Jump to content

Talk:Oryx and Crake: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Pigoon Picture
Afalbrig (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:


: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. --[[User:Jottce|Jottce]] 16:39, 26 April 2006 (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. --[[User:Jottce|Jottce]] 16:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

:As I recall, it is ambiguous, and it's not settled conclusively. [[User:Afalbrig|Afalbrig]] ([[User talk: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
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
Line 22: Line 24:


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? --[[Special:Contributions/24.199.91.123|24.199.91.123]] ([[User talk:24.199.91.123|talk]]) 00:43, 27 June 2008 (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? --[[Special:Contributions/24.199.91.123|24.199.91.123]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Afalbrig|Afalbrig]] ([[User talk:Afalbrig|talk]]) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


== Publication date? ==
== Publication date? ==
Line 30: Line 34:
I don't quite get the pig picture with a caption about pigoons. The pigoons in the book were pretty clearly not pigs.
I don't quite get the pig picture with a caption about pigoons. The pigoons in the book were pretty clearly not pigs.
—[[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] ([[User talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]) 20:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
—[[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Afalbrig|Afalbrig]] ([[User talk:Afalbrig|talk]]) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:23, 31 August 2008

WikiProject iconNovels B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Dystopian fiction?

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

Atlant 22:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]