Margaret Atwood
I don’t have much to say about The Handmaid’s Tale at this point. I read it when it came out, but I’m going to have to re-read it this summer.
But here’s a lecture that Atwood gave in which she discusses how she became a writer. You may find it interesting.
July 10, 2006 at 11:12 am
The Handmaid’s Tale reminds me of 1984, except that the government is based on religion. The society depicted in the book is incredibly disturbing and although I doubt America would ever reach such a point , The Handmaid’s Tale does make you think. America was founded on the belief of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. Nevertheless, religion is becoming increasingly prevalent as a driving force in American politics and culture. During the debate over embryonic stem cell research, for example, many congressmen cited passages from the bible as arguments against the use of embryonic stem cells in research, arguing it was “morally wrong.” But is it really that wrong to use a microscopic clump of 8-32 cells to better the lives of millions of sick human beings who are already suffering ?
July 10, 2006 at 11:23 am
I’m still not very far in The Handmaid’s Tale. There’s a bit of irony in the book that is almost humerous. Serena Joy’s situation is particulary ironic. The main character notes how in the past, Serena Joy would travel the country, preaching about the sanctitiy of the home and familiy and the responsibilty of women to stay at home. However, she now finds herself in the position of the dutiful wife, and she dosen’t seem to enjoy it one bit.
(although a lot of her displeasure is obiviously also caused by the handmaids)
July 11, 2006 at 11:46 pm
I just finished The Handmaid’s Tale last night. At first i wasn’t sure if I liked it, but then I found myself really interested and wanting to read it. I agree with Leah in saying that the society they describe in the book is extremely disturbing, but really interesting. Although I know the US will never reach a point like that (at least I hope not), this book did make me realize that men do have certain advantages over women. No one of course likes to admit to this, but in reality, men are given more leadership roles then women. And after the Commander saying that the men did it because they were merely bored, I became even more upset by that fact.
Although as the main character began to take risks in seeing Nick, I was much more pleased because she wasn’t allowing the Commander to rule her life. It just goes to show that sometimes you have to do things for yourself, and not let other people live your life for you.
July 13, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Melissa makes a good point even in our modern society, men do have some advantages over women.
However, I do not think that the men in the handmaid’s tale overthrew the government on a mere whim. The “historical notes” (more like an epilogue-sorry I can’t spell-) and Offred’s observations point to a series of natural and man-made disasters, a severe population decline, and the loss of traditional family values as the cause of growing discontent in America. This dissatisfaction led a radical group of idealists ( ok most were probably men) to overthrow the government and create a society based loosely off the bible-mainly the part about women being sinful and unequal to men etc…
Additionally I think it was this society, and not the commander, that was the main cause of repression in Offred’s life. As for Offred’s relationship with Nick, a large part of it was rebellion, but it was also something that she did purely out of need-she needed affection after many years of being denied a human touch.
July 17, 2006 at 2:56 pm
I haven’t finished The Handmaid’s Tale yet but I absolutely hate it so far. I think I’m prejudice against it because the first five paragraphs have no verbs. Does that bother anyone else or is it just me?!
Anyway, I do agree with Melissa and Leah that men have certain advantages that women don’t. However, that doesn’t mean that women are unequal to men. We have other attributes that make up for those we lack. Therefore I don’t think that society will ever become even remotely close to the society that Margaret Atwood described. Another thing; if infertility rates dropped to the point they were in the novel we have technology now that would enable us to make babies easily without things like “The ceremony” or rotating the handmaids around to try and get pregnant.
There was so much repression in this book. Mostly the repression fell on the women who were not aloud to read, wear what the wanted, talk to people, or even keep their own name. If my name was Offred and someone asked me my name I would lie. Even the women that weren’t handmaids were repressed. Serena Joy was confined to her house. It is obvious like Leah said that even though it was something she fought for it is not something she really wanted. She is always hobbling around and being bored. Cora and Rita are also repressed. They can’t even leave the house to get groceries if they want. Men are also being repressed. They aren’t even supposed to look at women’s faces let alone talk to them.
July 18, 2006 at 9:10 am
Sam brings up a great point. The amount of repression in this book was astounding. When I first started thinking about that, I thought that the Commander was the only one not being repressed. However, if you think about it, he too is dealing with repression in one way or another. He isn’t allowed to have close intimate relationships with any women, and is forced to sneak visits with Offred or sneak away to the city where he once took Offred. This is the closest the Commander or Offred come to any type of relationship and both appear to welcome it openly.
To me, if seems as though no one in this novel is truly happy either, and if that was the ultimate concern for the men, they failed. Not only did they ruin the lives of all the women, but I feel as though they haven’t accomplished much for themselves either. The Commander told Offred that they wanted to “change things up”, but it appears that there still isn’t satisfaction. I think one of the lessons being portrayed is that the only way you can reach ultimate happiness, is for everyone else around you to be happy. You can’t reach happiness by messing with the lives of others and thinking only of yourself. The men in this society have only further complicated their lives, and it will probably take some time to correct.
July 18, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Okay, I’m a little bit behind everyone, I just finished Handmaid…that was my first book.
And I was horribly disappointed. I finished it within two days. It wasn’t hard to read, and it kept a good pace, which I guess is a good thing. It just didn’t interest me at all.
I do agree with the point that Atwood was trying to make though: female oppression amd mistreatment. However, I think that in this country, the opression is more of a choice of the female and how she reacts to her society rather than goverment limitations or restrictions she has to deal with. I know in some ways women aren’t equal to men completely-but look at the advances that have been made in the US as to women’s rights. At least here in America a woman doesn’t have to worry about not being able to leave her house, not being able to get an education or have a job. In agreement with Leah, there is no way the United States will be able to reach the point of theocracy that the Republic of Gilead did.
This book reminded me of two things I’ve seen either in the news or read about (thank you, NBC Dateline).
1) Warren Jepps, a Mormon fundamentalist has actually started a theocratic town out in like Nevada or something. Basically, its a polygamist, male-run society that was really similar to that of Handmaid’s, but without the levels of rank. Anyway, the whole Dateline episode talked about this lady who left the cult and went into society and her struggle to get her children from her ex-husband. It was pretty crazy. A few pages into Handmaid, I was reminded of the society. The part that stuck out the most to me was the Ceremony: I strongly recall watching the episode on Dateline and hearing the woman recount her wedding night with her husband in the cult. That whole night, one of his other wives actually went to bed with them…sound familiar to Serena Joy and the Commander?
2) Recently in the news: women in Turkey who are persuaded into suicide as an “Honor Crime” to avoid putting shame on their family’s name. Kind of like how Ofglen killed herself to avoid the black van, the women of Turkey avoid prosecution or family shame and just kill themselves. As with a lot of middle eastern countries, these women aren’t allowed out in public without being fully covered (sound familiar) and can be publicly humiliated, gang raped, or killed as punishment for being seen with someone of a higher class. The wall hangings and Salvagings seemed all too similar to this to me.
It seemed like Atwood used a lot of these thoughts as ideas for creating Handmaid.
I know they are real things in this real world, but I don’t think you can use Handmaid as a “warning” as to what the United States will become. That’s what I disliked about the novel. If it was simply a novel about a messed up theocracy, I would’ve been okay with it. But the fact that it’s set to serve as a heads up to the United States, I don’t agree with. We aren’t a theocracy. We won’t be. People can live as they choose, take the roles that they choose to. Women exploit themselves just as often as they get educated and persue successful careers.
As far as the book, not only did it brush on opression and removal of personal freedoms, rights, and dignities, but it talked alot about human suffering, strength, and needs, which made it a little more personable and tolerable.
Like how Offred found a sort of refuge in Nick. Maybe she didn’t love him, maybe she was trickin around, but whatever, I get the point that we all need affection and she wanted something of her own and something she could want, not something that was required to her. So kudos, girl power Offred.
Also, even though this theocracy was all up on the Bible, I found a lot of irony in the club/whorehouse/hotel type deal Offred and Commander snuck off to. Kind of shows a bit of hypocrasy in everything-perhaps a stab at religion made by Atwood?
Okay, maybe I’m a little bit dense, but finally at the end of the book I figured out the deal on the names…Offred…Of Fred…
Point blank, this book can serve to women as a warning that opression can be more of a personal thing-you don’t need to let your life, let a man in it OWN YOU. Kind of like how Moira ran off, said she preferred her life to being owned by a commander. These handmaids had one purpose, granted by the government to do the deed and pop out a little kid. Now, I don’t think at any point the US will mandate something like that. Maybe some religion may do so, but hey…my philosophy on that, on life, on this country, stays true…it’s a personal choice thing, you have freedom to do so: if you don’t like it, get out.
So maybe I didn’t hate the book that much, because it made me make a lot of connections to things and hey, it got me thinking…which is usually a rare and painful occurance.
I just wish people would quit complaining about how the United States government is so opressive and so horrible…which makes me super excited to take on 1984.
Peace out.
July 19, 2006 at 2:10 am
I’m awesome at life, if you did not think that my last comment was extremely insightful, then you are an idiot. I rule.
I had an AIM conversation with some awesome kid at like 2:00 in the morning today, he’s a sexy beast, I want on him, he gave me all of the insight that I included in my previous comment.
Word.
July 19, 2006 at 2:14 am
That was a lie, that was Matt Gavin, disregard the former.
Last time I have someone proof read a post.
July 21, 2006 at 5:39 pm
I finished reading The Handmaid’s Tale a little while ago and have been putting off blogging like it is my job. Here goes…everything. The book started horribly. I hate knowing more information about a book just by reading the back cover. They did not even tell the reader her name was Offred until the book was almost over. However, I continued reading and found myself enveloped in the plot. I enjoyed reading The Handmaid’s Tale because it was a very easy read, but also because it started drawing me in. Then unexpectedly, it ended! I tend to be very critical of most books I read, hating 90% of them and the ending of The Handmaid’s Tale did it for me. Basically, I loved the middle and hated the beginning and end.
Now on to the content of the book…While I was reading I found myself disgusted, disturbed, and intrigued all at the same time. I, being the dork that I am, took notes on specific passages about how they made me feel and what I was thinking.
Pg. 43 “The heads are zeros.”
I was enlightened and almost moved by this passage. Ofglen and Offred were able to just stand at the wall and stare…no gagging, no tears, no nothing! It is visible in today’s society. We are desensitized to almost everything through books, magazines, video games, movies, television, the news, etc. We have witnessed so much violence and pain that we no longer see it as a threat nor graphically heinous. It has become normal for someone to be cut into little pieces, hung from walls, and killed in any way possible. The horrors of our world no longer faze us; they are simply taken in for a moment and disposed of the next.
Pg 44 “…their crimes are retroactive.”
Made me question: If a legal act of the past becomes a punishable crime today, then at what point can our actions that occurred in the past stay in the past. Does that mean that no action is legal when it is performed? Will the government always have that control, will they be able to come after anyone with any excuse. “You are under arrest because nearly a decade ago you were involved in a peace protest, and under new laws those are now illegal and we believe you may be a threat to the government because when you were a teenager you participated in one.” Come on, it is ridiculous there have to be limits.
Pg 45 the word ordinary and the paragraph on how this will al become ordinary
Everyone in the Republic of Gilead does what he or she says. No one steps out and tries to rebel against the carbon copying. Everyone just becomes one in a crowd of all the same people. It really made me take a step back and re-evaluate the lives we are living. No one is leading, we are all just following, and I realized just how vulnerable societies are.
Pg 51 passage were Offred took part in a magazine burning
Why are people disgusted and put off at the sight of the human form. I am not usually one to fight for pornography, but I will not lie the human body in its original form is art and is beautiful (just as long as it is done tastefully, I am not saying that all the images in pornographic works are beautiful). Sexual exploration has been turned into something shameful, thus we have XXX and NC-17.
Pg 57 “Gender treachery”
This passage evoked anger and hatred against the book. It is my favorite passage for that same reason. Persecution of GLBTQs is going on right now! People think that just because they do not understand or agree with his or her lifestyle think it is okay to hurt us mentally and physically. We hear it in the news everyday; Rev Phelps goes to another funeral picketing with signs “God Hates Fags,” “God Created IEDs,” etc. When will it stop, when will humans just like everyone else be given all the rights everyone else has. The law may not be doing the executing, but it sure as hell is not making a big enough effort to stop the hatred and put the offenders behind bars.
Pg 122-123 The Ceremony
While reading this passage I could feel the agony so strongly that I had to force myself to stop reading just to grasp onto the real world. Just the way she wrote with her tone and word choice was amazing, you felt like you were actually there (felt a little violated, finished reading and took a shower, no lie). Just the use of the word fucking managed to strip the entire passage of any passion, love, even lust. It became a duty, exactly what it was doomed to become.
Pg 225 “They blamed it on Islamic fantasies at the time…”
This was the final passage I took notes on, but it made me the most uncomfortable. Reading this passage felt like reading the daily headlines. To close for comfort, it reminded me all too much of 9/11 (the catastrophe) and the war on terrorism. Is it possible that Margaret Atwood was foreseeing the future?
(sorry it is rather lengthy)
July 21, 2006 at 11:58 pm
I finished A Handmaid’s Tale and I liked it less than the first time I blogged. Like Angela I started to find it more interesting by the middle but the ending killed it. It ended too short with a cliff hanger (kind of like Pirates of the Carribean 2). I don’t have anything as insightful as Alex so I’m not even going to try. Maybe later.
July 22, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Well, I’m still in the process of reading A Handmaid’s Tale. I can’t really tell if I like it or not. I’m about halfway through it, and there are things that are quite interesting in this story, but there are things that just, well, I don’t know how to describe them. I think the thing that interests me most about this story is the way that the whole society and government is based on religion. The whole society took a gigantic step (or leap) backwards, especially with the division between men and women. Actually, I was talking about this with my mom and sister, and we thought it was interesting how it was similar to the animal world. Only the alphas, or the strong males (the Commanders and higher) are allowed to breed, have the women. No one else is. This is like a lot of animal societies - think of wolves. There is the alpha males, and the other males are allowed to follow in the pack, but they must do everything based on the alpha.
I was (and still am) rather disgusted with the divisions between the women in A Handmaid’s Tale. Just the way it was set up is awful. The upper women sit around and look pretty on the man’s arm, the Handmaids are the breeders, and the Marthas do all the work around the house. This isn’t even including the Econowives, who are similar to the sub-par Proles in 1984. As I was reading, I frequently thought of a song from the musical Beauty and the Beast called Me, especially a few lines. The guy (Gaston) is singing “This equation, girl plus man/doesn’t help just you/on occasion, women can/have their uses too/Mainly to extend the family tree…We’ll be raising sons galore…You’ll be keeping house with pride/oh so gratified/that you are part of this idyllic scene” It keeps going, but those were the lines that really struck me. They reminded me a lot of this book, because the women really were reduced to simply keeping house, having sons, and being glad that they had a man.
One ironic thing that struck me as I read was the fact that the birth rate had decreased so drastically, yet no one was allowed to have children except a select few. It seems so paradoxical (is that a word?) that they’re pushing more births, but completely restricted who they’ll allow to have children. Anyways, I’ll come back once I’ve read more of the book, probably finished it. It’s interesting reading everyone else’s opinions, and how they feel about the different stories.
July 24, 2006 at 11:25 am
Susan made an interesting point about the society in the handmaid’s tale- it is incredibly primal. However, it isn’t just the Handmaids who can have children- the wives and the econowives are allowed to have them as well. That being said-the number of people allowed to reproduce is definitely limited, which seems a bit ironic and counter productive.
Also, I’ve mentioned this before but the sudden ending is slightly explained in the “historical notes.” In the historical notes, 200 years after Gilead, professors are discussing Offred’s story and Gileadean (is that right?) society. The professors point out that the tapes on which the Handmaid’s Tale were recorded were found at an excavation site in Bangor, Maine-which seems to be farther north than the area that most of the novel took place. ( this is sort of a spoiler) We can therefore assume that Offred made it to the underground female road, although it doessn’t say what happened to her from that point on. Additionally, the professors believe they identified Offred’s commander because among other things he had a stash of old banned magazines, his wife was formerly involved in religious broadcasts, and he was caught “housing a subversive” ( Nick?). If this “subversive” was indeed Nick, then he may have been part of Mayday and they did try to save Offred.
Angela’s comments on 1)the numbing of society and 2) the growing trend of complaicentcy ( sorry about spelling…
were frightening, but she made an excellent point. We aren’t affected by anything for very long any more, and when we are, we rarely react. It’s dangerous for such attitudes to spread, because it makes our country easy to take advantage of. In the Handmaid’s Tale Offred notes how people came in and killed everyone in the central government. Yet nobody protested against or questioned the new that government installed itself.
What would happen if our government was destroyed so quickly? Would we be to numb to fight back? And with the emphasis of religion in politics these days, maybe theocracy in America isn’t as impossible as it seems.
July 26, 2006 at 9:47 pm
I don’t want to be just another sheep in the flock but I totally agree with everyone’s points. They are very well thought out and expressed. However, one thing kind of gets to me. It was pointed out that women and men were no longer equal (obviously present through the whole book). Almost everyone that posted turned this into a negative and as a setback for the women’s rights. I sat down and thought about the whole concept…Women were forced to leave everything behind and become a thing with no assets to her name, but they were a type a royalty in a way. The way that they could not do anything for themselves and became the key to the future was reflective of royalty…they didn’t do anything for themselves in order to protect and preserve the delicate nature of the job he/she was elected to do. Without the women there would be no future. I think that the theory behind the movement was that if it was a woman’s only job then it would become sacred again and order would be restored and there would be a future. But yes it was totally wrong, disturbing, and ineffective. The US government needs fixing up (a lot actually) but we are not ready to become Gilead.
July 26, 2006 at 10:25 pm
I have a question that has been bugging me since I bought The Handmaid’s Tale….Why red? In the Scarlet Letter red was the color of sin and ironically a sin that was discovered because she had a child. When I think of red I see passion, romance, lust, love, etc…but the book had none of that. So I ask you why red?
July 29, 2006 at 12:31 am
Just a thought in response to Angela’s “why red”, I know the Handmaids were considered a “privileged group” because they were still fertle and whatnot.
Red was also considered a mark of honor, prestige, wealth, and social status in the days of yore. (I don’t really know when yore was, but I try to use this phrase whenever possible. For all I know, it was last week. But I’m feelin a 16-17th century European yore here). Also, red is a vibrant color and it seems like they had something noticable so they would be an object of jealousy or something that women on the society would look at and strive to be. So perhaps that was why they were red?
Also, I think it was a shot at the sinful nature of the color, and the fact that these women’s duties were horribly sinful, not for them but for the males and the society. I mean, they had the job and lived life with a purpose of having sex, to put it bluntly. And when I say job, I mean forced labor, because it’s not even like they were getting paid. So pretty much, the Handmaids were just something for the Commanders to thrust into…and pray for procreation. Which could be not so un-Biblical because the purpose was reproduction. But then they have to trick around with miscelleanous males to get pregnant.
So you’re in a Catch 22. You get screwed by your Commander, (HA I’m the queen of puns!) pray for pregnancy, procreate like a good little Housewive, or still get screwed by your Commander, pray for pregnancy, realize the guy is like NINETY and INCAPABLE of producing fertile sperm, do the deed with the doctor (or another male) pray for pregnancy, and if you’re not pregnant, get shipped away.
Or you can be the Commander and just have a ton of sex when you’re nearly physically inept to be doing so, pray you get her pregnant so she doesn’t get shipped off to an island, and then partake in random acts of sin and things of the ILLEGAL nature for fun.
Spell it for me.
S-I-N.
July 30, 2006 at 4:03 pm
I’m about a third of the way into it and it’s… weird. My take on it is that it was writtan in the present day and there is a severe religion war going on that has completely ripped apart all the progress women have made in society. I mean they aren’t even allowed to read for crying out loud! And all of their names have been changed to show which man they belong to - unbelievable!
So far it’s very descriptive of what Offred’s daily life is like, her surroundings, and a bit of what life used to be like. I find this to be a bit confusing when she goes back and forth and somewhat boring. I haven’t really seen what the actual plot of the book is yet- it’s just getting you ready for it at this point. I’ve reached the first sex scene and find it disturbing and utterly sad. That she has to lie in the Wife’s lap as the Commander “f****” her, as she so blatently puts it, is just sick and horrible. I’m sure as I read further this will all be explained and it’ll make more sense.
And what’s this thing with Nick… that ought to be interesting! At least it’s a fast read.
July 31, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Okay… I finished The Handmaid’s Tale about a week ago. I finished it in like two days. As I got deeper into the book, I found that I couldn’t put it down. The fact that their whole society and life was so different from ours made it interesting and compelling. Although I have to say that I didn’t like the ending at all. I expected another chapter and it just leaves you hanging.
Anyways, I couldn’t believe how the women are treated. I thought it was awful that the women were assigned roles and jobs. I definitely agree with Susan about how the women were divided into groups and were assigned certain tasks. It’s actually a bit disgusting. Actually, I was thinking the same thing about the whole birthing process too.
In the beginning I thought that only the Commanders were not oppressed and the only ones with privileges but after I read about Offred’s visits with the Commander I learned that even they were affected by the changes in their life. It also made the Commander seem more human, someone with feelings and emotions. In chapter 26, Offred says, “He was no longer a thing to me. It complicates”. It kind of changed the way I looked at his character because he was now a person and not just the Commander, yet I still couldn’t sympathize with him because he and the other Commanders still seemed to hold all of the authority and power.
However, I got to thinking that maybe it’s the women that really hold the power and the pressure. First, they are the ones that can have children. Because of the declining birth rate, everyone expects them to have children. Therefore, anyone that is fertile must become a handmaid. I think this is why the handmaids are so separated from the rest of society and must wear certain attire and follow different rules. Also, the special emphasis that this society places on the women (dress, customs, groups, rules, etc.) somehow seems to make the women the center of attention even though they seem to be treated worse than men.
I was really happy that Offred began taking risks. She learned that she couldn’t go on living without any focus on herself and what she wanted. By the way, is it me, or was there a lot of references to suicide? (no glass on pictures, shatter-proof windows, no sharp items…
July 31, 2006 at 10:41 pm
I think a lot of the power given to the women in Gilead is negated by other circumstances they are forced to endure. (below)
They have no choice in terms of clothing. Even if its hot, they’re stuck in the long sleeved red dresses and the wings. The wings are really restrictive too- as Offred puts it “they prevent us from seeing and being seen.”
no choice but to stay home, be f*****, and knit. (to be blunt)
1) (btw I’m into listing things tonight…
2)the women’s salvagings and the Spies make it pretty clear that if women step out of line there will be consequenses.
3) they can’t read!
4)the ceremony-completely debasing
5)Being forced to walk with partners and being numbered like cattle ( the tattos reminded me of the ones put on the jews during the holocaust.)
6) If a woman can’t produce, she dies/ gets sent to the colonies.
7)No love-and no keeping the kids unless you’re a wife.
Also-fyi- the econwives and wives can also be fertile too. The commanders only get a Handmaid if the wife can’t produce. The Handmaids are women who were single/ in what the republic deemed illegal marriages/ had previous children/ and yeah, they’re fertile.
AS for the references to suicide-I think that was Attwood’s way of attempting to illustrate the how awful the situation truly was.
Change of topic: Given offred’s circumstances- I don’t think she had any other choice BUT to take risks. Its not as if she could decide to turn down the commander’s request for scrabble and a date-afterall, at the end of the day, she’s at his mercy. Furthermore-i’ve said this before- Offred didn’t see nick for the sake of taking risks. She discovered something with him -afffection - that she not only wanted, but needed. She describes “being with him is safety”- this, like affection , is something Offred hasn’t had in a long time and it drives her to risk her life to see Nick. I don’t think she has complete control over this impulse.
And now the color red–I think I’ll go for the ignominous meaning of red tonight. Towards the end ( i think its during the Prayvaganza) the Commander making the speech says ” “Woman, being decieved, was in transgression…she will be saved by childbearing.” This implies that women are sinners, and handmaid’s are the embodiment of the repenting sinner. They therefore wear red, because they have not yet completed their duty and saved themselves.
August 1, 2006 at 6:46 pm
I’m finally getting the details. At first it was really hard to find a definable plot line because Offred was describing everything in metaphorical phrases (actually she likes to talk about flowers and comparing things to them, considering the flowers are fertile and all that womenly stuff). She also kept going back and forth with flashbacks and her real life, which kind of got confusing.
But she is developing friendships, namely with the Commander. There seems to be nothing sexual going on (not talking about the Ceremonies that are required and meaningless); just two people in desperate need of real human connection and contact. The Commander is in fact just as lonely as Offred- he admits his wife and he have nothing in common and there is obviously no love between them. This direct and real human contact is immensely important for both of them.
And there still seems to be something with Nick- well he wants there to be something but Offred is still resistant at this point.
Obviously Moira is very important to Offred. She is her Offred’s one last hope. Moira was so different from the others she had a truly feminist and progressive mind. She was a rebel and proud to be different and independent, particularly independent from men. Offred obviously looked up to her and admired her. I’m not sure what happened to Moira– she was taken away I think, but where to and why? Offred is also clinging to the memories of her mother, Luke, and their daughter. She doesn’t know where they are or if they are even alive. This not knowing is tearing her apart- fear of the unknown comes back to haunt us. I would hate being in that position of not knowing about the ones I love. Every once and a while we as the readers get a glimpse of Offred’s past, before this mad takeover, when they were all together and safe and happy (happy without knowing they were happy, as she has mentioned on more than one occasion).
Finally I have an idea on what happened. The goverment was wiped out and a new group of poeple have taken over, reducing women to breeding status and giving men all the control and power. It’s like the 1800s and early 1900s again, but taken to a worse extreme. I just passed the point where Offred describes the beginning, how the women were all forced to leave their jobs, how they no longer have any access to their own money- because money means power and control- and how men once again are given the thrown to rule soceity. It’s quite disgusting and terrifying actually. I am very intersted to learn who has created this alternate world where women are treated like property once again and all of a sudden God is blasphemous and treacherous. I mean, this is still
America in this book but it has the restrictions and terrors of some of the Middle Eastern countries. Religion has always been a controversial subject, somewhat of a sore point, one that has raised hairs and started confrontations pretty much throughout the history of mankind. It has been taken to a whole new level in this book though, one I desperately hope will never actually reach America (and frankly I believe it won’t even though there sure are problems in our government). I’m sure there are similarities between this story and real Middle Eastern countries but honestly I’d rather not be horrified, terrified, and appalled by the daily happenings over there and so I do not keep up with the news. This may be ignorant but that doesn’t bother me.
Like I said Offred uses a lot of ornamental speech when describing situations and events. Being more of a surface reader I’m sure I’ve unknowingly missed many different symbolisms and references that are important to the book. I’ve only started to understand it more when Offred gives cold hard facts and a concrete plot line. It’s easier to follow, easier to understand, easier to process and think about.
August 2, 2006 at 11:07 am
Hey everyone, did you know that if you accidently hit the wrong key you lose everything you just spent the last ten minutes typing? And, even better, I don’t know exactly what key it was, so I may do it again! Hope everyone else is having a great summer. I’m just going to recap what i lost in a series of bullet points. The first couple are not critical, and I won’t spoil the ending because, frankly, the ending will be spoiled once you get there.
1. I am apparently the only guy who chose to read the Handmaid’s Tale first judging by the fact that it is now august and I am the first one to post something here.
2. It is hot. (A rather inconvenient truth, one might say)
3. Alex and Leah, plus anyone else who said it, are right. The United States will never reach the level of oppression that this book illustrates. People like Hilary Clinton and Condy Rice will see to that.
4. Alex isn’t the only one who was confused about the names. I couldn’t understand why everyone had Scandinavian sounding names for about 3/4 of the book, but now it is clear.
5. Women, mainly handmaids, are the worst off, although the Wives had to undergo some psychological stress what with their husbands trying to get other women pregnant to save the human race. Again, i don’t think the world will ever come to that, thanks again to Hilary.
6. Melissa brings up the point that the commanders suffered and what she said was bascially what i was going to say so you can read her comments. However, I will expand it just a little.
Men who weren’t commanders, such as Nick, had things pretty rough too. True, the commanders couldn’t have actual relationships with any of the women, but they at least had the Ceremony to give them a feeling of purpose. Remember, the point of this society was to save the human race because of declinng birthrates. I don’t think that polishing the commander’s car and getting Serena Joy stuff off the black market was going to make Nick feel like he mattered. In addition to this, the guards must have suffered too because of how seperate they were kept from the women. Maybe its just because i’m a guy, but that seems like a pretty tough way to have to live.
August 2, 2006 at 12:49 pm
I’m gonna go and agree with Rob and say you’re right, the Commanders had it rough too (read my rant on the sin).
Here, I’ll throw it out here.
HEY GILEAD…NOBODY LIKES YOU.
August 3, 2006 at 4:15 pm
I didn’t read all the previous comments because I haven’t finished the book yet, but I noticed some things. I agree with Erin that the book is weird, very weird. It’s also kind of funny, in a dark sort of way. The oppression of women in this book is terrible, absolutely terrible. I got very angry when they told the women who was raped that it was “her fault”. Please. The sex they described was horribly disgusting and I can’t imagine how that could be what God wanted. I’m still creeped about it, honestly.
I agree that it wasn’t easy for the men, either. They had no chances of contact with women, and their chances for friendship were limited, too. In fact, I cant think of anyone in this society who gains from this arrangement. Even the commanders are horribly lonely, and cant experience pleasure or passion with anyone. No one is happy, which makes me wonder why they would start this society in this first place. Even though there are some crazy religious right wingers out there, I still cant think of anyone who would want this society. Ok, maybe a few. Theres always a few.
Something I think needs to be mentioned more is the similarity of this society to the society of Saudi Arabia and other fundamentalist Muslim countries. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot be educated, and men and women cannot see each other in public. There are religious police who will stop anyone doing something “unholy”, like men and women holding hands. And you can forget about gay rights. Men in Saudi Arabia have absolute control over women and the country, and frequently abuse them unchallenged. The few women who have overcome their oppression have been shunned or jailed. I read about a female Saudi news anchor who was arrested and tortured for denouncing some religious edict. Plus, men have many many wives and probably use them for sex only, and frequently. I think Osama has like 57, but I could be wrong. And this is not fiction, and it is not speculation about the future, and it’s not hyperbole. It’s happening now, in Saudi Arabia and other fundamentalist countries. Just something to keep in mind.
August 3, 2006 at 9:42 pm
What a depressing and horrifying book. Seriously.
I don’t have much more to add from my last comment, seeing as I still feel the exact same way about it as I did before. Hard to understand, boring, hidden plot line, yadda yadda yadda.
But things seemed to get so much better for Offred (we never learned her real name! Does that bother anyone else?). She finally took risks because she finally realized that life wasn’t worth living without a little fun and excitement. The affair with the Commander proved useless and a failure (if there ever was a point to it anyway). It did get Offred out and about and she got to see Moira one last time. I think that was really important for Offred because it shows that she really does have human feelings and a desperate need for love and human connection. I mentioned these needs before, referring to the Commander and Offred not Moira, but as it turns out she finds what could have been love with Nick (I knew that would be the eventual thing all along. Who wants to be with this old dried up dude… come on.)
Offred finally has a sense of self by the end of the book. She is aware of her own feelings, whether they are what she “should” be feeling or not. She can now consciously (whoa spelling sorry) decide whether or not to act on these feelings as well. She acted on her feelings of lust/possible-love for Nick. She did not act on her feelings of hatred for Serena Joy. I think what awakened her was the “clubbing” experience, Moira’s story, the Commander’s feelings for her, and her feelings for Nick. And the Women’s Salvaging at the end really did it too. She told us and implied to the new Ofglen that she believed those executions were “unjust” and “brutal” (p 284). Obviously she knows this treatment of women is wrong; she is finally starting to act, or at least think, against it.
This book does end on a cliff hanger but quite frankly I don’t think I would read a sequel, if there ever was one. Does she end up safe and sound in a better place? Does she find her daughter? Luke? Her mother? Who knows, let that be left to the individual minds and imaginations of the reader.
August 3, 2006 at 10:34 pm
And by the way the Aunts seeme to think that this new totalitarian government is for the best because it protects women from violence, men, and desperate measures (prostitution for example). They failed miserably.
1. At the end, the Handmaids were allowed to beat up a man accused of rape (although he was actually guilty of the exact opposite. According to the first Ofglen, he was a member of MayDay, the organization that was trying to help women escape to other countries that were not under such bizarre and horrifying restrictions), thereby showing those horrifying crimes still do occur.
2. Men treat women probably even worse than before the creation of Gilead. Now that they have no rights and any reason for women to be respected has been taken away, men are free to treat women however they want– most often leading to meaningless, usually forced sex. Obviously.
3. Those kinds of clubs still exist. The Commander took Offred to one, made her dress up and act like a whore, and there were plenty of other women in the same position. Disgusting. Now that is the only way for women, well the Handmaids at least, to get out and, depending on your definition of this word, enjoy the world (or at least experience it without a sweltering red dress and obscuring white wings– how ridiculus by the way). Its also the only alternative to the Colonies; Moira had to face this decision.
Come on. How is this better for anyone of either gender and of any status. Love has all but dried up completely. Passion has been stamped out. Respect has flown out the window. All of the things that make life worth living, the things that actually define life, are restricted, illegal, punishable with death. I think that this is, symbolically, why the birth rates are declining so rapidly. Why let new humand be born if they are just going to live an unsatisfied, unreal, and pretty much cursed life. It’s a paradox, as Susan said. The fewer of all the qualities of life allowed, the faster the decline of the birth rate, which leads to heavier restriction of rules and increases in the “Ceremony”, which obliterates the qualities of life even more. And around and around we go.
Ps I knew that the Red Center was a university but I recently found out that it is actually Harvard (ok I admit I looked at SparkNotes for a bit of help). Weird. And totally ironic. Universities are a place for knowledge and defining a sense of self. That Harvard, of all universities, is the setting of this story goes to show how backwards and inside-out the world of Gilead is.
And in response to Angela’s red question- blood. Blood in violence, blood in women in a sexual sense, blood in life (childbirth and so on). I agree with the “Scarlet Letter” comparison, with sin as the link. Red equals sin in this case. (Again, thanks SparkNotes. It makes a lot of sense doesn’t it!)
And I also figured this out, this one on my own though. I found it confusing and I thought it was hard to find the plot because Offred told her story with emotions. Of course there were actions and facts but the basis of how she told this story was with her own emotions and how they affected her in the past and present. I’m too much of a concrete, left-brained person to enjoy a book written in this way.
I mentioned before that she used a lot of flower references and described various flowers and gardens a lot. After finishing the book, it was evident that she did this because they were one of the few symbols of hope and happiness left in her world. She was holding on to what seemed like the last straw to keep her going through the days.
August 4, 2006 at 11:28 pm
I THINK OFFRED’S NAME IS JUNE.
Ok-so I didn’t just come up with that off the top of my head…Although if anyone feels like naming Offred…that could get interesting…
Anyway-On page four of the book, Offred describes the Red center and meeting everyone etc. The exact quote is: “We learned to lipread, our heads flat on the beds, turned sideways, watching each other’s mouths. In this way we exchanged names, from bed to bed: Alma, Janine, Dolores, Moira, June. ”
Throughout the book we hear the names Alma, Janine, Dolores, and Moira mentioned-but Offred NEVER MENTIONS JUNE. Alma she sees while shopping, Janine’s the pregnant one, Dolores pees her pants while at the red center because the Aunts wouldn’t let her use the bathroom, and Moira is the best friend-but who is June? I doubt Offred (and Atwood) would just randomly throw in the name for the heck of it-all the others are included in her story. Also, the list of names she presents doesn’t seem to go in any order, except that June follows Moira. Maybe its because they were the closest/friends…
Of course, this could be my imagination running wild…it’s happened before-SO! Has anyone else found evidence to the contrary, i.e., Offred elaborating more on this June person?
Also-it was really great to hear some of the guy’s opinion’s-I think a lot of us girls see all the crap women have to put up with in Gilead and we get so outraged we completely forget the men!
August 7, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Well, I’m about half-way through the book and I’m constantly relating it to 1984 (which is probably because that’s the book I just read, but anyway…). I definitely agree that it’s a fast read, and I enjoy reading it more than I did 1984. What confused me at first was the lack of quotation marks, which makes it SO hard to tell when someone’s talking, but that’s okay! I like how Offred goes back and forth between her daydreams/memories and what’s really happening at the moment - it makes the story more interesting.
I find myself liking Cora a lot, mostly because she’s the only other woman in the house who is nice to Offred and doesn’t look down on her. Oh, and I keep waiting for the book to go into more detail about how the country ended up like that; I know it mentioned some wars in the beginning (like the Revolution in 1984).
For me this book is easier for me to relate to because of the whole religion factor. I found it interesting/scary that the Aunts had changed so many of the Bible verses in order to say exactly what they wanted to. It just goes to show that anything, even the Bible, can be taken out of context to make just about ANYTHING sound acceptable!
August 8, 2006 at 3:04 am
Very true with what Laura said that anything can be taken out of the Bible to bolster or oppose a point.
I think that’s the thing with literature slash society.
It’s either in agreeance with things and can accept that not all things in this world are evil and move on, or it can look for the wrongs, injustices and misdoings and complain about them. Or take things to extremes to serve as warnings.
I think this book was created to either serve as a warning to WOMEN to be strong and independent and not let themselves be over run by men and whatnot, or it was created as a slash at some of the testaments in the Bible.
Don’t forget, though, that one of the most amazing things about the Bible is that it is not only historical but it is very much open for INTERPRETATION. Much like faith, it is how you choose to see and interpret things, which is a large part of a religions tenants.
The end.
August 8, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Leah you are my love….So damn brilliant. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why she would name all these women and then not talk about jnust one! I totally agree with that whole entire post. I evidently am very bad at putting details together like that, but that was purely the work of one truly amazing individual. And going back to Laura’s comment…they definitely tweeked various passages from the Bible but don’t forget that they are being altered to make anything acceptable and UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!! (which is extremely prevalent in todays society)
Alex is very right in saying that one of the greatest things about the Bible, or any piece of literature, is the ways in which it can be interpretated.
Everything is being taken so literally! Whatever happened to metaphors and similes…a deeper meaning!!!(Sorry, everytime I think about the book I can’t help myself from refering to that oh so lovely, makes me want to shred the book passage about the “gender treachery”
Interpretation is what makes our society what it is. If we were forced to all think the same we would all be sitting in a hole accomplishing nothing
August 9, 2006 at 7:40 pm
I finished this book a couple of days ago and, oddly enough, I think it’s my favorite so far. I think it was a little easier to follow than 1984 at times and I liked how it was told from Offred’s point of view and incorporated her own memories and emotions into the story. It made her seem more like a real person rather than just a character in a book when she would refer to her previous life, which is described as our own time period. I think adding that kind of realistic detail is what makes the entire plot of the book seem more plausible. It also evokes more emotion in the reader and forces them to question whether that sort of thing could ever really happen in their society.
Something I didn’t quite understand, though, is why it was so completely necessary to maintain a large population size that they went to the extreme of tearing down the existing society to create a new one that didn’t even seem functional. Never in the book do we hear of a successfull pregnancy, which is the entire reason for the establishment of Gilead. Even when Ofwarren became pregnant, her child ended up being an “unbaby” and was discarded.
Another interesting thing I noticed was that Offred’s name actually has the word “red” in it. When I first read her name, before I knew the whole structure behind their naming system and that her commander’s name was Fred, I was pronouncing it Off-Red. Haha. I don’t know if that’s merely a coincidence, or if the author did that intentionally to emphasize the motif of the color red.
August 10, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Well, just finished the book. I liked it much better than 1984 (it was easier to read), but I thought it was a lot scarier to think about. I thought it was interesting that Chelsea mentioned the pregnancy thing, I had never thought about it but there never was a successful pregnancy mentioned. Even at the end, they made up a rape which “killed the baby too”. They went to extravagant lengths to keep this up. It also reminded me a lot of 1984. In the end the main characters had no choice but to give in to the demands and “ideals” of their new societies. At least The Handmaid’s Tale end with some chance of hope. We don’t know what happens to Offred or if it’s good or bad, while in 1984 Wintson is destroyed and left to lead the rest of his life just like everyone else, manipulated and alone.
All in all, I enjoyed The Handmaid’s Tale. It gave me more to think about at a more personal level, mostly because the story has a focus on the female perspective.
I thought it was cool that Chelsea mentioned that about Offred’s name because that’s exactly how I pronounced it too! I never thought about the symbolism of “red” being included in her name, if you can call it a name!
August 14, 2006 at 12:38 pm
I finally finished this book (actually, finished it a week ago but never blogged) and I, ironically, enjoyed the random, stream-of-consciousness style of it. It was unusual, but the way Atwood presents it makes it seem more real. I’d imagine in a situation like that, I’d have flashbacks similar to Offred’s (June’s? Leah made an interesting point). The book was similar to 1984 with the totalitarian society, though I doubt the similarity is a coincidence. I feel that 1984 was a more totalitarian society, however; there were still things Offred could get away with in this book. She couldn’t write or read, unfortunately, but she could have her own thoughts, and she was able to get away with quite a bit: the affair with Nick, the relationships with the Commander and Ofglen, and of course, her own thoughts. Unlike 1984, she wasn’t under constant surveillance.
I found the divvying up of society to be very interesting, as well as an important aspect of totalitarian societies. If all the women were on the same level, they would have bonded and perhaps sparked a counter-revolution. However, separating the women into Aunts, Wives, Handmaids, and Econowives created divisions and rivalries that ensured the men would retain their stranglehold on power. This is similar to 1984, with the outer party, inner party, and proles. Basically, if you feel you have more power than others, you will be less tempted to work with them. The Aunts in particular seemed to weld what little power they had over the other women instead of going after the leaders. The divisions created safety for the leaders. It is similar to the old mantra; united we stand, divided we fall.
The “growing trend of complacency” and Offred’s mother’s remark that “it’s truly amazing what some people can get used to with a little compensation” fascinated me. People will accept many situations in exchange for a few creature comforts. It never occurred to me before how true this was, and how truly scary it is. Eventually, the way you live becomes ordinary to you, even though it is not to other societies.
The distortion of the Bible is appalling, and unfortunately, nothing new. It is a very contradictory text that can be read in a variety of meanings. It can also be used to justify terrible, terrible things, like in Gilead. The subversion of women was justified using it, which I think is disgusting. Also, many of their doctrines distorted the Bible. In reciting the Beatitudes, they never mentioned that the meek “will inherit the Earth”. And I’m pretty sure “blessed are the silent” is not in the Bible, but they pretended it was to get the women to shut up. Also, I noticed the passage “From each according to her ability, to each according to his need”, which they claimed was from the Bible. It’s not, it’s a quote by Karl Marx, and both are supposed to be “his”. It’s interesting that the women are expected to give, while the men are expected to get.
One more thing. Gender treachery. This sort of treatment of gays is typical of this type of society, which was clearly very right wing. Anyone who did anything that wasn’t “condoned by God” would be punished. I see this happening, on a much much smaller scale of course, in today’s America. When I read this passage, I knew Angela would get really really mad and want to burn the book. I was delighted to be proven right. Angela, love ya, but you’re very predictable.
August 14, 2006 at 12:52 pm
As far as my opinion of the book, I found it very interesting, but, after awhile, lacking in direction. I wasn’t a big fan of the ending, either. While I felt for Offred’s situation and agreed with her passionate hatred of the new society, there wasn’t much beyond that. She never had a real plan for escape, and was always unable to act. Also, the complaining got old by page 200. I was anxious for something to happen, and nothing much really did. Jezebel’s didn’t come as much of a shock to me; the hypocrisy in these types of leaders is obvious. In this book, Scrabble and Jezebel’s; in 1984, the inner party with its fancy stuff. It’s just what happens. And beyond that, I was disappointed with the events in this book. The thoughts and flashbacks were good, but the present events lacked in excitement and urgency.
The Historical Notes were also not my favorite. The ending was confusing and irritating, and the Notes did clear that up a little. However, it came off as a cheap end to a powerful message. Still, it did provide interesting insight. I think Atwood was making a point with the Professor’s lack of real caring about the Gileadean people. All too often, we don’t really care enough about the plight of oppressed people in the world.
That being said, my least favorite passage of the book came at the end of the Notes. The Professor said that the Handmaid’s Tale was eloquent in talking about something else. This, to me, was a pompous attempt by Atwood to brag about her book. She clearly thought it was great, would still be talked about in 150 years, and that it was an eloquent masterpiece. Ok, maybe not. But it just annoyed me that she said her own book was eloquent.
August 16, 2006 at 1:15 am
Ok, so I just finished the book, and it’s my first posting concerning this book, off to a good start anyways. Like everyone else I found it an easy read. Unlike some of you however, I enjoyed this book. No, not because I’m an egotistical male who believe’s a woman’s place is in the kitchen, but because I just got involved in it than 1984. The character (Offred… June?) seemed alot more human than the main character in Orwell’s 1984. Although, I do not find it artsy, or creative, or romantic, not to put quotation marks around dialogue! I find it, ANNOYING, even if it does represent past tense.
In accordance to the general feeling of the book, it does seem rather far-fetched, the whole concept of women being used for reproduction and reproduction alone. But Hylas makes a good point, look at Saudi Arabia, this book could literally portray exactly the kind of situation going on there at this very moment.
Unfortunately, I am very tired, and am in need of a glass of water before I go to bed. So I’m going to go take care of that, then hit the hay. I’ll be sure to post more later. Goodnight.
August 16, 2006 at 9:05 pm
I thought the process in which the “radicals” of the new theocracy in the book overthrew the old, democratic government, was extremely interesting. They assassinate the President and demolish Congress, and suddenly everything this country was founded upon is wiped away, and the citizens are the pawns of those in control. And it’s terrifying to think about how easy it was for them to do so. Everything was controlled by computers (much like our world today), and everything belonging to the women of the time (and men, I guess, too) was lost.
Power is a main theme in this book, I figure.
Offred’s reaction to repression increased in boldness and intensity occurred suddenly, I think. First, with visiting the Commander at night. Then with Nick, and in agreeing to go along with Serena Joy’s proposal. These seem like little attempts at freedom; and they also allow her to stay sane. I think she, more than some, had a strong grasp on the realities of her situation. She seemed to me a strong character, aware of her actions and of the risks she was taking, and also of the absurdity (though she didn’t blantantly state her opinions) of this new society.
As for the symbolism present in this book, I gathered that for Offred (and as well as others in situations similar to hers) The Colonies signified fear; Moira hope and heroism; Nick indulgence and freedom; and The Commander rebellion and power.
Offred mentions reveling in the power she holds over the Commander after their visits. How to her he becomes a sort of school-boy. His high rank and position suddenly torn free of him.
Everyone is this society is repressed, much like in 1984. But also in 1984, there’s a counter-movement.
Jezebel’s exposes the hypocrisy of not only the Commander, but all those males in power — who were the ones to define the society they live in in the first place. Maybe it also shows that not even those in power are happy. The Commander to me seemed like a miserable man. His relationship with his wife was pathetic, nonexistent even. He needed to resort to his housewives for companionship. He didn’t seem, to me, an evil man. He respected Offred, I believe; at least, he was interested in her opinion on the society he helped build, and he acknowledged that she was an intelligent and well-educated human being. …He too was not free. He had to sneak around; and showed countless signs of being afraid of his wife. …Afraid of the consequences he would face if Serena discovered his relationship with Offred. Maybe he didn’t realize the true effects of the Gileadean society until it was already too late, and the tolitarian system, the repression, was already in place.
Margaret Atwood’s style of writing is, for me, really enjoyable. She notices things that most people overlook, and describes them beautifully. The color of red of the tulips in the garden, the hairs on the rope in front of Offred at the Salvaging, the arthritic hands of Serena Joy. Her prose is often more comparable to poetry, with the imagery and even verse. I enjoyed reading that lecture of hers that was linked in the above post. She uses humor in her writing and keeps the reader interested and involved.
She writes devoid of passion in the passages that don’t call for it (passion), and descriptively and passionately in the passages that do.
I found the end fitting. It’s a mystery what becomes of Offred, much like most of the book is a mystery in itself. No one knows what becomes of any of the characters, really. And it’s characteristic of the society they inhabit — everything is hidden, or unknown.
I thought Angela’s comment on de-sensitization in one of the above comments was interesting, and also extremely accurate. I guess it was perhaps necessary for the characters in the play to become disaffected by the goings-on in their society in order for them to stay sane, and survive. Offred even mentions a few times her distrust in the news. She couldn’t tell what was real and what was a lie. Or maybe she just choose to think this way in order to deny some of the horrorible acts constantly occurring in life.
On another note, I think the book -did- have passion, love, lust, and romance. These things were frequently on Offred’s mind. Her flashbacks to her past with Luke signified romance and passion; with her daughter love and committment; and with Nick, I guess, her lustful/carnal desires.
As for the Gileadean view of women they followed what they interpreted to be truth in their religion; in the Bible, woman, being the embodiment of Eve, was the original sinner. Thus, acts such as Ceremonies and Salvagings were justified — they cleansed the woman of their inherent sins.
Also, I had a thought in regards to the comparison of the this book to some of today’s cultures… In the book, surrounding countries, other than perhaps England and Canada, didn’t seem to want to become too involved in the culture of Gilead (or at least, they were never mentioned). Perhaps it’s like the differences in cultures we experience today. Other cultures can’t tell others that what they do or practice is wrong — at least, it’s considered politically incorrect by today’s standards. America doesn’t tell Saudi Arabia, or other similar Islamic/Middle Eastern countries, that how they live — how they treat women — is wrong. Merely because you can’t compare two cultures; well, you can, but it’s considered unjust to say one is better than another. Because many in the Middle East condemn American culture as well. So who’s right and who’s wrong? …What I mean to say is, countries in Atwood’s book may have realized that the governmental system in Gilead was, in -many- ways, wrong, but failed to take fixative measures because it’s considered… I don’t know, “imperialistic,” to impose one culture upon another. If that makes sense.
I think I’d probably read a sequel to this book. Though I admit, if it wasn’t required reading, I probably wouldn’t have read it. The subject-matter is not something that would normally jump out at me. Before I read it, the back cover reminded me of a feminist version of 1984.
Additionally, women seem to fail to relate to one another in this book. Rita looks down upon Offred and the other handmaids in the same way that the Wives do. But I wonder what any of these other woman would choose if given the handmaid’s situation. I would expect them to make hypocritical choices and choose what they condemn over a short-spanned, miserable life at the Colonies.
Maybe the fact that this book is written in first-person is the reason as to why I find this book more appealing than 1984. Of course, you are told the emotions and thoughts of Winston, but it’s not the same as a character relaying the plot in his/her own words. And in 1984 Winston seems to be just that — a -character.-
It was interesting how indifferent the professor in the Historical Notes was in discussing the Republic of Gilead. The entire time I read it I was thinking, “Is this how historians will talk about us and our time period in 150, 200 years?” I found it depressing. And I found myself rushing through the Historical Notes; they were wordy & I wanted the book to be over with. And I had in a way already expected that sort of an ending.
And it was painfully ironic how just as Offred decided to give up her “sinful” ways after learning about Ofglen’s sacrifice, she gets caught by the Commander’s wife, and no longer has the choice to return to her previously innocent life.
—
…Anyway, I wrote this as I was reading everyone’s comments, and I failed to re-read it. …So I apologize if this too (like my other one) sounds pretentious & doesn’t make sense. Laters.
August 17, 2006 at 8:57 pm
The Handmaid’s Tale was, to say the least, interesting. I could not stop reading it. I think I was so intrigued by it because of how different the society of the Republic of Gilead from that of the United States. At the same time that I was intrigued, I was also disturbed. Some of their ways just didn’t make sense to me.
I found some similarities between 1984 and The Handmaid’s Tale. For example, both societies are very regimented and organized. However, religion is a very important base of the Gileadean society.
One of the first things that got to me about this book was the part where Offred and Ofglen come accross Japanese tourists and they ask whether the women are happy. I quote from the book, “But sometimes it’s as dangerous not to speak. ‘Yes, we are very happy,’ I murmur. I have to say something. What else can I say?” (29). This quote upset me, because at that moment, I realized these women are really not happy, and they are versed in what is the right thing to say. They have to lie, because they can’t even voice their own opinions.
As I was saying before, I couldn’t stop reading this book. I actually finished it in less than a day. I wanted to read more about their society and also find out what would happen with Offred. The ending was kind of a letdown, only because I thought a lot could be added.
Something I didn’t like in the society was the way women were treated, especially the handmaids. They were literally disposable- if they couldn’t get pregnant, they would be discarded. The women were treated so poorly. There were so many laws that ruled their lives, that said what they were to wear, which was oppressive enough- veils and wings to cover their hair and faces, long dresses and stockings to cover their bodies, even in the summer. Not to mention that they could not read or write, and they were expected to say certain things. Every part of their lives were controlled. One of the worse things of the Handmaid’s circumstances was that they could never experience love or have a family. Their job was to have babies for their Commander and his wife.
Something else that shocked me was the Ceremony. I couldn’t believe first that there would be a job needed as a “handmaid”. Then, that the Handmaids employer (Commander’s wife) was there during the Ceremony. I have to say that I think the Handmaid’s job is a dirty, violating one.
What also upset me was the way the Commander treated Offred and expected her to do whatever he wished her to do. He had control over her, after all he was the Commander. Oh, and the names of the Handmaids- Offred, Of Fred. It’s like the handmaids were property, which I guess they kind of were. That totally makes me angry.
When Offred defied her Commander by sneaking her visits with Nick, I was happy for her. She deserved to have something meaningful in her life, considering what happened to her- her family was taken away from her.
Another similarity I found between 1984 and The Handmaid’s Tale was between the main characters, Woinston and Offred. First, they could both remember a time when things were different. Secondly, they both believed in an underground, secret resistance. In fact, Offred says, “I believe in the resistance as I believe there can be no light without shadow; or rather, no shadow unless there is also light” (105). Also, in the beginning they both opposed their circumstances, but as time went on, they both changed their minds- Winston finally saying he loved Big Brother, and Offred finally admitting, “The fact is that I no longer want to leave, escape, cross the border to freedom. I want to be here, with Nick, where I can get at him” (271).
That gets to the thing with NIck. I don’t think it was an act of rebellion. But I do think she may have seen it as that (because she was betraying Luke), along with a need for affection, which is what I see it as. After all, she has been denied human touch, affection, and personal relationships. I think she needed Nick.
Back to the women issue. At the same time that I think the women are being oppressed, I also agree with the other comments about how the Handmaids really had the power. After all, they are the ones that can have children in a society where birthrates are dwindling. I never thought of that initially as I was reading the book, but it does make sense. Although I also agree with Leah, that a lot of their power is negated by the conditions thay are forced into.
OK, I think I’ll end this thing now. I have a feeling it’s getting a little long now!
August 18, 2006 at 12:24 am
Okay, I guess I’m a late poster, so these are mostly just my general comments and reactions to the book/other people’s posts.
This is the last book I read, and although I personally liked 1984 the best (idk, it just seems way more plausible than this one), i think the Handmaid’s Tale was by far the most shocking and intriguing of the three. It was weird because I found the first half or so of the book absolutely disgusting and ridiculous. Some of her descriptions, like the birth for one…and then others having to do with the female body, pretty much grossed the hell out of me. It also reminded me of the crappy feminist movies you find on the lifetime channel, for some reason.
As I got into the second half, though, the plot thickened and I really began to enjoy reading it. Much quicker read than 1984. Some people mentioned that they really hated the brief ending and use of fake historical notes as an epilogue–I personally thought it was a pretty cool and original way to end the book (I’ll admit that the notes were too lengthy, though). I think it’s fitting that we’re left not knowing what became of Offred or her family. The book is supposed to be unsettling, and the ending emphasizes how Gileadean society destroys the individual–Offred is left only with memories to account for her past, and her life in repression causes her to have a very uncertain future (the possibility of handmaids being sent to the Colonies, the risks she took with Nick and Commander, the reliability of the Mayday network, the mysteriousness of the Eyes, etc.)
Also, I thought the historical notes were interesting because they reminded me of the way we learn about and study historical phenomena. The way the professors were describing Offred’s tapes seemed similar to things like autobiographies of survivors of the holocaust, slaves that traveled the Underground Railroad, etc.–personal accounts from shocking points in history. To me it made the book a lot more futuristic/sci-fi-ish.
In one of his posts, Steve was talking about the similarities of Giladean society to a lot of societies in the present-day Middle East, which also jumped out at me while I was reading. I found it strange how we consider that section of the world to be everything we’re not, completely dissassociated…the enemy…& yet in the book, Atwood is prescribing a future for our country that is freakishly similar to these societies. It’s just weird because we never think about America possibly reaching a point like that. Although Offred’s description of the revolution was vaguely reminiscent of the immediate post-9/11 times (”…the army declared a state of emergency. They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics, at the time…that was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary.”), which is kind of like the colored terror alert meters, and the Patriot Act, and stuff….I agree with a lot of people in that I can’t picture our country ever turning into an repressive theocracy or totalitarian government, or anything nearly as severe as Gilead.
As for the Red thing, I immediately connected it with blood and life: Handmaids are the givers of life, and so they wear red. None of the other meanings ppl offered (sin, prestige, etc.) ever even occured to me, and they make a lot of sense. One color can be interpreted in soooo many ways…it’s craziness.
Unlike Angela and Leah, I interpreted Offred and Ofglen’s unemotional reaction to the bodies on the wall not as a representation of desensitized society (like violent video games and t.v. and stuff), but as an illustration of the emotional state they were forced into. With their families taken away, their pasts destroyed, their liberties revoked, and every inch of their lives controlled by fear…their spirits are completely defeated. Like, they’ve already experienced so many tragedies and scarring experiences that it’s impossible to squeeze any more anguish from them.
This is like what Ashley was saying about the numerous references to suicide made in the book. 1984 also had a lot, I think Winston talked about how their rooms are also lacking anything that could be used as a potential weapon; then in Hedda Gabler, both Hedda and Lovborg commit suicide (i hope everyone read it already, if you didn’t and I just ruined it…then I’m a jerk and I apologize). I think the general reason for all the references is just that people in such crappy circumstances are likely to kill themselves.
K well I’m extremely sick of typing for now…so I’ll finish posting later…hopefully I don’t become too lazy to do so.
August 19, 2006 at 3:08 pm
One thing that really bothered me while reading this was what did the government do to rebels like Moira? I mean, to be a good handmaid, you had to surrender almost everything about yourself like Offred did. She lost her daughter, Luke, her mother, and countless freedoms and rights such as the ability to read, write, and love. Throughought the whole book I kept thinking What if 1984’s Winston was a female in this society and refused to conform? Does the government seriously kidnap ALL the non-conformists in the black vans and kill them or brainwash them like in 1984? This would be, in my opinion, nearly impossible (one thing I found hard to believe about 1984). But my questioned was answered towards the end of Handmaid when Commander took Offred to that underground world of the past. I found this solution to be much more sensible and plausible which then made this story more believable.
I mean, If I was a commander, I would want to get away from that bizarre world and get a taste of how things used to be once in a while.
It’s a win-win for everyone. The Commanders can come party if they get bored, the rebels and non-conformist women have a place to keep lifestyles. I thought it was kind of cool.
However, It’s definately not a win scenario for the handmaids and wives. What can you do?
August 20, 2006 at 4:30 pm
*i posted my thing about Handmaids tale in the first blog…and i thought it was long until i got to this blog and saw that everyone typed novels…very very long novels…
anyways this is what i had typed in the other…felt like joining the crowd here…*
so i’ve finally decided to attempt this whole blog thing…unlike the majority of you as it seems…i didn’t start with 1984…or hedda gabler for that matter…i started with A Handmaids Tale…yes i like to step out of the box. my sister, however, read 1984…no not for me…just for her own self satisfaction…*(keep in mind this was in the first blog…where everyones thing was about 1984)*
anyways i actually liked A Handmaids Tale…well at least at the end i did…well no not at the end.
Now i’m not making sense….ok…i didn’t find this book to be the typical summer reading book where the vocabulary used is entirely too extensive for anyone with an averaged sized brain to comprehend. It was a good book.
There were parts where i found myself utterly confused. Actually during the majority of it i was just trying to figure out the time period the book was set in! But once i got past that it turned out to be an easy read.
I imagine the guys probably had a harder time reading this than the girls. Not to be sexist or anything but the story was told from a woman’s perspective. This was HER story…and she mentioned lots about the trials and tribulations of being a female…i can’t imagine the guys were exactly thrilled at reading those parts.
But as much as i enjoyed reading this book…i hated the ending. HATED IT!. what a cruel cliffhanger. and its not even a cliffhanger…this is not a trilogy…there is no volume 2, no second book to explain what happened to our offred. and we never found out her real name…that really bothered me.
Yeah i was annoyed. i want to know what happens to her…does she find luke? her daughter? what about nick? what happened to him?
And the fact that everyone was so mad because she “violated state secrets” when she really didn’t irked me. She did her fair share of sinning and rule breaking but that wasn’t one of them!!
Anyways, it was a good bok, and the fac t that i’m so desperate to find out what happens tells you i got into it.
I’m gonna start 1984 tonight…hopefully finish by wednesday…then start hedda gabler…and then once i finish that move on to my ap euro books…o boy. a distant mirror..its killing me.
*and now i’m adding on….the whole male dominated society thing in this book–wasn’t too fond of it. or the fact that the only thing anyone cared about was procreation… why anyone would want to have a baby and raise it in that kind of society is beyond me.
and throughout the whole thing i was wondering how anyone was able to be a commander….what got you into that kind of role..and how did other men end up as drivers…or whatever else there was to do.
i never really decided whether i trusted the commander…i couldnt figure him out…
and by having a commander as a husband thats how you avoid being a handmaid…it was all really complicated…and confusing…and interesting..i guess.
i did like it…but theres a lot of questions id like to have answered before i can really make any judgements. *
August 21, 2006 at 2:01 pm
I agree with Alyssa about the book being confusing at times, but by the end I think I had it mostly figured out. Anyway, what depressed me about the “male dominated society” that Alyssa mentioned was the complete lack of hope that most of the handmaids (and some of the wives) had. It was really depressing at times.
And about the ending…I can appreciate the importance of allowing the reader to decide what happens to Offred. It adds to the effect of questioning and considering the messed up society that it had become. BUT, I personally would have rathered that Atwood just told us what happened to her. That’s just the way I am though.
August 21, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Well I’m very undecided on pretty much everything in The Handmaid’s Tale. I didn’t particularly enjoy reading the book, but I didn’t despise it either. I thought 1984 was a much more interesting and intriguing world compared to that of the Republic of Gilead. But the actual idea of the novel is interesting. What would happen if the human race was becoming extinct? What measures would the government take to stop the decline in life? Would there still be such things as freedom of speech or equal rights for both sexes? There are a lot of unknowns here, but I do think Margaret Atwood created this fictional world very well.
The book did leave me with some questions. For instance, how did the Commander become, the Commander? Like how did everyone get their positions in society? (Obviously I understand how the handmaids did but what about everyone else?) Why couldn’t Luke become a commander? Another thing…how did the government not know about the underground “club” that the commander brought Offred to? And if they did know then why wouldn’t they do anything about it? Aren’t they breaking laws or committing sins or something punishable like that?
I did find some connections and links between this novel and George Orwell’s 1984. In The Handmaid’s Tale, the white eye reminded me of Big Brother. The way the government closely watched and regulated everyone was similar. Both novels had teams of mysterious “commandos” that would come in a whisk away the evildoers. Crimes were publicly punished, there were rumors of underground rebellions, remembrances of past times and both main characters had secret affairs against the wishes of the government. Just little things like that came to mind after finishing both books.
One thing that I did find odd is that there are like eight chapters titled night. Come on Atwood, be a little more creative I think you can handle it.
August 21, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Kudos to Leah for figuring out the name thing. That bothered me while i read the book and becuase we never found out what it was it made thew ending even worse, whcih was hard to do.
August 22, 2006 at 12:24 pm
So yeah..i didn’t read the majority of these posts because…well they are way too long and i’m not very patient…but i did read Mr. Hogans because his was petite…and then i scrolled up to Leah’s and i would also like to give Kudos to her…that’s very impressive…semi frightening that you were actually able to figure that out…but still impressive.
I don’t pay that much attention to detail…probably should huh?
Well anyways thank you leah for figuring that out (i’m assuming your right because no one has contradicted to you and i can’t find evidence against it myself) because that was one of the things that bothered me most about this book…
So yeah good job! :~)
August 22, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Wow! I have been putting off blogging this entire summer and I wish I hadn’t because now I’m overwhelmed! How can you people say so much! Alex, that was very insightful. I wish I could top it. Leah, you’re a genius and that speaks for itself.
So what do I have to say about the Handmaid’s Tale? I kinda liked it. Everyone kept telling me it was horrible but I think in some parts it was so appalling that it made it interesting. I liked how the story was portrayed as if it were today because it makes you put yourself in the handmaid’s shoes and start to feel bad about what they have to go through. It hits home that way and becomes real. Like when Offred was going to the market and she said it was sundress and flip flop weather, I was like AGH! FUN! It was easier to relate the book to yourself that way.
For example, the Ceremony… At first I was like wow what a boring ceremony, k wait for the commander to get there for an hour, watch the news and then read the bible. The whole time I was thinking “their knees must hurt from kneeling that long!” but I realized that was the least of their problems by that point. Then it’s like BAM! The rrreeaalll ceremony and you can’t stop reading because you can’t believe what Atwood is writing about is what she is really writing. Who thinks of things like that? Sick mind but she wrote a best seller so I guess something was right! But when the Commander was attempting to impregnate Offred and she couldn’t find a word to describe the event because it was neither intimate nor pleasurable and then she just closed her eyes to think of the writings inside her closet I thought that was so horrible because there was nothing those women could do about their present situation. Having a baby wasn’t fun anymore. It wasn’t like whoo! Baby shower next week! It became a duty. Offred was merely an object to the Commander. She was only there to have a baby and once she had the baby and it was healthy, there was no more use for her. I think that’s sad because they couldn’t even take care of their baby afterward. They had to give it to Serena Joy.
Also, when Offred had to take part in all those ceremonies she had said she felt like she was betraying Luke (I don’t know why because she was an adulteress to begin with and she seemed to have no problem doing the big deed with Nick but whatever). That’s sad because it was society and this new way of life that was so different and making the handmaids feel like they were doing something wrong. Like when the aunts told the handmaids it was their fault they were raped because they dressed in a provocative manner, which led the men on. It makes sense I guess and I kind of re- evaluated my opinion on that but then I was like no! That’s a bad thing and that was not their fault. The book was making me change my mind too! Sneaky Atwood! Sneaky!
Also (I’m trying to make this lengthy) like mostly everyone else, I could relate this book to 1984 a lot and I’m glad I read that first to a.) get it out of the way and b.) to help me better understand this book. Both books had secret societies if you will, in 1984 there was Big Brother and in The Handmaid’s Tale there was that one that Offglen was telling Offred about when they went for their walk past the Wall (ew!). Mayday was their codeword, which I don’t get so if anyone else does ring that by my way.
But due to those “secret societies” it’s amazing to see how in two environments where there has been so much change that one might feel alone, there are always those few people that stand by their morals and beliefs and try to find the others that have the same beliefs as they do. Offglen was already a part of that Mayday group and I’m sure that the feeling of knowing that you aren’t alone is comforting. There was so much that the handmaids had to go through so for them to be able to go against the law and try to form a somewhat secret society amongst the other handmaids kind of proved to be a sort of support system, which is what they needed at a time like that.
Ok, I’ll touch more on this book later. That’s enough for now.
August 23, 2006 at 12:31 am
In a way, I see A Handmaid’s Tale being slightly more plausable than 1984, only because I’m able to see it as a reflection and not as a cloud on the horrizon. I mean, if you think about it, alot of what went on in the book, happened centuries ago. I mean, in the age of the Puritans, that was pretty much how women lived. You lived, you reproduced, then you knitted things… little things. I mean, you didn’t become a handmaid so to speak, but aside from a cooking an cleaning machine, you were a sex-slave. God was everywhere too. All things were done for God, in God’s name, just like in A Handmaid’s Tale.
Well, that’s about all I have to say at the moment, I’m simply to tired to continue one. Maybe tomorrow perhaps. Goodnight folks.
August 23, 2006 at 5:20 am
So I just finished this book, I’m kind of an insomniac, and in general I’ll say it was good. While I felt the world of Orwell’s 1984 more interesting Atwood’s story seems more plausible. It would make more sense to only have to try to oppress parts of the population, return to more of an oligarchy than a democratic government. The 1984 world where there is total oppression was a bit of a stretch the biggest thing for me in this book was trying to stay on task, I mean honestly give me a book about sex slaves and expect my mind not to wander, that’s asking a lot.
At times I found this book to be extremely hard to read, especially the times when Offred/June thinks back to her time in the Red Center. When men oppress women it bothers me but when women do it to each other as the Aunts did to these women for some reason it just is worse in my mind. I tried to read it and be supportive of a male dominated society (sarcasm for those who don’t know me, I make sexist jokes from time to time) the pain each class of women go through is excruciating to read. The wives suffer the indignity of having a handmaid sleep with their husband; the handmaids have to sleep with the wives’ husbands.
All in all the men have it much better off. In earlier posts people have tried to say that men in this book are oppressed as well, and while that may be true to some effect Offred/June points out near the beginning of the book that the guardians have a chance to get promoted to angels which can then be assigned wives and from there they can achieve the rank of commander. This little possibility for improvement separates the levels of oppression. Women are given to men to be wives or assigned to be handmaids. The only improvement in status comes when the man she is assigned is given a promotion, their entire world revolves around men. Not saying it’s a bad thing (again with the sarcasm, I’ll stop being a sexist bastard now honest). Imagine being stuck where there is no hope for improvement, even when the handmaids do manage to give birth to a baby, not to be confused with an unbaby; they only get the comfort of knowing they can never be sent to the Colonies. They still must move from commander house to commander house.
I struggled with this book for a couple reasons; 1) it made me think too much, about the situation in our country as well as countries around the world where we know how bad some women are oppressed. And I don’t like to think 2) I like women too much 3) I can’t imagine any man trying to justify something like Offred/June’s commander did while she visited him in his office. It’s better now because every woman gets a man no matter what she looks like. Well some women prefer not to have a man at all, I mean we suck (see I can be sexist both ways, plus this one is much funnier). The worst thing is that men do try to justify the mistreatment of women in today’s world
The big thing for me was how perfectly vague the ending was, it was the ending that really sealed me in to liking the book. Atwood leaves the reader in the perfect mix of confusion and outrage, for some reason that really appealed to me in this book. On top of that the historical notes at the end of the book just shine a little light on the most prevailing questions. I guess the biggest thing for me is that this kind of ending justifies my feelings of confusion which is always nice.
Sorry if it offended anyone I really didn’t mean it, I try to be funny.
August 23, 2006 at 7:38 am
I’m pretty sure i used wives’, which made no sense. Eh you can’t win ‘em all.
August 23, 2006 at 10:46 am
Offred’s real name ws June? I must have missed that.
And another thing, I was totally excited for a new romance when the commander invited JUNE to his room (how did she not get caught in all seriousness? Wasn’t Serena’s room like right next to his?) but then all he asked her to do was play Scrabble. I was like AW! COME ON! but then I thought about it and I was like ok ok. This is a priveledge for her. blah blah blah. I mean coming from someone who hates Scrabble… unless it is played in Spanish. That was a favorite past time. I never realized how much we take things like that for grated tho. Being able to read and write. Putting on lotion. That would be the day that I went and put butter on my face. Wouldn’t that give you pimples? It’s greasy. ugh! I’m glad she started using the commander though. It was like irony. She used him for lotion and he used her for a companion. What a vicious cycle. I love it!
August 23, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Havn’t posted in a couple weeks. Something I noticed as I read this book was how miserable everyone in Gilead was - both men and women. At first, I thought that men had much more enjoyable lives than women because they seemed to have fewer restrictions placed on them, like some people have been posting. When the Commander invited Offred up to his room, though, I kind of noticed how miserable and lonely he was. He was just as deprived of love and affection as Offred was. After all, Serena isn’t exactly the most lovable person in the world. The fact that he was a gentleman to Offred and simply wanted to play scrabble with her and be kissed affectionately showed how desperate he was for human contact. He and Offred were equals during those little meetings, and each of them was filling a gap for the other.
August 23, 2006 at 5:14 pm
I think the commander’s meetings with Offred were simply a way for him to ease the guilt he felt over putting women in their position. He wanted Offred to be grateful to him for it, yet fortunately, she couldn’t forgive him for what he and his companions did to the society. The commander clearly felt bad about what he had done, but at the same time, he was unrepentant. He thought that, maybe, it was better than the previous society, even though all the signs indicated that this wasn’t true. The Gilead leaders kept pointing to statistics that said women were free from rape and molestation in this new society. I suppose this is true, if you don’t consider that Ceremony to be rape, which it, in a way, was.
I found the Aunts’ assertion that there are two freedoms to be very interesting, and it made me think. That is, freedom from, and freedom to. Freedom to means free choice, while freedom from means protection. This seems to be a balance we need to obtain in society. If we’re free from everything, aka protected from everything, then we have no choices and no opportunities, like the handmaids in this book. If we’re free to do everything, crime goes up, goods get stolen, society falls into anarchy. There obviously needs to be a compromise here, and this is something I never thought about before reading this book. We need freedoms and protections, yet the protections can’t hinder our everyday lives or take away important freedoms and choices. A very delicate balance, actually.
One more thing: if the Gilead society was created partially to increase declining birth rates, it makes no sense. How is demanding that young women get pregnant by old men encouraging birth? Also, the Commanders only slept with their handmaids. If they really wanted to increase the birth rate, wouldn’t they encourage promiscuity and multiple partners, exactly the kind of immoral behavior they supposedly condemned? Not that I’m at all advocating this, it just struck me as ironic.
August 23, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Something I’m still wondering about is the pillow in Offred’s room that says Faith on it. Obviously handmaids aren’t allowed to read, so it’s doubtful that Serena or the Commander would knowingly allow it to be in there. Either Gilead isn’t as strict of a society as Oceania and small things like this are allowed to slip by, or it was placed there for a reason. Perhaps as a reminder for Offred to remain faithful in her position as a Handmaid. Although she seems to have issues with faithfullness in this book. (My apologies if this was already answered. It’s hard to remember everything that was said before)
August 24, 2006 at 12:34 am
Well I finished this book way long ago but I have been really lazy and haven’t gotten on the blog yet. But I’m finally here…woohoo. Well this was the first book that I read this summer and I have to say that I actually enjoyed it. Usually I complain every five seconds about the books we read but I found this particular one really interesting. The whole concept of it made me think about what could actually end up happening to this country. Obviously being female it made me angry that women’s rights were taken away and that men were gaining absolute power. Although this was happening, the men in the book were also losing power..which made me angry as well.
August 24, 2006 at 12:42 am
Well I finished this book way long ago but I have been really lazy and haven’t gotten on the blog yet. But I’m finally here…woohoo. Well this was the first book that I read this summer and I have to say that I actually enjoyed it. Usually I complain every five seconds about the books we read but I found this particular one really interesting. The whole concept of it made me think about what could actually end up happening to this country. Obviously being female it made me angry that women’s rights were taken away and that men were gaining absolute power. The whole idea of just using women to make babies made me really mad… it seemed like that was the only thing women were good for and obviously that is not true. This book goes with the whole idea that “men can do everything..women can just do the house work and the baby making” which just makes me really mad because everyone knows that women can do just about everything that men can do. But anyways, I won’t get into a whole thing on that.
I agree with a lot of the people on this blog, even though I’ve only read parts of everyones entries because it’s all really long, but like everyone else I have a lot of questions on this book. For example what ever happened to Luke and Offred’s daughter? I hate when things are resolved at the end and I was soooo angry that we never found out what happened to them. And I agree with Chelsea…how did no one know about the pillow that said Faith on it. I mean i know that was probably there to be symbolic but I figure that if people were going through the room to make sure that there was nothing that the handmaids could kill themselves with…they would see the pillow. But anyway…
That is all I’m going to say for now… I’ll post more of what I think later. And I apologize if some of what I say doesn’t make sense or if I spelled stuff wrong. And I agree with everyone..Kudos to Leah for figuring out her name is June because it was really bothering me
August 24, 2006 at 12:44 am
Okay so everyone just pretend that I didn’t write the first comment because I def. didn’t mean to submit that..I’m just a complete idiot. So just cross that out!
August 24, 2006 at 1:09 am
I agree with you Sar…this did remind me of 1984 with Big Brother and the eye and the Commanders. Nice connection…I like it.
So I am going to write more…apparently I’m just going to stay up all night writing comments on the blog since I can’t sleep.
So I just wanted to add that I like how Atwood brought the audience through Offred’s life. At first it was a little bit confusing but once I got into the book i understood when it was present day and when it was a flashback. I liked that because it made everything flow well…all of Offred’s life was connected through what was happening and what she remembered which made it more real. So I really liked how that was done. Alright I’m done for now