Skip to main content

What is the structure of the Waknuk society in the book The Chrysalids?

Waknuk was founded by David's grandfather, who was driven by "the ungodly ways of the East" to make a better society.  He developed the first district in Waknuk, and relied heavily on the Bible and "Nicholson's Repentances" to form his new society.  He was a farmer, and settled down.  Others followed, and a small farming settlement gathered around him there.  



The place may have been called Waknuk then; anyway, Waknuk it had become; an orderly, law-abiding, God-respecting community of some hundred scattered holdings, large and small. (Ch. 2)



Waknuk relies on ensuring order through a strict religious doctrine.  This is enforced through inspectors, who know what the True Image looks like and provide certificates to certify it.  Everything needs to conform to the True Image, from livestock and crops to infant humans.  When a baby is born, it has to be inspected and given a Normalcy Certificate.


Waknuk is divided into districts.  All of them follow this same principle.  The area outside the districts is known as the Fringes.  If someone does not fit the True Image, they end up there.  It is a horrible place.



‘… Man alive, you'd not want to go to the Fringes. Why, they've got nothing there — not even enough food. Most of them are half starving, that's why they make the raids. No, you'd spend all the time there just trying to keep alive, and lucky if you did.' (Ch. 6) 



Beyond the Fringes is the Badlands, which no one knows anything about, according to David.  He says that anyone who goes into the Badlands ends up dying there.  The Deviants who live in the Fringes sometimes cause trouble.  They are society’s outcasts are and somewhat bitter about it, especially since they are sterilized before being kicked out. They are led by David’s uncle, “Spider,” whose arms are supposedly too long.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.