A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller Jr.

[Aleah]

Was Rachel the Messiah? I was intrigued by that final twist, and a little befuddled. It seems like that's what the author was implying. This would explain the Wandering Jew, who the stories say is forced to wander the Earth until the second coming.

[Aleah]

Nevermind my question. I started writing that post and then wandered off to do the dishes and get ready for work. It seems as though it was well discussed in the meantime. You guys are mind readers!

[Bryn]

G33z3r wrote: "Towards the third part, the Wanderer names himself as "Lazarus", so Miller's intent seems clear..."

Yes. At this point I thought he might conflate Lazarus with the Wandering Jew? -- the latter being cursed to live on for his sin (of spitting at Christ, wasn't it?), which Miller wouldn't want. & perhaps he thought the death-and-resurrection of Lazarus' story resonant?

I did take Rachel for the Messiah/Second Coming in the sense that she's the answer to the wanderer's search (and the reason he didn't need to be there at the end?) I mean, she's a type of second coming, isn't she? If he's bold enough to do the Immaculate Conception --

I understand the messiah, before Christianity, was a just king, both religious and political.

[Bryn]

Glad I didn't leave this sitting on my shelves unread again since early life. I'm tempted to go out on a limb and say, if science fiction has a great book, this is it.

Don't know if that's morning-after effect. Anyone else feel this way? The humour skirted close to hokey and I believed neither in the Simplification nor Mad Bear. Even so.

[Bryn]

Parts I and III were it for me, II had less punch.

[[deleted user]]

Still chewing on this trying to form a coherent reaction, but will dump some random thoughts anyway.

A lot of the richness of the book, imo, seemed to come from the tensions between opposites. The Wandering Jew (individual/mobile) for example contrasts with the abbey (group/immobile). Other tensions were what was going onscreen versus offscreen, male/female, cyclical/noncyclical, and these seemed to get resolved in the statue left behind at the end as rockets departed. Didn't see this as a science versus religion story at all. Also not buying too much into the absence of female characters as major weakness critique as the implied offscreen presence seems to say a lot, as well as I suppose considering the proliferation of female single-gender worlds in science fiction.

Been thinking a lot too about the theme of eating which runs through the whole book culminating imo in the penultimate eating scene - the two headed lady with the host and ciborium in the wreckage - and then the final shrimp-whiting-shark. With all the things that come in threes in this book its really hard not to try to find thesis-reaction-antithesis patterns that make sense.

Recently spent some time reading about Julius Caesar's account of his time in Rome, in particular his account of the Druids. Lot of similarities between the Druids - an elite caste in charge of religion, sacrifices and judging of disputes between communities or individuals, to become a Druid took 20 years of training but as the book said "even so, large numbers of young men flocked to them for instruction" - makes me wonder if the book anticipates sociobiological explanations of exclusively male castes and regarding neuroscience explanations of physical wiring in the brain of religious experience. Link seems appealing because Druids practice augury by archery - shoot someone with an arrow and the death throws will predict future - and reappearance of poor Francis's skull with an arrow point in it at the end.

Yikes - I've rambled way to long. Sorry.

[Jim]

Interesting thoughts, Don.

Instead of science versus religion, how about the theme of discovery-growth versus conservation?

[Mike]

Late to the discussion but I must say for the most part I thought this book was quite good. If we are talking section I preferred Part II: Fiat Lux the most, Part I: Fiat Homo next with my least favorite at the end of the book. Part 1 and 2 I thought flowed better with there being a slight disconnect in Part III: Fiat Voluntas Tua. Glad it was chosen as this probably would not of been a book I read on my own.

[Bryn]

There are 3 women suddenly at the end, with parts of critical significance.
Moby-Dick doesn't have any; doesn't bother me.

[[deleted user]]

Jim wrote: "Instead of science versus religion, how about the theme of discovery-growth versus conservation?"

Thanks Jim. One could certainly see it that way and I’d certainly be open to hearing it explained that way more fully. However I can’t really point to anything in the book that suggests the New Church of Rome was opposite discovery-growth. Personally I think the book as a wee bit of the spirit of John Paul II: "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” As well as an element of evolutionary adaptation. I’ve read bits and pieces here and there about how both religious experience and religious practice have a genetic component. I mean the monastery represents a major investment of genetic resources - its basically culling a good chunk of the y-chromosomes in the gene pool. How bizarre when you think about it. I think the book means for us goggle at that image - a monastery in a post-apocalyptic world. Where are these men coming from? Why are they not needed on farms? Monasteries might be both a means of accelerating the evolutionary movement of genes off the Y chromosome (a natural process I gather that is nearly complete in kangaroos) as well as a genetically adaptive behavioral characteristic that supports overall human endowment and survival by fostering science in schools, universities and hospitals. Nature plays such a huge role in the book that I think in a larger sense it's about what it means to be human. The euthanasia bit at the end really brings this out and suggested to me at least that it is not really about theodicy but rather the overriding drive to continue the species, (and whether or not our periodic mass culls/wars are part of that), whether understood as a religious imperative or biological drive is a big part of our dual human/animal nature.

[Aleah]

This is a bit off the topic, but have to post before it leaves my mind for good...

I think I found part 3 the most intriguing because it included the right to die argument followed by the Rachel/Messiah bit. (Both issues featured women, which were otherwise absent from the story. Make of that what you will.)

I really think Miller was working through his own feelings regarding suicide. Several articles I've read have hinted that he suffered from PTSD. He was also a recent convert to Catholicism. He surely contemplated the subject and weighed it against the church's strict rules against it. You can see that argument played out between Zerchi and the young woman and baby who are fatally poisoned by nuclear fallout. I don't feel like Miller takes a side, either. He seems to fully comprehend both sides and can't say which is right or wrong. And, sadly, Miller did take his own life many years later.

[Bryn]

Mark of a novel with real content is number of interpretations. I like those reviews that say the book doesn't give you fixed answers, or even fixed questions.

For me it's about history. Less cyclical than I'd been led to expect, perhaps because I've just read about hard-core believers in cyclical history, an Iranian tradition of ideas (they saw the cycle as grounds for hope: they always know they can achieve change. They set up messiahs/Just Kings because every cycle of history was due to have one).

Less pessimistic than I'd thought. In part because of Rachel. Who changes so much for the abbot at the end? In part because it isn't that we didn't learn from history -- we made the mistake again, but we almost didn't. I'd guessed his narrative to be more dismal.

For me he was too kind to the Catholic Church and too harsh on secular politics, but I accept that utterly in the book it is. One review says it's the greatest argument for the Catholic Church ever, and as a non-religious, only grudgingly not anti-church, I found his emotional persuasions (not intellectual) persuasive. I was moved when Francis went to Rome and thought at the time that I hadn't seen a more seductive church case myself. Although, in historical terms, for me he overstates the church.

But mostly for me the book is fiction on the apocalypse by a guy who'd been close quarters with a bit of apocalypse and had reason to write this. It has a conviction, urgency, and reality that you can't make up. It's a book that mattered to the writer.

[Aleah]

Bryn wrote: "It's a book that mattered to the writer. "

Exactly. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

[[deleted user]]

Bryn wrote: "For me he was too kind to the Catholic Church..."

I'll second Aleah, nicely put. Also as you say differing interpretations.

I do though see the book not so much speaking narrowly about the Roman Catholic Church. The church in the book is headquartered out of "New" Rome after all and it is a new order of monks. So I tend to see the church in the book as something separate from the Roman Catholic Church we know today. I do see it addressing the same human religious impulse. Monasticism is common to other world religions including Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and the Essenes in early Judaism. Although modern Judaism and Islam both repudiate monasticism. But the reader who wishes to, I think, can set aside the Catholic Church and its baggage when considering the book and not lose a lot.

[Bryn]

Aleah wrote: "I think I found part 3 the most intriguing because it included the right to die argument followed by the Rachel/M..."

I'm glad you don't think Miller takes a side. The abbot gets most face-time but I do feel his encounter with Rachel questions so much that he has believed.

The euthanasia camps are painted to be reminiscent of concentration camps, and enlists our abhorrence of organised death. On the other hand I keep in mind I'd find the abbot outside an abortion clinic, harassing women who enter.

I only know I saw eye to eye with the abbot on the cat. Until you can ask a cat what it wants, beware how you make its decisions.

As soon as I've finished myA.A. Attanasio book I'm opening up the sequel. I've seen that he changes his views and perhaps isn't Catholic later in life; not that he seems too orthodox in this book.

[Jim]

Don wrote: "...However I can’t really point to anything in the book that suggests the New Church of Rome was opposite discovery-growth. ..."

No, not opposite growth, just conservative. They didn't discourage the spread of their archives as copies or from being studied, but they wouldn't allow it to go willy nilly out into the world even at the request of a powerful entity. However science rushed in where fools had been before without any reservations.

I don't understand the genetic component of religion that you are speaking of.

How does "Monasteries might be both a means of accelerating the evolutionary movement of genes off the Y chromosome" work? As I understand it, there isn't a lot of info on it &, if a recent book I read is correct, there are few enough variations that it's one of the prime ways they've traced humans back to their roots in Africa 50,000 years ago.

Why or how would it be a "...genetically adaptive behavioral characteristic that supports overall human endowment and survival by fostering science in schools, universities and hospitals."

I haven't read much about the origins of religion, but I thought it was an early adaptation that built on speech to allow us to grow beyond the hunter-gatherer size tribes - a predecessor of law, one of the earliest forms of leadership authority.

I read the euthanasia bit less as the Christian god allowing evil into the world (A silly question given how the whole apple thing was carried out.) & more about rational choices. Living a few hours longer as writhing masses of agony that simply use up resources made no rational sense. The abbot's adherence to his faith in this instance seemed silly to me, more proof of their adherence to conservation - doing the wrong thing for the right reason, perhaps.

It was the motivations & the effects, how they kept hopping back & forth, that kept the cycle of civilization going & made the book so interesting. There were 'good' & 'bad' actions, motivations, & effects. They varied depending on the circumstances, but the basic human units didn't. The larger political units cleaned up the lawless behavior until they became too big & then were far worse than the original problem.

[Jim]

Bryn wrote: "Mark of a novel with real content is number of interpretations. I like those reviews that say the book doesn't give you fixed answers, or even fixed questions...."

Well said, Bryn.

[[deleted user]]

Jim wrote: "Why or how would it be a "...genetically adaptive behavioral characteristic that supports overall human endowment and survival by fostering science in schools, universities and hospitals."

A short discussion of genetic explanations of religious behavior:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/wee...

Short discussion of genes moving off the y chromosome at: http://katherinehardwick.wordpress.co...

Pros and cons of argument at: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/...

[Jim]

I think Wade went pretty far out on a limb with the god gene, but he is a good writer. There are several other human behaviors that better account for religion from other things I've read, but I do plan on reading The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures one of these days. Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors was certainly very good. I gave it 5 stars.

The other articles were interesting, but didn't really answer the questions I asked. I knew what you were talking about, just don't really see how they apply here. I've got a bad sinus infection, so maybe I'm just being dense, though.

[[deleted user]]

Jim wrote: "I think Wade went pretty far out on a limb with the god gene, but he is a good writer. There are several other human behaviors that better account for religion from other things I've read, but I d..."

There are references to genetic mutations and evolution throughout the book but what set me off on the Y chromosome tangent specifically were some things towards the ending: the description of the statue as bearing “a marked similarity to some of the most effeminate images of Christ... ...The hips were broad as a woman’s, and the chest hinted at breasts...”; the reversed gender roles in the scene where Rachel gives Zerchi the host; and, the description of the children being loaded unto the spaceships, “They sang as they lifted the children into the ship. They sang old space chanteys and helped the children up the ladder one at a time and into the hands of the sisters.” I’ve been ruminating on the significance of the phrase “into the hands of the sisters” and whether it is meant to indicate that the fate of the human race has been passed on to exclusively female hands.

[Jim]

Ah! Makes sense. I remember wondering if the androgynous figure was some oblique reference to homosexuality or lack of any sexuality. Since I didn't recall it later on, I completely missed the bit about delivering the kids into the sisters' hands.

As Bryn has so aptly pointed out, the book is wide open to many interpretations & that's what makes it so good. All of us have found many different things that really captured our thinking. One of the best book discussions in ages.

[Brenda]

Here's something that just occurred to me. Zerchi describes Rachel as one who is born free -- born without sin. In the Catholic thinking this is not Jesus (who was born to take away sin). It is the Virgin Mary, whose feast of the Immaculate Conception was only a couple days ago. "Immaculate Conception" doesn't mean that her parents did not have sex to conceive her. (That was Jesus!) It means that she is free of the taint of Original Sin, and therefore a fit vessel for Jesus.
So: is Rachel going to have a baby at some point?

[[deleted user]]

Don wrote: "Also not buying too much into the absence of female characters as major weakness..."

Yeah, me neither. It is after all a monks-only monastery, which is an accurate reflection of the boys club of Catholic Church. You may recall in part three Mrs Grales couldn't meet Abbot Zerchi until he left the monastery grounds.


Jim wrote: "Instead of science versus religion, how about the theme of discovery-growth versus conservation?"

I saw it more as responsible science vs unrestrained science, i.e. science for weapons versus science for humanity.

Part I: The "church founder", Leibowitz, was one of the atomic bomb scientists (hence the Southwest desert location.) As the nuclear war began, he try to atone for his party in creating the bomb by creating a repository of scientific knowledge for future generations. That's not a repudiation of science, just of what it was used for.

Part II: Brother Kornhoer became an enthusiastic monk/scientist in his spare time, with the blessing of Abbot Paulo, until the monks realize the visiting scientist Taddeo they were so eager to meet is happy to use his growing scientific knowledge to advance the military aims of his benefactor in Texarkana. "No, he's not the one," says Benjamin.

Part III: Dr. Cors cuts a deal with Abbot Zerchi to use the monastery grounds for his emergency medical center by agreeing not to recommend euthanasia on the Abbey grounds; and then proceeds to break that oath. Clearly these scientists can't be trusted. Yet once again the monks decide to preserve scientific knowledge in the face of science-enabled apocalypse, this time for the benefit of some fledgling human colonies in space.

In all cases, the Abbey seems eager to preserve and share scientific knowledge, but is constantly appalled by the ethics of scientists. And yet apparently, like Benjamin, the not ready to give up yet.

[Andreas]

I found the novel to be surprisingly funny with slapstick monk Francis in the first third or stiff scientist Thon Taddeo in the second one. It touches current topics as well. Not so much an imminent nuclear war - though I know that feeling from the Cold War back in the 80s - but euthanasia from the last third.

I love a novel with mediaeval monks spinning around a female: The Name of the Rose. Canticle in contrast is lacking females somewhat. The exception is this two-headed mutant tomato-selling woman who is quite central concerning several questions: Has an unconscious second head got a soul of its one such that it sould be baptized? What is the core of Rachel's character once she awakens?

Those are the big questions that led me to give the novel 5 stars, although I found some parts of it a bit boring.

[[deleted user]]

I just finished the book, great reading to begin 2015, undoubtedly a masterpiece, though a very sad one ( I was so sad after the end of the first tale, I couldn't sleep). The beginning is misleading, because there's a lot of humour, instead this is one of the most tragic book I've ever read. In my opinion the-possible-St.Leibowitz or Benjamin or Lazar (according the case) is a sort of "witness" of the human history, he is the memory we always lose in our perennial cycle of birth and self-destruction, I think he represents our inner desire to be better than the past because he is waiting for a Messiah, for someone who can represent a true and definitive beginning without destruction.

[Christy]

I found this a very interesting read. I particularly liked the first and second sections, which were more focused on a person who I got to know. The third section, while containing the main point (the more things change, the more they stay the same) was not as readable. I did not like the reporter interview passages--perhaps they were important as a critique of something (reporting techniques? the vagueness and elusiveness of political types?), but they seemed to disrupt the style. Overall a good read, though rather a depressing look at humanity's ability to learn through error.

[Jennifer]

I re-read this recently. It's still a classic. But definitely a depressing one.

[Phil]

My interpretation was that Miller was embracing his faith while keeping his eyes open. It was about how flawed humans can be and still serve God. As such, I saw the ending as an affirmation of all the suffering that had gone before, and I don't find it as depressing as others seem to.

This is the book I always hold up as an example when other books (Ender's Shadow) incorporate religious topics clumsily. Miller brought nuance and reality to his presentation, and it seems to me that he grounded this book so much that it has as many interpretations as there are opinions of religion itself.

[Alan]

Phil wrote: "seems to me that he grounded this book so much that it has as many interpretations as there are opinions of religion itself. ..."
Agreed.
I look at this as a masterwork. Miller has held up so many questions - nature of humanity, futility of human effort set against human greed and ambition, several aspects of religion, the appalling threat of nuclear weapons (this was written during the Cold War, remember) etc, etc! And addressed all these issues in the context of a damned good story, and still sounded hopeful at the end! Absolute mastery.

[[deleted user]]

Phil wrote: "My definition of optimism would be a text that affirms humanity's inherent potential for redemption. I look at a book like Canticle for Liebowitz and it seems to say humanity has hope. I figure even though a lot of grim things happen in that book, I see it as a positive text....

My definition of pessimism would be that humans do not have potential for redemption, and are destined to destroy themselves."

Interesting that you see this is a positive view of humanity. I guess my own interpretation is somewhat different.

There are a number of wonderfully dedicated people working diligently for no obvious reward in the monastery. Brother Francis laborers to illuminate an old schematic diagram which he and his brothers view as a holy relic. But then when he tries to take it to the Church's North American headquarters, he's set upon by bandits and his work is stolen. Sometime later, he tries to ransom it back and gets killed for his trouble. Yeah, he's a Saint, but you'll have to get his reward in heaven because there's nothing for him here on earth.

In the final segment, after several centuries digging out of the nuclear war's aftermath, there is finally a functioning government, technology has been mostly rediscovered, and yet we blow it all up again.

It's hard for me to interpret this as anything other than a demonstration of the futility of the works of all those ardent Brothers at the monastery, since it demonstrates it only takes one jerk to wipe out humanity again, the good and the bad alike.

[Phil]

G33z3r wrote: "Phil wrote: "My definition of optimism would be a text that affirms humanity's inherent potential for redemption. I look at a book like Canticle for Liebowitz and it seems to say humanity has hope...."

I guess my brain is pretty weird, because I thought it was affirming. The whole book is about flawed people with completely backwards understandings of their world who nevertheless strive to do the right thing. I see that as pretty representative of life in general.

I go into the classroom every day and do the best teaching I can muster. I am flawed and my understanding is incomplete, but I go for it. I believe that the effort is worth while, even if the earthly rewards are partial at best, and even if some jerk could wipe it all out a year from now.

[[deleted user]]

Phil wrote: "The whole book is about flawed people with completely backwards understandings of their world who nevertheless strive to do the right thing. I see that as pretty representative of life in general...."

Well, I guess I think the book is about people with poor understanding still trying to do the right thing, but in the end it's for naught. Yes, those people at the monastery are noble, but humanity as a whole is incapable of rising above its instincts for self-destruction.

[[deleted user]]

I have arrived late for this discussion and woefully ill prepared. But I've enjoyed reading what you have to say about a book that filled a critical moment in my life. I had just left a Christian monastery after two years inside, when I read this just-released science fiction novel. I've re-read it once, and have just pulled my copy to read again.

[Jim]

Seemed to me that humanity kept stepping in it through the same old faults, but each time managed to step a little higher, so overall it was a positive book. We spread to the stars despite all & did so through continual conflicts of using technology beyond our collective wisdom & conservative elements beyond rationality.

I did not see the people at the monastery as 'noble'. There is a bleak sense of idiotic accomplishment in the first section. The church preserves, even though it does so in almost complete ignorance, enforcing a horrible degradation & humility upon its people. That it is better than the alternatives is just awful.

The second section, the new Renaissance, poses some hard questions between about right & wrong without favoring one side or the other. Secular scientists, religious dogma, secular & religious rulers battle it out yet again. It was a great look at the growing pains of a civilization. The monks are not quite as intentionally ignorant & the secular rulers not quite as ruthless.

The third section brings us back to the height of civilization with the same problems that wrecked the last one. The questions of euthanasia & baptism highlight the differences in viewpoints. Again, we stumble on blindly as a race, but at least we manage to stumble on. Not a rousing sense of accomplishment, but good enough.

In Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, Bill Nye says we shouldn't look at evolution as survival of fittest, but as 'survival of the good enough'. It's an intriguing & humbling difference. Seems to fit well with this story.

[Phil]

G33z3r wrote: "Phil wrote: "The whole book is about flawed people with completely backwards understandings of their world who nevertheless strive to do the right thing. I see that as pretty representative of life..."

A lot of what I do is "for naught." Most of the things I teach are forgotten in a matter of days. If I didn't have some hope that it would somehow be worth it in spite of that, then I would be very pessimistic indeed.

[Jim]

Phil wrote: "A lot of what I do is "for naught." Most of the things I teach are forgotten in a matter of days. If I didn't have some hope that it would somehow be worth it in spite of that, then I would be very pessimistic indeed. "

Please stay positive. Kids can be thoughtless jerks (I was.) but often old lessons come back & help years or even decades later.

[Phil]

Jim wrote: "Phil wrote: "A lot of what I do is "for naught." Most of the things I teach are forgotten in a matter of days. If I didn't have some hope that it would somehow be worth it in spite of that, then I ..."

Thanks for the encouragement, Jim. They gave me a run for my money Friday. You'd think 8th graders could hold it together better.

[Jim]

My wife is a school bus driver & says 6th - 8th graders are the worst. Given the hormone levels & current idiotic parenting techniques that's not too surprising.

[Alan]

Jim wrote: "My wife is a school bus driver & says 6th - 8th graders are the worst. Given the hormone levels & current idiotic parenting techniques that's not too surprising."
Yup.
I am English, so I am assuming 6th-8th graders means roughly the same over this side of the pond as it does over your side.
And I am really glad I am retired!
Above age14 or so they are in many ways more evil - but it is better suppressed, it only shows in the really nasty ones. At ages 11-14 approx they are, as you said, full of new hormones, and therefore even the nice ones are exuberant and lacking self-control, etc - so even the nice ones can be a problem.
That said, it is still the quiet sullen ones you want to watch out for - they have more potential for real nastiness.
Gimme little kids every time! (ideally 8-11. At that age they are showing signs of intelligence, are still small enough to be interested and guided, and generally don't have hormone/dominance problems)

[Jim]

That's the age group! Agreed on all points.