janemylechreest's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
3.75
wardjaeger's review against another edition
5.0
I thought that Lord of the World was the epitome of the Catholic speculative fiction, until this book.
spacebee's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
heyfreddyjay's review against another edition
5.0
I did not intend to read this at the same time as American Prometheus, but my library hold set it up so that it happened. A great book that perfectly lays out the fears of the atomic age and the possibilities we face with these weapons in the hands of leaders around the world
astromox's review against another edition
adventurous
hopeful
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
karieh13's review against another edition
4.0
When I saw this book referenced on Mary Doria Russell's website - AND saw that she had written a new introduction to it - I had to buy this book. "The Sparrow" and "Children of God" are two of my favorite books.
I agree with her that this post-apocalyptic novel has some eerie similarities to today's horrible "Learning, knowledge, science and facts are evil and we should just spend money and listen to George Bush" culture. One of the most telling quotes is this: "To minimize suffering and maximize security were natural and proper ends of society and Caesar. But then they become the only ends, somehow, and the only basis of law - a perversion. Inevitably then, in seeking only them, we found only their opposites - maximum suffering and minimum security."
But I think I missed many of the ground breaking aspects of the book. (Either that or I just read it in the wrong decade - which is often the case.)
I certainly sympathize with the monks and their despair at Man's seemingly unrelenting determination to destroy itself...along with Man's complete inability to learn from the past. I sympathize with them and certainly agree with them...but I don't FEEL what they are feeling. There was a certain...distance to this book that kept it from having the impact that I expected.
So I give this book a four star rating...yet will most likely not seek out the sequel.
I agree with her that this post-apocalyptic novel has some eerie similarities to today's horrible "Learning, knowledge, science and facts are evil and we should just spend money and listen to George Bush" culture. One of the most telling quotes is this: "To minimize suffering and maximize security were natural and proper ends of society and Caesar. But then they become the only ends, somehow, and the only basis of law - a perversion. Inevitably then, in seeking only them, we found only their opposites - maximum suffering and minimum security."
But I think I missed many of the ground breaking aspects of the book. (Either that or I just read it in the wrong decade - which is often the case.)
I certainly sympathize with the monks and their despair at Man's seemingly unrelenting determination to destroy itself...along with Man's complete inability to learn from the past. I sympathize with them and certainly agree with them...but I don't FEEL what they are feeling. There was a certain...distance to this book that kept it from having the impact that I expected.
So I give this book a four star rating...yet will most likely not seek out the sequel.
justiceofkalr's review against another edition
4.0
Hugo winner in 1961. It definitely deserved it.
This book starts out after humanity has blown itself up. The majority of survivors have reverted to a superstitious primitive state and destroyed all knowledge/learning because it was the source of the nuclear apocalypse. The Catholic church though has also survived and an order founded by Liebowitz preserves some amount of knowledge which it saves for when mankind wants it back.
The story is in three main sections set in different time periods. The first is equivalent to the dark ages, the second to the renaissance, and the third to the space age. History is basically repeating itself, though with the fun addition of mutants from the fallout and the pre-knowledge that nuclear war is a really really bad idea. But. Each era is focused on a character from the order of Saint Liebowitz.
The first section is probably my favorite simply because I loved the character of Francis. He managed to make the bleak, post-apocalyptic world extremely amusing. The later sections were excellent as well, if a bit less humorous. It was really nice to see how past events were brought back in the way of stories or artifacts in future sections. I'm sure some of the theology went over my head, but mostly the book never felt overly preachy in its theme of the religious versus the secular.
This book starts out after humanity has blown itself up. The majority of survivors have reverted to a superstitious primitive state and destroyed all knowledge/learning because it was the source of the nuclear apocalypse. The Catholic church though has also survived and an order founded by Liebowitz preserves some amount of knowledge which it saves for when mankind wants it back.
The story is in three main sections set in different time periods. The first is equivalent to the dark ages, the second to the renaissance, and the third to the space age. History is basically repeating itself, though with the fun addition of mutants from the fallout and the pre-knowledge that nuclear war is a really really bad idea. But
Spoiler
we still manage to blow ourselves up again anyways. Apparently humanity is a self-destructive speciesThe first section is probably my favorite simply because I loved the character of Francis. He managed to make the bleak, post-apocalyptic world extremely amusing. The later sections were excellent as well, if a bit less humorous. It was really nice to see how past events were brought back in the way of stories or artifacts in future sections. I'm sure some of the theology went over my head, but mostly the book never felt overly preachy in its theme of the religious versus the secular.
tamouse's review against another edition
5.0
This book is such a classic -- highly recommended to any fan of sci fi, and even those who are just interested in future scapes and speculative fiction. This book has influenced many other authors.
crasscasualty's review against another edition
3.0
This novel, spanning thousands of years, tells the story of society’s destruction, rebuilding, and re-destruction. There is only a tenuous plot running through the novel; it is mostly a philosophical text. Normally I would be fine with this.
However, A Canticle for Leibowitz is so didactic and ham-fisted that it is hard to enjoy. Rather than challenging the readers’ beliefs and acting as a thought experiment, it insists on an interpretation of human nature and doesn't engender or allow any dissenting opinions.
This might be just a pet peeve of mine, but I also think the central conflict is clumsily executed. There are other ways to explore the tensions between religion and science without writing 350 pages about priests arguing with scientists.
However, A Canticle for Leibowitz is so didactic and ham-fisted that it is hard to enjoy. Rather than challenging the readers’ beliefs and acting as a thought experiment, it insists on an interpretation of human nature and doesn't engender or allow any dissenting opinions.
This might be just a pet peeve of mine, but I also think the central conflict is clumsily executed. There are other ways to explore the tensions between religion and science without writing 350 pages about priests arguing with scientists.
wuzzy246's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.5