Book Review: Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horse Woman

Review by Godfrey Blackwell

Title: Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horse Woman  
Author: Walter M. Miller, Jr.
Publisher: Bantam
Godfrey's Rating: 2.5 stars our of 5
Summary in a Sentence: The 30-years-in-coming sequel to A Canticle for Leibowitz which shows flashes of the original's brilliance, but on the whole ends up being a disjointed and lacklustre, though interesting, parallel novel to the classic original.

This is one of those books that a really wanted to like, and which had many elements that I did like, but in the end must be called disappointing and perhaps mediocre. Although, to be fair, it did grip my attention sufficiently that I kept reading it every lunch break until it was done which cannot be said for other novels like Witch World which I've been "working on" for 6 months and just cannot get into it. I finished off Saint Leibowitz in less than a month despite continued illness.

The main character, Blacktooth Saint George, is one of the main problems with this work. He's basically a narcissistic, self-centred, whiner. At the beginning of the novel, this is forgivable, as he still has a certain likeability about him, a charming naivete, and he is still struggling manfully to overcome his demons. So one expects him to develop into a good protagonist, but rather than develop he tends to stagnate and even regress over the course of 450 pages. As far as I was concerned, he'd devolved into a thorough donkey cave by about page 300 and did not redeem himself by the end.

The good of the work is the worldbuilding. Taking place around the time of the second novella in the classic original, this work fleshes out the post-apocalptic North America A LOT more. This was very well (and thoroughly) done and enjoyable. Aside from Blacktooth Saint George, there were a number of interesting and likeable secondary characters, although some of them seemed to disappear around the halfway point of the work.

The plot tends to jump around a bit too, and the end seemed very rushed. In all, the novel really felt like something that a man had struggled with for 30 years and then had it finished by someone else who was unwilling to input too much of himself into the work, and therefore leaving blanks instead. It definitely had flashes of Miller's brilliance from the original and many memorable individual scenes. But as a whole, the work just does not hold up. It is also a much more depressing and "dark" work in the "Game of Thrones" vein where there are few real good guys and everyone does lots of very bad stuff (some of it seemingly for no reason) evincing a tortured soul who, if he hadn't lost his faith, was on the verge of it.

Some Thoughts from Godfrey on Science and Faith

I saw the picture above posted to Facebook. I certainly agree that "science and faith are compatible", but I think that the picture wrongly suggests that if you believe this you MUST accept the "big bang theory". The thing is, it's just that -- a theory. And how could it be otherwise since obviously no one other than God Himself was around at the time to see what happened.

The Big Bang theory does make a certain amount of sense, but, it's unprovable, and furthermore, there IS scientific evidence out there in favour of a "young earth". Just because you ascribe to that theory doesn't mean that you believe science and faith are incompatible. And, frankly, it would be great if there were more open study of such questions. The problem is that the modern-day secularist inquisition forbids a truly open and honest discussion of these things. You must accept evolution or you're a crazy fundamentalist. You must accept the "big bang" or you're a crazy fundamentalist. Et cetera. And it seems to me that we're buying into that mentality a bit when we make memes and videos like the ones above.

Moreover, it seems to me that the reason modern "scientists" and university professors persecute those with "heretical" views is because in some respects they have elevated unproven theories to the level of dogma in some sort of quasi-religion which they call "science" but really isn't science. Hence the witch hunt for creationists and others. So the opposition isn't really between faith and science. They frame it this way to stack the deck in their favour. But the opposition is frequently between this pseudo-religion and faith.

Just some random thoughts.

Godfrey's Thoughts on Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence

A Hross from C.S. Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet

As a Catholic who enjoys reading and writing science fiction, one dilemma I've had to consider is theologically, is the existence of non-human sentient beings possible? At first blush, it may seem problematic because there is no mention of life outside of Earth in the Bible or traditional theology. There is the fact that Jesus Christ (not only God, but a human being) is the saviour for the entire universe -- so where would that leave non-human sentient creatures? It is interesting to consider how they might fit into God's Plan and how we might explain same to nonbelievers or fellow Catholics who might be shaken (some could think the existence of "aliens" means that evolution is true, or that Adam and Eve did not exist, &c.).

I've discussed this topic a number of times with fellow Catholics and there seem to be a few lines of thought. The first question is whether they are ensoulled creatures or not?

One line of thought is that if sentient creatures had souls, then God would have to have a different salvation plan for them than for humans, since they would not be descendents of Adam. They could be more like angels (not fallen) or I suppose they could be fallen and in need of redemption but this raises further issues as Christ is the redeemer of all yet how can he redeem non-human creatures who are not descendents of Adam? That said I'm not aware of any explicit teaching that excluded the possibility of races with immortal souls who are not descended from Adam with an alternate path of redemption.

There is also the option of creatures with immortal souls who never sinned and therefore, like angels, are not in need of redemption. This appears to be what C.S. Lewis portrayed in his Space Trilogy.

I tend to prefer two "simpler" solutions:

1. That non-human sentient life could not be ensouled life. I personally find it "risky" to posit creatures with immortal souls who are not redeemed by Christ. But what constitutes ensouled life? The soul is rational but this could be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for ensoulment. My view is that, to be ensouled, one must be infused with the faculty to know and love God (even if that faculty, like the rational one, is never actuated by the development of some individuals). It is clear to me that rationality itself does not equal ensoulement because some apes, parrots, mynah birds, and porpoises are supposedly self-aware but not ensouled and not able to comprehend the concept of God. I think it could therefore be possible to have highly intelligent, sentient, even civilized and technologically advanced beings than nevertheless have no souls. I think an excellent speculative example of this are the "Moties" in the novel, The Mote in God's Eye.  While the question is never answered in the novel, it is my opinion that the aliens encountered by humans in the book (the "Moties") are indeed soul-less creatures  because they really have no ability to choose between right and wrong -- everything they do in the novel is dictated by their biological imperatives.
2. That apparently non-human sentient life is actually human. There are a myriad of ways that this can be worked around. Perhaps Ante-Deluvian humans had developed space travel before the Great Flood, and some escaped the Great Deluge? In which case they would be Star Trek style "aliens" who look completely human. For stranger looking creatures, genetic engineering could create creatures who look alien but have human souls -- like the eponymous character in my short story "Chimera" (who could easily be considered an E.T. if encountered on another planet).

LEFEBVRIANS

An old work, but one I still quote like ... I used to attend Mass at a chapel run by the Society of St. Pius X and at the time they were frequently called "Lefebvrians" in Novus Ordo¹ media (for example, here, here, and here). Every time I read this rather silly pejorative, I couln't help but having this mental image:

Note 1: Novus Ordo refers to what most people would consider the Catholic Church; the one headed by Jorge Bergoglio AKA Francis.