It seems to me that Crake believes that in order for the human race to survive, it has to become essentially non-human. He is doing what he believes is necessary to save what he considers to be the best parts of humanity. Barring the methods by which he achieves it, I think that it is interesting to examine this motivation as it stands, outside of the context. Personally, I do not agree with what Crake considers to be the best parts of humanity, just as I don't agree with Butler's argument that the "hierarchical impulse" is entirely bad.
In the analysis that I performed on Pattern Recognition in my final essay, I concluded that Cayce was almost asexual in the novel, and that any graphic or direct depictions of sex had an adverse effect on the commitments that Cayce had made or wanted to make.
It's a fine book, with a lot to talk about, but I have other things to do.
I've noticed that most of the other posts are about information, or artificial reality, or something like that, but I've decided to post on something that's a little closer to the range of my interests.
That is all.
I feel that the entire novel works to reconcile Lore with the incredibly intimate and damaging rape that occurred in her past. All her experiences outside of the protecting curtain of the Van de Oests functions to give her the perspective and independence from which she can understand and come to accept what happened to her. She must reconcile her own sexual attraction for women with the horrible emotional injury that was inflicted upon her by a woman.
So my first reaction on finishing Slow River: "What? That's it?!?"
There were a few things that prompted that reaction. First, I didn't feel like Griffith really pulled off the conspiracy with Greta very well. There was only the mention that she "had to have secret power" there at the end, and that she had been perverted by Katerine to explain any of her conniving and plotting. The secret conspirator at the plant was not very interesting, basically since we never really met him or knew anything about him.
I think the use of the female pronoun for everyone except the person to whom you are attracted is an effective way of referring to people. It may be ambiguous in some situations, but I think that it sufficiently describes the actual interaction between gender and sexuality, in a way that more concrete terminology does not. Why should our language enforce an emphasis on physical sex when describing attraction?
The future of the book, as Bob Stein argued, is in dialogue between the reader and the author. It will no longer be a static work, created by the author for a particular audience. "Old school" authors "engage with the subject matter on behalf of the readers," whereas "new school" authors will "engage with readers in the context of a subject matter" (Stein, "The Future of the Book: The Evolution of Reading and Writing in the Networked Era", March 1, 2008).
I would like to begin with a quote by Nikanj about humans, but really relating to everyone else but the ooloi, that motivates my whole understanding of the ooloi: "Give them as much as they can take, and no more--Start them slowly, and in only a little time, they will be more willing to give up eating than to give you up" (678). I understand that the ooloi are biologically motivated to manipulate in this way, and can perhaps be thought of as amoral instead of strictly immoral.