Talk:Catch-22
|
|
| Contents |
Trial by drowning
I wasn't comfortable adding this to the article since I know so little about it, but this reminds me of the old witch-hunting policy: Submerge her under water. If she is a witch, she will not drown, so we must burn her at the stake. If she is not a witch, she will drown, but at least her soul will be saved. Not sure how to phrase that, since I only know the anecdote, and not the historical evidence... -- Wapcaplet 14:55 22 May 2003 (UTC)
- I've created Trial_by_drowning and added a link. Jay 13:00, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Catch-22 a success?
bdesham, looks like your minor edit makes a major difference in meaning.
" .. (Catch-22) was not regarded as a great success earning less money and acclaim than MASH". "earning" has been changed to "as it earned". Now it'll appear that Catch-22 didn't earn as much money as MASH because of which we can declare it a failure. MASH had nothing to do with Catch-22's failure. Jay 15:55, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I don't understand the comment you made on my talk page-- I thought that Catch-22 was not regarded as successful, precisely because it earned less than MASH. If this is not the case, what was it supposed to say? In any event, the original was gramatically incorrect, which is why I changed it-- I'm a huge pedant when it comes to that type of thing :-) Feel free to change the page to whatever you think makes sense. --bdesham 23:40, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I think what the author meant was that Catch-22 did not make enough money to be counted as a success. Period. And to emphasise the fact, he added a reference of another war comedy which happened to make more money than Catch-22. So to link the failure of Catch-22 with the success of MASH is incorrect.
- btw, how was the original line grammatically incorrect ? I often use such sentences myself. If its wrong, I'll have to change my writing style. Jay 10:20, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- OK, I think I understand now. The original sentence was a run-on (or something similar); there should at least have been a comma there: (Catch-22) was not regarded as a great success, earning less money... --bdesham 13:33, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
the book has somer readership in Germany. To those who are unsure of the title: "What's the catch?" translates to "wo ist der Haken?" so catch-22 might be §22 ZDV (zentrale dienstvorschrift der bundeswehr) Frank A
Orson Welles
Any idea whose character did Orson Welles play in the movie ? Jay 13:00, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- He played General Dreedle. Czolgolz
A fan
What a great book i just love that yossarian. Yammy Yamathorn
Pages for every character?
Much as I love the book, do all the minor characters like Major --- de Coverley really need their own pages?Harry R 21:18, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- IMO there should be a summery in this page, where the characters can be mentioned in context. The notable character names can then redirect to this page. Spreading the story over lots of pages with the characters doesn't work well. Thue 21:46, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Why aren't we supposed to add articles for characters
and only add characters to the Catch-22 list? --user:Alan.h
- Why do the characters merit individial pages? --Elijah 00:37, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
- I'm not very comfortable with creating a zillion stubs. I'd rather merge all those stubs into one big page like Catch-22 characters -Shoecream 22:21, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- If you do that, though, please add appropriate "#redirect" pages for the individual characters. There's no reason why "Yosarian" (sp?), "Hungry Joe", "Milo Minderbinder", et al. shouldn't map to the "Catch-22 characters" article, given that most people who seaarch for "Yosarian"or "Hungry Joe" or "Milo Minderbinder" are probably looking for the Catch-22 references.
- Atlant 23:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I, in one of my rare inclusionist moments, disagree strongly with these changes. Wikipedia is not paper. These characters merit their own articles, and they have the potential to grow into quality articles eventually.
I'm inclined to revert this massive change.User:Rdsmith4/Sig 01:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I won't stop you. But, as I wrote in my talk page, I don't feel that a good deal of these minor characters (like, say, Mrs. Daneeka) deserve their own page, so I've merged the minor ones into one page. I fully intend to move the major characters back once i've straightened things out -Shoecream 01:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- On second thought, I'll wait and see if anyone else has an opinion on the subject. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 02:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge them. Mrs. Scheisskopf looks pretty pointless to me, especially as it really needs a spoiler before it. --Henrygb 17:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Then instead of deleting articles, why doesn't someone merge them? I'm a little sore at having my article deleted rather than merged. Keep in mind, other non related articles are linked to those specific characters.
We should merge the articles on minor characters into one big List of characters in Catch-22 article in accordance with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fiction. Some of the major ones might might warrant their own articles, though. In a day or two I'll go ahead and do some merging myself and see how it works. Bryan 08:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Why is the disambiguation included in this page?
This has to be fixed. This page should be the disambig and a specific created for each other meaning. Come on people -_- Lockeownzj00 01:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
no germans?
the article states, "One of the many strange aspects of this book is that, despite the fact that the (official) villains are the Germans, no German soldiers ever actually appear in the story."
wouldn't the air strike ordered by milo count as german soldiers appearing in the story? i don't have the book with me, but i thought those were germans milo contracted. do they not count because they were in airplanes, or is it because they weren't named individually? i think the claim should be modified, at least in some way, if they were germans. now that i think about it though, is there even a reason for the statement at all? it's not strange that a story about the USAF (or whatever it was called) doesn't deal with the enemy individually. they bombed them from the air! it's central to the point of the story that killing was a bureaucratic, "impersonal" action, by drones following orders from people they hated. i think we should zap the statement entirely. SaltyPig 00:52, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
- The German military is part of the story. In another scene, Yossarian argues that "they" are trying to kill him, by shooting at him. But there aren't any German characters to villanize, which I think is the point. Twinxor 01:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- okay. thanks. now how is that strange? SaltyPig 06:11, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
- It's strange because the Germans, who are painted as responsible for untold evil, and additionally stole your Shift key, are not the evil ones. Traditional propaganda says that our side is purely good, heroically battling the unredeemably nefarious opposing side; Catch-22 reverses that, making the Germans fairly benign and the Americans malicious. Twinxor 08:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- my shift key is present and works fine (obviously). i like what you wrote. can you work that into the article instead of what's there now, maybe calling it unusual instead of strange? SaltyPig 10:57, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Weird formatting in categories
One of the cats seems to be displaying as "Modern Library 100 best novels[hide]", where clicking hide makes the TOC go away. Anyone know why the link from the TOC somehow got put down there? Twinxor 16:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)