I enjoyed the book very much and have already started reading The Glass Hotel as a follow on. The Road was my first reading of a post-apocalypse novel, and it seems to have hooked me on that genre. Station Eleven seemed much more realistic in the ways that survivors might interact in a post-apocalypse world, and the thread of creative pursuits throughout the novel provided an interesting and somewhat comforting dimension. The novel is obviously laced with symbolic references but that's not what I focused on. I'm glad the book made it into the 2024 lineup because it introduced me to an author I like.
I really enjoyed the mystery of not knowing as I read this story. I jumped all in and bought everything she was selling…until the end…because she closed shop without finishing the sale. I truly appreciate novels that do not put a bow on the story at the end; I love novels that leave you feeling and not knowing (those especially make for great conversation and consideration). But this book ended without finishing, and that was so frustrating for me that I wil not even consider it for a reread in the future. The momentum was there, the potential was there, I was there, and then she abandoned me. Maybe that’s the point…maybe I’m supposed to feel as frustrated and alone as our characters. Either way, the ending made me completely dislike the book. (But I really appreciated reading the comments from the people who loved it—those were helpful!)
I am really wishing now that there had been time to do a Q&A for "Sing, Unburied, Sing," because I'd like to compare/contrast it with this book. I think they are more similar to each other than either "The Hobbit" or "The Road."
I understand the discussion about the 4 "road" books but I think Station 11 is so different from The Road and The Hobbit that it is not really worth spending too much time comparing.
Both The Road and The Hobbit are arguably "hero's journey" stories. They are times when heroism is needed and we get that story. I think St. John Mendel would have likely written something similar to The Road if she wrote about 1-2 years after the Georgia Flu. Instead, Station 11 is set about 20 years after the Georgia Flu -- when the time for heroism has been reduced (Kirstin talks about fewer killings) and people are again "sleepwalking" (to use Dahlia's term that so impacted Clark).
Station 11 is about the time most of us find ourselves living -- heroism is not as obvious and "sleepwalking" is common. Based on my limited knowledge of Shakespeare, he wrote within a similar time by finding settings where heroism could be expressed. The Summer Book found meaning in everyday experiences and the struggle through grief. I think Sing Unburied Sing found meaning in understanding and addressing past injuries with some promise of the potential for future rest. Station 11 finds meaning in the search for meaning instead of those other sources. I think that Station 11's search is as laudable as the others.
I do not think Station 11 is nihilistic at all. I agree that it does not provide a resolution to the modern search for meaning but it provides hope that meaning is possible. I don't think it indicates that modern meaning will be expressed in conveniences (like electricity) but rather that there is the chance to find meaning.
When I read this book in book club where everyone but me is agnostic/atheist, I heard the other members express the hope they found in this book. One of the reasons, I have optimism in our modern society is that continuing desire for Hope (with a capital H) even though the human aspects and sinfulness have driven people from the means to find that Hope.
I think Canticle for Leibowitz to be much more nihilistic -- its ending seems to indicate that people will always find ways to destroy everything and use them -- thus the only response is to keep spreading out so that the probability of complete destruction is reduced.
Heidi and Sean discussed the creation of a story and expectation of a resolution and then how thin they felt the resolution was in Station 11 (with a lot of focus on Clark recognizing the dinner party in the comic book). This is definitely a post-modern novel that explores the theme of what gives life meaning. In my mind, Station 11's exploration involves opening the question and reflects on why a number of possible responses (Shakespeare, creating art, the philosophy that "everything happens for a reason", relationship partnerships, cults, etc) don't meet the characters' expectations. St John Mandel does not seem to have a conclusion and thus a tight resolution; however, that is what I find makes this novel profound, interesting, and valuable. I think the novel would lose its understanding of modernity (which is struggling in the search for meaning) if it provided a resolution as Heidi and Sean seem to desire.
I read Station Eleven in 2018 and didn't re-read it for this series, but now I kind of want to! At the time, I thoroughly enjoyed it -- mostly in a surface-level way for the mood, I think, and Mandel's spider-webby story structures. The discussion of modernity and the ultimate emptiness at the center of this book makes so much sense.
I think this was spot on! I couldn't agree more with your conclusions!
And I absolutely admire how you manage to get to the "essence" of a book. Taking a specific point out of a book and just thinking about that can be interesting too of course. But I especially love discussions about what's at the core of the book. On what foundations is it built, and to what conclusions do these foundations eventually lead etc.
I already thought that you did this in an absolute masterly way in the last episode to the Vipers' Tangle. But if possible, this was even better! I loved it!
I still like the book and am still a little baffled by the negativity of all the readers who feel like it was a waste of time. I know there's no disputing taste. I guess I'm just easy to please? Less critical? Less demanding of transcendence? Anyway, if anyone else out there enjoyed the Station Eleven and is feeling alone, I liked it. Let's chat.
Actually, I do have one quibble. I don't think that lacking in transcendence is the same thing as being nihilistic. Yes, it's reflective of the modern human condition; but not all moderns are nihilists. Nihilism means something narrower and more specific. Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. But you can lack a belief in transcendentals while still also believing that knowledge and connection are possible.
I think the characters in Station Eleven do connect, do have values (albeit lesser ones), and do strive to know each other. Maybe not on the deepest level, maybe not knowledge of the divine; but on a human level.
There *are* connections. That's the point of the comic book, that it connects the characters. Maybe it's not as profound as Shakespeare, and it's definitely not the Bible; but it's not nihilism. It's a small spark of human connection. That's the point of Clark remembering the dinner party. He's remembering his connections with the people there, remembering his curiosity and concern for Miranda. And at the end of the novel he's imagining and enjoying the act of imagining ships on the water heading out for other worlds. He's imagining the possibilities of new connections.
There is communication and warmth and community in the story, even there is also loneliness and cold and disconnectedness. It's not a meaningless world, it's just less meaningful that a deeply Christian world. But it's enough meaning to keep people from giving up in despair like the mother in The Road-- now *she* represents nihilism. But Kirsten, she does have something to live for. It might not be fully satisfactory to a deeply Christian reader, but she's not jumping off a bridge or loading a gun with the last bullet and going out into the woods to take her own life.
I think it's a mistake to confuse shallowness with nihilism. I don't think the father in The Road is actually much different than the characters in Station Eleven. I think his telling his son that they are carrying the fire is equivalent to the Symphony saying survival is insufficient. It's just a more poetical way of saying the same thing. The difference is that fire is metaphorical image that the reader can project more into. But literally there's no greater moral content in carrying the fire than carrying the music or carrying Shakespeare. I find the music and Shakespeare are weighty images-- if not quite as bright as the idea of fire, still, they similar moral talismans. They represent art, which is transcendent, even if the people who carry them cannot articulate what it is they point to. For the composers of the music that the Symphony plays there is a transcendent meaning. For Shakespeare there is a higher, transcendent meaning. And by carrying the music and Shakespeare, the Symphony is carrying a flame that points to something greater and more beautiful. They might not comprehend what it is they carry, but that doesn't empty the music or the plays of their transcendence. Mandel isn't as great a writer as McCarthy and her symbols are maybe less powerful, but I think she's reaching towards the same thing, even if she doesn't do it as deftly. I don't think Mandel is a nihilist. I think she believes in the power of art to create human connections and to help people rise above merely existing. Art is the flame she's carrying through the lonely wasteland of modern existence.
I am a bit baffled too. With so much hate for this book why even read it here on the show? The episodes are so critical I am unsure I want to listen to the final two. For me Viper's Tangle was an agonizing reading experience but I could still speak to much value in the book. Station Eleven is a kind of quiet apocalypse which was fascinating. I am disappointed by how much Mandel's work was shredded & it seemed much of the reason was because she was not someone else. Maybe David was right in the winnowing episode when he wanted to take this one off the list. Sometimes books need to be separated from each other in one's reading life so they can be their own reading experience.
I am moved by the way people connect -- or attempt to connect-- in a world without transcendence. In the way they keep going, finding meaning in relationships, in art, in beauty. Even if they don't consciously believe in a higher meaning, the fact that they haven't given up, suggest that human resilience is stronger than we might think and that we are capable of building meaningful lives on very small grains of sand. I'm moved by the way people create value systems even when they don't believe there is a god to ground their morals in. I am moved by the bravery of putting one foot in front of the other in the modern waste land. Just striving for something more than survival is an act of faith.
I am moved by the way music and Shakespeare feel meaningful to people even if they cannot articulate why they are meaningful. Even if they don't understand, but are only groping their way through the dark by means of intuition or hoping for some deeper connection -- even when they cannot find it, but are still looking. I'm moved by Miranda's drive to make art even when no one else gets it; by Arthur's writing letters into the void, by Clark's attempts to understand his fellow humans and his attempts to help them better themselves. I am moved by Kirsten's acting and the Symphony's playing. They are striving for transcendence, even if they fail to achieve it. They are reaching for something outside of themselves.
I think of Viktor Frankl's book, Man's Search for Meaning in which he describes the inner life of people in the concentration camps. In the book he articulates the difference between those who have given up, who have no reason to live, and those who have found something to live for. Sometimes their meanings aren't great ones. They're living for one other person. They're living in hope of seeing the outside one day. They might not find their meaning in God. But that doesn't mean they don't have a meaning. The people who don't have meaning give up and die. But the others keep going, groping for something more, even if they are in the dark. Even if they don't know what they are searching for.
Thank you for these comments, Melanie. I think the modern search for meaning (and why my Faith that gives me meaning fails for others) is a really important question and this novel does a great job exploring and enabling discussions.
Thank you, Melanie! I, too, appreciated this novel in (apparently) a much more profound way than our hosts. 😊 Thanks for your comments — they articulate much of how I thought of this book.
Totally agree! That was pretty bad. I kept thinking there must be something redeeming about this book. This is Close Reads! Apparently not. The only interesting thing was I think someone said that this book was widely read during COVID. Maybe that explains some of the over-the-top reaction to COVID?
No question, just a comment, I am very happy that you two didn't like the book and you explained very well why. It's good sometimes to take on a book and after a close read - realize how much it was missing. All your points were very valid.
I did watch the tv show after I finished the book. It is so different. Some of the visuals were great. I don't know if I would rate it better, although there were some plot points that were changed and I felt they were more successful in the tv show. The tv show was very popular, and those that liked the book enjoyed the tv show. For me, it was just ok but I don't know if I am the best judge of this. Why not try an episode?
It was a great premise, and I kept waiting for the Shakespeare part to kick in! I am not sure the author ever really read any Shakespeare. Total disappointment and I am relieved the hosts agree.
Phew. I will try to put an actual question up in the Q&A but my comment is that I think this is the worst book we’ve ever covered on this show (and I’ve done them all!). It wasn’t the least enjoyable read but you overly generous in your listing of its problems 😂
I enjoyed the book very much and have already started reading The Glass Hotel as a follow on. The Road was my first reading of a post-apocalypse novel, and it seems to have hooked me on that genre. Station Eleven seemed much more realistic in the ways that survivors might interact in a post-apocalypse world, and the thread of creative pursuits throughout the novel provided an interesting and somewhat comforting dimension. The novel is obviously laced with symbolic references but that's not what I focused on. I'm glad the book made it into the 2024 lineup because it introduced me to an author I like.
Like I said, no moral center, but there is still something about it that I like.
I really enjoyed the mystery of not knowing as I read this story. I jumped all in and bought everything she was selling…until the end…because she closed shop without finishing the sale. I truly appreciate novels that do not put a bow on the story at the end; I love novels that leave you feeling and not knowing (those especially make for great conversation and consideration). But this book ended without finishing, and that was so frustrating for me that I wil not even consider it for a reread in the future. The momentum was there, the potential was there, I was there, and then she abandoned me. Maybe that’s the point…maybe I’m supposed to feel as frustrated and alone as our characters. Either way, the ending made me completely dislike the book. (But I really appreciated reading the comments from the people who loved it—those were helpful!)
I am really wishing now that there had been time to do a Q&A for "Sing, Unburied, Sing," because I'd like to compare/contrast it with this book. I think they are more similar to each other than either "The Hobbit" or "The Road."
I understand the discussion about the 4 "road" books but I think Station 11 is so different from The Road and The Hobbit that it is not really worth spending too much time comparing.
Both The Road and The Hobbit are arguably "hero's journey" stories. They are times when heroism is needed and we get that story. I think St. John Mendel would have likely written something similar to The Road if she wrote about 1-2 years after the Georgia Flu. Instead, Station 11 is set about 20 years after the Georgia Flu -- when the time for heroism has been reduced (Kirstin talks about fewer killings) and people are again "sleepwalking" (to use Dahlia's term that so impacted Clark).
Station 11 is about the time most of us find ourselves living -- heroism is not as obvious and "sleepwalking" is common. Based on my limited knowledge of Shakespeare, he wrote within a similar time by finding settings where heroism could be expressed. The Summer Book found meaning in everyday experiences and the struggle through grief. I think Sing Unburied Sing found meaning in understanding and addressing past injuries with some promise of the potential for future rest. Station 11 finds meaning in the search for meaning instead of those other sources. I think that Station 11's search is as laudable as the others.
To follow up on Melanie's comments below:
I do not think Station 11 is nihilistic at all. I agree that it does not provide a resolution to the modern search for meaning but it provides hope that meaning is possible. I don't think it indicates that modern meaning will be expressed in conveniences (like electricity) but rather that there is the chance to find meaning.
When I read this book in book club where everyone but me is agnostic/atheist, I heard the other members express the hope they found in this book. One of the reasons, I have optimism in our modern society is that continuing desire for Hope (with a capital H) even though the human aspects and sinfulness have driven people from the means to find that Hope.
I think Canticle for Leibowitz to be much more nihilistic -- its ending seems to indicate that people will always find ways to destroy everything and use them -- thus the only response is to keep spreading out so that the probability of complete destruction is reduced.
Does a novel need a resolution / closure?
Heidi and Sean discussed the creation of a story and expectation of a resolution and then how thin they felt the resolution was in Station 11 (with a lot of focus on Clark recognizing the dinner party in the comic book). This is definitely a post-modern novel that explores the theme of what gives life meaning. In my mind, Station 11's exploration involves opening the question and reflects on why a number of possible responses (Shakespeare, creating art, the philosophy that "everything happens for a reason", relationship partnerships, cults, etc) don't meet the characters' expectations. St John Mandel does not seem to have a conclusion and thus a tight resolution; however, that is what I find makes this novel profound, interesting, and valuable. I think the novel would lose its understanding of modernity (which is struggling in the search for meaning) if it provided a resolution as Heidi and Sean seem to desire.
Interesting point!
I read Station Eleven in 2018 and didn't re-read it for this series, but now I kind of want to! At the time, I thoroughly enjoyed it -- mostly in a surface-level way for the mood, I think, and Mandel's spider-webby story structures. The discussion of modernity and the ultimate emptiness at the center of this book makes so much sense.
I think this was spot on! I couldn't agree more with your conclusions!
And I absolutely admire how you manage to get to the "essence" of a book. Taking a specific point out of a book and just thinking about that can be interesting too of course. But I especially love discussions about what's at the core of the book. On what foundations is it built, and to what conclusions do these foundations eventually lead etc.
I already thought that you did this in an absolute masterly way in the last episode to the Vipers' Tangle. But if possible, this was even better! I loved it!
I still like the book and am still a little baffled by the negativity of all the readers who feel like it was a waste of time. I know there's no disputing taste. I guess I'm just easy to please? Less critical? Less demanding of transcendence? Anyway, if anyone else out there enjoyed the Station Eleven and is feeling alone, I liked it. Let's chat.
Actually, I do have one quibble. I don't think that lacking in transcendence is the same thing as being nihilistic. Yes, it's reflective of the modern human condition; but not all moderns are nihilists. Nihilism means something narrower and more specific. Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. But you can lack a belief in transcendentals while still also believing that knowledge and connection are possible.
I think the characters in Station Eleven do connect, do have values (albeit lesser ones), and do strive to know each other. Maybe not on the deepest level, maybe not knowledge of the divine; but on a human level.
There *are* connections. That's the point of the comic book, that it connects the characters. Maybe it's not as profound as Shakespeare, and it's definitely not the Bible; but it's not nihilism. It's a small spark of human connection. That's the point of Clark remembering the dinner party. He's remembering his connections with the people there, remembering his curiosity and concern for Miranda. And at the end of the novel he's imagining and enjoying the act of imagining ships on the water heading out for other worlds. He's imagining the possibilities of new connections.
There is communication and warmth and community in the story, even there is also loneliness and cold and disconnectedness. It's not a meaningless world, it's just less meaningful that a deeply Christian world. But it's enough meaning to keep people from giving up in despair like the mother in The Road-- now *she* represents nihilism. But Kirsten, she does have something to live for. It might not be fully satisfactory to a deeply Christian reader, but she's not jumping off a bridge or loading a gun with the last bullet and going out into the woods to take her own life.
I think it's a mistake to confuse shallowness with nihilism. I don't think the father in The Road is actually much different than the characters in Station Eleven. I think his telling his son that they are carrying the fire is equivalent to the Symphony saying survival is insufficient. It's just a more poetical way of saying the same thing. The difference is that fire is metaphorical image that the reader can project more into. But literally there's no greater moral content in carrying the fire than carrying the music or carrying Shakespeare. I find the music and Shakespeare are weighty images-- if not quite as bright as the idea of fire, still, they similar moral talismans. They represent art, which is transcendent, even if the people who carry them cannot articulate what it is they point to. For the composers of the music that the Symphony plays there is a transcendent meaning. For Shakespeare there is a higher, transcendent meaning. And by carrying the music and Shakespeare, the Symphony is carrying a flame that points to something greater and more beautiful. They might not comprehend what it is they carry, but that doesn't empty the music or the plays of their transcendence. Mandel isn't as great a writer as McCarthy and her symbols are maybe less powerful, but I think she's reaching towards the same thing, even if she doesn't do it as deftly. I don't think Mandel is a nihilist. I think she believes in the power of art to create human connections and to help people rise above merely existing. Art is the flame she's carrying through the lonely wasteland of modern existence.
I am a bit baffled too. With so much hate for this book why even read it here on the show? The episodes are so critical I am unsure I want to listen to the final two. For me Viper's Tangle was an agonizing reading experience but I could still speak to much value in the book. Station Eleven is a kind of quiet apocalypse which was fascinating. I am disappointed by how much Mandel's work was shredded & it seemed much of the reason was because she was not someone else. Maybe David was right in the winnowing episode when he wanted to take this one off the list. Sometimes books need to be separated from each other in one's reading life so they can be their own reading experience.
I am moved by the way people connect -- or attempt to connect-- in a world without transcendence. In the way they keep going, finding meaning in relationships, in art, in beauty. Even if they don't consciously believe in a higher meaning, the fact that they haven't given up, suggest that human resilience is stronger than we might think and that we are capable of building meaningful lives on very small grains of sand. I'm moved by the way people create value systems even when they don't believe there is a god to ground their morals in. I am moved by the bravery of putting one foot in front of the other in the modern waste land. Just striving for something more than survival is an act of faith.
I am moved by the way music and Shakespeare feel meaningful to people even if they cannot articulate why they are meaningful. Even if they don't understand, but are only groping their way through the dark by means of intuition or hoping for some deeper connection -- even when they cannot find it, but are still looking. I'm moved by Miranda's drive to make art even when no one else gets it; by Arthur's writing letters into the void, by Clark's attempts to understand his fellow humans and his attempts to help them better themselves. I am moved by Kirsten's acting and the Symphony's playing. They are striving for transcendence, even if they fail to achieve it. They are reaching for something outside of themselves.
I think of Viktor Frankl's book, Man's Search for Meaning in which he describes the inner life of people in the concentration camps. In the book he articulates the difference between those who have given up, who have no reason to live, and those who have found something to live for. Sometimes their meanings aren't great ones. They're living for one other person. They're living in hope of seeing the outside one day. They might not find their meaning in God. But that doesn't mean they don't have a meaning. The people who don't have meaning give up and die. But the others keep going, groping for something more, even if they are in the dark. Even if they don't know what they are searching for.
Thank you for articulating what I sensed in this story but could not put into words!
"I am moved by the way people connect -- or attempt to connect-- in a world without transcendence."
Yes, that.
Thank you for these comments, Melanie. I think the modern search for meaning (and why my Faith that gives me meaning fails for others) is a really important question and this novel does a great job exploring and enabling discussions.
Thank you, Melanie! I, too, appreciated this novel in (apparently) a much more profound way than our hosts. 😊 Thanks for your comments — they articulate much of how I thought of this book.
Totally agree! That was pretty bad. I kept thinking there must be something redeeming about this book. This is Close Reads! Apparently not. The only interesting thing was I think someone said that this book was widely read during COVID. Maybe that explains some of the over-the-top reaction to COVID?
No question, just a comment, I am very happy that you two didn't like the book and you explained very well why. It's good sometimes to take on a book and after a close read - realize how much it was missing. All your points were very valid.
Not sure where the question thread is, but my question is: is the TV show any better?
I did watch the tv show after I finished the book. It is so different. Some of the visuals were great. I don't know if I would rate it better, although there were some plot points that were changed and I felt they were more successful in the tv show. The tv show was very popular, and those that liked the book enjoyed the tv show. For me, it was just ok but I don't know if I am the best judge of this. Why not try an episode?
It was a great premise, and I kept waiting for the Shakespeare part to kick in! I am not sure the author ever really read any Shakespeare. Total disappointment and I am relieved the hosts agree.
As post-apocalyptic fiction goes, Zombieland was closer to literature than Station 11.
Phew. I will try to put an actual question up in the Q&A but my comment is that I think this is the worst book we’ve ever covered on this show (and I’ve done them all!). It wasn’t the least enjoyable read but you overly generous in your listing of its problems 😂