I feel a strange urge to read bleak things when winter descends upon Central Texas. The thermometers drop into the sixties, and my back porch becomes really comfortable precisely when the days are too short to take advantage of it. For a few years I broke out Solzhenytsin's Gulag Archipelago when December rolled around, but this year I've been plowing through post-apocalyptic sci-fi. In the hope of getting something out of this spree — other than a vague desire to move somewhere with a better water supply — I'm thinking of posting a few reviews of the best and the worst of the genre, but there's so much that I feel like I need to adopt some sort of structure for them.
What are the essential elements of apocalyptic fiction? We've argued here before about the difference between dystopia and apocalypse, and were never able to come to any sort of conclusion. So I'll describe what I think are the important elements of an end-of-the-world story, in the hope that you folks will add to the list.
Is anybody else a fan of A Canticle for Leibowitz?
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 24, 2006 04:13 PMOh, I certainly am. Like many end-of-the-world stories (The Machine Stops, Lord of This World), it lacks a lot of the points I described.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 25, 2006 05:52 AMYes, most of that stuff is too insufferably Doctor Strangelove Darwinian.
On the other hand, I find myself thinking pretty often about the lady in The Machine Stops who flies over the Himalayas and finds that they do not give her any ideas.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 25, 2006 07:25 PMYes, most of that stuff is too insufferably Doctor Strangelove Darwinian.
Actually, I'd see Doctor Strangelove as anything but Darwinian, and really place it in the same camp as "The Machine Stops", On The Beach, and Lord of This World — apocalyptic rather than post-apocalyptic. The extent to which the post-apocalyptic stuff is Darwinian is an interesting variable — the most predictable stuff is (see my "terminal idiocy" category), better stuff isn't, and some of the best is Darwinian in a way that makes the protagonists and readers loathe the state has been reduced to. Probably the big variable is the attitude different writers take towards the civilization being lost — some feel liberated by its passing, others long for it.
In Canticle, Miller is nearly indifferent — viewing man (or man's nature) almost fatalisticly.
Have you read anything Miller wrote after Canticle?
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 25, 2006 08:13 PMActually, I'd see Doctor Strangelove as anything but Darwinian, and really place it in the same camp as "The Machine Stops", On The Beach, and Lord of This World — apocalyptic rather than post-apocalyptic.
Nonono, I don't mean the movie itself, I mean the Doktor's own ghoulishly eager fantasy about life in underground shelters with ten women for every man, etc., etc.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 25, 2006 10:42 PMHave you read anything Miller wrote after Canticle?
No, what is there?
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 25, 2006 10:43 PMNo, what is there?
This is all hearsay, but apparently Miller wrote Canticle during or immediately after his conversion to Roman Catholicism, when he was still enraptured by that new car smell. His later writings are supposedly less enthusiastic about the Church than Canticle was, and I wonder if they have a different, less pessimistic view of Man's Fallen Nature.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 26, 2006 05:18 AMTitles?
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 26, 2006 07:48 PMAgain, all hearsay -- half-remembered stuff I read online somewhere, possibly from the Wikipedia article on him or Canticle. You can search as well as I can.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 26, 2006 08:18 PM