The Year of the Flood question

I have enjoyed all of the books by Margaret Atwood which I have read (The Handmaid's Tale, Oryx and Crake, and The Year of the Flood). I think throughout all of the books I have read by Atwood there are a lot of messages behind the story. For me, from Oyyx and Crake & The Year of the Flood, one of the messages was about cloning and messing with the genetics of animals and other creatures. In this book and Oryx and Crake, she talks about the creation of the new "human" species as well as genetic modification of animals and vegetables to make them "more efficient" food sources. Which inevitably led to the "flood", the virus which killed so many.

She also touched upon other social issues including the role of protesters to the status quo in society, the place of women in society, the role of monitoring systems ('big brother') in suppressing/controlling a population, and the way apparently random and often cynical people become drawn into movements for change.

I really enjoy Margaret Atwood's writing because not only is her style and plot continuity excellent, but she also weaves an interesting story, with believable characters, and story lines which really made me think. I find the 'behind the scenes' social commentary stimulating and thoughtful -- a goad for her readers to think about society, social mores, and challenging "the way things are", rather than just flowing with the current of society in an unquestioning way....

It is, though I have been told her other book was better. For what it was worth I liked it, although the ending was a letdown.

The most prominent idea was how man was/had destroyed nature and now was trying to artificially recreate it.

I love the allegorical thread of this book, especially the way that it challenges the "new and improved" ethos, extending it to a new humanoid species. Atwood challenges the grand narrative of progress to a broader audience than a social science text could do. Not that great social science texts aren't out there; they're just not as accessible as narrative literature. Either way, we get around to discuss what matters.

This book had so many interesting things going on, so it's hard to select just one thing to comment on.

But one thing that I thought was particularly interesting was (SPOILER) how the main bulk of the God's Gardeners all died in the plague at the end. Since Crake actively sought knowledge about that group, and even collaborated with them, presumably he planned for that to happen to some extent. But not all of them died. Did he forsee that happening? If so, was that part of his vision for a new humanity or was that one of the ways that he messed up?

I think that the "disturbing" part of the book is that the world created therein is and exaggerated version of the world we actually live in. The exaggeration is probably meant to put things into perspective and make us think - no exaggeration is in itself "excessive", but cumulatively the effect is shocking. The recycling bins are not a great step from the nonsensical way (pink slime) we prepare food, the gardeners' sect could be any sect we have already heard about, the violent computer games and "shooting game galleries" give rise to "painball"......The result is the virus, the second flood to clean the world up. But were those who inherited the world any cleaner...?

These are all good points.

Last year I read a book on the History of Madness, and at the end of the 18th century in England, Quakers had decided that asylums were not the best place to cure the "outsiders" or "mad," and instead created outdoor communities of peace, quiet, and communing with Nature. The Gardeners reminded me a lot of this--while the Quakers were trying to take people who are afflicted, and particularly remedy the results of modernization and the Industrial Revolution, the Gardeners are providing a similar kind of colony for those who are tired of the madness of the compounds, the mystery food, the conflicting directives to do this and eat that.

I think often (and I could be wrong) that Ms. Atwood is talking about how all these things we manipulate and/or try to control eventually have a bitter end. Quite honestly think of the way the world is, she is really not that far off. People in the 1960's who have thought absurd so many of the things we take for granted now. People believe what manufacturers put on labels, but who is too say they are accurate. Quicker, easier, items, these things come at a cost.

I loved this book, as well as Oryx and Crake, and hope to read MaddAddam soon. I've read a few other books by Atwood.

It's not unusual for a dystopian book to show elements in society similar to what is already going on. I've always felt that seeing the future is mostly a matter of paying super attention to the present, and extending it to its logical conclusion. THat is what she has done; of course, not everyone can do it so artfully, or make the reading so compelling. I think she's a great writer and this series is her best work yet.

I thought that Crake thought the world's problems would not exist if it weren't for religion, love/marriage, etc...so he created a species that didn't have or need those things in order to survive. And yet, they created a god out of oryx, Jimmy sort of became a prophet and they formed symbolism, music and family units anyways.