Welcome to the Cannonball Read Book Club discussion of Station Eleven! I’m so excited that so many of you have decided to take on Station Eleven in time to have a discussion about the book. Let’s start with a few ground rules:
![StationelevenUKHC[1]](http://cbr.bgwdesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/StationelevenUKHC1.jpg)
Since we’re anticipating lots of conversation, please try your best to reply directly to each other, that way they are alerted and can keep discussing!- Discussion is the important word. Let’s have a conversation (or as close a facsimile as we can in the comments section) so try to keep the thoughts flowing and give your fellow readers something to respond to.
- Please reference the topic number you are responding to (if you are) so other Cannonballers can hunt up the topics they want to discuss with you.
- Not that I’m expecting to need to, but be warned that I retain the right to delete any comments which go beyond the normal civil banter we have here at Cannonball Read. Consider yourselves warned.
I also have to mention that Canadian Cannonballers (and friends) can still enter a raffle for one of three copies of Station Eleven. Visit Rafflecopter to get in on this March 11 drawing, sponsored by HarperCollins Canada.
Now that the boilerplate and raffle are out of the way, let’s get into the book clubbing! As a refresher, here are the initial topics I posted back in February. I’ve numbered them for your convenience. If one of these catches your eye, get to chatting! I’ll be starting things off in the comments with #3.
Topics for Discussion:
- Did you find the shifts between pre and post-apocalypse to be an effective storytelling technique? How about changing character perspectives?
- Why do you think Station Eleven has been so successful when there are many other novels in a similar vein out there right now?
- Does the novel have a main character? Who would you consider it to be?
- How do Shakespearean motifs coincide with those of Station Eleven, both the novel and the comic?
- What is the metaphor of the Station Eleven comic books? How does the Undersea connect to the events of the novel?
- Certain items turn up again and again, for instance the comic books and the paperweight—things Arthur gave away before he died, what point is Mandel making?
- Different characters we meet have different opinions about teaching children about the pre-collapse world. What are the benefits of remembering, and of forgetting?
- Because we don’t know what happened to Kirsten in her first year on the road, did it affect your experience of reading the book?
- The novel ends with Clark, remembering the dinner party and imagining that somewhere in the world, ships are sailing. Why did Mandel choose to end the novel with him?
So fellow ‘ballers, what did you think?
#3 – No, I don’t think we have a main character or protagonist. We have several. While Kirsten and Jeevan hold special places in my heart based on their narratives, my heart belongs to Clark. The fact that he really comes back into himself in the time after the Flu, and builds a life for himself and others made me think carefully about my own life. So, who else is team Clark?
I loved Clark as well, I think he was definitely one of my favorite characters. I don’t know how to feel about Jeevan–I felt like his whole story line was incomplete. I “think” the main point about him was that he kept reinventing himself, until he became the person he wanted to become? Kind of like the antithesis of Arthur, who kept reinventing himself and not particularly loving the results.
Oh, that is interesting. Jeevan does seem to be getting closer and closer to his authentic self as time passes, but I think I may have missed it since we don’t get his story line in chronological order. Arthur on the other hand, seems to be getting further and further away with each new wife and time spent in Hollywood. Perhaps he would have gotten back to himself if he had lived long enough to retire and move to Jerusalem, but the Flu would’ve prevented that anyway.
I was definitely Team Clark. I was so worried the I would turn the page and read about him falling prey to the flu. While the actual things that he did at the airport were somewhat trivial (hey, lets put these high-heels shoes here next to this Amex Black card), what he did ended up being so important to their little society. Loved him.
And I was also a bit disappointed in the small amount we ended up seeing Jeevan. I figured he would be the second biggest player, after Arthur. I was glad to know he found happiness and a family, but really wanted to know more. The pages in the apartment with his brother were so moving, I felt like we were a bit short-changed.
Interesting theory about him reinventing himself and finally finding the version of Jeevan he wanted to be.
And I hope Dev Patel plays him in the movie (is there a movie in the works? i have to assume yes). The new, beardy, Dev Patel.
The movie rights have been purchased :http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/best-seller-station-eleven-acquired-772214 but I don’t see anything on IMDB.
And oh, yes to beardy Dev Patel. Quorren suggested Leonoardo DiCaprio for Arthur in her review and I think that’s just brilliant.
I was hoping Jeevan would give us more of the missing first years after the flu, which gets into topic #8. I respected the reality that people aren’t going to remember everything, that there was IMMENSE trauma in that time, but I was interested to know what the experience was in broad strokes. We get some of that with Jeevan and his brother. I cried reading their segments.
Even though she got less coverage, can I be Team Miranda? She was, to me, the most interesting character in the story. I really enjoyed her development from artist, to wife, to high power executive all while remaining true to herself and her comic book ways.
I was mad we didn’t get much time with Jeevan, either. I loved him.
Oh, yeah, Jeevan. I thought he should have seen Kirsten again, that would have made his storyline much more complete for me. I kept expecting it to happen and am curious as to why Ms. St. John Mandel didn’t write it that way.
Totally agree. They should have met again in the post-flu world. He had great stuff before the flu, but after I think I needed to see him at least once more before the end when we learn he has a family.
That is why I was frustrated we lost so much Jeevan in the middle! Moreso than anyone else, Clark and Jeevan seemed to really find themselves in their post-apocalypse roles. With Clark, we got to see his development that led to that end, whereas with Jeevan, suddenly as a reader it felt like the part just before the credits of those reality shows where it says where that person is now as of the episode airing. “Oh yeah, Jeevan got to be an EMT/doctor just like he always wanted.”
Clark was my fav. followed by Kirsten and Miranda.
I think I would have to go with Clark and Kristen as my favourite characters, with Miranda as a close second. I really liked that Miranda created Station Eleven not for fame or publication, but just for the joy of the art and creativity.
I agree. Miranda wasn’t the one that tugged at my heartstrings the most (I think Kristen was) but the way she was with Station Eleven was sort of inspiring, especially since I am trying to do the same with my line of work, and it is so difficult to stay focused if there isn’t some sort of “return.” So the way she just kept working at Station Eleven really touched me.
#2 – For me, at least, this book left a mark because it gave hope for the future. When Kirsten saw those lights in the distance, I got chills.
I’ve been reading apocalyptic fiction for ages (I read The Stand for the first time in 7th grade. It took me 3 tries to get through the first chunk, I was so scared.), and maybe I was a bit jaded by it. This was the first book of its kind that didn’t completely scare me.
But that’s not to say that Mandel’s version of the end of society still didn’t shock me. I cried actual tears when poor Miranda lay down to die all alone on that beach. I stayed up late at night worrying about disease and my kids (it didn’t help that I started this book on the exact day that Ebola came to Texas).
I think it’s partially successful too because of the book’s focus. It’s hyper focused on their characters and their story–both back story and present day. Many of the post apocalyptic books we read go into such great detail about the day to day survival stuff–and while there is some of that in here, I think this is more about the people than their situation…maybe?
I’m with you–I think it’s because of the optimism. The book is more about humanity than it is about the *end* of humanity. I mentioned in my review of the book that I normally don’t touch post-apocalypse stories with a 10 foot pole, but not only could I stand this book, I LOVED it. It’s not so much a book about people dying as it is people learning how to live.
I think it’s the hopefulness of the book that is one of the reasons it resonated so much with me. Because it’s about the optimism and indominable perseverence of the human race, rather than the terrible things we are capable of in a crisis, it shows a much more encouraging hypothetical future than so many of the dystopian stories popular at the moment. Because of this, I’ve also been able to persuade two other of my friends, who usually never read post-apocalyptic novels.
#4 You asked about Shakespeare themes and this is tangentially related! Obviously the character of Miranda takes her name from The Tempest and I think you can see a lot of Tempest themes in her comic Station Eleven. (Exiled man on island-like atmosphere etc.) But as for Miranda, she succumbs to the virus while on a beach looking out at the ships on the shore. Miranda in The Tempest fares much better, but it reminded me of this, one of my favorite John William Waterhouse paintings of Miranda, on the beach, looking out at the ship.
http://uploads6.wikiart.org/images/john-william-waterhouse/miranda-1916.jpg
I hadn’t seen that painting before, its wonderful. I haven’t read the Tempest myself, but I had a suspicion.
Having read the Tempest, I don’t think it added THAT much more to the story…so I don’t think you missed out.
Like with any good allusion, an understanding of the work being referenced isn’t essential to appreciating the story but I’m not sure The Tempest should be brushed aside so readily in this instance.
In re: Shakespeare themes, Lear is the obvious parallel for Arthur Lea(nee)r with his wives taking place of his daughters. But with the Tempest allusion, yes, we have Miranda being named after the daughter character in the play but St. John Mandel has her taking on Prospero’s role instead. The most brilliant aspect about The Tempest (a muddy play to be sure), is the way Shakespeare inserted himself into the play. Prospero is the stand in for creator, for artist. Miranda is the creator, the artist in Station Eleven. It’s no coincidence her book bears the same name as St. John Mandel’s. Miranda is a world builder, a creative. She draws inspiration from the most mundane things around her (a dreary office) and feels a soothing commitment to her art but also a compulsion to create. In that way we can gain insight into St. John Mandel’s process and her approach towards writing and world building.
We see the layers and mirrors of the two Station Elevens as Miranda’s real-life dog becomes the fictional Station Eleven dog and becomes again Tyler’s real-life dog. That blur between fiction and reality is pretty crucial, I think, to this story. Our band of survivors are performers after all and Prospero LOVED his theatrics. That commitment to art, to artifice, to creation seems at the heart of what St. John Mandel views as the difference between “just surviving” and being part of civilization. (As is Clark’s impulse to create a museum an attempt to civilize and uncivilized world.)
That’s why Miranda’s sections felt the most alive to me, I think. Not just because they’re based in a pre-apocalyptic present we can understand, but because I think the author connects to Miranda most closely. Her journey is likely the most personal to St. John Mandel. And even if it has nothing to do with the apocalypse, it ripples out to have everything to do with how humans SURVIVE post-apocalypse. I really loved that.
You’re brain is sexy.
*Lea(nde)r
I blame autocorrect.
I mean, what an insightful discussion of the book! How thought provoking!
(For reals though, I agree that Miranda feels like the most personal character, whose journey we see most completely. And captured from the most angles. We see Miranda from Jeevan’s, Clark’s, and Aurthur’s point of view, right? And she plays an integral role for Kirsten and the Prophet. Hmm.)
How do normal people take such a nice compliment?? Do they say thank you? Thank you!
Ha, you’re welcome! Of course, it would have been a better compliment if I hadn’t used the wrong your/you’re. *facepalm* How I wish we could edit comments.
I had a really tough time with the three wives issue initially, since we only truly interact with two as the reader. And then I made the Lear/Leander connection and it all started to come together.
This book is very upfront with being connected to Shakespeare, but in some ways Shakespeare becomes the stand-in for what was. In that way I can understand why Melina wasn’t concerned that I had missed these links, because there was still so much to have at, and unpack.
Which brings me to topic #6, Arthur’s belongings. Arthur is divesting himself of what weighs him down, but on the other side of the pandemic these items become the very things that our characters are using to anchor themselves to their new reality.
I didn’t make it a topic above, but unofficially #10 is what do we think about the Symphony members adopting the names of their instruments, whether it be officially or unofficially? I felt it had the same sort of reasoning as Kirsten’s hunt for images of Arthur. In a world so completely changed we use art and the familiar to define ourselves. So why not take on a name that reflects the thing that still brings beauty to your life?
Plus, there’s the whole “o’ brave new world, with such people in ‘t” thing. That’s basically the thesis statement of Station Eleven.
I agree with Amanda. This is an amazing analysis, Joanna, which made me see new and amazing things in the book that I didn’t even think to look for when reading it. I subconsciously saw that there were connections with Shakespeare, but didn’t really consider them during my reading.
Agree 100% with Amanda. As I was reading your comment I kept thinking “BRILLIANT!” But I can get on board with sexy too :)
I also want to add that I thought Arthur was a very well fleshed out character and a crux to the whole story, not necessarily *the* main character. (For me, that goes to Kristen.) I thought that was very interesting how Mandel managed that. But you see Arthur from (ex) wives, Clark, Jeevan and even Kristen.
#2: For me, it was because the story the so character driven and that those characters were so fleshed out and balanced. In The Road, McCarthy took the position that most humans are inherently selfish/evil/will eat babies. In World War Z, Brooks was of the optimistic opinion that mostly everyone will work together for survival. I like that the characters in Station Eleven seemed to be less like archetypes and more like people you could meet on an airplane.
This are very real people that Mandel is working with, and I think allowing us to see a variety of people gives us more places to enter the narrative. Above I’m Team Clark, but I could make arguments for any of the characters being my favorite. I feel bad for not including Miranda, for example, but I’ll leave the Prophet alone, that’s for someone else to discuss.
(1-3) The focus on characters (plural) was definitely the book’s strong point, and following multiple interrelated (but rarely in the same place at the same time) characters and jumping around in time to before and after the plague was very effective in the hands of this author. It always feels a bit false in these epic disaster or post-apocalyptic stories to get so hung up on the fate of one protagonist when 99% of the population gets wiped out in a few paragraphs of exposition. I think that spreading our sympathy out to multiple characters (and, multiple times) kept the things grounded and kept us invested in the human stories, in more than just mere survival.
Starting off with a non-plague death hours before the plague hits also drives that idea home. Arthur’s life and death were important to us and meaningful to the story. Without the storytelling it would be easy to see it as meaningless and absurd to die of a heart-attack hours before a pandemic.
All of this serving to reinforce the idea that “survival is insufficient”, even from the position of storytelling focus & genre classification.
I felt the juxtaposition between people’s reaction to a typical, although famous person, death in the hours leading up to the pandemic versus what was happening as the pandemic hit were crucial to my understanding of what Mandel was working with. I was struck again and again with how she chose to describe what would happen, and what would be lost. From that point I was all in.
#1 I’ve always been rather fond of changing character perspectives, when it’s well done. I think Ms. St. John Mandel does it well, without retreading information too much and when she does, giving us a new perspective on the same events. The switching from pre to post-apocalypse and back does the same thing, shedding light on things we’d read previously and or subtly highlighting what was going to be important in sections to come.
#2 I don’t know! I mean, of course because it’s a lot more well written than most of the post-apocalyptic books out there and the “found family” aspect is one I personally adore and which gets looked over in a lot of post-apocalyptic novels (especially YA ones) in favor the focusing on the True Love, which gets boring after a while. I think it also has to do with being a more or less hopeful novel? Like, sure, most people in the world have died and people are still fucking up, but there’s also people trying to build communities and preserve the best things about humanity and generally being people you can root for. It’s nice.
#3 I think the novel has two main characters, Kirsten and Jeevan. I think Kirsten was my favorite character, because she was in most need of a hug.
#7 I think the benefit of remembering is not repeating mistakes. I have no idea what the benefit of forgetting is, because it’s so counter to my way of thinking. I guess it might save the older people some pain? But the children won’t care, it will just be a story to them, the things we used to have, to be able to do. But, as all my fellow cannonballers know ;P, stories are important and can teach valuable lessons. When kids a crying about nothing/wanting attention, we tell them the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. And it stick better than just telling kids, “Don’t cry unless something is really wrong” because they can see the consequences and apply them to their own life. So when the people of the post-apocalyptic world tell the kids “be nice to the environment” they can back it up with “The Country That Burned All the Oil.”
#8 I think Kirsten not being able to remember what happened that first year really drove home how horrible it must have been. I’m not sure anything Ms. St. John Mandel could have written comes close to what my imagination can come up with. And I’m sure we all have different versions of what happened that year, tailored to what scares each of us the most. That’s some good writing, there.
Oh, I can’t believe I almost forgot. Okay, so I couldn’t help, while I was reading Station Eleven, comparing it to Mechanique: A Tale of the Circus Tresaulti by Genevieve Valentine. Not only is it a post-apocalyptic novel with switching view points and timelines, but it’s about a traveling performance troop, found family, a man who thinks he knows what is best and tries to use the troop to prove that, and that extra little spark humanity needs to do more than survive. I actually slightly prefer Mechanique to Station Eleven, but I’m not sure if that’s just because I read it first. Has anybody else read both and want to hash it out with me?
Mechanique! I also loved that book, but it hit different notes for me than Station Eleven. Mechanique satisfied my love of steam-punk and science-fiction whereas Station Eleven fits more into speculative fiction with more of an emphasis on realism. Since I’m really into dream casting today, I would love for Lucy Lawless to be the ringleader in Mechanique. She even can sing opera!
I’m always all about the characters and Mechanique had Elena. Oh man, Elena. As much as I loved the characters in Station Eleven, none of them hold a candle to Elena for me.
Re: Lucy Lawless? Really? That’s delightful, I had no idea. I’ma have to youtube that when I get home.
Found family! We have more than one in this book, and I’m pretty sure its a piece of what made this a five star book for me.
Yeah, it’s def a big part of why I love the book.
(4-7) The main theme of the novel seems to be the importance of art to our lives/humanity/society. So important that even when lives/humanity/society are barely hanging on people are drawn to making, pursuing, consuming, preserving, curating and sharing art, stories, artifacts. And the reason these things are important is because we imbue them with meaning. A comic book, a snow globe, a 17th century play, an AmEx card, a defunct cell phone. Things made for one purpose, one audience, one time, that persist and encounter new audiences and take on new meaning as they go. The really important thing is the meaning we attach to them, the stories, not the objects themselves, but we need those kinds of tangible things to attach meaning to.
The plays by Shakespeare and the graphic novel are the main examples because they are complex works of art created as art, but I think we can extend the idea out to anything that people find beauty or meaning in, the things they carry with them or keep in the museum. This also makes it interesting that Arthur was so driven to give away all his possessions at the end of his life. Maybe it’s a symptom of his dissatisfaction with material things and his inability to really find happiness and meaning in his life, but it also helps give momentum to some of these objects, new life and new meanings with new people, by putting them back out into the world before he left it.
A lot is made of the idea that Shakespeare was writing in a period also impacted by plague. That the ideas he drew on and included in his work might have resonance in the current post-collapse world. A little more subtle is the way that Miranda includes so much detail from her life in the art of the graphic novel she creates. The way art re-purposes one persons experience into something new. The way that representation can resonate with some else in unexpected ways.
And so of course remembering is better than forgetting and preserving the past is vitally important and teaching kids about the way the world was is essential to our humanity even if it is sometimes painful. Continuing to build and to create is also essential. The new newspaper, and the clarinet’s desire to write a new, modern play. And the point is that it isn’t just a luxury we indulge in. It’s something essential to what makes us human. As long as we are alive, we’re going to do that meaning-seeking and meaning-making thing, that art thing.
I absolutely agree that Arthur realized that material possessions were not making him happy and was going about giving them away. However, he didn’t know it was going to be the end of his life – unlike perhaps some people who maybe had a few days of awareness of the end in the plague-ridden world. I think it was a long-accruing symptom of dissatisfaction leading to the desire to be near Tyler in Jerusalem. I would also suggest that he didn’t know the value of things to keep or treasure, hence, the ultimate meaningless in his material possessions. He seemed rather immune to the personal touch of some gifts, like the Station 11 comic, or the paperweight.
It stuck out to me in sharp relief that the same things which others would later imbue with so much meaning, Arthur was seemingly completely disconnected from. But perhaps that speaks to how disconnected he was from the people in his life as well. He didn’t see the value in them, so he didn’t see the value in the objects which were meant to be tokens from them or about them.
yes! Thank you for saying so clearly what has been nagging me about Arthur. Even as he reflected upon his life’s regrets, it all seemed so… cursory.
I also want to add agreement that “art” or even “craft” is such a necessity. Human expression is vital to understanding the context of the age we live in and holding appreciation for the expressions of the past. When we lose these works, we lose something that links us critically to the prior age(s). In many ways the book filled me with such a sadness in this modern age for kids that are so exclusively into their phones and never bored and never opening that space to create something. And recently, to see ISIS destroying Nimrod, a city that has held my imagination and fascination for over 30 years, is heart breaking. Though it’s the rare person or society that creates something so permanent, there are many others of us who appreciate those who have the vision and fearlessness to create those artistic statements. Sorry if this reply got a little off track!
At the end when Clark realizes the dinner in the comic is the one he attended, I teared up. Those few, treasured pieces of paper add so much to the narrative, like the comic within Watchmen, Tales of the Black Freighter.
The illustrator of the cover above, Nathan Burton, blogged about creating 2 panels of Station Eleven #1. I pictured a vivid, four color version of course, but it’s really interesting to see some of it rendered.
I also kept thinking about the Tales of the Black Freighter comic from Watchmen when reading the book. So glad I’m not the only one. Those are beautiful pages. As I said in my review, I really wish I could read the comic.
That is a great link to the artwork! I had the cover with the campsite. As I picked it up on several occasions to read it, I thought the scene looked a little too sedate for what was happening in the book. I wanted my cover to be a little more, maybe, energetic? Frantic? The cover above, with the city and the deer is really evocative!
#3–I don’t think the novel has a main character. I was sitting here trying to think about which character had the arciest arc, but they’re all so different. And then I was trying to think about whose journey had the most thematic weight to it, and I kept going, no! That’s important! No that’s important!
So now I’ve decided there is no protagonist. This book is the equivalent of an ensemble TV series. Each character’s story is another piece of the whole.
Arthur Leander: This one sticks out because the book opens with him, and because he is the one that connects all the other characters together. We delve the deepest into his story, as well, hearing stories from his childhool all the way through witnessing his death, as the opening of the novel, nonetheless. Which, on another note, even though his death is not connected to the flu, that the book opens with his death is certainly important, as if somehow the death of this famous actor heralds the death of civilization in some way. Arthur’s story is interesting to me because of the way he finds and loses himself over the course of his life. I’d have to re-read the book to really parse out what’s going on with him, but it’s definitely central.
Kirsten Raymonde: I’m tempted to pick her as the main character partly because she’s sort of our eyes into this world, having witnessed everything from the death of Arthur Leander, all the way to being the only person living to have read the Station Eleven comic, and made it to the airport to connect everything back together. She’s also got that whole “Survival is insufficient” thing going for her, which is the backbone of the novel. It’s not enough to survive–it has to mean something. (See Yossarian’s beautiful comment for more on how art is all about meaning, and art is what we give meaning to.)
Jeevan: For me, Jeevan’s story is about identity. It takes him years and years to finally figure out what he wants to do with his life, and that he is able to find a place for himself doing that in the new post-flu world is just beautiful. Somebody else mentioned how Jeevan’s story is in parallel to Arthur’s. Arthur is constantly losing himself and losing meaning is his life, whereas Jeevan spends years doing things that hold no meaning for him before finding that healing others is where it’s at.
Miranda: UGH, it’s been too long since I’ve read this for me to form coherent thoughts about Miranda’s arc, which was my favorite. As Joanna says above, she is explicitly the artist in the book, and so is automatically a sort of author stand-in. Her opinions have a heft to them simply because she is a capital C Creator. There’s something in here I can’t quite put my finger on about her dying, but her art surviving.
Clark: For me, the thing about Clark is when he’s sitting with one of his clients and she starts talking about her boss, how he’s sleepwalking through his life, and he realizes, hey, that’s me. I’M sleepwalking through my life. That he’s able to end the book having created not just the museum but a community of people and the foundations of new human civilization is really significant, but also it gave me feelings.
All of that is poorly written and hastily thought out, so apologies. I really really need to re-read (and also get my own copy of the book) in order to think about all of this more cogently.
#7 Re: remembering and forgetting — the trick is deciding what should be remembered and what left behind. I disagreed with the notion among surviving characters that they shouldn’t talk about electricity, airplanes, etc. because by forgetting that, you encourage ignorance; to move forward requires learning from the past but not becoming obsessed with the loss that occurred. The need to remember is obvious when it comes to tech, health, etc. It would be great to remember how to make a generator, perform heart surgery, make the trains run, etc. Those are things that would improve quality of life. Mourning their loss, though, is a waste of time.
Remembering Shakespeare, Beethoven, and the Bible are, in my opinion, of more limited value. One of the orchestra members is sick of doing the same stuff over and over. Clinging to past art, no matter how lovely it is, is preventing the creation of new art. And the Prophet’s obsession with the Book of Revelation is downright harmful. All he cares about is trying to explain why it happened, why so many died. It’s useless and leads to madness. Clark (my fav) has the right idea with his museum. It seems like it’s all boring junk, but it is a collection of artifacts, as you might find in any museum. Perhaps this could inspire someone to build something new.
And then there’s the personal, private remembering and forgetting. Kirsten can’t remember her past, especially the traumatic years on the road, and perhaps that’s for the best. What would be the advantage of remembering whatever horrors occurred? She has been able to build friendships anyway, and she is perfectly aware of dangers on the road and how to protect herself. Clark remembers his lover and Arthur and can think of them without pain and depression; I think that has to do with his ability to build relationships in the new world and find a meaningful life there. The same is true for Javeen.
Obviously, the remembering/forgetting theme really struck a chord with me. I think it’s fundamental to who we are — what we choose to forget, what to remember, and how to manage that. It’s people with a certain resiliency who seem to manage life’s ups and downs the best, and I think those people have a pretty good understanding of what they need and don’t need to live a meaningful life. Clark!
#7 is also what I was interested in exploring, and I agree with a number of your thoughts, so I’ll reply rather than start anew. I especially like how you wrote the “personal, private remembering.” Let me jump off from there.
We encounter so many of the characters remembering what JUST was. The day before the pandemic, the week before, etc. So often when we learn about history, it is the century, or the decade, before, or longer. It becomes distant enough by time that we are not really connected to it. Even if we have a relative that experienced it, we know that person more for the relationship (like a grandfather) than as a witness to history. What I thought was great about Mandel’s book in particular was the multiple viewpoints she was able to create remembering the very recent past and very believable ways that people would react to such a global trauma.
Also, with your comment re the need to remember… I was awestruck thinking if it really happened that 99% of the world died, there would not be enough people to do ANYTHING really. To bury the dead (though in the story many weren’t), enough to take care of the sick, operate plants, etc… it was a fascinating thought & made me think what would I be able to contribute in a post-apocalyptic world. Would I be able to carry on and contribute?!
And since you touch on it, I’ll add here that Tyler and his obsession/perversion of the Book of Revelations.. I was so glad that there wasn’t a great reconciliation/regret by surviving and learning the connectedness between him, Kirsten, and Clark. Though I was in tears when the 12 year old boy took his own life.
Great comment – thanks for giving me more food for thought!
I’ve actually been thinking about remembering and forgetting a lot because after I got done with Station Eleven, I started Shift by Hugh Howey, and many of the characters there have their memories wiped, and the idea is that it stops unrest and dissent among the people who must take care of the all the other silos. But the down side is a heartlessness when it comes to interacting with other people. If you’re not going to remember them, then why should you invest your time to get to know them, or to save them or help them, or better each other’s lives?
The people of Silo 1 — generally — gave the sense that if they wanted to remember, they weren’t trying too hard. They just wanted to get through their shift. But with Kristen, even though she couldn’t remember what happened and didn’t want to either, she clung so desperately to anything that could shine a light on her past (before those two unmentionable years) and the past of other’s. She was also fiercely protective of her peers.
I guess the difference is that Kristen was given the choice to remember and she chose to take it. Whereas the people of Silo 1 were not given a choice (they were just wiped) and only a few people — who either didn’t react to the drugs or they WANTED desperately to remember — chose to fight for that.