Utopia, Dystopia: New novels by Jonathan Lethem and Margaret Atwood
We like Jonathan Lethem and Margaret Atwood, two authors of “serious” fiction who write science-fiction. Atwood took umbrage when The Handmaid’s Tale and Oryx and Crake were described as science-fiction novels; she preferred the term “speculative fiction”. Sounds like a duck to us.
MaddAdam, available at National Bookstores, hardcover, Php1099.
The only Atwood we’ve read is The Handmaid’s Tale, which we looked up for its weird sex scene. MaddAdam is the third part of a trilogy whose first two books we have not read. Aaargh, we’re behind already. We know we have Margaret Atwood fans amongst us—tell us why you love her.
From our readers:
balqis: The first two books of the MaddAddam trilogy did not have such impact on me as her other novels did, like The Handmaid’s Tale, The Blind Assassin, Alias Grace, or The Edible Woman, but they are still worth reading especially if one is curious as to why Atwood insists on calling some of her work speculative fiction. Oryx and Crake is chillingly prescient: several of the scientific breakthroughs “made up” in the novel have been recently actualized and could eventually be old hat for us. The Year of the Flood feels a bit contrived–at the “end” of the world the people who already know each other are the only ones who remain. Both books still retain a sense of irony that is clearly Atwoodian. I know I’m being vague but I just want to promote her ha ha. But for instance, in TYOTF, she gives focus on God’s Gardeners (an eco-religious group first appearing in Oryx & Crake) and treats their philosophy/doctrine/way of life ambiguously: Atwood is either sneering at their (virtual) fanaticism or applauding their concern for the environment. Or maybe she’s doing neither. Or both.
lestat: I don’t read science fiction often, not because I hate it but because I prefer non-science fiction, but I read Oryx & Crake a long time ago not knowing what it was about and realized it’s a funny sci-fi novel. I loved it, made me want to read sci-fi, pero yung ganung level lang.
wenkebach: I like Atwood because when she writes, she takes the reader to her imagined worlds. I also like the way her writing has a certain rhythm to it. I can’t quite explain it, but some writers are easier to read than others—Atwood belongs to such a category.
Read their full answers in Comments. Thanks for the backgrounders! Let us know what books you’d like to review for us and we’ll get copies for you.
The Penelopiad, Php475 at National Bookstores.
We’re a fan of Canongate’s The Myths series, in which well-known authors retell myths from around the world. The Penelopiad is the story of Penelope, wife of Odysseus. Odysseus is famous for his wiles, his cleverness, his service in the Trojan War and his fantastical ten-year trip in The Odyssey. Penelope is famous for being his faithful wife, waiting patiently in Ithaca for her husband to return. Surely there was more to her than that.
Dissident Gardens, Php1125 at National Bookstores.
As She Climbed Across the Table, Motherless Brooklyn, Fortress of Solitude, we loved. You Don’t Love Me Yet, we’ll probably never love. Chronic City we haven’t finished, although we envy the character who writes the liner notes for the Criterion Collection. Dissident Gardens, we’ll see.
Answers to questions you might be asking, unless you wandered onto this site purely by accident >>>
October 1st, 2013 at 07:17
Hmm . . . I like Atwood because when she writes, she takes the reader to her imagined worlds. I also like her writing; there’s a certain rhythm to it. I can’t quite explain it, but some writers are easier to read than others—Atwood belongs to such a category.
The Handmaid’s Tale remains a favorite. I’m still fascinated with the greeting, “May the Lord open [referring to the womb],” to which the other maid responds thus, “Blessed be the fruit.” I’ve read there’s a movie adaptation; I haven’t seen it yet.
Oryx and Crake caters to my love of genetics. The novel is dystopic, and the future Atwood imagines is disturbing.
The Blind Assassin is a memorable work—a novel within a novel. At the get-go I already knew how the novel would end, so that felt like an accomplishment.
October 1st, 2013 at 22:50
I don’t read science fiction often not because I hate it but because I prefer non-science fiction, but I read Oryx & Crake a long time ago not knowing what it was about and realized it’s a funny sci-fi novel. I loved it, made me want to read sci-fi, pero yung ganung level lang.
Then I read The Robber Bride which has an intriguing premise: three women who were cheated on by their husbands with a common girlfriend. With her short fiction collection, The Tent, I realized that I like her because she’s funny.
October 1st, 2013 at 23:12
Baliktad tayo. I’ve read only one of Lethem’s books, Amnesia Moon (don’t we just love post-apocalypsesss), though I’ve got plans of reading his other works.
The first two books of the MaddAddam trilogy did not have such impact on me as her other novels did, like The Handmaid’s Tale, The Blind Assassin, Alias Grace, or The Edible Woman, but they are still worth reading especially if one is curious as to why Atwood insists on calling some of her work speculative fiction. Oryx and Crake is chillingly prescient: several of the scientific breakthroughs “made up” in the novel have been recently actualized and could eventually be old hat for us (I’m not giving any examples–spoilers, Jessica). The Year of the Flood feels a bit contrived–at the “end” of the world the people who already know each other are the only ones who remain. Both books still retain a sense of irony that is clearly Atwoodian (she even has an adjective now, huh). I know I’m being vague but I just want to promote her ha ha. But for instance, in TYOTF, she gives focus on God’s Gardeners (an eco-religious group first appearing in Oryx & Crake) and ambiguously treats their philosophy/doctrine/way of life: Atwood is either sneering at their (virtual) fanaticism (which can be found in most New Age/religious movements of the past and present) or applauding their concern on the environment (a concern now only seriously espoused by a few). Or maybe she’s doing neither. Or both.
Many critics have noted that Atwood’s characters are given to making grand pronouncements in a deadpan voice. This is most observed in her poetry. But I especially like the degree of self-awareness and self-doubt her personae have. She can write historical fiction, she can comment on the creative process. She can be meta, political, feminist; she can inject emotion without you knowing you’ve been injected. She writes things like, “Aging Female Poet Sits on the Balcony”, “Aging Female Poet on Laundry Day”, “Variation on the Word Sleep”, “Variation on the Word Love”. She has written a poem on Caligula, poems on snakes, poems on cats. Heck she’s made alliterative books for children. Prolific, yes, but she humbly thinks Oates when she thinks prolific (I do too, but that’s a given: everyone worships Oates). She’s a writer’s writer.
Hindi naman ako fan, no?
From Dancing Girls:
“Everyone thinks writers must know more about the inside of the human head, but that’s wrong. They know less, that’s why they write. Trying to find out what everyone else takes for granted.”
P.S. I’m certain you’ll enjoy The Penelopiad. It’s haunting. I haven’t picked up MaddAddam (siguro pag paperback na): would you like me to lend you the first two books?