A Canticle For Leibowitz Literary Analysis
In the novel A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller, knowledge has been made into a symbol of fear and hatred within the post flame deluge society. In the wake of destruction, the society has chosen to point the finger at the idea of knowledge and the capabilities of individuals who possess any form of knowledge. The monks in this book serve as the protectors for the knowledge by preserving books and their role as “bookleggers preserving knowledge” (Miller 64) serves as a way of highlighting the need for knowledge within civilization. In A Canticle for Leibowitz, Miller uses the idea of knowledge being dangerous to highlight the importance of knowledge and learning within a successful society. This novel paints knowledge and learning as a dangerous commodity that withholds the power to destroy civilization. Post flame deluge, this society decided to burn all books and evidence of knowledge in an effort to simplify. By simplifying societies understanding of the world and restricting learning, they were able to create a homogenous society void
…show more content…
While Arkos claims this is to prohibit any altercations preventing Leibowitz from becoming a saint, it seems to stem from a sense of fear of what this knowledge could become. Miller describes how “there had been no attempt to penetrate further into the secrets of the shelter” (60) which was Arkos’ way of eliminating the unknown of what the shelter would reveal. This fear of knowledge is presented again when the monks decided to finally open up the shelter after seven years. The abbot is described as “wise and prudent” (68) due to his inability to work up the courage to open the shelter himself and instead taking the passive route. Both examples are evidence of how Miller paints knowledge as dangerous and something to be feared and this is adhered to even by those protecting that very
While Arkos claims this is to prohibit any altercations preventing Leibowitz from becoming a saint, it seems to stem from a sense of fear of what this knowledge could become. Miller describes how “there had been no attempt to penetrate further into the secrets of the shelter” (60) which was Arkos’ way of eliminating the unknown of what the shelter would reveal. This fear of knowledge is presented again when the monks decided to finally open up the shelter after seven years. The abbot is described as “wise and prudent” (68) due to his inability to work up the courage to open the shelter himself and instead taking the passive route. Both examples are evidence of how Miller paints knowledge as dangerous and something to be feared and this is adhered to even by those protecting that very