Second half!jawastewDecember 19 2009, 02:39:39 UTC
With regards to Jimmy, I thought he came off as interesting only in the way I kept thinking about him and his situation long after I'd put the book down. He's really only a piece of what represents Oryx and Crake--they're so larger than life in the book, these huge figures that have become elevated (I hesitate to say, deified) by the end of the book that I began to wonder if Jimmy didn't struggle with their celebrity, so to say, himself. Jimmy could never figure out his two friends. In that way, I sympathized--Oryx and Crake were almost as elusive to him as they were to me, albeit Jimmy's a bit slow on the uptake
( ... )
1) Target audience: the SF audience IN GENERAL versus lit-fic audiences. Sub-genres be damned.
2) I wonder if part of Atwood's stance comes from the time period she was growing up and what SF meant at that time? Certainly SF has EVOLVED and it's not quite the embarrassment (although maybe it is?) as it may used to be, but if you grew up when SF was a certain THING, then I can see where she's coming from.
3) Aside from THE HANDMAID'S TALE, ORYX AND CRAKE and THE YEAR OF THE FLOOD, has she written any other SF-based books? I've pondered her other titles, but haven't come across an Atwood fan to guide me in the right direction. :)
1. Ah ok! That makes sense, if you're just talking about people who read SF. :)
2. That could be it. I mean, considering when she grew up and what television and fiction had to offer by way of SF, she could have been heavily influenced by that. SF has evolved (a lot), but I think the stigma attached to it hasn't. That's more pronounced in "literary circles."
3. Nope, she's primarily, as you put it, a lit-fic author. But of the books she's written, there are those 3 which I feel strongly are SF--or at least straddle the divide. It's an interesting position she's in because I think it's one that allows for a wider audience. At the same time it also invites the frustration of readers and other authors wanting her to pick a side, so to say. Or at least admit when she's writing SF and when she's writing lit-fit. She may not intentionally do SF (clearly she has her opinion on the matter), but for someone like me that loves her writing and likes both genres, that she writes both is something I've come to appreciate. :)
Reply
Reply
The bogus reference made more sense to me than the others, particularly because he kind of explained it, you know?
Reply
1) Target audience: the SF audience IN GENERAL versus lit-fic audiences. Sub-genres be damned.
2) I wonder if part of Atwood's stance comes from the time period she was growing up and what SF meant at that time? Certainly SF has EVOLVED and it's not quite the embarrassment (although maybe it is?) as it may used to be, but if you grew up when SF was a certain THING, then I can see where she's coming from.
3) Aside from THE HANDMAID'S TALE, ORYX AND CRAKE and THE YEAR OF THE FLOOD, has she written any other SF-based books? I've pondered her other titles, but haven't come across an Atwood fan to guide me in the right direction. :)
Reply
2. That could be it. I mean, considering when she grew up and what television and fiction had to offer by way of SF, she could have been heavily influenced by that. SF has evolved (a lot), but I think the stigma attached to it hasn't. That's more pronounced in "literary circles."
3. Nope, she's primarily, as you put it, a lit-fic author. But of the books she's written, there are those 3 which I feel strongly are SF--or at least straddle the divide. It's an interesting position she's in because I think it's one that allows for a wider audience. At the same time it also invites the frustration of readers and other authors wanting her to pick a side, so to say. Or at least admit when she's writing SF and when she's writing lit-fit. She may not intentionally do SF (clearly she has her opinion on the matter), but for someone like me that loves her writing and likes both genres, that she writes both is something I've come to appreciate. :)
Reply
Leave a comment