OK FIRST OFF I’M SO SAD. I kind of cannot believe all of these characters died? This feels like the Deathly Hallows all over again.
(Also, can we talk about how Amanda partially names her child after Ren? No, I’m not giving up on them.)
The idea that the Crakers are “post-human” sits wrong with me. While reading this trilogy, I cannot help but want to relate to these pseudo-human-hybrid-humanoid-homo sapiens sapiens. They have the innocence of a child–both the adults and the actual children–, the natural curiosity of the human mind, and seemingly look like humans, albeit more perfect, uniform humans. Though Crake intended them to be a replacement for mankind after the Waterless Flood, I cannot help but see them as unfortunate survivors, just as with the Gardeners and the MaddAddamites.
In MaddAddam, the question of the Crakers’ humanity is often brought up, and the question of what is humanity even more so. Is their ability to reproduce the sole aspect that makes them human? Ivory Bill says yes, “If they can crossbreed with us, then case made. Same species. If not, then not.” Is their naivety and innocence not satisfactory of being a suffering human? Does their ill knowledge of simple concepts make them not human?
Though Crake made them out to be free of faults, at least what he considered faults, the Crakers have progressed, or regressed, into another entity. Even Toby anticipates what will become of society if the Crakers live long enough to see it happen, asking “What comes next? Rules, dogmas, laws? The Testament of Crake? How soon before there are ancient texts they feel they have to obey but have forgotten how to interpret?” They see Crake and Oryx as their gods, their parents. They see Jimmy’s Red Sox hat as a sacred object, one that a storyteller can put on but not themselves; it’s taboo. Crake could not even remove singing from their biology. Ivory Bill says that “Their brains are more malleable than Crake intended. They’ve been doing several things we didn’t anticipate during the construction phase.”
Do the others have a Buddhist view on life–that suffering is what makes a human a human? Some are adamant on not giving the Crakers any weapons, as there is “No point in giving sprayguns to the Crakers, since you could never teach them about shooting and killing people. They just aren’t capable, not being human as such.” Is that what it means to be human–being able to shoot and kill? Or is it the Crakers abilities to grieve, to mourn, to sense pain, and to want to heal that make them human?
If being human meant being able to kill, then what would explain most of the survivors’ denial that the Painballers were people? They committed awful, horrific acts, so “Who cares what we call them…So long as it’s not people.” With the logic that handling weapons meant being human, then the Painballers are human, while the Crakers are not. It is said that “Crakers are nonviolent by nature. They don’t fight, they can’t fight. They’re incapable of it. That’s how they’re made.” This really just sounds like a pacifist human to me.
The Crakers’ names, ranging from Marie Antoinette to Sojourner Truth, are inherently human, because they belonged to real human people. Their singing seems to be another language, maybe even a certain dialect. However, Blackbeard’s voice is considered a “thin boy’s voice. His Craker voice, not human.” Well what is the difference?
It is also kind of amusing that the pigoons are so human-like, what with their ritualistic funerals and their swimming in pools, whereas the humanity of Crakers, who are actual people, is questioned. Is having human tissue all it takes to be human?
I think that what makes a human is the want for knowledge and the ability to pass on that knowledge. As we see at the end, Blackbeard is now an adult, writing down the Story of Toby, for all those who will live after these “original” survivors are gone. “Funny old thing, the human race,” says Zeb.
Now we will sing.
