A Canticle for Leibowitz(en.wikipedia.org) |
A Canticle for Leibowitz(en.wikipedia.org) |
I do understand that this is one of the first times the nuclear apocalypse was covered in sci-fi. My main gripe was the writing and how poorly strung together the story was.
Overall the book touched on a lot of great ideas, but the writing felt like it was the first time the author had written a book. A lot of a storylines were touched upon but never completed.
The thread that is drawn throughout the story just isn’t rewarding enough in my opinion. And don’t get me started on the terrible foray into the ethics of suicide that came out of nowhere.
I’m all for reading books that are challenging and fall outside of your traditional tastes but I struggled to make it all the way through this book. I celebrated when I was able to finally put it down.
More correct term would not be suicide, but euthanasia as it is 'assisted suicide' [0]. The Roman Catholic church (and iirc the larger Christian church historically, including Eastern Orthodox) teach both as evil. But I make the distinction because euthanasia - with its larger inter-personal concepts - is the more appropriate target for the story which is pretty focused on the interplay between Western Christianity and Western science.
Throughout the book society struggles with Christianity and church authority, with handling newfound physical power via tech and tools (that spring from the church's efforts), and with how society and the church handle large-scale societal pain. The handling of societal pain part is sometimes more alike between society and the church, sometimes - like with euthanasia you mentioned - more like battle lines.
So the 'foray into ethics' is like the very heart of the book. Not trying to persuade you to like the book, but hope it helps at least understand what you're disliking. If I sound passionate it's only because this is what I like about the book. There are parts I don't like and really don't even get, but at least I appreciate this sort of science fiction that deals with real stuff that I and others have to work through.
I do understand where the author was going with the discussion regarding assisted suicide, but the timing of the argument and the amount of time spent on it at the point in the story is the root of my main objection with presenting it.
Throughout most of the book, there's very little regarding ethics at least with the amount of painstaking detail that it's presented in, in comparison to the assisted suicide discussion. The discussion felt bolted on as it was presented around the fever pitch of the story just before a global nuclear war is about to break loose, we get bludgeoned over the head by a priest that's fervently against assisted suicide. The placement of the argument and the timing is just awkward in my opinion.
Again, this book touches on a lot of interesting ideas ahead of its time but the execution feels weak and confused. I would have preferred that each part remain completely separate honestly.
And of course, all of this is based on my taste. I recognize that this is considered a seminal piece of science fiction. In general I find myself fairly forgiving when attempting to read something I normally wouldn't, but this took the cake for me in regards to the amount of pain per page I suffered while trying to make it through.
Personally, I think it's usually better to leave more to the imagination than trying to finish up every plotline. Too many stories meander around endlessly or lose their sense of immersion when the author forces themselves to write a story that's "too complete". I'm a big fan of these type of "time-skip" stories though - 40,000 in Gehenna is one of my favorites, along with Canticle.
https://archive.org/details/NPRPresentsACANTICLEFORLIEBOWITZ...
Do want to put out there that this is an abridged version (though don't remember anything significant being left out).
The book isn't perfect. The huge jump in time between each part of the book means that the plot essentially starts over in acts two and three, and you lose the continuity of character development. This was the result of Miller constructing the book from three separate short stories (heavily modified and greatly expanded), and is necessary in order to tell the story as it's designed, but it makes for a somewhat frustrating reading experience. Still, it's obviously a classic for many other reasons. It's too bad Miller never wrote much after he published it. (I've not read the sequel.) Apparently he spent the rest of his life battling depression and writer's block, and committed suicide before he was able to publish anything else.
The idea of trying to piece things back together after the apocalypse always resonated with me