Soft Rains, or Nuclear Fallout?
“And not one will know of the war, not one / will care at last when it is done. / Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree, / if mankind perished utterly;” (Teasdale 326).
I thought these lines from the titular poem of Ray Bradbury’s There Will Come Soft Rains help to pull the story together and set the backdrop of life in the wake of a nuclear disaster. Its melodic rhyming verse sounds gentle and peaceful, painting a picture of nature continuing in all its beauty after the fall of mankind. The mechanical house depicted in the story chooses this poem to recite when its dead owners are not there to request one, and it gives some insight into the absent character whose favorite it was. Before her death from the bomb, the mother of the house must have listened to the poem often. “There Will Come Soft Rains” expresses her wish for nature to persevere even if nuclear war kills her family.
In 1950, when this short story was published, the Cold War was well underway and the world was still reeling from the use of nuclear warfare to end World War II. The whole premise of There Will Come Soft Rains reflects Cold War anxieties and simultaneous reliance on and fear of technology. Like Ray Bradbury, many Americans lived in fear of another war and were forced to confront the possibility of a post-nuclear future. A robotic voice reading a poem that glorifies nature exemplifies the very real fear of humans destroying the planet as well as themselves.
As hopeful as the poem is, its words are rife with irony as we see the true extent of devastation caused by the nuclear holocaust. Nature is not bouncing back after the death of mankind, instead remaining stagnant with a “radioactive glow”. The only nature we see in the story is the mechanical elements of nature created by the house, like mice that clean up and holographic animals in the nursery. When actual parts of nature show up, whether it be the family dog or even a sparrow brushing against a window, the house is indifferent or hostile to them. The only soft rains to fall on this desolate city are the artificial sprinklers as they water the lawn.
Sara Teasdale’s verse repeatedly emphasizes that “not one” will care about the death of mankind, no matter if it is a plant or animal. The “one” that cares, but doesn’t understand, the death of its humans is a manmade piece of machinery. The house loyally follows its daily rituals in the absence of anyone to enjoy them, despite the futility of it all. In the end, even the house falls to a fire, proving that nature reigns supreme.
I really liked this close reading of the poem, especially when you pointed out the ultimate irony of those words; although nature doesn't mind that mankind is gone, mankind's demise ultimately left nature in ruins and humanity's creations continue to harm nature even after humans are gone. I wonder if the story's considering nature as wider than just animals and plants, but as all the forces on earth that humanity fights against. For example, at the end, we see the house, some of the last evidence of human existence, collapse in flames, meaning gravity and fire ultimately destroy it. The fire might've come from something human-built, I don't really remember, but fire itself wasn't created by humans, so its destruction of the house could be an example of nature's disregard for humanity.
ReplyDeleteIt is cool that you picked up on this poem. I am especially intrigued by the last part where the idea is that in the end no one will care or remember the only thing that will actually help us to the end is this preprogramed machine. I think the theme of when does tech go too far is something we are seeing nowadays. Recently there has been a lot of push back about privacy in terms of tech that we use everyday and to become so reliant on tech we often need to give it private information. I think the balance of relying on tech is an interesting one and this story deals with it.
ReplyDeleteI like how you analyzed this quote using the historical setting and drawing a comparison between the emotions of the story and the feelings following the Cold War. This deeper analysis of this quote adds another level towards my understanding of these lines and of the story as a whole. When reading and analyzing this story, this quote is one that I also got drawn to because I think it accurately and concisely summarizes the entire plot and "lesson" to be taken from the story. The idea that the machines continuing to do its routine despite the absence of humans is futile is really interesting because it counters the prevalent idea that humans have become too dependent on technology. Instead, it presents the idea that machines are in fact dependent on humanity since they are essentially useless without people there to take advantage of them.
ReplyDeleteIt is really interesting to think about how this poem relates to the rest of the story, because I didn't really understand the role of it in the story when reading it for the first time. I think it's interesting that you point out how the poem is related to the mother of the family, and why she likes it so much. It seems strange that she would want nature to persevere, when she lives in a house that is very much not nature, and seems to go against the natural forces at work until it is killed. I think if the mother's wish really was for nature to win over the nuclear war zone, that wish is somewhat fulfilled at the end of the story, but at the cost of her home. I agree that it is very ironic how when her wish comes true, it ends up destroying something that must've been a big part of her life.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very interesting take on the way Bradbury involves nature in the story. I also got Cold War anxiety vibes from this story, but I interpreted the house's gradual deterioration as nature overpowering all of humanity; when we all destroy ourselves, nature will still remain. I definitely agree with your concluding sentence as well, when you interpret the burning down of the house as a show of nature's supremacy over mankind.
ReplyDeleteI like how you were able to connect those lines from the poem to the larger meaning of the story. The fact that this story depicts nature continuing to exist after all of the humans are gone shows how meaningless humans are in the grand scheme of things. Topics like the Cold War seem very important to our history and very significant in determining the fate of the world because of nuclear weapons' immense potential for destruction. Though a nuclear disaster wipes out humanity, nature lives on. This suggests that while humans can destroy themselves, they cannot fully defeat the power of nature. I also agree that nature eventually wiping out the last evidence that humans existed shows the futility of the human struggle when compared to the power of nature.
ReplyDelete