In a phrase: Literary anesthesia. 
 It starts out seemingly without goal or point, focusing primarily on puns and absurd contradictions that one must assume is meant as socio-political commentary. I've noted countless reviews lauding this book as "hilarious" and "genius." Unfortunately, I'm among those readers who couldn't see it as either. At no point was I tempted to laugh, snicker, or even forfeit a sanctimonious smirk. 
 Before anyone makes the accusation, I DO have some grasp of comedy. I'm a in the medical field--macabre gallows humor is second nature. But Catch-22 did absolutely nothing for me. I'd never imagined it possible for a satire to be so ponderous. Now I know, and knowing is half the torture. 
 In many ways, it felt like a short story that got ridiculously out of hand. The author makes use of repetition in a way that struck this reader as a sort of literary cud-chewing. He's doggedly on theme--the relentless effort to explain and simultaneously deride the concept which this book has made so culturally iconic--Catch 22. The circular conundrum is this: 
 The main character, Yossarian, a World War 2 bombardier pilot, is desperate to go home. Every time he flies enough missions to earn him the privilege of being sent back to the States, the General in charge raises the number of missions. Yossarian wants to be declared insane so he won't have to fly more missions. The trouble is, NOT wanting to fly more missions is considered a sign of sanity. The only way to prove insanity is to fly more missions. 
 (Okay, I'll stop now. I actually have some sense of mercy.) 
 Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I get it. 
 Most readers will get it pretty quickly. But the book goes on and on, beating the same dead horse until it's a bloody stain and everybody just wants to go home. The lack of sympathetic characterization amplified the effect for me, personally. I didn't like anyone, and simply wasn't able to care what happened to them. 
 I devoted a good deal of time and puzzlement (too much, no doubt) into determining who would be most likely to appreciate this book. Here are a few possibilities: 
 -People who carry a deep-seated hatred for the military. 
 -Speed readers. 
 -People who LOVE adverbs. 
 -Insomniacs who've grown impervious to medication. 
 -People who hate capitalism. 
 -Jaded veterans. 
 -People with short-term memory issues. 
 -Masochists. 
 To be fair, Heller's actual prose isn't entirely unappealing. In fact, he had a remarkable knack for brief yet vividly effective physical descriptions. (I nearly rounded up to 2 stars for that alone.) But ultimately, my rating reflects the enjoyment I was able to derive--or more accurately, the lack thereof. Though I understand the cycles of repetition were likely intended to imply a compromised mental state, it was difficult not to feel as though there was a lack of value for the readers' time and/or a lack of faith in their ability to grasp a simple point. Heller's cynical conveyance could have been accomplished in 1/4th the amount of space that was actually used. 
 Reader Catch-22: 
 Only crazy people are allowed to dislike this book. But to prove you're crazy, you have to like the book. By not liking the book you're proven sane, and thus must like the book. 
 *eye-twitch*