Critical Response to Oryx and Crake
Critical Response to Oryx and Crake
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood was certainly an interesting novel, if nothing else. From the flowing stanzas of poetry that erupted mid-chapter to the scarily realistic, yet somewhat fictional setting of a religious fundamentalist America, it was certainly a novel that knew how to engage and draw the reader in. For these reasons I expected a similarly gripping and chilling read from another one of her dystopian novels, Oryx and Crake, and so far I am far from disappointed. In fact, in my opinion, this novel starts of even stronger than Handmaid. The descriptions of the setting and background of nearly every aspect of Snowman's previous life is dripping with atmosphere and foreshadowing. But that's enough of my opinion, let's examine what some professional critics have to say about this novel.
First up, I examined Lisa Appignanesi's review on the independent. She started off her review with a very apt reference to George Orwell's 1984, the same year that Margaret Atwood was writing Handmaid. She went on to describe the setting that Snowman finds himself in and informs us of what's gone wrong with the world. She makes a seemingly passing remark that 'capitalism is rampant' when describing Snowman's old life. I found this statement quote odd, as it implies that North America isn't already composed of capitalist countries in our current time. Her choice of word 'rampant' is also interesting, drawing parallels between capitalism and a disease. The critic also writes that the compounds the rich live in are inspired my Microsoft, which I could not find any real-life example of. After this, she proceeds to mention the major plot developments of the first four chapters, and conclude most of Jimmy's backstory without spoiling anything major. The critic contrasts Handmaid's slow-paced and mature point of view to the high-octane and youthful nature of Oryx and Crake. She also points out that reading has been reduced to a useless trait, and that the hyper-advanced world has turned human communication into something two-dimensional, comparable to Asberger's. Games that casually reference death and destruction foreshadow the fate of the world. The critic compares Jimmy to Orpheus, writing that he is "a jealous lover who's in perpetual mourning" and a "buffoon". In her final paragraph, she mentions that this is Atwood "at her best". She applauds the poetic flashes throughout the novel and the mirror it holds up to our own society. Overall, she seems to enjoy and recommend the book, which I can definitely agree with. Her whole review was very informative and fair, in my opinion, save for a few obscure references.
I also consulted Natasha Walter's review of the novel on the guardian. Overall, her review seemed just as positive toward the novel as the previous review, while offering more praise. Right away, the energetic tone of the guide is mentioned. The critic also appreciates the momentum with which it carries the reader through its complex structure. The critic later criticizes how Atwood's very technical exposition about a certain fictional animal is said from the point of view of a young Jimmy, which seems unrealistic. Atwood's "brusque" style is also mentioned, with her prioritizing getting ideas out, not polishing sentences. She also mentions how the explanations begin to grate after a certain point, which I don't agree with. I myself find the explanations fascinating and almost necessary to fully grasp the novel. She praises Atwood for developing Jimmy's character, since it is the only one that the critic believes is "fully realized". Finally, the critic praises Atwood for putting her story together in an energetic and intelligent way, and for concluding the novel with intrigue. While I can't relate to some parts of this review, especially the parts about Oryx and Crake, due to not having made enough progress to form an opinion, I did agree with the majority of this review as well. I especially agreed with her remark regarding Atwood's brusque nature, as I could definitely make that out in The Handmaid's Tale as well.
Insightful comments! I somewhat disagree with what you thought of the way the first reviewer used "rampant Capitalism" as a derogatory term. Capitalism is not in and of itself a bad thing, but it can sometimes lead to the devaluing of human life through the prioritization of money. I certainly agree that Capitalism isn't a bad thing per se, but I do understand what she mean when she talked about rampant Capitalism. When a system built to value money above all else eclipses the support structures meant to conserve the value of other commodities, e.g human rights, environmental stewardship, ethics in general, etc., negative consequences are going to arise. We see depraved pornography proliferate, city centres become so crime-ridden as to be uninhabitable, and privacy dwindle to the Orwellian. This is a consequence of Capitalism—not because the system is in and of itself bad, but because the necessary systems which must exist to balance it out have vanished. It is beyond control—it has truly gone rampant.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Atwood has a brusque nature—I very much enjoy that her story flits along, aggressively moving forward to the point where boredom becomes an impossibility. Where much literature is content to grow long-winded, especially in the selection of novels we study in school, Atwood moves to an up-tempo drum beat. If her explanations begin to get in the way of her pace, I can imagine being irritated by that, but as of yet I have not experienced any such annoyance. Her explanations seem timely and interesting, and are brief enough that they have never jumped out at me.
Overall, I like what you've written. Nicely done.