Book Review: Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood

Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Read for the Women of Genre Fiction Reading Challenge 2016 and the Apocalypse Now Reading Challenge 2016.

Method of the world’s destruction: ecological devastation, corporate greed, and a mad scientist’s bioengineered supervirus.

Oryx and Crake is the second Margaret Atwood book I have read. I am finding that I have mixed feelings about her. I think she’s a brilliant writer. Her prose is magical and her sense of character amazing. I can’t help but feel a little pride in her as a Canadian. But the critics always wax rhetoric about how wonderfully original she is. She’s not, at least not that I’ve seen yet. Obviously these people just don’t read science fiction.

Atwood’s basic scenario here is a weird mating of The Time Machine, The Stand, and Frankenstein. Professional reviewers claim that Atwood has written “an innovative apocalyptic scenario in a world that is at once changed and all-too familiar because corporations have taken us on an uncontrolled genetic engineering ride.” It sells books because of our secret fears of genetic engineering. However, it’s not true, and if that’s what these people think then they weren’t paying attention. Also, one professional reviewer who was quoted on the cover of the edition I read said it was “uproariously funny.” I don’t think it was funny at all, and I think that if this guy thought it was funny he’s probably one of the corporate drones that Atwood was critiquing in the book. Someone in a review also said that it was confusing because she jumps back and forth between different moments in time and changes tenses when she does; and this same reviewer had the audacity to criticize Atwood’s grammar! Her grammar was the professional quality one might expect of such a critically acclaimed writer, and the story started in media res and was told primarily in flashbacks, and if that was confusing, I think you should stick with teen fiction.

What is actually great about this book is the fact that it is a brilliantly-written Greek tragedy that ultimately results in the likely extinction of the human race; along with quite a lot of the animals that we are familiar with. There’s a lot of “for want of a nail” stuff going on here. At several points disaster could have been averted, but it isn’t because of human flaws and human mistakes, and so all hell literally breaks loose. The epicenter of many of those flaws and mistakes is the protagonist, once called Jimmy but now known as Snowman, who found himself uniquely in a position by which he could have saved the world but, like Hamlet, fails to do so because of ignorance, negligence, and his tragic flaw, which is a desperate desire to be loved or even liked by someone, largely stemming from childhood neglect, emotionally distant parents, and a very lonely childhood. I love it because so many people in real life fail to do the right thing because of that flaw, or they overlook things that probably should have triggered alarm bells.

Others have found Snowman to be really unlikable as a result of those tragic flaws, but I didn’t. I found I had a lot of sympathy for him, and I could understand why he did a lot of what he did. Jimmy’s mother reminded me of my own, who was bipolar, undiagnosed and untreated for the length of my childhood. You learn that she and Jimmy’s father were at odds over some morality issue associated with the work that Jimmy’s father did for the Corporation they both used to work for. And in this future vision, Corporations own Compounds and keep their people entirely separated from the rest of the world, which they call the “pleeblands” (which of course was actually “plebelands” at one time, one would guess), and your worth, status and wealth depend entirely on your usefulness to the Corporation. Scientists and mathematicians are valued; artists and writers are considered a waste of oxygen; unless they write advertising for the Corporation, of course. Protesting the Corporations is outlawed and demonstrations are punishable by death. In this, Atwood borrows extensively from the cyberpunk subgenre of science fiction (or, if you believe her and the critics, she reinvents the wheel).

You learn also, mostly as side stories in Jimmy’s personal observations of what goes on around him growing up, that the world is in a desperate state of ecological disaster due to climate change, there are too many people and too little resources, and the work that the genetic engineering companies do is actually important, or at least some of it is, in assuring the human race’s survival; except that they create primarily what makes the CEOs of the Corporations money, rather than what is good for humanity, due to selfishness and an innate sense of their own superiority over the pleebs (the rest of the planet). In this we also see some shades of the overpopulation horrors of the 1970s, such as in Soylent Green (or Make Room! Make Room!, as the book it was based on was called.)

Quickly you learn that Snowman is looking after an artificially-created sentient race that bears some resemblance to humans, and who comes from humans, but who aren’t quite human. They’ll remind science fiction aficionados of H.G. Wells‘ Eloi. They were created by someone named Crake, who is a very important character in the novel, being the mad scientist in question, and who was once a friend of Snowman’s. Also, there was someone named Oryx in his past, a woman he quite clearly loved, who for some reason was believed by the Crakers to be the creatrix of the animals. But since they are guileless, innocent, and somewhat simple like the Eloi, their beliefs seem almost mythological or biblical. You also learn that Crake was somehow responsible for whatever killed humanity, which was clearly a plague, and if Atwood tried to tell me she never read either The Stand or I Am Legend I would call her a liar, because parts of the book were full of eerie scenes of human life stopped dead, just like Stephen King and Richard Matheson wrote about so well. The title of the book is meant to represent both sides of human nature and not just the characters.

Sounds like spoilers? Nope, not a bit, because you find out most of this stuff in the first chapter. The story is more about how it all unfolds than what happened. And in this, Atwood displays a masterful understanding of the dark side of human nature and how the light side of it can be manipulated and twisted to dark purposes. It’s an amazing story and I was reading it with page-turning alacrity because it was gripping and fascinating. Only at the very end does everything become clear.

There are many questions that should concern the modern mind. Have we already gone so far with climate change that it will inevitably destroy the human race? How far is too far to go with genetic engineering? What are we going to do when there are so many of us that we overwhelm the planet’s resources to care for us, which might already have happened? Are we doomed to destroy ourselves out of greed, neglect, indifference?

And yet there are also subtler questions of human morality and the nature of religion. The Buddha’s dilemma comes up; the Buddha abandoned his wife and child to pursue enlightenment. Did he do the right thing? Buddhism is founded on the idea that attachment is sin, but if anyone did this in modern society we would call them a nutbar or a jerk, and certainly they don’t have normal human empathy and are probably something of a sociopath. There’s a Frankenstein-like element too; the Biblical references in the story of the Crakers is quite clear. Did God mean to create us? If so, was S/He aware of the full consequences of that? Were we created imperfectly and almost by accident, to be lesser, or greater, beings than our creator(s)? Was the Creation a total accident, or some madman’s weird plan?

And there’s a subtle human dilemma too, and that is the damage created by neglecting a child and denying them real love. Snowman might have been able to recognize that Crake was a sociopath if he’d had anything resembling normal parental empathy, but he had no basis of comparison. Is Atwood subtly critiquing the fact that since our society demands that both parents work, our children are being raised by babysitters and the internet? I think perhaps she is.

I really wish I could recommend this novel to everyone, because it does what really good science fiction is supposed to do, which is to make you question the world and society we live in, in a setting that is weird enough to make us feel a little safer than confronting it directly in the present, real world. But not too safe, because some of this sounds a little far-fetched; but not enough of it. Not enough of it by far.

View all my reviews

6 thoughts on “Book Review: Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood

  1. This is the third book in a trilogy. The other two are well worth reading as well. I ran across the first one by chance in the public library and waited impatiently as the second and third came out. The originality for me is not in the storyline, but the way she tells it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes, I read Oryx and Crake from the library but picked up the whole trilogy from the bookstore I work at just today. I imagine I’m likely to post reviews of them too; at least if they are as relevant as the first one!


  2. Well we are already letting GMO mosquitoes loose, GMO Salmon, and who knows what else? The rest sounds completely likely that we may have already done. Perhaps including GMO humans. After all there are plenty of third world countries such research could be done in if you bribe the right people. Come to think of it, even here in the States if you bribe the right people. The new trade agreements give any corporation the right to sue any government if any law interferes with them making a profit. Can you imagine the profit they could make from GMO humans? First by claiming more perfect and later by making sure they are such as to never question or disagree with their betters, the rulers. I can easily imagine a law making it illegal not to give your child the benefits of GMO technology and research, sort of like Vaccination laws. I am not against vaccinations, but like it it could be considered child neglect, or even child endangerment, if you did not allow them to be improved by GMO science.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. People tend to be very alarmist about genetic engineering, but the science, in principle, is nothing new; we’ve been engineering genetics since the beginning of agriculture. Where the problems come in are 1) the sudden changes introduced without fully understanding long-term consequences (like the bee plague and colony collapse disorder, which is now proven to be the result of nicotinoids introduced to commercial crops as natural insecticides — yeah, they work!); 2) the whole concept of inert seeds, which should be illegal in every nation of the world, because the danger of eventual famine with inert seed is waaayyyy too high; 3) corporate copyrighting of genetic design. GMOs are still a bad thing, but it’s not for the reasons people usually think of. (Maybe you know all this already; sorry, I mean no disrespect, it’s just a topic I think is significant and you gave me an opportunity to discuss it!)

      But it’s not all bad. I, for one, would be delighted with a gene therapy that removes cystic fibrosis. Or diabetes. Or fixes limbs that don’t develop properly in the womb. But I would hesitate over things like Downs Syndrome or ADD. And I would love to eat what many sci-fi writers have referred to as “vat-grown meat,” because then feed lots and the abuse of chickens and pigs would come to an end, and we would never have to kill another lamb or sheep. (Incidentally, we can now clone a hamburger for $20. Give it a couple of years.) I think it’s a lot like magick; it’s neither good nor evil, it’s all about how it’s used. But right now it’s being used in a lot of bad ways.

      However, I am stuck by the parallel between the right of any company to sue any government for interference with their profit margin, and the criminal offense that Atwood created in her world which was something like “interfering with the distribution of a commercial product.” Chilling how similar that is.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The main problem is the need and desire for short term profit gets into the way of checking out the long term effects and dangers of what we are creating. As gene therapy could work, but will it be allowed a s treating and maintaining sickness is far more profitable to actually curing illness. If we could turn science back over to scientists without those doing the financing of the process taking over and decide what news can be told and what news about a discovery can be withheld, we would be far better off.

        The big danger of this new trade process, and our recent Supreme Court decisions is the Idea that not only is a Corporation a legal person with full Constitutional rights, but that it has some sort of guaranteed right to make a profit regardless of any damage it might do, by not allowing the government to interfere with regulations, even when it is to keep the Corporations from doing long term ecological or human damage.

        While many people have panicked over the idea of even a possibility of a political based world government, they seem to have ignored the setting up of a corporation, economic based world, government making the political governments useless and of no importance.

        Meanwhile, I am happy if my last post encouraged you to bring more information to the subject. We all see different aspects of it. We cannot change what we do not understand the ramifications of. Please post more when needed.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “If we could turn science back over to scientists without those doing the financing of the process taking over and decide what news can be told and what news about a discovery can be withheld, we would be far better off.”

        So mote it be!

        “The big danger of this new trade process, and our recent Supreme Court decisions”

        Who’s our? I’m a Canadian. My Supreme Court is not idiotic enough to rule that a corporation is a person! . . . But that being said, we’ve still signed that gods-be-damned TPP too. sigh

        “While many people have panicked over the idea of even a possibility of a political based world government, they seem to have ignored the setting up of a corporation, economic based world, government making the political governments useless and of no importance.”

        Truth! But that’s what we’re doing here; pointing it out. Drawing attention. Building awareness. 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.