Talk:Oryx and Crake

Oryx?

i only finished a first reading, but isn't the question of whether oryx is the same girl jimmy and crake had previously seen over the internet left ambiguous? oryx seems to evade jimmy's questions regarding the matter. Streamless 13:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree: I think that Oryx is not necessarily physically identical with the girl in the pornography the two boys watch. Rather, it seems to me, the fact that she could be the same or not emphasizes the perverse fact that the story of her life is both extreme and commonplace. In fact, it does not matter whether she actually is that girl: she could be that girl. And thousands of other women could as well. --Jottce 16:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, it is ambiguous, and it's not settled conclusively. Afalbrig (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Oryx probably can't remember every detail of every photography session. Besides, Jimmy's misplaced compulsion for chivalry is probably reeeally annoying to her. --Phlip

even if what you say is true, the fact remains that the article asserts that the girl seen by jimmy and crake is oryx, and she may not be. i think other people interested in this page should weigh in with reasoned arguments. 207.29.128.130 13:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm well Jimmy is the narrator if I remember correctly. If the story is told from his point of view doesnt that make his version reality the most important version of reality? And I think Oryx may have admitted at one point sort of offhandedly that she was that girl or very likely could have been. And I'm pretty sure that Crake is depicted as believing Oryx to be the same girl. Eno-Etile 08:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't finished the book yet, but I like Jottce's point. A slightly more subtle point to be made, is that for Crake, it doesn't matter if its the same girl. But he notices that the image of the girl in the porn movie (originally its not a photo), tugs at Jimmy's conscience. Sort of arbitrarily, seemingly randomly, the expression gets to Jimmy-- and that's why Crake uses her picture to trigger the secret communication with Maddaddam from the Extinctathon web game. He is trying to lead Jimmy into using his conscience and not just be morally numbed into accepting the injustices of their world. Jimmy feels sympathetic pain; first for the girl that may, or may not be, Oryx, and then for the actual woman Oryx. In a sense, it is misplaced chivalry, but it also signals hope and possible redemption for Jimmy, who has, after all, been raised to to not feel this kind of pain. In fact there is irony in that Jimmy seems to be more traumatized by neglect in his childhood, in contrast to Oryx, who seems to have overcome her childhood mistreatment. Cuvtixo (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This perceived ambiguity concerning Oryx was not apparent to me when I read this novel. Doesn't Oryx go in to extreme detail about her childhood in the child porn industry? Doesn't she repeatedly admit that she is the girl from the garage in San Francisco? Jimmy recognized Oryx from the photographs of the San Francisco incident- and at that point in the novel she is not much older than the girl they capture on the child porn website. Moreover, eye structure does not change as you age- this is the basis for facial recognition technology. I think the fact that Atwood repeatedly discusses Oryx's unique gaze confirms the identity of this character. As an aside- I think this article is terrible and should be deleted from wikipedia... Jonsthesquire (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is heavily implied that the "teacher" who sleeps with Jimmy and Crake is the girl from the website. I always laugh when I see deletion requests made in these types of places. Talk pages of terrible articles are not frequented by admins ;). Connor Behan (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Dystopian fiction?

A work of Dystopian fiction? Crake might well argue it is, rather, Utopian. ;-)

Atlant 22:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the book's schticks is it takes everything that many "intellectuals" say about society - that humans are predestined by the Just So Stories of evolutionary psychology - and pushes them to their illogical conclusion. To whatever extent a reader finds themself identifying with Crake, or agreeing with the problems he perceives, Atwood has done her job. --Phlip

I see more of inspiration from H.G.Wells' The Time Machine and the "digital divide", than the illogical conclusions of "intellectuals" or evolutionary psychology. Remember also that the story is narrated by Snowman/Jimmy who doesn't agree with Crake's vision, but he admired Crake and knows that Crake chose him alone among humans to survive and take care of the crakes. The reader isn't exactly identifying with Crake, but with the Crake of Jimmy's memory. And certainly the problems Crake perceives in his society seem real enough and I see no reason to think they are not actually issues in society that Atwood herself is concerned about. Cuvtixo (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also note that the Crakers have been assigned historically significant names, very similar to what Aldous Huxley did in Brave New World. This suggests that Crake not only created a (the ultimate!) dystopia but also, by completing the analogy, is an author of it, rather than a dictator or tyrant. At any rate, the connection with Brave New World should be noted on the main page, yes? --24.199.91.123 (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the old society is deeply dysfunctional, suffering from a rigid class system, borderline despotism, environmental devastation, and degeneracy. As for the Crakers, they're designed to be peaceful and live in harmony with nature, but they're so docile and childlike that their civilization might not go anywhere. Afalbrig (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Publication date?

Jottce wrote me to report that the American pub date was May 2003, some monmths before what I initially reported as the date of the first Canadian edition. would anyone actually know the Canadian pub date. Can't imagine it wasn't first (or at the very least I imagine it was released simultaneously).--Victoriagirl 21:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Pigoon Picture

I don't quite get the pig picture with a caption about pigoons. The pigoons in the book were pretty clearly not pigs. —Rhododendrites (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The pigoons were pigs with immune systems compatible with humans so that their organs could be used for transplantation. (I've read that research is actually being done in this area. The scary part about the book is that we're not really that far away from many of the things it describes.) And the story doesn't actually come out and say it, but the pigs seem to be unusually intelligent, perhaps from human genes; they use tactics and know what guns are. But otherwise, they look pretty much like pigs. Afalbrig (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Atwood was deliberately vague about what many of the hybrid animals, including pigoons, looked like. By the way, in "real life," pigs are often used in heart research because their hearts are fairly close in size to adult human hearts. Real pigs are also naturally intelligent animals. Atwood may be trying to challenge us to think about certain issues like: are the pigoons more sympathetic or more evil because they seem to be very intelligent? More unnatural, and less deserving of survival? How does our attribution of intelligence change the morality of the situation? Atwood is being provocative Cuvtixo (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Pigoons

Having just re read the book can anyone tell me where it mentions that pigoons are a hybrid of pig and baboon? From memory that only applies to the Crakers mating ritual and not to the pigoons. I know it definately mentions lobsters mind you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.88.189 (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They aren't. It doesn't say so anywhere in the book. Either this is something Atwood mentioned in an interview or a total fabrication. For a fabrication it at least fits the established naming convention of other hybrid animals in the book... If it is a fabrication it is one which is repeated on a lot of (admittedly uncredible) websites.

I believe the entry on pigoons should be changed to read that they are a hybrid pig/human, as it is human organs that are transplanted, not baboon organs. Also, in The Year of the Flood it states they are named pigoons, "like pig balloon, because they were so big."(page 221, paragraph 2)

Critical Analysis

The "Critical Analysis" section added last week appears to be an essay by Hunnibabe (talk · contribs) that consists entirely of unreferenced original work contrary to WP:OR. I'm deleting it. This is not a commentary on the essay's value; but Wikipedia is not the right place for it. TJRC (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Skunkweed

"skunkweed" is a fairly common slang term for some strains of marijuana that are especially strong and foul smelling. There isn't any reason to believe that Atwood meant this to be a similar, but not identical, substance as part of an alternate world. ;) Cuvtixo (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree- I thought that comment was especially silly in the original article. I think Atwood would have sounded condescending if she had referred to "skunkweed" as marijuana. In some ways, the constant mentioning of "skunkweed" was a hook to connect the reader to this imagined universe. It's not uncommon for disillusioned people to smoke weed frequently- and I think at some level she wanted to tie this activity to Jimmy and Crake's other fun and games. Jonsthesquire (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Third to last paragraph in the Plot Summary section

I think that this should be deleted or moved. It interrupts the plot summary with a non-sequitur about Crakes dreams and the meaning of these dreams within the overall theme of the novel. Additionally, it conveys an uncited opinion that is, presumably, that of the author of the paragraph. Alexandergreenb (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Allusions/references to other works

There's a lot of great information here but it seems like it would benefit from being more organized so everything is clearer for readers. Would it be a good idea to put all the references that Atwood makes obvious (so the epigraphs and Slaughterhouse-Five) first and then have a second paragraph on those references/allusions which are less immediately clear and the conjecture of critics? Also, could anyone provide more information as to the parallels with Swift as this doesn't seem as clear as the comparison to Frankenstein but could be really interesting. (Although the lack of clarity could stem more from my small knowledge of Swift than anything else).Peachynewt (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For section 8, See Also, it would be beneficial to add 'Climate Change' and 'Corporatization,' as these are also very important themes in the novel. --Seraphini (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

some Plot-Summary improvements

I have just finished reading the book for the 2nd time, and had it in front of me for reference as I wrote my edits. I don't know how to get my edits which you cancelled back to quote them exactly here, (How do I do such?), so I will just discuss their substance.

The first edit-item issue is straightforward, it seems to me. Crake repeatedly specifies and refers to the fact that it's only the Grandmasters, the proven best experts of the Extinctathon game, that he's interested in. So describing them in my edit as "expert" rather than as merely "proficient" is more correct and informative. Second edit: The name of the pill, which you leave unstated, is "BlyssPluss". This is obviously an informative and suggestive name. It's main (open to public) purpose and marketing appeal in the story was for drastically improved sex, which is why my description of it as a "Viagra-like super pill" was both correct and aptly descriptive and correctly suggestive. Merely describing it as "a prophylactic agent" is vague,ambiguous and highly misleading by omission and mis-suggestion. Specifically, the phrase "a prophylactic agent" is vague and ambiguous cuz it doesn't specify What it prevents or causes: pregnancy from one intercourse, or permanent sterility, or something else? It is misleading because it stands alone, which falsely suggests it is the main or only important feature of the pill for the story. It's (secret) permanent-sterility rendering function (not mere "prophylactic") is mentioned only once and plays no further role in the story. In fact, it's super-Viagra aspects, along with its secret killer-virus carrying function, are both Much more important and prominent in the story. The fact that in the story it's sterility and virus-carrying features were both secret from the public, and the latter it's Most important feature for the story, justifies the parenthetical "(deceptive)" indication in the edit. So again, this edit comprised a constructive, informative improvement. If you somehow disagree with any of this, we can bog down to the level of specific page refs, etc, for proof. But I believe these claims are obvious to any impartial reader recently familiar with the story.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommster1 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I have moved this to the bottom per WP:BOTTOMPOST, and adjusted the formatting for readability. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, while your enthusiasm is appreciated, please remember that this is a collaborative project which has been built by many editors, not just the one who reverted you. Please comment on content, not contributors, and be aware that starting multiple lengthy discussions for relatively minor changes to a plot summary could be seen as tendentious or uncivil. Editors often have many pages on their watchlists, so it helps to be brief, also. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Tommster1's edit was inappropriately rolled back as "test/vandalism" when it was neither. On the 3 points (a) changing 'proficient' to 'expert' is fine; (b) I don't think the use of brackets is appropriate for "(deceptive)" but clarifying how his "stated goals" differ from his goals is fine; describing BlyssPluss is fine but I don't think using one brand name for a real-life pill that is kind-of similar is appropriate - better to describe it as the category of drug that they both fall under. maclean (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Tommster1 (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Tommster1

  Hello Grayfell and Maclean25.     Thank You for the substantive and content specific responses regarding my edit and it's reversion. I'm glad we have a common interest and caring about the subject.  
   Re Grayfell's comments above, note that my above edits-defense Nowhere comments on the contributor/reverter.  Also, please note that the defense above was longish only because of the seemingly "tendentious and uncivil", as well as seemingly obtuse while clearly false, unsubstantiated reversion and characterization of the edit as both test/vandalism  and as not constructive. I also much prefer the maximal brevity compatible with the human meaning context.     Also, if the edits were so relatively minor then why were they repeatedly blocked with out substantiation while stubbornly mis-characterized?      Also, I don't get the point here of your pointing out "that this is a collaborative project which has been built by many editors, not just the one who reverted you." What does that have to do with here specifically defending a reverted edit?        Please understand that all my responses here are meant as amiable and substantive.         
   Re Maclean25's comments above, Thank you for expressing  your concurrence re the mis-characterization.  Re using the term "Viagra-like", there Is no actual PDR pharma category that well-fits this fictional drug; however, the story repeatedly emphasizes it's primary  sex-enhancment role as essential to it's broad, rapid and worldwide appeal---which is central to it's secret viral human-wipeout purpose---.  Would not "Viagra-like" be a widely understood, highly effective, and highly concise correct analogical indicator of a "great sex"  drug with great and undiscriminating popular appeal.

I can think of nothing more concise and better to immediately get the gist across. Can you? Such to Crake was exactly the main popular-presentation point of BlyssPluss, and also inspired that very name. The current term "prophylactic agent" is quite bad; it is misleading, extremely vague and uninformative, largely false by omission and mis-emphasis, and it drastically mis-represents the pills' large and important role in the story. So I again propose "BlyssPluss, a Viagra-like superpill" as extremely apt for at-a-glance expression of it's story-context public gist. The alternative is a full sentence or two describing both it's open and secret features, and their pivotal importance to the story.

 So at this point, I take it it's OK by you people now to change to "expert", and to elaborate a bit around the "deceptive" matter re Crakes mis-representation of the Crakers,  Correct?  I'll await responses here before reinstating (again) the "Viagra..." pill part.  
 There are several other substantial plot-summary weaknesses present, to be addressed in my next installment here. Or should I first just edit them in, as Wiki intro-guidelines invite, and await any reversion? 
      In friendly support of and contributing to the admirable Wiki project.    Cheerio,  Tommster1 (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Tommster1

---

Length

The first edition cited in the sidebar is 378 pages. This would be useful information to add to the sidebar, and since the sidebar already cites a specific edition, there is no ambiguity. For me this is important information, because one thing I'm thinking about when looking up an entry on a book is the question of if I would want to read that book, and the length is an important factor for me (and probably many people) in that decision. 2601:1C2:C183:D320:0:0:0:900C (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oryx and Crake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925003657/https://daughtersofprometheus.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/oryx-and-crake-margaret-atwood/ to http://daughtersofprometheus.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/oryx-and-crake-margaret-atwood/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)