Books
1. Secret Societies
2. 1984
3. Animal Farm
4. Cicero
5. Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
When I first picked up this novel, I thought it was a serious diatribe (since I had been reading a lot of such books lately), but I soon found myself laughing at the bitterly funny jokes. I've heard a lot of people (read: journalists) throw around the term catch-22 and I've heard it described as 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. That's really not quite right. It's a situation that nullifies itself (also called self-defeating logic). In the novel, Catch-22 was a military term for determining whether or not a pilot is grounded.
Quote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in 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. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle."
It's not quite damned if you do, damned if you don't (to which, most people just do). Rather it's, not matter what choice you make nullifies the clause itself. If you're crazy, you have to tell someone you're crazy, but if you tell them you're crazy, then it automatically assumes you're sane enough to make a reasonable decision (and therefore, not crazy).
The book itself tends to weave itself together entertainingly, but there's no sort of time continuum. I often felt things happened either out of order, or the writer was winding time forward or back based on the chapter he wrote. The ending was just... uninspired. I suppose it was 'third choice' syndrome, when faced with 2 untenable choices, a third one is made up. An escape clause, so to speak. It was disappointing.
6. Dumb Witness by Agatha Christie
Quote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in 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. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle."
It's not quite damned if you do, damned if you don't (to which, most people just do). Rather it's, not matter what choice you make nullifies the clause itself. If you're crazy, you have to tell someone you're crazy, but if you tell them you're crazy, then it automatically assumes you're sane enough to make a reasonable decision (and therefore, not crazy).
The book itself tends to weave itself together entertainingly, but there's no sort of time continuum. I often felt things happened either out of order, or the writer was winding time forward or back based on the chapter he wrote. The ending was just... uninspired. I suppose it was 'third choice' syndrome, when faced with 2 untenable choices, a third one is made up. An escape clause, so to speak. It was disappointing.
6. Dumb Witness by Agatha Christie
I'm not a huge mystery fan, probably because it's not a genre that I've been entertained by. Particularly I haven't had the desire to read modern mysteries. I am, however, endlessly entertained by old mysteries like Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot mysteries, where the setting, characters and period are just as elucidating as the story is entertaining. I prefer Poirot to Marple, and I wonder if that is a male tendency to follow logic over intuition/psychology (which is the main difference between Christie's two main protagonists).
Again this is a story where facts and pieces are put together like a jigsaw puzzle (except, like most mystery stories, you don't get all the facts at once... they draw out in long chapters). Worth a read if you like old mysteries, and it has a bit of a different ending than the usual 'point to the murderer in the room'.
Again this is a story where facts and pieces are put together like a jigsaw puzzle (except, like most mystery stories, you don't get all the facts at once... they draw out in long chapters). Worth a read if you like old mysteries, and it has a bit of a different ending than the usual 'point to the murderer in the room'.
