In the short story "There Will Come Soft Rains" there is the debate of who wins; technology or nature. Although most would think that nature wins in the end because the fire destroys the house, I think there is various evidence supporting that technology does indeed prevail over nature. Two instances where technology "wins" is when there is still one wall standing even at the end of the fire and also the clock that continues to repeat the time after the fire.

First, in terms of the last wall standing, I think that Bradbury is trying to say that if humans abuse technology, it will overtake and consume our lives. Humans (nature) tend to rely so heavily on technology yet technology does not rely on nature. Thus when Bradbury states that "among the ruins, one wall stood alone" he is saying that technology can live on even without nature.

Secondly, in the conclusion of "There will come Soft Rains" the technological clock keeps repeating "Today is August 5, 2026, today is August 5, 2026, today is..." I think that Bradbury is conveying the same idea here in that nature, in terms of time and space, is not able to move forward without the use of technology and technology has the final overrulling power to control people and the passing of time.

But in a way, I think that ending shows that technology lost. The one lone wall with the voice endlessly repeating the date over and over is totally useless. Every human being within a huge radius has just been vaporized. What good is the technology, if there is no one left to enjoy it? I think this stark ending points out how useless all that technology really turned out to be. In the end, the critical element was the humans, not the machines.

[This message has been edited by lmskipper (edited 02-10-2004).]

I agree that technology lost, but I think humans lost, also. Technology is supposed to be a tool to help man find happiness and fullfullment. But I think we often rely on technology -- not as a supplement to help man find happiness -- but as a replacement for true, compassionate, meaningful human happiness. We become dependent on the technology, thus losing our ability to enjoy and develop our humanity.

We destroy ourselves emotionally and spiritually by this dependence on technology (though I don't think Bradbury sees technology as inherently evil!), but we also allow it to destroy us physically because we develop powerful ways of killing each other with the same technology that allows us to enjoy music and art.

So, in my mind, the story shows that both technology and man loses. The fault is man's, and the suffering is man's.

In the end, over time, nature wins. Whether man is a corpse in the ground grown over by earth, or technology is the residue of man's machinery eventually overtaken by vegetation and erosion, nature wins.

Thank you Mr. Dark for allowing me to view this story in a different way. I had never really thought of the option of both technology and nature losing. I think that is a very valid point.

All too often, humans try to replace other human interactions with some form of technology, yet if humans destroy themselves through technology, technology will no longer be able to survive without humans as well.

I am not sure whether to categorize humans as nature though. While in the end, if all humans die out in addition to technology yet nature prevails, does that mean that humans still won? This is a hard question that I cannot come to a conclusion on.

The real question for me is, how does the writer pull this off in terms of a literary triumph for himself and the reader? Amazing enough to write a compelling story with not only no living human characters, but where even the only animals are secondary. In this case, it's the lack of humans evidenced by their artifacts which provide the "human" element in the story. Also consider that although Bradbury writes of wars, mind control, and other forms of violence, his work is ALMOST NEVER DEPRESSING! How many writers of serious subjects can manage THAT, and how does he do it?

It's like "the chicken or the egg" in reverse. What comes last?

From Dandelion: "In this case, it's the lack of humans evidenced by their artifacts which provide the "human" element in the story."

Good observation. Bradbury's magic is (in part) that he can create "real" human feelings even in inanimate objects and settings.