uppercase B) but the fact that the author didn't "spoon feed" the themes and issues of the story made it much more challenging and hence enjoyable to read in my opinion. Also, the little twists the author makes with the story playing with the reader's mind make up for a lot of flaws and added immensely to my enjoyment.

Looking forward to our next discussion of THEIR EYES WERE WATCHING GOD by Zora Neal Hurston on October 1st at Houston Freed-Montrose Library. Our discussion will be included in many that will be held at Houston Libraries as part of the citywide initiative called Books On The Bayou. Check out our web page at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/Montrose/ for more info.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from September 2009 listed from newest to oldest.

August 2009 is the previous archive.

October 2009 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.1