When I first picked up Atlas Shrugged I was informed that it was, in essence, the bible of conservatism. As a result, if you don’t support conservative ideals, than you probably won’t support the ideas in this book. Nonetheless, it’s worth reading because it can help you strengthen your arguments for liberal ideas.

The novel is the story of Dagny Taggart, a woman who “moves the world.” Given the time period of the novel, one might assume that Dagny would struggle to accomplish anything due to her gender, but Rand shows us that Dagny has all of the respect, if not more, of any man. Rand’s vivid descriptions reveal that Dagny is a brilliant leader. She has the ability to accomplish anything that she sets her mind to, but that does not mean that it is easy for her to pull these things off. While Dagny’s railroad is booming, with the assistance of her friend and muse, Hank Rearden, the American government continues to pass legislation aimed at destroying large, prosperous, businesses like hers. As the pressure for these businesses to fail gets heavier, many of the people that Dagny considered to be her only worthy contemporaries start to disappear.

By the end of Rand’s novel, Dagny has discovered where her equals were disappearing to and why, but it leaves her with the challenge of deciding whether or not to join them. She must decide if she wishes to continue to fight the American government and attempt to save Taggart Transcontinental, or if she is willing to just let all of her hard work go so that she can live freely with no one to answer to but herself.

As readers study the challenges in this theoretical American society, Rand establishes the many difficult questions that humans must answer throughout their lives, such as, Should I work hard or be lazy? Should I be a leader or a follower? Should I work for the common good or just for myself? What is important in life? Should I follow the rules even if I disagree with them? Through Dagny’s eyes, Rand shows the complex internal battle that some individuals have when they must answer these questions.

Before reading this novel, I believed that the largest difference between Republicans and Democrats was economic status. After reading this book and asking myself these questions, however, I see that the real difference is actually work ethic and the value that one places upon their work. Reading this, I see that the people who believe that hard work is the only type of work, and man’s only purpose, are divided into two groups, which form the political parties. On one hand, there are the people who believe that hard work should be used to help everyone, regardless of what they contribute to society (Democrats), and on the other hand, there are the people believe that their hard work belongs only to them and should only be shared by their fellow hard workers (Republicans).

Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, is a book that forces readers to think about, or in some cases, rethink their beliefs. The novel is far deeper than just the tale of Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden as it provides a study of the different governing ideals in America, and the possible outcomes of each style. I highly recommend this book, because I believe that there is much to be learned from it, especially for teenagers who are at the age where they must ask themselves these large questions. For anyone concerned about the daunting length of the book, I assure you that this book is hard to put down, and the many pages pass quickly, and painlessly.

Edit: As of December 7, 2009 at 11:26 p.m., I would like revoke my recommendation of this novel. Today I realized that while Atlas Shrugged is a superb piece of literature, it has, quite honestly, ruined my life. This book is an eye opener, and has made me question the way that I have been living. It is not, however, a manual, and it doesn’t hold any answers or instructions on how to turn your life around, just questions to make you realize that something must be done. Yes, I loved this book, and I love being able to see things clearer, but it has made it impossible for me to continue living the way that I had been; it’s literally painful for me to.

Perhaps no one else would feel this way after reading this book, but to be completely honest, that’s the reason that I feel the way that I do. This novel has actually made me a more selfish person because it’s made me realize that while I love the Republican ideals, I have been living those of the Democrats, and I want to change that, no matter what it does to anyone else. Tragically, I do not think that anyone else would understand my reasoning, which is simply more encouragement for me to make the change.

I have a feeling that reading this addition to my book review has piqued your interest for reading this novel, far more than anything else that I’ve written and right now you’re trying to decide if you should change choice reading books. But I mean it when I say do not read this novel. Not unless you have the time to sit still for hours and reevaluate your life and your actions. I am confident in saying that many, if not most, teenagers would not be affected the way that I have been as a result of having read this book, but if it doesn’t ruin your life, the way that it has mine, it will have been simply a waste of your time. Atlas Shrugged is 1100 pages of wisdom, but if you are not able to absorb any of this knowledge, than you will have simply spent hours reading a story about a woman named Dagny Taggart who owned a railroad and tried to fight the world.

Part of me wants to be disappointed with the way that Heller ended “Catch-22” while the other part of me concedes that this ending is not only the most logical, but also the most realistic. I hate to think that Yossarian lost his battle against the corrupted authorities when he had done so much more for the country than they had because I hate the idea that, in this case, the good guy lost the war. On the other hand, however, this ending is realistic because Yossarian did not stand a chance of beating the system because he was only one man surrounded by others who would stop at nothing to glorify themselves while the system itself was filled with Catch-22s and other corruptions. Every way he turned, he was confronted by another issue that made his battle that much harder. Still, it is sad to think that Yossarian was not willing to fight to the death for his cause in order to help save his comrades because his only concern was saving himself. In a way, Yossarian was just as bad as the crooked Generals and Colonels because he was selfish. His lack of reverence for the other men’s lives was, ironically enough, just like one of the worst parts of Hitler’s system, the thing that he was supposed to be fighting against. In my mind, I want to be able to see Yossarian as a hero, but it hardly seems fair for him to be one when his actions were just like those of the bad guys, except on a smaller scale. I find it hard to believe that this was the message that Heller was trying to send, after he worked so hard to build a case against the bureaucracy, but Yossarian’s actions leave me with the message that everyone is selfish and corrupt, not just the members of the bureaucracy.

I believe that Heller meant for the army and all of the people related to it to be symbolic of America, with the Generals and others at the top being the President and the people with lots of power while the soldiers and enlisted men are the citizens of America. In this metaphor, Yossarian, the chaplain and the others who oppose the system and the eighty missions required by Colonel Cathcart, are the rebels in society fighting laws and policies that they disagree with. Unlike in the real American system, however, in this symbolic version the renegades are often “disappeared.” The men that are revolting are the ones that are capable of thinking for themselves and are unwilling to follow blindly like the other men, and for this reason, they are dangerous. They pose more of a threat to the system than the actual enemy, the Nazis, do because they have the power to lead other men, their comrades, towards rebellion. The action of “disappearing” men, however, is not something associated with the American system because it is founded upon the freedom of speech and the right to petition. The men have been forced into something that they do not want to do, and they are not allowed to argue out against it without facing serious punishments. With this point, Heller is showing the deceit in the bureaucracy, where, despite what the public is lead to believe, democracy does not exist, and instead the government rules with an iron fist.

I think that the main message that Heller was trying to imbed in his novel “Catch-22,” was that the bureaucracy is a collection of fools accomplishing very little at huge costs due to the fact that the members are mindless sheep, incapable of making their own decisions and cannot work together to achieve common goals because they are torn apart by corruption and their desire to compete with one another rather than work together. And because they know that they are not accomplishing anything of worth, they occupy themselves with meaningless tasks that do not move the nation, or in this case, the war, forward but instead just muddle with the system more thus making it even harder to fix later. For example we have the “war” between General Peckem and General Dreedle in which the two men are constantly trying to expand their operations to out do one another and gain more credibility, because both men are more interested in their own childish squabbles than actually helping end the war (312-316). Furthermore, Heller points to the men that work below the generals and argues that they are the ones best suited to fix the situation because they are the ones seeing it first hand, but rather than attempt to quell the chaos, they follow the poor examples set for them and continue doing pointless things like canceling unscheduled parades and U.S.O. shows (317-318). This idiocy leads to people, like Doc Daneeka slipping through the cracks of the system, and greed ruling the system rather than principle (333, 343).

Heller uses “Catch-22” to suggest to his readers that the United States government is corrupt and does not actually uphold the basic philosophies that the nation was built upon. One example of this is Nurse Cramer’s statement, “that leg belongs to the U.S. government” which suggest that the government does not truly care about its citizens but sees them like they see lumber or coal– as natural resources (286). The men fighting know that this is how the government feels, and as a result they don’t fight for their country, with pride and valor, but because they know they have to. This not only weakens the morale and ability of the soldiers but it also lessens the chances of America winning the war.

            Heller points out more of this foolishness through the character of Major Sanderson who is a symbol for the government. Sanderson is a fool who asks pointless questions and is incapable of seeing the blatantly obvious, that Yossarian is in the hospital for a wounded leg, and is therefore not Fortiori who is in the hospital with a stone in his salivary gland (290-293).

            In this case, Orr is also a symbol for the government. He is known for being the best pilot when it comes to ditching or crash landing, which essentially means that he’s wonderful at not doing the right thing (306).

Heller’s novel “Catch-22” seems to shine a light on the corruption that fills the armed forces and government. For example, Heller points to the huge competition for the position of General, and all of the many things that men are willing to do to impede others from getting the title. One prominent instance is the action taken by ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen who meddles with the mail to prevent anyone, in this case Colonel Cathcart, from being eligible for the position (212). Not only is it illegal for one to interfere with the mail in America, but the person committing the act in this case works for the government and is trying to become a general. It’s terribly disheartening to know that the men that would be leading the nation are the ones willing to commit illegal acts. Another example is the actions of Milo Minderbinder against his own men, the people of his syndicate. Milo is a fantastic business man but he has no allegiances and does not know how far is too far. It is one thing to misuse the money that the government has given him to purchase food, but it’s another thing to be working with both sides of the war. The worse part of it is simply that all of the men in the squadron have a share of the syndicate and although they are technically making money off of the bombing of their barracks, their shares mean nothing to them if they are dead from the bombs (252). All of this seems to be Heller’s message that the “good guys” are just as corrupt as the “bad guys.”

Heller’s writing style in “Catch-22” is a bit unorthodox in the sense that the story is not told in a straightforward manner. Each chapter tells a mini story, ranging across many different years. Some of the mini stories tell of times back in America during training while others focus on things that are happening at present amongst the men. Everyone of these mini stories centers on a central character and offers some background information about his life and how he got to where he currently is. There are quite a few dead characters, but for much of the book they seem to be alive because the mini stories take place before their death, and while this writing style keeps the story exiting and I find rather enjoyable to read, it makes it very difficult to recall which characters are alive and what is happening elsewhere in the war.

            Heller has also established several different plot lines. There is Yossarian’s quest to get himself grounded and avoid flying by hospitalizing himself. Another plot line is that of the C.I.D men trying to find out who “Washington Ivring” or ‘Ivring Washington” is. There is also the story of poor Major Major who has no idea what he should be doing so he simply wastes time. Out of all of these, Yossarain’s story seems to be the most prominent story line and because of that, I would consider it the main plot line, even through it is not mentioned in every chapter.

It seems to me that Heller was trying to make a distinction between two different types of men fighting in the war, through which he could continue to mock the situation. On one side are the men that are proud to fight for their country and are “shifty, cheerful, subservient men,” but are considered sane (144). On the other side are the men like those in Yossarian’s squadron who seem to be insane because of their habits, (shooting field mice, having nightmares every night, etc.) but do not want to fight because they know that if they die fighting, than there would have been no point in fighting because they could not enjoy the victory. In making this distinction, Heller is saying that those who support the war effort and are willing to fight for it are fools because, as Yossarian states, “it doesn’t make a damned bit of difference who  wins the war to someone who’s dead… the enemy is anybody who’s going to get you killed, no matter which side he’s on” (122). Heller’s point is, why should wars exist? If both sides could mutually agree on the truth in Yossarian’s observation, than neither side would actually want to fight, and wars would end. In reality, only one side really has to come to this realization because a war can’t be fought with just one side, but because America is still fighting in the war, Heller is pointing out the government’s foolishness.

When I first began reading this book, I thought that Yossarian was going to be the main character, and that the book would focus on him. I’ve noticed, however, that each chapter tends to be centered on a different character offering background information about their lives and how they feel about the war and their place in it. I’m not sure what message Heller was trying to send by doing this but it is possible that he just wanted to show all of the different experiences and perspectives of people fighting in the war, and what occurs when all of them come together in one squadron.

            In these chapters Heller has also continued to mock the government’s approach to war. One of the biggest examples used in this selection is the confusion that Major Major Major feels once he becomes the squadron commander. He has no idea what he supposed to be doing, so rather than being useful, his time is filled with meaningless tasks that do nothing to progress the war effort (89). Worse yet, once he realizes that there is no point to his actions, he just finds pathetic ways to occupy his time, rather than actually trying to figure out what he should be doing, or perhaps more importantly, what he could be doing to help.

            Heller also makes a statement about the frivolities and stupidity found in the armed forces. One instance of this is the use of the word “sir” when speaking to one’s superiors. Although this is supposed to be a sign of respect, it leads to confusion and wasted time in some cases, such as in the conversation between Major Major Major and Lieutenant Sheisskopf (86). Another example is with the two C.I.D. men that are both trying to track down the same person, but suspect each other because they are not working together (93).

To my great surprise, “Catch-22” has actually proven to be a very amusing read. I did not expect to find a book about war funny, but as I was reading I realized that Heller made the book funny to make a statement about war and the military. Things in the book are usually funny because they are paradoxes, making sense while not actually making sense, but these paradoxes all relate back to either the war or military, which makes the point that war and the military don’t make sense. For example, Heller provides the paradox of the Catch-22 when Yossarian is trying to get himself grounded (46). While the logic governing this catch is perfectly logical, it’s also stupid because it forces everyone, including the insane, to continue flying planes and fighting for their country even when it would probably be safer for them to stop. Another example can be seen in the sentencing of Clevinger (75). Clevinger is an intelligent individual, but he is forced to deal with the idiots on the Action Board, again, a military organization, who are not only incompetent, but refuse to let Clevinger explain himself, which results in an undeserved and unjust punishment.

Heller also makes a statement about the ineptitude of those running the military in the way that he named his character, Lieutenant Scheisskopf. This name is spelled very similar to the German, “Scheiβkopf” which roughly translates to “Shithead” in English. All of these examples make this book a soapbox, from which Heller is spewing his beliefs that war and the military are corrupt and led by fools.