Talk:Major Major Major Major/Archive 1

Archive 1

Real world inspiration for Major Major character?

My own father, Donald K. Major, served as a sergeant (he "flew a desk" in his words) in a B-25 squadron in the south of Italy during the time the events in the book would have taken place. According to him (as told to me before I ever read the book), the combination of his rank and last name (Sgt. Major, which sounds the same as the rank Sergeant Major) was a continual source of confusion, amusement to others, and, reading between the lines, irritation to my father. I tried to get him to read the book before his passing, but he hated scrambled timelines and only got a few pages in, so I was never able to get his opinion. He said he didn't remember anyone named Heller, though. -- Thomas K. Major 75.142.118.56 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

RV from redir

Some joker changed this to a redir to Catch-22, citing policy but not going through the correct process of page deletion as he should have. It was exceptionally sloppy work, as it created a number of circular links he didn't bother tracking down and fixing.

If you're going to WP:BOLD, do it right. No excuse for laziness. 192.31.106.34 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, since I'm obviously the editor that made the redirection, I don't appreciate your slur. Secondly, when you mention "the correct process", are you then discounting that portion of the deletion policy that reads: "Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly redirect to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect." As a page consisting wholly of unverified plot, this one is clearly unsuitable, and its redirection to Catch-22 would seem to be the appropriate target as that's the work of fiction from which this character is taken. Though I'll admit to not checking for double-redirects, the only cyclical wikilink was that from the novel's article itself—there were not multiple such links. Lastly, as you've plainly disputed the redirection, how then do you plan to improve this page to the level of an acceptable article? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 06:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been almost 12 days since I responded to 192.31.106.34 (talk · contribs). Unless that contributor or anybody has any other input or requests, I'm going to re-redirect this to Catch-22 soon. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Without any further discussion or development of this article to meet muster, I am re-redirecting it to Catch-22. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Deprodded

I saw this article on the list of articles proposed for deletion, and I have deprodded it. I acknowledge Fourthords's expressed concern about its lack of citations, but there are literally hundreds, or even thousands, of possible sources discussing this character from Catch-22; see for example the results of the GBooks search[1]. Many, many critical discussions of his significance and symbolism are found there, for example [2][3][4]. For a different sort of tone, here's an entertaining reference by Senator Judd Gregg during a 1993 U.S. Senate bebate[5], and an interesting reference by the Australian author Richard Flanagan[6]. This is an article that can be improved rather than deleted. In any event, its deletion would not be a non-controversial matter and thus it is not a suitable candidate for the WP:PROD process. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• You might want to keep an eye on Major Major, where an incoming hyperlink to this article has already been removed. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk)
• I've dropped in the start of a paragraph using Potts, as a suggestion of how to work that in. Obviously there's more to say from Potts discussion of the father than that one sentence. ☺ Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Stub stub stub????????????

It is so long and still a stub!!!!!! Sky6t (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Father's intentions

Not entirely sure, recall that I had read that the father's intentions in naming him "Major Major" was that it had to do with the musical notation of "major", as opposed to "minor". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongly implied, as the omniscient narrator tells the reader that the father considered and rejected as alternatives names such as "Drum Major" and "C Sharp Major". 2600:1004:B115:46C4:6C43:D8F2:74EB:BFD5 (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Bob Newhart/Henry Fonda resemblance

Isn't there an editor/user somewhere who can find a published reliable source contending that Bob Newhard does in fact resemble Henry Fonda enough to have been well cast as Maj. Major? Obviously this is my opinion, that Bob Newhart looked exactly as much like Henry Fonda as Maj. Major did, but that is not includable in the article as my opinion is not a reliable source, but surely there is a published author who shares it. (Even though in the film Maj. Major has a somewhat different backstory, just being casually promoted from Captain.) 2600:1004:B115:46C4:6C43:D8F2:74EB:BFD5 (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Explain the joke?

I know that explaining a joke may ruin it, but as time passes and fewer and fewer people know who Henry Fonda is, would it be worth capturing an explanation of the joke before there's no one left who knows why it's funny? Certainly I'm too young to know why a resemblance to Henry Fonda is funny and I'm not exactly young. If anybody still knows why Heller thought people of the time the book was written would find it funny, I think it would be worth adding that explanation to this article. Describing something that, as far as I can tell, isn't funny as "one of the novel's great absurd jokes" probably warrants a little bit of explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.50.251.41 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Why four Majors?

The article doesn't explain why there are four Majors in his name. I read the book a long time ago and, no doubt, it's explained there. However, I feel the article ought to be clearer. I understand that he was given the rank of Major and that, as a civilian, his name would therefore have been Mr Major Major Major. He obviously inherited his surname from his father, Mr Major. So are both of the other two Majors his given names and, if so, are there instances of real people with repeated given names, such as John John Smith? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Major Major's father is named John Major, or something similar. [the book doesn't specify]. But since in the US "Major" is a first name, The father gave him both the first and middle name of Major. Thus, before he entered the war, he was named Major Major Major.

Then, for the first couple of days of Basic Training, he was Private Major Major Major, and would have been known as Private Major to his Drill Sergeant. After his promotion, he would have been known fully (in common American usage of [rank] [personal name] [middle name] [family name]. All four of those are 'Major'. Thus he is formally known as four Majors and less formally known by his rank and last name: Major Major. JasCollins (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A few things

It has been a while since I read the book but I thought his mother died soon after his birth and that he was promoted by politicians, not a IBM machine. Anyone remember for sure? Timmie.merc (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[7] turns out I was wrong. Timmie.merc (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that the word "computer" is used in the text, not "IBM Machine".

The reason this matters is that at the time the book was set (1944), the word "computer" was a job title, not a machine. Heller, writing in the 1960's would have assumed his readers knew this usage, since both the usage and people holding it were far more common than mechanical computers. JasCollins (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thus, by the way, the explanation of the computer having a sense of humor in the first place. JasCollins (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The cite [8] (on bottom of page 88) clearly reads "an I.B.M. machine with a sense of humor..." and not "a computer [worker] with a sense of humor almost as keen as his father's". Possibly later editions of the book changed this line (and thus the joke) when the word computer meaning a human occupation fell into disuse. CAVincent (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I.B.M. Machine vs Human Computer

Okay, so I probably should have had a look to see how it ended up like this before I described it as a mystery, but it seems to me that it definitely should be an I.B.M. machine because:

1. This is the version in both sources cited
2. This is the version in the Google Books preview linked in the previous discussion
3. This is the version in the BBC audio abridgement
4. No one has cited a version which uses the word "computer"
5. I don't really get what is funny about a person having a sense of humour, that's just a normal thing for people to have

Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)