"Catch-22"

[E.G. Gammon]

Is the term "Catch-22" enough in common usage that it can be used to describe something within the text of another novel?

[Seaclusion]

I believe I have seen it written in other books. Just as Lolita is now an acceptable description of a lolita and Orwellian and big brother are commonly known terms.

Richard

[Shadow_Ferret]

To be honest, I'll bet many people who use the term aren't even aware it was ever a novel or that that is where the term originated. Most people just view it as a term for a form of circular logic.

[MumblingSage]

Yes. I've seen it used in nonfiction articles, and I assume that means it can be used in fiction too. The characters, of course, would have to either know the book or (like me) have at least seen the term used in context.

[alleycat]

Yeah, I think most people would understand the term Catch-22, or you could add a one-sentence phrase just to make sure. For example only, you could have a character say "This is a Catch-22, there's no way to win no matter what I do."

[Feathers]

I've seen it in some other fiction books. I agree with the others - people may not even know the exact definition, but a lot of people have learned it in context. Most readers would probably know the gist of it, at the very least.

-Feathers

[Barpaio]

I'd keep it to just the phrase Catch-22. Enough people should understand, and those that don't will figure it out.

[Jake Barnes]

Or you could use catch-18, the original title for Catch-22.

[Gillhoughly]

Just don't use the term for a time period prior to the time period to that book's publication. It may have been in use, but at least you do have a fixed date.

I recall reading an Edwardian mystery by a very good writer. It was great until the princess of Wales, agreeing with her husband about something, said, "It scans."

I stopped cold and went back to my beloved Conan Doyle works. :D

[lexxi]

I recall reading an Edwardian mystery by a very good writer. It was great until the princess of Wales, agreeing with her husband about something, said, "It scans."

Like a line of poetry? I assume that was the comparison being made, perfectly appropriate to that time period.

[Gillhoughly]

The context was 20th century to me.

The prince expounded on a problem, suggested a possible solution, then asked "What do you think?"

Her reply was, "It scans."

The thing is, even if the phrase was appropriate to the 19th century, not every reader knows that. As he was an experienced mystery writer with 2 different historical series it might have made sense to him, but it jarred me right out of the book.

Writers need to avoid doing that even if it IS accurate. I've come across modern-sounding phrases in old books, but decided against using them if I thought it would yank a reader from the page.

It also slammed home the lesson to me to never read historical fiction to do your research. Writers and editors screw up all the time. If the writer has a bibliography in the back you read those books instead!

Now, don't get me started on the mystery writer who had a character loading a revolver with a magazine, racking back the slide, then putting the safety on and forgetting that he'd done so just as he's trying to shoot something.

Soon as he put the safety on (with FEW exceptions revolvers don't have those, BTW) I KNEW he'd forget about it at a crucial moment, and oh, hey, he did. (Moron.) I lost all respect for that writer for manipulating things to create jeopardy.

Lemme tell you, if I'm in a place where I have to shoot something trying to eat my face, depend that I will have the damn safety OFF and be paying attention to the situation!

[backslashbaby]

Yeah, I want to see the scene in those books when the character bought his ammo, and see the look on the clerk's face when he asked for magazines!

There is also a lot of inappropriate cocking going on with semiautomatics :)

Catch-22? I knew the phrase before I knew it was a book. Great book!!

[Puck38]

I knew the phrase "Catch 22" long before I realized it was a book. And oh, what a great book it was. So I say, use the phrase freely.

Or you could use catch-18, the original title for Catch-22.

Yeah, but then you'd just be a pretentious asshole. And who wants that?

[Birol]

Knowledge does not make one pretentious, Puck.

[Puck38]

Knowledge does not make one pretentious, Puck.

Oh, I didn't mean knowing the original title of Catch 22 makes somebody pretentious. I meant if you were to randomly use the phrase "Catch 18" instead of Catch 22 in your writing, THAT, sir, would make you pretentious on an epic scale. It'd be more pretentious than, say, drinking wine at a dive bar, or loudly using the phrase in public: "This reminds me of something I wrote about once."

But yeah, no ill-will intended toward the guy who knew the original title. Sometimes I forget I'm using my angry voice, and things come out a bit wrong.

[Birol]

Why?

I would strongly advise against the self-professed "angry voice" persona you've elected to don here, btw.

[benbradley]

I was gonna say that with as often-used as the phrase is, I might even worry about Catch-22 being a cliche'... but with recent twists in the thread, I think I'll just sit on the sidelines.

Popcorn, anyone?

:popcorn:

[Birol]

Nah, Ben. Please keep the conversation going.

Is Catch-22 so well-known and oft-used that it's a cliche? Or does is it a well-recognized slang expression?

[Rarri]

I've seen 'catch-22' used in fiction and non-fiction.

It's a great book too :)

[MaryMumsy]

Is Catch-22 so well-known and oft-used that it's a cliche? Or does is it a well-recognized slang expression?

It's shorthand for: "you can't win, you can't break even, you can't even get the hell out of the game". I don't feel it is a cliche. And it is certainly well-known enough to be used without further explanation.

MM

[Puck38]

Why?

I would strongly advise against the self-professed "angry voice" persona you've elected to don here, btw.

Oh, come now, Birol. Now you're just being difficult. You really can't see why using the phrase "Catch 18" in place of "Catch 22" would be pretentious (I assume that's what the "Why?" was about)? I mean, if it has some relevance to your story, then sure, it's fine, but if you just replace one with the other, it's a bit pretentious. Can you imagine reading a book with a part that said, "It was a real Catch 18 situation?" The reader would be going, "Wait... Catch 18? What the hell is that?" Meanwhile, the writer is sitting there rubbing his hands together and giggling and going, "My readers are going to think I'm so smart." And then some literary studies professor reading it would stroke his beard and go, "Mmm, yes, Catch 18. I do recall that is the original title for Catch 22. What a witty reference. Well-played, dear writer. Well-played."

I realize you're a moderator and so you need to maintain order in this wild place and keep the offensive a-holes like myself in check, but as I pointed out before, I wasn't insulting the guy who posted that thing about Catch 18. I'm as big a fan of random facts as the next person. I was merely pointing out that if the OP took the advice of Catch 18 Guy and used the term Catch 18 instead of Catch 22 in his writing, then he would probably come off as a pretentious asshole to those who read it. And now I've gone and overexplained myself.

Anyway, have an e-drink on me, and let's forget about this and be merry.

[Prozyan]

I think Catch-22 has largely become genericized, much like Kleenex and Band-Aid. As such, its use is fair ground.

[dempsey]

To be honest, I'll bet many people who use the term aren't even aware it was ever a novel or that that is where the term originated. Most people just view it as a term for a form of circular logic.

This has been bothering me. I have to say something.

A Catch-22 is not circular logic.

Circular logic is a set of phrases that are only true if all other phrases are assumed true. Effectively, you are repeating the argument as a supporting fact.

Ex: "I'm the boss because I make the rules."

Ex: "Everything written in the Bible is true. The Bible is inerrant, and it says it is true."

Catch-22 is a collection of phrases that gives the illusion of choice without actually giving you a choice at all.

Ex (from the book): In order to be excused from flying a mission in war, a person must request a sanity evaluation and be proven insane. However, if you request a sanity evaluation to get out of flying, you are concerned for your life, and since it is a very sane thing to be concerned for your life, you will be found sane, and therefore must fly the mission.

Sorry. I'm a fan of logic, formal and informal :)

[James D. Macdonald]

It also slammed home the lesson to me to never read historical fiction to do your research. Writers and editors screw up all the time. If the writer has a bibliography in the back you read those books instead!

This leads to the Tiffany problem.

"Tiffany" (it's a variant form of Theophania) is a perfectly legitimate English girl's for the medieval period, but no one is going to believe it.

[IrishElim]

Yes.

[MumblingSage]

This leads to the Tiffany problem.

"Tiffany" (it's a variant form of Theophania) is a perfectly legitimate English girl's for the medieval period, but no one is going to believe it.

Huh. You learn something new every day.

[Shamrockgreen]

The context was 20th century to me.

The prince expounded on a problem, suggested a possible solution, then asked "What do you think?"

Her reply was, "It scans."

The thing is, even if the phrase was appropriate to the 19th century, not every reader knows that. As he was an experienced mystery writer with 2 different historical series it might have made sense to him, but it jarred me right out of the book.

Writers need to avoid doing that even if it IS accurate. I've come across modern-sounding phrases in old books, but decided against using them if I thought it would yank a reader from the page.

It also slammed home the lesson to me to never read historical fiction to do your research. Writers and editors screw up all the time. If the writer has a bibliography in the back you read those books instead!

Now, don't get me started on the mystery writer who had a character loading a revolver with a magazine, racking back the slide, then putting the safety on and forgetting that he'd done so just as he's trying to shoot something.

Soon as he put the safety on (with FEW exceptions revolvers don't have those, BTW) I KNEW he'd forget about it at a crucial moment, and oh, hey, he did. (Moron.) I lost all respect for that writer for manipulating things to create jeopardy.

Lemme tell you, if I'm in a place where I have to shoot something trying to eat my face, depend that I will have the damn safety OFF and be paying attention to the situation!

Gill,

LOL....I have read some romantic suspense and get all wound up when someone puts the safety of their GLOCK on and off. Glocks do not have an external safety. They are internal and barely there at that if you have someone put a nice trigger job on it. :-) Hence the saying in the shooting community "glock toe" as someone puts their finger in the trigger guard while holstering their Glock and shoots their toe or worse slides the gun into a back of the pants holster and pops one right in their backside.

Hence view this video of a DEA agent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj4yUpR1PB0

If you are going to write about something research it. I wouldn't hurt to go to a gun shop and chit chit with the folks behind the counter about the firearms you write about, they are always willing to talk about their product, just like the Mary Kay lady and Amway seller.