The Death of Grass 1 - The basic concept
What did you think of the basic idea of a virus attacking food supplies rather than people directly? Did it make an interesting story?
Welcome to the Tabletop Roleplayers' Book Club!
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Help offset server costs by donating. This is totally optional. Any overages will go to library fines or new books.
Comments
I personally didn't find this all that convincing. But although this is the title of the book, I don't think it's really the main concept, either. The mechanics of it is barely touched on, afterall - the actual death of grass takes place in the background, and any fight to save grass is even more in the background, almost invisible.
I think the main concept is that when society breaks down (the means isn't important), that people will very quickly go into survival of the fittest mode and those that don't adapt quickly are not likely to survive. Speaking here as a Canadian, I also don't find this very convincing, but it is something interesting to explore - I mean, it really only takes a few people to say "brutality is the way we're going to do this from now on" and everyone else has to more or less follow suit. Or do they?
This is my first John Christopher. I found the reading experience rather similar to Day of the Triffids (in terms of prose and pacing). Christopher has made apocalyptic novels something of a theme in his bibliography. I'm curious if this quick descent into brutality is something that runs across his work, or did he just explore that in this one novel?
I'm with Apocryphal: the mechanism of the collapse was incidental. This was really a story about how civilisation is a thin and fragile veneer over barbarity and violence, and how rapidly people can fall to that state. The death of grass idea was just the vehicle for bringing about the collapse of civil society.
I think this book takes the view that Hobbes was right in Leviathan: the natural state of man is "the war of all against all" and by default people's lives are "nasty, brutish, and short". I think the book follows through on Leviathan, with a clear position that the best leadership is a strong monarchy. Not a very pleasant thought.
Contrast this idea with the "solarpunk" movement, where the assumption is that as modern capitalism disintegrates, grass-roots communities will form and start mutual but distributed support. I'm not sure which is more true, but I know which I'd prefer.
It reminded me in part of a mid-1970s TV series here in the UK called Survivors (see eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivors_(1975_TV_series) ) where again a pandemic reduced vast numbers of the population leaving only scattered groups. It is definitely Cold War dominated rather than WW2but again reflects the fears and anxieties of its time. For exanple
(both from https://www.literarylondon.org/the-literary-london-journal/archive-of-the-literary-london-journal/issue-7-2/post-apocalyptic-london-in-the-1970s-survivors-on-tv/)
Survivors was by Terry Nation, if I recall (I think I have his novelization on my shelf) who also did work on early Dr Who - like invented the Daleks?
That's the one.
The "Death of Grass" idea was reused in the RPG Blue Planet, a near-future SF game. It's not really explored in the game, rather used as the reason why a newly-founded colony world was abandoned for a century; the Death of Grass (called The Blight in that game) happened just after the colony was set up and it took a century for Earth to recover enough to send a follow-up trip.
As that game concentrates on the colony, the effects on Earth aren't central other than to say "it's often grim." The recent kickstarter campaign was successful so they're writing the Earth sourcebook now, with brand-new material.
That game is still going? I have 2 editions already, but never hear anyone talk about it.