Not sure if I’m in time with this question- but I noticed a few times in the third part that they brought up the corrupting influence of ‘motherhood’. Mainly in the media interviews with the defense guy. I thought they were going to go into more detail on that, and maybe how the idea or even process of motherhood had changed, but it was just kinda left an open question. Not sure what my question is exactly, but any thoughts on this?
I've thought about so many different things with this book, and maybe this is more an observation than comment, but I found the presentation of human nature to be so accurate and true. To think we'll somehow out-think our way from war, that our salvation will be technology, the mistaken belief that technology has it's own morality, it is all so telling as to our fallen nature. And while the book is bleak, it does aptly frame our responsibility: we don't know which way the world will go, but we have a small part in a huge story and if we can keep plugging away at goodness, keep the wisdom, knowledge, and tradition of the past alive, we've done something not insignificant.
I may have missed this in the podcasts but there was quite a bit of Latin in the book and as I did not attend a classical Christian school:( and am not Catholic, how am I supposed to know what’s being said? Or are the phrases in Latin not that important to the story? (I mostly listened on Audible so maybe it’s easier to figure out while reading the book.) Thanks.
So many thoughts at questions! Between The Space Trilogy, Kristin Lavransdatter, and this book, you all are speaking my heart language.
I have been trying to understand the importance of the memorabilia and Leibowitz himself. The source of hope in the book seem to be the existence of the monks and their way of life rather than the knowledge of what they are preserving. Their concept and use of time is in direct contrast to progress, and their slowness seems to be a submission to something greater than their own goals. Because of their way of life, the monks' very existence is sacramental and comes to the climax with the Abbot at the end of the story. His defiance to the Mercy camp is a result of a way of life that has been preserved rather than the knowledge they have preserved. My question is this- are the memorabilia important for any practical reality or is it a means to a way of life that needs to be preserved for the sake of our humanity?
Also- Is the Wandering Jew a Tom Bombadil character- in this world but not of it?
Also- the end of the sections seem to be a reference to Matthew 24:28- so why does the last section end with sharks rather than the vultures?
So does anyone think that Rachel might be the one that the Wandering Jew/Benjamin/Lazarus had been looking for? Rachel was the beloved of Jacob (Israel) and she was the mother of Benjamin. And could she be a symbol of the meek inheriting the Earth (or what’s left of it)?
I usually don't expect too much from SciFi books but this one is definitely above my expectations. I've seen that Miller wrote a sequel much later in his life: Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horse Woman. It doesn't have such a good rating on Goodreads. Has anyone of you read it? Would you recommend it?
This is my second read of Canticle -- loved it both times, tbh. What struck me most this time around was the choice to send the Memorabilia on with the monks into space, when it feels like a modern sci-fi author may have made Abbott Zerchi send the monks on *without* the Memorabilia. This to me is the truest indication that Miller's worldview is hopeful. Are any of you sci-fi readers? Do you feel current sci-fi is similarly hopeful, and if not what has changed in American culture (or publishing culture) to cause this?
Rachel seems to be presented as a shocking and mysterious response to the fundamental question of Miller's novel. To what extent is she anticipated by Books I and II of Canticle?
Perhaps related, does the book seem to think that human nature can change? If not, what of salvation?
--
What can Canticle teach us about a world in which we worry about the abdication of human choice and culpability (see AI)?
I don't read a lot of sci-fi, let alone dystopian sci-fi written in the 1950s. I know Miller converted to Catholicism after he wrote the book. In addition to his research on the book, were there other factors that led to his conversion? The idealized image of the Catholic Church as the protectors of knowledge and words isn't necessarily how I see the Church (at least today's church) so it's an interesting context. I went to Catholic high school and college but left the church in my 30s when I realized I would never have a significant role.
The other problematic thing about the novel is the lack of any women until the third book - and then they weren't heroes, except for maybe Mrs. Grale and Rachel as mentioned in the conversation about the third book. The lack of women (until the end) and the emphasis on the Catholic Church made it harder for me to connect to the book.
I’m also wondering about the last paragraph. The sea plane--the shark--the shrimp. I get that it’s all bad news for earth, but the oceanic setting surprised me. It felt out of place with the scenes and matter (largely desert) from the rest of the book. I feel like I missed something. How did that last paragraph land with you?
It was only after I had finished the book that I stopped to consider which parts of the book felt sci-fi, or would have to it's original audience. The third section just felt so current modern and familiar, just with different terminology just as the earlier parts felt somewhat familiar to my understanding of the middle ages and Renaissance with different terminology. But it would have felt much more futuristic at the time of publication, before video chat and self driving cars. While it clearly misses some modern things (internet) and has the largely unexplained space colonies which are still futuristic to us today, how do you think the third part feeling more advanced would have changed the emotional weight of the conclusion? Does it hit different if it's a society like ours ends this way vs a society so much more advanced than ours ends this way?
I’ve been curious about what mid-20th-century fantasy/sci-fi writers thought of A Canticle For Liebowitz. ...I wonder if CS Lewis mentions reading A Canticle?
Lifted from my comment on a previous entry, I edit to include this bit:
"What did mid-20th-century fantasy/sci-fi writers Think of A Canticle For Liebowitz? Not finding a whole lot. Carl Sagan, who wrote Contact and was born 11 years after Miller, dove deep into science fiction (Astounding Science Fiction) in 1947. Accordingly (from Wikipedia), Sagan said in 1978 that A Canticle for Leibowitz was among stories "that are so tautly constructed, so rich in the accommodating details of an unfamiliar society that they sweep me along before I have even a chance to be critical".
You guys touched on the titles of each section in one of the episodes, I was wondering if you can go more in depth about the meaning of them and how they fit with the story?
Not sure if I’m in time with this question- but I noticed a few times in the third part that they brought up the corrupting influence of ‘motherhood’. Mainly in the media interviews with the defense guy. I thought they were going to go into more detail on that, and maybe how the idea or even process of motherhood had changed, but it was just kinda left an open question. Not sure what my question is exactly, but any thoughts on this?
I've thought about so many different things with this book, and maybe this is more an observation than comment, but I found the presentation of human nature to be so accurate and true. To think we'll somehow out-think our way from war, that our salvation will be technology, the mistaken belief that technology has it's own morality, it is all so telling as to our fallen nature. And while the book is bleak, it does aptly frame our responsibility: we don't know which way the world will go, but we have a small part in a huge story and if we can keep plugging away at goodness, keep the wisdom, knowledge, and tradition of the past alive, we've done something not insignificant.
I may have missed this in the podcasts but there was quite a bit of Latin in the book and as I did not attend a classical Christian school:( and am not Catholic, how am I supposed to know what’s being said? Or are the phrases in Latin not that important to the story? (I mostly listened on Audible so maybe it’s easier to figure out while reading the book.) Thanks.
So many thoughts at questions! Between The Space Trilogy, Kristin Lavransdatter, and this book, you all are speaking my heart language.
I have been trying to understand the importance of the memorabilia and Leibowitz himself. The source of hope in the book seem to be the existence of the monks and their way of life rather than the knowledge of what they are preserving. Their concept and use of time is in direct contrast to progress, and their slowness seems to be a submission to something greater than their own goals. Because of their way of life, the monks' very existence is sacramental and comes to the climax with the Abbot at the end of the story. His defiance to the Mercy camp is a result of a way of life that has been preserved rather than the knowledge they have preserved. My question is this- are the memorabilia important for any practical reality or is it a means to a way of life that needs to be preserved for the sake of our humanity?
Also- Is the Wandering Jew a Tom Bombadil character- in this world but not of it?
Also- the end of the sections seem to be a reference to Matthew 24:28- so why does the last section end with sharks rather than the vultures?
So does anyone think that Rachel might be the one that the Wandering Jew/Benjamin/Lazarus had been looking for? Rachel was the beloved of Jacob (Israel) and she was the mother of Benjamin. And could she be a symbol of the meek inheriting the Earth (or what’s left of it)?
I usually don't expect too much from SciFi books but this one is definitely above my expectations. I've seen that Miller wrote a sequel much later in his life: Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horse Woman. It doesn't have such a good rating on Goodreads. Has anyone of you read it? Would you recommend it?
This is my second read of Canticle -- loved it both times, tbh. What struck me most this time around was the choice to send the Memorabilia on with the monks into space, when it feels like a modern sci-fi author may have made Abbott Zerchi send the monks on *without* the Memorabilia. This to me is the truest indication that Miller's worldview is hopeful. Are any of you sci-fi readers? Do you feel current sci-fi is similarly hopeful, and if not what has changed in American culture (or publishing culture) to cause this?
Rachel seems to be presented as a shocking and mysterious response to the fundamental question of Miller's novel. To what extent is she anticipated by Books I and II of Canticle?
Perhaps related, does the book seem to think that human nature can change? If not, what of salvation?
--
What can Canticle teach us about a world in which we worry about the abdication of human choice and culpability (see AI)?
I don't read a lot of sci-fi, let alone dystopian sci-fi written in the 1950s. I know Miller converted to Catholicism after he wrote the book. In addition to his research on the book, were there other factors that led to his conversion? The idealized image of the Catholic Church as the protectors of knowledge and words isn't necessarily how I see the Church (at least today's church) so it's an interesting context. I went to Catholic high school and college but left the church in my 30s when I realized I would never have a significant role.
The other problematic thing about the novel is the lack of any women until the third book - and then they weren't heroes, except for maybe Mrs. Grale and Rachel as mentioned in the conversation about the third book. The lack of women (until the end) and the emphasis on the Catholic Church made it harder for me to connect to the book.
I’m also wondering about the last paragraph. The sea plane--the shark--the shrimp. I get that it’s all bad news for earth, but the oceanic setting surprised me. It felt out of place with the scenes and matter (largely desert) from the rest of the book. I feel like I missed something. How did that last paragraph land with you?
It was only after I had finished the book that I stopped to consider which parts of the book felt sci-fi, or would have to it's original audience. The third section just felt so current modern and familiar, just with different terminology just as the earlier parts felt somewhat familiar to my understanding of the middle ages and Renaissance with different terminology. But it would have felt much more futuristic at the time of publication, before video chat and self driving cars. While it clearly misses some modern things (internet) and has the largely unexplained space colonies which are still futuristic to us today, how do you think the third part feeling more advanced would have changed the emotional weight of the conclusion? Does it hit different if it's a society like ours ends this way vs a society so much more advanced than ours ends this way?
I’ve been curious about what mid-20th-century fantasy/sci-fi writers thought of A Canticle For Liebowitz. ...I wonder if CS Lewis mentions reading A Canticle?
Lifted from my comment on a previous entry, I edit to include this bit:
"What did mid-20th-century fantasy/sci-fi writers Think of A Canticle For Liebowitz? Not finding a whole lot. Carl Sagan, who wrote Contact and was born 11 years after Miller, dove deep into science fiction (Astounding Science Fiction) in 1947. Accordingly (from Wikipedia), Sagan said in 1978 that A Canticle for Leibowitz was among stories "that are so tautly constructed, so rich in the accommodating details of an unfamiliar society that they sweep me along before I have even a chance to be critical".
Based on the last paragraph of the novel, do you think that all (natural) life on earth ended? What would that mean for Rachel and old Lazar?
You guys touched on the titles of each section in one of the episodes, I was wondering if you can go more in depth about the meaning of them and how they fit with the story?
What is Sean Johnson’s recipe for Creamed Brussels Sprouts? :-)