Comments on: Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood http://www.bookishdark.com/2008/10/oryx-and-crake-by-margaret-atwood/ She is too fond of books, and it has turned her brain. Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:31:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Catalyst http://www.bookishdark.com/2008/10/oryx-and-crake-by-margaret-atwood/comment-page-1/#comment-6870 Catalyst Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:36:45 +0000 http://www.bookishdark.com/?p=322#comment-6870 Well, I'm going to have to go ahead and counter both you and Corvus. Bear with me, I have a number of points I want to address. Let me preface this by saying I've read this piece fairly extensively: Firstly, I'd say Jimmy is certainly an unreliable narrator. To the same effect that I would argue that all witness statements are at least somewhat unreliable. And, I'll agree with Corvus that Snowman was definitely meant to serve as a plot device. However, where I diverge is the point about it being a failing one, or, one that is lacking substance as CountessZ seems to imply. I would premise my argument by stating that an author who is capable of maintaining our interest in the story through a character that is more or less detestable by the general audience is hardly a failing, rather, a glowing review. Jimmy is hardly likable. However, he is relate-able. He's not the frat-house jock implied in the previous post. Nor is he the "unremarkable mind". Yes, he does possess some of those traits, though, it's readily evident that Jimmy is remarkable in a society that considers the areas that he is remarkable in, to be obsolete. Much like the books that Jimmy so covets, Jimmy is discarded, and seen to be somewhat of an outcast. In a world of "poly-maths" and scientific geniuses, Jimmy is nobody. However, he still struggles for identity. What Jimmy is, is the slightly above average person, who, existing in a social limbo (not being smart enough to be with the smart kids, but lives a life of social privilege which doesn’t afford him the opportunity to shine amongst the "pleeblanders") attempts to individualize himself. Thus, he retreats to appealing to people's base instincts. He lords his sexual conquests to Crake because that is the sole area in which Jimmy doesn't feel inadequate. So, in that respect, I can certainly understand the characterisation of Jimmy being the stereotypical male, however, I believe that to be a fairly facile analogy of the character. As far as Jimmy’s treatment of Oryx, as the reader, we can’t help but feel as though Jimmy doesn’t elucidate enough on her. What must be taken into account, though, is that Oryx throughout the story has an illusory appeal. From the beginning of the story, in his imaginings, his dealings with the Craker’s and even in his understanding of her past, Oryx has a mythos developed. Nothing about her is certain, and, nothing can be pinned down. Frankly, it’s safe to put it as plainly as this: no one really ever truly knows anyone. Oryx especially is presented as a closed-mouth character. Never wanting to reveal anything about her past. Even the chapters describing her eventual sale into the world of sex trafficking don’t really reveal anything about her past. As, we have to be sceptical about the veracity of the story. Not simply because Snowman is an unreliable narrator, no, but because nothing about Oryx seems legitimate. To me, this is the principal reason I feel that Jimmy engages in what you refer to as “Neanderthal bullshit” and “never believing what she says”. It’s as if Jimmy has pieced together what he believes to be Oryx’s history before they’ve met. He’s become obsessed with it from the moment she paralyses him with the look straight into the camera on the web. And, when he confronts her on these things, he cannot accept that what he believes could be anything other than fact. He has spent the better part of twenty years (or more) working on this theory, and has become very attached to his narrative. And, in his defence, Oryx never honestly confirms or denies any of what Jimmy presents her with. Only making backhanded comments like “If I had the chance, it wouldn’t be me on my knees”. What I feel makes Jimmy, Snowman, an unreliable narrator is that his story is experiential. Snowman relates this tale to us simply by memory alone. He is essentially tasked with the telling of this story, well, reliving it, and trying to make sense of it. What he doesn’t realise – what we (the reader) are meant to realise, is that Snowman is trying to piece together a puzzle without having the box, and furthermore, that this puzzle is missing pieces. Snowman is flawed and reactionary. He is never fully in control of the circumstances of his life, until the point where we meet him, frankly, not even then - definitely more so than the beginning of the story. My theory about Atwood’s choice about the male protagonist over a female is that the recounting of the story would be more influenced by an emotive recalling of events. This is especially true of Handmaid’s Tale. Not to say that how things feel don’t factor into Jimmy’s story, however, like mythology, the story here needs to be the what, and the why and the how. Which is exactly what Jimmy presents, as much as he is able to. A female protagonist, I feel would have to include more minutia regarding how the events of the happenings have made her feel, rather than the detailing of the events as they happened. Giving cause for the reader to focus on the emotional resonance of the events, rather than giving the appropriate focus to the events themselves. Snowman must be male, in this case, as he serves to be the tribal storyteller, the orator of old, who creates and retells the myths: the stories that are told and retold by generations. And, in the oral tradition, these stories must be easy to memorize, so the focus has to remain on the story (see literal events). Also, we can see this opposition to be true, in the sequel The Year of the Flood. In summation, I think that it is unfair to characterise Jimmy as the stereotypical guy. It is easy to categorise him as such. In this case though, easy and right are not synonymous. Occam’s razor doesn’t always apply. The focus of the reader is drawn to his baser actions, but one must examine the causes and rational as to why such actions are undertaken. Is Jimmy perfect? Absolutely not. What he is, though, is us. The story wouldn’t work if it were told by Crake for that reason. Like any good first person limited story, the narrator must be someone that the reader can understand, someone whose choices don’t seem to be so different from the ones we would make, or, could see someone in our lives making. Otherwise, the distension between the reader and narrator causes too much strife. It takes us out of the world of the piece. This is why Jimmy is perfect to tell this tale. Why he must tell it. At some point, we have all been Jimmy, or at the very least, known a Jimmy. Well, I’m going to have to go ahead and counter both you and Corvus. Bear with me, I have a number of points I want to address. Let me preface this by saying I’ve read this piece fairly extensively:
Firstly, I’d say Jimmy is certainly an unreliable narrator. To the same effect that I would argue that all witness statements are at least somewhat unreliable. And, I’ll agree with Corvus that Snowman was definitely meant to serve as a plot device.
However, where I diverge is the point about it being a failing one, or, one that is lacking substance as CountessZ seems to imply.
I would premise my argument by stating that an author who is capable of maintaining our interest in the story through a character that is more or less detestable by the general audience is hardly a failing, rather, a glowing review.
Jimmy is hardly likable. However, he is relate-able. He’s not the frat-house jock implied in the previous post. Nor is he the “unremarkable mind”. Yes, he does possess some of those traits, though, it’s readily evident that Jimmy is remarkable in a society that considers the areas that he is remarkable in, to be obsolete. Much like the books that Jimmy so covets, Jimmy is discarded, and seen to be somewhat of an outcast. In a world of “poly-maths” and scientific geniuses, Jimmy is nobody. However, he still struggles for identity. What Jimmy is, is the slightly above average person, who, existing in a social limbo (not being smart enough to be with the smart kids, but lives a life of social privilege which doesn’t afford him the opportunity to shine amongst the “pleeblanders”) attempts to individualize himself. Thus, he retreats to appealing to people’s base instincts. He lords his sexual conquests to Crake because that is the sole area in which Jimmy doesn’t feel inadequate. So, in that respect, I can certainly understand the characterisation of Jimmy being the stereotypical male, however, I believe that to be a fairly facile analogy of the character.
As far as Jimmy’s treatment of Oryx, as the reader, we can’t help but feel as though Jimmy doesn’t elucidate enough on her. What must be taken into account, though, is that Oryx throughout the story has an illusory appeal. From the beginning of the story, in his imaginings, his dealings with the Craker’s and even in his understanding of her past, Oryx has a mythos developed. Nothing about her is certain, and, nothing can be pinned down. Frankly, it’s safe to put it as plainly as this: no one really ever truly knows anyone. Oryx especially is presented as a closed-mouth character. Never wanting to reveal anything about her past. Even the chapters describing her eventual sale into the world of sex trafficking don’t really reveal anything about her past. As, we have to be sceptical about the veracity of the story. Not simply because Snowman is an unreliable narrator, no, but because nothing about Oryx seems legitimate. To me, this is the principal reason I feel that Jimmy engages in what you refer to as “Neanderthal bullshit” and “never believing what she says”. It’s as if Jimmy has pieced together what he believes to be Oryx’s history before they’ve met. He’s become obsessed with it from the moment she paralyses him with the look straight into the camera on the web. And, when he confronts her on these things, he cannot accept that what he believes could be anything other than fact. He has spent the better part of twenty years (or more) working on this theory, and has become very attached to his narrative. And, in his defence, Oryx never honestly confirms or denies any of what Jimmy presents her with. Only making backhanded comments like “If I had the chance, it wouldn’t be me on my knees”.
What I feel makes Jimmy, Snowman, an unreliable narrator is that his story is experiential. Snowman relates this tale to us simply by memory alone. He is essentially tasked with the telling of this story, well, reliving it, and trying to make sense of it. What he doesn’t realise – what we (the reader) are meant to realise, is that Snowman is trying to piece together a puzzle without having the box, and furthermore, that this puzzle is missing pieces. Snowman is flawed and reactionary. He is never fully in control of the circumstances of his life, until the point where we meet him, frankly, not even then – definitely more so than the beginning of the story.
My theory about Atwood’s choice about the male protagonist over a female is that the recounting of the story would be more influenced by an emotive recalling of events. This is especially true of Handmaid’s Tale. Not to say that how things feel don’t factor into Jimmy’s story, however, like mythology, the story here needs to be the what, and the why and the how. Which is exactly what Jimmy presents, as much as he is able to. A female protagonist, I feel would have to include more minutia regarding how the events of the happenings have made her feel, rather than the detailing of the events as they happened. Giving cause for the reader to focus on the emotional resonance of the events, rather than giving the appropriate focus to the events themselves. Snowman must be male, in this case, as he serves to be the tribal storyteller, the orator of old, who creates and retells the myths: the stories that are told and retold by generations. And, in the oral tradition, these stories must be easy to memorize, so the focus has to remain on the story (see literal events). Also, we can see this opposition to be true, in the sequel The Year of the Flood.
In summation, I think that it is unfair to characterise Jimmy as the stereotypical guy. It is easy to categorise him as such. In this case though, easy and right are not synonymous. Occam’s razor doesn’t always apply. The focus of the reader is drawn to his baser actions, but one must examine the causes and rational as to why such actions are undertaken. Is Jimmy perfect? Absolutely not. What he is, though, is us. The story wouldn’t work if it were told by Crake for that reason. Like any good first person limited story, the narrator must be someone that the reader can understand, someone whose choices don’t seem to be so different from the ones we would make, or, could see someone in our lives making. Otherwise, the distension between the reader and narrator causes too much strife. It takes us out of the world of the piece. This is why Jimmy is perfect to tell this tale. Why he must tell it. At some point, we have all been Jimmy, or at the very least, known a Jimmy.

]]> By: CountessZ http://www.bookishdark.com/2008/10/oryx-and-crake-by-margaret-atwood/comment-page-1/#comment-3313 CountessZ Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:34:05 +0000 http://www.bookishdark.com/?p=322#comment-3313 Like you, Corvus, I tend to enjoy books, movies, etc., that feature unreliable narrators--when they are done well (Offred, from Handmaid's Tale is considered an unreliable narrator, after all). But not so much with this book. Perhaps it is as you say, and as I suspected in the first place, her unfamiliarity working with a male lead? Or more than that, perhaps it was her need for a less dimensional character that led her to her choice? When asked why she chose a male protagonist for Oryx and Crake (her first and only male lead--so far), she said: "Snowman did present himself to me, yes, dirty bedsheet and all. For this novel, a woman would have been less possible. Or let's say that the story would have been quite different. If we are writers, we all have multiple selves. Also, I've known a lot of male people in my life, so I had a lot to draw on." I find the dirty bedsheet reference particularly interesting, which suggests to me that Snowman is a descendant of one of the greatest unreliable narrators of all time, Ignatius J. Reilly. Unfortunately, he is just not implemented so artfully. I also find it interesting that she feels the book would have been "less possible" with a female lead. I suspect she would have had a harder time creating a shallow female character outside of the filter of a male protagonist's view. Oryx, after all is rather dull, but remember, we only see her through Snowman's eyes. And he does not strike us as the most enlightened of fellows. In fact, he has that neanderthal protective bullshit going on, and appears to never really believe what she says. For all we know, Oryx was a fascinatingly complex creature, and Crake too, but Atwood chose to give them to us through Snowman, and his unreliable and unremarkable mind flattened them out and made them the simple creatures necessary for this future. We find it easy to envision a Jimmy (Snowman's real name). We know him. He is the default characterization of a "guy" that is in every sitcom, frat house, and corporate office in the Western world. Even if she tried to give us this dystopian future through the eyes of a Paris Hilton or Britney Spears, the female equivalent to the shallow male, I think she would have found it hard not to give her some dimension under all the layers of fluff and nonsense. Which is not to say that she didn't try to give Snowman layers, but in the end, it wasn't enough for me. I still didn't care about him on top of not trusting him. The story didn't reveal anything to me or help me see the world in a different way. It was a classic cautionary tale about technology and science practiced simply "because we can" without asking if we should. This idea has been explored elsewhere and been done better. Oh dear, I've talked myself back to dissatisfaction. Like you, Corvus, I tend to enjoy books, movies, etc., that feature unreliable narrators–when they are done well (Offred, from Handmaid’s Tale is considered an unreliable narrator, after all). But not so much with this book. Perhaps it is as you say, and as I suspected in the first place, her unfamiliarity working with a male lead? Or more than that, perhaps it was her need for a less dimensional character that led her to her choice?

When asked why she chose a male protagonist for Oryx and Crake (her first and only male lead–so far), she said:

“Snowman did present himself to me, yes, dirty bedsheet and all. For this novel, a woman would have been less possible. Or let’s say that the story would have been quite different. If we are writers, we all have multiple selves. Also, I’ve known a lot of male people in my life, so I had a lot to draw on.”

I find the dirty bedsheet reference particularly interesting, which suggests to me that Snowman is a descendant of one of the greatest unreliable narrators of all time, Ignatius J. Reilly. Unfortunately, he is just not implemented so artfully.

I also find it interesting that she feels the book would have been “less possible” with a female lead. I suspect she would have had a harder time creating a shallow female character outside of the filter of a male protagonist’s view. Oryx, after all is rather dull, but remember, we only see her through Snowman’s eyes. And he does not strike us as the most enlightened of fellows. In fact, he has that neanderthal protective bullshit going on, and appears to never really believe what she says. For all we know, Oryx was a fascinatingly complex creature, and Crake too, but Atwood chose to give them to us through Snowman, and his unreliable and unremarkable mind flattened them out and made them the simple creatures necessary for this future.

We find it easy to envision a Jimmy (Snowman’s real name). We know him. He is the default characterization of a “guy” that is in every sitcom, frat house, and corporate office in the Western world.

Even if she tried to give us this dystopian future through the eyes of a Paris Hilton or Britney Spears, the female equivalent to the shallow male, I think she would have found it hard not to give her some dimension under all the layers of fluff and nonsense. Which is not to say that she didn’t try to give Snowman layers, but in the end, it wasn’t enough for me. I still didn’t care about him on top of not trusting him. The story didn’t reveal anything to me or help me see the world in a different way. It was a classic cautionary tale about technology and science practiced simply “because we can” without asking if we should. This idea has been explored elsewhere and been done better.

Oh dear, I’ve talked myself back to dissatisfaction.

]]> By: Corvus http://www.bookishdark.com/2008/10/oryx-and-crake-by-margaret-atwood/comment-page-1/#comment-3300 Corvus Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:41:04 +0000 http://www.bookishdark.com/?p=322#comment-3300 I actually really like untrustworthy narrators when they're done well. One of my favorite Atwood novels, <em>Robber Bride</em>, is relayed entirely through the emotional wreckage of three main untrustworthy narrators--not because they're lying to us, but because they are all lying to themselves. It is only by contrasting the three characters' accounts that the reader is able to build their own interpretation of events. I actually chalk O&C's failure up to Atwood's inexperience in writing from the male perspective. I don't know if I've read anyone who can write from such a solid variety of feminine viewpoints, but I just didn't buy Snowman as anything other than a plot device. I actually really like untrustworthy narrators when they’re done well. One of my favorite Atwood novels, Robber Bride, is relayed entirely through the emotional wreckage of three main untrustworthy narrators–not because they’re lying to us, but because they are all lying to themselves.

It is only by contrasting the three characters’ accounts that the reader is able to build their own interpretation of events.

I actually chalk O&C’s failure up to Atwood’s inexperience in writing from the male perspective. I don’t know if I’ve read anyone who can write from such a solid variety of feminine viewpoints, but I just didn’t buy Snowman as anything other than a plot device.

]]> By: CountessZ http://www.bookishdark.com/2008/10/oryx-and-crake-by-margaret-atwood/comment-page-1/#comment-3299 CountessZ Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:18:58 +0000 http://www.bookishdark.com/?p=322#comment-3299 Great observation! That is EXACTLY it. He was completely untrustworthy. Which means, for all we know, Oryx and Crake were both figments of his imagination and the undoing of the world was all his. (Or maybe I've seen Fight Club one too many times?) Ultimately, though, that sense of unease at not being able to trust our tour guide was another layer that made it hard for me to find the book satisfying. Great observation! That is EXACTLY it. He was completely untrustworthy. Which means, for all we know, Oryx and Crake were both figments of his imagination and the undoing of the world was all his. (Or maybe I’ve seen Fight Club one too many times?) Ultimately, though, that sense of unease at not being able to trust our tour guide was another layer that made it hard for me to find the book satisfying.

]]> By: Ken... Just Ken http://www.bookishdark.com/2008/10/oryx-and-crake-by-margaret-atwood/comment-page-1/#comment-3297 Ken... Just Ken Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:17:24 +0000 http://www.bookishdark.com/?p=322#comment-3297 I finished this book so long ago that it just has a dream-like quality when I try to remember specific scenes. But then again, it didn't have that much of an effect on me when I read it. I found that I didn't believe the narrator when he was telling his tale... I wasn't sure he believed what he was saying himself. It made me uncomfortable throughout the book, I don't like untrustworthy narrators. I never believed that Oryx was who he thought she was. But, as I say, I'm really fuzzy on the details. I finished this book so long ago that it just has a dream-like quality when I try to remember specific scenes. But then again, it didn’t have that much of an effect on me when I read it.

I found that I didn’t believe the narrator when he was telling his tale… I wasn’t sure he believed what he was saying himself.

It made me uncomfortable throughout the book, I don’t like untrustworthy narrators. I never believed that Oryx was who he thought she was.

But, as I say, I’m really fuzzy on the details.

]]>