Oryx and Crake 鈥� Reader Q&A

Questions About Oryx and Crake (MaddAddam, #1)

by Margaret Atwood (欧宝娱乐 Author)

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Oryx and Crake, please sign up.

Answered Questions (25)

How does this work compare with A Handmaid's Tale? I read that and didn't like it and am hesitant to pick another one of her novels.

Karen Niedzwiecki I was so lucky, I read 'Oryx and Crake' (and gave my heart to it!) before I read 'A Handmaid's Tale', and to be honest and a bit controversial, I didn鈥辞谤别I was so lucky, I read 'Oryx and Crake' (and gave my heart to it!) before I read 'A Handmaid's Tale', and to be honest and a bit controversial, I didn't like Handmaid's Tale at all. For me it seemed to have a juvenile premise of 'men are bastards and women are victims'. I am really tired of gender double-standards and man-bashing as a way of passing the time, and I wholeheartedly endorse equality for all humans in general, so I suppose I have an anti-man-bashing agenda of my own! But for me 'Oryx and Crake' was supremely smart, heartfelt and beautiful, and rose above the usual small concerns to the Really Big Stuff. So human and so lovely! If you like science fiction, for me (and many others I have spoken to) it is the best proper Sci Fi book written in the past 20 years. To those below who disagree with my sentiments on Handmaid's Tale, you won't change my mind by pointing out the abuse of women so please don't waste your time -- instead post your own answer to the original question.(less)

flag

Isn't this the wrong synopsis for 'Oryx and Crake'? It sounds more like the 3rd part of the trilogy the title of which escapes me and which I haven't yet read!

Brendan Egan It's the blurb from the back of the book, so no, it's not the third part of the trilogy. And I disagree that it's "spoilery."鈥辞谤别It's the blurb from the back of the book, so no, it's not the third part of the trilogy. And I disagree that it's "spoilery."(less)

flag

Why does Jimmy call himself Snowman? Do you think it is a subtle allusion to the pseudo-Christian framework he establishes to explain things to the Crakers? I don't believe that was explained nor was his his previous nickname (Thickney?) or Crake鈥�

Kathleen Flynn I thought it was in part to reference his own impermanence, his fragility: a snowman is something that vaguely resembles a man, but isn't one, is doom鈥辞谤别I thought it was in part to reference his own impermanence, his fragility: a snowman is something that vaguely resembles a man, but isn't one, is doomed to melt and disappear, leaving no trace. And snow is something that appears to have already disappeared from this climate-changed world. Also probably a reference to the amazing Wallace Stevens poem: "the nothing that is not there and the nothing that is." (less)

flag

Does the book become easier to read with more clear structure as it goes on? I read the first few chapters but felt like I was trudging through gibberish. I've heard good things and would like to finish this piece, but the writing style is difficult to follow for me.

Audrey Shaffer It is a bit hard to follow at first, but it gets easier. He is Snowman in the present. When he tells stories about Jimmy, it's himself in the past. On鈥辞谤别It is a bit hard to follow at first, but it gets easier. He is Snowman in the present. When he tells stories about Jimmy, it's himself in the past. Once I got that straight, the pieces all fit.(less)

flag

This question contains spoilers... (view spoiler)

Megan

This answer contains spoilers鈥� (view spoiler)[Here's my understanding, though it's obviously up to interpretation since that scene was so vague:

- Crake killed Oryx because he didn't want her to suffer a slow, painful through the plague; she was already beyond help. He spared no one from the disease except Jimmy, because he knew someone would have to look after the Crakers and trusted only Jimmy to take care of them, not even himself (why he trusted /just/ Jimmy could probably be another thread in itself). Of course, the "Would you kill someone to prevent them pain?" conversation between Jimmy and Crake foreshadows that someone would die; I think it was about both Crake killing Oryx and Jimmy killing Crake.

- Crake killed Oryx because even she couldn't be spared to make his vision come to fruition: if he had given her the vaccine, it would've been her and Jimmy as the last humans alive. Both a man and a woman alive risk repopulating humanity, which would destroy the entire reason Crake did this.

- The Doylist reason Crake killed Oryx might just be because Atwood needed them both dead to highlight Jimmy's solitude. The book IS called 'Oryx and Crake' after his best and only friends; their absence in the 'present day' scenes is what hurts him the most, and it's Oryx and Crake that he ends up keeping 'alive' in spirit for the Crakers. As for why Atwood had Crake kill Oryx specifically in such a brutal way in front of Jimmy's eyes... my guess would be to show how far gone Crake is. He's willing to sacrifice absolutely everything to see his project through, even the woman he (they) love. I think he waited to do it in front of Jimmy to tell Jimmy without explaining (Crake was never a word person) that nobody could be spared just because they loved them, and he trusted that by seeing it, it would make Jimmy understand that Crake would have to die, too. ("Don't let me down" - I think Crake wanted to die by only Jimmy's hand, not his own.)

I'm sure there are other 'character' reasons that I could probably find if I reread, but those are off the top of my head. Sorry I rambled a little; I also just finished this book yesterday and have been stuck thinking about this scene ever since. (hide spoiler)]

flag

Load 5 more questions