F13 Book Club Part 2: A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller

[lamaros]

So you think they don't just die up there in space?

(I think I'm picking next, but I'll give it a while. no need to overload people when we're just begining this book)

I liked this, I found it very enjoyable. I'm probably even less inclined to agree with much of the world view expressed in it that I am with Cat's Cradle, but I found the actual writing itself more fun to get through. I found the first part by far the best, the later bits I wasn't as keen on.

[Morat20]

So you think they don't just die up there in space?

It was pretty heavily implied -- if not out right stated -- that humans already had several colony worlds. I imagine they just scattered among those, keeping the knowledge alive.

It just occured to me that this was very obviously the inspiration for part of a B5 episode....

[bhodi]

It just occured to me that this was very obviously the inspiration for part of a B5 episode....

Correct. The end episode of the 4th or 5th season, I forget which. JMS has said that he pulled it directly from this book :)

[Samwise]

So you think they don't just die up there in space?

It was pretty heavily implied -- if not out right stated -- that humans already had several colony worlds. I imagine they just scattered among those, keeping the knowledge alive.

It was outright stated.  The monks' mission was to head to the nearest existing colony (Centarus) and put down roots, establishing a new diocese and potentially a new papacy (if they were cut off from Earth) so that they could ordain new priests and eventually new bishops from among the colonists.  If they were successful in establishing themselves and growing their numbers, they could then send missions to the other colony worlds, with copies of the accumulated knowledge of mankind going to each one.

Something that I had somehow glossed over in my earlier readings of this book was the significance of Zerchi's warning before their departure to never return to Earth, lest they find it guarded by an angel with a flaming sword.  On first reading I assumed he was talking about Earth being a scorched radioactive wasteland, but within the context of Rachael's appearance as (apparently) a new breed of ageless and innocent human, it takes on the suggestion of Earth eventually becoming a new Eden, with the humans who might ruin it with the fruit of knowledge forbidden from ever returning.

If that was in fact his meaning (that the knowledge/Memorabilia shouldn't be brought back to Earth, for Earth's sake), it seems like a strange stance for a booklegger to take.

[Strazos]

I found the direct parallels to Cultural Revolution China to be very interesting, down to the killing of any sort of intellectual, or even anyone who was literate.

I also found reading this book to be sort of tragic, because I can totally imagine people in reality to be stupid enough to try their hand at nuclear holocaust. Especially in a world where humans know what would happen, but go forward with the nukes anyway.

[lamaros]

It was outright stated.  The monks' mission was to head to the nearest existing colony (Centarus) and put down roots, establishing a new diocese and potentially a new papacy (if they were cut off from Earth) so that they could ordain new priests and eventually new bishops from among the colonists.  If they were successful in establishing themselves and growing their numbers, they could then send missions to the other colony worlds, with copies of the accumulated knowledge of mankind going to each one.

Something that I had somehow glossed over in my earlier readings of this book was the significance of Zerchi's warning before their departure to never return to Earth, lest they find it guarded by an angel with a flaming sword.  On first reading I assumed he was talking about Earth being a scorched radioactive wasteland, but within the context of Rachael's appearance as (apparently) a new breed of ageless and innocent human, it takes on the suggestion of Earth eventually becoming a new Eden, with the humans who might ruin it with the fruit of knowledge forbidden from ever returning.

If that was in fact his meaning (that the knowledge/Memorabilia shouldn't be brought back to Earth, for Earth's sake), it seems like a strange stance for a booklegger to take.

That's similar to the reading I took, but I think I had the idea of the existing colonies being failures of sorts, and that the monks would have to fix that if they wanted to make a 'real go' of it. I've still got the book at home so I'm going to take another glance over it tonight and see if I just made that up or there's a reason it's in my mind.

I'm not going to mess up this thread with other readings, but I found that some of the stuff I read about the catholic aspects (this was written before that big ol' catholic council) made some of the booklegger/religion/science stuff in the book come into a clearer focus. It certainly gave me a clearer appreciation of the book as a reflection of the author's time as opposed to just a story or vehicle for ideology.

I think there's a lot of 'mess' in the book; conflict between these various positions is raised but never exactly put to bed, whether through desire to reflect some of that confusion or inability to come to resolution. You can certainly read a long way in to Rachael, but I think that it's one of the weaker bits of the book (actually I think the whole third section goes down an almost didactic hill) and what is presented there doesn't resonate or engage me as much as the earlier stuff, where the various conflicts seem more natural and balanced.

[Strazos]

Agreed. I did not like the 3rd portion so much either, except for the Very end.

[Viin]

Finished this up, great book. Just goes to show you what a buncha bastards we are. 

I did find it interesting that they insisted on carrying forward knowledge (to the new colonies) when it was plain that mankind couldn't handle it without eventually trying very hard to destroy itself.

[Morat20]

Finished this up, great book. Just goes to show you what a buncha bastards we are. 

I did find it interesting that they insisted on carrying forward knowledge (to the new colonies) when it was plain that mankind couldn't handle it without eventually trying very hard to destroy itself.

Someone, somewhere, would get it right. I don't worry about atomic holocausts anymore, but advances in nanotechnology and synthetic biology have similar potential for devestation.

It doesn't have to be a flame deluge. Grey goo, too many immortals running around, or custom plagues created by script kiddies would do it.

[Samwise]

You do have to think long and hard about the wisdom of continuing to carry forward that knowledge.   I figure that even if it wasn't, we'd rediscover the technology on our own (we found it on our own the first time, right?), but by that point we'd probably have completely forgotten the previous apocalypse and there'd be nothing preventing history repeating itself.   By preserving the memory of the Deluge along with the technology that led to it, you can at least hope that by the time that technology is rebuilt the people who possess it will still remember the consequences of misusing it.

You really have to feel for the monks in the third part of the book seeing that hope get shot to hell.  But like Morat said, after N apocalypses somebody is bound to figure out that blowing up the world is bad, right?

[Miasma]

But like Morat said, after N apocalypses somebody is bound to figure out that blowing up the world is bad, right?

Yeah, but the people in power don't listen to guys like that, they listen to the ones who promise them even more power.

The nanotech/biological possibilities are pretty scary.  At some point the only thing that could stop an apocalypse would be one all powerful government in charge of the whole of humanity.  Pick your futuristic dystopia now before it's too late!

[lamaros]

Do you genuinely believe that?

I dunno, it might be a bit silly to sit here now and say "I don't think we'll ever have an apocalypse", but that's the way I lean on this issue. Not one deliberatly motivated and casued by human conflict, anyway.

Do people think that our views on this might be differetn based on where we live? Is there more inclination for people in the US to hold such fears for humanity? I don't know anything on the subject, but it would be interesting to see what % of apocalypse stories come out of the various parts of the world.

[cmlancas]

I'm only on like page 25, but every time I think of the desert wasteland, I start thinking about an area between the Pakistans and Northern India. Don't ask me why, I just do.

I know there's a bunch of shit always in the news about America and how it sucks, but I think if a nuclear war erupted, it'd be between those three countries. That region is all KINDS of fucked up.

[Miasma]

Do you genuinely believe that?

I dunno, it might be a bit silly to sit here now and say "I don't think we'll ever have an apocalypse", but that's the way I lean on this issue. Not one deliberatly motivated and casued by human conflict, anyway.

Do people think that our views on this might be differetn based on where we live? Is there more inclination for people in the US to hold such fears for humanity? I don't know anything on the subject, but it would be interesting to see what % of apocalypse stories come out of the various parts of the world.

Technology will eventually become powerful enough that any small country or major corporation will be able to come up with a doomsday mechanism.  Probably (hopefully) not in my lifetime but within the next couple hundred years sure.  The chance of apocalypse is directly related to how many people have the ability to initiate it either intentionally or by accident.  Once nanotech becomes cheap enough that they just ship you a medium and an SDK to program it we're pretty much screwed.  There are at least nine countries who have nuclear weapons now, that only took fifty years and the pace of progress is accelerating.

I'm only on like page 25, but every time I think of the desert wasteland, I start thinking about an area between the Pakistans and Northern India. Don't ask me why, I just do.

I know there's a bunch of shit always in the news about America and how it sucks, but I think if a nuclear war erupted, it'd be between those three countries. That region is all KINDS of fucked up.

Oh yeah, there's a very good chance of those two going at it.  A few wars in the in the recent past, shared border, religious extremists on both sides.  That's an accident waiting to happen.

[lamaros]

I guess I don't have as low a view of humanity, despite the ligetimate potential of such events. Which, given the evidence, is possibly an irrational belief.

[Samwise]

I guess I don't have as low a view of humanity, despite the ligetimate potential of such events. Which, given the evidence, is possibly an irrational belief.

The escalating conflict in part 3 was uncomfortably plausible IMO.  I can definitely see the US and China getting in a dickwaving contest with nuclear weapons.  "Well, we won't use dirty fallout as long as they promise not to, BUT..."

[Miasma]

I guess I don't have as low a view of humanity, despite the ligetimate potential of such events. Which, given the evidence, is possibly an irrational belief.

The escalating conflict in part 3 was uncomfortably plausible IMO.  I can definitely see the US and China getting in a dickwaving contest with nuclear weapons.  "Well, we won't use dirty fallout as long as they promise not to, BUT..."

Tomorrow you're shooting down a satellite after bitching and moaning at China when they did the exact same thing last year.

[DeathInABottle]

I leant this out to a friend years ago and never got it back.     Hands down one of my favourites, so I'll probably tag along on the conversation.

[Viin]

The nanotech/biological possibilities are pretty scary.

Which is why we should read Neuromancer next!

[lamaros]

The escalating conflict in part 3 was uncomfortably plausible IMO.  I can definitely see the US and China getting in a dickwaving contest with nuclear weapons.  "Well, we won't use dirty fallout as long as they promise not to, BUT..."

I certainly agree with that. That kind of diplomacy will probably never go away. I'm more thinking (hoping) that once things escalate to a certain point then some kind of innate humanity kicks in and people take that step back. Like what happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis (though, I'm not an expert on that so maybe me view here is naive).

Are there people in this world who would destroy humanity completely if there were able? Probably. But I like to think that these people are very very few, and so mad that they will be their own barrier to ever having the ability to do so, no matter how far technology comes.

[DeathInABottle]

The escalating conflict in part 3 was uncomfortably plausible IMO.  I can definitely see the US and China getting in a dickwaving contest with nuclear weapons.  "Well, we won't use dirty fallout as long as they promise not to, BUT..."

I certainly agree with that. That kind of diplomacy will probably never go away. I'm more thinking (hoping) that once things escalate to a certain point then some kind of innate humanity kicks in and people take that step back. Like what happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis (though, I'm not an expert on that so maybe me view here is naive).

Are there people in this world who would destroy humanity completely if there were able? Probably. But I like to think that these people are very very few, and so mad that they will be their own barrier to ever having the ability to do so, no matter how far technology comes.

But those people don't need to know that they're destroying humanity, right?  Someone - someone very stupid - could plausibly believe that the start of a nuclear war doesn't ential the end of humanity.  A lot of death, maybe, but mostly the death of the enemy (and they're not really "human" anyway).  The return fire would be horrible, but some people - the strong core of that person's side - would survive.  War as the eradication of the enemy and the near-suicide of the self - but whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

That aside, what do you think Miller is saying about human nature?  You're talking about an "innate humanity", and while this seems to be evident in the book's protagonists, it doesn't show in the broader human race.  The faceless types with their fingers on the buttons certainly don't have this sort of humanist restraint.  It seems like Miller's either got a very negative view of human nature, or a very negative view of the effects of the institutions that cause people to act the way that they do.

[Samwise]

That aside, what do you think Miller is saying about human nature?  You're talking about an "innate humanity", and while this seems to be evident in the book's protagonists, it doesn't show in the broader human race.  The faceless types with their fingers on the buttons certainly don't have this sort of humanist restraint.  It seems like Miller's either got a very negative view of human nature, or a very negative view of the effects of the institutions that cause people to act the way that they do.

I think Dom Paulo's conversations with Thon Taddeo are an important piece of that puzzle, since it seemed to me like Thon Taddeo sort of represented the start of a slide away from "wisdom" in favor of "knowledge", if that makes sense.  Basically the same sort of cleverness-for-its-own-sake that scientists were characterized by in Cat's Cradle, but not as exaggerated. 

The point at which Paulo became completely fed up with Taddeo was when Taddeo proposed his idea that modern-day humans were an inferior race created by the "original" humans, and that this was the explanation for the fact that they didn't seem to be as clever.  As Paulo saw it (and I think this is accurate), he was looking for a way to shirk responsibility for humanity's failures while at the same time elevating the importance of his own accomplishments.  Even if his particular idea didn't take hold, it's that same sort of refusal to take responsibility for one's actions while exulting in their importance that ultimately dooms the planet.

[lamaros]

I actually found Taddeo's arguments here (not that one, but some of the others) to be pretty strong, and Paulo's a bit more.. well, just opinions. I'm not sure if that was intentional from the book's view, or I was just continuing the arguments out in my head and reevaluating them, but I didn't feel that I was on Paulo's side and against Taddeo's (that kind of narrow 'sides' view, soo self-importantly opinionated that in creates distinctions is something I dislike).

There's the serious hypocrisy that Miller outlines, the "saving things for the future" yet then begrudging that future when it arrives. Taddeo seems much more focused on a real human situation, and the step from him to the third part seems unfair. I think that Miller does just choose to paint people without some human aspect in order to reach his end, where when painted better this doesn't follow unavoidably.

Even still, the conflict between the priest and the doctor in part three shows that Miller's contentions are still rooted in confusion. It seems to me that confusion is the theme of the book. His resolution seems to be to try and break it down in to parts; the dispair of the apocalypse, the hope of a fresh start, the miracle of birth, etc etc. While this is all well and good it comes across to me as nothing less than contrived. As the confusion is in the heart of every character in the book (except perhaps the Jew and Rachel) than this simple breakdown doesn't address this internal/eternal dilemma.

[Samwise]

Taddeo seems much more focused on a real human situation, and the step from him to the third part seems unfair. I think that Miller does just choose to paint people without some human aspect in order to reach his end, where when painted better this doesn't follow unavoidably.

The downward slide to the third part of the book wasn't so much a continuation of Taddeo as it was the consequences of Taddeo's position, which was analogous to the position of the pre-Deluge "wise men" who were subject to the "princes".  Taddeo was a good person and was working to improve the world, but to do that work he had to basically be subservient to Hannigan and accept the risk that Hannigan (or the princes that followed him) would use what he learned for less than noble ends.

[lamaros]

The question remains if Taddeo is going to be a lasting influence on human history, or if everything he did was going to be filtered through Hannigan's influence.

[Prospero]

I think that question was answered to some extent in the 3rd book where the abbot can't remember Taddeo's name. For all his brilliance he was just a small footnote in history.

[Strazos]

But when you get down to it, isn't that the nature of advancement in science; standing on the shoulders of those who came before you, to grasp for something that was previously beyond anyone's reach?

[lamaros]

I think that question was answered to some extent in the 3rd book where the abbot can't remember Taddeo's name. For all his brilliance he was just a small footnote in history.

But my whole point is that part three is 'bad' and doesn't necessarily follow from what is presented from before hand.

[Samwise]

I think that question was answered to some extent in the 3rd book where the abbot can't remember Taddeo's name. For all his brilliance he was just a small footnote in history.

But my whole point is that part three is 'bad' and doesn't necessarily follow from what is presented from before hand.

How many stories are there where each new chapter is a completely deterministic progression from the previous one?   

Nobody, including Miller, is going to argue that the events presented are the only possible way that the initial premise could play out.  It's a story, not a mathematical proof.

Unless you're arguing that not only does it not necessarily follow, it necessarily doesn't follow.

[lamaros]

Doesn't follow doesn't mean that there is only one way it can follow.

I could write a story of a man in three parts, but if the man is not a man in the third part then it does not follow if there is no possible way for the man to cease to be a man yet not cease to be. It might follow if there is such a way, but if such a way is not presented in the story or well known generally then it becomes a stretch regardless.

There is the distinction between possible and probable. We are going off what has come before (in this novel) when reading this novel, if we are bringing in from the outside in order to fortify the third part rather than arguing from what is presented earlier then we are making a possible argument, not a probable one.

What I am saying is that the probable arguments have a range (one might say they are unconsciously introduced) that the third part does not account for (because it is not self-consious).

Indeed, my argument would be that Miller writes the story as if it is deterministic or at the least determined (think of the cyclical nature, the providence of characters, the biblical references, the vultures, etc), thus his progression must necessarily follow unless it is to become inconsistent in the third part. I feel that it doesn't and is inconsistent.

[lamaros]

Getting back to discussing the story itself a bit more closely, this is a comment I want to question.

Nobody, including Miller, is going to argue that the events presented are the only possible way that the initial premise could play out.  It's a story, not a mathematical proof.

The initial premise is that there is a war, civilization has been retarded and is beginning again. Life plays out and we end up with another war with similar or more devastating results. This is the course of action that is traced in the book. The idea of human history as being caught in cyclical trap of its own making are not new to this novel, but they are very much the focus of it. For anything else to happen but another war would make this a different book. No one will argue that you can't write a book about such a subject and yet have a different ending, but we can argue that the ending of this book cannot be anything else without becoming a different book.

You can actually break the novel down as a (very simple) mathematical proof if you desire. A + B + C = 'Canticle'. Three parts make up the whole. We can ask ourselves what 'Canticle' is and reach a host of opinions. We can ask ourselves what we see in A, B and C and reach a host of opinions. We can argue that there is an inconsistency between the opinions we hold about 'Canticle' and A, B, and C, and that this inconsistency comes from C.

You can argue that my opinions of A, B, C or 'Canticle' are 'wrong', and it is this that is the basis of the perceived inconsistency, and perhaps you can make a good argument for it, but that comes down to the textual argument. My point on that was briefly stated earlier: That Taddeo the person does not resonate in part 3, in a novel that is about three stages of human life/history, one passing to the other. To draw him in part two and then to colour him out at the last is inconsistent. Why put him there if only to ignore him? I cannot discern a path or pattern or meaning; to me it remains a gap.

I think discussing the book in this specific regard would be the most useful way of addressing our positions if we desire to continue to do so.

[Prospero]

Man... I don't know what the FUCK you just said, Little Kid, but you're special man, you reached out, and you touch a brother's heart.

[Samwise]

My point on that was briefly stated earlier: That Taddeo the person does not resonate in part 3, in a novel that is about three stages of human life/history, one passing to the other. To draw him in part two and then to colour him out at the last is inconsistent. Why put him there if only to ignore him? I cannot discern a path or pattern or meaning; to me it remains a gap.

I think discussing the book in this specific regard would be the most useful way of addressing our positions if we desire to continue to do so.

Oh, there's very much a gap between parts 2 and 3.  Intentionally so, I think.  Like Prospero said, there's a little bit in part 3 where it's explicitly pointed out that Taddeo was ultimately a footnote in history, and that the Poet of all people had become a venerated folk hero, with his glass eyeball (the one Taddeo had brought back to Hannegan as a gift) preserved as a valuable relic.

I actually took this (and a couple of the other things you mentioned, like the vultures) as evidence of unpredictability rather than determinism -- you can't always tell how important a given person or event is, or what the consequences will be a millenium later.  Bumpkins like Francis and the Poet are remembered for centuries after their more notable contemporaries have been forgotten.  And it's all the same as far as the vultures are concerned.

[lamaros]

Oh, there's very much a gap between parts 2 and 3.  Intentionally so, I think.  Like Prospero said, there's a little bit in part 3 where it's explicitly pointed out that Taddeo was ultimately a footnote in history, and that the Poet of all people had become a venerated folk hero, with his glass eyeball (the one Taddeo had brought back to Hannegan as a gift) preserved as a valuable relic.

Hmm, well the Poet himself wasn't really around, seeing how he had been completely misread. I'm not disagreeing about Taddeo as a person being a footnote, I think that's entirely reasonable, it's just what he was saying seemed to fall entirely by the wayside. The poet didn't, his influence was felt, just misunderstood (deliberately or otherwise), where as Taddeo's position has no lingering echo. Unless you're going to count the doctor as that, but for me it didn't come off as an echo but more a new voice. (Which might be me misreading it, or Miller not connecting them that well). Because like it or not, stated or not, Taddeo is a significant figure. Whether or not people of the future know about the significant figures of today is not the point, their influence in the now endures that it will be felt in the future. But all I felt coming out of Taddeo in the future was some barren science, which seemed to imply that the rest of his character, known or otherwise, did not resonate. To me that seems impossible.

I actually took this (and a couple of the other things you mentioned, like the vultures) as evidence of unpredictability rather than determinism -- you can't always tell how important a given person or event is, or what the consequences will be a millennium later.  Bumpkins like Francis and the Poet are remembered for centuries after their more notable contemporaries have been forgotten.  And it's all the same as far as the vultures are concerned.

I take it the other way I guess. To look at the vultures: They are a constant, almost godlike in that they are unchanging observers from on high, watching some kind of human play act itself out (at the end of each part we draw back, away from the stage we have been watching, to these observers). With that notion of them watching comes the idea that what is being played out is being played out according to some design or pattern; determined in one way or another.

As for figures. You can't always, but in some cases I think you can. Hitler for example, will be felt forever on, in one way or another. It doesn't matter if people know the specifics of his actions, his person, or the reaction of others to those things; they are so fundamental in altering many people's perspectives of the world that they will echo down the ages. Taddeo was the same. For figures like Plato and Aristotle (or the Poet) it is a hard thing to judge, but for some I think you can.

Man... I don't know what the FUCK you just said, Little Kid, but you're special man, you reached out, and you touch a brother's heart.

 

[Prospero]

Because like it or not, stated or not, Taddeo is a significant figure. Whether or not people of the future know about the significant figures of today is not the point, their influence in the now endures that it will be felt in the future. But all I felt coming out of Taddeo in the future was some barren science, which seemed to imply that the rest of his character, known or otherwise, did not resonate. To me that seems impossible.

His contributions as a scientist were significant and remembered, but not his belief system. Taddeo was not in a position of enough power to propagate that particular meme because Hannigan had his own warlike vision that he wanted to push. In a modern context, how much do we know about the belief systems of Maxwell or Newton? It's unlikely their contributions to science will be forgotten, but their vision of how science should be used is totally lost, or at least mostly ignored.

As for figures. You can't always, but in some cases I think you can. Hitler for example, will be felt forever on, in one way or another. It doesn't matter if people know the specifics of his actions, his person, or the reaction of others to those things; they are so fundamental in altering many people's perspectives of the world that they will echo down the ages. Taddeo was the same. For figures like Plato and Aristotle (or the Poet) it is a hard thing to judge, but for some I think you can.

Hitler == Hannigan. I think mainstream history frequently only reflects on those at the top of a society. It's one of the reasons we though everyone in 14th century England got married at 14; we only ever looked at the nobles and assumed the rest must have followed suit. How many mainstream history books cover Caesar's advisors? They probably had a huge influence on how the Roman empire developed, but they weren't the top of the pyramid.