21st Century Literature discussion

I've read this novel several times. The first time it scared me witless (it was during the heatwave in 2003 when more than 40,000 people died, mainly in France.)

Despite all the advances in technology, there are many people in the Compounds who look nostalgically to the past and wish they could go back. Why do you think that people today look back to the past and pronounce it better than today? Do you think that things really were better and life easier for past generations?

I think every moment in time is filled with torments and joys much like any other. All that changes is the sauce.

But memory filters out the sharp edges.

Still haven't received my copy. There was a 10 day postal strike in my little town and they haven't caught up with the backlog yet. Looking forward to this as I haven't read any Atwood in at least ten years.

I think Deborah is right that memory filters the sharp edges. But even with the associated sharp edges, after a day of constant e-mails, with attached documents for review and immediate response, snail mail with time to reflect sometimes seems better! Technological advancements bring consequences, often ones never contemplated.

I do not think life was necessarily better or easier for earlier generations. However, technology advancements can make life more difficult for those not so inclined and raise anxiety levels, especially given how fast it is advancing.

Surely, for the people in this imaginary world, life was better?

This book includes many details that seem futuristic, but are in fact already apparent in our world. So, what hope for our future?

I think that's a rather dire view. It's fiction. I think it serves better as a mirror of the fears of a generation than an oracle.

I guess time will tell!

What is the difference between speculative fiction - which Atwood claims to write - and science fiction proper? Is there a difference?

Sophia wrote: "What is the difference between speculative fiction - which Atwood claims to write - and science fiction proper? Is there a difference?"

It seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Science fiction is, get this, apparently looked down on in some circles. Go figure.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php...

I think the difference exists in her mind, and I confess I like her less for it.

I also wonder about her as a person. There seems to be this huge emotional remove between her and her characters.

Her ideas are really compelling though.

Sophia wrote: "What is the difference between speculative fiction - which Atwood claims to write - and science fiction proper? Is there a difference?"

I read somewhere that Atwood uses the term 'speculative fiction' because it means that the things she writes could possibly happen in the future, whereas many people think 'science fiction' as a label denotes things that are too fantastical to ever be real (eg. aliens, time travel, etc). I think she wants people to approach her dystopian novels as a kind of warning for real life rather than just writing them off as just a story.

ayanami wrote: "I think she wants people to approach her dystopian novels as a kind of warning for real life rather than just writing them off as just a story."

That's certainly my impression.

I found the below http://archive.bloggy.com/2010/12/mar... --

"From an interview in the December 2010 Progressive.

Q: You call your work not science fiction, but speculative fiction. What's the distinction you're drawing?

Margaret Atwood: The distinction has to do with lineages. It has to do with ancestries, and what family books belong to because books do belong in families. The ancestor of science fiction is H. G. Wells with books like The Time Machine and The War of the Worlds. Those books involved things that are very unlikely to happen or are actually impossible, but they are ways of exploring possibilities and human nature and the way people react to certain things. And if you go to another planet, you get to build the whole society and you can draw blueprints and have fun with talking vegetation and other such things.

The lineage of speculative fiction traces back to Jules Verne, who wrote about things that he could see coming to pass that were possible on the Earth--this wasn't about outer space or space invasions--but things that we could actually do.

There were a lot of utopias in the nineteenth century, wonderful societies that we might possibly construct. Those went pretty much out of fashion after World War I. And almost immediately one of the utopias that people were trying to construct, namely the Soviet Union, threw out a writer called Zamyatin who wrote a seminal book called We, which contains the seeds of Orwell and Huxley. Writers started doing dystopias after we saw the effects of trying to build utopias that required, unfortunately, the elimination of a lot of people before you could get to the perfect point, which never arrived."

I must say that the distinction she is drawing is not one that is always easy for me to see. Personally, I think of the MaddAddam series as science fiction. But, I would agree that not all speculative fiction is science fiction and that her book
The Handmaid's Tale is could be considered as speculative fiction alone and not science fiction. Not sure it matters, though. She is definitely painting a world in the MaddAddam trilogy that could happen based on current science!

Oh, how interesting. Thank you.

Margaret Atwood coined many words and brand names while writing the novel. In what way has technology changed your vocabulary over the past five years?

I am not sure my examples are limited to the past 5 years, but they are technology based!

googled -- used an Internet search engine
nuke -- heat food in a microwave
texting - exchanging messages via a smart phone
e-book - a book downloaded to an electronic bookreader, e.g., a Kindle or Nook
e-wallet - an online payment processor like PayPal
i-gaming - playing games using the Internet or other interactive device
i-poker - poker played on the Internet or a mobile device
inplay wagering - being able to make bets on what will happen in connection with a situation that arises during the course of a game, such as whether a field goal will be made or not
exchange wagering - wagering on the Internet or a mobile device on who will lose as well as who will win a horserace
tablet - an electronic device with Internet access
WiFi - Internet access
tweet - sent a message via Twitter
ping - signal sent to detect the location of a device from which a signal has been sent
wall - place to "pin" stuff on Facebook
like - much over- and mis-used word by persons typically of a certain age AND something you do on social media sites if you like what you read or see or to enter a contest
scan - make an electronic copy of a document
app - a downloadable software program typically used on mobile devices to play games, access flight status, etc.
remote in - access your company's data system from a location away from its premises
HD - high definition
touch screen - a screen on a device that responds to touch as opposed to a keyboard or mouse
hybrid - a car that runs on electricity and gas/diesel
android - an operating system for mobile devices

I find it interesting that you're all so much more forgiving than I of this author. Or that rather, you find there is nothing to forgive. I wonder why I feel so singularly annoyed by and alienated by her.

(I don't mean I wsih to deny her talent, clearly she is talented.)

OK. Tell us more! (I happen to think she's an uneven author, by the way; and on reading this book for the third time I'm not as impressed as I was, the first time round.)

First, the whole shelf load of sci-fi fantasy but refusal to say it's actually sci-fi fantasy, because no one else is writing anything smart of thought provoking or meaningful in that genre, so she gets her own word thanks, thing is pretentious and off putting.

But that all takes place outside of the confines of the book covers, so moving right along - I think her books hold very little warmth and even less heat. She writes at a very calculated remove as if she were afraid to get too close to her own creations, or worse as if she doesn't want to let the reader get too close.

Deborah wrote: "First … [her] refusal to say it's actually sci-fi fantasy, because no one else is writing anything smart of thought provoking or meaningful in that genre, so she gets her own word thanks, thing is pretentious and off putting.

No quarrel with that! But she’s never struck me as a particularly warm author. I went off her big time when she started up with virtual book signing. I then heard tell that she employs three full-time research assistants. Nothing wrong with that, but it begins to feel like BIG business, which does not appeal.

I think her books hold very little warmth and even less heat. She writes at a very calculated remove as if she were afraid to get too close to her own creations, or worse as if she doesn't want to let the reader get too close.

I agree save that the books about herself (‘Cat’s Eye’, springs to mind) and her historical fiction (‘Alias Grace’) do give me the impression that she’s interested – and not just in the academic sense. In fact I think ‘Alias Grace’ is her best book – maybe because she’s using someone else’s material.

She probably prides herself on being an academic writer, but ‘Oryx and Crake’ now feels like nothing more than a well-researched plot-driven novel.

She definitely seems intelligent. And yet, I find I'm angry with her.

I absolutely agree with both of you, Deborah and Sophia. I have never met Atwood, but I imagine she is somewhat cold and calculating, or at least that's the impression I get from her writing. I also think differentiating between speculative fiction and science fiction is unnecessary and kind of pretentious. But still, I find her books so compelling and would read anything she writes.

I'm merely a few chapters in, so I can only comment in broad impressions, but I also find Atwood's writing to lack any emotional connection. It possesses the brilliance of a solar furnace with none of the warmth. I've always struggled with the fact that I'm stunned by her creative and literary abilities, yet unable to fully appreciate or enjoy her work. But it is undeniably brilliant...

As for the spec-fic/sci-fi debate, it's really a false dichotomy. Large swathes of the sci-fi/fantasy community embrace "speculative fiction" as an umbrella term for those collective genres, which means we essentially have two competing definitions of speculative fiction: "not-sci-fi", and "sci-fi along with fantasy and horror and..." (just do a quick Google search and you'll see what I mean). Ironically enough, those SFF fans who rail against the use of "speculative fiction" tend to specifically cite Atwood's attitude as a reason to keep the term at arm's length.

I get what Atwood is trying to say, but it does come across as rather pretentious, elitist and disparaging. And if none of us - we who have our own bugbears of literary fiction and genre - are convinced by her argument, then it must be very weak indeed. Yet despite my disappointment in this regard, and despite my inability to truly enjoy her novels, I, like ayanami, would likely still willingly read anything written by Atwood. Sigh...

Joan Smith, writing for The Observer, faulted the novel's uneven construction and lack of emotional depth. She concluded: "In the end, Oryx and Crake is a parable, an imaginative text for the anti-globalisation movement that does not quite work as a novel." Ursula K. Le Guin, on the other hand, defended the novel against criticism of its characters by suggesting the novel experiments with components of morality plays.

I can appreciate that the novel could be read as a parable and that there are components of a morality play, but I am nevertheless left feeling dissatisfied, because it's not a first-rate novel.

What did you make of the epigraph from Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels "I could perhaps like others have astonished you with strange improbable tales; but I rather chose to relate plain matter of fact in the simplest manner and style, because my principal design was to inform you and not to amuse you" Does this strike you as disingenuous?

Linda wrote: "I am not sure my examples are limited to the past 5 years, but they are technology based!"

I guess we should be delighted at the way language evolves – and so quickly – but I mourn the words we lose…

Sophia wrote: "What did you make of the epigraph from Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels "I could perhaps like others have astonished you with strange improbable tales; but I rather chose to relate plain matter of fact in the simplest manner and style, because my principal design was to inform you and not to amuse you" Does this strike you as disingenuous? "

I'm not sure. On one hand I think it's always admirable when writers come in with a plan and execute it. And too, it is a good read.

On the other hand, if you don't want to amuse me perhaps I should go find someone who does.

I think she supplies part of the answer herself with the Virginia Woolf quote:

Was there no safety? No learning by heart of the ways of the world? No guide, no shelter, but all was miracle and leaping from the pinnacle of a tower into the air?

Was a plain, matter of fact tale not possible because Atwood could not/would not conceive a world where there is no morality or use of imagination?

I've just finished reading it for the fifth time. I was left with so many questions, and in re-reading the trilogy have found some answers and more questions. I love books like that.

Gosh! That good, eh? What did you like about the series?

And - because no book is perfect (!) – what did – and didn't work – for you in 'Oryx and Crake'?

We discussed this book on the SFF Audio podcast yesterday and agreed that due to the lack of real future imagined science in a future world (Atwood herself says she only uses what is already possible), and people are still even watching DVDs, which surely would be obsolete by then... Anyway as a science fiction novel it would fail. The science is hinted at, faded away, nudge nudge, wink wink. But as a novel about people dealing with devastation, it is brilliant.

Jenny wrote: "... as a novel about people dealing with devastation, it is brilliant. "

Which, in your opinion, are some of the best science-fiction novels written in since 2000?

Sophia wrote: Which, in your opinion, are some of the best science-fiction novels written in since 2000?"

Such a good question. I've only returned to reading science fiction and fantasy in the last ten years, so everything good that I've read has been within that window, if not published then. I will try to sort out the new!

There are a few new trends I'm really enjoying since the 21st century started. One is post-humans, living in quantum reality. It's a logical followup to cyberpunk in my mind, which was so hot in the 80s and 90s. Good authors for this sub genre include Ramez Naam (Nexus, Crux), Hannu Rajaniemi (The Quantum Thief), and Nancy Kress.

The other trend is a blending of science fiction and fantasy in various ways. Some of my favorites there have been The Dervish House by Ian McDonald, Who Fears Death by Nnedi Okorafor, and The Best of All Possible Worlds by Karen Lord.

And then on a pure fantasy note, I am a huge fan of anything by Catherynne M. Valente, with her lush, emotional writing and expansive imagination.

I bet LitBug can jump in here, she reads a lot of this stuff too!

Thank you. OK, what makes for a good science-fiction novel? Is it enough that the 'world' is plausible?

"Good" is often in the mind of the reader! And within science fiction, there are many categories, e.g., military, steampunk, space opera, time travel, etc. How do you compare William Gibson with Lois McMaster Bujold with Connie Willis? All are great sci-fi writers, but their novels are so different. Yes, there is "science" in all of them but one of the things that makes them award-winning writers is creating great characters.

Yeah I know some would disagree but I need three things - world (ideas, science), characters, and story. A lot of traditional science fiction is disappointing to me because it is all story and world but flat characters.

I wonder, now, what the definition of science fiction is? I guess it's changed over the years. I haven't read any for a long, long time; but I used to love Arthur C. Clarke's stories and John Wyndham.

Is there a difference between science fiction and science-fantasy?

If I could touch on an earlier point about Oryx and Crake as a failed sci-fi novel, I agree in theory. But it also makes me better appreciate the Catch-22 scenario for Atwood. Embracing the sci-fi tag would leave people focusing on the weak science elements of this pretender to the genre. Insisting on speculative fiction may have people thumbing their nose at the pretentiousness of it all, but at least the discussion is forced back onto Atwood's home turf.

True, the story is just as much about Jimmy's transformation into Snowman, Crake's disenchantment with humanity, Oryx's profound forgiveness, and the nature of humanity as it is about the technologies in the world that brought them to these experiences. But there is a lot of science in this story...

Would it have better been narrated by Oryx? If she's a Craker this would make for a very interesting read!

I don't want to throw out any spoilers in this thread, but I think Oryx (view spoiler)[brings a mystery and intrigue to the book that would have been wasted on actually telling her side of the story. (hide spoiler)]

[And as a side note, did anyone else find themselves stumbling over Craker as "Cracker", or pigoon as "pigeon"?]

Well, yes! Did Atwood do this on purpose?

I'm about 3/4 into this novel, and I have one question: Does anyone find any of these characters likeable? I have no emotional investment in any character here. The story itself is somewhat interesting, nothing mind-blowing, and a bit pretentious.

No, I didn't like any of them very much. Mind, I felt a bit sorry for Snowman - even if he was a bit of an idiot (!)

Mind you, would any of us fare any better?

Mark wrote: "I'm about 3/4 into this novel, and I have one question: Does anyone find any of these characters likeable? I have no emotional investment in any character here. The story itself is somewhat interes..."

That's pretty much the reaction I had. Which I think she did on purpose, actually.

That sounds about right, to me.

Mark wrote: "I'm about 3/4 into this novel, and I have one question: Does anyone find any of these characters likeable? I have no emotional investment in any character here. The story itself is somewhat interes..."

Not really likeable at all, and not that interesting, either. I thought this book was just okay. That said, I have moved on to the second book in the trilogy--so Atwood did succeed in making me curious (or annoyed enough to think "this can't be it" at the end of the first one).

Mark, I don't even think that Atwood has affection for these characters.

Deborah wrote: "Mark, I don't even think that Atwood has affection for these characters."

That explains so much.

Was this intentional?

It must be hard work living with characters you don't much like, for month after month so the original idea must have been a primary motivation.

Does anyone know if she planned to write a trilogy when she started this book?

Deborah wrote: "Mark, I don't even think that Atwood has affection for these characters."

Then she created a very cold, disturbing world. I get this is dystopian, but I have read other such books categorized as dystopian where there are likeable characters. Did she want us to focus on the world and Snowman's perspective, drawing us into the hopelessness of it all? I don't know, but for me, any good story should have at least one character you can relate to. I still like my theory that Snowman created/imagined Oryx and Crake as reflections of himself and their mythology was handed down to the Crakers to give them a purpose on an otherwise dying and purposeless world. If that's what happened, then I could connect to Snowman on that level.