So one of the big things that I wanted to comment about comes in chapter 3 where Osborne, Holmes and Towers are talking about the end of the world and Osborne says "It's not the end of the world at all. It's only the end of us. The world will go on jus tthe same, only we shan't be in it. I dare say it will get along all right without us." This, and the response by Towers who says "I suppose that's right... Maybe we've been too silly to deserve a world like this." came across as a huge important quote with little red lights going up all around me. I feel that this really helps to show how the people of Australia, already condemned to die, have come to terms with their eventually demises. They have realized that earth has been destroyed by humanity, and admitting that it is going to be different, and perhaps better without them is a big deal. Man doesn't generally let go of his convictions so easily. The survivors show real insight here in their belief that man, in his selfish and quarrelsome nature, didn't deserve the bounty of earth.
I was interested in the progression on events of the 37 day war that caused the absolute destruction on mankind. It started in late 1961 or 1962, as evidenced by the fact that they have been in Australia for a good deal of time and that it is now 1963. The events I have discerned as follows progress like this:
1. Albania drops nuclear bomb on Naples Italy. This draws retaliation from NATO against the small Soviet Ally. 2. Tel-Aviv, Isreal is Bombed and destroyed as the Arab-Israelli War kicks off. No one knows exactly who dropped the bomb. Israel and Jordan appear to go to war. 3. Egypt begins to act agressively against a weakened Israel, which prompts a "demonstartion flight" by Britain and the USA over Cairo. 4. Egypt sends all available bombers to attack London and Washington. A few break through, and both city are nuked and destroyed. 5. The planes appeared Russian because they were bearing Russian markings and purchased from Russia by Egypt. In retaliation, Nuclear missles fly and hit Russia in several key places. So yes, they nukes the USSR by accident. 6. Russian-NATO war begins. 7. China attacks Russia, Chinese-Russian war begins. Cobalt using Uranium bombs are employed in this leg of the war. 8. Everybody in the Northern Hemisphere is dead. End 37 days.
So the wars are generally the byproduct of man's aggressive/defensive nature (as shown in how so many countries join in after the other), and man's natural imperfection (seeing as the nukes hit by accident). Frankly, I believe man poses an interesting place in the universe, seeing as he has some qualities all other creatures lack. Namely, these are a deeper feeling to destroy when agitated, and now the means to cause such massive destruction in the first place. The perfect balance of hostility and intellect to result in absolute chaos, if agitated. Following up on what Mike said, man is either too smart or too hostile to rule a utopian world.
Also, the idea of a hydrogen bomb fascinated me (hadn't ever heard of them, apparently), so I found this video. The magnitude of this explosion is just incredible...it actually makes the sort of nuclear holocaust described in the book seem realistic.
Following up on what Matt said, i feel that this book embodies man's greed and deceptive methods to achieve what he desires, rather than our natural aggressive nature. Although Russia was not the one who bombed Washington or London, they received a majority of the nukes dropped. However, instead of being caused by man's imperfection, it was brought about by man's deception, because Egypt used Russian planes to bomb America and England. Furthermore, the Russian-Chinese war mentioned in the book was driven by greed. For example, China was grossly overpopulated and desired land in Russia, while Russia also wanted land and areas of china's. Although such land disputes have been going on for thousands of yeas, when given weapons to forcibly take from others, humans will use that for some of the most insignificant reasons, such as greed. Overall, i really like the book so far, it hasn't embraced some of the normal assumptions of a post apocalyptic world, and i dont hate any of the characters (for the first time this year). I think that though we can all assume how this is going to end, there is still plenty of paths for the story to take and i cant wait to read more.
I'm really enjoying this book. And JK should post so he gets credit.
Another point: what do you guys think about the ways that the people of Australia are handling their fates? Many seem to take to drinking and partying as there is no point in saving up for a future non-existant. Yet others go on with their jobs because they have a duty to do. The navy is still doing its duty in a world without enemies left to fight against. Or do they not simply take to drinking and partying because they are still employed and have something to do? I want to hear your thoughts on this, guys.
For me, I feel torn about this issue. On the one hand, the book states that many people just arent going into work anymore, and that buisnesses are closing left and right. Yet Mary also tells Holmes that he is lucky to have a job. To me, the book is saying that people will party until they realize that they still have a duty to do. Those who don't have a purpose spend longer in corporeal pleasures, but eventually those will be satisfied and they continue on with whatever they have left to do on this earth, such as the soldiers of the navy. When given something to do, man will invariable chose to take action as opposed to taking no action.
A section of the book that really caught my eye comes when Moira and Dwight are in the art gallery and they see the picture of Jesus standing over the fallen city, his face sorrowful. Dwight hates it, sayign that "Whatever it's meant to be, it's phony. It couldn't have looked like that. Too dramatic." So a few things went through my head. Firstly, HOLDEN! Second, I think that dwight reacted this way because he was so upset by anyone thinking that thye could understand the devestation of the war who hadn't been in it. He had seen the horrors that were wrought from the war, the senseless killings and the silent towns and he had read the report from the Swordfish. The entire Northern Hemisphere is gone. Dwight doesn't seem to like art that tries to have a deeper meaning. He appreciates the simple art of the french countryside, because it doesn't make him realize what he has lost and what is awaiting him in the future. But the picture of God watching with sorrow as his children destroyed each other is something that the fairly religious Dwight doesn't want to have to think about.
Yeah, definitely one of the major themes I'm seeing so far in this book is how people are dealing with this crisis. Moira has her alcoholism (which, from the way she acts, may infer that she drank quite a bit before, or during, the war) to dull the reality, and most of the other main characters delude themselves. They just can't accept this reality, so they go on as if they were never going to die. Such as when Peter and Mary have a chat about making a garden, though it will never be realized. While I was reading that, actually, I thought about how Mary might want to make the world a slightly better-looking place before she goes. The whole "gum tree on the sea" thing, in particular. The tree would probably die, so they're just deluding themselves. This is like the other impossible idea brought up, which is preserving all of human history, encased in glass at the top of a mountain. There are just so many doubts to this, and yet, it's being done anyways. So it leaves me to ask, what are the most important things in human history that would have to be recorded? Obviously the outcome of the war is one, but I'm really curious to see what you guys think.
Wow. Well, I really missed the fact that we were continuing to comment on this one...
As for Stank's question, I really feel that the way the Australians are viewing their fate is much the same as we would view our own fates if we were in their situation, or if one of us knew their life would be ending at a specific time for any number of given reasons. The human brain can't comprehend its own demise the way it can comprehend millions of other factors. Therefore, one consciously starts attempting to feel normal, so the brain does not have to try and compute its death. That's why so many Australians, like Peter and Mary, seem to be going on with their lives as if nothing could ever harm them. Just because it's mentioned that many are leaving their jobs to do other things does not mean that they are not living their lives simply, as Peter and Mary are, it just means that they are not wasting time doing an activity that they may have previously detested doing. While I do agree with your statement, that men will always choose to take action over not taking action when the occasion arrises, I don't feel it suits this situation particularly well. The people of Australia don't have any choice but to work or not, and most people view "work" as useless, as compared to doing activities they've always wanted to do. They'll die either way.
As to Matt's question, I think it's an interesting one to think about, or at least speculate on what the people in 1963 may have imagined to be important events to document. I feel that they would not attempt to preserve religious texts, since it would not be understood by those who were not already knowledgable of the religion on the whole. Would they record simply a more modern history, or document all of human history as they knew it?
Also, for a more simple question: Anyone have a character that they gravitate to? I'm always interested to hear those sorts of things.
Similar to JK, i totally missed the boat on this conversation, but i figured it's better to say what i have to now, rather than not at all. ANYWAYS, I feel that Mike posed an excellent question about the way the Australians are conducting the remainder of their days. First off, I feel similarly torn, I can't criticize them for deciding to live the rest of their lives partying with friends and loved ones. However, at the same I feel like there are so many better things than partying to do during your final six months or so on earth. Although i would almost certainly indulge in a large amount of partying, ONLY partying is kind of a waste of life. I feel like Peter and Mary manage to find that happy medium where they are able to throw a party with friends, while also spending precious time with their family(sober)and carrying on with basic human tendencies. It just seems like they've managed to find a happy lifestyle for them in their remaining days where they still manage to have fun, but also manage to spend time with family doing things that have greater meaning than drinking.
Yes, Ben seemed to summarize my thoughts clearly- There are two extremes to this issue that seem to be common, but Mary and Peter (in my opinion) are well balanced between the two sides. However, Mary and Peter seem to be getting on each other's last nerves faster than others are. Is this because they are trying to live "normally" while not ignoring their fates? I also think that Mary is faced with one of the most difficult decisions so far in the story: either to end her baby's life, or not once the radiation reaches that far south in Australia. How would you all feel about a choice like that, even if the world was most definitely ending?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWho else is in this group?
ReplyDeleteStank and Ben Frasc, though they've yet to add themselves.
ReplyDeleteSo one of the big things that I wanted to comment about comes in chapter 3 where Osborne, Holmes and Towers are talking about the end of the world and Osborne says "It's not the end of the world at all. It's only the end of us. The world will go on jus tthe same, only we shan't be in it. I dare say it will get along all right without us." This, and the response by Towers who says "I suppose that's right... Maybe we've been too silly to deserve a world like this." came across as a huge important quote with little red lights going up all around me. I feel that this really helps to show how the people of Australia, already condemned to die, have come to terms with their eventually demises. They have realized that earth has been destroyed by humanity, and admitting that it is going to be different, and perhaps better without them is a big deal. Man doesn't generally let go of his convictions so easily. The survivors show real insight here in their belief that man, in his selfish and quarrelsome nature, didn't deserve the bounty of earth.
ReplyDeleteI was interested in the progression on events of the 37 day war that caused the absolute destruction on mankind. It started in late 1961 or 1962, as evidenced by the fact that they have been in Australia for a good deal of time and that it is now 1963. The events I have discerned as follows progress like this:
ReplyDelete1. Albania drops nuclear bomb on Naples Italy. This draws retaliation from NATO against the small Soviet Ally.
2. Tel-Aviv, Isreal is Bombed and destroyed as the Arab-Israelli War kicks off. No one knows exactly who dropped the bomb. Israel and Jordan appear to go to war.
3. Egypt begins to act agressively against a weakened Israel, which prompts a "demonstartion flight" by Britain and the USA over Cairo.
4. Egypt sends all available bombers to attack London and Washington. A few break through, and both city are nuked and destroyed.
5. The planes appeared Russian because they were bearing Russian markings and purchased from Russia by Egypt. In retaliation, Nuclear missles fly and hit Russia in several key places. So yes, they nukes the USSR by accident.
6. Russian-NATO war begins.
7. China attacks Russia, Chinese-Russian war begins. Cobalt using Uranium bombs are employed in this leg of the war.
8. Everybody in the Northern Hemisphere is dead. End 37 days.
So far, that's what I've got.
So the wars are generally the byproduct of man's aggressive/defensive nature (as shown in how so many countries join in after the other), and man's natural imperfection (seeing as the nukes hit by accident). Frankly, I believe man poses an interesting place in the universe, seeing as he has some qualities all other creatures lack. Namely, these are a deeper feeling to destroy when agitated, and now the means to cause such massive destruction in the first place. The perfect balance of hostility and intellect to result in absolute chaos, if agitated. Following up on what Mike said, man is either too smart or too hostile to rule a utopian world.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the idea of a hydrogen bomb fascinated me (hadn't ever heard of them, apparently), so I found this video. The magnitude of this explosion is just incredible...it actually makes the sort of nuclear holocaust described in the book seem realistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNcQX033V_M
Following up on what Matt said, i feel that this book embodies man's greed and deceptive methods to achieve what he desires, rather than our natural aggressive nature. Although Russia was not the one who bombed Washington or London, they received a majority of the nukes dropped. However, instead of being caused by man's imperfection, it was brought about by man's deception, because Egypt used Russian planes to bomb America and England. Furthermore, the Russian-Chinese war mentioned in the book was driven by greed. For example, China was grossly overpopulated and desired land in Russia, while Russia also wanted land and areas of china's. Although such land disputes have been going on for thousands of yeas, when given weapons to forcibly take from others, humans will use that for some of the most insignificant reasons, such as greed.
ReplyDeleteOverall, i really like the book so far, it hasn't embraced some of the normal assumptions of a post apocalyptic world, and i dont hate any of the characters (for the first time this year). I think that though we can all assume how this is going to end, there is still plenty of paths for the story to take and i cant wait to read more.
I'm really enjoying this book. And JK should post so he gets credit.
ReplyDeleteAnother point: what do you guys think about the ways that the people of Australia are handling their fates? Many seem to take to drinking and partying as there is no point in saving up for a future non-existant. Yet others go on with their jobs because they have a duty to do. The navy is still doing its duty in a world without enemies left to fight against. Or do they not simply take to drinking and partying because they are still employed and have something to do? I want to hear your thoughts on this, guys.
For me, I feel torn about this issue. On the one hand, the book states that many people just arent going into work anymore, and that buisnesses are closing left and right. Yet Mary also tells Holmes that he is lucky to have a job. To me, the book is saying that people will party until they realize that they still have a duty to do. Those who don't have a purpose spend longer in corporeal pleasures, but eventually those will be satisfied and they continue on with whatever they have left to do on this earth, such as the soldiers of the navy. When given something to do, man will invariable chose to take action as opposed to taking no action.
A section of the book that really caught my eye comes when Moira and Dwight are in the art gallery and they see the picture of Jesus standing over the fallen city, his face sorrowful. Dwight hates it, sayign that "Whatever it's meant to be, it's phony. It couldn't have looked like that. Too dramatic."
ReplyDeleteSo a few things went through my head. Firstly, HOLDEN!
Second, I think that dwight reacted this way because he was so upset by anyone thinking that thye could understand the devestation of the war who hadn't been in it. He had seen the horrors that were wrought from the war, the senseless killings and the silent towns and he had read the report from the Swordfish. The entire Northern Hemisphere is gone. Dwight doesn't seem to like art that tries to have a deeper meaning. He appreciates the simple art of the french countryside, because it doesn't make him realize what he has lost and what is awaiting him in the future. But the picture of God watching with sorrow as his children destroyed each other is something that the fairly religious Dwight doesn't want to have to think about.
Yeah, definitely one of the major themes I'm seeing so far in this book is how people are dealing with this crisis. Moira has her alcoholism (which, from the way she acts, may infer that she drank quite a bit before, or during, the war) to dull the reality, and most of the other main characters delude themselves. They just can't accept this reality, so they go on as if they were never going to die. Such as when Peter and Mary have a chat about making a garden, though it will never be realized. While I was reading that, actually, I thought about how Mary might want to make the world a slightly better-looking place before she goes. The whole "gum tree on the sea" thing, in particular. The tree would probably die, so they're just deluding themselves.
ReplyDeleteThis is like the other impossible idea brought up, which is preserving all of human history, encased in glass at the top of a mountain. There are just so many doubts to this, and yet, it's being done anyways. So it leaves me to ask, what are the most important things in human history that would have to be recorded? Obviously the outcome of the war is one, but I'm really curious to see what you guys think.
Wow. Well, I really missed the fact that we were continuing to comment on this one...
ReplyDeleteAs for Stank's question, I really feel that the way the Australians are viewing their fate is much the same as we would view our own fates if we were in their situation, or if one of us knew their life would be ending at a specific time for any number of given reasons. The human brain can't comprehend its own demise the way it can comprehend millions of other factors. Therefore, one consciously starts attempting to feel normal, so the brain does not have to try and compute its death. That's why so many Australians, like Peter and Mary, seem to be going on with their lives as if nothing could ever harm them. Just because it's mentioned that many are leaving their jobs to do other things does not mean that they are not living their lives simply, as Peter and Mary are, it just means that they are not wasting time doing an activity that they may have previously detested doing. While I do agree with your statement, that men will always choose to take action over not taking action when the occasion arrises, I don't feel it suits this situation particularly well. The people of Australia don't have any choice but to work or not, and most people view "work" as useless, as compared to doing activities they've always wanted to do. They'll die either way.
As to Matt's question, I think it's an interesting one to think about, or at least speculate on what the people in 1963 may have imagined to be important events to document. I feel that they would not attempt to preserve religious texts, since it would not be understood by those who were not already knowledgable of the religion on the whole. Would they record simply a more modern history, or document all of human history as they knew it?
Also, for a more simple question: Anyone have a character that they gravitate to? I'm always interested to hear those sorts of things.
PS- I would have posted before, but I had no idea you were all still commenting on this post, and I just figured out how to make new posts today...
ReplyDeleteSimilar to JK, i totally missed the boat on this conversation, but i figured it's better to say what i have to now, rather than not at all.
ReplyDeleteANYWAYS, I feel that Mike posed an excellent question about the way the Australians are conducting the remainder of their days. First off, I feel similarly torn, I can't criticize them for deciding to live the rest of their lives partying with friends and loved ones. However, at the same I feel like there are so many better things than partying to do during your final six months or so on earth. Although i would almost certainly indulge in a large amount of partying, ONLY partying is kind of a waste of life. I feel like Peter and Mary manage to find that happy medium where they are able to throw a party with friends, while also spending precious time with their family(sober)and carrying on with basic human tendencies. It just seems like they've managed to find a happy lifestyle for them in their remaining days where they still manage to have fun, but also manage to spend time with family doing things that have greater meaning than drinking.
Yes, Ben seemed to summarize my thoughts clearly- There are two extremes to this issue that seem to be common, but Mary and Peter (in my opinion) are well balanced between the two sides. However, Mary and Peter seem to be getting on each other's last nerves faster than others are. Is this because they are trying to live "normally" while not ignoring their fates? I also think that Mary is faced with one of the most difficult decisions so far in the story: either to end her baby's life, or not once the radiation reaches that far south in Australia. How would you all feel about a choice like that, even if the world was most definitely ending?
ReplyDelete