what's wyndham saying at the end of The Chrysalids?

i recently finished wyndham's The Chrysalids and there something puzzling for me about the ending...

those silky strands kill a lot of waknuks and fringes people and the sealand woman justifies it through a "kill or be killed" reasoning. she develops her justification by announcing think-togethers as superior and that the "ordinary" humans are effectively obsolete.

i find this a bit difficult because through much of the novel the children and uncle axel lament xenophobia and intolerence of difference and express the view that everyone is equal. the sealand woman's views seem to contrast strongly with this. and yet they are the children's saviours...

is this meant to be ironic? i don't think so. the representation of the sealanders is very positive (excepting the children's unhappiness at being thought of as primitive by the sealanders) and the arrival at sealan at the end is in fact highly idealistic!

so what is wyndham saying then with this ending? is he endorsing the sealand woman's views? and if so, what are they? survival of the fittest? that different races/species can't cooperate? can this view be attributed to the period he was writing in?

... is this view so bad?

The 'sealand' woman is not being xenophobic, she is merely stating that humanity has evolved, and that the telepaths are the next stage. The end is basically positive, ordinary humans may die out but the new humans will build a new society.

This was viewpoint Wyndham espoused in a few novels. If you look at The Day of the Triffids, the sighted have to leave (most of) the blind to die, because it is up to them to survive.

that makes sense...

although, if one took the theme of acceptance and integration of different races/species to be a major theme of the book, wouldn't it seem that (in relation to that theme) he seems to contradict himself at the end?

by the way, how do you do that thing where you make the title of the book a link?

Some critics have said that the difference between traditional British and American disaster novels is that American authors are openly optimistic while British authors are more pragmatic. Wyndham, despite advocating tolerance, accepts that evolution has no such qualms. There is an element of dry humour here, protect those who will destroy you.

I'm just trying to put forward an argument here on Wyndham's behalf but a lot of critics were very disappointed at the ending of the book. The deus ex machina of the Sealanders, and the fact that after a novel preaching tolerance, the Sealanders just massacre the ordinary people. It could be that Wyndham just didn't know how to end the novel and botched it.

For highlighting books and authours look at the touchstone entry here LT FAQ - it's very easy to follow.

suppose i should've thought of looking at the LT FAQ before!

personally i have no problem with the deus ex machina. they obviously seem godlike and "miraculously" come from the sky, and they have very good timing...! but we always knew they were coming from about two thirds of the way through, and there are constant updates as to when they will arrive. and they only seem godlike to the people in the novel - to us their technological level of advancement isn't implausable.

i like the book a lot - i think i just found the apparant contradiction uncomfortable...

your interpretation makes sense though. and there is definitely an air of pragmatism in the novel...

I didn't see the Sealander's attitude as different from anyone else's. Each group thinks themselves superior from the others in some way. The fringes people feel that they are somehow more advanced and unfairly targeted by the norms. The norms feel themselves to be touched by god and ordained as superior and thus they kill or ostracize those who don't conform. And because of their telepathic abilities, the Sealanders feel themselves to be far and away more advanced than the norms or the fringes people. Their ruthlessness is only more palpable because of their superior technology. If either of the other two groups had the power to destroy the other, they certainly would have.

To me, they are all the same - the norms, the fringes people and the Sealanders - at their core they are all human and all need validation of thier place in the world and thier belief that it is at the top. The message I got was that no matter how "advanced" a human becomes, they are all the same in the end - we need to control our surroundings and belong to a group. We are aggressive and violent and that is the means to our ends. The mind-sharing bit didn't change this basic fact, it just gave it a new outlet.