Oryx and Crake. General Discussion, No Spoilers (Nov 2017)

[Whitney]

Welcome to the retro reads discussion of Oryx and Crake! If you would like to visit the previous discussion from 2013, follow the links that can be found here.

I will leave this open for a couple days, then post a topic for discussing the entire book.

What did you think? Please post any prior works by Atwood you've read and what you thought of them as well. I think it will be interesting to see how prior Atwood experience colors people's reading. If you are a prior reader, how do you think this books compares to her others? Are people planning to go on and read the rest of the trilogy?

Here are some links to reviews, which will be fair game for discussion in future topics. Please feel free to post any links you find interesting as well.

From the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/200...

Thomas Disch's review from The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archiv...

[Hugh]

Thanks Whitney. I read this one last week and have decidedly mixed feelings.

My first Atwood was The Handmaid's Tale, which I read in my early 20s and found rather disappointing, partly because it was overhyped, but mostly because it got rather monotonous and humourless. I suspect I might feel differently if I read it again now. I also read a volume of short stories, Bluebeard's Egg, but don't remember that very well at all.

After that, nothing until quite recently - it was this group's discussion of The Blind Assassin that got me interested again - I thought that was brilliant, as was Alias Grace which I read earlier this year. So by the time I got to this one my expectations were very high, possibly unrealistic. Dystopian speculation has never been my favourite literary form.

That's probably enough for now since I don't want to dominate the discussion.

[Robert]

I read Oryx and Crake back in 2003 and I could not put it down. To be honest I have read six Margaret Atwoods and I've enjoyed them tremendously. The only slight exception would be Cat's Eye.

Funnily enough I didn't like The Handmaid's Tale when I first read it in 2001 but a re-read in 2012 changed my perception completely. But I think Atwood, like , Ali Smith and Jonathan Coe are to me, an author that can do no wrong.

[Kathleen]

I'm a big fan of Margaret Atwood, but never read this trilogy. I've got the book, and am going to try to fit it in, but it may take me until later in the month to finish it.

I started with The Handmaid's Tale back when it first came out, and loved it then and now. I've also read Life Before Man, The Robber Bride, Good Bones and Simple Murders, most of the stories from her other short story collections, The Penelopiad and her fabulous book about writing, Negotiating with the Dead.

And my absolute favorite of hers, unlike Robert, is Cat's Eye. (But I'm in complete agreement with him in that she's probably an author that can do no wrong.)

[Elaine]

I've read many Atwood novels. My favourite is also Cat's Eye. I think it's just brilliant. I didn't like Handmaid's Tale much, so perhaps I should reread it now. I didn't read Oryx and Crake and know I should, but I'm not sure I can fit it in right now. I did however read After the Flood, so if it's fitting I will comment on that.

Atwood is undoubtedly one of the best living writers. A true genius.

[Clarke]

I read Oryx in 2016, and no longer have my copy handy. Oryx is a futuristic dystopia, but not a novel in which science is essential to the plot, aside from the very elementary premise that the landscape of this dystopia would not exist if current scientific warnings about changes to our world from greenhouse gas effect did not materialize (and they have already been materializing for some time now). Since Atwood is a literary writer, the best comparisons would be to other literary authors who have written futuristic dystopias.

Some possible comparisons might be to Doris Lessing's Memoirs of a Survivor, Orwell's 1984, or Barbara Kingsolver's Flight Behavior (the last not exactly a dystopia). Of these, Oryx is less like 1984 than the other two, because Orwell is profoundly interested in ideas, and Atwood, et al are not, so much. Atwood is emphatically not, by that contrast. Even Kingsolver, who is the only one of these writing on the same topic (climate change), and who is more precisely Atwood's contemporary, is more interested in ideas than is Atwood. So, even though most of Kingsolver's expansive novel is composed of very "literary" character development and niceties of phrasing, she is herself a biologist by training, and she does write, at one point, of the effect of climate change on the biology and habits of the monarch butterfly, a small focus, but a pertinent one. With Atwood, I don't recall that we get much of that, although perhaps others, still in possession of their copy, can correct me on this.

Atwood's dystopian landscape is in an advanced state of cultural degradation (rather like that of J.G. Ballard in The Drowned World), and the corresponding moral state of humankind is seemingly similarly degraded (though hardly shocking considering current events these days). But the rewards of reading Oryx are almost purely literary. Felicitous sentences. Clever observational detail. Wit.

I was impressed with Oryx, as I have been with the other Atwood novels I've read (The Edible Woman, Handmaid's Tale, Cat's Eye) (Cat's Eye remains my favorite). I was provoked to curiosity about the remainder of the trilogy, but as this did not reach the threshold of a wild, voracious enthusiasm, and as I have many competing interests, the question of whether I shall ever read the other two novels must be subject to the ironclad vicissitudes of health and mortality.

Four and One-third Stars.

[Kirsten]

Funnily enough, I read this after having read The Year of the Flood. But I loved it all the same. I am a big fan of Atwood and love how her books are thought-provoking and a wide variety.

[LindaJ^]

I read Oryx and Crake many years ago, before I joined GR in 2011 and mostly soon after it was first published. I remember liking The Year of the Flood even more, also read before I joined GR. I've read 7 of Margaret Atwood's books and have 5 on my shelf waiting to be read, but have only written a review for one that I did not like that much -- The Heart Goes Last. An article in the Literary Hub today is somewhat relevant to this discussion - http://lithub.com/30-dystopian-novels....

[Haaze]

I fell in "love" with Surfacing years ago. I think I need to reread it and think about why it had such an effect on me at the time. Hmmm. This was also true for Cat's Eye which I encountered before Surfacing. I have such fond memories of reading both of these novels. The latter has a special place on my book shelf as well as in my mind's eye. However, both of these novels made me appreciate Atwood as an author. Your current read of Oryx and Crake is indeed very alluring..!!!!!!!

[Kirsten]

Haaze wrote: "I fell in "love" with Surfacing years ago. I think I need to reread it and think about why it had such an effect on me at the time. Hmmm. This was also true for Cat's Eye ..."

Me, too! I can't remember why I loved it either. I also really enjoyed The Robber's Bride.

[Whitney]

Wow, great assortment of Atwood readers here! I think I'm in the lower echelons, having only read The Handmaid's Tale (because it was pretty much obligatory reading in 80's, but still very well observed), and the The Robber Bride. I wasn't that enthralled with The Robber Bride, and it's what put me off reading more of her work.

As Clarke pointed out, Atwood is generally considered a "literary" rather than a "genre" writer. Do readers of her other books think this book and series is fundamentally different from those others? Are the characters as fully drawn as in her other books? How does it compare thematically?

I'll open up the general discussion tomorrow.

[Whitney]

Clarke wrote: "I read Oryx in 2016, and no longer have my copy handy. Oryx is a futuristic dystopia, but not a novel in which science is essential to the plot, aside from the very elementary premise that the land..."

Can you expand on what you mean by Orwell being interested in ideas and Atwood not so much? Is it the same as when you say that the rewards of reading Oryx are almost purely literary? I.e. is it that the future and society she presents carry little meaning beyond being the stage for the characters and her writing?

[Maureen]

Whitney wrote: "Wow, great assortment of Atwood readers here! I think I'm in the lower echelons, having only read The Handmaid's Tale (because it was pretty much obligatory reading in 80's, but still very well obs..."
I am glad you are opening the discussion tomorrow even though I am still in the beginning stages of the book. As with so many other discussants, I have read The Handmaid's Tale, Cat's Eye, and The Robber Bride, with The Handmaid's Tale my overall favorite, if one can consider a disturbing dystopian novel a favorite. I taught high school English for over thirty years, and many of my students took me up on my recommendation of that novel and were forever changed. I never taught it, but given the current political climate would have been tempted to. I have not seen the Hulu adaptation, but some of those former students have recommended it.

Oryx and Crake has been more difficult for me to dive into, but I am persevering and look forward to future discussion.

[Kirsten]

I wouldn't say that Atwood isn't interested in ideas.

[Clarke]

Whitney wrote: "Clarke wrote: "I read Oryx in 2016, and no longer have my copy handy. Oryx is a futuristic dystopia, but not a novel in which science is essential to the plot, aside from the very elementary premis..."

In an effort to keep my word count down, I suppressed a paragraph about classifying novels as either "literary" or "genre," i.e., in this case sci-fi, or "cli-fi." The definition of sci-fi (which would include most "cli-fi") is a novel in which some aspect of science is necessary to the plot; if you take it out, the novel collapses. While technically you could say this about Oryx, the source of interest (at least for me) was always the language, the wit, the beautiful writing, and never some aspect of the science behind climate change, as, by contrast that section in Kingsolver where she gets into the biology. With Orwell, we are always thinking of the political ideas, almost never the beautiful writing. Orwell writes well, but I never think much about the cleverness or beauty of his style when I read him. He's always trying to make some point about tyranny or propaganda, etc.

[Kathleen]

I'm glad you explained this, Clarke. You make an interesting distinction, and I see your point.

Still, for me, this is just different ways of expressing an interest in ideas. I've only started Oryx, but with other Atwood books, even though I appreciate the beautiful writing, it's the ideas that stay with me.

[Clarke]

Kathleen wrote: "I'm glad you explained this, Clarke. You make an interesting distinction, and I see your point.

Still, for me, this is just different ways of expressing an interest in ideas. I've only started Ory..."

Maybe more with Handmaid's Tale?

[Caroline]

This is my third Atwood, my first two being The Handmaid's Tale and The Blind Assassin. I am enjoying O&C so far but still haven't quite made up my mind about whether I really like Atwood's style or simply appreciate it.

I liked Handmaid okay but it struck me as a watered-down version of 1984, which I think I'd probably read for the umpteenth time not too long before picking this one up. It probably didn't help that I read The Giver before Handmaid as well. However, I just finished bingeing Hulu's adaptation and thought it was really well done. Think I preferred that over the book.

I found the Blind Assassin to be incredibly slow for the first 100-150 pages but once I'd gotten past that, I found it beautiful and really enjoyed it.

I'm liking Snowman's story so far in O&C but am about halfway through the book and am still not sure where it's going. I can't help but wonder whether the pigoons may have inspired the Netflix movie, Okja!