1. This novel consists of three novellas loosely related in plot. This structure works well for Miller because each novella contains a central plot: the revelatory discoveries of Francis, the birth of a Renaissance, and the second apocalypse. Aside from these three plots, each novella also engages a fairly significant secondary discussion: savagery and culture, human curiosity and creativity, and a religious perception of incompatibility between science and religion. Each novella is around 100 pages, and these discussions and plots fill the space well in each portion: they never lag in either action or reflection. They are held together by things that will be discussed in later points.
2. Further, the structure simply follows one major character and spends a couple of chapters with other characters—the same character through all three parts, the old Jew Lazarus; as well as the Thon, another monk in Texarkana whose name I forget, buzzards, sharks, and the fleeing monks. These short interludes from other characters’ points of view serve to build the world. This simple structure keeps everything tight and focused. Through these three main characters, the stories stay focused on the three discussions mentioned above, as well as the three plot points. Using a single character per portion contains the story and discussions. Okay, so we have three novellas, three plots, three major discussions, and three characters. Let’s move on from these catalogues of successful structural tactics to talk about how Miller integrated these three novellas into a novel.
3. These three novellas relate closely through sharing a theme, telling a continuing story with large time breaks between them, and using the location of the Abbey of Saint Leibowitz. Dang, that’s another catalogue of three. Sorry. We’ll take them in order. First, the theme of the novel explores knowledge, science, and religion. We initially see the Catholic church in relation to purposefully unintelligent tribes, as some start to see benefits to knowledge. We then see the church existing at the start of a Renaissance, giving over their knowledge to the secular intelligentsia. Finally, we see the ignored church struggling to find a place in the world of science. These three states of the church and surrounding culture illuminate Miller’s theme of the church’s influence on culture and vise-versa. A framing theme of cyclical history supports Miller’s reframing the history of the Catholic church’s influence on culture in this post-apocalyptic Catholic tale.
4. Second and third, the whole novel tells a continuing tale, staying with the monks and nuns of the order of Saint Leibowitz, and their ancient abbey. This mostly rigid focus makes a strong base for the reflection on themes and discussions. These reflections spin out to backstory, philosophy, and cultural criticism, but always come back to that base, always exists upon that base. This circling keeps the whole novel moving, while the base keeps it all legible and combined.
5. The writing is fine, here. Miller strikes a good balance between a wide vocabulary, Latin interludes, and concise language. His language is efficient and gets out of the way for the ideas and themes to really take center stage. This is a positive because the book is clearly driven by its ideas.
6. One problem is a pacing issue: Francis dies so suddenly in the first part that it disappoints, a bit. His death reinforces the savagery of that portion of the novel, making it a tragedy. But, my problem is this: to use such a sudden and final event to end the first portion just to reinforce the savagery of the time period seems cheap and hamfisted. Miller had already built a pretty savage world and I don’t need that reinforcement there. I much prefer the ten days of buildup given to the apocalypse in the third portion.
7. I enjoy this book to some extent. Miller certainly does a great job trying these three novellas together. But the theme seems a little overdrawn—by the end I’m a bit bored thinking about the Catholic church and its relation to culture. Miller attempts to keep me riveted through the three other discussions noted in point number one. And this is almost successful, but the moderate hamfistedness left me moderately disappointed. It’s a good book, but not great.
No comments:
Post a Comment