h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have trouble with the idea that Wyndham is really picking any sides in this novel. For example, it's easy to see that he's critisising religion. However, think about where the religion had to have come from. After the nuclear fallout, there were obviously people left who knew what was going on. They probably also started banning "defects" from their population right away, since they were probably smart enough to realize that if you breed enough people who cannot procreate, you end up not having any more people. You can see how this idea could develop into a religion, and how it likely saved the human race from total destruction. You can also see how the religion is beginning to lose its steam in David's society, as more liberal youths ignore the conservative teaching of their elders.

So without this highly conservative religion, society gets better, becomes more accepting... using raw intellect, society advances, right? Wrong. The Sealanders at the end turn out to be more or less the same as the people from Labrador. They consider themselves to be a more perfect human form, and murder the "less evolved" people without the slightest pang of conscience. So who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys?

That is not to say that Wyndham is condoning the Labradorians' religion... hardly! Instead Wyndham critisises society at its very core: human nature never changes, even as humanity's physical nature improves.

I'm not sure Wyndham *is* picking sides in this book (of course, his characters are forced to): for all that the norms are savage and barbaric (towards the telepaths and other mutants, anyway), as I mention in the piece there are clear undertones to his presentation of the Sealanders that indicate they're not purely heroic either.

JW doesn't really seem interested in conventional good vs evil morality, his books operate on a more primal level. His message is that in the struggle to survive, 'good' and 'evil' as we know them are meaningless concepts. And his criticism of religion, and indeed any kind of social dogmatism, isn't limited to The Chrysalids: religion and its inherents are depicted as inherently flawed in Day of the Triffids, as well as elsewhere - the subtext is that it's a luxury the post-apocalypse world can ill afford. The norm religion in Chrysalids is depicted solely as a method of maintaining the old order. In the context of the book it has no value, being merely an archaic vestige of a fallen civilisation.

I agree that Wyndham does not seem to be interested in the Good versus Evil theory. It is clear because he does not put in the necessary details for the development of this theme in The Chrysalids. However, readers must note that this theme is definitely an underlying one in the novel, and that it supports William Blake's concept of the co-existence of good and evil. Though most critics may disagree, readers should open their eyes to see this theory as presented. In Waknuk, the fringes and with the Zealanders, these two concepts are seen as almost a conflict.
The people in Waknuk destroy all mutants- man, plants, and animals. To them, anything which is not the norm is merely a form of blasphemy. Thus having a daughter with six toes on each foot, like Sophie, is of course a mockery of God’s own perfect creation. God is perfect and had designed the perfect build for his people. “And God created man in his own image…each hand should have four fingers and one thumb…” The religious nature of the Waknuk people would not allow them to accept anything outside of God’s perfect plan. Thus their brutal destruction of Mutants, “ I had a dream…Sophie…trying to hide the whole long row of toes…my father…the knife shining in his hand…dragged her back to the middle of the yard…as he swept it down the knife flashed in the light of the rising sun, just as it had flashed when he cut the calf’s throat…”, although it appears to be evil and cruel in the eyes of the readers and the narrator, is simply the Waknuk’s people way of being faithful to their god. They are trying to preserve his perfect creation. So their motive is actually good, while the act itself appears to be nothing but evil.
It is the same with the fringes. These people fight the norms to protect themselves. They’ve been ostracized by members of this somewhat “Perfect” society. In other to save their lives they must kill these perfect people who make them feel that they are not part of God’s divine plan. When the narrator’s uncle attempts to have sex with Rosalind, it is not so much out of cruelty, but to satisfy an inner urging. There’s a void to fill. His brother is a spiritual leader in Waknuk while he lives in the fringes. If Rosalind bears him a child, then perhaps his seed would be perfect, without blemish. Sophie is unable to bear children, so he is merely trying to see if a part of him can get to enjoy life as it ought to be, rather than be rejected. Again, good found in cruelty.
When the Zealanders arrive, they instantly kill all that lies in their path. Their aim is to protect the group of telepaths, who are very much like them. Clearly, Petra is significant to the world which they are coming from- one that is well developed and heavily based on technology. They do whatever they have to, in other to get David, Rosalind and Petra away from danger. To them, telepaths are perfect. They are indeed what God wants for his creation. They are unaware of the fact that the people in the fringes are outcasts like David and his clang. They do not show any sympathy to them. They destroy that which is different, and protect their own. Their intention is purely good…their actions, without doubt, evil.
Good and Evil coexist in the novel. Clearly every group of people thinks that their ways are correct. They all attempt to destroy what is evil with evil. However, the reason beyond the behavior is good. Perhaps this book mirrors the very essence of human nature. Every nation thinks that its ways are correct, and that it is founded on all the right principles. Consequently, nation rises against nation, kingdom against kingdom. It is all done for preservation of culture and beliefs. World wars can then be looked at through this microscope. Every society is seeking dominance. Each is looking for its own development, and trying to outlive another. Each society thinks it is what God wants for his “perfect” world. Modern religion has taken a toll for the worse, as every denomination thinks it is teaching the “TRUTH”. If there are so many definitions of that truth: “clearly, there must be a mistake somewhere.” Instead of trying to find the mistake as a unit, the world has broken up into mutants, norms and telepaths, all thinking that the other is the deviation. As a result, they all good heartedly destroy each other. Hence the co-existence and juxtaposition of good and evil in Wyndham’s The Chrysalids and the world on a larger scale.

Well, it's been 4 years, but better late than never - I've only just re-read the Chrysalids after 50 years. Definitely too long. Anyway this was one of my favourite books back when I was 18. It's interesting, reading it again, that the thing that really struck me was how ruthless the Zealanders are. So basically I agree with the comments here, that there's good and bad in all of us, and the Zealanders are no different. I’m sure Wyndham didn’t want us to see Zealand as the utopia of our dreams. He lived through both world wars, and here we have the Zealander woman saying things that could have come from Hitler. I can’t help thinking this must be deliberate. Also both David and Rosalind are shocked by the Zealanders’ cruelty.

Some reviewers have suggested that Wyndham was overly pessimistic, in that these opposing groups wouldn’t really try to annihilate each other. I can’t agree. Here in Australia the history of European settlement was an incredibly brutal one, and racism is far from dead even today. I think Wyndham was spot on here.

Now here’s a dream of mine - I’d like to see somebody write a sequel. Yes, I know there would be copyright issues and permissions needing to be obtained from Wyndham’s estate etc etc, not to mention that post-apocalyptic themes are probably a bit outdated now the Cold War is over. Still, there are so many themes worth exploring. The very ruthlessness of the Zealanders might contain the seeds of its own destruction or at least its radical modification. “Thinking together” is a very long way from always agreeing together, and I can easily see different opposing groups emerging. Then which group gets to be boss? (Not to mention that Petra has the power to effectively jam everyone’s communication whenever she wants to.) The resulting chaos could eventually lead to a somewhat more humane society, with a greater respect for other species. On a more nuts-and-bolts level, how could someone hear themselves think over a constant background babble, or conduct a “conversation”? Wyndham didn’t develop the idea of what it’s like to be telepathic, subjectively, to any great degree, except maybe to duck the issue by having David explain to Uncle Axel that it’s very hard to put into words. How would you distinguish someone else’s communication from some ideas that might just pop into your head at random? This wasn’t vital to the story-line, of course, but interesting nonetheless.

Then there’s the whole subplot of Michael and Rachel attempting to find their way halfway around a contaminated planet with only horses for transport. There would have to be a few significant and dangerous water crossings, various meetings with other human groups, maybe with different degrees of (and attitudes to) deviation, and possibly they could encounter some other telepaths whom the Zealanders hadn’t discovered yet, who could join them on the journey. Throw in a bit of romance, and there’s lots of room for plot development.

Probably it won’t ever happen, but I can have my dream. It’s a tribute to Wyndham’s creativity that there are so many potential lines of speculation that could be followed, and anybody who wanted to tackle a sequel would need to be similarly creative. That’s why it won’t be me. In any case, I’m not a writer, and I’m trying to retire.

It's a long time since I wrote this and even longer since I did any serious research on/thinking about Wyndham, but I do remember - and this may be referenced in the article - Rowland Wymer writing a serious academic piece about The Chrysalids, where he argued that while in most Wyndham books collective intelligence (whether that be the Triffid group sentience, the group-minds of the Midwich children, or the spider-hive-mind in Web) is presented as a threat, in The Chrysalids the group-mind of the telepaths is sympathetic... mostly. But the way the Zealanders is presented uses imagery not dissimilar to that of an insect society, which is never normally something with positive associations in a Wyndham book. You kind of touch on issues of loss of identity and individuality - which is implicit here - in what you say.

Not sure what a Chrysalids sequel would have to offer that wasn't already done extremely well in the original. I'm reminded of what Charlton Heston said when they proposed a Planet of the Apes sequel to him - 'all that's left to do is cowboys and indians in funny masks'.

Nevertheless it would still almost certainly be better than Night of the Triffids...