Handmaidens Tale

[TheComrade]

Anyone read it?

I enjoyed it. Very bleak, and very sad but the ideas in it are of great interest to me. With such changes in our society - sexuality is one of great concern.

I'll summarise it for you.

The country (you don't know which) has been taken over by a fundamental Christian group who are obsessed with the patriarchical aspects of the Bible (men dominate women)

There are massive problems with fertility - only a very small number can have babies. These women are called 'Handmaidens' and from birth they are brought up in camps - trained to obey. They are let out to Upper Class families - the man gets her pregnant and she gives the baby to the family - she returns to the camp and is let out again.

The story is about one Handmaiden who struggles, just like eveyone of her 'kind,' to live the torment of her life. I won't give the actual story away (its too good) but you have the politics.

What I like about it is that it is more personal than say 1984, it is more about the personal politics rather than the massive, international politics of Newspeak, Big Brother, Oceania etc.

Thoughts...

[Doshka]

I loved it. But I have to admit, I read it a while ago. Maybe 3 years ago (?). I remember I truly enjoyed it though. Isn't the title "The Handmaid's Tale" though? Maybe I'm wrong. I think Atwood's books have gone down since. Though I think Alias Grace and Cat's Eye were very good, I did not like Oryx and Crake at all. To be fair I have not read enough by her to judge.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

I enjoyed it, very descriptive and sad at times(such as her reminising of her past life) I also liked how the Christian Groups twisted other peoples writing around for their needs such as Karl Marx's "from each according to his ability, for each according to his needs" to " from each according to her ability, for each according to his needs

[TheComrade]

Isn't the title "The Handmaid's Tale" though? Yeah sorry, my mistake :P

It was interesting because someone recommended it to me in a conversation where I was going on about the importance of 1984. A real contrast between both books - in the way the portray the world around them.

[Janus]

I had to read it this summer along with Invisble Man and 1984. I thought the book was extremely bleak and pessimistic like 1984. Atwood was trying to warn us against religious fundamentalism accomplished this by using a skeptical protagonist in order to get her point across to the reader. I have always hated any type of religious dogmatism and this book epitomizes what would occur in a backward nation dominated by fanatical fundamentalists.

However, one aspect of the plot that I was quite uncomfortable with was the actual seizure of power by the fundamentalist movement. There are 17 government officials besides the President who will take over and eliminating the vice president and Congress will only take 3 members off this succession list. Therefore, I don't think Margaret Atwood really understood this, which is why she neglected to go into detail about it. Besides this part, the book was pretty well written.

[RevolverNo9]

Urgh, I really didn't enjoy this book. Irritating writing devices, repetitive... the insiduous flavour of post-modernism.

[Ligeia]

I recently read "the Handmaid's tale" and I liked it because of the writing-style...very pessimistic and sad but not as pessimistic as 1984 though.

Anyway,I didn't understand who the Marthas are and the Aunts and the Eyes and Angels.I've got a rude idea about them but I don't exactly understand what they are for.Can anyone explain it to me? :)

And what does she criticize exactly with this book?It is a distopia and thus criticizing but what exactly?

Religious fundamentalism or the oppression of women, or both?Maybe also totalitarian states?or religion as such?

[RedGeorge]

I thought this book was great when I first read it, but having to take an exam on it last year kind of spoiled the experience... in response to Ligeia, if I remember rightly Marthas were general housekeepers, Aunts trained and looked after Handmaids, the Eyes were the secret police force (bit like the Thought Police) and Angels were high-ranking members of the Gilead army.

She criticizes oppression of women and totalitarian states for sure, but there's also a call to other feminists not to get too carried away. Supposedly in the early 80s a number of feminist groups were allying themselves with far-right groups that shared similar views on what should happen to rapists (i.e. death). It is interesting to note that the society in the book is highly oppressive, but is run mainly by women, and men are presented as generally being quit weak. What Atwood shows is an ultra-conservative feminist society, and according to her we are suppoed to be wary of such a thing.

Phew! It's been a long time since I read it, but I might have to dig all my old notes out and see what other concepts we looked at in English classes...

[Janus]

It is interesting to note that the society in the book is highly oppressive, but is run mainly by women, and men are presented as generally being quit weak.

Gilead uses women such as the Aunts to enforce the laws upon other women. The positions of power are held by the Commanders who are male. Lower ranking females were dominated by those of higher rank but even the Wives are subordinate to their husbands.

[Ligeia]

So the commanders are the ones with the highest rank?

I still wonder how Gilead developed...it weren't women who build this society since women's accounts were deleted and they became all desemployed,am I wrong?

And another question : is the red centre some kind of big house for all the handmaidens who still aren't owned by someone?

And it seems to me that the world around Gilead is still the same except the continent America which seems to be in war ...there isn&#39;t much information about this war or did I understand this issue wrong? <_<

[RedGeorge]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 24 2006, 01:17 AM

It is interesting to note that the society in the book is highly oppressive, but is run mainly by women, and men are presented as generally being quit weak.

Gilead uses women such as the Aunts to enforce the laws upon other women. The positions of power are held by the Commanders who are male. Lower ranking females were dominated by those of higher rank but even the Wives are subordinate to their husbands.
Fair point. As I said, I haven&#39;t read it for quite some time.

[Janus]

So the commanders are the ones with the highest rank?
Yes.

I still wonder how Gilead developed
A fundamentalist group assasinates the president, vice president, and all of Congress (that still leaves the other members of the succession list) in a coup that Commander Fred plays a role in.

And another question : is the red centre some kind of big house for all the handmaidens who still aren&#39;t owned by someone?
Yes, the purpose of the center is to indoctrinate and prepare future handmaids.

And it seems to me that the world around Gilead is still the same except the continent America which seems to be in war ...there isn&#39;t much information about this war or did I understand this issue wrong?
There isn&#39;t and the information that is given comes through government news so it may not be factual. Gilead is only a small part of the former US and is constantly at war with other groups.

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:36 AM

There isn&#39;t and the information that is given comes through government news so it may not be factual. Gilead is only a small part of the former US and is constantly at war with other groups.
Thank you,

I haven&#39;t thought about this issue:The information may not be factual.

As far as I remember,they said central america was under control of the Libertheos,intresting,that may be the liberation theologists´group.

But I think this lag of information quite creates the right and realisitc atmosphere for the story,since you,too,as a reader,see that the protagonist has no chances to be informed,so you can&#39;t be ,too.