SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Oryx and Crake
Group Reads Discussions 2011
>
"Oryx & Crake" Finished Reading? (Spoilers)
This is in response to the comments in the other thread about the disturbing part regarding the kiddie porn and the depressing aspect of this book. I can see why that part was upsetting, but it was supposed to be. I believe it is included to demonstrate how degraded the society has become -- not that we don't have that now, but the level of it and the acceptance of it. The story is written as a trilogy of sorts and there will be a third book. I will say that book 2 The Year of the Flood is more hopeful and less depressing, although I do believe Oryx and Crake ends with hope. The characters that are focused in Year of the Flood are different than those in Oryx and Crake, it is from the point of view of two women.
Also, it's integral to Oryx's story....Although I find the subject offensive, it was not gratuitous at all.And I loved it. Maybe not wanns have it's babies loved it, but still loved it.
Great point Maggie. It was integral to the story and not in just to excite.
I get how it contributed to the story, I just thought it was more graphic and detailed than was necessary to accomplish that message. I may have to agree to disagree with some on this point. But I'm going to try and get past this and understand the book better. I did otherwise like the book and thought it was packed with meaning.I didn't feel that hopeful at the end. Given the flavor of the book up to this point I didn't visualize a pleasant meeting with the three other humans. I did think it ended in a gripping way that emphasized what had become of the human condition. We're still in the dark, so to speak.
I would be interested in hearing what some of you think about the overall message of the book. Is this just good fiction or is there an underlining worldview picture that Atwood is painting?
Since I'm the one who started it ... In my opinion, the kiddie porn was gratuitous. And overdone. I was already not liking the book by the time that I got to that chapter. It did not get any better for me.
I did not find it particularly gratuitous, I've read far worse in documentary stories about child trafficking in that part of the world. I have to admit that before rereading it, I couldn't remember any details of it, apart from "Oryx was involved in kiddie porn" and that Snowman and Crake watched her (or think they did, at any rate) as kids, just like they watched executions online. The underlying world view is very well constructed, Atwood's always been very much involved in environmentalism, and is very well read up on the subject. That goes for everything in the novel really, she's said that everything in O&C is doable with today's technology, should we so wish.
I get how the child porn is showing the horrible state the world is in. I think there's other ways that could have been demonstrated but they would have all had the cringe factor. I think this is one of those books that, while well thought out and well written, it was not enjoyable. And I don't really think it was supposed to be. I suspect the author is making a point about the state the future of our world is headed towards. I didn't realize there was a sequel. Maybe I'll read it eventually.
I thought it was very enjoyable and compelling. I couldn't put it down. Although I did read it 6 yrs ago. I just read the sequel this year though. I think it is both a good book and good literary fiction (in addition to speculative fiction) and a commentary on corporate dominance in our world and environmental issues.
See, I think it needed the 'cringe' factor to show just how sociopathic Crake is, and how much of a follwer Jimmy is. Just My Opinion....
Great point about Jimmy being a follower.
I was so happy that this one finally won a poll, because I do want to have its babies. I can't get my local book club to add this to the "to read" pile (yet, I'll never give up)I am, 99% of the time, wholeheartedly against sexploitation/etc in books, because I just think it's overdone, but in this book, it just added to the whole atmosphere enough that I gave Atwood a pass on it. I think it does show how far society has gone, and tells a lot about the characters, as Maggie said.
The book was dark and bleak, just like I like them.
As someone who's worked in gene research and attended more than a few lectures/symposia/etc on the ethics and hazards, I just love that she has taken genetic engineering to a conclusion that feels like it could happen.
I like this book more than Year of the Flood precisely because it is so much darker than the sequel/companion.
The Aimdoggg wrote: "I think this is one of those books that, while well thought out and well written, it was not enjoyable. And I don't really think it was supposed to be."Agreed.
I'm not sure if a book's ever gotten under my skin as much as this one. The Handmaid's Tale was scary, but this seemed a lot more... immediate? I think it was the descriptions of the Internet escapades that did it for me - the snuff films and animal torment videos in addition to the sexploitation. ._.
I thought the genetic engineering was really fascinating. The ChickieNobs grossed me out, but the ecoterrorists trying to "liberate" them (as well as setting loose the pigoons and wolvogs) made me snicker a bit...
I'll definitely have to read The Year of the Flood sometime.
I don't know if "enjoyed" is the right word, but I'm really glad I read this, and hope to scoop up the sequel this afternoon at the library (which is not good news for my slog through The City and the City). I agree with those who said the porn/torture/etc. videos were used to show how little society "cared" for one another. Jimmy and Crake checked those sites the same way we check Facebook and YouTube (or Goodreads, for that matter). And I doubt anyone is reading Atwood for the sex. I found myself wanted more of the present-day story line, and racing through the historical stuff to get to the next Snowman chapter. I'm an urban archeologist at heart, and wanted to see more of Atwood's post-human world.
Based on your comments, I believe you will like Year of the Flood. :)
I read this a while ago, so I don't remember all the specifics. But I do remember I liked Year of the Flood better. To me these books felt like one long book that later had to be cut down to two books. So after Oryx and Crake I was left with too many questions and uncertainties. But the 2nd book wraps things up well and gives you a lot more information about what went down.
I forgot that this was to be the monthly read and have not been receiving notifications from here. I read it a few months ago. Here is my review for it. Hopefully, I'll have time later to join in on the discussion.http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Regina wrote: "Based on your comments, I believe you will like Year of the Flood. :)"I liked The Year of the Flood a bit more than O&K, and I think it added a lot to O&K. I'd suggest reading them back to back.
I didn't fell it depressing, more of a warning—Keep traveling this path and this may will happen. It gives hope that if enough of us understand the science or just believe, we may be able to delay the collapse of our civilization. It is well to remember that all prior civilizations have collapsed. I see it as part of the cycle of life.
Jimmy gets my vote as character least likely to survive societal meltdown in an actual emergency.(I sometimes have problems with that willing suspension of disbelief thingy)
stormhawk wrote: "Jimmy gets my vote as character least likely to survive societal meltdown in an actual emergency"I think I kind of liked that about him. It was mostly luck and coincidence that he survived, and he didn't know what the hell to do with himself at that point.
Regina, I did like Year of the Flood, though not as well as Oryx and Crake. There were a few too many concidences - like stormhawk, I sometimes have trouble with suspension of disbelief. I did like the way the two books converged, and the way she pieced together the "behind the scenes" stuff from O&C.
I don't think Jimmy knew what to with himself at any point really.
(spoilers are OK, right?) Obviously Killing Crake was a spur of the moment descision on Jimmy's part. Was it explicity said that Crake had planned to get killed on purpose? Because he would have been immune to the disease, right? So other than being a crazy person, why did he want to die just as he "improved" the world? You'd think he'd want to see the results of his own destruction. I guess I'm trying to figure out why he would want his semi-doofus friend to be in charge of things.
I don't think he was leaving Jimmy in charge, but he definitely wanted Jimmy to protect the new race of beings. I have never came up with a decent explanation as to why he wanted to die (other than being a deeply disturbed person) or if he actually did want to die.
I read this a while ago, but I think it was one of those things where a person helps to build or create a new world, but they no longer have a place in that same new world. I think as the creator, he was inherently part of the old world and he though everything had to start fresh.
Sandra (I also read it awhile ago), I think you are right. By leaving Jimmy alive, he likely thought he would just die out and never have a chance to reproduce -- actually a pretty cruel fate. He also likely did not understand that there may be others who have survived.
He may have been planning his own death, what with the whole "would you kill someone you love" conversation he has with Jimmy.
And he probably did believe his plague would wipe out everyone else. Seeing as how he had to inoculate Jimmy repeatedly due to the virulence of it.
Which makes one wonder how anyone else survived
And he probably did believe his plague would wipe out everyone else. Seeing as how he had to inoculate Jimmy repeatedly due to the virulence of it.
Which makes one wonder how anyone else survived
I think there might have actually been something about Jimmy that Crake thought would work in this new world, maybe partially (Year of the Flood SPOILER)(view spoiler). They were close friends after all, so Crake probably new Jimmy better than he knew himself.
You're totally right! Thanks, my bad!
I think Crake was a genius sociopath that manipulated Jimmy his whole life. I don't believe he wanted any humans to remain on the earth. He thought Jimmy was weak and would follow orders until the new race got off their feet. Ala asked a good question, how did anyone else survive? I guess that's a question for The Year of the Flood ( I will be reading that one, but not right away...only so much my fragile psyche can take)
Definitely a sociopath
Banner wrote: "...Ala asked a good question, how did anyone else survive? I guess that's a question for The Year of the Flood ( I will be reading that one, but not right away...only so much my fragile psyche can take) "The events in the 2 books were occurring at about the same time, so perhaps those others just had not died yet.
OTOH, no disease has ever been 100% fatal. Even if it were 99.9999% fatal—highly unlikely—there would still be a million survivors from a population of 10 billion humans.
I don't think it difficult to explain other survivors, unless you consider Crake a God.
I didn't enjoy this book that much. It just felt too slow and took too long to get through the back story and then really rushed the last section.
I think Crake definitely arranged for Jimmy to kill him because he did not want the "Crakers" to have any sort of idealized creator in their world. He knew they weren't likely to look up to Jimmy, but they definitely looked up to Crake based on Oryx's reveal that he made them. Below are some of my thoughts from an earlier group discussion on the book.Jimmy didn't start the idea of Crake being the creator, therefore the person of authority, Oryx did. Jimmy merely used it to reinforce the authority he needed to get them out of the dome and to the beach. In a lot of ways, they already had the concepts of Oryx and Crake as higher beings. Jimmy simply added a framework to suit his needs. I took that whole idea, along with the creation of what could be seen as idol/art, was being Atwood raising the question of whether or not it is truly possible to remove that urge.
While sexual desire and urges play a very large part, they are far from the only urges Crake wanted to remove. He wanted to remove essentially all desire and differentiation, but within a more "natural" setting than most dystopian universes. It is interesting the degree to which she gives Crake a "solution" to all of life's ills that has been proposed as a "wouldn't things be better if we had only" theoretical solution by humanist thinkers for years, but always followed by the disclaimer that, of course, it really wouldn't be possible now. Jimmy mentions Crake saying that humans can only really exist properly in < 200 unit societies. (That's a paraphrase.) This fits with pre-agrarian society sizes, and we know Crake thinks agrarianism followed by industrialism were huge problems.
I found myself thinking of This Perfect Day a lot while reading this, but also of Speaker for the Dead. This has intriguing similarities to both.
full thread from that SFA discussion
Valerie wrote: "The Aimdoggg wrote: "I think this is one of those books that, while well thought out and well written, it was not enjoyable. And I don't really think it was supposed to be."Agreed.
I'm not sure ..."
I agree with what both Aimdoggg and Valerie had to say.
There were points in the book when I was tempted to just not pick it up again, especially at the first mention of HottTotts.
But it is a well written book and I will pick up YotF since those who have read it say it isn't as depressing as O&C. The ending was not satisfying to me. It felt like a cliffhanger.
I finished it and I mean, that it is good, worthy book, but no my favorite one. :o) I feel sad after reading it. But I will pray, that this or nothing similar will be not our future. I deeply hope for it.
I mean, that Atwood is a little naive in some things, as peaceful vegetarian animal species - these animals (males) are in reality killing each other and fightings for power, sometimes happily raping their females or killing younglings of other males... Gorillas, chimps, hippos, dolphins and so on and so on. Animals are no angels. :o) They can be very cruel and terrible. I don´t belive that Crakers can be artificially maded really paceful. Every animal males fight for powers (and females), in some species maybe more or fewer, but I want to see any species which do´t do it at all - today don´t exict. :o) Atwood (or her Crake) believe in noble lie, nonsence. Male Crakers will be still aggresive, maybe less than human species, but still agressive. :o)
But yes, this future world can really be and this is not nice idea for me. I hope that this is only terrible nightmare and our future world will be much better.
Veronika-- good point about nature being cruel. I just assumed the Crakers were exactly as Crake wanted them to be because Atwood wanted readers to see him as God-like. But it is a stretch.
Melissa wrote: "Veronika-- good point about nature being cruel. I just assumed the Crakers were exactly as Crake wanted them to be because Atwood wanted readers to see him as God-like. But it is a stretch."They aren't exactly as he wanted them to be, though. The question of whether or not that is possible, not to mention if it is good, seems to me to be one of the central themes permeating the book. Is it possible to fully eradicate the desire to create god/art/idols?
As for the animals, I don't think the concept of peaceful nature really applies given the obviously vicious nature of the animals Snowman has to avoid in the woods. That being said, it has been some months since I read thiis and my memory could be faulty.
Ok, so I'm currently reading (audio book) WWW: Wake. Sawyer is weaving real life in his universe in several ways, one of which is by having his characters refer to current sci fi authors or books in conversations. So today I'm listening to one of the characters explain that Crake is autistic. Did anyone else get that? It kind of explains some things, but opens up other questions in the process. I just don't remember that being said, maybe it was hinted at but I'm not sure. I'm not well read on autism, but I don't think Crake would have qualified. Has anyone else heard this?
Banner wrote: "Crake is autisticI don't remember any sort of hints towards that. Definitely one those people whose IQ is too high, and they don't have that right-vs-wrong switch on a human/emotional level.
Sandra wrote: "Banner wrote: "Crake is autisticI don't remember any sort of hints towards that. Definitely one those people whose IQ is too high, and they don't have that right-vs-wrong switch on a human/emoti..."
When Jimmy visits Crake at college, Crake introduces Jimmy to his peers as nuerotypical. From what I understand, nuerotypical is the term used to differentiate non-autistic from autistic. But other than that, I didn't notice anything else.
If I recall correctly, neurotypical was used to differentiate between 'normal' and 'genius', not necessarily autistic or aspergers. Though there were some of those at the school.
Ala wrote: "If I recall correctly, neurotypical was used to differentiate between 'normal' and 'genius', not necessarily autistic or aspergers. Though there were some of those at the school."You are right, I just thought Atwood was saying that the geniuses were a little autistic and she used the neurotypical label for normal people to get that point across.
I felt like Atwood left a lot of little clues for how society had changed and how this book relates to our possible future. Even though this book wasn't my cup of tea, I love how Atwood builds her worlds (the other book I've read of hers is the Handmaidens Tale and she used a lot of symbolism and clues in that book too).
Sandra wrote: "Banner wrote: "Crake is autisticI don't remember any sort of hints towards that. Definitely one those people whose IQ is too high, and they don't have that right-vs-wrong switch on a human/emoti..."
I've seen a lot of comments referring to Crake as having an autism spectrum disorder, but it isn't stated in the book. Does anyone know if Atwood herself has made any statements about that idea? I think that is a label that is too quickly applied in a lot of ways. The phenomena of impractical or a/immoral geniuses has long existed and while there may be overlap with those on the autism spectrum, by no means are all of those people there. Similarly, while Asperger Syndrome is a very high-functioning form of autism and there are a number of extremely intelligent people who have it, there is nothing inherent to the disorder connected to intelligence, other than the fact that, unlike other autism spectrum disorders, it does not result in degraded cognitive function.
Sorry, didn't mean to go into all of that. I should edit it, but feeling lazy.
tl;dr intelligent but lacking in social skills, even to Crake's degree, does not necessarily indicate autism
Deane wrote: "I've seen a lot of comments referring to Crake as having an autism spectrum disorder, but it isn't stated in the book. Does anyone know if Atwood herself has made any statements about that idea?"Atwood has apparently stated in an interview that Crake has Aspergers (and that he was partially molded after famous pianist Glenn Gould, who also had Aspergers), but it's never explicitly stated in the novel itself IIRC. I thought Aspergers was more of a sliding scale than an on/off switch?
I also agree on arts vs science being a theme in the book. Obviously the characters' world views aren't necessarily the author's (Atwood's father was an entomologist, I'm sure she knows about the cruelty of nature ;)). Crake tries to get the arts/humanities parts out of the Crakers, but ultimately fails: They still sing and dance and like listening to stories and develop a kind of religion. It would seem to me that one of the themes is "You can't predict nature" (Crakers, rakunks, pigoons, wolvogs - none work exactly as planned) and another is "Humans will create art".
Maybe just "humans will create". ;)
Ala wrote: "Maybe just "humans will create". ;)"lol! Fair enough. ;)
If I recall correctly, neurotypical was used to differentiate between 'normal' and 'genius', not necessarily autistic or aspergers...I havn't read the book yet, so I'm spoiling myself. Neurotypical is commonly used in the ASD community as a describer of those of us who are not on the spectrum.
I just finished (after giving up on The City & The City and really enjoyed it. I'll have to do some ruminating on the extent to which plot points unfolded as part of Crake's grand design vs. "nature" taking its course/events Crake didn't foresee or beyond his control. I'm sure a lot of this must be revealed in Year of the Flood. Maybe it can be one of the upcoming group reads! I definitely want to get into the whole trilogy after reading this first installment. I kept waiting for that horrible explicit passage that folks were so put off by, but then I came to the end of the book! Perhaps I'm also jaded to sex and violence in my media, but I really didn't find that Atwood went into gratuitous detail in the porn descriptions.
One thing I'm wondering about is the whole concept of Oryx. It just seems so unlikely that the boys see her on the internet as a child--both keep a copy of her image, then she reappears in some human trafficking scandal, and Crake uses the image of her as a child to get Student Services to deliver him the SAME person who has gone back to prostitution. I wonder if Crake picked up on Jimmy's response to Oryx early on and was able to re-engineer her as an adult to what...facilitate his endgame?
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Oryx and Crake (other topics)The Windup Girl (other topics)
The Handmaid’s Tale (other topics)
MaddAddam (other topics)
Oryx and Crake (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Margaret Atwood (other topics)Margaret Atwood (other topics)
Did it depress you?
Did you hate it? Love it? Want to have it babbies?
Spoil away!