Overall this was a good book which I'd recommend to others, giving it 4 out of 5, but not something I'd consider a classic or equivalent to many of my favourite dystopian / apocalyptic books. Oryx and Crake covers the territory of both genres

First, the good points: it was well-written and easy to read. The dystopian elements were good food for thought - not entirely original, but covering topical issues which I imagine will remain relevant for a long time. Some of the ideas will, I imagine, stick with me forever. People have complained that some of the characters are wooden, and it's true that they weren't explored in much depth, but I found it easy to associate with the protagonist and to understand the others to an extent.

On to negative points. The main point of dystopian literature is to show the reader your dystopia. However, if you choose to do this in novel form, you need to create a plot to follow. Thus, in 1984 we follow Winston Smith's rebellion; in Brave New World, the Savage's wonder. In Oryx and Crake, there's no real tension - the protagonist might not be content, but he fits into the dystopian world. I suppose this is an alternative method of showing us the dystopia, but it's not hugely interesting. Similarly, in a post-apocalyptic book, you need tension in the form of a battle to survive as in War of the Worlds or The Day of the Triffids. The protagonist of Oryx and Crake doesn't live in much real danger; the post-apocalyptic section of the book just follows him around. This was especially frustrating as at least in the dull dystopian sections, we get to see the dystopia in action. Succinctly, the book is good as philosophy or a thought experiment, but not brilliant as a story.

In addition to this, some of what the characters do sometimes doesn't seem to fit in with their character.

I mean, Crake and Jimmy watching porn together? Crake? It just doesn't sit right with me.

I actually really liked Crake, though I'm not sure I was meant to. I sympathised completely with his world-view and his creation of the virus in such a crummy world. The idea of the Crakers was just amazing. I suppose they're not human, but if to be human is to be flawed, surely it's better to be a flawless non-human? Dealing with sex and with eating meat are both brilliant ideas, I think. The point about humans having evolved from apes and how this accounts for much of human nature was an interesting one I hadn't considered before. It would have been far better to have evolved from grazing herd creatures than omnivorous hierarchical creatures. I suppose such creatures would be unlike to develop intelligence in the first place, but the benefits would be obvious. I like how Crake fixes this.

I suppose the way the Crakers live in harmony with nature should be lauded, but I'm not comfortable with how complete it is. They lack the "Roses" that make humanity worthwhile - buildings, for example - and seem to be reduced to more intelligent animals. And, as such simple animals, they don't really need their intelligence - so I imagine it would gradually diminish. As would their resistance to illness and animals. Combined with being comparatively slow and weak compared to other grazers, this would surely result in extinction. I think they need should need fire or clothing or something to maintain their intelligence and separation from nature.

The names of a lot of spliced creatures and corporations were incredibly clumsy or obviously satirical, which bugged me.

Snowman's love of words resonated strongly with me, as did his worries about his future life. Less so his manner of sleeping with anything that moved. I think a lot of sex and masturbation was just thrown in gratuitously to show the author is cool / understands men (cf. Crake watching porn with Jimmy). I suppose it showed something about Jimmy's personality at least.

The dystopia. Gated communities, organs for sale, nothing new. Dangers of capitalism and constant growth and scarce resources - nothing new. Increasingly authoritarian government - nothing new. Increasingly powerful and evil corporations - nothing new. But although none of the basic concepts were new, some of them were given their own spin, the strong biological element, which I liked. I also really liked the games Atwood invented - I'd definitely like to play some of them!

There's a lot in the book, and I could go on. I do think it's a very, very good book for discussing. It just doesn't work very well, I feel, as a narrative.