avablog

avablog header image 2
← →

Catch-22

March 10th, 2008 · by map · 20 Comments

Leah and I took Ava to breakfast yesterday at the Hamburg Inn (Kim, I never see you there anymore!). It was yummy, as always. As I was paying la cuenta on the way out the door, I eavesdropped on a young man at a nearby table who was trying to explain to a non-native English speaker what catch-22 means. I gathered that the topic had come up in relation to the Heller novel. The fellow doing the explaining — bless him — was really butchering it, and I felt bad that his friend was going to leave that place with such bad information.

I mentioned the exchange to Leah after we left, and she asked, “Well, how would you explain it?” I replied that I’d probably start by framing the explanation with the concept of being damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Leah said, “Like being between a rock and a hard place.” I thought about it again this morning, and I thought to myself, “You know, my super-literate and smart readers would have some good ideas on this.” So, how would you most concisely explain what catch-22 means? Let’s go, people! Those comments ain’t going to write themselves!

Tags: General

  • http://iowahowes.blogspot.com writermom

    A no-win situation. Whatever you decide leaves you at a loss because your options are flawed. In other words, there’s no free lunch. There’s always a catch.

  • http://iowahowes.blogspot.com writermom

    A no-win situation. Whatever you decide leaves you at a loss because your options are flawed. In other words, there’s no free lunch. There’s always a catch.

  • http://uiaacindy.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I agree wtih Writermom and each “leaves you with a loss” so “the lesser of two evils” perhaps

  • http://uiaacindy.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I agree wtih Writermom and each “leaves you with a loss” so “the lesser of two evils” perhaps

  • georgie

    Google gives me this : A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions. If I were explaining it to my ESL students, I’d say ( with actions ) “you’re in a place and you look one way and there’s a lion coming to get you. So you decide to run the other way and there’s a tiger coming to get you. Running either way is not good and isn’t going to work out for you.” This doesn’t really get at the core of it, but for many second language speakers, the examples need to be concrete.

  • georgie

    Google gives me this : A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions. If I were explaining it to my ESL students, I’d say ( with actions ) “you’re in a place and you look one way and there’s a lion coming to get you. So you decide to run the other way and there’s a tiger coming to get you. Running either way is not good and isn’t going to work out for you.” This doesn’t really get at the core of it, but for many second language speakers, the examples need to be concrete.

  • http://nicheplayer.net map

    Wait, did Georgie just quote Google at me? Surely this is a sign of the End Times?

  • http://nicheplayer.net map

    Wait, did Georgie just quote Google at me? Surely this is a sign of the End Times?

  • DawneyB.

    Georgie – as an ESL instructor – I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE your analogy. Lion, tiger – no where to run. Definitely a catch-22.

  • DawneyB.

    Georgie – as an ESL instructor – I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE your analogy. Lion, tiger – no where to run. Definitely a catch-22.

  • http://www.aprille.org Aprille

    I often think about how I would explain things to non-native English speakers. I was recently thinking about the phrase “could use” for inanimate objects, e.g., “The car could use a wash.”

    What? The car can’t actually use a wash. And really, how would anything use “a wash”? A wash is not something that can be used. The car is the receiver of the act of washing, not the user.

    It’s all very confusing.

  • http://www.aprille.org Aprille

    I often think about how I would explain things to non-native English speakers. I was recently thinking about the phrase “could use” for inanimate objects, e.g., “The car could use a wash.”

    What? The car can’t actually use a wash. And really, how would anything use “a wash”? A wash is not something that can be used. The car is the receiver of the act of washing, not the user.

    It’s all very confusing.

  • http://mama-tchou-tchou.blogspot.com/ Jenny

    Or the car is using the wash to its benefit, which is implicit in the use of “use” and therefore need not be said…?

  • http://mama-tchou-tchou.blogspot.com/ Jenny

    Or the car is using the wash to its benefit, which is implicit in the use of “use” and therefore need not be said…?

  • http://mama-tchou-tchou.blogspot.com/ Jenny

    But since a Catch-22 refers, in its original meaning – which seems to be the one that the young man was trying to explain, and not the more generalized way that it’s often used today – to inherent illogical structure that makes the attainment of something impossible, the lion/tiger analogy doesn’t quite work. Unless you were only allowed (on pain of being shot on the spot) to run to the right if a lion were coming from the left, knowing that there will always be a tiger coming from the right. Or something like that. The ‘to fly or not to fly’ example in the book is perfect, though.

  • http://mama-tchou-tchou.blogspot.com/ Jenny

    But since a Catch-22 refers, in its original meaning – which seems to be the one that the young man was trying to explain, and not the more generalized way that it’s often used today – to inherent illogical structure that makes the attainment of something impossible, the lion/tiger analogy doesn’t quite work. Unless you were only allowed (on pain of being shot on the spot) to run to the right if a lion were coming from the left, knowing that there will always be a tiger coming from the right. Or something like that. The ‘to fly or not to fly’ example in the book is perfect, though.

  • Kim Painter

    Hi, Mark. We haven’t gone to the ‘burg in a long time – I was all riled up by the last ‘remodel’ – so we’re hitting Lou Henri now.

    For a ‘Catch-22′, here’s one. My friends and fellow countrymen, consider the gays. As a gay person, I’m automatically presumed by many rather stridently conservative folks to be averse to committment, geared towards immediate gratification, and disinclined to consider the future, kids, etc. One reason: I’m not married. If I was married, I’d be a walking emblem of all those things. But…oh, I forget. I can’t get married because I am gay and I am not allowed to marry someone of the same gender. Regardless of living with and supporting a disabled adult child, 10 years of rock-solid committment, and the need to ponder the future every single day.

    So by law I am denied any possibility of taking up the primary mantle of committment offered in my culture, thus giving those strident types perpetual permission to say, “But look at those irresponsible ‘mos.. Just kiting around doing whatever they want without a care. Assuming none of the responsibilities of adult life. And now they want special rights under the law???”

    Hmmm …looks like a Catch-22 to me.

    Sorry if that sounds strident. Mark could tell you I am not like that. But it ain’t a bad illustration, really. If it was a tad sharp, let’s just blame it on the fact that I’m out of town at a conference, and have not yet had a drop of caffeine! –Kim

  • Kim Painter

    Hi, Mark. We haven’t gone to the ‘burg in a long time – I was all riled up by the last ‘remodel’ – so we’re hitting Lou Henri now.

    For a ‘Catch-22′, here’s one. My friends and fellow countrymen, consider the gays. As a gay person, I’m automatically presumed by many rather stridently conservative folks to be averse to committment, geared towards immediate gratification, and disinclined to consider the future, kids, etc. One reason: I’m not married. If I was married, I’d be a walking emblem of all those things. But…oh, I forget. I can’t get married because I am gay and I am not allowed to marry someone of the same gender. Regardless of living with and supporting a disabled adult child, 10 years of rock-solid committment, and the need to ponder the future every single day.

    So by law I am denied any possibility of taking up the primary mantle of committment offered in my culture, thus giving those strident types perpetual permission to say, “But look at those irresponsible ‘mos.. Just kiting around doing whatever they want without a care. Assuming none of the responsibilities of adult life. And now they want special rights under the law???”

    Hmmm …looks like a Catch-22 to me.

    Sorry if that sounds strident. Mark could tell you I am not like that. But it ain’t a bad illustration, really. If it was a tad sharp, let’s just blame it on the fact that I’m out of town at a conference, and have not yet had a drop of caffeine! –Kim

  • http://mama-tchou-tchou.blogspot.com/ Jenny

    Yep, Kim, that is — unfortunately — a perfect example. Also an underscoring of the idea that the best fiction comes from fact.

    p.s. Just an idea: Come to France, get PACS-ed (= civil solidarity pact = all of the bureaucratic benefits of marriage without what many consider the traditional nonsense + the societal nod of approval for being committed) and (why not?) enjoy a real health care system, to boot!

    The PACS was created with same-sex couples and their families in mind, but has become so popular that, as they say, “everybody’s doin’ it!”

  • http://mama-tchou-tchou.blogspot.com/ Jenny

    Yep, Kim, that is — unfortunately — a perfect example. Also an underscoring of the idea that the best fiction comes from fact.

    p.s. Just an idea: Come to France, get PACS-ed (= civil solidarity pact = all of the bureaucratic benefits of marriage without what many consider the traditional nonsense + the societal nod of approval for being committed) and (why not?) enjoy a real health care system, to boot!

    The PACS was created with same-sex couples and their families in mind, but has become so popular that, as they say, “everybody’s doin’ it!”