MobileRead Discussion: A Canticle For Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller (spoilers)

[WT Sharpe]

Let's discuss the November Book Club selection, A Canticle For Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller. What did you think?

[bfisher]

I've never been in a book club discussion before, so I don't quite know how to proceed.

Anyways, here is my first bash at the book.

Miller believed in Time's cycle rather more than Time's arrow.

Miller believed that the Catholic Church kept civilization alive during the Dark Ages, and remains the civilizing agency.

I did enjoy how he tries to get inside the medieval mind. I especially enjoyed the bit about illuminating the schematic.

[poohbear_nc]

I've always been deeply impressed by Miller's ability to seamlessly juxtapose & meld the concepts of absolute faith with a world of absolute barbarity, and his use of "standard" religious metaphors in the most amazing situations.

For example:
priceless illuminated manuscripts (of schematics) vs cannibalism
virgin mutant birth of a second head
a stereotypical Jewish name associated with stereotypical Catholic monasteries

So my only contribution to this thread is probably to be questions concerning the character The pilgrim (part I)/Benjamin (Part II)/Lazarus(Part III). Who or what was he supposed to represent? When I read this a few months ago it seemed to be that this was the same man (apparition?) throughout the whole book. If a man he has a lifespan to put Methuselah to shame. It also seemed to me that unlike Liebowitz this character was definitely Jewish. Just why he was in the story was never that clear to me though.

[WT Sharpe]

He was the Wandering Jew, or at least one version of the Wandering Jew. According to legend, it was a shoemaker, I believe, who, when Jesus stumbled under the Cross, told him to get up and move away from his shop. Jesus told him that his own sufferings would soon be over, but that he would be cursed to walk the Earth until he returned.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by bfisher

I've never been in a book club discussion before, so I don't quite know how to proceed.

Anyways, here is my first bash at the book.

Miller believed in Time's cycle rather more than Time's arrow.

Miller believed that the Catholic Church kept civilization alive during the Dark Ages, and remains the civilizing agency.

I did enjoy how he tries to get inside the medieval mind. I especially enjoyed the bit about illuminating the schematic.

I would point out that it is not a terribly controversial position to take that the Catholic Church was a major factor (indeed even the dominant factor) in keeping Western Civilization alive during the Dark Ages (i.e., between roughly 500-900). Indeed they are probably the reason that Plato and Aristotle are the philosophical foundations of Western thought as opposed to being viewed the same way we westerners might view Confusius.

--
Bill

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

He was the Wandering Jew, or at least one version of the Wandering Jew. According to legend, it was a shoemaker, I believe, who, when Jesus stumbled under the Cross, told him to get up and move away from his shop. Jesus told him that his own sufferings would soon be over, but that he would be cursed to walk the Earth until he returned.

Thanks WTSharpe. That is something I probably should have known (the legend). So in the story the reason the character basically is quietly dropped is Jesus never returns?

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I would point out that it is not a terribly controversial position to take that the Catholic Church was a major factor (indeed even the dominant factor) in keeping Western Civilization alive during the Dark Ages (i.e., between roughly 500-900). Indeed they are probably the reason that Plato and Aristotle are the philosophical foundations of Western thought as opposed to being viewed the same way we westerners might view Confusius.

--
Bill

That or Western civilization could have taken on a more Eastern foundation if Charles Martel had lost the Battle of Tours. First episode of a great program.

Civilisation: The Skin of Our Teeth - Kenneth Clark BBC TV 1969

[bfisher]

One thing I did find very disconcerting about this book is that it really seems to be two separate works. About the first third of the novel, up to the death of Brother Francis, is imaginative and lively. After that point, it becomes a polemic about the inevitable ruin brought by secularism, and this theme is laid down heavily:

"On the fat kindling of past sins. And some of them are mine. Mine, Adam's, Herod's, Judas's, Hannegan's, mine. Everybody's. Always culminates in the colossus of the State, somehow, drawing about itself the mantle of godhood, being struck down by wrath of Heaven."

Now, this theme is also in the first part of the book, but after that, the art is lost but the diatribe remains.

[Kevin8or]

I'm having trouble, now, recalling my thoughts about the book. I enjoyed best the first third of the novel.

The novel's underlying question is whether humans are capable of advancing technologically without destroying themselves. Miller's answer seems to be 'no,' hence bfisher's "cycle" rather than "arrow". But Miller ends on a hopeful note, hinting that perhaps one of the spores of humanity will transcend self-destruction on one of its newfound homes.

If Miller were to write the story today, I wonder if he would revise the question to ask, instead, "Are humans capable of depriving themselves of wealth & pleasure, in their own lifetimes, for the sake of the long-term survival of the species?" Faced with global warming & overpopulation, self-destruction by war feels almost quaint.

Originally Posted by bfisher

One thing I did find very disconcerting about this book is that it really seems to be two separate works. About the first third of the novel, up to the death of Brother Francis, is imaginative and lively. After that point, it becomes a polemic about the inevitable ruin brought by secularism, and this theme is laid down heavily:

It was written and first published in stages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz

I find it interesting that two people have commented that they enjoyed the first third of the book more. It was just the opposite for me. I know that it is bloody-minded, but I was pleased when that simpleton Brother Francis caught a crossbow quarrel through the head. It did surprise me that the story immediately jumped centuries further into the future.

[badgoodDeb]

I know; I know -- insanely old thread. But I've never read "Canticle for Leibowitz" before, and I found it fascinating! I resonate to the deep Christian thoughts in the last section, though I'm not Catholic and don't do Popes.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

He was the Wandering Jew, or at least one version of the Wandering Jew. According to legend, it was a shoemaker, I believe, who, when Jesus stumbled under the Cross, told him to get up and move away from his shop. Jesus told him that his own sufferings would soon be over, but that he would be cursed to walk the Earth until he returned.

I thought the Lazarus character was quite clearly Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead. He is waiting for "Someone who shouted at me once." Priest: "Shouted?" Oldster: "Come forth!"

By part 3, he clearly takes the name Lazarus, just in case we missed the point. Kids: "Auntie say, what the Lor' Jesus raise up, it stay up! Lookit him! Ya! Still huntin' for the Lor' 'ut raise him. ..."

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Thanks WTSharpe. That is something I probably should have known (the legend). So in the story the reason the character basically is quietly dropped is Jesus never returns?

The character is present at the dinner when the spaceship crew (to leave earth) is announced. So he is still there, and still waiting. No, we never hear whether he finds the second coming that he seeks, but the point of the book is more on how man himself cannot recreate Eden. During the dark ages, we strive to improve. When things get "good" enough to be nearing Eden, the flaws are what we see most, so we get displeased, and we wreck it all again.

I was fascinated. And despite the 1960's level of electronic knowledge (witness the archaic translator machine at the start of section 3), the rest of it still seems completely relevant, imho.