RE: Canticle. "Let There Be Light," "Thy Will Be Done," Are these correct for sections two and three? What's the first one?

I liked the book quite a bit, knowing nothing about it when I started and getting to experience the gradual unfolding of knowledge that it was a post WWIII story. Very interesting primitive, post-"Simplification" culture and walk (with the ubiquitous burlap-clad geezer) through the (inevitable, I suppose) repetition of the ages of man (Medieval, Renaissance, Technological) that brought the first "Simplification" and was apparently destined to occur again.

I can't think of any other post WWIII novel (or film) quite like it, so not sure about influences. Planet of the Apes? (Which came first?) Curious re: obvious influences...

My favorite part was the first section and brother Francis (? I forget names quickly), who was afraid of the "fallouts" in the fallout shelter. When his overly subtle death occured, I was crestfallen. The discoveries he made and his dedication to the Leibowitz reproduction were engaging parts of the story. I felt cut adrift when he was murdered.

Rachel and Mrs. G. were favorite characters.

I think there was a lot of subtlety that I missed in the book, with my sketchy knowledge of the Bible, but my sense is that is was a much distorted Catholicism.

I think the central statement is that humans are doomed to repeat mistakes and are hopelessly violent, but are also eternally optimistic and faithful. Anybody disagree?

kathy | May 27, 2003 4:13 PM

Hey! This is my second read through Canticle, and I was surprised how little I remembered from my first read, thirteen years ago or not. Overall impression: wonderful, lush storytelling. I was raised Catholic, and seeing the distorted echoes of Catholic ritual all through it was a treat: notice how the language of ritual went from simple at first (Fiat Homo, or roughly 'let there be man,' Kathy), to ornate during Fiat Lux, to rough and informal during the final chapter?

Of the sections, the sentimental favorite is the first, of course; Brother Francis really deserved better than he got. Still, in terms of the development of the plot, Fiat Lux is the pivotal chapter, and the one in which mankind has its only ghost of a chance to turn away from its self-destructive pattern. But, of course, it's only a ghost of a chance; if it hadn't been for Thon Taddeo, any one of a dozen other scientists would have taken his place.

Strangely, I don't see Canticle as a science fiction novel, except that it doesn't really fit anywhere else.

Obvious influences: well, Catholicism, for one. :-) There's a lot of understanding of the ascetic and monastic mindset inherent in Miller's portrayal of the clergymen we run into. There's a lot of holiness and reverence running through the book.

Central statement: well, <mackey>war is bad</mackey>, certainly, but more than that is the call to respect and fear the ramifications of the technology we employ. Not a new message, but one that Canticle may have been one of the first to put so terribly beautifully.

Can you tell I liked the book? :-)

Rich | May 27, 2003 7:06 PM

I already posted about how much I enjoyed the book.

Like Kathy, my favorite part was the beginning and Brother Francis. When he received that arrow between the eyes, I thought, "Aww. I’m going to miss him." I liked Fiat Homo best since it describes one possible future that’s closest to our time. We’re obviously currently living in the "twilight period of the Age of Enlightenment." If we’re not careful, we too could be responsible to plunging ourselves back into the dark ages.

I especially appreciated how the first section was used to set up a lot of the subtle irony that follows in the rest of the story. To start, the monks are trying to get Leibowitz, a jew, canonized as a Catholic saint. The relics of the Beatus include a hastily scrawled note, a blueprint no one understands, and a grocery list (pastrami, kraut, and bagels). Poor Brother Francis spends fifteen years of his life reproducing the blueprint only to have it stolen by ruffians who hold it for ransom. Miller’s take on the inner workings of the Catholic church, specifically the calculated process of canonization and Francis’s visit to the lush yet threadbare New Rome, were particularly insightful.

My favorite character might be Thon Taddeo, but only because he’s such an idiot. Rachel runs second, and I’m going to need some help in understanding her purpose in advancing the plot. I liked her, but didn’t exactly get her.

I also agree with Kathy that the central message is that we are doomed to repeat mistakes. Despite clawing their way out of "the generations of the darkness," the future humans manage to plunge their way right back into it. Perhaps it is our nature to destroy ourselves (Where have I heard this before? The Matrix?), and a couple thousand additional years of evolution might not weed out that particular predisposition.

marydell | May 27, 2003 7:20 PM

I wish I could step into the conversation, but I cannot, because I didn't read the book. I apologize to Hunter and everyone else, but I just couldn't read this novel. I mean, where was the feminist subtext? The man-bashing?

I'm kidding, of course. Seriously, I just couldn't get into the prose. I gave it two shots, but I couldn't get past that point where reading wasn't difficult. It felt like I was reading The Odyssey or some other similarly thick prose and it just wasn't working for me.

From the discussion here and the other things I've read online, the book sounds fascinating, so maybe I'll try to pick it up again in a few months; maybe the end of the semester was just the wrong time to tackle this sort of writing.

Andy | May 28, 2003 3:56 PM

Andy and I briefly talked briefly on the phone about the convoluted prose used in the book. Although I noticed it, it didn’t bother me since I saw it as a plot device. Since the monks didn’t speak English, I think Miller purposely used language to give the reader a feel for the more formal and primitive world after the holocaust. I wonder if the language bothered anyone else...?

Rich, admit it. You like this book because there are only three female characters in it if you count Mrs. Grales and Rachel as two people. ;)

marydell | May 28, 2003 8:38 PM

Yeah! And best of all, they don't talk much (seen and not heard) and are generally poor and involved with the business of reproduction (barefoot & pregnant, though that's pretty metaphoric in Mrs. G's case).

Damned females. I knew the problems would start when we taught 'em to read and allowed 'em to vote. You just know the Armageddon got started while the leaders' wives were having a visit from Aunt Flo...

...As Rich takes one for the team to get the convo started...

Rich | May 28, 2003 11:55 PM

And as regards the prose, I felt the texture of the book's language to be spot on, and appropriate to the story being told. As I've mentioned, the language shifts markedly from section to section in Canticle, and it's my feeling that it's deliberate.

As a matter of fact, if the story had been told uniformly in more conventional, modern, sparse prose (as the final section "Fiat Voluntas Tua" is), then I'm sure a great deal of the magic I sense in its craft would be missing.

But then I'm a wordsmith, and given to enjoying texture almost apart from content. Thankfully Canticle delivers on both fronts IMHO.

Rich | May 29, 2003 12:01 AM

Just wanted to jump in for a second and say "I'm here." Had a concert last night and my daughter's 5th grade graduation this morning, so I'll finally chime back in sometime this afternoon or tonight. Sorry about the delay, chat among yourselves.

Hunter | May 29, 2003 8:26 AM

"I felt the texture of the book's language to be spot on, and appropriate to the story being told."

I'm not sure what you mean by this, Rich. How does the "texture" mesh with the content?

"But then I'm a wordsmith, and given to enjoying texture almost apart from content."

I appreciate form. (Heck, Bret Easton Ellis is one of my favorite authors nearly entirely because of that. His books are about form, not content, and most people don't get that.) I just couldn't get into the writing. I'm sure the form does work well, but the writing just wasn't accessible for me. And the two aren't one and the same.

Andy | May 29, 2003 10:48 AM

"Texture" is a big word for Rich when he's talking about books he likes. I disagreed with him when he posted that Noir had it; "crapnobabble" was what I thought. In this case, however, I agree with him (hmm, no flying pigs outside). The language used is an integral part of the story and heightened my enjoyment while reading it.

All kidding aside about female characters, was anyone else bothered by the Lady Reporter? To me, it seemed superfluous to identify a non-essential personage as being a woman. I mean, we've got the nun who catches Brother Joshua in the tub, Mrs. Grales/Rachel, and Emily (who's dead). If she's a Lady Reporter, why aren't the others the First Guy Reporter and the Second Guy Reporter? Eh, maybe it's only a symptom of it being written in the 50s.

Oh, and could someone explain the significance of Rachel to me? She's a totally cool character, but I'm wondering what she's supposed to represent. Rebirth? Abberration? Abomination?

marydell | May 29, 2003 9:13 PM

And while I'm asking questions, anyone else impressed by Miller's use of irony?

marydell | May 29, 2003 9:15 PM

In order: IMO the lady reporter struck me as Miller's tip of the hat to the idea that men do the killin', and women do the nurturin'. Basically, Lady Reporter (probably called such to emphasize her nonpersonhood in Fiat Voluntas Tua's era) was the last vestige of popular conscience that mankind had. Her questions about capital-M Motherhood felt like they were in that vein, too. Actually, the paucity of female characters Miller chooses might play into this as well: since we don't involve women in the decision-making process (especially in Miller's day), of course we're doomed to self-destruction.

Rachel: in the context of Catholic doctrine, Rachel is a fascinating intersection of immaculate conception (she wasn't conceived through any act of sex, like Jesus) and exemption from original sin (original sin is the idea that we all need to be baptized because the seeds of evil live in all of us). Father Z's recognition of Rachel as sinless (and her rather heavy-handed rejection of his attempt to baptize her) plays into this: she's without original sin.

Essentially, amid the fruits of mankind's ultimate plunge into its own corruption, Rachel is "born" as something utterly pure, and possibly exempt from the "seeds of evil" the rest of us carry.

A race of Rachaels might well be immune to the impulse toward self-destruction. Shame we'll never know: even the sharks are hungry at the end.

Irony: oh, hell yes. :-) From Miller's word choice in the accounts of the Flame Deluge to the outright comedic language used in the interviews with the Defense Minister, irony just permeates the book. Beautiful.

Rich | May 29, 2003 11:52 PM

Since you ignored my question (which I still am curious about), I'll just jump on you for this, Rich:

...mankind...

It's humankind now, thank you very much.

Before you disagree, just ask yourself how comfortable you'd be reading womankind as a generic term for all of humanity.

Andy | May 30, 2003 7:03 AM

Andy:

First, I thought marydell covered the texture thing. Whetever.

Second, my, how condescending. Maybe for you it's "humankind" now, but not for me, for the same reason I don't use "chairperson," "mailperson," or "garbage person." I also refuse when possible to sing gender-doctored hymn lyrics. It's a pollution of language in the name of purification, and I see it as the politically-motivated denial of a valid, dictionary-supported usage of "man": gender-neutral, and an effective shorthand for "human."

For this reason, "how comfortable would you be with 'womankind'?" doesn't hold water. "Womankind" has never been accepted usage.

"Woman," etymologically, derives from the Middle English word for "wife" prepended to the gender-neutral word "man," so the word woman derived from a means to distinguish a particularly female occupation: effectively, "wifeman" (cf. chairman and mailman). Linguistically, male is the default, and female the distinction. So "womankind" meaning anything but separated-out femaleness is nonsensical, and thus a silly, emotionally-motivated nonargument. Someone saying "mankind," however, obviously means to include all of species homo sapiens. It's a clear term.

...Unless, of course, the listener is some sort of PC "pronoun Nazi."

Rich | May 30, 2003 4:02 PM

Shoot. I’ve been preparing for our family trip to see my parents-in-law in South Carolina and I missed the discussion. I apologize for not being more active in the talk. We leave in an hour so I’ll throw in my entry.

I think Miller’s central themes of Catholicism (which he had converted to a few years prior to writing the stories) and nuclear holocaust are brought together in this Q&A: Thon Taddeo asks "How can a great and wise civilization have destroyed itself so completely?" and Dom Paulo replies "By being materially great and materially wise and nothing else." My read on this is that Miller believes that the pursuit of wealth and power without spiritual growth will lead man to destruction, over and over again. Which raises the big question - where would the Earth be now if religion had not been a strong element in our history? Would we have avoided certain pitfalls of our history such as the Crusades or the Inquisition (expressions of power from the church) only to witness our own Flame Deluge?

Thanks to those folks who contributed to the discussion. Now if we can just manage to stay away from the he/she topics...

Hunter | May 31, 2003 9:19 AM

Sorry, it's been a crazy week. And sorry again, although I've read the book before, I didn't get through re-reading it -- not because I don't like it, but because I didn't have time.

Andy -- I was intimidated by the language the first time I first picked up the book, too. It's worth it, and it really does serve the story. It turned into one of the things I enjoyed the most.

I'm still hanging out with Brother Francis on this reading, and yes, he is my favorite. The poor guy.

I don't know if anyone is still reading/commenting, but here are my contributions:

I loved the idea of the Catholic church heirarchy /structure being one of the only things to survive the destruction of the world, but I don't know if I buy it. Would the Simpletons really have respected the church enough not to destroy it? Would people turn to the church after what would seem to be definitive evidince that god doesn't give a shit? (My interpretation -- like I said, it's been a lousy week.)

I also loved Liebowitz's project -- save human knowledge in the form of books. What would you think should be saved? Science and technology? Agriculture? History? Literature? Pulp fiction? Printed out pages of blogs?

Sorry, again, for missing the discussion. Thanks, Hunter, for choosing the book. I'm loving reading it again.

Sarah | May 31, 2003 11:52 AM

Rich, you seem like a most ardent pronoun Nazi! (i.e. "dictionary-supported," "polluted language"...the demand for purity) Language is a living thing, and if women (or men) are not satisfied with the invisibility, lack of precision, or twinge of discomfort that results when women are grouped under words such as "Men," "Mankind," "postman," "chairman," "woodsman," "forefather," etc., they don't have to use those words. Yeah, it's an emotional thing. And I'd argue that it is also unprecise to say "Here comes the mailman" when the carrier is a woman.

The dictionary REFLECTS language and changes constantly as language does. We should all have the power to name ourselves, make up words, change the formerly accepted. Yes, Andy was policing you, but that's because he didn't read the book, he likes to get you riled, and the last discussion on gender and language got ixnayed.

:)

kathy | June 2, 2003 11:11 PM

Hunter,

Re: "...the pursuit of wealth and power without spiritual growth will lead man to destruction, over and over again. Which raises the big question - where would the Earth be now if religion had not been a strong element in our history? Would we have avoided certain pitfalls of our history such as the Crusades or the Inquisition (expressions of power from the church) only to witness our own Flame Deluge?"

Hmm. If I'm reading you correctly, I would have to say that organized religion does not equal spiritual growth, and I would have to liken the Crusades and Inquisition to a flame deluge or simplification rather than a lesser evil.

I found the whole longevity of a catholic-type institution in Canticle to be very unbelievable. Another read might be that in some insidious way this institution was to blame for the continual self-destruction. I suppose as a Catholic, Miller didn't mean this, although he could have been a more radical/thinking/questioning Catholic.

Anywho, it's late. Any thoughts anyone?

kathy | June 2, 2003 11:39 PM

For the record, I use "mankind" to denote both men and women. However, I wouldn't jump on anyone who used "humankind" if s/he preferred it. Yet, I have to agree with Kathy that it would be wrong to call a female mail carrier a "mailman."

I'm sure that when Rich states that gender-neutral terms are "politically-motivated," he's talking about the left. I would argue that the fundamental right is just as responsible for attempting to purify language and society. (The Language Police)

And just so the ill-constructed "pronoun Nazi" phrase doesn't catch on, a lesson from the school teacher: Pronouns are designed to take the place of a noun. There are too many to list here, but the nominative personal pronouns are: I, you, he, she, it, we, they.

Mankind, chairperson, forefather, etc. are all compound words. "Gender-Neutral Nazi" is probably a more appropriate slur in this instance.

marydell | June 2, 2003 11:59 PM

Kathy:

Well, to be fair the Catholic church is one of the oldest (the oldest?) continuously surviving Western institutions. It's gonna be around a while, even if it's not exactly at the peak of its popularity in the States right now -- it's not like Miller was pulling an institution out of his hat. And the church *was* responsible for preserving a lot of the knowledge of Classical civilizations after the last empire's meltdown. Still, believability is in the eye of the beholder, so whatever floats your boat.

Ah, language wrangling. The debate on whether dictionaries reflect or dictate the structure of language is a live one, and has been for at least a pair of centuries. Still, as you say, kathy, the decision as to what terms and pronouns to use is indeed a personal one. If you notice, I very specifically said what I do, and why. It was andy who cast the first stone with his "it's humankind now" statement.

As to where precision and comfort lie, that does encompass another set of personal preferences, but I'd argue that it makes more sense to use a term like "mail carrier" or even "postal courier" than "mailperson." Either of the former terms is equally as precise as the latter without stinking of the feelgood disinfectant that some are trying to apply to the English language, which as you've said is a living, messy thing.

To drag this conversational thread back to something germane to the discussion, one of my bigger beefs with political correctness is how it destroys much of the poetic feel of older texts. "Goodwill towards men" scans differently and sits differently in the mouth and the ear from "Goodwill toward all." "Saved and set me free" completely changes the emotional tenor of a line that originally read "Saved a wretch like me."

Nitpicky? Not for a textual texturalist like me. How a sentence hits you, its rhythm and grit, its bounce and flutter, sit at a point of near equal importance to me with the literal meanings of the words. In a way, texture like this is adding a dash of salt to the dish: enhancing and bringing out nuances that might otherwise be mistaken or missed. Rest assured, Miller chose to call a character Lady Reporter for a reason, just as he chose blowsy, scriptural language like "For who did not then know that there were monsters in the earth in those days?" very consciously. Changing a jot or tittle from what he wrote would mar his meaning.

Not to mention that starting simple with pronoun scrubbing and feel-good phraseology can pave the way for other, not-quite-so-innocuous changes... Have a quick read through 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 to see where historical revisionism and a censorious attitude get you.

Rich | June 3, 2003 12:20 AM

Ooh! Busted on my parts of speech! Compound words they are indeed.

That's what I like about your style of arguing, Mary. You do occasionally stick to the point. :-)

As for revisionism coming from both the left and right, well, both sides do have their idiots, but it seems to me that the right's idiots have a harder time getting their idiocy out there. And as for, "just as responsible" (see? you're just as bad as we are!), give me some right-inspired phrases so apt to fail the "horselaugh test" as "differently abled," "sensitivity-challenged" and "diversity-deficient."

Rich | June 3, 2003 12:38 AM

While my initial comment was, clearly, facetious (Kathy knows me too damn well), the issues it has raised are serious, and I think this is a healthy discussion. Not wanting to derail the conversation further, I'd suggest something like starting a whole new thread midmonth about language; each month we could all talk about a specific thing like sexist language or "texture."

That said, I can't ignore this opportunity to reply.

I'm not sure who is suggesting revising old texts. Many of the most ardent feminists and liberals I know are literature-types who would freak out at such a suggestion, as do I. When I read 1984, I do not think, "what a sexist bastard this Orwell is!" and cast the book into the garbage disposal. I do tend to think that, however, when someone who knows better uses "stewardesses" to refer to flight attendants, many of whom are male.

There's no reason to make this about more than it is, which is using terms now that are, as Kathy said, more accurate. (Which is also why, Sarah, we need the serial comma.)

Even after hearing the phrase being thrown for years, I'm still not quite sure what political correctness is, nor have I encountered serious, non-anecdotal examples of it threatening western civilization. It seems to be a label that is used to emotionally dismiss arguments that deserve attention.

Using words today that don't exclude people who feel excluded (to agree with both Kathy and Rich, this has as much to do with emotion as it does accuracy and grammar) and are, in many cases, more accurate, doesn't seem to be quite that terrible or wretched. But maybe I'm missing something.

Andy | June 3, 2003 12:43 AM

Rich and All,

First, thank you for the grammar lesson, Mary, and the revised slur, "Gender-Neutral Nazi." I actually would use, in my context, usage Nazi or language usage Nazi or, as you refer to it, language police. I actually probably wouldn't have used any of them but I was rather obviously trying to argue with Rich by turning it around.

I certainly don't appreciate revisions such as "Saved and set me free" for "Saved a wretch like me," either. Don't take away my enjoyment of wretchedness and the beauty of that line! I don't think historical texts themselves should be changed, although the interpretation of them is also a fluid activity. Translations are an exception, because they tend towards subjectivity. But that's another topic.

1984, yes. Drastically changing history to agree with one side or the other so often that it all becomes absolutely meaningless. Meet the old boss, same as the old boss. Beware! And also the lesson that by controlling the message and medium, the powerful maintain control. Which is why the battle of the sexes, for one, centers around language, and who gets to decide how things and persons will be named.

Rachel was Jacob's wife, and shared him in a polygamous relationship with Leah. Leah had tons of kids but Rachel was barren. So she gave her handmaid to Jacob as wife to bear her children. And then eventually after praying to God, Rachel too got pregnant. There's more to Rachel, and I think much more to Canticle than I've taken the time to discover vis a vis the Bible. Unfortunately I returned it to the library, but I think it might be worth checking it out again and doing a little bible research.

I actually just found a pretty good study guide at this site.

Okay, enough for now. I like Andy's idea about mid-month topical discussions...

kathy | June 3, 2003 7:48 PM

1. It's hard not to be a "Grammar Nazi" when I spend all day, every day correcting eight-year-olds. If you try to go toe-to-toe with me on anything taught in the 3rd grade, you will lose. Anyone up for a game of long division with remainders?

2. I can't think of any humorous fundamentalist right speech. It's obvious the radical left is better at coining the ridiculous phrase. However, the far right is more prone to banning and censorship in the name of purity and morality, and I find that to be more annoying than wacky words and phrases.

3. I am all for discussing other topics during non-book days. Unfortunately, I'm the only one who manages to post on an irregular basis around here and I'm too exhausted to engage anyone in meaningful conversation.

4. Can we get back to the book? I'd do it, but I have to go to bed.

marydell | June 3, 2003 10:04 PM

Yeah, the book -- finished it again. Here's a question -- What was your take onthe Abbot's stand against Euthanasia? Understandable? Noble? Holy? Cruel? It made me serious uncomfortable, because I found it horrible to comtemplate prolonging the suffering. I got his point about "maybe if bodies are scattered about the streets, we'll finally get a clue," but on an individual basis -- when the mother was dealing with a child who just knew that she hurt, and that it was never going to stop hurting -- was needlessly cruel. I can't believe that god would hold that against someone (but i'm a Quaker-Episcopalian agnostic, so I've got issues.)

More things I'm wondering about -- Why wouldn't Rachel let the abbot baptize her? Was it because she was without sin, because she was rejecting all that the abbot stood for, or because she had moved beyond the church?

And was Rachel the one who Ben/the pilgrim/Lazarus was looking for?

And for that matter, is Ben still around? Waiting for another civilization to rise from the ashes? And how much would THAT suck? "Yup, just me and the roaches again."

Sarah | June 4, 2003 12:41 AM

Hey there, checking in from Myrtle Beach.

Kathy, there probably is more to Rachel in meaning. Miller certainly seemed to infuse the book with religious symbolism and meaning. Such as the taking down of the cross to hand the arc lamp and then its replacement later on.

I also found the same study guide when reading up on reference material for this discussion.

It's interesting you mentioned Euthanasia, Sarah, as that topic was the sermon we heard last Sunday. We attended my parents-in-law's new church here at the beach and he continued his talks about the 10 commandments. This past Sunday was one of a number of sermons on the sixth commandment - Thou shall not commit murder. His basic message was not to tell us what to do, but that he did not see a conflict with "Thou shalt not kill" when someone is faced with a life truly without hope. It was an unexpected message and obviously at odds with the message of the church in Canticle.

Hunter | June 4, 2003 11:57 PM

A couple very late thoughts on the book:

"Leibowitz...had loved the wisdom of the world more than the wisdom of God. but now seeing that great knowledge, while good, had not saved the world, he turned in penance to the Lord, crying:" (at the end of the reading of unfinished narrative in the second section) leaves us questioning what Leibowitz is crying for—maybe his final realization that we are doomed to repeat our mistakes unless we allow an unquestioning acceptance of (God's) morality (the Poet's conclusion of "Non cogiatumus, ergo nihil sumus"?) to supercede our insatiable quest for knowledge (something which may be an impossibility given the rather basic human quality of curiosity).

Leibowitz only gets it half right; rather than giving up his thirst for knowledge, he focuses his thirst elsewhere and creates the Memorabilia, purportedly in the name of God, but it's really more of the same, and the basis for what finally results in the second downfall in the third section.

The end of the novel gives a little hope for the Earth, as the Memorabilia is removed via spaceship and the last (known) person standing is Rachel. Miller paints Rachel as Eve ("[The abbot] did not ask...why God gave to [Rachel] the preternatural gifts of Eden—those gifts which Man had been trying to seize by brute force again from Heaven since first he lost them. He had seen primal innocence in those eyes, and a promise of resurrection.") and Brother Joshua as Adam ("Ask for an omen, then stone it when it comes —de essentia hominem"), but maybe not quite; the original Adam did nothing to stop the snake from convincing Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge; Rachel, unlike Eve, refused her baptism and knowledge of sin that comes with it. Maybe we learn by not learning next time around.

I don't read much scifi, but I really liked how the back-to-the-future theme of this novel doesn't come off as dated; what few guesses Miller makes at the more advanced technology that appears in the third section isn't too far off (Abominable Autoscribe vs. MS Word's auto-formatting; Green Star Mercy Camp vs. ongoing arguments about both government-sanctioned death penalty and Kevorkianesque mercy killings; "God's will vs. allaying of suffering" vs. political correctness).

Gwen | June 16, 2003 9:57 PM

Glad you enjoyed it, Gwen. You are right, the book has aged fairly well, giving it was written in the 1950s.

I am not convinced that the Memorabilia was a necessary ingredient in the return of technology. Obviously we created the initial tech without the benefit of pre-existing knowledge. I think it merely accelerated the rebirth, once it fell into hands that were willing to explore its meaning (Thon Taddeo vs. the monks themselves).

Good call on Rachel as Eve, I cannot think of a better explanation of her role.

Hunter | June 16, 2003 10:41 PM