What do you think?
Rate this book
We Bombed in New Haven: a play
First edition. Hardcover in good dust jacket. Pages are clean, crisp and unmarked. Binding is tight, Hinges strong. Dust Jacket has a small tear on bottom edge and is lightly tanned.
196 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 1968
3 people are currently reading
215 people want to read
About the author
Joseph Heller
80 books3,164 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
Joseph Heller was an American author of novels, short stories, plays, and screenplays. His best-known work is the 1961 novel Catch-22, a satire on war and bureaucracy, whose title has become a synonym for an absurd or contradictory choice. He was nominated in 1972 for the Nobel Prize in Literature.
Joseph Heller was an American author of novels, short stories, plays, and screenplays. His best-known work is the 1961 novel Catch-22, a satire on war and bureaucracy, whose title has become a synonym for an absurd or contradictory choice. He was nominated in 1972 for the Nobel Prize in Literature.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
November 21, 2022
finding this super obscure play that i've been waiting ages to read at the used bookstore where i work, and for less than $3..... serendipity of the highest order! my copy was clearly used by someone actually performing the play (all of sinclair's lines were underlined, some extra, ad-libbed lines were written in the margins, etc.) which was extraordinarily haunting considering. what happens to sinclair's "actor" in the "narrative" of the play :-) sweats nervously :-)
also btw this play is literally insane. it's all the craziness of catch-22 but condensed into a post-modern meta-narrative confined to the space of a small stage, where, in my opinion, the small space only exacerbates the insanity of the plot. holy moly. i got the WORST deja vu reading this because the first half reads eerily like a play i wrote two years ago that heavily references both catch-22 and journey's end – the former being, of course, written by joseph heller, the latter LITERALLY being referenced by one of the ""actors"" in this play as having been a past role of his, i'm guessing raleigh, who is LITERALLY the character i was referencing in my play HELP – and it only got more haunting as the play went on. like. read this:
STARKEY: henderson, it's yours but to do as you're told... and die.
SINCLAIR: yeah. and that's why all of us are already dead.
STARKEY: no, that isn't correct.
HENDERSON: yes, it is. we're doomed, aren't we? so we're dead.
FISHER: the problem is, i don't know if we're dead or not.
GIRL. not the doomed characters acknowledging the narrative that they're trapped inside and doing absolutely nothing to save themselves.... not the characters realizing that due to the circular nature of theatre-based storytelling (i.e. the same story being performed again and again) they are already dead even when they are alive..... girl help i'm ILL! i can't stop thinking about how henderson is literally that tumblr post that's like hey um. your boyfriend gained genre awareness and in an attempt to defy his inevitable tragic demise he only sealed his fate. sorry.
ANYWAY amazing. just amazing. it's stuff like this that made me want to start writing plays in the first place. thank u joseph heller you ABSOLUTE madman! <3
also btw this play is literally insane. it's all the craziness of catch-22 but condensed into a post-modern meta-narrative confined to the space of a small stage, where, in my opinion, the small space only exacerbates the insanity of the plot. holy moly. i got the WORST deja vu reading this because the first half reads eerily like a play i wrote two years ago that heavily references both catch-22 and journey's end – the former being, of course, written by joseph heller, the latter LITERALLY being referenced by one of the ""actors"" in this play as having been a past role of his, i'm guessing raleigh, who is LITERALLY the character i was referencing in my play HELP – and it only got more haunting as the play went on. like. read this:
STARKEY: henderson, it's yours but to do as you're told... and die.
SINCLAIR: yeah. and that's why all of us are already dead.
STARKEY: no, that isn't correct.
HENDERSON: yes, it is. we're doomed, aren't we? so we're dead.
FISHER: the problem is, i don't know if we're dead or not.
GIRL. not the doomed characters acknowledging the narrative that they're trapped inside and doing absolutely nothing to save themselves.... not the characters realizing that due to the circular nature of theatre-based storytelling (i.e. the same story being performed again and again) they are already dead even when they are alive..... girl help i'm ILL! i can't stop thinking about how henderson is literally that tumblr post that's like hey um. your boyfriend gained genre awareness and in an attempt to defy his inevitable tragic demise he only sealed his fate. sorry.
ANYWAY amazing. just amazing. it's stuff like this that made me want to start writing plays in the first place. thank u joseph heller you ABSOLUTE madman! <3
November 24, 2009
This is not nearly as entertaining as Catch-22 (but then again, little is). There were a few great laugh-out-loud moments towards the beginning, but humor is not sustained throughout.
The reason I "really liked it" is that I would have to classify it as the first postmodern play I have ever read. In many ways, it is a meta-play--the actors address the audience, acknowledge that they are actors, and Heller even has them use their real names. This reinforces the idea that soldiers at war are more often than not just kids surreally playing in an all too real environment. In war, like in a play, life loses its value; orders are followed without regard to reason or logic; the vast majority of people sit idly by while sons are sent off to die. Like today, war is no more real for most people than a play--we go on with our daily lives unaffected by the young men being sent to their slaughter for often immoral, or at best ambiguous, reasons. Becuase of the unique nature of the play, it is as relevant today as it was 40 years ago. The setting is "always present, the exact day and time the play is being performed [in:] the theater city and counry in which the play is performed." Talk about timeless.
It is a play I would very much like to see performed.
The reason I "really liked it" is that I would have to classify it as the first postmodern play I have ever read. In many ways, it is a meta-play--the actors address the audience, acknowledge that they are actors, and Heller even has them use their real names. This reinforces the idea that soldiers at war are more often than not just kids surreally playing in an all too real environment. In war, like in a play, life loses its value; orders are followed without regard to reason or logic; the vast majority of people sit idly by while sons are sent off to die. Like today, war is no more real for most people than a play--we go on with our daily lives unaffected by the young men being sent to their slaughter for often immoral, or at best ambiguous, reasons. Becuase of the unique nature of the play, it is as relevant today as it was 40 years ago. The setting is "always present, the exact day and time the play is being performed [in:] the theater city and counry in which the play is performed." Talk about timeless.
It is a play I would very much like to see performed.
April 12, 2020
I thought this play was brilliant. I would love to see it staged. It made for excellent reading. Funny, absurd and nightmarish. I loved Heller's Catch 22 and still regard it as one of the best novels I have ever read. Yet I got the feeling that despite its brilliance, Heller often didn't really know what he was doing; indeed that he sort of blundered into genius. Am I alone in feeling this way? Not that it matters: the jokes were superb and the tragedy was poignant. And the same is true of this play too, not quite to same degree, but certainly it has enough of value to be a significant absurdist work. That's my view anyway.
February 25, 2020
Joseph Heller's play WE BOMBED IN NEW HAVEN was, according to the author description on the jacket of the first edition, "originally produced at the Yale School of Drama in December 1967." The copyright page says: "Copyright as an unpublished work 1967." I'll mention one final point noted on the book jacket: "WE BOMBED IN NEW HAVEN is Joseph Heller's first book since CATCH-22." Well, here's JUST one more qualifier, from the back flap: "Since [CATCH-22's] publication he has written articles and film scripts - working at the same time on his second novel, SOMETHING HAPPENED, which is now nearing completion." Inasmuch as the jacket points out that Heller started CATCH-22 in 1953 and "finished it eight years later," and inasmuch as SOMETHING HAPPENED did not actually come out until 1974, seven years after the jacket for this book made note that his second novel was "nearing completion," the subtext to the publicity is Joseph Heller was blocked.
CATCH-22 was an epic. It was one of the most popular books of the 1960s, a riotously funny but, at times, terrifying, realistic look at modern warfare. Readers, particularly as the Vietnam war escalated, wanted more. I suspect Heller wrote the author description. It is self-deprecating. If you look at the copyright page of SOMETHING HAPPENED, you'll see it says it was copyrighted in 1966 and 1974. So it was in the works before WE BOMBED IN NEW HAVEN was published. Perhaps he published sections of SOMETHING HAPPENED before the bound volume came out, but I am not certain. I am of the belief he was blocked, writer's block being a situation in which a writer, fully eager to write and usually of proven ability, cannot put pen to paper without tearing up the result, starting again, tearing it up, scratching it out, staring at the wall, kicking the wall, walking around, etc. I've lived with it myself. A writer I know tells me it is a nonexistent condition. Because, from articles I've read about Joseph Heller, there is a sense he considered himself blocked, I will stick to this idea; but I must couch the thought in big parentheses because SOMETHING HAPPENED is twice as long as the very long CATCH-22, and the sheer act of writing was clearly committed. The public was impatient. Therefore, a short play which seems to have been given few performances was published as a book.
It is worth reading. I cannot judge how it would work as a live performance; but this must be said of almost any play ever written. It is deliberately absurd, but I cannot call it Absurdist, inasmuch as Absurdism is a school I don't know much about, and inasmuch as, by 1967, any theatre audience would have been exposed to masters of Absurdism such as Beckett and Ionesco. WE BOMBED IN NEW HAVEN is much in the standard mode Heller worked in: Comedy worthy of the best stand-ups of the mid-century, mixed with a realism worthy of Norman Mailer. Joseph Heller is almost alone in writers of Second World War generation in being able to switch from laughter to horror without awkwardness. A bomber pilot in World War Two, Heller based CATCH-22 around bomber pilots of that war. In WE BOMBED IN NEW HAVEN, the war, as specified in the stage directions, is set in whatever moment the play is actually being performed. It is, as a read play, pointed. It is to CATCH-22 as "Bartleby, the Scrivener" is to MOBY-DICK. Heller is a master, but his purpose here is to persuade the audience to ask itself whether war is worth waging. CATCH-22, containing that message, is, nevertheless, about the human condition. WE BOMBED IN NEW HAVEN is short and bittersweet. (If I'm making a variation on "short and sweet" without really capturing the essence of the play, I make the excuse of noticing Heller's penchant for wordplay.)
Staging this well will require, I think, a very skilled team. Something which appears to be a bowling ball must go across the stage, the actors have to be adept at several sports moves, an explosion must be rendered in a terrifying way, and the actors building up and taking down the scenery have to be able to do it.
CATCH-22 was an epic. It was one of the most popular books of the 1960s, a riotously funny but, at times, terrifying, realistic look at modern warfare. Readers, particularly as the Vietnam war escalated, wanted more. I suspect Heller wrote the author description. It is self-deprecating. If you look at the copyright page of SOMETHING HAPPENED, you'll see it says it was copyrighted in 1966 and 1974. So it was in the works before WE BOMBED IN NEW HAVEN was published. Perhaps he published sections of SOMETHING HAPPENED before the bound volume came out, but I am not certain. I am of the belief he was blocked, writer's block being a situation in which a writer, fully eager to write and usually of proven ability, cannot put pen to paper without tearing up the result, starting again, tearing it up, scratching it out, staring at the wall, kicking the wall, walking around, etc. I've lived with it myself. A writer I know tells me it is a nonexistent condition. Because, from articles I've read about Joseph Heller, there is a sense he considered himself blocked, I will stick to this idea; but I must couch the thought in big parentheses because SOMETHING HAPPENED is twice as long as the very long CATCH-22, and the sheer act of writing was clearly committed. The public was impatient. Therefore, a short play which seems to have been given few performances was published as a book.
It is worth reading. I cannot judge how it would work as a live performance; but this must be said of almost any play ever written. It is deliberately absurd, but I cannot call it Absurdist, inasmuch as Absurdism is a school I don't know much about, and inasmuch as, by 1967, any theatre audience would have been exposed to masters of Absurdism such as Beckett and Ionesco. WE BOMBED IN NEW HAVEN is much in the standard mode Heller worked in: Comedy worthy of the best stand-ups of the mid-century, mixed with a realism worthy of Norman Mailer. Joseph Heller is almost alone in writers of Second World War generation in being able to switch from laughter to horror without awkwardness. A bomber pilot in World War Two, Heller based CATCH-22 around bomber pilots of that war. In WE BOMBED IN NEW HAVEN, the war, as specified in the stage directions, is set in whatever moment the play is actually being performed. It is, as a read play, pointed. It is to CATCH-22 as "Bartleby, the Scrivener" is to MOBY-DICK. Heller is a master, but his purpose here is to persuade the audience to ask itself whether war is worth waging. CATCH-22, containing that message, is, nevertheless, about the human condition. WE BOMBED IN NEW HAVEN is short and bittersweet. (If I'm making a variation on "short and sweet" without really capturing the essence of the play, I make the excuse of noticing Heller's penchant for wordplay.)
Staging this well will require, I think, a very skilled team. Something which appears to be a bowling ball must go across the stage, the actors have to be adept at several sports moves, an explosion must be rendered in a terrifying way, and the actors building up and taking down the scenery have to be able to do it.
February 25, 2026
I mean it was ok. It kind of seemed aimless at times and I'm assuming it was intentional, like it was designed to be unstable and disorienting, but I mean dont really know.
I really like the core idea of actors in a wartime play mixing the lines of reality and fiction. I think there were a few really powerful character moments and dialogue, but I also think the play could've pushed the concept further. There was some missed potential...
The fourth wall stuff was probably my favorite part. The opening scene where they’re caught mid–stage setup immediately lets you know what you're getting into... I liked the moments where they referenced other plays they’d been in, mentioned the town by name, or joked about needing to finish on time so the audience could go home. Those fourth wall breaks felt intentional rather than random, and Starkey’s final speech to the audience was really powerful, as well as henderson being seemingly killed on stage, i just wish the play had more of that... Like i got to the part where they were playing with childrens toys and sucking on pacifiers and i was just like. Where even am I right now...?? What was the point of this again?? I guess it makes sense for it to be random like that. But man. Idk
Maybe i just dont get it. Like I am not intellectual enough to understand the mastermind behind this or something. i am just a college student who wants to read more books and rly liked catch-22, so i read this as well........... But it was a fun short read so i cant complain too much. It had funny moments. It had interesting stage directions. It had powerful moments. It had some of everything. Maybe not everything i read needs to be life altering. It can just be.... a good read.... lol.... pun intended........
I really like the core idea of actors in a wartime play mixing the lines of reality and fiction. I think there were a few really powerful character moments and dialogue, but I also think the play could've pushed the concept further. There was some missed potential...
The fourth wall stuff was probably my favorite part. The opening scene where they’re caught mid–stage setup immediately lets you know what you're getting into... I liked the moments where they referenced other plays they’d been in, mentioned the town by name, or joked about needing to finish on time so the audience could go home. Those fourth wall breaks felt intentional rather than random, and Starkey’s final speech to the audience was really powerful, as well as henderson being seemingly killed on stage, i just wish the play had more of that... Like i got to the part where they were playing with childrens toys and sucking on pacifiers and i was just like. Where even am I right now...?? What was the point of this again?? I guess it makes sense for it to be random like that. But man. Idk
Maybe i just dont get it. Like I am not intellectual enough to understand the mastermind behind this or something. i am just a college student who wants to read more books and rly liked catch-22, so i read this as well........... But it was a fun short read so i cant complain too much. It had funny moments. It had interesting stage directions. It had powerful moments. It had some of everything. Maybe not everything i read needs to be life altering. It can just be.... a good read.... lol.... pun intended........
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
April 20, 2025It was fine? I don't think it quite knew what it wanted to do with its postmodern fourth-wall breaking. A strong director could probably make it a good play--there was plenty of funny and some good chew-the-scenery moments. It was just a little too...I don't know. Straight? Zany? Something.
April 8, 2019
All the wit of Catch 22, but short and fun. A must read
November 14, 2023
Foolish late 60s anti-way play. The final scene, however, is powerful.
July 5, 2024
Every Joseph Heller book that is not Catch-22 always has a review on the back that says something like “This one is as good as Catch-22!! We promise!!!” While I like God Knows, Good as Gold, and especially Something Happened, they do not feel like Catch-22. We Bombed in New Haven is certainly not AS GOOD as Catch-22. However, it is the closest thematically and stylistically out of all the other Heller stuff I’ve read. It has the quick back-and-forth banter, excellent humor, and heavy emotion of Catch-22, and it adapts those things incredibly to the medium of a play. I really hope I get to see it live one day.
January 21, 2008
One of my very favorite plays. It is unquestionably Heller's unique style and overflowing with sarcasm and ripe with critisims of war and politics. I find it especially meaningful today in regard to this global theater where we see war and death and disease every night on the televison, but as long as it doesn't effect us, who really cares? All the world's a stage. . .
October 1, 2008
Not much difference between this and Heller's own dramatization of "Catch 22," but he is incapable of writing unamusing dialogue (at least, he was until the forced absurdist-lite exchanges in "Good As Gold" and subsequent output)
May 15, 2011
Same territory as Heller's Catch-22. I couldn't finish -- an extreme rarity for me. Hasn't aged well, but in my opinion also suffers from same broad surrealism that makes Catch-22 hard going at times.
June 18, 2016
I always find Heller to be funny and clever, no surprise that I loved this antiwar play by him. The play is designed to be set in actual time and place of performance and included quite a bit of audience interaction, would love to see it performed and others reactions.
January 30, 2016
Interesting view of Heller's mind. A typical play gets overhauled as the characters begin to examine their own roles. Their persistent pressure upon the third wall, which ultimately breaks and spills upon a critique of the military.
February 10, 2008
Heller had a crystal ball when he wrote this. He wrote dialogue for his military commanders that perfectly blends omnipotence and incompetence.
July 5, 2010
Hilarious and quirky play by Joseph Heller.
October 26, 2010
One of the most important plays ever written. See it, if you can, it makes a hell of a difference. You cannot leave the theater unchanged.
August 11, 2012
Just what you'd expect of a war play written in 1968 that breaks the fourth wall nonstop.
Read
April 17, 2013Timely...now that I live in CT - boom!
Read
April 15, 2017i dont remember anything about this but i just remembered ive read it
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews