Survival might be insufficient, she'd told Dieter in late-night arguments, but on the other hand, so was Shakespeare. He'd trotted out his usual arguments, about how Shakespeare had lived in a plague-ridden society with no electricity and so did the Traveling Symphony. But look, she'd told him, the difference was that they'd seen electricity, they'd seen everything, they'd watched a civilization collapse, and Shakespeare hadn't. In Shakespeare's time the wonders of technology were still ahead, not behind them, and far less had been lost.
The discussion between the characters reveals a deeper philosophical divide regarding the value of survival and artistic expression in a post-apocalyptic world. One character argues that mere survival isn't enough to justify life; it lacks the richness that art and culture provide. This brings into question the relevance of Shakespeare's works in a contemporary setting ravaged by loss, highlighting the stark contrast between their past experiences with technology and the emptiness they now face.
Their argument emphasizes the profound impact of witnessing civilization's collapse. Unlike Shakespeare, who lived in a time of hope and future possibilities, the characters have seen the decline of society and its consequences. This shapes their understanding of art's role; it's not just about survival, but about creating meaning in a world that has lost so much. Ultimately, the conversation encapsulates the struggle to reconcile artistic heritage with the harsh realities of a changed existence.
