A Canticle for Liebowitz - reader's group

[D_Davis]

Alright, So Aram (over at Icine, in the sci-fi thread) and I will be reading A Canticle for Liebowitz in about a week, and I would like to extend the invite to anyone who so desires to read this along with us. This book is often cited as one of great literary importance, genre or not, and is acclaimed as one of the all time great novels of speculative fiction. It is also, from what I gather, incredibly dense and complex, and is often compared to the work of Pynchon. So grab a copy, and let's all read this together!

Here is a synopsis of the first part, Fiat Homo (the novel is comprised of three connected novellas), taken from wiki:


It is set in an abbey in Utah after a devastating nuclear war, and takes place at intervals hundreds of years apart as civilization rebuilds itself. The plot combines elements of dark comedy with more serious examinations of the issues surrounding faith, knowledge, and power. The book was inspired by the author's witnessing of the destruction of the monastery at Monte Cassino during World War II.

In the 26th century, Brother Francis Gerard of Utah, a novice training to become a monk, is sent out from the Abbey of the Albertian Order of Leibowitz on a Lenten mission of "penance, solitude, and silence" in the desert. While there, Francis encounters a traveler, who points out a rock that might help Francis complete the shelter he is building. In moving this rock, Francis discovers the entrance to an ancient fallout shelter containing "relics", such as handwritten notes on crumbling memo pads bearing cryptic texts like "pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels–bring home for Emma". Brother Francis soon realizes that these notes appear to have been written by his order's founder, the Blessed Leibowitz himself.

The discovery of the ancient documents causes an uproar at the monastery, as the other monks see the traveler as a miraculous sign from their patron. This leads Francis into conflict with Abbot Arkos, the head of the monastery, who worries that the discovery of so many miraculous signs in such a short period may cause problems with Leibowitz's canonization. In order to prevent such enthusiasm, he shows outward disfavor towards Francis, forcing him to remain as a novice for seven additional years. Francis does not become a full brother until New Rome approves the validity of the relics and begins formally advancing the case for Leibowitz's sainthood.


If anyone here feels like reading and discussing this with us, just let me know. I'll post more details as they are solidified.

[megladon8]

That sounds very interesting, D, and I think I'll be finishing my current read right around the time that you guys are starting.

So yeh, count me in!

[Melville]

Wow, I've actually read a book that D_Davis is reading! Cool.

[Benny Profane]

Love the idea, but can't pull through for this go-round. Not because I'm disinterested in the book, I just have other obligations.

[D_Davis]

Wow, I've actually read a book that D_Davis is reading! Cool.

What did you think, without any details of course... :)

So, for those of you that will be reading this with us, or for those of you who have already read it and would like to discuss it, here is a link to the thread:

http://icine.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13179

We'll probably be starting sometime next week.

[Melville]

What did you think, without any details of course... :)
I thought it was pretty good. It has a moderately interesting presentation of society's historical progression, and it's consistently entertaining. But I wouldn't expect too much from it density- and complexity-wise; it's a fairly breezy read, as I recall.

[D_Davis]

I thought it was pretty good. It has a moderately interesting presentation of society's historical progression, and it's consistently entertaining. But I wouldn't expect too much from it density- and complexity-wise; it's a fairly breezy read, as I recall.

Cool - it seems quite funny to me, and kind of absurd, which is something I enjoy. I like breezy reads that offer density in terms of ideas rather than prose. This is something that I have always enjoyed about PKD. He conveys these dense and novel ideas through incredibly accessible prose.

Although, many sci-fi critics do consider this to be a densely written book, so maybe it is on a relative scale or something.

I don't really care, so long as it is good. ;)

Why did you read this, what piqued your interest?

[megladon8]

I'm all excited to read this now :)

[Melville]

Why did you read this, what piqued your interest?
I read it without ever having heard anything about it. When I was in my preteens my father gave me a box of his old books, and I read them over the next several years based either on the descriptions on their back covers or on recommendations from other family members. I think I read this one based on the back cover; at the time, I was really interested in sci-fi and fantasy novels.

[D_Davis]

I read it without ever having heard anything about it. When I was in my preteens my father gave me a box of his old books, and I read them over the next several years based either on the descriptions on their back covers or on recommendations from other family members. I think I read this one based on the back cover; at the time, I was really interested in sci-fi and fantasy novels.

My mom actually got me into sci-fi, with C.S. Lewis's trilogy, and fantasy with The Hobbit. God bless her.

[D_Davis]

I'm all excited to read this now :)

Me too - I'll be done with The Gods Themselves, which is excellent by the way (I will definitely be reading more Asimov), this weekend.

[Mysterious Dude]

Here's my story about Canticle for Liebowitz. In one of my English classes in high school, we were supposed to read a book of our choice and write an essay about it. I chose Canticle for Liebowitz, but I never read it, so I just made up a story for my essay. It was the last assignment of the year. I never did find out if I got away with it.

This concludes my useless anecdote. I apologize for wasting your time.

[megladon8]

Me too - I'll be done with The Gods Themselves, which is excellent by the way (I will definitely be reading more Asimov), this weekend.


I have tons of Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke in my book shelf which I haven't even touched :cry:

[Melville]

My mom actually got me into sci-fi, with C.S. Lewis's trilogy, and fantasy with The Hobbit. God bless her.
My mother read The Hobbit to me when I was really young. She read only one or two pages a day, and accumulated a massive library fine by the time we finished the book. Then we lost it and had to pay for the library's replacement. When we eventually found the book, which was a very nice hardcover, illustrated edition, the cover had somehow fallen off and the dustjacket was nowhere to be found. I taped the cover back on, and almost twenty years later I still have that copy sitting on my shelf.

[megladon8]

My mom actually got me into sci-fi, with C.S. Lewis's trilogy, and fantasy with The Hobbit. God bless her.


What were the titles in C.S. Lewis' sci-fi trilogy?

I thought he only wrote fantasy.

[Melville]

What were the titles in C.S. Lewis' sci-fi trilogy?

I thought he only wrote fantasy.
This wasn't addressed to me, but I assume Davis was talking about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Trilogy

[megladon8]

This wasn't addressed to me, but I assume Davis was talking about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Trilogy


Ah, thank you.

I had never heard of any of these.

[D_Davis]

Here's my story about Canticle for Liebowitz. In one of my English classes in high school, we were supposed to read a book of our choice and write an essay about it. I chose Canticle for Liebowitz, but I never read it, so I just made up a story for my essay. It was the last assignment of the year. I never did find out if I got away with it.

This concludes my useless anecdote. I apologize for wasting your time.

That's awesome.

[D_Davis]

Ah, thank you.

I had never heard of any of these.

I like them more than the Narnia books. They're pretty dang good.

[megladon8]

My mother read The Hobbit to me when I was really young. She read only one or two pages a day, and accumulated a massive library fine by the time we finished the book. Then we lost it and had to pay for the library's replacement. When we eventually found the book, which was a very nice hardcover, illustrated edition, the cover had somehow fallen off and the dustjacket was nowhere to be found. I taped the cover back on, and almost twenty years later I still have that copy sitting on my shelf.


I love stories like this. Books are wonderful memory-holders.

I don't know if you read my post many, many weeks ago - it was probably on the old forum - about finding books in my room which were signed by my great uncle (on my mom's side).

I gave them to her and she got pretty teary. I had never known anything about this uncle, and she told me that she was very, very close with him. He was a writer, and though manic-depressive, he was very sweet.

He ended up committing suicide at a fairly young age (I believe he was in his 30s), and my grandfather (his brother) was the one who found him.

It wasn't until just a few years ago that my grandfather was contacted by a lawyer who revealed that my great uncle - who had attended a Catholic school for boys, run by priests - was abused throughout his entire childhood at this school.

Anyways, it was just a very moving experience to find all of this out, and it was all because of a couple of old, dusty books I found at the back of my closet.

[D_Davis]

My mother read The Hobbit to me when I was really young. She read only one or two pages a day, and accumulated a massive library fine by the time we finished the book. Then we lost it and had to pay for the library's replacement. When we eventually found the book, which was a very nice hardcover, illustrated edition, the cover had somehow fallen off and the dustjacket was nowhere to be found. I taped the cover back on, and almost twenty years later I still have that copy sitting on my shelf.

That is an awesome story. The one I read as a kid was a HUGE coffee table edition with what seemed like hundreds of screenshots and gatefolds from the animated film. I still have this, and it is a beautiful book. I bet it's worth some money now.

I find that as a kid I read sci-fi for the Star Wars-like, space opera-y things, while as an adult I get more substance from it because I am now able to dissect the lofty ideas, and draw the parallels from the allegories. I wonder if you might find more density in ACL now, as apposed to when you read it as a youngster?

[D_Davis]

I have tons of Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke in my book shelf which I haven't even touched :cry:

After ACL, I will be reading Childhood's End by Clarke.

[megladon8]

After ACL, I will be reading Childhood's End by Clarke.


I've been recommended that one several times.

I'm beginning to think that maybe it's a good book.

:P

[lovejuice]

i'm interested. let's see if they have the book at my university bookstore.

actually i think this is a more practical idea than book swap. how's about the book of the month or something along that line?

[Melville]

I wonder if you might find more density in ACL now, as apposed to when you read it as a youngster?
It's possible.

[megladon8]

i'm interested. let's see if they have the book at my university bookstore.

actually i think this is a more practical idea than book swap. how's about the book of the month or something along that line?


I love that idea :)

Once a month would give people time to read other things, as well.

And each month a different user could choose the book we read.

That could be a lot of fun...great idea!

[SpaceOddity]

Ah, thank you.

I had never heard of any of these.


They're good.

*nods*

[D_Davis]

It's possible.

There are definitely different levels at which science fiction can be read. There is the entertaining, surface level, and then there is (at least in good science fiction) the deeper allegorical level, the level that examines the present through a future-pointed lens.

[Melville]

There are definitely different levels at which science fiction can be read. There is the entertaining, surface level, and then there is (at least in good science fiction) the deeper allegorical level, the level that examines the present through a future-pointed lens.
Oh, that level is definitely there in Liebowitz, and I was definitely old enough to pick up on it. But I might have missed some of its subtleties.

[lovejuice]

wth! all three main bookstores in my area don't have a copy!

[D_Davis]

wth! all three main bookstores in my area don't have a copy!

That sucks. I had to order mine from Amazon.

So we will be starting the book this weekend, if you want to discuss, come on by icine for a chat.

[megladon8]

Damn, I won't be able to start the book until like mid-next week.

I had to order mine from the American Amazon site.

[SpaceOddity]

*joins*

[megladon8]

So is it going to be OK for me to start the book late in the game?

[lovejuice]

sorry, guys, seem like i have to sit this one out. i'm not yet ready to order any book via amazon.

[D_Davis]

So is it going to be OK for me to start the book late in the game?

Yeah - that's fine.

[D_Davis]

*joins*

Coolio.

[lovejuice]

ha! turn out that fourth is the charm. finally i can find a copy. seem like i'm in.

[D_Davis]

ha! turn out that fourth is the charm. finally i can find a copy. seem like i'm in.

Awesome.

I am enjoying the book a great deal so far. I probably won't get a chance to read much this weekend, so you can get caught up. I've already posted a little message over at icine.

[lovejuice]

so i finally pull myself out of the slump and finish the rebel angels. i'll read this book next.

[megladon8]

I haven't read any of the book yet, but I read the introduction today.

The first page is quite funny, discussing literary snobs and how utterly ridiculous they are with their whole feeling of superiority because they read "literature", not "fiction".

She says she even went to a publishing firm to find out exactly what separates "fiction" from "literature" in the publishing world.

They told he that, during the publishing process, if any editor has to look up 3 or more words from the book, it is put under "literature".

:rolleyes:

[D_Davis]

I haven't read any of the book yet, but I read the introduction today.

The first page is quite funny, discussing literary snobs and how utterly ridiculous they are with their whole feeling of superiority because they read "literature", not "fiction".

She says she even went to a publishing firm to find out exactly what separates "fiction" from "literature" in the publishing world.

They told he that, during the publishing process, if any editor has to look up 3 or more words from the book, it is put under "literature".

:rolleyes:

Yeah - this intro reminded me of something I might write. It's genre-apologetics, and well written.

It's like an extended version of my opening for my review of The Demolished Man:


As much as I am a champion of genre related things, there are some problems with these classifications. One of the main problems stems from the stigma those outside of the appeal of genre often thrust upon books associated with a particular genre. That is to say, those who read only “literature” rarely, if ever, travel within the genre-ghettos, even if it means they may miss some truly great and profound works of fiction. Place a book in the science fiction section of a book store and you automatically dictate the majority of your audience, while simultaneously ostracizing a large portion of potential readers. One book that has suffered tremendously from these genre barriers is Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man, which is an illustrious example of fiction regardless of where one happens to find it shelved.

I am more than half way through ACL, and I would never think of classifying this as science fiction.

[megladon8]

I read the first two chapters on the bus today, and I am already completely taken by the story.

A really cool concept.

[lovejuice]

done. i will not write a review. probably just bounce around people's idea.

i really like it uptil the last section. i understand miller's intension to portray men as prone to repeat mistakes of the past, so this futuristic -- as opposed to post-apocalyptic -- setting is necessary, but it really takes away from wonderful atmosphere previously set. although the book is through out tinted with humor, this part starts to get quite silly.

my complain is mainly based on how much i love the middle section. it is a romance/fantasy with magic and barbarism. yet realistic enough you can imagine the time period to be the actual middle age. miller also has a way with fusing politic, science, and religion. quite disappointed he doesn't do anything further with this setting. i really like that the church becomes the keeper of knowledge. how ironic!

[D_Davis]

I just started the final section, so I will be ready to discuss soon.

[D_Davis]

So, the discussion never really started over at Icine, so here is what I posted there regarding some of the first part.

Out of the 2 I have read, I like it the best.

So, after finishing the first part of three of A Canticle for Leibowitz, I have to see that I have been pleasantly surprised. I never imagined that this book would be so funny and entertaining. It's a page turner, what some might call a "good yarn." Everything I had read about this book made out sound like some impenetrable tome of immense density, and while it is teeming with ideas and nuanced characterizations, it is not a tough nut to crack. As a matter of fact, the prose is inviting, and easily embraced.

Brother Francis is such an awesome character. I love his humility and his perseverance. His many conversations with the abbots of his monastery are incredible funny:

"You are seventeen and plainly an idiot, are you not?"

"That is undoubtedly true, m'Lord Abbot."

http://icine.org/forums/images/smiles/rolling9ml.gif

I also enjoyed the brief passage describing the strange cult that swallows parts of "body of the god," the fabled Machina analytica. That is, these shaman swallow transistors like pills and they have convinced their followers that these pills grant them the knowledge of the old technology.

And I enjoyed how Miller so effortlessly encapsulates the milieu of organized religion. First of all, I respect that the main goal of these monks is to preserve knowledge. That the nuclear disaster was followed by a time of great stupidity, the Simplification, is a great concept. With the monks being "bookleggers" it is nice to see them granted a great deal of respect. However, as we move up the ladder into the more churchly leaders, we find more malaise and more corruption. That is, the basic followers of the religion are truly righteous and spiritual, and they want to do right by their religion, while the leaders are nothing but figureheads and politicians hiding behind the cloth. Really good stuff here.

Sorry for the randomness of these thoughts, but I haven't yet started putting everything together.

And what of the first par's ending? So blunt, and yet it seems so perfect.

[megladon8]

Yes, I loved that line about Francis being young and stupid :)

I just passed the part where he received a lashing because he refused to say that he hadn't seen the pilgrim in the desert.

[D_Davis]

A Canticle for Leibowitz (1960) - Walter M. Miller

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, 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 were 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 withing 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 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 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), 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. 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 I kept thinking about its themes, and how how I think that film would have been better had it embraced a wider breadth of human emotion. 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, to experience much of what life has to offer. Miller's book does not end on a happy note, 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.

[lovejuice]

just to flame the discussion. i particularly like a passage in which a character compares our civilization to a phoenix. bradbury also uses this analogy in Fahrenheit 451 to describe our ability to rebuild ourselves. miller, on the other hand, refers to our self-destructive potential. sorta interesting.

there's a lot to be liked in this book, even if i'm not a fan of the last part.

[D_Davis]

just to flame the discussion. i particularly like a passage in which a character compares our civilization to a phoenix. bradbury also uses this analogy in Fahrenheit 451 to describe our ability to rebuild ourselves. miller, on the other hand, refers to our self-destructive potential. sorta interesting.

there's a lot to be liked in this book, even if i'm not a fan of the last part.

Yes - I like this passage as well. It exemplifies the continual and dramatic rise and fall of humanity.

I am surprised that you don't like part 3, as it is easily my favorite. I like how it deals with total frustration, and yet it never delves into the realms of extreme cynicism. Father Zerchi is an incredible character, and the way he deals with his frustration rings with truth. He is fed up, but he never loses hope, something very important for a man of God. He does not condemn humanity, but instead he questions it's motives and lack of understanding. His conversations with Brother Joshua are also quite good, and I particularly like the one where Zerchi questions what Joshua is made of, but not in a pandering way. I also love the notion of sending monks and the Order into space to guard the Memorabilia. There is something highly romantic about this, especially as a man of faith myself.

The third part really ties all of the themes together, and I love how it is written.

[megladon8]

Officially finished the first part. Sorry it's taking me so long - it's the end of the semester so it's been pretty busy.

Really enjoying it. Some great humor and strong commentary about/against organized religion and its domination of "knowledge" throughout history.

[D_Davis]

Really enjoying it. Some great humor and strong commentary about/against organized religion and its domination of "knowledge" throughout history.

You really think it is against?

I don't think it really takes a stance, but, instead, it presents the facts and lets the reader make up his own mind. I bet that, because I have a much more positive attitude towards religion than you do, I don't quite see it as being "against" religion, but rather, it is just showing how some things are. I think it treats its characters with too much respect and admiration to simply be a rant against the powers that be.

[megladon8]

You really think it is against?

I don't think it really takes a stance, but, instead, it presents the facts and lets the reader make up his own mind. I bet that, because I have a much more positive attitude towards religion than you do, I don't quite see it as being "against" religion, but rather, it is just showing how some things are. I think it treats its characters with too much respect and admiration to simply be a rant against the powers that be.


Yes I think it's pretty cynical so far.

Especially the part where Francis is deciphering the blueprint, and decides that he doesn't like the look of the lettering, so he would scatter it all over the page in a symmetrical fashion to make it more appealing.

I thought this was quite a strong parallel to scriptures which have been translated hundreds and hundreds of times, yet people still look at them as absolute fact. So it's commenting on how there is no way that these religious scriptures are even close to what they were or were originally intended to be.

[D_Davis]

I didn't read an ounce of cynicism in the entire book. Everything seems very genuine and fair.

I look at the passage you brought up as an example of Francis injecting a bit of his own soul into his work as an artist might do on a painting, all done in an act of love and reverence for the original subject.

And it has be proven, rather profoundly, that the scriptures we have today in our religious texts are remarkably similar to what the original authors wrote. The translations are often times even more accurate than what we find in more modern translations of literature. I am sure Barty can give more concrete examples - he should be reading this book! ;)

But I don't think this was the point of Brother Francis' story. He was expressing his God-given artistic soul, and celebrating his love for his calling. I think it is quite beautiful and endearing, and not cynical at all.

I actually expected Miller to take a more cynical approach to the narrative, but I was shocked to find that it wasn't, at all. In many ways, the characters reminded me of the stuff I have read written by Father Thomas Merton in his book The Seven Storey Mountain.

[megladon8]

I guess perhaps my own personal beliefs and not-so-good opinion of religion taints my view a bit.


And it has be proven, rather profoundly, that the scriptures we have today in our religious texts are remarkably similar to what the original authors wrote. The translations are often times even more accurate than what we find in more modern translations of literature. I am sure Barty can give more concrete examples - he should be reading this book!

I have to say, though, that this is one of those things where it just depends who you talk to.

Both you and Barty are religious people, so of course you're going to have faith in the texts and their accuracy, and you're more likely to accept positive looks rather than negative ones.

I have a very hard time believing that the Bible is written now the same way it was written 1000 years ago.

I also have a big problem with it being taken in a literal context, but that's a whole other can of worms.

[D_Davis]

I have a very hard time believing that the Bible is written now the same way it was written 1000 years ago.

I also have a big problem with it being taken in a literal context, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Well, it's not really a matter of belief, but more of what scholars have discovered - both secular and religious. Now, exactly when the books were written, or by whom, might be up for debate, but the quality of the translations has largely been proven to be sound.

But,the legitimacy of what was originally written is, of course, the biggest debate of all, and this is where belief and faith come in! :)

I am one who also believes that a lot of all religious texts should not be read or interpreted literally, or at least one needs to filter what one reads through the world view of the time it was written, and then apply the core message to the time of the days. I think that any lasting religion needs to have an amount of fluidity, and needs to remain applicable in the here and now, thus extending itself into the future. To do so, we must filter what has been written through the times of today.

In some ways, I think that ACL touches upon this topic, and I really enjoyed this aspect. But what I enjoy most about ACL is the amount of respect and reverence Miller pays to his central characters. I can tell that he really respects these guys, and really wanted to get to the crux of the ridiculous and unnecessary battle between science and religion.

[megladon8]

In some ways, I think that ACL touches upon this topic, and I really enjoyed this aspect. But what I enjoy most about ACL is the amount of respect and reverence Miller pays to his central characters. I can tell that he really respects these guys, and really wanted to get to the crux of the ridiculous and unnecessary battle between science and religion.


It's like the central theme of a book I once read - (I believe it was Carl Sagan's Contact).

There's a part in the book where a character questions the ongoing "war" between science and religion, because both of them have the same goal - the search for truth.

[D_Davis]

It's like the central theme of a book I once read - (I believe it was Carl Sagan's Contact).

There's a part in the book where a character questions the ongoing "war" between science and religion, because both of them have the same goal - the search for truth.

I really need to read Contact, I love the film.

I think that science and religion are both important, and for me, I need them both to feel complete. They both strive to ask and answer different questions, and they are in no way mutually exclusive ideologies. Science asks, "who, what, when and where?" and religion asks, "why?"

I will never understand the deep schism between the two when extremes are brought into the equation. Like Dr. Francis Collins, who wrote the book The Language of God, every new discovery in science only further bolsters my faith in a God who created the universe in a way that his creation can understand it. God gave us minds to solve these problems, he made us inquisitive, and blessed us with intelligence. It makes me sad when religious people discredit scientific discover, and equally sad with the secular world belittles the power and importance of religion.

[megladon8]

I will never understand the deep schism between the two when extremes are brought into the equation. Like Dr. Francis Collins, who wrote the book The Language of God, every new discovery in science only further bolsters my faith in a God who created the universe in a way that his creation can understand it. God gave us minds to solve these problems, he made us inquisitive, and blessed us with intelligence. It makes me sad when religious people discredit scientific discover, and equally sad with the secular world belittles the power and importance of religion.


Oh I completely agree, and while it pisses me off greatly when religious "emtremists" (or whatever you want to call them) push religion in my face and try to make me feel bad for not being a religious person, it is equally aggravating when scientists do this same thing to religious people.

It just happens to be that I wasn't raised in a religious family and I have never found religion to do much for me, personally.

But I have the utmost respect for those who find answers in religion, no matter what one they choose to follow.

[megladon8]

So sorry it's taking me so long to get through this book. Now that I'm done school and not riding the bus 3 hours a day, I haven't been reading nearly as much.

I am just past the halfway point now. I am nearly done part 2, and they have just lit the light bulb for the first time, creating "the brightest light seen in thousands of years".

The character of the old hermit Benjamin is great. Almost a Yoda-like character. Maybe even a bit of what Obi-Wan was like in A New Hope - the old man living the hills, who some people suspect is using magic.

[Horbgorbler]

I bought this at Barnes & Noble with my gift card today because my library was excruciatingly slow getting it for me. Bought The Stars My Destination as well.

[D_Davis]

I bought this at Barnes & Noble with my gift card today because my library was excruciatingly slow getting it for me. Bought The Stars My Destination as well.

Coolness. Let me know when you plan on starting the Bester book. I want to re-read this soon.

[megladon8]

Finally finished!!

It's a toss-up between the first and third parts for my "favorite", though I really enjoyed the whole book.

More in-depth thoughts to come.

[D_Davis]

The third part is pretty amazing.

[megladon8]

The third part is pretty amazing.


It was an incredible back-and-forth between different sets of moral guidelines.

I know who I personally agree with - I happen to be of the mind that if someone is going to die, and they are in horrible, agonizing pain, and THEY choose to end it all, they should be allowed that dignity.

However, this issue is such a slippery slope. Many people have different thresholds for pain, so where do we draw the line? And who has presidence over who? Can someone be euthanized because their marriage split up and they have horrible depression? I personally think no, but then that person may claim that their mental anguish is just as great (or greater) than someone else's physical pain.

[megladon8]

A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M. Miller, Jr.

a review by Braden Adam


Religion has never really worked for me, and that quite often taints the way I interpret films and books with religious themes. Walter M. Miller, Jr.’s “A Canticle for Liebowitz” is a science fiction novel told in three parts, all of which are steeped in religious allegory and commentary. Each of the three parts takes place in a different time and place in a post-apocalyptic America, and each piece functions as a piece of a puzzle which eventually explains what happened to the world.

The first part, “Fiat Homo”, deals with a group of monks living in a new dark age - they translate books and various pieces of written information from the times before the apocalypse, thinking that everything they find has some kind of deep religious meaning. The main character is Brother Francis, a young, naive, artistically talented man who begins the story in a desert wasteland. Through the aid of a mysterious wanderer, Francis finds a bomb shelter buried under the sand, and within this shelter he finds an ancient blueprint, which - for the rest of the story - it becomes his job to copy. While copying the blueprint onto a skin, he decides that he does not like the way the lettering on the blueprint is printed all over the diagram, and (since he cannot speak or read English), he decides it would be a more attractive piece of work if he were to strategically place the writing around the edges of his copy. Much of the story - and this work by Francis - says a lot about the monks of centuries past who would mindlessly copy “knowledge”, never really paying mind to what they were copying. It is also quite a commentary on the idea that religious scriptures appear the same way they were hundreds (or thousands) of years ago. To think that these scriptures have retained the same stories, wording and meanings throughout these many years seems at least a tad ludicrous.

The second part of the book, “Fiat Lux”, deals even more with these keepers of knowledge - monks who call themselves “bookleggers”. In this middle chapter, a dire conflict is brewing between different clans of people, while this group of monks is divided within itself. A few of the more liberal and forward-thinking monks have managed to build a giant contraption capable of giving off light thousands of times brighter than any candle - ie, a lightbulb. But some of the other monks see this advancement as un-Godly, and as one more step towards a repeat of humanity’s own demise. When the rest of the book is read, it’s poetic and prophetic and has a nice “we’re doomed to repeat our own mistakes” message in it.

The third and final part of the book is titled “Fiat Voluntas Tua”, and deals with the world even farther into the future when man is back to a technological state around where it was when the book was written back in 1959. The entire world has declared nuclear armaments illegal, but in their infinite wisdom, the government decides that since we can’t have nuclear weapons on Earth, what we’ll do is develop a space program so that we can build nuclear weapons in space! It’s darkly funny, but at the same time quite depressing because it doesn’t seem like something too far out of reach for the governments of our own Earth.

The third part of the book is definitely the best and most powerful, as it is the only one to really evoke emotions past a feeling of pity for these people who seem so ignorant of their own stupidity. While the decision by the government to create nuclear weapons in spite of the knowledge they have of the world’s past is frustrating, there are events here that are downright angering. The main event I speak of is an argument between a religious man and a medic, as they try to decide the best course of action to take with a woman and her daughter who have lost their whole family, and are both in horrendous pain due to burns which will eventually kill them. The religious man believes that they should be left alone to pray and to beg God for forgiveness for the sins of their lives, so that perhaps they can earn their way into heaven when they die. The medic, however, believes the only humane thing to do is to euthanize them, sparing them from the pain and misery of their last few hours.

I have always found this issue deeply troubling, because I cannot for the life of me understand why someone - religious or not - would ever want to subject another to the pain and indignity of that much paralyzing suffering. If a person is going to die, and is in such terrible agony that they are not really “living” anyways, it should not be someone else’s decision that they must simply “wait and pray”, nor should they condemn that person if they decide to end their suffering. But of course this issue poses quite a slippery slope - at what point does the “cut off” occur, where one no longer qualifies for euthanasia? And since people are all different and all have differing pain thresholds, where can we draw the line and say that someone’s suffering is greater than another’s? I suppose that in the end this is an issue without an answer (or at least not an easy one), but I don’t believe that the answer posed by religion is appropriate in any way.

While I have spent most of my time focusing on the third part of the book, I don’t want to dismiss the other two. The second was the weakest for me - as many middle sections of stories often are, because they function as a transition between “beginning” and “end” - but that is not to say it is not good. The whole book is a very well written piece of philosophical, theological science fiction. But while some other readers have said they found the book to be in support of religious beliefs and of the idea of organized religion, I found it to be a scathing commentary on the “fire and brimstone” beliefs of most religious institutions.

This is why I find religions such as Buddhism or Taoism to be much more appealing than pretty much any sect of Christianity. I still consider myself an agnostic, but this book has definitely helped me to strengthen my beliefs that a religion based around a vengeful God who is so unforgiving and dismissive of anything other than His own way could not possibly be the right path to take.

[Horbgorbler]

The third and final part of the book is titled “Fiat Voluntas Tua”, and deals with the world even farther into the future when man is back to a technological state around where it was when the book was written back in 1959.


We had starships in 1959? :eek:

Finished it today. Good stuff, if a bit uneven and there are passages I haven't fully digested (Rachel, wtf?)

I was giddy at noticing the sly allusion to R.U.R. by Karel Capek (author of the best. book. ever., War With the Newts.

[megladon8]

We had starships in 1959? :eek:

:P

I meant generally speaking, their technology was closer to 1950s than it was in either other part of the book.



Finished it today. Good stuff, if a bit uneven and there are passages I haven't fully digested (Rachel, wtf?)

I was giddy at noticing the sly allusion to R.U.R. by Karel Capek (author of the best. book. ever., War With the Newts.

Hmm...never even heard of that book.

*looks on Amazon*

[Horbgorbler]

Hmm...never even heard of that book.

*looks on Amazon*

It's a darkly comic satire of racism, fascism and a dozen other societal ills involving sentient newts than end up taking over the world.

I had been absolutely foaming at the mouth to find it since I read the synopsis and I literally squealed and jumped three feet in the air when I found for a quarter at my yearly God-send of a book sale, so I have no little bias towards it. :)

"'[Newts] have no sex appeal. And therefore they have no souls.' - Mae West"

I see you liked that Mignola book; thoughts? I've been meaning to read it since I'm such a Hellboy fanboy.

[megladon8]

I see you liked that Mignola book; thoughts? I've been meaning to read it since I'm such a Hellboy fanboy.

It's wonderful - I'll be writing a full review of it soon.

But I will say that it kept building throughout and by the final section I was getting ready a for a real disappointment because I felt like they wouldn't find a satisfactory way to conclude it all.

Luckily I was wrong. The ending is wonderful.

Mignola's sparse artwork is atmospheric as always.

And as I've said a few times before, it's like a Bava gothic horror put onto the written page. Have you ever seen Black Sunday? It's similar to that in atmosphere.

[D_Davis]

Nicely written review meg, even though I passionately disagree with you conclusion on religion and your opinion of the Christian God. But nicely written. Although, I think you really missed the meaning of the copying part in part one. He made things prettier because it was such a holy object to him. He didn't change the meaning, or what it meant spiritually to the monks. Remember, they thought they were dealing with a spiritual relic, one that benefited the soul.

Out of pure reverence and awe for the blue print, he wanted to inject part of his God given artistic soul into his menial task. That's powerful, and quite positive. It was showing what a deeply spiritual and affected person this monk was. He wasn't making changes just because, but he was adding part of his artist's soul to the project, without malice, and without the desire to trick future readers. His motives were pure.

Also, I think if you did a little study into the historical accuracy of translated religious texts, you will surprised at what you find.

You really felt pity for these characters because of "their stupidity"? I don't recall anyone being stupid. Being stupid means lacking in intellect, and most of these characters were anything but stupid. The may have been ignorant relative to what we supposedly know today, but in context of the narrative they were passionate, brave, most of them moral, and curious about the physical and spiritual side of humanity.

[megladon8]

Nicely written review meg, even though I passionately disagree with you conclusion on religion and your opinion of the Christian God. But nicely written. Although, I think you really missed the meaning of the copying part in part one. He made things prettier because it was such a holy object to him. He didn't change the meaning, or what it meant spiritually to the monks. Remember, they thought they were dealing with a spiritual relic, one that benefited the soul.

Out of pure reverence and awe for the blue print, he wanted to inject part of his God given artistic soul into his menial task. That's powerful, and quite positive. It was showing what a deeply spiritual and affected person this monk was. He wasn't making changes just because, but he was adding part of his artist's soul to the project, without malice, and without the desire to trick future readers. His motives were pure.

I agree his motives were pure, but it doesn't change the overall meaning of this text, in my opinion.

I'm sure the motives were pure for those who transcribed biblical passages and religious texts - but that does not mean that they are necessarily accurate.

How can it be proven that the texts that we (as humans of any religion) take as being accurate really are so? How do we know something like this didn't happen in the past? To Francis, he was still copying the blueprint accurately, and he would have told others that he was doing it with meticulous accuracy. But the simple truth is, he wasn't.



Also, I think if you did a little study into the historical accuracy of translated religious texts, you will surprised at what you find.

This is something, though, that I don't think is really worth arguing or discussing - it's one of those unsolvable issues of faith.

Someone with religious conviction will of course say that the texts are accurate because they have faith in their beliefs and their religion.

Whereas someone like me who is admittedly a pessimistic, bitter fart sees this as being pretty much impossible.



You really felt pity for these characters because of "their stupidity"? I don't recall anyone being stupid. Being stupid means lacking in intellect, and most of these characters were anything but stupid. The may have been ignorant relative to what we supposedly know today, but in context of the narrative they were passionate, brave, most of them moral, and curious about the physical and spiritual side of humanity.

I admit here that I used the wrong word.

I felt pity for their ignorance.

They were not stupid, simply ignorant of the mistakes they were repeating in their dire crusade to not repeat the mistakes of the past.

[D_Davis]

This is something, though, that I don't think is really worth arguing or discussing - it's one of those unsolvable issues of faith.


It's not unsolvable, nor is it an issue of faith. Historians, both secular and religious, have looked at the earliest known copies of religious texts, written in the earliest known languages, and then compared them to modern day translations, and, for the most part, the translations are accurate. This goes for many of the world's known religions. The reasons are quite simple: to those who passed down the knowledge, both orally and written, the original source was so important that the utmost care was taken to preserve it's meaning, context, and prose. This is not an issue of faith. Faith comes in when you decided to believe the message of the texts.

I know that what I read in the Tao, the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran is as close as possible to the original source (often times even more accurate than some fictional literature and novels that have been translated), this has been proven, faith enters the picture when I decide to believe or not to believe the spiritual message of what has been written.


To Francis, he was still copying the blueprint accurately, and he would have told others that he was doing it with meticulous accuracy. But the simple truth is, he wasn't.


Like all things people do, Francis filtered things through his own humanity. While some of the details may have changed, or been embellished upon, the message, the heart, and the soul of the piece remained the same. This is what is important.

This is the great thing about the world's righteous religions. God, or the gods, do not ask us to be robots - we are given free will, we are blessed with desires of creativity, the desire to create. To deny these desires is to spit in the face of he/she that bestowed them upon us. Francis was celebrating his spirituality and his humanity when he undertook the blue print project. All things that are to survive must evolve, or become adaptable to new times, new cultures, and new people, and so long as the core message remains the same then there is no harm in this.

[megladon8]

This is the great thing about the world's righteous religions. God, or the gods, do not ask us to be robots - we are given free will, we are blessed with desires of creativity, the desire to create. To deny these desires is to spit in the face of he/she that bestowed them upon us. Francis was celebrating his spirituality and his humanity when he undertook the blue print project. All things that are to survive must evolve, or become adaptable to new times, new cultures, and new people, and so long as the core message remains the same then there is no harm in this.


This is something I disagree with.

I think it's wonderful when people do feel this way about their religion, but I think the "fire and brimstone" view of strict Catholicism, for example, does pretty much ask for people to be robots if they want to go to Heaven.

While I admit it is a gross generalization, the old joke/saying about Catholicism, "if it feels good, stop immediately", has more bearing than it's given credit for.

Going to a Catholic high school was pretty ridiculous to me - and the only reason I went to that school is because it was my only choice...it was the only high school in town. There were Muslim kids in my class who, like me, had no other choice but to attend a Catholic high school, and they were forced to go to mass and to attend the religious ceremonies, eat the body of Christ, etc. We even had a teacher who told the class that Jews were "heathens".

But we're getting way off topic here.

I just want to say, D, that I'm glad we can have a rational, positive discussion regarding this book and these issues.

Knowing and respecting that you are a religious person yourself, I was very nervous to post my review because I was afraid that my comments and conclusions may offend or bother you, and that is the last thing I'd want.

[D_Davis]

This is something I disagree with.

I think it's wonderful when people do feel this way about their religion, but I think the "fire and brimstone" view of strict Catholicism, for example, does pretty much ask for people to be robots if they want to go to Heaven.

While I admit it is a gross generalization, the old joke/saying about Catholicism, "if it feels good, stop immediately", has more bearing than it's given credit for.



But here you are looking man-made dogmatic law in lieu of spirituality. Many of the "rules" man has made to form his various religions are not taken from the original spiritual sources, but are, rather, political in nature. Catholicism, in my estimation, is not an accurate representation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus came to free, not to condemn, and yet much of the Catholic religion is all about condemnation. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. However, there are some wonderful things about the religion, namely, a lot of the art and music it inspired.

I don't look at religion as the man-made institutions, but, rather, I view it as going back to the source of the original teachers and what they were trying to accomplish. I think you are looking at the negatives of religious institutions to form your arguments that religion itself is bad, and I would not disagree with you if I viewed religion in this light. Man has screwed up many things, both secularly and spiritually.

So basically what we have is a problem of semantics. I think you would agree that spirituality is a good thing. If more people followed the golden rules of love, compassion, peace, and understanding taught by many of the prophets and originators of the worlds' religions, I think we can agree that things would be better. However, the negative aspects of man-made rules and law, coupled with our own selfish desires, have thus tainted some of the good. Perhaps I am just able to look past the bad and see more of the good.

In a lot of ways, I think this was the point of Canticle. Notice how it dealt more with personal testimonies and narratives, and shied away from painting a broad picture of religion. It focused on the spiritual and physical journeys of a few key characters in the midst of an evolving society and religion.

I think that this conversation we are having proves one thing: A Canticle for Liebowitz is good literature. That a mere "science fiction" or genre book could spark this level of passionate and respectful discussion is a testament to its power as a work of fiction.

I appreciate your POV, and I respect it, and I am glad that this book could allow us to talk about these things.

[megladon8]

Indeed, D, I do think this is very powerful literature, and it once again reminds me of the introduction where they speak about how genre works are often tossed aside as "lesser" works.

I think the same can be said with film, music, video games, anything really. There is depth, quality and importance to be found in all different areas, and limiting one's self doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

What you wrote in your post above is exactly how I feel about religion/spirituality. I consider myself a very deeply spiritual person, but I just haven't found a religion which I felt suited my own beliefs and way of looking at things.

And when I say that I "don't believe in God" or whatnot, it's simply that I do not believe in the whole "big, vengeful man with a white beard, sitting in the clouds and showering plagues upon his people" way of looking at it. I honestly don't know where my belief lies with the idea of a "creator(s)".

I think it's very sad that there are such horrible things done in the name of religion, especially when the victims and perpetrators of these acts are so, so close in their beliefs. You look at the teachings of Islam and the teachings of Judaism, and they're almost identical - especially in, as you said, their encouragement of love, acceptance and peace.

So, in the end, I think you and I really are in the same page with our beliefs - the only difference being that you attribute an actual religion to yours, whereas I am more of a mix-and-match :)

[Sycophant]

I just picked this up on a whim at a local bookstore. I'll probably start reading it tonight.

[megladon8]

I just picked this up on a whim at a local bookstore. I'll probably start reading it tonight.


Sweet...it'll be great to get more contributions to the discussion :)

I hope you enjoy it. It's certainly thought-provoking.

[D_Davis]

I just picked this up on a whim at a local bookstore. I'll probably start reading it tonight.

Great! It is quite good.

[Sycophant]

Great! It is quite good.I think I'm near the end of FIAT LUX. Either that or part 3 is rather short. Whatever. I'm about 80, 90 pages from the end. I'm really liking it so far and have found part the second even more enjoyable than the first. The interplay of science, religion, and politics is totally engrossing. I'll go back and read others' comments and post more of my own thoughts when I finish reading, which I expect will be Friday.

[Sycophant]

Took me a little longer to finish than I'd anticipated, but I finished it early this afternoon. I rather love the book. As many may know, I'm a pretty hardcore atheist and secular humanist, one with a deeply, devoutly, and ferociously religious past. As time has gone on, my anger toward my religion and all religious has ebbed and I now don't wish so much to fight religion as encourage broadmindedness in all, as I think the sufficiently religious should also be sufficiently humanistic. A lot of this book deals with the necessity to bridge this gap (Thon Taddeo's concern for offending the monks in Fiat Lux was touching) to progress.

But the book is not ignorant. Solutions are not offered, but ideas and questions are explored. That the book accomplishes getting me on the side of the monks throughout, with a particular affinity for Abbot Zerchi at the end, seeing the countdown moments of the book largely obsessed with his face off of ideals with a Green Star officer who I pretty much agreed with wa a fascinating showdown.

Perhaps my favorite passage in the novel occurred in Fiat Homo, where in contemplating the past, Francis recounts the 20th century nuclear holocaust, reducing a large and grand narrative to biblical simplicity and euphemism. It's stunningly effective.

The thoughts above are a bit random but there you go. That will do for now.

It looks like there's been a significant amount of criticism and analysis written on this book. Perhaps I'll pop back after I read some of these scholarly pieces.

[D_Davis]

Took me a little longer to finish than I'd anticipated, but I finished it early this afternoon. I rather love the book. As many may know, I'm a pretty hardcore atheist and secular humanist, one with a deeply, devoutly, and ferociously religious past. As time has gone on, my anger toward my religion and all religious has ebbed and I now don't wish so much to fight religion as encourage broadmindedness in all, as I think the sufficiently religious should also be sufficiently humanistic. A lot of this book deals with the necessity to bridge this gap (Thon Taddeo's concern for offending the monks in Fiat Lux was touching) to progress.


Interesting thoughts. I love how this book seems to impact readers differently depending on their own perceptions of religion. I find this notion fascinating.

One might read it as a condemnation of religious institutions, while one might read it as a celebration of religious institutions, and further more, one might read it from a humanistic perspective.

[megladon8]

Not sure if anyone's interested, but if you're a member of the Science Fiction Book Club, they're having a clearance right now, and "A Canticle for Leibowitz" is on sale.

It's hardcover, and the coverart is gorgeous...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/516741_lg.jpg