Bright Young Things discussion

Welcome to the April Group read (Beyond 1940...)

We're reading...

The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham

When you're finished reading please pop back and tell us what you thought!

Ally

Right off the bat....who saw the film 28 Days Later? The opening scenes of The Day of the Triffids seem to have been lifted right off the page. The opening scenes of the film capture all of the same creepy feelings as the opening pages of our book; so much so that it caused me to wonder if it wasn't some sort of homage by the filmmakers Garland and Boyle.

A friend loaned me the 1962 film with Howard Keel.....awful in almost every detail...please, do not watch that film in lieu of reading the book, as fully 80% of the screenplay is original and does not correspond with any events depicted in the book.

I basically devoured the book. The only other John Wyndham book I've ever read is The Midwich Cuckoos, which I liked more and is in fact one of my very favorites. Still, this classic captured my attention and held it throughout. What I was most impressed by was the authors ability to communicate genuine pathos. There were three or four set pieces that had me very close to tears. Also, I was impressed by Wyndham's prose and eloquence.

One thing I kept having to remind myself of was that though contemporary when written, this is now a period piece.

Well, I didn't watch the film 'in lieu' of reading the book - it just so happens, I had both on order from the library. The book and the movie.

The movie came in, so Jeff and I watched it last night.

That is one of the wierdest stories I've ever seen!

I'm looking forward to getting the book in, and will DEFINITELY be here for the discussion.

Thanks for choosing this fascinating story.

Now I'm wondering - has there been a sequel to this?

No sequel. However, it has been filmed more than once - just recently as a BBC mini-series. However (again), there has still NEVER been a faithful adaptation (go figure).

Vincent said:

...I'm glad to see that you've chosen "Day of the Triffids" for your reading selection. It's a favorite of mine. If you liked it and "The Midwich Cuckoos," I recommend that you check out some of Wyndham's other works such as "Chocky" and "The Kraken Wakes," (aka "Out of the Deeps"). Wyndham is one of my favorite science fiction authors so I'm glad to see that he is still being read. I agree with what you said regarding the Howard Keel version of the movie, but if you get a chance you might try and get a hold of the 1981 BBC mini-series based on the book, it actually follows the book quite closely and though the effects are somewhat low budget, it manages to be riveting and suspenseful. I thought the same thing about 28 Days Later. As I sat in the theater watching the opening of that film, "Triffids" immediately came to my mind. Anyway, I hope your group enjoys the book.
- Vincent Desjardins

I finished the book and enjoyed the story, the clarity of the writing.

I think the book clearly illustrates how tenuous civilzation really is and how people react when society is threatened by external or internal agents

All the proof you need to back that statement up is to look at the chaos after any natural (or man made) disaster.

The horror stories of lawless behavior in the shelters after Hurricane Katrina. I understand looting food, diapers and clothing from stores - it's a disaster, there's not going to be electricity for weeks, no stores will be open and everything in them will go to rot and ruin, which would be a damn shame. However, logic goes out the window. I remember watching a young man steal a television and wade down a street filled with water; where was he going? Not only was his house under water, but the house of any "fence" would be too! The news never showed anyone appropraiting a canoe, or other water craft; go figure.

Of course, there are two distintc theories about the origins of 'civilisation'. One being the evolutionary theory (Savage to cultured) and the other being defusionism (Culture speads out from a highly cutured historical civilisation). - My old tutor explained this far better than I can...

"In the emergent academic discipline of anthropology during the late nineteenth century, two fundamentally opposed theories of the origin of human culture emerged. One argued that our present civilization has, like the species itself, evolved from earlier more primitive human cultures, and that the general evolutionary development of humankind is one of progress from savagery or barbarism towards an increasingly civilized condition. Thus modern barbarism, the violence of modern warfare, is a remnant of what Zola called ‘the beast in man’. The influential anthropologist, James Frazer, argued that to study ancient myths and surviving ancient customs is to remind ourselves of the kinds of human beings we once were and that the so-called primitive or irrational part of us that still persists is the uncivilized in us which, unless we take heed of its destructive power, can make the logic of history and progress untenable (James Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion [1922:] London: Macmillan, 1933, p. 713) . This was known as the evolutionist approach.

On the other hand diffusionism or disseminationism as it was sometimes called, was based on the premise that the higher condition of humanity existed in so-called primitive or pre-historic societies and that with the coming of the first civilizations (originating in Egyptian or Aryan peoples), there has been a gradual diffusion throughout the world of lower forms (thus for instance surviving myths, legends or customs in modern society are traceable to their originals in the ancient cultures of India or Asia). As Elliot Smith (one of the academics with whom Gibbon corresponded) wrote to him ‘civilization is really responsible for the creation of savagery … greed and violence, warfare and cruelty are not the practices of natural man’ (quoted in Ian S Munro, Leslie Mitchell: Lewis Grassic Gibbon, Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966. p. 67)"

I wonder if this is an interesting approach to the reading of Triffids?

Ally

Jim wrote: "I finished the book and enjoyed the story, the clarity of the writing.

I think the book clearly illustrates how tenuous civilzation really is and how people react when society is threatened by e..."


Yes, very much

Ally wrote: "Of course, there are two distintc theories about the origins of 'civilisation'. One being the evolutionary theory (Savage to cultured) and the other being defusionism (Culture speads out from a hig..."

Oohh... Ally! As it happens I am an anthropologist - and also an archaeologist (which is why I am often in the desert with Indigenous people). I won't comment on your posting other than to say that it is pretty much a very old view, and few anthros would consider James Frazer a credible researcher (though I certainly find him interesting). But picking up on your idea that the emergence of 'civilasation' might be an interesting way of approaching a critique of Triffids - yeah, sure, I think so.

So: I think I love this story because it narrates the crisis - which cannot be undone - but the real begiining of a new life is where the book ends, and leaves one with constantly wiondering how things might have panned out. In a sense the story continues in the mind of the reader after the book ends.
As Jim and Ivan have said above - one great disaster can seemingly unbalance everything. I'm not of the view that humans are inately bad, but I do believe that societies evolve and develop a code of rules, laws and behaviours over many generations. In a natural disaster in which survival is the primary motivaytion many of the sanctioned behviours are abandoned, and society falls apart. The interesting thing in Triffids is the new set of rules and expectations that begin (and varying from one group to another), borrowing some old rules and developing some new. Fascinating stuff.

PS. I just love this story - a wonderful fantasy.

Ally, enjoy Berlin

Robin wrote: The interesting thing in Triffids is the new set of rules and expectations that begin (and varying from one group to another), borrowing some old rules and developing some new. Fascinating stuff.

Yes! I finished the book, satisfied with its coherent and optimistic ending, and then - Hold on a minute! They got away by setting up their would-be captors to be killed by triffids. And then I realized that this was the same Bill Masen who put money down on a deli counter to pay for sandwich fixings. He wouldn't even break into a store. He went into this one because a vehicle had already crashed into it and made an opening. Yet, I take the ending as showing that the old ways, because they now lack societal infrastructure, are by and large done. This new way, what would have been murder before the green stars and now just isn't, makes sense for long term survival of Masen's extended family. It doesn't, oddly enough, break the anti-despair thrust of the book; it strengthens it, in my eyes. What do other people think?

Peregrine wrote: "Robin wrote: The interesting thing in Triffids is the new set of rules and expectations that begin (and varying from one group to another), borrowing some old rules and developing some new. Fascina..."

Those guys at the end were a direct and possibly lethal threat to his family. Anyway, they were pretty heavily armed, and stood a pretty good chance of survival.

Bill's morals,like those of most human beings, are pretty subjective. He was too willing to just write off the blind population as hopeless cases. Why? Was it a rationalization on his part or simply depraved indifference? He is shown as both selfish and selfless throughout the narrative. Coker's immediate response was to assist and save - though his methods were drastic and misguided.

Wyndham has done an excellent job of illustrating the ambiguity inherent in human nature.

For me these questions are what make this a great novel. It makes the reader think and wonder: what would I do? Which group would I join? What once unthinkable behaviors would I justify and rationalize?

I was especially moved by the little girl playing piano - the beauty of the melody in the midst of all that was happening, and then her sobbing; and the young couple who chose suicide. The pathos was very real for me. I wish that Wyndham had depicted one sighted person opting for suicide in the face of such cataclysmic change - just someone who didn't want to go on without their loved ones or the world as they knew it - which I think would have been quite prevalent. Thoughts?

Ivan wrote: "I wish that Wyndham had depicted one sighted person opting for suicide in the face of such cataclysmic change - just someone who didn't want to go on without their loved ones or the world as they knew it - which I think would have been quite prevalent. Thoughts?"

Ivan - you might consider picking up a copy of José Saramego's The Blindness in that case, which focuses more on the experiences of the sighted as sighted-rather-than-blind. I prefer the sequel, 'Seeing', but they're both fantastic novels.

I don't think it's that Masen is indifferent or selfish so much as that Wyndham - and to some extent other early science fiction authors - tend to write the scientist characters as eminently practical; they are allowed to have emotions but you'll note that they don't ever seem to get in the way of their own survival. It's a mini Age of Reason.

Saunteringfiend wrote: I don't think it's that Masen is indifferent or selfish so much as that Wyndham - and to some extent other early science fiction authors - tend to write the scientist characters as eminently practical; they are allowed to have emotions but you'll note that they don't ever seem to get in the way of their own survival. It's a mini Age of Reason.

I'd take that a step further and say that it's Reason which imagines new ways of being that allow for the survival of humanity at all, in this story. Reason is what's left, imo, when Values are shattered, as they are by the worldwide blindness and then by the plague. I liked that about this book; in order to survive, one has to think and imagine in new ways. I think the move to the Isle of Wight was brilliant, keeping both floral and human predators at a distance so that the humans on the island could work on building a workable society.

You've both made very insightful observations. I think in literature the author must utilize a number of plot devices to steer the story; it's a talented author who can accomplish this without it seeming to contrived.

Ivan wrote: Bill's morals,like those of most human beings, are pretty subjective. He was too willing to just write off the blind population as hopeless cases. Why? Was it a rationalization on his part or simply depraved indifference?

In the 1940s, individuals in the larger society did not accept handicapped people as part of that larger society. Those with cognitive handicaps (used to be called "retarded"), those with cerebral palsy, those with psychiatric illnesses, were, by and large, institutionalized, by their families or other authority. Blind children, deaf children, went to "special schools," sometimes residential and far from home. There were no handicapped accessible buildings, not by design, anyway. I think it's more Wyndham than Masen who is coming from this societal outlook. In other words, dated as the outlook is, Masen is not unusual for his time, I do not think. Compassion and optimism did show in his decision to move back to Miss Durrant's community, before he found out it was destroyed by plague.

I see your point. Bill's decision making was informed by societal standards of the day as much as Wyndham's need to steer his story. Obviously, what you say is true. We see all that is done for the physically and mentally handicapped today and forget that a mere generation ago these very special children of God were locked away and hidden from view. Hitler's ultimate solution was for these people to be destroyed.

My cousin Robbie was born with Down's Syndrome, and a more loving man you'll never encounter, or one with as great a capacity to inspire joy in others. When he was born my aunt and uncle were encourged to have him placed in an institution; the physician told them that keeping him at home would ruin their lives. The opposite has proven true; having Robbie has enriched their lives spiritually and emotionally, and has seen them develope altruistic qualities they never imagined they possessed. As for Robbie (now 40), he has two jobs, participates in sports and local theatre, and loves country/western singer Kenny Rogers (and unfortunately sings along with every song - urgh!).

I enjoyed the clarity of the writing as well, and I also thought it very amusing that Bill spent so much time in abandoned bars. I would probably have a similar response.

Peregrine wrote: "Ivan wrote: Bill's morals,like those of most human beings, are pretty subjective. He was too willing to just write off the blind population as hopeless cases. Why? Was it a rationalization on his p..."
Thanks for reminding me of into the difference in attitudes toward the disabled during the time the book was written, Peregrine. Interesting insight. I thought Wyndham did a good job of portraying a variety of reactions and moral stances from the sighted. But I must admit that I was a little taken aback by Bill's lack of interest in helping the blind. Was this pragmatic or selfish? Do you think there was any way that something could have been done for a greater number of people, or was Bill right to turn his back on the Londoners?

It crossed my mind - perhaps because I've come to think of Bill as a real person - that the prospect of helping all "the blind" was simply too overwhelming. In the end he helped those blind people he lived with, and he had made the decision to return to Miss Durrant's, as Peregrine pointed out.

I'm a bit late to the table but I wanted to weigh in on the subject of Bill's perceived forsaking of the blind. There are a number of instances where Bill is faced with a decision to either help or ignore the blind. In some, such as when he does not intervene in the suicide of the blind couple, he chooses the latter and in others, as when (although forced there by Coker) he elects to stay with the blind group in London after listening to the entreaties of the blind young lady, the former (he later leaves after outbreak of the plague). Other characters around Bill act to a greater or lesser degree in favor of these two choices but I think Bill illustrates the most pragmatic approach to a totally alien situation. Under the circumstances, Bill cannot possibly hope to act in the manner formerly considered ethical. His own survival won't allow for it. However, he can't bring himself to throw off completely the influence of all of the old societal norms. Bill realizes that his ethics must evolve and throughout the novel, he tries, and I think ultimately succeeds, in striking a balance.

I agree.

Elliott wrote: "I'm a bit late to the table but I o..."

Yes, you make a good point I think.

Don't ever feel that you're too late to the table - these threads remain open for that very reason - so that everyone can read at their own pace and contribute when they can - I'm only sorry that I had a busy April - I do intend to get back to this group-read in the summer if possible and I'll be popping back to the conversation myself!

Ally