Initially, the critical response to Joseph Heller’s first novel, published in the autumn of 1961, was mixed. Some of the most prestigious reviews were quite negative. Richard G. Stern, in The New York Times Book Review (October 22, 1961), wrote that the novel “gasps for want of craft and sensibility” and that the book was “no novel.” He compared Heller to an artist who throws “all the ideas in his sketchbooks onto one canvas, relying on their charm and shock to compensate for the lack of design.” The New Yorker (December 9, 1961) agreed that the book was hardly worthy of being called a novel and confidently asserted that it “doesn’t even seem to have been written; instead it gives the impression of having been shouted onto paper.” Even generally favorable reviews complained that the novel was too long, repetitious, and confusing. The worst was yet to come. Despite a gestation period of more than a year, Daedalus, Vol. 92 (Winter 1963) showed no mercy. For this anonymous reviewer, the novel was derivative, awkwardly fashionable, and without either story or interesting characters. “[I]ts author can not write,” the critic concluded. He thought the book immoral, appalling, and completely lacking in propriety. Many of the negative reviews found fault through a failure to comprehend the very qualities that others see as the novel’s strengths.
Other reviews seemed more reasonable but found plenty to dislike. John J. Murray, writing for Best Sellers, Vol. 21, No. 16 (November 15, 1961), appreciated the comic aspects of the novel but felt that the serious parts fell short. He repeated the accusation that this was not a novel at all and judged Yossarian to be “oversexed” as he was “solicitous of his pal’s whore’s kid sister,” a dreadful misrepresentation of the story. Milton R. Bass, in the Berkshire (Mass.) Eagle (October 31, 1961), offered the odd warning that this work, albeit a piece of genius, should be kept from women and children. Shimon Wincelberg, The New Leader, Vol. 65 (May 14, 1962), appreciated many of Heller’s observations, such as, “There are now fifty or sixty countries fighting in this war. Surely so many countries can’t all be worth dying for.” But he thought Heller delighted too much in his own cleverness and that the characters were two-dimensional. The London Observer (June 17, 1962) agreed that the novel was too long, repetitive, and “slick”; but its reviewer thought the book was “the greatest satirical work in English since Erewhon” (by Samuel Butler, 1872).
Among the early favorable reviews was that in The Nation, Vol. 193 (November 4, 1961). Nelson Algren found the hilarity “so wild that it hurts” and believed that the novel was not only antiwar but a repudiation of all the horror, greed, complacency, ignorance, and “endless cunning” in our civilization. The New Republic, Vol. 145 (November 13, 1961), called it “one of the most bitterly funny works in the language.”
Respected literary figures such as S. J. Perelman and Studs Terkel publicly praised the book. John Chancellor, host of NBC’s Today show in the summer of 1962, had stickers privately printed, reading “YOSSARIAN LIVES,” and posted them around Manhattan. Paul Newman, Jack Lemmon, and Anthony Quinn were among the leading actors who saw possibilities in a film version and expressed interest in playing Yossarian. (The part went to Alan Arkin in the 1970 film written by Buck Henry and directed by Mike Nichols.) Although the hardback won no prizes and was not a best seller in the United States, it did well from the beginning in England. The novel initially was a cult favorite in America, but the paperback edition (published in September 1962) set sales records. In the decades since, Catch-22 has established itself as a classic satire and antiwar novel.
