Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Books Media Book Reviews

Oryx and Crake 195

daltonlp writes "I haven't felt this satisfied after finishing a science fiction novel since Ender's Game. I waited some weeks to review it, to make sure I wasn't simply infatuated. Oryx and Crake is woven from a great many themes near and dear to SF, but it's primarily a retelling of the story of Adam and Eve--except in reverse (the world isn't beginning, but ending)." Read on for the rest of Dalton's review.
Oryx and Crake
author Margaret Atwood
pages 374
publisher Random House, 2003
rating Worth reading
reviewer Lloyd Dalton
ISBN 0385503857
summary A retelling of the story of Adam and Eve--except in reverse. The world isn't beginning, but ending.

The novel is a mad scientist story, where humans play God for pleasure and profit. It's a last-human-left-alive story. It's a projection of a dystopic future, where all political and economic power is held by militaristic corporations.

Most of these themes have been explored before, and they're introduced in the first couple chapters of the book. But they're handled so well, I feel like I'm spoiling the reader's experience by listing them here. Never mind, read the book anyway. Maybe you've seen this stuff before, but you haven't seen it written like this.

The measure of science fiction isn't the uniqueness of its concepts--it's what the author can do using the ideas as tools. It's about how intensely a book can penetrate into the reader's imagination, and this is driven by a writer's talent (not the raw ideas).

Margaret Atwood writes stories that are deeply layered and voiced in an incisive, conversational tone. Despite its bleak themes, Oryx and Crake is far from depressing--it's mostly cheerful and upbeat, which turns out to be a fine way to write about obsession and love and revenge and the end of the world. Somewhat like Neal Stephenson, Atwood's writing doesn't take itself too seriously. It's chock full of wordplays and grimly humorous subtexts. The result is a book that works as both a dark comedy and an allegoric drama, but feels like a conversation between the author and the reader.

Some parts of Oryx and Crake approach horror--not blood & guts horror, but what someone from the 1700s might feel if a time traveler explained the basics of how nuclear weapons, school shootings and Internet porn work today. Atwood pulls very few punches when imagining the possible extensions of humanity's greed, lust, hatred, and cold-bloodedness. Her easy pace, artful characterization and humorous touch fully engages the reader's mind, and her willingness to shock takes full advantage of the open target. The result is a mental chill that takes a long time to fade.

It's not a perfect book. Even at 374 pages, some episodes of the story arc seem abbreviated. Some of Atwood's future visions seem a bit contrived, but this depends on whether she's going for humor, symbolism, shock value or sheer inventiveness on a given page. Most pages (including the following excerpt) are a well-stirred mixture:

"On day one they toured some of the wonders of Watson-Crick. Crake was interested in everything--all the projects that were going on. He kept saying "Wave of the future," which got irritating after the third time.

First they went to Decor Botanicals, where a team of five seniors were developing Smart Wallpaper that would change colour on the walls of your room to complement your mood. This wallpaper--they told Jimmy--had a modified form of Kirilian energy-sensing algae embedded in it, along with a sublayer of algae nutrients, but there were still some glitches to be fixed. The wallpaper was short-lived in humid weather because it ate up all the nutrients and then went grey; also it could not tell the difference between drooling lust and murderous rage, and was likely to turn your wallpaper an erotic pink when what you really needed was a murky, capillary-bursting greenish red.

That team was also working on a line of bathroom towels that would behave in much the same way, but they hadn't yet solved the marine-life fundamentals: when algae got wet it swelled up and began to grow, and the test subjects so far had not liked the sight of their towels from the night before puffing up like rectangular marshmallows and inching across the bathroom floor.

"Wave of the future," said Crake."

It's too early to tell if Oryx and Crake will earn Atwood the same acclaim as The Blind Assassin and The Handmaid's Tale. Regardless, it's a powerful book--unnerving, moving and well worth reading.


You can purchase Oryx and Crake from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oryx and Crake

Comments Filter:
  • Another Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nanojath ( 265940 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @01:56PM (#7904192) Homepage Journal
    Personally I didn't like this book as much as the several others I've read by Atwood. I found the speculative premises simplistic and contrived, ignoring the complexities of ecology in favor of an essentially alarmist, naive presentation of The Horrible Dangers of Tampering with Nature!! This is increased by the use of this character of the catastrophe-inducing mad-genius scientist, when the real story of global ecology is our actions as a collective 6-billion strong (and still rising, falling sperm counts notwithstanding)


    I didn't hate the book and found it a quick and reasonably compelling read, but it didn't really leave any lasting impression or make me feel like I had learned anything. I've generally liked Atwaters writing and in particular the Handmaid's Tale, so this particular opinion may be best judged by that taste. The book just seemed pretty slight to me, despite the end-of-the-world type premise. I'd say if you're an Atwater fan it's worth a read but if you dig on hard-science speculative fiction you'll probably be dissapointed.

  • Re:I hated it (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:10PM (#7904360)


    I have seen this reaction a few times from nerds and I wonder why people are willing to dismiss a book because the science is a bit wonky.

    Seems to me that a book telling a tale like this would be boring as hell if the author broke out tech diagrams every now and then. Or worse, a long winded Larry Nivenish physics lesson.

    I don't think a book like this needs to have hard science behind it. If it did, no one would read it.

    Why nerds don't like sex in books is an easy one. They have no interest in a subject of person fiction.
  • Coincidence? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thentil ( 678858 ) <thentil@ya h o o . com> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:17PM (#7904430)
    Hi! I find it interesting that googling for "Atwood deliberately mutilates words" comes up with a result in Google! In fact, those couple of sentences are ripped directly from this much more complete review [infinityplus.co.uk]. Nice try though!
  • by sh00z ( 206503 ) <.sh00z. .at. .yahoo.com.> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:31PM (#7904618) Journal
    The greatest books that ever used altered/mutated language as metaphors for the state of humanity were 1984 and A Clockwork Orange.
    I take it that you've never read Riddley Walker [amazon.com]. It handily trumps the abovementioned texts.
  • Another review (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jonathan ( 5011 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:55PM (#7904872) Homepage
    Exactly. There's no new ideas there, just the old mildewy mad scientist meme, that goes all the way to Frankenstein and actually even further into the medieval legend of Dr. Faustus.

    I wrote a review of the book shortly after returning from four years living in Canada, where Atwood is of course revered.

    Oryx and Crake
    Margaret Atwood, 2003
    Doubleday

    Margaret Atwood is probably the most famous living Canadian author. However, despite living in Canada for four years, I never got around to reading any of her works, and so I resolved to rectify this by reading her latest novel, "Oryx and Crake". Atwood is well known to write speculative fiction that addresses trends in society that she finds distressing -- if her literary credentials weren't so impeccable, she would be called a science fiction author. In the case of "Oryx and Crake", the trend she is addressing is biotechnology.

    Now, I'll admit that I am not the most receptive audience to books attacking biotech -- I am after all a microbiologist, and, although my own research is more basic than applied, I am naturally sympathetic to applications of biotechnology. On the other hand, I agree that there are ethical problems with some applications of biotechnology that cannot be ignored. So, does "Oryx and Crake" address these ethical problems?

    In a word, no. Basically, Atwood's arguments boil down to the assertions that 1) tampering with organisms is creepy and disgusting and 2) scientists are insane and will destroy society for the hell of it. Oh, and they're also pedophiles to boot.

    The book is written as a flashback, as the hero, Jimmy (or Snowman), describes how he ended up as one of the last human survivors on Earth. He was a high school friend of Glenn (or Crake), the guy who later created a plague to kill everyone off. This is all evident in the first few pages, so I'm not giving much away here. Plotwise, the only reason to continue reading is to learn Crake's motivation, but this is never fully revealed in any case. I suspect we are to accept that Crake was warped by attending a university dedicated to molecular biology, while noble Jimmy attended a liberal arts college and thus became a better person.

    But enough about plot. This isn't a novel by a hack like Crichton, but a work by a serious author. How is the writing? I'd have to say somewhat disappointing. While certainly much better than that of Crichton, I'd have to say that the more literary science fiction authors such as William Gibson and Neal Stephenson actually write better prose than Atwood, if "Oryx and Crake" is representative of her work.

    In summary, I don't think that Atwood's high reputation could have been based on such cartoonish work. I can only assume this is one of her lesser works.
  • Re:I hated it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jonathan ( 5011 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @03:08PM (#7904981) Homepage
    Well, considering the whole point of the book is to *attack* science, not getting the facts right destroys her entire argument. But then, much like Creationist tracts, anti-science books are normally only preaching to the choir anyway, so there isn't much point to getting the facts right, I suppose.

    And the sex was only there to further libel scientists -- "look -- scientists are not just mad -- they're pedophiles too."
  • by Eiki ( 713952 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:36PM (#7906642) Homepage
    I don't know about your reading of Snow Crash. Stephenson didn't seem too interested in warning us of "dangerous corporatism" - Gibson had done that already, and Snow Crash is more like a parody of the corporate feudalism theme. Nor was Stephenson pining for a "tranditional government social balance" - the remains of the government are treated more harshly than any other organization in Snow Crash.

    Finally, the book was not apocalyptic. It was placed in a setting most would associate with apocalyptic fiction, true, but this environment was played for laughs and came across as genuinely optimistic in the end. That unexpected reversal is exactly how Snow Crash brought cyberpunk to an end - the corporate dystopia idea seemed kind of ridiculous afterward.

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Working...