Help offset server costs by donating. This is totally optional. Any overages will go to library fines or new books.
The Death of Grass 5 - The ending
Like a lot of older SF (I'm thinking John Wyndham in particular) the story concludes at what you might call the end of the prologue. The virus has not been - and may never be - defeated, and it is unclear how or if the group will survive in the Westmorland valley. The group has successfully, though at considerable cost, reached this valley, but that's all.
Do you find this provocative or frustrating? Other post apocalyptic stories we have read (eg Ridley Walker) deal with life long after the crisis, rather than during it. Which choice do you prefer?
Comments
I suppose each has their place. I would call this an Apocalyptic Novel - one that deals with the fall of society, wheras Riddley Walker was a Post-Apocalyptic Novel - one that deals with the reconstruction of society after the fall.
Tom's-A-Cold is another British post-apocalyptic novel, and that one depicts what could be the future of The Death of Grass. In that novel, society has broken down into distinct tribal groupings, with each 'tribe' defending their own territory. In that novel, the main character hits upon a scheme to steal a wife from another tribe.
The Death of Grass reminded me of Tom's-A-Cold, and of Day of the Triffids, and a little bit of Lord of the Flies (but without the focus on the psychological tension of that situation).
I thought I'd share Gary K. Wolfe's thesis on common structure for Apocalyptic Novels, from his essay titled The Remaking of Zero, which I read in his book Evaporating Genres
The Death of Grass isn't one of the works cited in that essay, but I think it fits this structure pretty well.
One can see how this might differ from Post-Apocalyptic fiction, in which the cataclysm is already known or even forgotten, and communities are already settled and maybe entrenched. Post Apocalyptic Fiction is often closer to Dystopian Fiction, in which the norms of established less-than-ideal (or perhaps too-ideal, if seen from the other side of the coin) societies are challenged. Though journeys, conflict with wilderness, and decisive battles can certainly feature in all kinds of novels.
I think the novel finishes when Carpenter's made his point.
Leviathan was written during the English Civil War. In the novel we have social breakdown, and what is a war of all against all. The breakdown is so bad that even brother is fighting against brother. The brother who rules by consent of the ruled is defeated by the brother who is the absolute monarch. And so peace is restored to the realm.
Am I reading too much into this? Is the final battle a retelling of how Hobbes thought the English Civil War should have ended?
One thing about the ending that was very convenient was Pirrie's death. He could easily of usurped power in the valley, but his death tied up that loose end.
Two very interesting parallels!