Are the other two in the trilogy as good as this? Because this

>>9249243
Atwood is trash

>>9249243
Care to share some details OP? I thought it was very weak. Not grilling you or anything, maybe some other perspectives on it would rekindle my interest in it

>>9249324
Brand names were cool (funny while also realistic considering the natural progression of capitalism), prose maintained interest in its slight sarcasm, really relevant and accurate framing of intelligences, pretty relatable if you have divorced parents. I guess the structure was appealing to me too, but I wouldn't say it was a highlight.

Wrong

>>9249305
>>9249324
>>9249387
What didn't you like about it? It wasn't the most beautiful prose or anything, but I don't think that was the point. I thought the three main characters were all developed really well.

>>9249399
It felt like a PKD but without the charm or interesting concepts

>>9249243
Year of the Flood is pretty good. haven't read the third one yet, probably never will because i forgot everything that happens in the second book (the first one is drilled into my head because I had to read it in high school)

>>9249416
it has some interesting concepts, but i agree for anyone who has read a lot of scifi the concepts probably won't be as jarring as they might be to an uninitiated. Atwood predicted the popularity of live streaming before it was even a thing.

>>9249416
I kinda liked the universality of it. Didn't feel like genre fiction.

>>9249243
rly? i started reading it and i kept falling asleep, waiting for something to happen.

so i went back and read War and Peace again, because it moves along at a really cracking pace in comparison.