A Canticle for Leibowitz and sequels; opinions

[Tanegashima]

Anybody have any opinions on a Canticle for Leibowitz and its very recent sequels? I know Walter Miller killed himself about ten years ago, but I read that he wrote a sequel or two to a Canticle right around the time he died...

[GOLLUM]

Well this book won the Hugo in 1951 and I can see why. It grapples several issues including euthenasia and abortion head on and is a wonderfully crafted novel with some memorable prose and extremely well drawn characters an even more memorable ending. Widely regarded as one of the best post-holocaust stories ever penned this is a deserved classic.

What you are referring to is a second novel called Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horse Woman that was begun by Miller before his death and completed from Miller's notes by Terry Bisson. It's not so much a sequel as a filler between the second and third installments of Canticle. I've not read it, it would be interesting to hear from anyone who has.

[GOLLUM]

Here's a link to Bisson's recollection of the events. Sadly he never got to meet Miller.

Miller Job Story

[Ian Whates]

I'm with you, Gollum. Canticle is a remarkable book that deals with a number of issues cleverly and effectively, and manages to be highly entertaining along the way. Anything this good, which is, at times, this funny, and still manages to make some profound points, deserves all the plaudits it receives.

The very idea that after civilisation's fall, humaniuty might claw its way back via records and artefacts stored by a religious movement rather than by government or scientists is a stroke of genius, and the shopping list... oh, that shopping list...

I've never read Wild Horse Women either, although I do own a copy, and it's on the list... but this is a pretty long list we're talking about here.

[j. d. worthington]

I have read Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horse Woman... and was not at all impressed. It has its moments, but it meanders terribly, is flabby, has nothing of the structure or impact of the original, and was, IMO, a mediocre book at best. I enjoy other writing by Miller, so I had expected to at least find this one of some interest, but this is one of the few times I had to actually force myself to finish a book of that length....

[GOLLUM]

Thanks for the warning JD...

[j. d. worthington]

My advice (as there are people who quite like it) is to give the first portion of it a go and, if it appeals, then read the rest. You could find it fascinating. I was simply giving my own experience with the book above... I just found the writing to be rather shapeless and nondescript, along with a feeling of there not really being any point to it all, but lacking the charm of a picaresque or Bildungsroman....

[Addy]

That piece by Bisson is quite nice. Haven't read the sequel to Leibovitz, though.

[brsrkrkomdy]

I read A Canticle For Leibowitz. It's definitely a classic. I also have the sequel. So I will let you guys know. I'm well aware that this was not Miller's best. I kinda figured Miller wasn't concentrating terribly on his writing due to his bouts of depression. It's even doubly sad he never finished it 'cuz of his suicide.

What I liked best about "A Canticle" is its delving deeper into issues of not just censorship but of history that threatens to repeat itself when humanity continues its doomed path of ignorance. Plus what will happen when knowledge gets used for base ends and therefore repeats the same mistakes humanity's ancestor made centuries ago.

[blueyedmule]

Originally Posted by Ian Whates

The very idea that after civilisation's fall, humanity might claw its way back via records and artefacts stored by a religious movement rather than by government or scientists is a stroke of genius. . .

Isn't it very much a historical view of the decline of the Roman Empire transposed into the future? Monasteries were the repository of academia during the so-called Dark Ages. Monks not only kept academic knowledge, but taught it and also explored it. They became our scientists, our linguists, our historians, our teachers.

I think Mr. Miller was a student of history in this respect, and though clever enough to project the past onto the future, he wasn't genius to invent something from whole cloth which had never happened before.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by blueyedmule

Isn't it very much a historical view of the decline of the Roman Empire transposed into the future? Monasteries were the repository of academia during the so-called Dark Ages. Monks not only kept academic knowledge, but taught it and also explored it. They became our scientists, our linguists, our historians, our teachers.

I think Mr. Miller was a student of history in this respect, and though clever enough to project the past onto the future, he wasn't genius to invent something from whole cloth which had never happened before.

This was a theme fairly common with sf writers of that generation -- Asimov used it in the Foundation stories (with strong modifications, of course), for instance..... Miller's take also comes from the fact he was converted to Catholicism, and took a very lapsarian view, including the idea that -- until we utterly wiped ourselves out -- we would continue repeating the same pattern of rise from ignorance to a high civilization, then making the same ghastly mistakes over and over, especially the more secular we became. Even though I strongly disagree with much of his premise, he did write a superb book on the theme, and one that can be read and enjoyed by anyone who enjoys good literature, whether or not it's science fiction....

[andrew.v.spencer]

I remember reading Canticle. I found it moving and sad, and it had the shadow of what seemed to me some pale truth. Though I knew what was happening at the end, I still found myself saying outloud "No," as history repeated itself.

[D_Davis]

I finished the first book a while ago, and I really liked it. Here is my review if anyone cares to read it:

A Canticle for Leibowitz is Walter M. Miller's post-apocalyptic science fiction masterpiece. It is wholly unlike any post-apocalyptic book or film I have ever read or seen. It is not populated with disparately armored road-warriors fighting for water or gasoline, or mutant-monsters blood-thirsty for human flesh, or clans of horsemen waging war on one another in barbaric and violent fashions. While there are rumors and mumblings of these sorts of actions and cliche, Leibowitz is, smartly, devoid of almost every convention this particular sub-genre is known for.

Instead, the book focuses on the most unlikely of heroes: a small group of new-Catholic monks living in an abbey in Utah after the great deluge of fire and destruction. Miller traces the course of new-human history through the monks' -- who work as “bookleggers” and memorizers of the Memorabilia, relics, trinkets, and things from a time long ago -- point of view: a journey spanning thousands of years. The narrative moves from the time known as The Simplification, a new dark age where literacy and scholarly knowledge are punishable by death, through a new time of reformation and enlightenment, and into the distant future where technology, spacecrafts, and nuclear-knowledge again cause humanity to repeat their past mistakes.

At it's core, Leibowitz deals, quite effectively, with ideas of religion, science, faith, and humanity, and how all of these aspects mesh to form our perception of society. It deals with the misappropriation of scientific knowledge, and the superstitious ways of religion. However, it never conjures a voice of cynicism towards these differing points of view. While there is clearly a message hidden within the wonderfully written prose, Miller never comes off as being preachy, and neither condemns, nor condones the scientists or the men of God. He simply presents his lofty ideas in a highly readable and approachable manner and allows the narrative to unfold with nary a hint of manipulation or pulpit-pounding.

As a huge fan of religious science fiction, I was shocked when I recently discovered this book; shocked because I had never even once heard of it. In many ways, I feel as if Leibowitz was tailor made for me. I identified strongly with the central characters (especially Brother Francis and Father Zerchi) and their endearing motivation to preserve spiritual and worldly knowledge for the good of all mankind. As the keepers of the Memorabilia, items that, given enough study, could unlock the secrets of the past, secrets that, if in the wrong hands, could once again spell disaster, the monks are treated with respect, and are charged with a great deal of responsibility. So, too, are the worldly scholars, and when the two factions collide in an exchange of wits and mental sparring, I was filled with a great deal of admiration for the way in which Miller presents the clash of ideologies. The so called battle “between religion and science” has always been an absurd idea to me, as I see these ideologies sharing a symbiotic relationship. Each asks and answers different questions, and both science and religion are needed to form a well-rounded and healthy society.

Before reading Miller's book, I did read some critical reviews, and the majority of these presented a picture that was quite unlike the book I ended up reading. A Canticle for Leibowitz is a highly regarded novel; as the winner of the Hugo award, and a book read in science fiction classes in schools, there seems to be a great deal of posturing about the book's “literary” importance and significance by nefariously painting it as an overly serious work. Many of the reviews I read portrayed Miller's book as being a Pynchon-esque, impenetrable tome of immense density, and so I was wary of the read. However, within the first few pages of the first part (this is actually a novel made up of three interconnected novellas, which seems to be a trend in the books I am now reading), I was amazed to find how incredibly funny the book is; at times, it is downright hilarious.

I was led to believe that this would be a dark, callous, and disturbing read, detailing the follies of humanity birthed from our unwillingness to learn from past mistakes. And while this theme of repeating history is the central driving force behind the narrative, Miller's book is teeming with genuine humor, passion, sorrow, and empathy for humanity. While reading this, I was constantly reminded of two other works, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain. I was reminded of Adam's great book in the way that Miller uses humor to underline and punctuate the absurd and confounding nature of mankind. And while the two works are similar in tone, Leibowitz lacks the cynicism of Hitchhikers, and comes across as a more positive look at humanity.

Conversely, I was reminded of The Fountain because, while the two share slightly similar themes, Miller's book possesses many of the qualities that Aronofsky's film is missing.. In my review for the film, I wrote, “Many things we humans do are funny, laugh out loud funny even. As we bumble through this life, we often make mistakes, and are constantly hitting walls and stumbling blocks in our personal journeys. If we do not take the time to stop, and laugh, and get a good healthy chuckle at our own expense, the lessons learned will only serve to torture and beat us down. I felt as if Aronofsky was beating down his characters by giving them but a scant few moments to be human and fully embrace the joys of life.” Miller's book does this; it allows the characters, doomed as they are to repeat their mistakes, a chance to experience more of what life has to offer. Miller's book does not end on a happy note, the final pages are upsetting, but it does give its readers ample opportunities to experience laughter, along with a wide variety of emotions in the midst of its narrative encrusted with tragedy and frustration.

[Tobytwo]

I've recently finished Liebowitz and I was very impressed. Despite its cyclic, rather fatalistic view of history and human nature, it seems to have a balanced view of people: some of them certainly do good things.

In particular I was impressed by the even-handed treatment of religion, especially Catholicism. I'm not religious, but religious feeling or something like it are very important to almost everyone, myself included. Too often SF writers (especially in the Golden Age) assume that religion is just a childish urge that mankind must put aside to avoid destroying itself (I have a feeling this can be traced back to Wells). Miller turns this around by making religion the element that holds onto mankind's inheritance of civilisation when the world around has fallen apart. In this way the monks appear rather heroic.

The final part of the book raises an interesting question of its own by pitting the noble and rather otherworldly abbot against the humane but very down-to-Earth doctor. By removing pain from the world, does the human spirit lose something good? A very tricky question.

Overall, I was impressed to read a work of SF that considered religion as something more complex than time-wasting or mad witch-hunting. As an earlier post said, Miller isn't preachy and gives no easy answers. It's solid stuff.

[aussie3]

I haven't read the book but I bought an mp3 version of A Canticle For Liebowitz on ebay months ago (I have a collection of old radio shows and a few classics like this). It was a fabulous listen and I can recommend everyone to look for it on ebay. Just type in the title (and no, I'm not selling it, just recommending it) - you'll probably have to search in title and text.