Is Canticle For Lebowitz supposed to be funny?

Submitted by Redjay12 t3_zz4s4i in books

Spoilers for this book below:

Canticle for Lebowitz effectively satirizes the Catholic church in many ways, for example:

  • The spaceship that might have saved a remnant of humanity is obliterated by the second nuclear holocaust and does not escape earth because they spent so long figuring out the logistics of a space pope.

edit: This is incorrect. The ship makes it at the last second. and it’s possible the space catholic heirarchy is the only one in the universe post second nuclear war

  • A monk spends fifteen years making a gilded copy of a diagram (of a transistor) he does not understand only to have that “worthless” gilded copy destroyed by robbers

  • When the churches “sacred” documents are made available to the public, as well as sharing their scientific studies in general, this is implied to advance humanity to the extent of being able to once again launch rockets into space. Even though they were the only ones capable of maintaining these documents post simplification and did so at great risk to themselves, I think we are meant to believe that being so reclusive held humanity back.

  • They canonize normal people based on like, shopping lists that survived the nuclear holocaust

  • a priest cruelly prevents a woman’s euthanasia after she is hit by a nuclear blast because he considers sucide a sin, only to then himself be hit by a nuclear blast and force himself to live just so he can suffer as he made her suffer

  • A woman keeps trying to get her second head (a mutation following the first nuclear holocaust) baptized but no one will do it.

All this said it was never played for laughs from what I can tell. Someone lent it to me interpreting it as “haha funny” satire rather than just satire. I was incredibly depressed reading it and for that reason it took weeks to finish. It ends completely hopelessly. The bones of long dead entombed monks who spent their whole lives making copies of random documents that survived the first nuclear war, which were then used to rebuild humanity, were thrown into the open during the second blast. the story tells me there is no hope of humanity avoiding this cyclical violence. Even if we get incredibly technologically advanced we are a fundamentally evil and stupid species

63

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

clusterlizard99 t1_j29gi1d wrote

It's not funny as much as there is a lot of irony in it.

A very unique and excellent book.

61

Teckelvik t1_j29fxnf wrote

I never thought of it as funny or satire, just social commentary. It’s bleak. It’s reputation comes from how well written it is.

51

TheRedditoristo t1_j2ajf9n wrote

Having read it fairly recently, my impression is that the first book -or whatever term you want to use- was meant to be fairly humorous (I think it was a big influence on Pratchett's Small Gods). The next two were not.

7

Reader124-Logan t1_j2bvnq3 wrote

I read a lot of dystopian fiction, and I think absurdism is a coping mechanism. It adds some dark humor, but definitely not funny.

4

tampering t1_j29m24s wrote

>A monk spends fifteen years making a gilded copy of a diagram (of a transistor) he does not understand only to have that “worthless” gilded copy destroyed by robbers

​

The whole book is an allegorical retelling of the fall of antiquity, the dark ages and the Renaissance. Specifically events such as the sacking of the Library of Alexandria as the knowledge of antiquity was lost. It is a bit fanciful, but it is possible that the ancient Greeks were only a century or so from inventing things like the steam engine. Certainly objects like the Antikythera mechanism show what kinds of technology they were be capable of at the end of the Hellenistic age.

It would be 1500+ years before we could make machines as complicated again.

44

Electrical_Jaguar596 t1_j2aot2h wrote

What’s crazy is the Greeks did invent the steam engine, they just didn’t figure out its practical use. They were so close to the Industrial Revolution it’s mind boggling.

12

laconicflow t1_j2bv53m wrote

Industrial revolution in the Roman Republic would have been nuts, I wonder what would have happened.

5

Redjay12 OP t1_j29n2k7 wrote

at the end of the book a priest thinks of all fallen societies and lists Rome and America. With a second nuclear holocaust we will just go through everything all over again. we are doomed to these rise and fall because of our violent tendencies. very bleak

6

tampering t1_j29qbj0 wrote

It does seem to take a dim view of the idea of 'human progress' and suggest that 'cyclical rise and fall' is the fate of humans.

6

Redjay12 OP t1_j2a3wg4 wrote

yes especially because a spaceship that was meant to colonize other worlds gets obliterated by nuclear holocaust. After 700 years of rebuilding society. Pretty explicitly saying we will be forever doomed to this rise and fall and that it is inescapable. in his time as well as ours, that’s bleak

1

Griffen_07 t1_j2a9u93 wrote

You want bleak, look at the current theory that we are destroying our ability to leave Earth by creating a giant junk cloud in low orbit. We are already having to track all kinds of junk to protect our satellites and more crap seems to arrive daily.,

3

Trick-Two497 t1_j29jhmt wrote

I did not find it funny. I would label it dystopian rather than satire.

13

Redjay12 OP t1_j29nni0 wrote

as someone else pointed out maybe social commentary is a better description than satire

2

Trick-Two497 t1_j29paja wrote

Social commentary can be positive or negative, but it's generally used about current or past society. I don't think we've had spaceships purportedly saving humanity yet, so that's not what I would use. I think dystopian is more fitting. Dystopian literature explores the darkest facets of the human mind and human nature. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a dystopia is "An imaginary place or condition in which everything is as bad as possible."

Whichever, it's definitely not satire, which is defined as "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

1

Redjay12 OP t1_j2a34aj wrote

I would say with that definition it is definitely satarizing aspects of the catholic church as a hierarchical organization (for the reasons described in my post). but that is also just my opinion

3

Artanthos t1_j29g2g1 wrote

I enjoyed the book for what it is.

A good and interesting book.

It did not strike me as humorous.

12

Redjay12 OP t1_j29na4w wrote

good I didn’t find it funny but others in my life did so I wondered if it was widely considered funny

3

MaichenM t1_j29s3fr wrote

I think that it's interesting how our readings of the book vary, since it is such an obtuse story, especially for science fiction.

I think what you're missing is how deeply Catholic the view of the world in the novel is is. Excuse me because it's been a while since I've read it, but there is salvation in the book. It's in the very subtle depictions of the Sainted immortal man who appears (implied to be Leibowitz) and in the idea of ascending beyond this world. The world itself, however, is deeply influenced by the Original Sin of mankind, and the pursuit of making the world a good place to live is ultimately hopeless. The monks do right by god but ultimately fail, and their only hope for reward is in heaven. Because the book does not confirm that heaven exists, it becomes a deeply depressing read for people who are not religious, and a story of endless striving and ultimate rapture for those who are. It's a strange and genius way to cause the reader to reflect on their own beliefs.

I think my reading is accurate because the questions of faith are brought up in the book itself in the arguments between the atheist and religious character in one of the generations (that's what I've taken to calling the different parts, lol). I would say the assertion of the book is simply: "This is what humanity's history is. Decide for yourself whether it is meaningless."

11

Redjay12 OP t1_j2a2v0u wrote

that’s a really interesting point I hadn’t considered. I am atheist raised catholic and i found it super depressing but i can see how a religious person might feel comforted that the monks devotion gets them to heaven

3

MaichenM t1_j2a3ty0 wrote

Yeah, though I think it's still very bleak no matter what your religious views are. "The world is so hopeless that only heaven offers salvation" is probably the edgiest message in theological discourse.

7

Redjay12 OP t1_j2a4r87 wrote

I think the edgiest one is that in The Sparrow.“Not but a sparrow falls that god does not know of it. but the sparrow still falls.” the author comes up with the most depressing story imaginable and uses that depressing fictional story to question gods existence. Most people love that book though, I really looked forward to reading it

4

ManyCats247 t1_j29jg65 wrote

This is one of those books that stuck with me, and I make mental references to it frequently. Unfortunately few people that I have encountered have read it, so my cracks tend to fall on deaf ears. I do believe it is meant to be funny in that it is poking at some oddities of human nature.

10

Redjay12 OP t1_j29nex7 wrote

Even though I knew it was satire, it was still depressing rather than funny because of the in depth descriptions of individual people suffering and dying.

4

wingthing666 t1_j2a583k wrote

I had the worst sleepless night after reading part 3 while feeling sick and depressed. If I should die before I wake levels of existential terror after all the death and suffering and that priest wanting to live just a little longer to offer up his fatal pain and atone for his perceived sins.... God I can never read that book again except in broad daylight

5

Redjay12 OP t1_j2a77tp wrote

yes! I experienced the exact same last night

2

ManyCats247 t1_j29rkne wrote

I agree that it was extremely depressing. The image of the monk ruining his eyesight with such a futile and wasted task of writing by candlelight really bugged me.

4

Redjay12 OP t1_j2a3ioy wrote

exactly. I felt horrible for most of the people in the book and how they suffered. The woman and her baby going to be euthanized after the bombs dropped was so bleak

3

Mithrandalf t1_j2abmb6 wrote

One of may favourite books that ive come back to a couple times.

It's pretty bleak but it did get a few chuckles out of me.

"Forgive me father, I ate a lizard" and Francis' repeated fainting and the librarian having a fit when the monk that is into science suggests moving a cross to hang their lightbulb for thon Thaddio come to mind.

As grim as the ending is I never got the impression that spaceship didn't make it. There was a scene where the bearded guy gets on the ship and they see the blasts from space, no?

10

Redjay12 OP t1_j2ajqr5 wrote

ah ok I misunderstand. the ship takes off and then the next paragraph describes a plane being broken up in the ocean and floating among dead sea life. I thought the spaceship was broken up

4

cheerio_ninja t1_j2an3kx wrote

The author was a devout Catholic. He also was on the bombing mission of the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino in WWII, which haunted him the rest of his life. The book accurately reflects his struggles with his faith, depression, and PTSD from the war.

10

AndWat t1_j2adraw wrote

It is a rich and multi-faceted book. It's funny, in that it induces wry and bitter smiles, as much as any other SFF novel I've ever read. It is a lot. It is great.

9

boxer_dogs_dance t1_j29m2rz wrote

I thoroughly enjoyed it, but it is a dark vision of history. For me it parallels how actual civilizations rise and fall, and the role of monasteries preserving knowledge during the dark ages. In the end the sun will engulf us and I don't believe we will find a solution by migrating to other planets. War is baked into the human psyche. So is peace and idealism. We are a contradictory species.

8

Redjay12 OP t1_j29n65r wrote

yes the ending implies we are trapped in this cyclical rise and fall. very depressing

3

sfenders t1_j29l9fm wrote

From what I remember, it being a long time since I read it, "being so reclusive held humanity back" seems like an over-simplification. Perhaps it did, at some point, but only after humanity was eventually ready to benefit from its secret knowledge which did take some time.

The rest seem entirely in keeping with the character of the book and in large part exemplary of black comedy. Your sense of humour may vary.

7

Redjay12 OP t1_j29msmz wrote

I may not agree with the idea that they held humanity back but in the second part of the book that is a central conflict. A world leader and a religious leader have a little argument about it and the religious leader insists that people lost their lives to maintain these records and they couldn’t be used until now. The military leader disagrees and blames them for the state of the world

3

sfenders t1_j29tdzj wrote

Yeah, I had only a vague memory of how that disagreement went. I suppose I must've been left with the impression that when you take the long view of history, the military dude was largely (or at least partly) in the wrong there.

3

throwaway384938338 t1_j2a1pmg wrote

I think the writer was a sincere Catholic.

5

Redjay12 OP t1_j2a4a3v wrote

maybe that’s why there’s a pope then. almost every book and all knowledge is wiped out, to the extent of re creating a different version of christianity. the pope isn’t even in the bible. and yet to him, it’s inconceivable that there is a world without a pope

2

Jack-Campin t1_j2a0e9j wrote

It came across as mostly black humour to me. Like the monk who nearly blinds himself working the arc light. A lot more other perspectives going on though.

4

PM_ME_UR_MULLETS t1_j2ae0e8 wrote

I thought the spaceship made it? Or at least I don’t remember reading about it’s destruction

4

Redjay12 OP t1_j2aixa8 wrote

very last page describes people boarding but the spaceship is broken apart in the ocean and floats among dead sea life

edit nope the ship does take off! and they describe a plane breaking up in the ocean last page

1

PM_ME_UR_MULLETS t1_j2ak33d wrote

That’s definitely not described in the edition I read or the audiobook I listened to. I thought the whole point Miller was making was that the Quo Peragrinatur escaped, leaving mankind one step ahead of the devil again?

4

Redjay12 OP t1_j2akb2m wrote

I misunderstood. they take off, there’s a blinding light, and then the next paragraph describes a plane being broken up in the ocean.

4

PM_ME_UR_MULLETS t1_j2akqws wrote

Yeah I just reread myself to see if I’d missed something- can defo see why it could be remembered that way. Glad you started the discussion about it- due a reread I think!

3

Redjay12 OP t1_j2aoqjh wrote

it does completely change the meaning of the book if discussions on space pope prevents us from progressing and they die in a nuclear holocaust ! so much more cynical

3

PM_ME_UR_MULLETS t1_j2apqg6 wrote

I do really like the idea of the bureaucratic discussion around a space pope literally dooming the species to extinction. I generally lean towards the bleakest ending possible myself taste wise as a reader haha

3

__tmk__ t1_j29nrwl wrote

Well, there is the time the simple monk meets Lazarus in the desert, when the monk is out doing a vigil. I think Lazarus is described as hopping only on one big toe over the hot sands. That made me chuckle.

Otherwise, the laughs just aren't there. It's a pretty sad telling of the darker side of human nature.

3

marrjoram t1_j2aopuy wrote

I also found the book to be very humorous at times, in a satirical or sarcastic way, but I think the portrayal of Christianity is supposed to be very positive. I read it a long time ago, so I might misremember it, but the Catholic Church is what basically keeps all human knowledge from disappearing and is portrayed as its keepsake* (edit: I mean a keeper) of sorts, for next generations who will follow and will be able to utilise it. Also, and what frustrated me a lot reading the book, at the very end you get the pov of a priest (correct me, if I remember wrong), who observes people around him dying and suffering horribly painful, uncurable wounds but is very much against helping them, or even allowing them stopping their suffering, seeing their wish to end their lives as a great sin and basically enforcing the view that suffering in itself is necessary for salvation. This priest character read a lot like an author self-insert, at least to me it sounded like we were supposed to agree with his point of view. So while I enjoyed the book very much, and didn't mind the positive portrayal of the Church in the rest of the book, the end soured it a bit for me.

3

Redjay12 OP t1_j2aow9e wrote

very interesting - I didn’t think we were supposed to be on that priests side, especially as he made himself suffer needlessly at the end im order to suffer as much as she (the woman he had prevented from suicide) had suffered

5

marrjoram t1_j2askyf wrote

I'm not sure if I interpreted it right, and it's been some time, but to me the suffering for the sake of it seemed like the point, like we were meant to admire the path the priest chose, and I remember the frustration and strong disagreement while reading it. But I'm also an atheist (raised Catholic) who is pretty anti-Church, so it might have been just my opinions skewing my interpretation. I might have to go back and re-read it sometime :)

1

HugoNebula t1_j29lhi6 wrote

It's not supposed to be funny, it's supposed to be ironic and satirical.

2

leave_it_blank t1_j2ajdwo wrote

Funny? It was depressing!

Fantastic book, highly recommended!

2

christien t1_j2akeii wrote

great book but I recall few laughs

2

pfortuny t1_j2djmi7 wrote

No: it is exactly a very explicit example of the true Catholic mindset: whatever you think is important has a meaning which you do not perceive in Gos’s mind. Men worry for things that are totally out of their control, and that makes them suffer needlessly.

2

jxj24 t1_j29k4zp wrote

For when life is such that you can either laugh or scream.

1

dexterthekilla t1_j29ognb wrote

I literally didn't see it as funny at all. I liked some elements that reminded me of the Fallout games

1

Whut4 t1_j2e14d9 wrote

Tragic, absurd, ironic, not slapstick or joke-y.

1

ssducf t1_j2e1x1z wrote

A lot of comments here people read this book and see it as depressing that we are violent and doomed to repeat the violence.

But I think books like this are frequently written as a warning that if we are not careful, this is what will happen.... not that the author thinks it will happen, and probably hopes his book will prevent it.

So I don't see it as depressing. And the ending of the book with the two headed woman, while it seems depressing, hints that there may be evolution in progress, that the survivors will not have the same issues.

1