Book: A canticle for Leibowitz
Aug. 12th, 2003 07:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livAuthor: Walter M Miller Jr
Details: (c) 1959 Walter M Miller Jr; Pub Orbit 1997; ISBN 1-85723-014-0
Verdict: A brilliant book, moving, complex and intelligent. Wow.
Reasons for reading it: It's vaguely famous, and M's talking about it jumped up the priority of a vague intention to read it at some point.
How it came into my hands:![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lethargic_man lent it to me.
A canticle for Leibowitz is one of the most impressive books I've read in ages, certainly since I started this blog. I was gripped from the first page; aCfL does just about everything right: flowing prose, new ideas explored rigorously and interestingly, an exciting story, etc.
Although aCfL is much more a book about ideas and situations than people (it doesn't really have a protagonist, as such), every single minor character is absolutely believable. That alone would generally let me like the book a great deal, but aCfL has many other good features as well. The narrative voice is never intrusive either; there are many possible messages that a reader could take away from reading aCfL.
As a portrayal of the horror of nuclear war, this is absolutely unsurpassed by anything I've read. The book opens several centuries after the end of the devastation that everybody expected at the height of the cold war, and recounts how the remnant of humanity claws its way back to cvilization... and back to nuclear capacity and proliferation. This makes the second nuclear holocaust in the final chapter all the more horrifying, partly because it is the second time round. But there is far more to aCfL than anti-nuclear polemic.
In many ways aCfL is a religious piece; the Catholic church plays more or less the rôle expected for a protagonist. I am of course not qualified to say whether it presents a realistic portrait of (pre-Vatican II) Catholicism, but it most certainly presents a highly plausible potrait of a religion. The Church is portrayed in a very balanced way; there is a very clear sense of both the positive and negative aspects of an entrenched religious institution, as well as the religious impulse in various characters' lives. Religion in aCfL is not reduced to a simplistic message, but is morally complex enough to be sustainable for real people in a morally complex world.
There are all kinds of elements in aCfL, and I got the impression that every little detail was very carefully placed and contributed something symbolically. I'm sure that a more literary sort of person than me would get even more out of it, but it never felt pretentious because it works so well on a simple story level as well. I think a lot of it is elements of Christian mythology reinstated in a new context: the Wandering Jew keeps showing up, and there's a very weird interpretation of the Immaculate Conception.
I loved the glimpses of society and the monastic community within it at different stages, the equivalents of the Dark Ages, the Renaissance and the modern period. Again, everything felt plausible and solid, and not just a vehicle for the story. In a sense it's alternate history, but the repetition is a key element, it's not just an excuse for the alternate-ness.
As well as taking great delight in reading such a well-written piece, I was very moved by aCfL. I really cared about the fate of indivuals and also of humanity as a whole. The book avoids easy emotional tricks, and provides neither a happy-ever-after ending nor total despair.
Details: (c) 1959 Walter M Miller Jr; Pub Orbit 1997; ISBN 1-85723-014-0
Verdict: A brilliant book, moving, complex and intelligent. Wow.
Reasons for reading it: It's vaguely famous, and M's talking about it jumped up the priority of a vague intention to read it at some point.
How it came into my hands:
lethargic_man lent it to me.A canticle for Leibowitz is one of the most impressive books I've read in ages, certainly since I started this blog. I was gripped from the first page; aCfL does just about everything right: flowing prose, new ideas explored rigorously and interestingly, an exciting story, etc.
Although aCfL is much more a book about ideas and situations than people (it doesn't really have a protagonist, as such), every single minor character is absolutely believable. That alone would generally let me like the book a great deal, but aCfL has many other good features as well. The narrative voice is never intrusive either; there are many possible messages that a reader could take away from reading aCfL.
As a portrayal of the horror of nuclear war, this is absolutely unsurpassed by anything I've read. The book opens several centuries after the end of the devastation that everybody expected at the height of the cold war, and recounts how the remnant of humanity claws its way back to cvilization... and back to nuclear capacity and proliferation. This makes the second nuclear holocaust in the final chapter all the more horrifying, partly because it is the second time round. But there is far more to aCfL than anti-nuclear polemic.
In many ways aCfL is a religious piece; the Catholic church plays more or less the rôle expected for a protagonist. I am of course not qualified to say whether it presents a realistic portrait of (pre-Vatican II) Catholicism, but it most certainly presents a highly plausible potrait of a religion. The Church is portrayed in a very balanced way; there is a very clear sense of both the positive and negative aspects of an entrenched religious institution, as well as the religious impulse in various characters' lives. Religion in aCfL is not reduced to a simplistic message, but is morally complex enough to be sustainable for real people in a morally complex world.
There are all kinds of elements in aCfL, and I got the impression that every little detail was very carefully placed and contributed something symbolically. I'm sure that a more literary sort of person than me would get even more out of it, but it never felt pretentious because it works so well on a simple story level as well. I think a lot of it is elements of Christian mythology reinstated in a new context: the Wandering Jew keeps showing up, and there's a very weird interpretation of the Immaculate Conception.
I loved the glimpses of society and the monastic community within it at different stages, the equivalents of the Dark Ages, the Renaissance and the modern period. Again, everything felt plausible and solid, and not just a vehicle for the story. In a sense it's alternate history, but the repetition is a key element, it's not just an excuse for the alternate-ness.
As well as taking great delight in reading such a well-written piece, I was very moved by aCfL. I really cared about the fate of indivuals and also of humanity as a whole. The book avoids easy emotional tricks, and provides neither a happy-ever-after ending nor total despair.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-21 12:47 pm (UTC)Yes. Part of the reason that I found the religion in aCfL plausible is that it evoked a very similar revulsion to the one I have to certain aspects of real Christianity. But I really liked the way that it presents sympathetic and sincere characters as accepting such principles and trying to live by them.
the emphasis on humankind's fallen nature
That's definitely one of the things that bothers me about both real and fictional Christianity. You possibly have more right to take issue with that attitude than I have, but anyway.
the triage scene near the end
To me that was a really amazing piece of writing. I really liked the way that the story got right inside the heads of both the priest and the doctor. It's not obvious that euthanasia is wrong, but nor is it obvious that euthanasia is right. I loved the way that Miller presents two honest, decent people coming from different perspectives to a morally impossible situation; I wasn't ready to condemn either stance.
I've always found the first novella a lot stronger than the last two
I liked the first a lot, thought the middle one was kind of ok but not really special, and the third was absolutely amazing. The first novella simply wouldn't stand alone. And it's the final few chapters IMO that make aCfL an outstanding rather than just a decent book.
I strongly advise against reading St. Leibowitz and the Wild Horse Woman
Thanks for that tip. I wasn't particularly planning to, since I really don't feel that aCfL is begging a sequel. But if it's set in the middle rather than after the end then I'm even less interested to read it, I think.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-21 02:39 pm (UTC)Would you be willing to expand on this ?
But I really liked the way that it presents sympathetic and sincere characters as accepting such principles and trying to live by them.
Agreed, very much so.
the emphasis on humankind's fallen nature
That's definitely one of the things that bothers me about both real and fictional Christianity. You possibly have more right to take issue with that attitude than I have, but anyway.
There's something horribly presumptuous to my mind in declaring humanity a priori fallen and then having the gall to redeem us without consent. Which I shall not rant about here, because I have a novel sitting witing for me to get back to doing that in.
the triage scene near the end
To me that was a really amazing piece of writing. I really liked the way that the story got right inside the heads of both the priest and the doctor. It's not obvious that euthanasia is wrong, but nor is it obvious that euthanasia is right. I loved the way that Miller presents two honest, decent people coming from different perspectives to a morally impossible situation; I wasn't ready to condemn either stance.
I've never been able to read that and feel that there was any real narrative objectivity to it, though, it has always given me the feeling that Miller's sympathies are very much with the priest, and mine are with the doctor.
I've always found the first novella a lot stronger than the last two
I liked the first a lot, thought the middle one was kind of ok but not really special, and the third was absolutely amazing. The first novella simply wouldn't stand alone. And it's the final few chapters IMO that make aCfL an outstanding rather than just a decent book.
It does come together astoundingly well at the end, yes.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-22 12:00 pm (UTC)Would you be willing to expand on this ?
Ye-es, possibly. But I'd have to think it through first. I don't really want to go bitching about elements of the way I perceive Christianity that I can't get my head round. At least not without sorting which are things I really have a problem with and which are just things I've been conditioned against. Some of what bothers me is in much the same category as incest; they are taboo, in the most literal sense.
I'll get back to you on this one.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-22 03:55 pm (UTC)Actaully, I have a bit of a rant about the way the human brain recognises which partners are taboo in that sense - which I'm fairly sure is a word/rule mechanism, similar to that which Steven Pinker proposes for verb evolution - and where that breaks down, in that there is a mechanism there which to my mind would be worth understanding, which nobody seems to have done any professional work on, and which is damn near impossible to talk about without the preconceptions of the language forcing it in the direction of being about abusive relationships.
At some point, hopefully, I will be able to overcome the degree to which the subject is taboo and resistant to thinking about enough to do something with this in fiction.
incest taboos
There's me picking my analogies with care. Though I'm not sure anyone else but
a word/rule mechanism, similar to that which Steven Pinker proposes for verb evolution
I really need to read Pinker, I've heard his arguments summarized by so many more or less reliable sources that it's getting ridiculous!
there is a mechanism there which to my mind would be worth understanding, which nobody seems to have done any professional work on, and which is damn near impossible to talk about
Ugh. Yes, I can quite see that. It's a sort of subset of the 'brain thinking about itself' problem, but a particularly intractable subset.
Re: incest taboos
Date: 2003-09-02 05:01 pm (UTC)Ugh. Yes, I can quite see that. It's a sort of subset of the 'brain thinking about itself' problem, but a particularly intractable subset.
It is damn near impossible to talk about this particular subject without the language wanting to force it into the shape of being about abusers and victims; and, while not in the slightest wanting to deny or trivialise the suffering of people in abusive situations, I do feel that such sweeping assumed definitions are actively harmful to people in stuations which do not fit that model.