The Vine: April 24, 2007
Did you see the most recent episode of Lost, called “Catch-22”? It made me cranky because there was no actual Catch-22 in it. I’ve always understood a Catch-22 to be a situation in which two states of affairs are necessary conditions for each other, but neither obtains. For example, a narcoleptic can’t get a job unless he gets his narcolepsy under control, but he doesn’t have insurance, so he can’t get his narcolepsy under control until he finds a job. No such situation was shown in the episode. Instead Desmond just faced a difficult dilemma that fell well short of a Catch-22.
In the podcast for the episode, the writer defined a Catch-22 as simply a “no-win situation.” Has the definition of Catch-22 slipped so far so fast? Or are they just plain wrong? I would hate to think it’s the former. It’s a fairly specific phenomenon, and it deserves a specific name.
Signed,
Irregardless, Your Begging the Question Alot
Dear Don’t Do That!,
“Catch-22,” like the phrase “begging the question” which you cite in your moniker, is frequently misused in this manner; often, it’s conflated either with a Sophie’s choice (a decision between two equally unappealing choices), or a Hobson’s choice (a choice, while theoretically offered, is in fact not available at all).
The Wikipedia entry for Joseph Heller’s novel offers an example from the text that supports your interpretation — but the entry also says that “common idiomatic usage” has “Catch-22” meaning “a no-win situation,” which, based on a strict reading of the original source, it does not. We have a phrase that means “no-win situation,” namely…”no-win situation.”
Let me check my books here…
Garner: no note on the term.
The 11C’s first listed definition is as follows: “a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule … also : the circumstance or rule that denies a solution.” In other words, what you said. But it does go on to list other possible meanings, including “an illogical, unreasonable, or senseless situation” and, alas, “a situation presenting two equally undesirable alternatives.”
The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology describes the situation in the novel from which the expression is derived, with no other definition, although an etymological dictionary wouldn’t necessarily address current usage, only the source of the term.
Choose The Right Word doesn’t tend to address literary/cultural derivations; sure enough, no entry.
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy describes the novel, then adds a usage note: “Figuratively, a ‘catch-22’ is any absurd arrangement that puts a person in a double bind: for example, a person can’t get a job without experience, but can’t get experience without a job.”
On balance, my sources agree with us, but I suspect that “usage creep” will eventually take the original definition over, if it hasn’t already.
Tags: grammar
