Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood

[TruthSeeker]

I finished reading Oryx and Crake yesterday. I have never been so undecided about a novel. I'm not sure if I like it or not.

Generally, I like Margaret Atwood. Her early novels read like Margaret Laurence-Lite but they were enjoyable. Her later novels have gotten much better. I especially enjoyed the Blind Assassin.

Oryx and Crake is Atwood like in its tone and use of poetic language and word play. Yet, the characters are flat, boring and under-developed.

The only characters I remotely cared about were the Crakers. They seemed so innocent and vulnerable.

Generally, I do not read science fiction. So, I can't comment on how this work fits into that genre.

Have you read it? What did you think?

[Deadbeat]

I loathe Margaret Atwood.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Deadbeat
I loathe Margaret Atwood.


My goodness! Why?

[Deadbeat]

Well, as a rule, all of her characters tend to be flat and insipid - but especially the males. I'm a huge fan of strong characters, especially female characters because it's hard to find them properly portrayed. Atwood only seems capable of producing a strong female character by reducing the strength of the male (and other female) characters around her.

The Handmaid's Tale is, of course, an excellent example of this, but it could be argued that it's intentional in a book that's essentially a hyperbole of the feminist situation. Unfortunately, you'll never be able to convince me that the heroine of Cat's Eye couldn't have been made a lot stronger if the men she was dealing with weren't such insipid little weasels.

Beyond that, I've just never found her writing to be all that absorbing. I suppose if she's improved as you say, I could be moved to try again...

But Alice Munro - now THERE'S a WRITER.

[TruthSeeker]

I agree completely about Alice Munro. What a treat she is to read.

I also completely understand what you mean about the male characters. This is especially true in the early "relationship" novels like Edible Woman.

Who is your favorite Canadian novelist? Alice Munro?

I think I'd list: Timothy Findley, Margaret Laurence and Mordecai Richler.

Strange...they are all deceased.

[BillyTK]

I meant to buy "Oryx and Crake" when I went book shopping last week, but had a memory meltdown at some point when I crossed over the book shop's threshold. I suspect they beam mind-altering rays at you so you forget what you want to buy and end up buying tons of stuff that you think you want, but don't really. or it could be that I'm just a div.

I came out with China Mieville's "Perdido Street Station" instead...

So anyway, I have a question; are Atwood's characters flat and underdeveloped in an "I don't know how to write anything more than cyphers" way, or in an intentionally distant "fill in the gaps yourself" kind of way?

[Deadbeat]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I agree completely about Alice Munro. What a treat she is to read.

I also completely understand what you mean about the male characters. This is especially true in the early "relationship" novels like Edible Woman.

Who is your favorite Canadian novelist? Alice Munro?

I think I'd list: Timothy Findley, Margaret Laurence and Mordecai Richler.

Strange...they are all deceased.

Well, first and foremost, I'd have to say Guy Gavriel Kay. Even thought he writes fantasy, he puts so much care and effort into his books that you can't help but feel you're in the presence of a master craftsman. Oh, and the best characters you've ever read.

After Kay, I'd go with Guy Vanderhaeghe, Alice Munro, Margaret Laurence, and probably Douglas Coupland (though I haven't read more than a couple of his).

[Deadbeat]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I meant to buy "Oryx and Crake" when I went book shopping last week, but had a memory meltdown at some point when I crossed over the book shop's threshold. I suspect they beam mind-altering rays at you so you forget what you want to buy and end up buying tons of stuff that you think you want, but don't really. or it could be that I'm just a div.

I came out with China Mieville's "Perdido Street Station" instead...

So anyway, I have a question; are Atwood's characters flat and underdeveloped in an "I don't know how to write anything more than cyphers" way, or in an intentionally distant "fill in the gaps yourself" kind of way?

You know, I never really thought about whether it was intentional or not. I suppose if she meant to write flat, undeveloped characters as a way to make her heroines stand out more, then I could respect her intentions. But that wasn't really the sense I got - it just seemed to me that she apparently couldn't conceive of a strong male character, or even develop a female one properly.

As for filling in the gaps yourself, I'd have to say it's difficult to fill in the gaps on a cardboard cutout - and as a reader, I don't want to have to work that hard. I'm looking to be entertained, and I'd rather spend my brain power on seeing the meaning and intent behind the words, not doing the work for her by imagining her character's personalities.

[Sandy M]

Canadian writers? What about Davidson (Davison?) ...sorry, memory fails, but I loved Fifth Business, The Manticore, etc.

[Deadbeat]

Originally posted by Sandy M
Canadian writers? What about Davidson (Davison?) ...sorry, memory fails, but I loved Fifth Business, The Manticore, etc.

Robertson Davies. A Canadian icon - and sadly, I've never gotten around to reading any of his work.... *blush*

But it's on my Christmas list.

[Armi Shanks]

I disagree that Atwood's characters are flat. The women in The Robber Bride are fully developed characters - the men, admittedly, are somewhat weedy, but this is due to the nature of a book that has its primary focus on the relationships between women - the whole point is that men are fairly hopeless creatures who are manipulated by the women they are involved with, and to a certain extent is an extrapolation of the earlier Life Before Man, which features the hopelessly ineffectual Nate, pink-eared, well scrubbed, dull-as-**** William and dead Chris.

With regards to Oryx and Crake, I felt that the sparse nature of the writing was in keeping with the subject matter - the novel deals with a world that has been virtually pared down to the bone, therefore it stands to reason that the writing will reflect that. 'Snowman' has few possessions and lives a precarious existence - the writing is accordingly stark and uncomfortable.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Armi Shanks


With regards to Oryx and Crake, I felt that the sparse nature of the writing was in keeping with the subject matter - the novel deals with a world that has been virtually pared down to the bone, therefore it stands to reason that the writing will reflect that. 'Snowman' has few possessions and lives a precarious existence - the writing is accordingly stark and uncomfortable.


I certainly see your point. She did a very good job of setting the mood.

I guess I would have liked some sort of character development and perhaps for it not to be so predictable.

Perhaps it is because I am unfamiliar with science fiction.

I just got "Love" by Toni Morrison to read over the holidays. I'm looking forward to it!

[Darat]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker



I certainly see your point. She did a very good job of setting the mood.

I guess I would have liked some sort of character development and perhaps for it not to be so predictable.

Perhaps it is because I am unfamiliar with science fiction.

I just got "Love" by Toni Morrison to read over the holidays. I'm looking forward to it!

TruthSeeker - it isn't Science Fiction -at least according to her and her publishers. ;)

"Science fiction" by the way doesn't have to mean poor characterisation - see Ursula Le Guin for an author who writes science fiction that is as much about characters as it is the "science".

Back to Atwood. I've read several of her books and she doesn't impress me, I would agree that her characters tend to be quite two dimensional, whether male or female. All in all I find her work quite dry and whilst her subjects and subject matter should be inherently emotionally powerful I find she doesn’t enmesh me in any emotional sense.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Darat


TruthSeeker - it isn't Science Fiction -at least according to her and her publishers. ;)

"Science fiction" by the way doesn't have to mean poor characterisation - see Ursula Le Guin for an author who writes science fiction that is as much about characters as it is the "science".




Ooops...I coulda sworn ;) It amuses me that Atwood is so set against that label.

Thanks for the author recommendation. I'll add it to my list. I would like to get a sense of the genre.

[Deadbeat]

Originally posted by Armi Shanks
I disagree that Atwood's characters are flat. The women in The Robber Bride are fully developed characters - the men, admittedly, are somewhat weedy, but this is due to the nature of a book that has its primary focus on the relationships between women - the whole point is that men are fairly hopeless creatures who are manipulated by the women they are involved with, and to a certain extent is an extrapolation of the earlier Life Before Man, which features the hopelessly ineffectual Nate, pink-eared, well scrubbed, dull-as-sh*t William and dead Chris.

Ah, but here's the problem - she has NEVER written a male character who ISN'T "dull-as-sh*t". Never having read The Robber Bride, I can't comment on the female characters, but I'd honestly be very surprised to find that they're anything more than stereotypes with flesh.

The major problem is that her work is often presented as being a strong feminist voice - and it just isn't. You can't have strong female characters when all you're comparing them to is weak, ineffectual men. ANYONE could be considered strong when compared to Atwood's male characters!

But I won't be reading anything else of Atwood's any time soon. I've got too much better stuff to read, and too little time to read it in to spend any of it on her.

[Sandy M]

Yes, Deadbeat, Robertson Davies. I have very much enjoyed about 90% of his work. Ran into one or two that were a little TOO dense, but I have found most of his work very satisfying reads. Thanks for reminding me of the correct name. I know I haven't read everything of his and need to get back on track.:D

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Sandy M
Canadian writers? What about Davidson (Davison?) ...sorry, memory fails, but I loved Fifth Business, The Manticore, etc.

When I was in high school I had to take a course on Canadian Literature.

What I learned most is Canadian writers suck.

Here are some of the novelists we studied:
- Robertson Davies (5th business)
- Margret Atwood (Surfacing - Woman goes nuts. End of story.)
- Margret Lawrence (the Stone Angel)
- Mordecai Richler (Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz... Actually liked this book)
- Timothy Findley (The Wars)