A Canticle For Leibowitz
Marcus Ogden
I've just finished "A Canticle For Leibowitz" by Walter
Miller, and I have to admit I'm totally at a loss as to
what Miller is trying to say.
I really liked his writing *style* - he did a great job
with his characters, and with bringing across the "feel"
of the times he was writing about, but...
- Assuming that the "pilgrim" characters in all three
sections are the same person (i.e. the immortal
"Lazarus"), what is he there for? Who is it that he
is looking for? Why does he lead Francis to the
fallout shelter? Why does he keep hanging around the
monastery? Is he the "monk" with the sandals & beard
who boards the starship at the end? (About all I
managed to piece together was that the Hebrew
initials written on the rock could stand for
Lazarus.)
- The "immaculate conception" at the end of the book...
what is with this? Surely Miller is not trying to
"justify" the nuclear holocaust because it has given
rise to this new innocent? Is this child the person
"Lazarus" has been searching for?
- Does the plot (as distinct from the scene-setting) of
the first third of the book have any real
significance? The stuff uncovered in the fallout
shelter is of no great importance, as far as I could
see.
- What does the final page (with the shark etc.) mean?
Have all humans on Earth been killed?
I have to admit I was mystified by the direction taken in
the final third of the book. I was expecting the dilemma
of whether the monastery was right to have preserved
knowledge that led to the reestablishment of a nuclear-
capable society to be examined, but this was never even
mentioned. Instead we get a passionate diatribe against
euthanasia - the last abbot seems to get far more worked
up about this than he does about the nuclear threat
itself - and then the weird stuff with the immaculate
conception.
As for the exodus to the stars, this seems like a
thematic loose end. What difference does this make?
Human civilisation on any world is still innately self-
destructive, if Miller's apparent pessimism is
extrapolated.
Either I am missing a hell of a lot here, or this book
- however atmospheric - is a big thematic mess.
Can anyone clarify any of this?
(I'd like to be able to replace "big thematic mess" by
"tantalisingly ambiguous"... :) )
Marcus Ogden <mw...@cam.ac.uk>
Rocky Persaud
>mer...@u.washington.edu (Ethan A Merritt) wrote:
>So Leibowitz's purpose in preserving the ancient knowledge is to
>allow space travel to be re-invented, thus ensuring the survival of
>humanity. (I was at a loss to see why the monks would want to
>preserve their knowledge if it was only going to lead to another
>nuclear war.)
They didn't know it would lead to another war. Leibowitz's purpose had
nothing to do with allowing space travel to be re-invented. He saw
great value in knowledge, because the alternative is ignorance which
is self-destructive. Knowledge has the potential to rise above the
self-destructiveness of cyclical history, though does not guarantee it.
Knowledge could and did lead to the _means_ of destroying the world,
because the forces of ignorance were also operating.
>
>>The abbot expounds at length
>>(as you note) about the religious justification for such a struggle
>>to survive. I cannot remember if there was another character who
>>put into words the secular equivalent?
>
>Not that I'm aware of.
>
>>It's certainly a bleak vision, but given that, is it pessimism or >optimism? >Nuclear destruction recurs, but humanity survives.
>
>Thanks Ethan, it makes much more sense now...
>
>> Ethan A Merritt
>> mer...@u.washington.edu
>
>
>Marcus Ogden <mw...@cam.ac.uk>
Miller is exploring the inherent contradictions in humanity. That is
why his novel has such a satiric and ironic tone. He contrasts the
results of knowledge with the results of ignorance (the Simplification).
Yes, a bleak vision.
Re: the sharks at the end. He would have used the vultures, but logically
the birds die off in the nuclear holocaust. His vultures and sharks I believe
are symbols of the predatory instincts of the ignorant.
Rocky
Rowan T. Hamilton
[...]
>Miller is exploring the inherent contradictions in humanity. That is
>why his novel has such a satiric and ironic tone. He contrasts the
>results of knowledge with the results of ignorance (the Simplification).
>Yes, a bleak vision.
I'll also add that Robert Graves claims (I have no other source) that
the very early Christians, in order to avoid the wrath of Rome, called
them selves Chrestians, meaning 'Simple People', or Simpletons.
I leave it to the reader to draw a conclusion. I'm not literate enough
to do so.
Rowan.
--
Rowan T. Hamilton "To dig this is to groove on
hami...@huhepl.harvard.edu hella shit."
hami...@fnald.fnal.gov - ca...@wackenhut.com
http://hahn.fnal.gov/Hamilton.html
Joseph McWilliams
>
> I've just finished "A Canticle For Leibowitz" by Walter
> Miller, and I have to admit I'm totally at a loss as to
> what Miller is trying to say.
>
>
> - The "immaculate conception" at the end of the book...
> what is with this? Surely Miller is not trying to
> "justify" the nuclear holocaust because it has given
> rise to this new innocent? Is this child the person
> "Lazarus" has been searching for?
>
>
> I have to admit I was mystified by the direction taken in
> the final third of the book. I was expecting the dilemma
> of whether the monastery was right to have preserved
> knowledge that led to the reestablishment of a nuclear-
> capable society to be examined, but this was never even
> mentioned. Instead we get a passionate diatribe against
> euthanasia - the last abbot seems to get far more worked
> up about this than he does about the nuclear threat
> itself - and then the weird stuff with the immaculate
> conception.
>
Marcus,
This is my favorite SF novel. It has been a while since I last read it
so I don't remember small details. However the overall message became
clear to me after the 2nd or 3rd reading. It helps if you have a
Catholic religious background, as Miller most certainly must have had.
In a nut shell: Miller tells how Mankind has destroyed his world through a
nuclear holocaust. The old knowledge, in books and manuscripts, is
preserved by the men of religion, as in the Dark Ages in Europe.
Meanwhile Mankind is recovering, returning from the brink. When the time
is right, the knowledge that has been preserved for centuries is passed
on to Mankind. And what do they do with this power but destroy mankind
again with another nuclear war. It seems mankind is doomed to this
depressing cycle.
In steps Rachel, she of two heads, one alive but imbecilic, the other
inert and lifeless. Rachel was the one who was immaculately conceived.
When the bombs start falling at the end, Rachel's lifeless head comes
alive and her other head becomes lifeless. She is reborn. Remember when
the church is falling and pins the priest in the rubble. He begins to
give Rachel a blessing; she recoils in horror and blesses the priest
instead. Rachel signifies a new beginning for Mankind. She is an
immaculate conception, she is the first human since Adam and Eve born
without Original Sin. The priest is a holy man, but he was born with
Original Sin, and thus is not worthy to bless Rachel. That's why she
recoils. She blesses him. Why? Because she was immaculately conceived,
has never sinned(she was an imbecile) and was reborn without blemish.
She is pure and her blessing of the priest is significant.
>
> As for the exodus to the stars, this seems like a
> thematic loose end. What difference does this make?
> Human civilisation on any world is still innately self-
> destructive, if Miller's apparent pessimism is
> extrapolated.
>
The insane cycle of self-destruction was necessary for Mankind to atone
for Adam and Eve's transgressions in the Garden of Eden. The exodus
represents a new beginning. Mankind is now free of Original Sin and the
cycle is broken. Rachel and the others leave earth free and clear of all
the excess baggage Mankind has had to carry since the beginning of time.
Miller isn't being pessimistic. In fact, Miller is offering the ultimate
hope for the future of Mankind.
As I said at the outset, it helps to understand this interpretation if
one has a Catholic religious background. For such a person, the Catholic
influence is obvious. I've never been able to find out anything about
Miller, so I don't know what his background was, but I'll bet he received
religious training from priests, brothers or nuns while growing up. I've
only been able to find one other book written by Miller, a collection of
the most atrocious short stories I've ever read. I've seen reference to
one other book, although I've never seen it. I believe it was a
nonfiction book on anatomy. A Canticle for Leibowitz is considered to
be a SF classic, and apparently Miller was never able to write anything else
worth while.
Joe McWilliams The man who doesn't read good books has
Dept. of Mathematics no advantage over the man who can't read
SFASU them.
Nacogdoches, TX -- Mark Twain --
Andrea Lynn Leistra
Ethan A Merritt <mer...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <4jk5af$l...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>Marcus Ogden <mw...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>[SPOILERS]
>>
>>I've just finished "A Canticle For Leibowitz" by Walter
>>Miller, and I have to admit I'm totally at a loss as to
>>what Miller is trying to say.
>>- Assuming that the "pilgrim" characters in all three
>> sections are the same person (i.e. the immortal
>> "Lazarus"), what is he there for? Who is it that he
>> is looking for? Why does he lead Francis to the
>> fallout shelter? Why does he keep hanging around the
>> monastery? Is he the "monk" with the sandals & beard
>> who boards the starship at the end? (About all I
>> managed to piece together was that the Hebrew
>> initials written on the rock could stand for
>> Lazarus.)
>
>It's been a long time since I read _A Canticle for Leibowitz_, so
>my recall may be a bit shaky. With that caveat, however.....
>The Hebrew letters on the rock, lamed sadhe, would more naturally
>be short for "Leibowitz". Did Miller actually use the name Lazarus
>anywhere??? If so I'm at a loss to say why.
Yep. The characters on the rock are only the consonants, remember, and
characters suggested they could stand for Leibowitz; however, _other_
characters suggested that the pilgrim was Lazarus, saying roughly "what
Jesus raised up stays up". Of course, there's no reason why he couldn't
be _both_. It provides an explanation for why he's immortal as well as
for the Leibowitz connections.
>>As for the exodus to the stars, this seems like a
>>thematic loose end. What difference does this make?
>>Human civilisation on any world is still innately self-
>>destructive, if Miller's apparent pessimism is extrapolated.
>>Can anyone clarify any of this?
The bit about banging sandals together at the end is important; it's
direct Christian symbolism, making reference to a passage (I don't know
where) in the Bible where Jesus tells his disciples that if a town refuses
to listen to them, to bang the dust of that town out of their sandals.
This is _exactly_ what happens at the end; they're giving up on Earth, but
not on humanity as a whole.
--
Andrea Leistra http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~aleistra
-----
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Andrew Thall
Joseph McWilliams <mcwi...@euler.sfasu.edu> wrote:
> [...] A Canticle for Leibowitz is considered to
>worth while.
That's probably why he won one of the first Hugo awards for his novella
"The Darfstellar." Definitely worth the reading...you can track it down
in Asimov's first Hugo Winners anthology.
--Andrew.
"I shall drink beer and eat bread in the House of Life."
--
"I shall drink beer and eat bread in the House of Life."
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
history, but then the Wandering Jew has been identified with all kinds of
other (semi)mythological characters, e.g. Faust, John (based on the last
few sentences of the Book and some gnostic interpretations), Tannhauser,
etc. Keep in mind that it's a relative young (>XIII c.) legend which had
been mostly popular with the lower classes until relatively recently, i.e.
mid-1700's, and has mutated many many times. I wonder if Miller (who, as
some of you may remember, committed suicide earlier this year - see the
FAQ) knew that in many recent (1800's) German versions of my Legend the
Wandering Jew had accepted Christ and become one of the Wise Men of
Christendom.
Ahasuerus, who isn't telling
Graeme Lang
reread the Canticle.
Nicholas Whyte
>I'll also add that Robert Graves claims (I have no other source) that
>the very early Christians, in order to avoid the wrath of Rome, called
>them selves Chrestians, meaning 'Simple People', or Simpletons.
>
>I leave it to the reader to draw a conclusion. I'm not literate enough
>to do so.
Graves may well have said this, but it's more likely that the Roman
accent pronounced a short "e" sound like a short "i" - as indeed in some
parts of Northern Ireland! This is demonstrated by Suetonius, in his
"Twelve Caesars" (written about 120 AD); at one point he refers to
Christians with an "i" but at another he refers to the founder of the
"cult" as a Jew named "Chrestos". Then again, perhaps Graves was right
and Suetonius was making the same pun?
Nicholas Whyte
Queen's University of Belfast
Evelyn C. Leeper
Graeme Lang <gra...@cin.gov.au> wrote:
> I'm waiting for the forthcoming sequel, and when it's out I'll
> reread the Canticle.
Michael Bishop also did a sequel to CANTICLE (more like an "inspired
by") called "The White Otters of Childhood." Novella-length, it
appeared in F&SF and was nominated for a Nebula in 1973 and a Hugo in
1974.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | ele...@lucent.com <==NOTE NEW ADDRESS
"Enveloped in a common mist, we seem to walk in clearness ourselves,
and behold only the mist that enshrouds others."
--George Eliot, "Leaves from a Note-Book"
Scott Jeter
> [SPOILERS]
>
> I've just finished "A Canticle For Leibowitz" by Walter
> Miller, and I have to admit I'm totally at a loss as to
> what Miller is trying to say.
>
> I really liked his writing *style* - he did a great job
> with his characters, and with bringing across the "feel"
> of the times he was writing about, but...
>
> - Assuming that the "pilgrim" characters in all three
> sections are the same person (i.e. the immortal
> "Lazarus"), what is he there for? Who is it that he
> is looking for? Why does he lead Francis to the
> fallout shelter? Why does he keep hanging around the
> monastery? Is he the "monk" with the sandals & beard
> who boards the starship at the end? (About all I
> managed to piece together was that the Hebrew
> initials written on the rock could stand for
> Lazarus.)
>
> - The "immaculate conception" at the end of the book...
> what is with this? Surely Miller is not trying to
> "justify" the nuclear holocaust because it has given
> rise to this new innocent? Is this child the person
> "Lazarus" has been searching for?
>
> - Does the plot (as distinct from the scene-setting) of
> the first third of the book have any real
> significance? The stuff uncovered in the fallout
> shelter is of no great importance, as far as I could
> see.
>
> - What does the final page (with the shark etc.) mean?
> Have all humans on Earth been killed?
>
> I have to admit I was mystified by the direction taken in
> the final third of the book. I was expecting the dilemma
> of whether the monastery was right to have preserved
> knowledge that led to the reestablishment of a nuclear-
> capable society to be examined, but this was never even
> mentioned. Instead we get a passionate diatribe against
> euthanasia - the last abbot seems to get far more worked
> up about this than he does about the nuclear threat
> itself - and then the weird stuff with the immaculate
> conception.
>
> As for the exodus to the stars, this seems like a
> thematic loose end. What difference does this make?
> Human civilisation on any world is still innately self-
> destructive, if Miller's apparent pessimism is
> extrapolated.
>
> Either I am missing a hell of a lot here, or this book
> - however atmospheric - is a big thematic mess.
>
> Can anyone clarify any of this?
>
> (I'd like to be able to replace "big thematic mess" by
> "tantalisingly ambiguous"... :) )
>
Of course you realize that the story is a Christian Allegory. And that
the theme plain and simple is that nuclear society is self destructive.
You've placed too much emphasis on the euthenasia part and not enough on
the irony of the timing of the final blowup.
------
scott jeter
bje...@odin.cbu.edu
------
Scott Jeter
Yes, In a recent reprint (some sort of nice hardback 'Classic sf' series),
biographical information was included. It states that Miller was(is?)
Catholic, and that since this is his only major novel to be successful,
it was considered one of those stories which just had to come out.
Miller wrote it just after some sort of personal crisis/disaster.
Another theme is that of redemption, and/or the lack of it.
mr...@mindvox.phantom.com
rest of you who see the Christian threads in it. The course was
forgettable, but in college I had an SF class as an elective, and the
perfessor (also forgettable, a Prof Emeritus rambling about SF on a hot
summer day is a horrible event to survive) said Miller was a Catholic.
This old coot also said that when the novel came out ('57?) it was quite
popular because of the 'red threat' and the fear of nuclear war in those
days. The book provided a positive outlook (in the perfessor's opinion)
because humankind survives.
Mr X
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes the only things a Western savage understands|
are whiskey and rifles and an unarmed man -- like you.|
-- "Call of the West," Call of Voodoo |mr...@phantom.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joachim Verhagen
>>
>> I've just finished "A Canticle For Leibowitz" by Walter
>> Miller, and I have to admit I'm totally at a loss as to
>> what Miller is trying to say.
>>
Nobody reacted to these parts yet, so:
>>
>> - Assuming that the "pilgrim" characters in all three
>> sections are the same person (i.e. the immortal
>> "Lazarus"), what is he there for?
He is just the wandering jew, wandering the earth till the last day.
Sometimes his life interacts with the monastry, but I got the feeling that
often he was at other places. In the first story he was just passing by.
Who is it that he
>> is looking for?
Is he? I missed that.
Why does he lead Francis to the
>> fallout shelter?
IMO, that was just an accident. He offered to find a good building stone.
The rest just happened. Rembember, that Francis did not consider him
important in the beginning. The other monks started to believe so.
Why does he keep hanging around the
>> monastery? Is he the "monk" with the sandals & beard
>> who boards the starship at the end? (About all I
>> managed to piece together was that the Hebrew
>> initials written on the rock could stand for
>> Lazarus.)
Could he be? He was last seen around the monastry, far away from the starship.
Furthermore he is no monk. He is a jew and not catholic.
>>
>> I have to admit I was mystified by the direction taken in
>> the final third of the book. I was expecting the dilemma
>> of whether the monastery was right to have preserved
>> knowledge that led to the reestablishment of a nuclear-
>> capable society to be examined, but this was never even
>> mentioned.
Should Miller tell that? There are advantages and disadvantages to
technology. That dark age society was not very pleasant. You choose.
- Joachim.
--
Joachim Verhagen Email:J.C.D.V...@fys.ruu.nl
Department of molecular biofysics, University of Utrecht
Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Homepage: http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~verhagen (Science Jokes & SF)
Chris Clayton
>[SPOILERS]
Just a few thoughts, some of them shamelessly ripped off from
friends who've also read this. (Especially Steve Simmons,
who I hope will jump into this at some point.)
>I've just finished "A Canticle For Leibowitz" by Walter
>Miller, and I have to admit I'm totally at a loss as to
>what Miller is trying to say.
>- Assuming that the "pilgrim" characters in all three
> sections are the same person (i.e. the immortal
> "Lazarus"), what is he there for?
First, Lazarus in the Gospel story was resurrected, but that
doesn't necessarily make him immortal. Presumably, he would die
again, at a more appropriate age. The pilgrim is the Wandering
Jew of Xtian legend. He gives his age at various times as
the age a person living in first century Palestine would be,
at another time as the time since Creation according to the
Jewish calender.
> Who is it that he is looking for?
By tradition, he's waiting for the Second Coming, which will
correspond with his conversion to Xtianity.
> Why does he lead Francis to the
> fallout shelter? Why does he keep hanging around the
> monastery?
The first two, because the story needed it. It's possible that
he was the Liebowicz honored by the monks, but he doesn't seem to
be the settled technocrat that Liebowicz must have been.
Is he the "monk" with the sandals & beard who boards the starship at the end?
I don't think he's the monk - The pilgrim has a very distinct description
that the monk doesn't fit. You last see the pilgrim (IIRC) as a content
man (as opposed to his earlier "bitter" description) in a crowd
scene, possibly a church service, in the third section.
>- The "immaculate conception" at the end of the book...
> what is with this? Surely Miller is not trying to
> "justify" the nuclear holocaust because it has given
> rise to this new innocent? Is this child the person
> "Lazarus" has been searching for?
He's not justifying the new holocaust, no. He's telling a
very Catholic story using Catholic viewpoints. OF COURSE
humans will screw things up - that's what fallen MEANS.
The birth at the end of the story is the Second Coming
of Christ, born to a personality that is immaculate. Even
if the body's history isn't.
>- Does the plot (as distinct from the scene-setting) of
> the first third of the book have any real
> significance? The stuff uncovered in the fallout
> shelter is of no great importance, as far as I could
> see.
The major importance (IMHO) is to show humans fallen to their
lowest physical point, but at a comparitively high spiritual point.
Compared to the later sections, anyway. The monks of
Liebowicz, however, seem to be condemned to miss the point
all the way through the book. The scene in the second section
where they start the generator and light their first arc light has
a recitation of Genesis as backdrop, ending at "FIAT LUX!" (Let
There Be Light!) Folks, this can be construed as blasphemy.
They don't get any better as the book progresses, either. A
friend pointed out that the monks are deeply mistaken to leave
Earth during the new nuclear war, since they miss the Second
Coming. In their turn, they become the new Wanderers, who
turned their backs on God when they had a chance to participate
in the kingdom.
>- What does the final page (with the shark etc.) mean?
> Have all humans on Earth been killed?
Probably not killed. There wouldn't be much point in a
Second Coming if so. It has been suggested that the
fish is a symbol of the Church, and the shark, although
he goes through hard times, does survive.
>I have to admit I was mystified by the direction taken in
>the final third of the book. I was expecting the dilemma
>of whether the monastery was right to have preserved
>knowledge that led to the reestablishment of a nuclear-
>capable society to be examined, but this was never even
>mentioned.
As mentioned above, I think that Miller was saying all through
the book that the monks were on the wrong path. A separate
examination would be redundant.
>Instead we get a passionate diatribe against
>euthanasia - the last abbot seems to get far more worked
>up about this than he does about the nuclear threat
>itself - and then the weird stuff with the immaculate
>conception.
Again, this book must be read through Catholic attitudes.
Euthanasia is a moral choice affecting a soul in the abbot's
direct care. It's IMPORTANT. The nuclear war is merely
a catastrophy. You have to deal with it, but it's really just
one of those things that happen from time to time. Trust
in God, and things will work out. The abbot believes this,
and acts on it consistantly.
The wierd stuff with the immaculate conception is also
central to the theme - a major Christian view of history
centers on the Second Coming, which will close out
history as we know it. Without this, the religious point
of the story is much less compelling.
>As for the exodus to the stars, this seems like a
>thematic loose end. What difference does this make?
>Human civilisation on any world is still innately self-
>destructive, if Miller's apparent pessimism is
>extrapolated.
The exodus to the stars, thematically, is about the
choice to embrace the church's spirituality, or to
try and escape it. Miller's attitude seems to be that to
escape it is to make the wrong choice. One example -
when the monks try to convince a pilot to take the
ship out, he almost decides not to. But the slither
of a snake disrupts his line of thought, and when he
returns to it, he decides to go. In Xtian symbology,
it is Satan that manifests as a snake to work humans
ill. It's one possible interpretation, anyway.
>Either I am missing a hell of a lot here, or this book
>- however atmospheric - is a big thematic mess.
>Can anyone clarify any of this?
Whether any of this clarifies things is open to debate. Since
I'm NOT particularly Catholic, or Xtian, a number of these issues
had to be pointed out to me. But much later reading on these
topics led me to largely agree with the point of view given above.
This is more of a religious work told in SF argot, rather than a
standard, fairly secular SF work told in religious argot.
Another couple of cents hits the bit bucket.....
Chris Clayton
Return mail to: USFM...@ibmmail.com
Ford has a better idea, but the opinions are all mine.
dan'l danehy-oakes
Someone else pointed out the date of writing -- that this was during
the low point of the '50s, when everyone was *sure* that the missiles
would be here any day now, and it was all the fault of those bigdomed
scientists and those eeeeevile Commies.
SF reflects its times. An interesting compare/contrast for CANTICLE
is James Blish's trilogy/tetralogy "After Such Knowledge," which,
though not completed until the decade was long over, was certainly
conceived and begun (with the novella that forms the first part of
A CASE OF CONSCIENCE) during this period. Blish takes explicitly as
his theme what is implicit in CANTICLE: whether, presuming the
literal truth of the Catholic faith, *all* secular knowledge is
forbidden. A similar questioning/condemnation of "science" seems to
lie deep in most of the disaster/post-disaster novels of the period:
Frank's ALAS, BABYLON; Shute's ON THE BEACH; Stewart's EARTH ABIDES;
even Wyndham's REBIRTH -- though the final conception there seems to
be decidedly pro-science and anti-religion.
But Blish and Miller seem to handle the question in a straightforward
way not typical of other writers.
I do not know whether Blish had a preferred reading order for "ASK"; I
tend to think of it chronologically: DOCTOR MIRABILIS, followed by
the BLACK EASTER pair, followed by A CASE OF CONSCIENCE. This works
well, for me, because MIRABILIS seems to ask the question, while the
other books search for answers. The answer he seems to come up with
is a qualified no -- secular knowledge is acceptable so long as it is
submitted to the rule of faith.
(Remember, by the way, that this is all predicated on "if Catholicism
is true." Blish himself was not a Catholic, though, if I recall, he
converted late in life to the Anglican church. At any rate, "if
Catholicism is true" is as acceptable a premise for a what-if story as
any other. . .
Indeed, Catholicism seems to appeal to SF writers for some reason;
priests in particular seem to be favorite characters from Clarke's
"The Star" to Boucher's "Quest for St. Aquin" to Simmons' HYPERION.)
Miller's answer is bleaker. His Wandering Jew is condemned to watch
as humanity builds the Tower of Babel not once, but twice, only to
have it topple and nearly destroy them. He himself seems to be freed
at the end by the "birth" of the idiot-savior, but humanity is condemned
to do it all again and again. . . As someone else noted, this seems
to be the basic fact of living in a Fallen world.
. . . the center cannot hold, things fall apart
mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
and what rough beast is this
its hour come round at last
slouching towards bethlehem to be born?
Its name is _humanity_.
-- dan'l
A gentle answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger.
--Proverbs 15:1 (RSV)
God created humor to keep us from killing each other.
-- M. Scheeringa (3/96)
Tom Remington [UNI ENGLISH DEPT.]
> True, the identification of Lazarus with the Wandering Jew has a long
> history, but then the Wandering Jew has been identified with all kinds of
> other (semi)mythological characters, e.g. Faust, John (based on the last
> few sentences of the Book and some gnostic interpretations), Tannhauser,
> etc. Keep in mind that it's a relative young (>XIII c.) legend which had
> been mostly popular with the lower classes until relatively recently, i.e.
> mid-1700's, and has mutated many many times.
One variant is that there were several sightings of the Wandering Jew among
members of the Mormon community in Utah--whence came Francis Gerard.
One connection between parts I and III, I think, is that Francis Gerard's
illuminated copy of the Leibowitz blueprint had as its greatest value that the
robbers took it from FG rather than the precious relic of the saint himself.
When the starship leaves in Part III, we have been told that it takes the
Memorabilia with it as microfilm copies. (Sure. How else could it take them?
But Miller spells out that it is the copies that go . . . and he hardly needs
to do so.)
Nicolls and Clute say that Miller converted to Catholicism in 1947, and that he
flew combat missions with the USAF in WWII. Someone else (I thought
Moskowitz--but haven't found the reference) notes that Miller's response to the
bombing of Monte Cassino was as overwhelming as that of Kurt Vonnegut to the
bombing of Dresden--though the two were presumably at opposite ends of the
bombings.
Cheers,
Tom Remington
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> Someone else pointed out the date of writing -- that this was during
Umm. And what would you call "the high point of the 50's"? :) Between
late 1949 (earlier if you were paying attention) and late 1962 it was one
heck of a ride. But the larger point stands, of course.
> Indeed, Catholicism seems to appeal to SF writers for some reason; [snip]
Another book published in 1960 and covering, at least in part, the same
ground, i.e. The Original Sin, is Edmond Hamilton's _The Haunted Stars_,
possibly his best novel.
--
Ahasuerus http://www.clark.net/pub/ahasuer/, including:
FAQs: rec.arts.sf.written, alt.pulp, the Liaden Universe
Biblios: how to write SF, the Wandering Jew, miscellaneous SF
Please consider posting (as opposed to e-mailing) ID requests
Steve Simmons
>In article <4jk5af$l...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Marcus Ogden <mw...@cam.ac.uk> says:
>>[SPOILERS]
>Just a few thoughts, some of them shamelessly ripped off from friends
>who've also read this. (Especially Steve Simmons, who I hope will jump
>into this at some point.)
OK, OK, you twisted my arm. I was gonna do the whole scholarly bit,
cite my sources, etc, but life is too short to work that hard. :-) So
please forgive the scattered-ness of this post.
Caveat: I am not a Christian, but think that after some years of study
have a pretty good idea of what some of the theological issues are.
`Canticle' was the topic of one of my term papers, which got an `A'
from a tough english prof. However, I've not read the book since 1978,
so please forgive me if a few details are wrong.
I contend that the theme of `Canticle' is man accepting and enduring
the trials that God has provided. Those trials are a mystery to us, as
are Gods specific reasons. We are given our cross to bear, and bear it
we must. But those who endure will be rewarded.
This theme is pronounced most explicitly after the brief nuclear
exchange. A mother is taking her baby to a euthanasia station, and a
priest talks to her about offering her and her babe's suffering up to
God -- but he cannot bring himself to tell the mother that her innocent
childs suffering is also an offering God has demanded. Nor do either of
them realize that a part of their own trials is to endure and empathize
with the suffering of that child. The priests failure in this condemns
(at a minimum) the mother to Hell. The failure of his own faith is also
telling, and is echoed later.
When the full nuclear exchange starts, another priest ascends the
ladder of the spaceship, and, just before closing the hatch, claps the
dust from his shoes and pronounces `thus passes the world' in Latin.
The ship then takes off. That priest is wrong, horribly wrong.
At the end of sections one and two, buzzards feast and thrive on the
remains of those who died. But at the end of section 3 we have a shark,
and the shark is hungry for a long time -- but doesn't die. Why is this
section ended differently?
Lazarus (who may or may not also have been Leibowitz) remains on
earth. Why?
The key scene for the book comes when the priest is injured and, while
trapped in the rubble, encounters Rachel. Rachel (assuming I've got the
names right) is the second head of Mrs. Grayles, the old 'tater woman.
Mrs Grayles had two problems -- she's pregnant, and she wants Rachel
baptized. But the Mrs. Grayles head is dead, and Rachel is in charge.
Rachel refuses the baptism, and instead blesses the priest. At that
instant, the priest realizes his error and becomes to first to
understand that the Second Coming is about to occur.
Why do I say that? Consider this:
Rachel was not of woman born, and as such is not tainted by original
sin. She grew immaculately from the shoulder of Mrs. Grayles. As such,
she is in no need of baptism, and rightfully rejects it. Lacking any
volitional life, she is also sinless in deed. Thus her pregnancy is an
immaculate conception. She is the pure vessel (grail) from which will
emerge the returned messiah. Rachel is the next Mary, and her unborn
child will be the new messiah.
If we grant this, all the odd stuff at the end makes sense. The shark
is a fish, a standard symbol of Christianity/God. He is also a
predator, Deus Irae. He is very hungry after the war, because there are
few people, therefore few souls to reap, few sinners to be prostrate
before an angry God. But Christ and the church survive, and even
thrive.
The priest who pronounces the world past and leaves is committing the
sins of pride (presuming to know the mind of God) and disobedience (not
staying do endure the suffering God has pronounced). The others on the
ship are doing the same. They don't realize it yet, but they have
become the new Jews, missing the return of the messiah and embarking on
a diaspora. They've lost the promised land, and don't even know it.
In popular legend, Lazarus was resurrected but did not believe, and as
punishment was condemned to wander the earth until the second coming.
Lazar the hermit is clearly Lazarus. He knows the past, and periodicly
is catalyst to bring things to light. Obviously God has granted him
some knowledge (some grace?), and he knows that no matter how bad
things get, *this* is where the messiah will come. He's waited 2600
(2800?) years; he can wait some more. The God that made him immortal is
a God he trusts.
Now, to address a few questions:
>> Why does he [Lazarus] lead Francis to the fallout shelter? Why does
>> he keep hanging around the monastery?
>The first two, because the story needed it.
Well, yeah. :-) But more specificly, because he is periodicly Gods agent
on earth.
>Is the "monk" with the sandals & beard who boards the starship at the
>end [also Lazarus]?
No, that's the navigator (pilot? sorry, can't recall) who accepted the
task against his better judgment. He should have listened to his better
judgment. A key item here is that his decision to go was based on
intellectual grounds. His head overrides his spirit, and it shouldn't
have. But, as Chris points out, the snake had an influence on his
decision.
>>- Does the plot (as distinct from the scene-setting) of the first
>>third of the book have any real significance? The stuff uncovered in
>>the fallout shelter is of no great importance, as far as I could see.
>The major importance (IMHO) is to show humans fallen to their lowest
>physical point, but at a comparatively high spiritual point.
I disagree. IMHO we are seeing the point where the monks begin the turn
downward. They lose their focus on preservation in the fervency of
their quest to have the beatus Leibowitz canonized.
>Compared to the later sections, anyway. The monks of Leibowitz,
>however, seem to be condemned to miss the point all the way through the
>book. The scene in the second section where they start the generator
>and light their first arc light has a recitation of Genesis as
>backdrop, ending at "FIAT LUX!" (Let There Be Light!) Folks, this can
>be construed as blasphemy.
Right. That's Gods line on creation of the Universe, and for man to
take it on is, well, at a minimum a sin of pride. Possibly blasphemy.
Will someone refresh me on the the title of the first and third
sections? This is also a strong indicator, but I cannot recall them.
J. Louis Campbell III
Section 1 is "Fiat Homo," which I believe translates as "let there be
man." Section 2 is "Fiat Voluntas Tua," which I believe translates as
"let your will be free" (perhaps free of the constraints of Original
Sin?).
Louis.
Nicholas Rosen
says:
>
>Steve Simmons wrote:
>>
>> Will someone refresh me on the the title of the first and third
>> sections? This is also a strong indicator, but I cannot recall them.
>
>
>Section 1 is "Fiat Homo," which I believe translates as "let there be
>man." Section 2 is "Fiat Voluntas Tua," which I believe translates as
>"let your will be free" (perhaps free of the constraints of Original
>Sin?).
"Fiat Voluntas Tua" means "Thy Will Be Done."
Nicholas Rosen
Standard disclaimers apply.
It is a principle of the law that people are presumed to intend the
reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions. Those who apply
this principle to government actions are paranoid conspiracy theorists.
dan'l danehy-oakes
> Someone else pointed out the date of writing -- that this was during
> the low point of the '50s,
And Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew responded (snip some more):
> Umm. And what would you call "the high point of the 50's"? :)
I think you misunderstood. I meant that the '50s *were* a low
point.
Joseph McWilliams
> Will someone refresh me on the the title of the first and third
> sections? This is also a strong indicator, but I cannot recall them.
>
Fiat Homo & Fiat Voluntas Tua
Excellent analysis of this book Steve. Keep going.
Joe McWillimas
Faye Huff
: On 30 Mar 1996, Marcus Ogden wrote:
: >
: > I've just finished "A Canticle For Leibowitz" by Walter
: > Miller, and I have to admit I'm totally at a loss as to
: > what Miller is trying to say.
: >
: > [big snip of posts & followups]
: >
: It helps if you have a
: Catholic religious background, as Miller most certainly must have had.
: In a nut shell: Miller tells how Mankind has destroyed his world through a
: nuclear holocaust. The old knowledge, in books and manuscripts, is
: preserved by the men of religion, as in the Dark Ages in Europe.
: Meanwhile Mankind is recovering, returning from the brink. When the time
: is right, the knowledge that has been preserved for centuries is passed
: on to Mankind. And what do they do with this power but destroy mankind
: again with another nuclear war. It seems mankind is doomed to this
: depressing cycle.
: In steps Rachel, she of two heads, one alive but imbecilic, the other
: inert and lifeless. Rachel was the one who was immaculately conceived.
: When the bombs start falling at the end, Rachel's lifeless head comes
: alive and her other head becomes lifeless. She is reborn. Remember when
: the church is falling and pins the priest in the rubble. He begins to
: give Rachel a blessing; she recoils in horror and blesses the priest
: instead. Rachel signifies a new beginning for Mankind. She is an
: immaculate conception, she is the first human since Adam and Eve born
: without Original Sin. The priest is a holy man, but he was born with
: Original Sin, and thus is not worthy to bless Rachel. That's why she
: recoils. She blesses him. Why? Because she was immaculately conceived,
: has never sinned(she was an imbecile) and was reborn without blemish.
: She is pure and her blessing of the priest is significant.
: As I said at the outset, it helps to understand this interpretation if
: one has a Catholic religious background. For such a person, the Catholic
: influence is obvious. I've never been able to find out anything about
: Miller, so I don't know what his background was, but I'll bet he received
: religious training from priests, brothers or nuns while growing up. I've
: only been able to find one other book written by Miller, a collection of
: the most atrocious short stories I've ever read. I've seen reference to
: one other book, although I've never seen it. I believe it was a
: nonfiction book on anatomy. A Canticle for Leibowitz is considered to
: be a SF classic, and apparently Miller was never able to write anything else
: worth while.
: Joe McWilliams The man who doesn't read good books has
: Dept. of Mathematics no advantage over the man who can't read
: SFASU them.
: Nacogdoches, TX -- Mark Twain --
I've always taken most of this book to have the same (or at least
similar) meaning and I found this book to be one of the most moving that
I've read in the science fiction field. It may suprise Joe, however, to
learn that Walter M. Miller Jr. was converted to Catholicism when he was
25 years old (see THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE FICTION, Clute/Nichols, St.
Martins Griffins, 11-95, pp 809-810). He wrote over 40 short stories but
only the one novel A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ, which won the 1961 Hugo
award for Best Novel. He also won the Hugo for Best Novelette for his
story "The Darfstellar" in 1955 (the first Hugo for Best Novelette). In
May, 1980 Pocket Books released THE BEST OF WALTER M. MILLER JR. which
contains about 15 of his short pieces.
One thing I kept in mind when I was reading A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ was
the stated theme of Jame's Blish's "After Such Knoweledge" trilogy:
Is the desire for secular knowledge, let alone the acquisition and use of
it, a misuse of the mind, and perhaps even actively evil?
There are several novels I can think of that touch upon this theme
A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ
by Walter M. Miller Jr.
BLACK EASTER
THE DAY AFTER JUDGEMENT
A CASE OF CONSCIENCE
by James Blish
(these are three of the four volumes in the "After Such Knoweledge"
trilogy - I don't mention DR. MIRABILIS because I haven't read it)
THE LONG TOMORROW
by Leigh Brackett
All of these novels are similar in the use of this theme.
THE LONG TOMORROW and A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ are both post apocalyptic
and deal with the theme through the rebuilding of society and the "After
Such Knoweledge" books and A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ are similar because
they both deal very deeply with religion.
It may also interest you to know that at one point in time or another
Miller was planning a sequel to A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ. The last line
in the entry in THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE FICTION says:
"A sequel is projected for publication in the early 1990s."
Since the 90s are almost 2/3ds gone I can only assume that the project
got stalled (Miller would be about 74 by now) or yeilded unsatisfactory
results or is still in the works. Although I generally loathe multi part
works, I am interested in seeing how this one turns out. I only hope
that if it is not any good that it will not be bad enough to distract my
feelings towards the first novel.
George H. Williams
you can e-mail me at my wife's account at
huf...@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu
please put FOR GEORGE in the subject line
Mike Gannis
<djd...@mpdsrv.pacbell.com> wrote:
:(Remember, by the way, that this is all predicated on "if Catholicism
:is true." Blish himself was not a Catholic, though, if I recall, he
:converted late in life to the Anglican church. At any rate, "if
:Catholicism is true" is as acceptable a premise for a what-if story as
:any other. . .
:
:Indeed, Catholicism seems to appeal to SF writers for some reason;
:priests in particular seem to be favorite characters from Clarke's
:"The Star" to Boucher's "Quest for St. Aquin" to Simmons' HYPERION.)
For a more hopeful note, there's Randall Garrett's _Unwise_Child_,
which is set in a society that has "proved the truth of Christianity
by symbolic logic" ... Pretty much Catholic/Anglican Christianity, by
Garrett's description of it.
Steve Patterson
>
>For a more hopeful note, there's Randall Garrett's _Unwise_Child_,
>which is set in a society that has "proved the truth of Christianity
>by symbolic logic" ... Pretty much Catholic/Anglican Christianity, by
>Garrett's description of it.
Heck, his entire "Lord D'arcy" series is predicated on a mathematically
self-consistant, proveable theology. (That's how magic works in the
series.)
---
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
<BRAG>Creator and maintainer of the Legions of Steel Web Page!</BRAG>
http://www.hookup.net/~losglobl
James Nicoll
section the same as the name of the fellow who led the Israelites into the
Promised Land? Is there some signficance to that?
James Nicoll
--
" The moral, if you're a scholar don't pick up beautiful babes on deserted
lanes at night. Real Moral, Chinese ghost stories have mostly been written
by scholars who have some pretty strange fantasies about women."
Brian David Phillips
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
>For a more hopeful note, there's Randall Garrett's _Unwise_Child_,
aka _Starship Death_ (1962).
>which is set in a society that has "proved the truth of Christianity
>by symbolic logic" ... Pretty much Catholic/Anglican Christianity, by
>Garrett's description of it.
Now, I am not making any far-reaching claims, but it might - just *might*
- have something to do with the fact that Garrett spent part of his life
(post-1962) as a priest :)
J. Louis Campbell III
>
> Joseph McWilliams (mcwi...@euler.sfasu.edu) wrote:
> : On 30 Mar 1996, Marcus Ogden wrote:
>
> : >
> : > I've just finished "A Canticle For Leibowitz" by Walter
> : > Miller, and I have to admit I'm totally at a loss as to
> : > what Miller is trying to say.
> : >
> : > [big snip of posts & followups]
> : >
>
> the stated theme of Jame's Blish's "After Such Knoweledge" trilogy:
>
> Is the desire for secular knowledge, let alone the acquisition and use of
> it, a misuse of the mind, and perhaps even actively evil?
>
>
Thank you for confirming that piece of the puzzle. After reading Joe's
analysis I went back through the Canticle and saw many proofs for his
interpretation, proofs I had completely overlooked the first. Steve's
analysis was skillful, as well, though I could not understand why part
2, Fiat Lux, was about blasphemy, unless knowledge itself is blasphemy.
That is such a large pill to swallow I had trouble accepting it. But
the question you put from Blish clarifies it. And then the last section
of the Canticle, Fiat Voluntas Tua, Let Thy Will Be Done, falls right
into place.
Thanks to all the participants in the Canticle for Leibowitz thread. It
has been thoroughly enjoyable!
Louis
J. Louis Campbell III
>
>
>
> Many thanks to all who wrote me that part II was called `Fiat Voluntas
> Tua.' I had been scraping thru my miserable collection of Latin stuff
> looking for a correct translation, but J. Louis kindly solved the problem
> for me.
>
Thank you, Steve, but lest I too be guilty of hubris let me quickly say
that I originally had the translation of Fiat Voluntas Tua wrong, and
someone else posted a gentle correction. To that person, I channel your
gratitude.
Louis
J. Louis Campbell III
>
> > Faye Huff wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > One thing I kept in mind when I was reading A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ was
> > > the stated theme of Jame's Blish's "After Such Knoweledge" trilogy:
> > >
> > > Is the desire for secular knowledge, let alone the acquisition and use of
> > > it, a misuse of the mind, and perhaps even actively evil?
>
> very disappointed. When I first read it, I found it refreshing that the
> literal theological aspects (though I contend that Rachel was not in fact
> free from Original Sin) could have been explained non-divinely. It looked
> like the book did not actually say that "God exists," just "These
> characters think God exists."
>
> However, now that it looks like textual elements attack the space
> travellers and call mankind evil for doing what they think is right, I
> am somewhat disappointed. God is evil in the book. This is a nice
> ambiguity. But the only exploration we get of this is Rachel's other half
> forgiving God for his sins. It seems more important than this to me.
>
> But I can't REALLY fault a book for not writing about the things I would
> like to read about. Canticle was a good read, an interesting book. I will
> be able to find others that go deeper.
>
> --
> jeremy <*> afn3...@afn.org ("How can a poet commit suicide"--S. Smith)
Jeremy, I wonder if you would share your reasons for contending that
Rachel was not free from original sin.
I'm still chewing on your suggestion that God is evil in the book. I
had forgotten that the dead head forgave God his sins - interesting.
I would certainly agree that religious fundamentalism (by which I mean
any religion which is extreme, absolute, fanatical, masochistic,
sadistic, unforgiving, unloving) comes out as evil. Humanity is made to
suffer through nuclear holocausts which kill millions, destroy
civilizations, and poison the planet Earth because of something called
original sin.
Louis
Steve Simmons
>Steve's
>analysis was skillful, as well, though I could not understand why part
>2, Fiat Lux, was about blasphemy, unless knowledge itself is blasphemy.
>That is such a large pill to swallow I had trouble accepting it.
I put the word `blasphemy' in quotes because it wasn't clear to me that
it was the right word. After more thought, I'll now say it was wrong --
it was hubris. In saying that I mean both that it was a sin of pride
as defined in Christian tradition, and also the overweening pride that
fells so many in Greek tragedy.
The pride is that a man has, by choosing the same command God used in
creating the world, compared his relatively minor feat to that of God.
There was little creation done in the lighting of the lamp; and the
lighters failed miserably to acknowledge both the shoulders of those who
previously invented, and those who preserved the knowledge.
>And then the last section
>of the Canticle, Fiat Voluntas Tua, Let Thy Will Be Done, falls right
>into place.
Many thanks to all who wrote me that part II was called `Fiat Voluntas
Tua.' I had been scraping thru my miserable collection of Latin stuff
looking for a correct translation, but J. Louis kindly solved the problem
for me.
Yes, the section titles are key. In my earlier posting I suggested that
those who fled the war became separated from God, while those who remained
lived (or died) in the world of the Second Coming. The war is another
trial that God has brought, and those who endure its suffering and offer
their pain to God will be comforted by his return. `Let Thy Will Be Done'
but trust that God will indeed bring the messiah again. If God has said
that he will do something, he will do it. Who is man to presume he has
the ability to destroy a world God is not done with? `Sic transit gloria
mundi' is as prideful as `fiat lux', and those who said it are lost. The
buzzards who grew fat on every earlier disaster sicken and die. The fish,
symbol of Christianity, lives on in spite of lean times. There are few
who have survived, but they have followed Gods will and will be rewarded.
Since my previous posting I had a chance to check up on a theological
point. According to Catholic tradition, Mary was free of original sin
and Jesus was born of this pure vessel. In `Canticle', Rachel is born
not from a sex act, but emerged from Mrs. Grayles' shoulder long after
Mrs. Grayles birth. Rachel is therefore without original sin, and
confirms this by her reaction to the attempted baptism. Her child, like
Marys, will be the messiah.
I also wanted to echo J. Louis' thanks to the folks in the group. My
r.a.sf.written reading is usually 50% killfiled, but the occasional
discussions like this make it worth reading. It's also utterly amazing to
me that I remember this much of the book after 18 years. That tells you
what kind of an author Miller is. I strongly urge anyone who hasn't read
`Canticle' to get a copy immediately.
Jeremy P Lakatos
> >
> >
> > One thing I kept in mind when I was reading A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ was
> > the stated theme of Jame's Blish's "After Such Knoweledge" trilogy:
> >
> > Is the desire for secular knowledge, let alone the acquisition and use of
> > it, a misuse of the mind, and perhaps even actively evil?
Wow. Yes, it does seem like a logical theme for Canticle as well. I am
Marcus Ogden
>
>However, now that it looks like textual elements attack the space
>travellers and call mankind evil for doing what they think is right, I
>am somewhat disappointed. God is evil in the book. This is a nice
>ambiguity. But the only exploration we get of this is Rachel's other half
>forgiving God for his sins. It seems more important than this to me.
I have to agree. I was the one that originally started this thread, because
I was confused as to what the last part of the book meant. Then a few
people explained it to me, and I could see that the reason I didn't follow
it was because I wasn't thinking like a Christian (or, perhaps, like Miller
thinks a Christian should). I knew I didn't agree with Miller's diatribe
against euthanasia, but it turns out the dying woman and her child are far
from the only ones who are acting in good faith, but acting wrongly in the
eyes of God (according to Miller). I find this depressing and disturbing -
as you say, Jeremy, God is evil in this book. If Christians think this is
how a God ought to behave, then I am even more glad I am not a Christian.
>But I can't REALLY fault a book for not writing about the things I would
>like to read about. Canticle was a good read, an interesting book.
True, true and true. I'm certainly glad I read it!
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Marcus Ogden | beepilepsy, n. the series of |
|-------------------| convulsions a person goes through |
| <mw...@cam.ac.uk> | when their mobile phone goes off |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Steve Simmons
>However, now that it looks like textual elements attack the space
>travellers and call mankind evil for doing what they think is right, I
>am somewhat disappointed. God is evil in the book. This is a nice
>ambiguity. But the only exploration we get of this is Rachel's other half
>forgiving God for his sins. It seems more important than this to me.
Within the scope of Catholic theology, the space travellers are committing
a sin by refusing to bear the cross they have been given. That's a
different thing than calling them evil. And in no case is all of mankind
called evil. I think Jeremy is applying his own reaction rather than the
Catholic mindset Miller used in the book.
As for `God is evil in the book,' well, that gets into the whole
problem of pain. Within the scope the book, which is within the scope
of Catholic theology, Gods actions are not evil.
We've been discussing `Canticle' and how Catholic theology permeates and
to some degree explains it. But outside of that scope is also outside of
the scope of r.a.sf.written, so I'm not getting into either Jeremys
reactions to Catholic theology or the problem of pain. On the latter, I
recommend C.S.Lewis' fine book of the same title.
Jeremy P Lakatos
> Jeremy, I wonder if you would share your reasons for contending that
> Rachel was not free from original sin.
Original sin is genetically passed on from human to human. Rachel was made
from the genetic structure of a human. That she grew out of tissues other
ovary does not eliminate her relation to humankind.
Jeremy P Lakatos
> Within the scope of Catholic theology, the space travellers are committing
> a sin by refusing to bear the cross they have been given. That's a
> different thing than calling them evil. And in no case is all of mankind
Christian definition of evil: containing sin (which makes one unlike God).
> As for `God is evil in the book,' well, that gets into the whole
A more human definition of evil: causing pain.
I take the second viewpoint, so Canticle, shown to be Catholic, is morally
reprehensible. Thus, a sudden disappointment (before the group's
demonstration, I did not have to excuse the theme).
Joseph McWilliams
> Steve Simmons wrote:
> >
> > Many thanks to all who wrote me that part II was called `Fiat Voluntas
> > Tua.' I had been scraping thru my miserable collection of Latin stuff
> > looking for a correct translation, but J. Louis kindly solved the problem
> > for me.
>
> Thank you, Steve, but lest I too be guilty of hubris let me quickly say
> that I originally had the translation of Fiat Voluntas Tua wrong, and
> someone else posted a gentle correction. To that person, I channel your
> gratitude.
>
> Louis
>
I have truly enjoyed the analysis of A Canticle for Leibowitz over the
past few days for a number of reasons.
First, it's my favorite SF novel and I love talking about it.
Second, I've seen many new interpretations of Millers ideas.
And third, and most importantly, the exchanges have been both scholarly
and gracious as exemplified by the two posters above, Steve and Louis.
My thanks to the both of you, and to the others who contributed to this
thread. I would hope that this discussion of Leibowitz will serve as a
model for the manner in which we all should conduct ourselves on this and
other discussion groups.
Joe McWilliams
Adam Bridge
<jl...@psu.edu> wrote:
Darn......I missed this discussion. I hope when everyone looked at
Canticle and Catholic theology that they remembered it was written
pre-Vatican II. I'm not Catholic but my wife and children are. In their
discussions this element is especially important.
I didn't get to read the posting about "God is evil" which I would like
to. It has been my interpretation that Canticle plays out exactly all
issues regarding free will and the necessity for freedom so humankind can
choose to act, and be, and become closer to God.
Regards,
Adam Bridge
J. Louis Campbell III
>
> In article <316710...@psu.edu>, "J. Louis Campbell III"
> <jl...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
> Darn......I missed this discussion. I hope when everyone looked at
> Canticle and Catholic theology that they remembered it was written
> pre-Vatican II. I'm not Catholic but my wife and children are. In their
> discussions this element is especially important.
>
anyone mentioned Vatican II. I read the Vatican II documents many years
ago and know that Vatican II marked what some consider a progressive
turn in Catholicism. But I wonder what you mean when you say it's
important to know that the Canticle was written pre-Vatican II?
Louis
Adam Bridge
<jl...@psu.edu> wrote:
At the end where the priests are telling parents to offer their dying
children's suffering up to God. That's a sentiment from an earlier Church
than todays. I cannot defend that, precisely, but I'm going to ask a few
questions and see where the fundamental difference lies.
Adam