Oryx and Crake

[Alison, the guru of grace]

Dini and I will be moderating the discussion of "Oryx and Crake" for May. Saturday is technically May 1, but I will be traveling through May 5, so I wanted to go ahead and get this thread started while I was here. I hope lots of us are planning on reading this one.

[Dini, the master of meaning]

I'm excited about this since The Handmaid's Tale is one of my favorite books ever, it made me want to read more from Margaret Atwood. I've mentioned to Alison earlier that I thought the book was long but maybe it's just because the copy I have with me is a hardcover with big font so it looks huge, and I'm used to reading paperbacks. Talk about optical illusion. LOL

[Alison, the guru of grace]

It looks moderately length-ed (?) to me. :) But it's hard to tell--you're right about the font. I'm looking forward to this too. I really enjoyed The Handmaid's Tale...did not enjoy The Blind Assassin. Hope this is more like the former than the latter.

[SJ]

I really love this book so I'm looking forward to discussion!

[Kayla]

I read this book a month ago, and I was dying to talk about it with someone. There was so much going on. Can't wait for others to start reading it and see what they have to say.

[Dini, the master of meaning]

A bit about the book from Wikipedia:


Oryx and Crake is a dystopian science fiction novel by the Canadian author Margaret Atwood. Atwood has at times disputed the novel being science fiction, preferring to label it speculative fiction and "adventure romance" because it does not deal with 'things that have not been invented yet' and goes beyond the realism she associates with the novel form. Oryx and Crake was first published in 2003 and was also shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize for Fiction that same year.

Returning to the dystopic themes of Atwood's earlier novel The Handmaid's Tale, Oryx and Crake presents a very different scenario than that novel's theocracy. Oryx and Crake explores developments in science and technology such as xenotransplantation and genetic engineering, particularly the creation of transgenic animals. This society promoted an extreme commercialization of life, the commodification of sex and all forms of pornography, and exacerbated the gap between rich and poor. Oryx and Crake examines the social, economic, scientific, and ethical consequences of such technology.

[Dini, the master of meaning]

And about the author:


Margaret Eleanor Atwood (born November 18, 1939) is a Canadian author, poet, critic, essayist, feminist and social campaigner. She is among the most-honoured authors of fiction in recent history; she is a winner of the Arthur C. Clarke Award and Prince of Asturias award for Literature, has been shortlisted for the Booker Prize five times, winning once, and has been a finalist for the Governor General's Award seven times, winning twice. While she may be best known for her work as a novelist, she is also an award winning poet, having published 15 books of poetry to date. Many of her poems have been inspired by myths and fairy tales, which were interests of hers from an early age. Atwood has also published short stories in Tamarack Review, Alphabet, Harper's, CBC Anthology, Ms., Saturday Night, Playboy, and many other magazines.

[Dini, the master of meaning]

I've finished the first two parts, which consist of six chapters. Or is it two chapters consisting of six parts? Anyway, so far it's very reminiscent of The Handmaid's Tale, with a feeling of a distorted future. At this point I'm still trying to piece together the puzzle and figure out what's going on, what happened that made the world become like this.

[Kristi]

Dini--you just have to read on! That is one thing I love about Atwood's books--she doesn't explain everything at once, she makes you think for yourself. When you finally understand, it is so worth it!

I've read this book twice, sadly I don't have time for a third reading right now. Last October I was fortunate to attend a book reading/signing by Margaret Atwood in Denver. She was such a pleasure to listen to, so clever and fun. The reading was for The Year of the Flood, which has some of the same characters as O&C and is happening more or less simultaneously.

Hopefully I will have time to join this discussion, but we just bought our first house, so I don't have a lot of spare time between painting and packing. This is one of my favorites, though. Definitely in the top three on my all-time list!

[Kayla]

Kristi wrote: "Dini--you just have to read on! That is one thing I love about Atwood's books--she doesn't explain everything at once, she makes you think for yourself. When you finally understand, it is so wort..."

I actually found the lack of explanation to be extremely frustrating, particularly when she mentioned all the new species. I had no idea what they were so I couldn't form a picture in my head as I was reading about them. That blank image was disturbing to me, and it ruined the reading experience.

[Kayla]

A question for the group:

What do you think of Oryx's character? Is her nonchalance about her past frustrating for you? Do you understand it? Do you believe her supposed acceptance of her past or do you think it is just a facade?

[Alison, the guru of grace]

Home from traveling...about to start this one.

[Alison, the guru of grace]

Top 3, Kristi...wow!

[Alison, the guru of grace]

I'm about 60 pages in. I was searching for some discussion questions, but most of them would apply to someone who's finished the novel.

I'm enjoying this. I find it very creative and intelligent. It reminds me somewhat of Farenheit 451 (the depressed wife), and a little of 1984 as well (the place where Jimmy's dad works reminds me of the different Ministries somewhat. Also, the way that they are spied on is reminscient of Big Brother.)

I like the fight between Jimmy's mother and father, where she tells him to do "something honest. Something basic." Very applicable for today. Jimmy's dad is chasing the money, regardless of the moral implications. Jimmy's mom is depressed from attempting to live with all of the guilt.

[Alison, the guru of grace]

I'm on page 104. Would anyone who's about this far in like to try to describe (without spoilers) what they think Snowman is? Is he all man?

[Brigid]

***I've read the whole book, so my response might contain spoilers.***

I liked this book, but not nearly as much as I loved The Handmaid's Tale. When I first started reading it, The Road kept popping into my head for obvious reasons. I found that book to be painfully moving and beautifully, evocatively written. In general, books set in a dystopian future aren't my style. I thought Oryx and Crake offered some interesting, allegorical insights into the future, but I wasn't always wholly convinced by what was going on. I think my main problem was that I didn't like Jimmy. He just wasn’t sympathetic. I found Oryx and Crake both frustrating, but at least there was meat to their characters. However, I did find Atwood’s writing pitch-perfect as always. She knows how to conjure an emotion and set a scene. I also love the way she reveals bits and pieces throughout, never giving away too much or leaving me frustrated.

To answer Kayla‘s question, I still don’t know what I think about Oryx. Sometimes I found her so complicated, and other times she seemed so flat. There had to be more beneath the surface. She couldn’t have been that pragmatic. Morality and justice just didn’t seem to be at play in her mind, and not at all in the same way Crake’s mind didn’t seem to register ethics.

[SJ]

Kayla - I kind of thought her responses were reminiscent of folks I know who've suffered abuse in the past. They experienced it, they live with it and they don't really want to hash it over. Yes, it's bad but it doesn't define them.

[SJ]

One of the most interesting things about this book for me was the impact of technology on morality. That is, as something becomes easier to do (in action) is society less opposed to doing it. The gene spliced animals are a great parallel to the current human cloning debate.

[Alison, the guru of grace]

Great points. I just finished this and I loved it. I thought the writing and the story-telling was amazing. More to come from me.

[Alison, the guru of grace]

Here is a discussion question if anyone wants to address. I found it, did not write it...

"Oryx and Crake includes many details that seem futuristic, but are in fact already apparent in our world. What parallels were you able to draw between the items in the world of the novel and those in your own?"

[Meghan]

Kristi - thanks for the rec on Flood. That's the one Atwood book I haven't read yet and as O&C is my favorite of hers, I'm on my way to the bookstore to pick it up!

[Meghan]

O&C is my favorite Atwood book hands down. I like dystopian futures--it's what I like best about sci-fi, the possibility that it could happen.

My experience with book clubs is that most women I know tend to hate this book. So I'm very excited to see so many of you love this book!

[Meghan]

Kayla wrote: "A question for the group:

What do you think of Oryx's character? Is her nonchalance about her past frustrating for you? Do you understand it? Do you believe her supposed acceptance of her pas..."

I find this interesting because Oryx is probably the character I least remember. Crake is my favorite because I find him so stubborn and frustrating and yet so fascinating on an amoral level. Perhaps not amoral but on a moral level that is different than what society generally accepts. He makes me think which is what I like best.

**POTENTIAL ENDING SPOILER**


Jimmy redeems himself, in my eyes, in the end. And it makes me wonder what I would do in the same situation.

[Meghan]

Since Kristi mentioned Year of the Flood, I thought you might be interested in this blog by Atwood regarding her trip to Israel and the West Bank. I think a lot of what they are facing can be applied to this book as well. It's interesting how art reflects life and vice versa.

http://marg09.wordpress.com/2010/05/1...

[Alison, the guru of grace]

What do you think of Oryx's character? Is her nonchalance about her past frustrating for you? Do you understand it? Do you believe her supposed acceptance of her past or do you think it is just a facade?

SPOILERS!!!



She was wierd. Her lack of emotion and her ambivalent dialogue with Jimmy almost made you think she was some kind of robot, or clone. She was very emotionally detatched. I imagine it could be the result of having no love or appropriate parenting as a child, plus all of the abuse. It could also be a sign of the times. Everyone was so desensitized to sex and violence from all of those horrible reality shows and video games they played. So maybe no one was capable of love or apathy anymore. But then how would you explain Jimmy...who was capable of emotion and attachement, and had a somewhat intact moral compass? Is that possibly why Crake chose him to look after the Crakers? Because he was such a rarity?

[Meghan]

***POTENTIAL SPOILERS****


But then how would you explain Jimmy...who was capable of emotion and attachement, and had a somewhat intact moral compass? Is that possibly why Crake chose him to look after the Crakers? Because he was such a rarity?

For me that is what made me not a huge Jimmy fan until the end. He almost was too worried about being "good". But I think Crake knew there was that part of him that understood what Crake was trying to achieve. Not just understand it, but believe in it too--and by doing so, Jimmy would guard and protect it.

Makes you wonder who the real "hero" is in this story. Or is there one?

[Alison, the guru of grace]

BIG ENDING SPOILER!!






Well, I think with that open ending it's impossible to say what Jimmy chose to do with the other people he encountered. Although I hear it is addressed in The Year of the Flood.

[SJ]

I think the best part of these books (O&C and YotF) is that there aren't any heroes. All of the actions taken require that we re-examine the bounds of "morality" and personal responsibility.

[Nita]

This was my first Atwood novel, and I just LOVED it. I finished it last night and I will definitely be reading more. I appreciate that Atwood writes for and assumes her reader's own intelligence...the ability to put together what's taking place without her having to....plot dump....on you. The vivid imagery, the realism of speech, hits home. Also, I am about to graduate medical school, and the science aspect of the story was so spot on...it really drew me in. I am surrounded everyday by men and women that feel that their intelligence and education make them qualified to speak about what should/shouldn't be in all aspects of people's lives. I feel that to be a very deep theme in the story.


About Oryx. I think that we have a hard time separating how WE would respond to such a life. But, if we separate someone from life/reality/all that is good before they know any different, then, their life, is simply....life. I truly believe that she doesn't realize that anything is wrong with how she's treated. She sees that she's given shelter, food, water, in exchange for something that she doesn't recognize as sacred/intimate. At some point, she discovered that her life wasn't "typical", but I think that's what drew her to Crake's vision.

[Alison, the guru of grace]

Both great comments. I agree with this assessment of Oryx. If you don't know any different, how are you to know what a better life looks/feels like?

And definetely no traditional heroes here. I love the fact that Atwood trusts her audience to draw their own conclusions. It's just a higher level of writing.

[Dini, the master of meaning]

I gave this book five stars. Like many of you, I loved it because it made me think that the things in the book can actually happen in real life -- which is why Atwood said this is not science fiction, but "speculative fiction".

Kayla wrote: "I actually found the lack of explanation to be extremely frustrating, particularly when she mentioned all the new species. I had no idea what they were so I couldn't form a picture in my head as I was reading about them."

The new species weren't so confusing for me because I could guess what they were from the names (rakunk is a combination of raccoon and skunk, wolvog is a wolf-dog), except for the pigoons. Only after I checked Wikipedia did I know that the term meant pig-balloon, because their organs were inflated.

[Dini, the master of meaning]

SPOILERS



What was frustrating for me about Oryx was not so much her nonchalance about her past abuse, but the way she carried on the relationships with both Jimmy and Crake. It was clear she admired Crake, but I was never sure why she was doing it with Jimmy. I don't buy it when she said it's because she wanted Jimmy to be happy.

I actually liked Jimmy. I can understand his thought processes and his internal conflict. Crake is a fascinating character for a whole different reason, like Meghan said.

The part where Crake said the big companies were the one creating the diseases in order to sell more of their drugs really creeped me out. It really makes you think whether that's what people would resort to when we've found the cure to all sicknesses. Would such a time ever come? And if it does, would we do the same?

[Dini, the master of meaning]

SPOILERS



I like how Crake despised religion, but in the end he became a sort of god for the Crakers, his creations, through Jimmy's made-up stories. He also didn't want them to create art, but that's what they did anyway. It really makes me think whether his plan for the Crakers would really work out. He programmed them to avoid all things that he thinks are bad about ordinary human beings, but are they really all that bad? Could the Crakers really escape war, conflict, heartbreak simply because they're not programmed for that?

[Brigid]

Dini -- Almost every time I saw the word "pigoon," I misread it as "pigeon" for a moment, which led to some amusing confusion. A pack of pigeons with giant teeth are going to eat Jimmy alive?!

[Dini, the master of meaning]

LOL. I think I misread that too at first.