21st Century Literature discussion

This is for discussion of the entire book, spoilers ahead! Here are a few questions to start things off; answer any that interest you, or feel free to bring up any other topic that’s on your mind.

In the WAPO review linked in the General Discussion thread, Thomas Disch reminds the reader that science fiction futures are not a prediction of the future, but a projection of the present. He then says of Oryx and Crake “It is a scathing (because bang-on) portrait of the way we live now.” Do you agree with Disch? If so, do you think that’s still true 14 years after the book was published? Does any of it seem ‘dated’ today?

The Guardian Review has a similar, concise summing up of O&C. “... Atwood is putting across a relevant and intelligent political message, which can easily be summed up: don't trust the scientists and the big corporations to run the world.” Do you agree with the reviewer that her message can be summed up thusly? Is she more concerned with the politics than with the characters?

What did you think of Jimmy / Snowman as the point of view character? How do his flaws color the portrait of the world, both past and future?

Both Jimmy and Crake lead very sheltered lives growing up in the compounds, seeing the horrors of the outside world as entertainment on television or in games. Oryx, however, has lived the opposite of a sheltered life. Why these three? How is the book driven by the intersection of these different characters?

Thanks Whitney. Some interesting points there.

Let's start with the politics. It seemed very heavy handed to me. Was all of that gratuitously unpleasant stuff about Oryx really necessary to the story?

I agree that corporations and corporate science are not to be trusted but the wider message about the nature of science is dangerous. For all its faults, science-based reasoning is much better than Trumpery and its disdain for experts and facts more generally.

Sorry to start with something so negative. Overall I enjoyed much about the book, particularly the power of Atwood's imagination and some of her creatures. It is a little dated in places but very few dystopian writers get the relative pacing of different technological changes right.

I initially balked at having the one female character have a back story with sexual abuse as well, but came to appreciate how differently it was used by Atwood than in other novels. What did you think of Oryx's own attitude toward her past? How about her contrast to Jimmy, who readily milks his own past (and much less) suffering for sex and sympathy?

Did you think that Atwood is condemning science in general, or more specifically just science in service of profit and environmental degradation? I thought it did tend a little more toward the former, as the students good at math were valued and the ones good with art or words disdained.

Which parts did you think were dated?

I felt Oryx was an underdeveloped character, and I never really felt I understood her. Jimmy obviously has many dislikeable elements, but he is set up to be that way and the story is told from his perspective.

I think there is an element of condemning unrestrained science as well as condemning corporate culture - Crake in particular is a caricature of the deluded scientist, but I did like the way Atwood gave him some more honourable motives.

As for what felt dated - just a few odd details, that I should have noted and didn't while reading - mostly failing to anticipate the pace of technological change in areas that were of less interest to the story, for example CDs as a storage medium are becoming dated, whereas genetic science is still a long way short of what Atwood envisaged and is much more complicated than it might have appeared to be then.

Good examples, the CD jumped out at me as well. And genetic engineering does seem much less like the 'it' thing that it was a decade ago.

I will be going out of town for a few days and may not be able to post here. Carry on without me, and hopefully will see a few more people joining in when I'm back!

I just finished and, as Hugh said, what I enjoyed most was spending in Atwood's imagination.

Some parts were dated, but I think that's to be expected. What struck me was how much was similar to our present day, such as how easily we fall for the hype behind a magic pill, or don't care what's in those tasty little nuggets, or accept things like "magic wallpaper." And happicuppa! :-)

I liked Snowman as a POV character. It made me wonder about the underdeveloped parts of Crake and Oryx's characters, but for this story I thought it worked well. He was flawed, sympathetic, and odd enough to be interesting.

Kathleen wrote: "I liked Snowman as a POV character. It made me wonder about the underdeveloped parts of Crake and Oryx's characters, but for this story I thought it worked well."

I thought that was interesting as well. Do you think Atwood’s purpose was to shed light on Jimmy’s limitations, or was there a different intent in leaving them so shadowy?

There was a different reason for each to remain a bit of a cypher. In Oryx’s case, Jimmy was trying to learn more, but was thwarted by Oryx herself, who wouldn’t play into his “exchange of pain” game. In the case of Crake, there’s a deliberate avoidance on the part of Jimmy to engage in deeper analysis. When he finds his old start of a memoir in the RejoovenEsense compound, it ends with “As for Crake’s motives, I can only speculate. Perhaps . . .”

Why do you think Jimmy is so reluctant to examine Crake’s deeper motiations?

Here’s an interesting bit from an interview with Atwood. Recall that Crake’s real name is Glenn, with a very direct implication that he’s named after Glenn Gould:

“Asked about drawing this link between the animal-loving Crake, who clearly has Asperger's syndrome - a high-intellect variant on the spectrum of autistic disorders - and the notoriously eccentric Glenn Gould, Atwood responds eagerly. "I bet, I'll just bet, that Gould had Asperger's even if they didn't diagnose it back then. Want to know a factoid I learned after I wrote the book? When he was 10, Gould wrote an opera where all the people died at the end, and only the animals survived. That gave me a chill."

Kathleen wrote: "What struck me was how much was similar to our present day, such as how easily we fall for the hype behind a magic pill, or don't care what's in those tasty little nuggets, or accept things like "magic wallpaper." And happicuppa! :-).."

I'll admit it; the mentions of ChickieNobs were responsible for me making at least one or two trips to Popeye's for fried chicken :-)

Thanks for that Gould story Whitney

Atwood has a real penchant for what I might call "unrestrained abuse" of her characters from time to time, especially the female ones. Although, really, I think she's just being realistic about the darker parts of our society. What's fascinating about Oryx as a character is that she does remain so enigmatic and innocent. She never comes across as a victim. Is there any significance to her being named after an antelope species? A little online reading let me know this was a species saved from extinction by a captive breeding program, but re-introduction to the wild seems to have taken place after this book was published.

I kinda feel like genetic engineering has skipped over the animals and gone right for the humans these days with the invention of things like CRISPR (see explanatory image at the end of this post). It's like a pair of scissors for editing genes...

Felt more like a criticism of corporations than science per se as she doesn't seem to question the value of research or logic, but the unbridled power of businesses allowed to prey on human insecurity, desire, and ignorance. All of the catchy, mispelled business names (e.g., AnooYoo) seemed very much in line with our internet-corporate-age. She definitely seems to hone in on the growing class divide (from education to living in compounds vs "Pleebland").

But things essentially go full-dystopian because of Crake and not because of corporate or scientific take-over. Would it be fair to say they set the circumstances one whacko was able to exploit?

I could definitely go for a ChickieNob right now...

Whitney wrote: "Do you think Atwood’s purpose was to shed light on Jimmy’s limitations, or was there a different intent in leaving them so shadowy?..."

Whitney, my guess about Atwood’s purpose in drawing Jimmy the way she did was that he is the everyman, the one more of us could relate to. She definitely made Jimmy a follower, possibly to point out that we should be more cautious about who we admire?

I like your point about there be different reasons for Crake and Oryx to be a cypher as you say. Curious if others have ideas!

And I too really appreciate the Glenn Gould story—wow.

Interesting line of thought, Marc, that the corporations are setting up a situation that just one person could do serious damage with. I think that is a valid fear. I know she was criticizing corporations, but also think she was getting the point across that we are all responsible, in her emphasis on how easily duped we can be.

I wish the CRISPR was fiction! Seeing the diagram made me realize just how real that is. Made me shudder.

Marc wrote: "...But things essentially go full-dystopian because of Crake and not because of corporate or scientific take-over. Would it be fair to say they set the circumstances one whacko was able to exploit?"

I think that's a valid way to see it. (Although I also think maybe it's arguably already a dystopia at the beginning of the novel, and Crake pushes things into full apocalypse). It's a society that values math and science (in the service of corporate profit) and disdains the humanities. Hence Crake is valued so highly because of his proficiency at science, but not censored for his basic lack of humanity. I think even Crake realizes his deficiencies, as he leaves Jimmy rather than himself to look after the Crakers.

Kathleen wrote: "....my guess about Atwood’s purpose in drawing Jimmy the way she did was that he is the everyman, the one more of us could relate to. She definitely made Jimmy a follower, possibly to point out that we should be more cautious about who we admire?..." and "I know she was criticizing corporations, but also think she was getting the point across that we are all responsible, in her emphasis on how easily duped we can be.."

Yes, both of these points! And with Jimmy as the “everyman”, he joins society (and us) in not questioning Crake’s motivations until its too late.

Marc wrote: "I kinda feel like genetic engineering has skipped over the animals and gone right for the humans these days with the invention of things like CRISPR (see explanatory image at the end of this post). It's like a pair of scissors for editing genes...."

I think CRISPR is hella exciting, and is likely going to to be the first step in curing genetic diseases. (I realize I may be Jimmy, here.) It's being used on many animals already. Here's a good article: Welcome to the Crisper Zoo. No pigoons. In fact, they went the opposite way with a 15 kg "micropig".

Anyone have any more thought on the possible significance of the names Oryx or Crake? In the novel, Oryx chooses her name because "She liked the idea of being a gentle water-conserving East African herbivore", which is in keeping with her innocence, as mentioned by Marc. is there anything deeper there? What about Jimmy's choice of "Snowman"?

Why do you think Crake brought Oryx into the project? Does it seem far-fetched that she was so perfect for his uses of her on for Paradice as well as being the object of Jimmy's obsession?

I don't remember now if there was any meaning given for Crake's name in the book. My guess is that they had to have animal names, and that Atwood's husband--being an ornithologist--may have had insight into some specific nature of the crake bird that seemed appropriate to her.

Snowman, I assumed, was to be washed clean of the past and start over. Plus the "man" part was key, as the last of his species. And then, of course, there's the melting bit ...!

I think Jimmy specifically said he didn't want to be called by his former name, or his Crake-given name--what was it again?

I was just looking it up to see if they were both extinct, and found that the crake is extinct, but the oryx isn't. Interesting. And, I saw that Oryx was the model for the unicorn. (I think someone may have said that above.)

... there was also something about Snowman being derived from the Abominable Snowman (i.e. the yeti) - he didn't tell the Crakers about the abominable part.

I forgot to ask what others thought of Crake's "improved" humans in terms of whether his changes would make us "better" or whether he missed some serious opportunities.

To summarize, he:
- Eliminated the need for protein and agriculture (the Crakers have chlorophyll and can subsist on the leaves and grass that they find naturally);
- Eliminated jealousy and mating complications by removing pair-bonding and creating a kind of group intercourse where everyone is in the mood, knows it, and seemingly enjoys the experience (presumably, they raise children as a group);
- Eliminated violence and aggression.
- Bred in diversity in size and color, along with "ideal" beauty/looks;
- Sped up and shortened life span to 30 years (Crakers die before they get "old" if memory recalls)

He wanted to eliminate symbolic thinking (and thus, art and religion), but was unable to do so.

Kathleen wrote: "I was just looking it up to see if they were both extinct, and found that the crake is extinct, but the oryx isn't. Interesting. And, I saw that Oryx was the model for the unicorn. (I think someone..."

The unicorn reference is really interesting, I wonder if it was intentional as Oryx is largely a kind of ideal for Jimmy?

I checked after you pointed out that the oryx wasn't extinct, and all the names for the Extinctathon players / Paradise employees are animals that aren't currently extinct. The game only asks about species that died out within the previous 50 years. Atwood being depressing predictive, perhaps.

Hugh wrote: "... there was also something about Snowman being derived from the Abominable Snowman (i.e. the yeti) - he didn't tell the Crakers about the abominable part."

I found the passage: ".. it’s given Snowman a bitter pleasure to adopt this dubious label. The Abominable Snowman – existing and not existing, flickering at the edges of blizzards, apelike man or manlike ape, stealthy, elusive, known only through rumours and through its backward-pointing footprints. ... For present purposes he’s shortened the name. He’s only Snowman. He’s kept the abominable to himself, his own secret hair shirt."

and later: "Maybe he’s not the Abominable Snowman after all. Maybe he’s the other kind of snowman, the grinning dope set up as a joke and pushed down as an entertainment, his pebble smile and carrot nose an invitation to mockery and abuse. Maybe that’s the real him, the last Homo sapiens – a white illusion of a man, here today, gone tomorrow."

This seems to relate to what Kathleen said about Jimmy being the everyman; his change from abominable to helplessness in a sense representing the self-inflicted downfall of humanity

I was thinking "Snowman" could also be a reference to his emotional distance, but maybe that's a bit on the nose for Atwood.

Wow, Whitney. I'd forgotten those lines. Lots to think about! Love the hair shirt idea, but you're probably spot on with downfall of humanity. Drip ... drip ... drip. !

Is anyone continuing with the series? I'm going to start The Year of the Flood soon. I was advised not to wait too long. I'm excited!

Kathleen,
I went ahead and just finished the series, so would be happy to discuss. Hope you enjoy It!

The subsequent books in the series reiterate that the nicknames are supposed to be for extinct species even though it would appear some are not actually extinct.

Would a snowman be "extinct" with global warming trends continuing... ?

I will probably read the rest of the trilogy, but not any time soon - I have too much else on the shelf already and a few interesting group reads for January elsewhere.

Hugh wrote: "I will probably read the rest of the trilogy, but not any time soon - I have too much else on the shelf already and a few interesting group reads for January elsewhere."

Yeah, that's exactly what I said, but was convinced I'd forget too much if I waited. (And it doesn't take much to convince me to read more Atwood,) We'll see if I can actually do it ...!

I read the second one, plan to read the third. I will open discussion threads for those who want to go on.

Marc wrote: "I forgot to ask what others thought of Crake's "improved" humans in terms of whether his changes would make us "better" or whether he missed some serious opportunities...."

I was contemplating more general issues this raised. At what point in altering humans do you no longer get to call them human? From a biologist's standpoint, it's possibility of interbreeding, but I think most people would be asking the more philosophical question of what behavior defines humans. Are any of the things in your list of the changes Crake made a 'make or break' for humanity?

Also as you pointed out, the one major thing Crake failed to eliminate was symbolic thinking, which I think many would consider a key to defining humanity. Is it really Jimmy's 'fault' that this part of the plan failed, or would they inevitably have gotten there left to their own devices?

And, also, why save humanity at all? Personally, I've always been more concerned with saving existing humans than preserving the species, Crake obviously took the opposite tack. Was it more than an interesting challenge to him? Does he care about the Crakers as more than a monument to his own powers?

"Hugh wrote: "I will probably read the rest of the trilogy, but not any time soon - I have too much else on the shelf already and a few interesting group reads for January elsewhere."

Kathleen wrote: "Yeah, that's exactly what I said, but was convinced I'd forget too much if I waited"

I read and very much enjoyed the trilogy over a period of three months. Reading the above comments about Oryx and Crake, I'm glad that I read the entire trilogy in fairly rapid succession: I probably would have forgotten too many details if I had waited more than a month or two between each volume.

Whitney, you raised some fascinating questions that I don't have answers to--why did Crake want to save humanity? Certainly, seems more like a power trip or an ode to his ego than any sort of love of mankind or selfless act.

I read Stumbling on Happiness earlier this year and it argued that the defining characteristic of humans (compared to animals) was our ability to think about the future. Prior to reading Oryx & Crake, I personally would have said art was what separated us from other species, but I think "symbolic thinking" probably better captures that notion and then some. In a sense, Crake breeds out the areas where he feels free will harms us. As you said, why bother at all? If you're concerned solely about the planet, isn't it better off without people? Unrelated to this book, I vaguely recall reading some articles or headlines about a fear of AI or robots getting to a point where they almost inevitably decide people are of no benefit...

Looks like The Maddaddam Trilogy is taking a leap forward in getting a series made. The success of The Handmaid's Tale probably gave it a boost.

My guess is that Oryx and Crake and Year of the Flood will be treated as a single timeline, jumping back and forth between the stories. If this had been announced 10 years ago I would have been left wondering how they would dumb it down into something unwatchable, but with so much great television these days, I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with it!

http://variety.com/2018/tv/news/marga...

This seems like it would lend itself really well to a TV series! Thanks for passing along the news, Whitney.

I saw this news the other day. Margaret Atwood seems to be having quite the resurgence! Not that she ever really went away. First, Handmaid's Tale, then Alias Grace, and now the Maddaddam Trilogy.

I'm planning to read Year of the Flood at some point - but like Hugh, it may have to wait a while!

I am looking forward to it, too. Thank God for all these channels that have been taking on great books and making great TV.

Hello! I just joined this group, as I've read most of the books you're doing and enjoyed them.

I just finished Oryx and Crake, so read this discussion. I have a question, that may perhaps be kind of dumb, but I have it nonetheless. Why did Crake kill Oryx? (Jealousy over her affair with Jimmy seems below the high intellect of Crake).