Catch-22 Used in Text

Maryn · Feb 3, 2012

I'm just about ready to submit something which has a character saying, "It's a Catch-22, having to dress like I'm making good money in order to get hired."

Note the indefinite article, a Catch-22. There are many.

I'm seeking confirmation that I'd still capitalize Catch-22 in such a usage. Your thoughts?

Maryn, full of doubt

Kenn · Feb 3, 2012

Maryn, there's only one catch and that's Catch-22 (I think that was the way it was put in the book). Your character probably means a Catch-22 (situation).

Chase · Feb 3, 2012

It's most likely your call. Maryn-Webster (I think it should be called) has it listed as "catch-22" first, then "also Catch-22."

Kenn is correct. Heller didn't list 21 prior catches. I imagine it was contrived because the military so loves to identify things by number (article 15 and section 8). I think Heller once said on a talk show his working title was Catch-18.

Unless you're referring to the title, I think catch-22 works better, but whichever way you choose will be correct.

Edit: "Why cain't I free yer doubtful mind an' melt yer cold, cold heart?"

Ya gotta love Hank Williams!

Sam K. · Feb 3, 2012

I think Chase is correct - that it is your call, and I also agree that personally, I prefer not to capitalise it unless referring to the actual Heller title.

Fallen · Feb 3, 2012

I think I'd see it in terms of the likes of 'Dumpster': go capital if it's relating to the specific company, then go lowercase if it's just one of many being referred to on the street. In other words, lol, go lowercase for general use 'a catch-22 situation', then upper for the real thing 'It's Catch-22 all over again."

As the lovely AWers said above, both dictionary.com and MW has both capital and lower.

Williebee · Feb 3, 2012

I want to know who this Maryn-Webster is.

She sounds hot, and smart.

scarletpeaches · Feb 3, 2012

Another vote for non-capitalisation here. Capitalising would suggest the Catch-22, the book. Writing in lower case would suggest a catch-22.

blacbird · Feb 3, 2012

It's also fast on its way to becoming a cliché, which is both an advisory to writers and a tribute to Joseph Heller. Not many writers have contributed something so permanently endearing to the language.

caw

Maryn · Feb 4, 2012

Chase said:
Heller didn't list 21 prior catches. I imagine it was contrived because the military so loves to identify things by number (article 15 and section 8). I think Heller once said on a talk show his working title was Catch-18.

I read that Heller's publisher insisted he change the number because his book would reach stores at about the same time as Leon Uris's Mila 18. Guess which one had more staying power?

Chase said:
"Why cain't I free yer doubtful mind an' melt yer cold, cold heart?"

Ya gotta love Hank Williams!

Eek, you're inside my brain! I struggled to come up with someone short enough to put on a conversation heart, but I had to make my own after the bag I bought last year had several like TXT ME and U R LUVD.

Maryn, who thinks lower-case catch-22 will do just fine and surely win her the playwright competition

Fallen · Feb 4, 2012

Lol, if you win, can we badger you for a beer

*quite sure Maryn will so picks 'normous six-foot beer glass from behind back* Pleeeeeeeeeeease

Terie · Feb 4, 2012

Kenn said:
Maryn, there's only one catch and that's Catch-22 (I think that was the way it was put in the book). Your character probably means a Catch-22 (situation).

In addition to what others have already said about the capitalisation, my dictionary says it's a noun, so there's no need to recast your original sentence to turn it into an adjective.

The dictionary: A writer's best friend.

Fallen said:
I think I'd see it in terms of the likes of 'Dumpster': go capital if it's relating to the specific company, then go lowercase if it's just one of many being referred to on the street.

Using 'dumpster' to mean 'a large rubbish bin' is a violation of the Dumpster trademark, just like using 'xerox' to mean 'photocopy' is a violation of the Xerox trademark. If you actually care about avoiding misuing companies' trademarks, don't use 'dumpster' as a generic term.

Trademark owners don't mind their trademarks being used, they just want us to use them correctly. For example, it's fine to write, 'Susan poured Jeremy a Coke,' but not 'Susan poured Jeremy a coke.'

Individual writers might not care about this, but IMO, it's bad advice to tell others that it's okay to do it.

Fallen · Feb 4, 2012

Terie said:
Using 'dumpster' to mean 'a large rubbish bin' is a violation of the Dumpster trademark, just like using 'xerox' to mean 'photocopy' is a violation of the Xerox trademark. If you actually care about avoiding misuing companies' trademarks, don't use 'dumpster' as a generic term.

Trademark owners don't mind their trademarks being used, they just want us to use them correctly. For example, it's fine to write, 'Susan poured Jeremy a Coke,' but not 'Susan poured Jeremy a coke.'

Individual writers might not care about this, but IMO, it's bad advice to tell others that it's okay to do it.

They could always check the latest edition of CMOS and downsizing nonliteral contexts.

Google is a trade mark, yet verb you and adjective have some leeway. The likes of brussel sprouts don't always come from Brussels. Spandex is tradmark, yet generic use isn't so tight. Some trademarks that are all capitalised BAND-AID etc could be Band-Aid and not be in violation.

Of course it is always safest to check. Perhaps nonliteral context with Dumpster should be used.

scarletpeaches · Feb 4, 2012

All of my publishers allow trademark use. One discourages it but is okay if I insist (Loose Id), another allows it as long as I flag each use so they can list it in the acknowledgements at the start of the book (Total-e-Bound).

Terie · Feb 4, 2012

scarletpeaches said:
All of my publishers allow trademark use. One discourages it but is okay if I insist (Loose Id), another allows it as long as I flag each use so they can list it in the acknowledgements at the start of the book (Total-e-Bound).

Do you mean they allow trademark use (that is 'Xerox' rather than 'xerox') or that they allow trademark misuse ('xerox' being okay)? There's nothing wrong with the former, but while I see a lot of trademark misuse, even in Big 6 books, it would disturb me to learn that publishers actively 'approve' of it, rather than perhaps not editing closely enough to catch it.

I have no problems with characters saying something like, 'Go make me a Xerox of this file,' because that's how people talk in real life. It only bugs me when the writer ignores the trademark and writes it as 'xerox'. Since people don't use capital letters in speech, I see nothing odd about acknowledging the trademark by spelling and capitalising it correctly, even if the syntax is technically wrong. That is, technically, 'Xerox' is a brand name and therefore an adjective, not a verb, but, again, if a character uses it as verb in dialogue, I don't have a problem with it....as long as it's capitalised.

tmesis · Feb 4, 2012

Terie said:
Do you mean they allow trademark use (that is 'Xerox' rather than 'xerox') or that they allow trademark misuse ('xerox' being okay)? There's nothing wrong with the former, but while I see a lot of trademark misuse, even in Big 6 books, it would disturb me to learn that publishers actively 'approve' of it, rather than perhaps not editing closely enough to catch it.

I have no problems with characters saying something like, 'Go make me a Xerox of this file,' because that's how people talk in real life. It only bugs me when the writer ignores the trademark and writes it as 'xerox'. Since people don't use capital letters in speech, I see nothing odd about acknowledging the trademark by spelling and capitalising it correctly, even if the syntax is technically wrong. That is, technically, 'Xerox' is a brand name and therefore an adjective, not a verb, but, again, if a character uses it as verb in dialogue, I don't have a problem with it....as long as it's capitalised.

I'm assuming you meant Xerox is a noun? Wiktionary lists it as a noun and a verb.

The topic of genericised trademarks, or genericide

)) is an interesting one. You're right that certain trademarks should be capitalised. And in most cases it is indeed in the interest of the trademark holder to protect against generic use. I like the usage note from the Wiktionary entry linked above:

Wiktionary said:
The term Xerox is trademarked in numerous countries, while it has been deemed a genericized trademark in others. Xerox Corporation has a history of defending the trademark, recommending instead the term photocopy, both for the noun and verb.

Too bad they didn't state which countries. The sad fact for the companies is that when a trademark is deemed generic there is nothing they can do about it. This happened to hoover (was: Hoover) in the UK. We hoover with Vaxes and Dysons now.

Fallen · Feb 4, 2012

Merriam Webster has an entry for 'xerox' as a verb:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/xerox

I understand what you're saying and agree to go capital on trademarks: it cuts out all the legal tape. The advice is always, always check.

blacbird · Feb 4, 2012

The digression here into trademark usage is meaningless. Catch-22 was a book title, not a trademarked name, and book titles are not protected by copyright. I've seen the term "catch-22" used by many writers (uncapitalized).

caw

Fallen · Feb 4, 2012

blacbird said:
The digression here into trademark usage is meaningless. Catch-22 was a book title, not a trademarked name, and book titles are not protected by copyright. I've seen the term "catch-22" used by many writers (uncapitalized).

caw

My fault for bringing it up, hon. I was thinking aloud, more along the lines of count and uncountable nouns. Dumpster came to mind because of that.

Catch-22 Used in Text

Maryn

At Sea

Kenn

New kid, be gentle!

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

Sam K.

Fallen

Stood at the coalface

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

scarletpeaches

blacbird

Maryn

At Sea

Fallen

Stood at the coalface

Terie

Writer is as Writer does

Fallen

Stood at the coalface

scarletpeaches

Terie

Writer is as Writer does

tmesis

bibbidi bobbidi boo

Fallen

Stood at the coalface

blacbird

Fallen

Stood at the coalface