by Aishwarya » Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:45 pm
Strictly speaking, to be caught in a Catch-22 situation is more complicated than havng to choose betwen two evils. It is more like having no choice at all, since the only apparent way out of the situation is prevented or cancelled by some other element in the situation. An all too familiar example is the predicamant facing a young job-hunter; you cannot get a job unless you have relevant work experience, and you cannot acquire relevant work experiance unless you get a job! This phrase comes from the novel Catch-22 by the American writer Joseph Heller, published in 1961. The catch here is that the only way to get out of flying on military bombing raids is to be declared insane, but to apply for exemption from such dangerous missions is obviously a very sensible thing to do and therefore a clear proof of one\'s sanity. \"Orr would be too crazy to fly more missions\", the book explains at one point, \"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\". SUCH MAD LOGIC IS USED THROUGH OUT THE BOOK TO SATIRISE WAR AND MILITARY THINKING.<br><br>
If it were not for an accident of publishing history, we might today tend to talk of a catch-18 situation rather than a catch-22 situation. Joseph Heller originally called the paradox catch-18 and intended to call the book the same, but the bestselling Mila-18, a novel by Leon Uris, was published slightly earlier in 1961, and Heller and his publishers decided at the last minute to change Catch-18 to Catch-22 to avoid any confusion.<br><br>
People... tell me, did you come across such a wierd situation any time?