Talk:Oryx and Crake

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Oryx? 

message: A work of Dystopian fiction? Crake might well argue it is, rather, Utopian. ;-)
Atlant 22:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dystopian fiction? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Publication date? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pigoon Picture 

message: The "Critical Analysis" section added last week appears to be an essay by  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)
thread_title:  Critical Analysis 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Skunkweed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Third to last paragraph in the Plot Summary section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Allusions/references to other works

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

text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title: some Plot-Summary improvements

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)