Help offset server costs by donating. This is totally optional. Any overages will go to library fines or new books.
The Death of Grass 4 - The group hierarchy
By the end of the book, the group has settled into a social organisation that they themselves think of as medieval. In the middle stages the women are largely reduced to secondary status, able to voice things but not push them through as actions. By the end the only people - men or women - with significant agency are the leaders (like John) or those with obvious military skills (like Pirrie). Did this feel credible? Does it reflect 1956 thinking (when the story was first published) and if so how might a contemporary author address this?
Comments
I thought it did feel credible, in the sense that any one group of might might certainly organize themselves this way. And since this descent into brutality is the theme, it makes sense to have an authoritarian organization.
To what degree any of this reflects British society in 1956 I cannot say. Being the cold war and living under the nuclear shadow, I'd guess this (and many other) outcomes and responses were considered by a variety of people or think tanks as being plausible and worth exploring.
The novel has something of a Lord of the Flies quality to it, but without the madness, I guess. It's more rational here.
I refer back to my earlier answer about Hobbes. Yes, it's entirely medieval. Following Hobbes, an absolute monarchy is the only stable form of rule when the world has fallen into a civil war (or other anarchy). John is the king, Pirrie is the champion that enforces the rule.
I think that's the point Christopher is making.