Rating: 
Summary: A FINE SHORT STORY EMBEDDED IN ACRES OF FLABBY PROSE
Review: Margaret Atwood's best novel was written over thirty years ago, and on the evidence of 'Oryx and Crake' and other recent work she is unlikely to surpass it. This is the tale of a maverick scientist, aided by media and advertising types with blunted sensibilities, attempting to improve human nature and social arrangements by taking the chance out of reproduction. The core of this book relates how Snowman, one of the last few unmodified humans on earth, and a participant in the recent catastrophe, makes a journey back to a deserted science institute in search of food, and what he finds there. These episodes raise the most poignant questions about our reliance on technology, even when it implodes; they are fine stuff and could probably stand alone. Then there are the other 300 pages; life before the catastrophe, recognisable as a rather gross satire on our own time, and datable by the appearance of a dotcom veteran to approx. 2030. Atwood works hard at the sheer accumulation of detail, but this is journalism in place of fiction. She tells us what there is, instead of showing us in the course of the story. The inner world of the characters is itemised in the same way; these people register what they see, experience appetites and sensations, and that is all. Atwood's protagonists are conditioned by the instant gratification war games and web porn that saturate the culture. Unfortunately, her prose recapitulates the same trashiness, which makes for some lazy writing. Some of it can barely be called writing at all. "Snowman thinks. What was he telling me. How could I have been so stupid? No, not stupid. He can't describe himself, the way he'd been. Not unmarked - events had marked him, he'd had his own scars, his dark emotions. Ignorant perhaps. Unformed, inchoate." These short-winded jottings belong to a writer's notebook, not a mature novel. Admirers of this book will be more impressed by its subject matter than its literary qualities. The author is not exactly anti-science, but she leans towards the non-experimental subdisciplines where there is most room for doubt and outright voodoo; climate change, evolutionary psychology. She appears to share the anti-human assumptions of some science writing about the hard-wiring of human nature and the irrelevance of history; pigs with a human cortex would develop certain human characteristics without going through aeons of social development. Experimental science comes off badly in this novel; her world has no beneficial genetic interventions beyond the purely cosmetic, and even these contain the logic of human extinction. While she deplores the profit motive in technology, the alternatives seem no more attractive; as a lesson in why scientists should stick to science and leave morality to the rest of society, Craik couldn't be surpassed. Atwood claimed recently on British radio that all of the biological inventions in her novel are based on reality. This is absurd, and I hope I heard misunderstood her. There are, thank god, no Pigoons or Chickienobs. Rabbits with green jellyfish protein would not glow in the dark; you'd have to shine an ultraviolet light on them. If she understands the point of the jellyfish experiments, she does not say so, for all that her brother is a neuroscientist. Atwood excites the reader's anxiety about science, and if that was her intention in writing it, then this novel succeeds. I could enjoy her pessimism and technophobia more if the scraps and patches of good writing were more sustained.
Rating: 
Summary: Another Dystopian Vision
Review: Atwood creates another dystopian world, far different than that of _The Handmaid's Tale_, but as frightening. Rather than writing contemporary characters, Atwood takes us to the not-too-distant future where the social classes are separated by location and science rules. Focusing her efforts on what might happen if "noble" scientists are allowed to have free reign with genetic engineering, Atwood describes a world overrun with human creation. And though the narrator is male, Atwood's voice comes through giving the reader plenty to think about regarding science, religion, and human nature.
Rating: 
Summary: Doesn't quite cut the "mustchup"
Review: Yes, I said "mustchup." See, I just invented a new word - in this case, a combination of "mustard" and "ketchup" (yum!) - just like Margaret Atwood does in her novel, "Oryx and Crake." Wasn't that fun? OK, maybe not. Well, then, how about some of Atwood's neologisms: wolvog (wolverine+dog); snat (snake+rat); rakunk (racoon+skunk); bobkitten (bocat+kitten); and of course the dreaded pigoon (pig+something or other)? Do you find this whole exercise to be fun? clever? hilarious? thought provoking? intriguing? If "all of the above" is your answer, then it's highly likely you'll love "Oryx and Crake." If "goofy," "weird," "silly," and even "pointless" are adjectives that spring to your mind, I'd strongly recommend that you read another book. Personally, I have mixed feelings about "Oryx and Crake," including the made-up words. On the plus side, I thought the book was well written from a stylistic point of view. Plain and simple, Margaret Atwood knows how to write, and that's no small thing when you think about all the godawful stuff that passes for fiction out there in our nation's bookstores. Besides that, Atwood has an excellent, dark sense of humor, as in her fascinating "Blood and Roses" game, where the "Blood" side plays with human atrocities and the "Roses" side with human achievements. Thus, we have "one Mona Lisa equaled Bergen-Belsen, one Armenian genocide equaled the Ninth Symphony plus three Great Pyramids...but there was room for haggling." As I said, Atwood's sense of humor is dark. Besides style and humor, Atwood's certainly got something to say, with strong opinions about morality, bioethics, technology, power, society, human nature, sexuality, and much more. Finally, Atwood has a talent for creating plausible scenarios, characters, and future worlds playing off of our own present. In other words, Atwood's got all the makings of a fine science fiction writer. So, with all those positives, why do I have mixed feelings about "Oryx and Crake?" Basically, because I feel that Atwood's talents are largely wasted here. True, she's creative, but what's the point of this book? Ultimately, it's hard to know; Atwood is frustratingly vague. Just as importantly, why should we care about the world and characters Atwood creates, starting with the title characters, Oryx and Crake. As far as Oryx is concerned, my feeling at the end of the book was, "goodbye Oryx, sorry I don't care very much, but frankly, I hardly knew ya!" I mean, you'd think that the character whose name is listed first in the book's title would get a bit more fleshing out than the measly treatment Oryx receives in "Oryx and Crake." But, sadly, she doesn't. After nearly 400 pages, I honestly couldn't tell you the most basic things about Oryx: who is she; where does she come from; what makes her tick; why should we care? And yes, I had the same problem with Crake, the other character of the book's title. Unfortunately, these questions apply in many ways to the book as a whole: what is this book all about; where does the world described here come from; what makes it all tick; why should we care? Another problem with "Oryx and Crake" is that, while it's inventive on a certain level, it's really not very original or interesting. At times, I found myself wondering if Atwood simply took bits and pieces from some of her favorite books and movies -- Blade Runner; Twelve Monkeys; The Island of Dr. Moreau; Gattaca; The Time Machine; Frankenstein, Brave New World - and spliced them together like the rakunks and snats populating the world of "Oryx and Crake." The problem is that, like pigoons and wolvogs, there's something artificial, uninteresting, and strangely cool/devoid of emotion about the synthetic creations, human and animal, that Margaret Atwood gives us in "Oryx and Crake." Still, lest I completely slam "Oryx and Crake," let me just end by stating that there is a lot of good material here, and I was glad I read it, frustrating though it was. If you've read Atwood's fiction previously and are a fan, I would certainly recommend that you read "Oryx and Crake." If not, you might want to spend you r time reading something else in the dystopia/sci-fi genres, perhaps by Philip Dick, Alfred Bester, or HG Wells. Now THOSE guys really cut the "mustchup!"
Rating: 
Summary: Compelling story
Review: Atwood is a poet. This book, while not her best, is nonetheless a chilling, riveting story. Fans of The Handmaid's Tale will enjoy her return to sci-fi writing. Those who prefer Atwood's more traditional novels may not love this one, but even they won't be able to help being tranfixed by her craftsmanship.
|
