6 replies to this topic

[Crazydog7]

Because I forgot how much I liked it.

I hadn't read it in probably 15 years. As much as some aspects of it got old after awhile like the Wandering Jew, I just thought it was impressive that they the monks kept fighting the inevitable. The first time I read it I remember being very depressed with the ending. Now I don't know how I feel ultimately more hopeful then I did originally.

Also the first time I read it I skipped the second part outright. I thought it was boring but now I see it was about rediscovery of old knowledge although I like the third part better.

I understand there was a sequel published posthumously although I never read it. I can't help but wonder what happened after the end of the third part. Were the monks able to link up with some vestige of humanity eventually? And as Battle Star always said just because all of this has happened before does it have to happen again?

[Tongue Stuck to Wall]

Crazydog7,

I feel almost exactly the same about Canticle. I remember feeling an almost palpable sense of despair at the end of the book, but cognizant that a chink of light existed -- that human nature may be inherently cyclical but human biology might provide an answer.

As I understand it, Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horse Woman takes place before the Second Apocalypse so it's not really a sequel. I like your thought,though, that perhaps the monks found a way to hang on and begin the rebuilding process all over again.

[Lummel]

I assumed that the message was that man's nature is fallen so sin is inevitable so the collapse of man made civilisation is also inevitable but that God's love and Grace as revealed through the incarnation and vouchsafed through the Catholic Church were so powerful that they would continue to offer hope to humanity, on earth, in space anywhere. The cycle will repeat itself until the day of Judgement I think.

It seems to me a pretty optimistic book (provided you are catholic and take a very, very long view of things), also maybe a very 1950s book, you know cold war, threat of nuclear war and world wide conflict.

On the whole I think the wandering Jew is central to that message. For me however the wandering Jew obliged for eternity to wait for the return of Jesus Christ is way outside my comfort zone, still nice to see science fiction that has a more cyclical view rather than eternal progress to progressively ever more progressive and even more golden future.

[Jojen]

I think it's ultimately optimistic too, but like Lummel says, only if you take the very long view.

My favorite part re: the monks--when they turn off the electricity. It's like they were all "Yeah, that's not for us."

Edited by Jojen, 03 February 2012 - 10:03 PM.

[A Song of Hound and Wolves]

I picked up a copy over Christmas in a secondhand bookstore determined to re-read it. My first reading was in college and I was thoroughly depressed by it. But I had the same experience you guys did on my re-read, which is that I realized it is much more hopeful than I remembered it being. This is a good book to judge one's development by, it seems because my college-aged self could not appreciate the nuanced optimism that pervades the novel.

I also think this book is timeless because Miller's observation of human nature is very astute. And while times may change, unfortunately the same ills that affect human potential remain constant.

I'm very glad I read it again, and pleasantly surprised to find a discussion here about it. Made me go through the hassle of getting a new password so I could post again. :-)

[A Song of Hound and Wolves]

Also, did anyone else find themselves laughing outloud while reading it? I did that a few times in the car while traveling over Christmas and my family would want to know what was so funny. Unfortunately, the humor was so situational, I couldn't explain it to them.

[Crazydog7]

I liked the guy in the 2nd part of the story who would remove his eye as part of his illustration of a removable conscience. When I read it all those years ago I was 13 I thought that part was a bit funny. Now I understand his point. I mean how many of us are put in situations daily where we have to remove our conscience (or we take the high road)