Two books that deal with war take a unusual approach: The Things They Carried and Catch-22. I appreciate that these books used a different way to tell stories about war, as I’m generally not a big fan of traditional war stories that focus on battles and strategies. I definitely have a favorite of the two books!
Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried offers an interesting look at memories and reality. In some sense, the book’s structure contributed a choppy feel that reflects memories. Some things he wrote were real, others were not – even within a chapter, the author (and narrator) would say it’s true and then later recant, and sometimes later would go back to it being true. Whether the specific events occurred or not is not the real beauty of this book, in my opinion. What was so touching to me was the overall “feel” of the stories.
Sending young men into situations to witness and participate in the violence of war has its consequences. Although not all soldiers who go to war come back damaged, they all come back changed. Some use their experiences to become better people, others view life and friendships differently, and others are wounded in unseen ways. Whether the stories are true or not, this book “feels” true and real. Sometimes funny and sometimes sad – sometimes both at the same time – it follows a group of young men who are sometimes sweet or silly or playful and sometimes are angry and abusive. It is a lovely book and one that people should read to understand how soldiers cope with all-too-real situations when they are young and scared and far from home.
Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 was not my favorite book, as it was too much of a blunt instrument for my taste. The jokes and antics and scenarios seemed to go a step too far, moving away from funny or otherwise entertaining to annoying or (frankly) boring after a while. I can appreciate that the book was groundbreaking but it’s just not my cuppa.
Often when you don’t like a book that others love, they say that you don’t “get it” but the reality is that I do get it – it’s not that challenging to understand. It’s a matter of personal preferences in storytelling. I understand that the hilarious hijinks become absurd spectacles and spiral down to horrifying events and actions – I just don’t particularly like it. I understand that this is an battle between the individual and the bureaucracy; that it’s meant to be absurd; that it is about sanity and insanity; and so on. Parts were genuinely funny, but I felt like I was beaten over the head with them. It did not help that the structure of the book, which is a compilation of vignettes and characterizations, is less appealing to me than a smoother narrative.
The main character, Yossarian, was the easiest to follow and one of the few that was generally (though not always) likable. Yossarian has principles and integrity that he maintained through the story. The remaining characters were either overly ambitious, unprincipled, immoral or some combination thereof. It reminded me of the movie version of M*A*S*H, which I did not like, though the TV show was one of my favorites.
Yes, there is corruption and bureaucracy during war. There is a lot of confusion, a lot of rules that don’t seem to make much sense, a lot of red tape to document everything, and numerous opportunities for those who have ambitions in or out of the military. Therefore, initially, I enjoyed Milo’s entrepreneurship – really, the guy was amazing. But then the book took things too far. When he started profiting from both sides during battles (leading to people being killed or injured), removing the morphine from first aid kits, essentially disabling life jackets, and so on … a step too far for me. Maybe I was just too old to read this book – if I was in my 20s, perhaps I wouldn’t be so cranky.
