Joseph Heller is seen as a modernistic author, in the sense that he uses a chronological plot that is deliberately irrational. "It is only fitting that a novel which deals with an apparently absurd and confused world should be written in an apparently absurd and confused style." The characters in Catch 22 have a feeling that what is happening to them has happened in the past to others. Catch 22 according to the book follows the idea that "They have a right to anything we can't stop them from doing." There was only one catch: "[it] specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind." However, his second release "Something happened" is "described to [have] created a darkened, demonic, perhaps partly hallucinated fictive portrait of contemporary America." One of his most notable achievements is his ability to connect the reader to the protagonist, simultaneously heightening their own self awareness. Civil Disobedience by Thoreau may not directly connect to this ideology, but in general it touches bases with the idea that one should become aware of the right in society and when faced with "wrong" laws disobey in a civil manner.

Raymond Tatalovich's criticism offers an interesting perspective on the ideas put forth in Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience". The main point is put forth in the title.. does Thoreau intend to call people to morality or anarchy? His intentions are to extract from this essay the root of his implications and theory of obligation to the government. He argues that Thoreau believes that the consent of people is necessary in order for the government to operate - a type of contractual agreement. However, he does recognize the fact that the majority in society controls the norms and can imprison people that go against them. Therefore, he does not defend civil disobedience to a point that will get someone imprisoned. Tatalovich also does a fabulous job at bringing to light other civil disobedience "leaders" such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. He states that Thoreau however, takes a much stronger stance on the extent to which people should act out in favor of their own views on what's right and wrong. It should also be noted that Tatalovich sees deficiencies in Thoreau's view of the government as an operational unit and its efficiency. However, he argues that in no way is he a no-government man by offering this quote: "I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. Indeed ... as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and State governments, and the spirit of the people, to discover a pretext for conformity" (Thoreau 33). This criticism offers a good perspective that will enable me to compare the government conformity in Catch 22-militarily, versus the liberalistic mentality of civil disobedience. There is a stark discord between these two concepts and I believe it will be riveting to delve into a comparison between the two based upon the role and operation of the government.

Robert Young takes an interesting perspective on the book Catch 22 as he offers his criticisms of the logic that Heller used within the novel. The basis of the criticism focuses on this "unconscious logic" that Young believes Heller has used. He believes that the novel really focuses on a world "where everyone lives perpetually in projective identification, and the only value is survival." Furthermore, he establishes that the book is essentially about ideals, and how the in the real world it is hard for anyone to behave in a paranoid world, especially in groups and under the pressure of the war. There is this sort of overarching theme that decency is not at the mainstream of societies core values. Within the text Major Danby advises his soldiers, "And you must never let them change your values. Ideals are good, but people are sometimes not so good. You must try to look up at the big picture." I thought that from the criticism that it was interesting how it was stated that there was only one real Catch 22, that specified that a concern for your own safety in the face of dangers were real and immediate and in the process of a rational mind. In general, this criticism is very analytical on the methods of logic that Heller uses in the book. However, Young is very hard to follow and his reasoning is sparely related. His point is clear to understand however, because he opens the argument with his general ideology that the book is about a society that acts in a certain way because they are faced with the possibility of annihilation daily.