The novel Catch 22 was intended as a black comedy that poked holes at the sentiment of the World War II generation that a good war had been fought and won. In Catch 22 there is no such thing as a good war. Instead, it expresses how those in charge, the bureaucrats, entrap common men and women in an existence where they are forced to survive in any way they can—often in spite of the designs of the bureaucrats, like Colonel Cathcart, who, in order to be promoted and appear worthy to his superiors keeps raising the number of bombing missions necessary to be released from combat.
If we look at two reviews of Catch 22, we can begin to understand the wide variety of reactions caused by this novel that parodies the absurdity of war. Those who fight in wars are trapped within the proverbial Catch 22. If the pilots are insane, they are able to quit flying bombing missions. However, they must ask to stop flying them and, if they ask, they are sane because only insane people would want to continue flying bombing mission. This framing device of a Catch 22 environment sets up the main moral dilemma of the book, one described by Robert Young (1) in his review as follows, “The central moral conflict of the book lies in the relationship between the system and its rules and the humanity which pays the price for the defenses of those in charge and the system they created and maintain at the expense of human decency.”
The main character of the novel, Yossarian, is determined to stay alive even if it kills him in the process. Instead of going along with the powers that be, Yossarian erects his own individuality by resisting the institutional forces that wish him to be trapped within a world where anxieties are high because of the constant threat of annihilation. While Colonels Cathcart and Korn eventually make a deal with Yossarian, he cannot accept it because one of their main wishes is for him to like them.
...