A Canticle for Leibowitz (Book 10) discussion
Melde dich bei LibraryThing an, um Nachrichten zu schreiben.
Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.
Does anyone want to post/suggest some discussion points?
I'm not terribly far into the novel, but am a bit put off by the use of Latin. I'm not quite sure why. I read this perhaps 30 years ago and had nearly forgotten it, but as I re-read it now I do recall it in that deja-vu way that re-reads sometimes invoke. In my mind I never held this one up as one of the "greats" from the past, although it has been held in high regard by many others obviously.
The book suggests a parallel with our own dark ages compared to the future dark ages in the novel with the Catholic church and the monks being a repository for knowledge. But it also isn't shy at poking fun (I'm not sure that is the right word) at things either. The whacking of Brother Francis's bottom ferinstance ...
"How can a great and wise civilization have destroyed itself so completely?"
And the book to me provided the answer to the follow up question, if given a second chance, would the civilization destroy itself again?
I liked the way the book was divided into three canticles over different time periods. And I did like how the stories linked. One thing I would have liked tied up was the hermit/Lazarus. Somehow, I thought we would have a final answer about him. Overall, I thought it was a terrific read.
I find the moral angle of the work extremely interesting. Although I found the book entertaining as a read, the exploration of both personal and social morality made the book superior in my opinion.
I came to the book after reading Anathem. Comparison and influence are clear to me. I enjoyed Stephenson's book, but the economy and art of Miller's impressed me.
What I really liked about the book was how it portrayed the cyclical nature of the rise and fall of civilizations. So, by the end I was asking myself the question whether the monks should have taken the memorabilia and their religion to space with the purposes of starting all over yet again. At what point, will humanity learn from the lessons of history?
I did find the last 40 pages quite jarring with the antagonism around the issue of euthanasia. It reminded me so much of the public battle over Terri Schiavo. I particularly enjoyed the moment when the woman turned to the monk, who was relating the story about the dog in pain, and said (paraphrasing here), "I presume this will be a story with a morale?" So, while the book was written several decades ago, the issues it sets forth are still relevant today.
Ironic how both Liebowitz and the Poet were both ordinary individuals but ended up being viewed as Saints by future generations. Just reminds us how history can be skewed to fit a particular mythology.
I thought it was interesting that the abbot Zerchi thinks, "When the world was in darkness and wretchedness, it could believe in perfection and yearn for it." but in Fiat Homo we see that in the darkness the people were not believers or seeking perfection. The monks preserved the Memorabilia hoping for the day when light would come back and men would want to know their history. It seems in all three sections the monks are hoping for a time when civilization will straighten itself out but I think Miller is saying that will never happen.
I think the book is really sad and left me with a feeling of despair. But in the Cold War context it makes sense. There was a constant fear of nuclear war during that time period and it seems a lot of books and movies about nuclear warfare are a sigh and despair over the foolishness of men.
I liked what I read, but I tend to read more than one book at a time and this is one that I never got back to; I was thrown when I went from a post-apocalyptic monastary to medieval politics. As for the cold war context, it seems to me that the threat of nuclear devastation is a real if not more real than during the cold war. In fact I think we don't think about it as much because of the very fact that it could happen at any moment with more and more countries and powers with less and less to lose gaining nuclear weapons.
As for wheter humanity will ever learn from the lessons of history and why we don't - i think I have an answer to this. Its because we start over with each generation. Knowledge can be passed on, but sadly, wisdom has to be earned, through experience, by each individual and each generation has to learn its own lessons. Sad, but true. And this doesn't take into account the less than stellar aspects of our nature that force us to do terrible things.
The last act of the monk who slaps the soil from his sandals before he closes the hatch of the starship is biblical and says (I paraphrase) 'I leave the bad behind me to journey to something better' is hopeful.
I also liked the ending paragraphs on the feeding of the scavengers in each of the 3 books, i.e. life begets life and despite it all, something survives.
I have long thought that some motion picture producer with a full-enough appreciation of the overall profundity of the book could create a great movie that could keep these thoughts in the present zeitgeist for a while longer, thereby edifying us all a bit.
What I remember most is how it made me think about "sacred texts" and "saints" . . . and how odd everyday things can become "sacred": "pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels—bring home for Emma."
Really need to re-read it soon!
Heartily recommended - not a light read by any stretch - but a worthwhile one and ... I agree that it could make an absolutely AWESOME movie ... though making it mainstream may require dumbing it down enough to ruin it so ... who knows? :-)
I, for one, would have been greatly disappointed if we had gotten a logical explanation for Benjamin. I like him much better unexplained.