Scan barcode
A review by trilbynorton
A Canticle For Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller Jr.
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.0
This is three stories set at different periods after a nuclear apocalypse and charting the development of a Catholic monastic order dedicated to preserving pre-war knowledge.
Parts 1 and 2 are fascinating examinations of the nature of knowledge and the ethics surrounding using that knowledge. Miller's Catholicism is obvious but not preachy; instead, he seems to be using the science fiction scenario to interrogate the place of the church in an ever changing and advancing society.
Part 3, however, is where the book lost me. Here, Miller is preachy. Central to this final section is the church's concept of salvation through suffering, especially as it contrasts with modern medicine and euthanasia in particular. I found it hard to stomach the protagonist's insistence on suffering and objection to compassionate killing. It's made worse by the fact that this debate is more relevant and more pressing now than it was in 1959, with the church's continued and damaging opposition to palliative care, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, and so forth. It is becoming more and more obvious that the Catholic church is an outdated and dangerous institution, and Miller does nothing to disabuse us of that.
Parts 1 and 2 are fascinating examinations of the nature of knowledge and the ethics surrounding using that knowledge. Miller's Catholicism is obvious but not preachy; instead, he seems to be using the science fiction scenario to interrogate the place of the church in an ever changing and advancing society.
Part 3, however, is where the book lost me. Here, Miller is preachy. Central to this final section is the church's concept of salvation through suffering, especially as it contrasts with modern medicine and euthanasia in particular. I found it hard to stomach the protagonist's insistence on suffering and objection to compassionate killing. It's made worse by the fact that this debate is more relevant and more pressing now than it was in 1959, with the church's continued and damaging opposition to palliative care, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, and so forth. It is becoming more and more obvious that the Catholic church is an outdated and dangerous institution, and Miller does nothing to disabuse us of that.