I guess Atwood doesn't believe in quotation marks.. I don't think I've ever come across a novel yet in which there is no distinction between the narrator and the character. It took me quite a while to get used to that type of style of writing. I had to go back and re-read sentences again and again, which doesn't really lend itself to a relaxing reading experience, and it slowed me down quite a bit..First 100 pages:Really annoying..why? well because I felt like a juicy bone was being waved in front of my face. Like when someone asks you, "guess which celebrity died today?" and you ask, "who?" and they say, "well why don't you guess?" and you answer "I don't know, I give up, just tell me", and this keeps going back and forth, back and forth, and finally you just want to say, "forget it, it's not even worth it" and walk away. That's how I felt reading this book. Kinda like Atwood was being childish about withholding the plot information because it gave her literary power and control over the reader, and keeps them hostage.Then I couldn't ignore this overwhelming feeling that the philosophy of this story was going to be something that didn't sit well with me. However, I slowly realized it was just a typical novel, with no outstanding profundity whatsoever.One of the reasons I despise contemporary literature, and basically ceased reading it years ago is because contemporary writers almost always, almost 100% of the time, revert to the all-essential shock value elements, what I like to call the "cheap grabber". In the back cover of "The Handmaids Tale", it goes on to say: "Atwood takes many trends which exist today and stretches them to their logical and chilling....blah, blah, blahhhhhh..." ...and let me just state that I noticed the review by Newsweek long after I had already started reading the book. It was probably noticed during one of those moments of frustration where I single-handedly flipped the book around wondering, "whatthefuckingfuck?".I'll give you a perfect example of how she used this "trend".I'm reading about women in habits, who seem to be pious and obedient, living in the Republic of Gilead. They walk with their heads bowed down, two by two whispering words to each other, such as "blessed be", "may the Lord Open" and "I receive with joy". And this goes on say for about 100 pages or so. Then suddenly out of the blue you read, "He's fucking me". Now it's not that I don't like the word "fuck". In fact I LOVE the word "fuck". Not as in "I like to fuck", but as in, "Fuck, my food is burning", or "Fuck, I got my period on the mattress again". So it's not like I'm a "fuck" prude, cause I'm not. It's just that it didn't seem to fit in with the theme of the book and it was cheaply thrown in for shock value to keep up with the "trend". Now can anyone sit there and tell me Atwood couldn't have better and more eloquently described that scene? Halfway through the book, I stopped and assessed what I had gotten from it so far.. still nothing.It certainly had moments of intrigue, I give it that much. Of course it had to have had intrigue because it's a pretty popular book. But Atwood's writing from the beginning is so flawed. It's as if it went straight from her hands to publishing without being proof-read or edited.I'm not a writer, but I am a reader, and I think I'm certainly capable of recognizing whether a book flows or not, and this book just doesn't flow at all. And what pisses me off the very most is that Margaret Atwood is presently supposed to represent one of Canada's top leading modern authors. Just because a book sells a lot doesn't mean squat. It's just a trend, a fad. It's like when The Philadelphia Inquirer stated that "PUSH a novel" might find a place in the African American Literary canon. I was like, WHAT!!?? are you kidding me? that shit? no effin way, no. Look at The Davinchi Code. Yes, I enjoyed the novel a lot, but I also recognize that Dan Brown probably won't be included as part of the American literary canon in 100 years either.Margaret Atwood, in my humble opinion is not the greatest of writers. I've seen reviewers on goodreads who are better at writing than she is.The only decent thing about this novel was the story-line, and even that seemed like Daniel Steel fluff. Oh and the other thing that got me was that the entire female democracy has fallen apart and all Of-Fred could think of was her need to have sexual intimacy with a man. Not to mention that she never seemed appropriately upset about the fact that her husband and daughter have been taken from her. Has Maragaret Atwood ever seen the Movie Red Dawn with Patrick Swayze? The wolverines? c'mon, man!!The other major problem with this novel is that there were so many questions unanswered. What political reason behind the president day massacre? Who were these people? why were women targeted? Why didn't women (and their men) fight back? Those are questions I'm asking just to humor the book. At this point, the book was so leaky that It's not even worth asking questions about, because there aren't any answers. I thought this book was going to have some psychological depth, but to me it was just like reading a cheap novel. I can go on and on about other things that make this not a great novel, but it's not even worth it.I'm extremely disappointed.. I thought this was going to be one of the good ones.
Watch this,to the end! It says it all.....UPDATE: 6/30/14Today SCOTUS did the abysmal act of allowing Hobby Lobby to break the LAW and deny women contraception because of their religious obejections.....Welcome to Theocracy Americans. Tea Party, Taliban, Taliban, Tea Party. Who can tell the difference?Give me a fucking break! Soooo much bullshit here people.1. Contraception is not mentioned in the bible. So, how can this be a religious objection?2. Women's contraception will not be covered, but Viagra and vasectomies get a pass....hmmm. Something is rotten in isle three right next to the crucifixes manufactured in China, where abortions are state funded and mandated. Hobby Lobby has no issue in supporting THAT with their dolla bills.3. Slipperiest of slopes. Who's to stop any corporation/employer from denying health care to anyone with this excuse?? Anyone familiar with Christian Scientists....anyone? 4. Um....these women are paying premiums for this healthcare, not Hobby Lobby, so I don't get what the fuck H.L. is pissed about paying for, WHEN THEY ARE NOT PAYING FOR IT!5. Birth control pills are not only prescribed to control birth, it is also a medication. Morons.6. What is wrong with controlling birth anyway? There are 7 billion people on this planet. That's plenty. More than half of those people suck.7. The best way to avoid abortions is by birth control being plentiful....I've met a few women we should pay to take it.Today we have moved one step closer to the world Margaret Atwood created in The Handmaid's Tale. A very sad day. I await the trolls.Now we return to our regularly scheduled rant review.....WARNING: This review is being written after I worked a 13 hour day, with another one on the horizon tomorrow, and a glass of wine and while watching the Rachel Maddow show. Current events have put this book on the forefront of my mind, and damn it I got to get this out. I have never written a review on The Handmaid's Tale because I love the book, and it is so hard to write about a book you love. Ehh, what the hell.OfFred was a normal everyday woman with a career, a name, a life like all women have come to expect and take for granted in this age. When the Religious Right came into power, they began to put into practice their insane beliefs which strip women of their identity, their rights, their body, their very name. Women are to be called Of(whatever asshat they belong to), instead of, say Beatrix. Reproduction is an issue because all the toxins in the environment have rendered many women infertile. But if you are fertile, woe to you, you get to be a baby factory against your will, get promised to some jerk you don’t love or even like because someone deemed him important enough to breed. Oh, come on!This book was written in 1986, FYI. I thought it was scary and sort of possible when I first read it, but farfetched. This could NEVER happen in the United States of America. Never would it be allowed to happen here, we are too educated.So………I turn on the news (in twothousandandfrikntwelve) and certain religious factions on the right are trying to defund Planned Parenthood, because they perform abortions which is only 3% of what they do (with NO federal $ going towards them). Mostly PP provides healthcare to women who wouldn't get it otherwise………..icky poor women. Now it’s birth control? Seriously? Birth control??????? Did I wake up in 1950? Am I stuck in a Atwood novel? 98% of Catholic women (technically I’m one of them) use/used birth control. Even they are asking WTF? I’m not sure what these people are trying to do. There are more women than men and we vote……unless that’s the next right on the chopping block.Update 8/31/12I thought it would be a good time for an addition to this review following the Republican convention. You know the party who just nominated Mittens Romney, the man with his pants constantly on fire, and, Paul Ryan? Paul Ryan, the guy who co authored a bill with the douchenozzle from Virginia defining something called "force able rape" (just in case you might be confused ladies). The party that believes we have magical vaginas who can tell the difference between rapey sperm and non rapey sperm? The implication being if you get pregnant you must have wanted it. Yes ladies, "just lay back and enjoy it" (some Republican actually spewed those words about rape). After all, "rape is just another form of conception."- Paul Ryan.
Do You like book The Handmaid's Tale (1998)?
Margaret Atwood didn’t make up anything in this book. All of the things that take place in the Republic of Gilead have happened at some point in history (which now includes 1985, the year the book was published). She also arrived at the society depicted in the book by taking certain attitudes, both feminist & conservative, prevalent at the time, and taking them to extreme conclusions. So the place and the culture she depicts are believable. What comes across as far-fetched is the rapidity with which it occurs. In a little over a decade, America becomes so louche and licentious that the morally aggrieved have overthrown the government and set up a totalitarian theocracy totally at odds with the history of American governance. In a scant 10-15 years? I don’t really see that happening. Recently, I saw “the final cut” of Blade Runner. It takes place 11 years from now, but the world depicted looks like it should be 150-200 years from now. Things rarely change as quickly as novelists imagine. Architecturally, Manhattan in 1988 looked pretty close to how it does today. Watch a film from the 90's, and you’ll see people dressed in much the same clothes you see today. Margaret Atwood had a clear idea of what sort of shape the story would take: it is a diary. The curtain is pulled back slowly, and we only know as much as our narrator knows. Even the “Historical Notes” section at the end doesn’t really answer that many questions. It definitely swings the open ending in one direction, but it doesn’t really give you that much extra information on the society of Gilead or how it came about. We never find out that much, and that’s kind of frustrating. I blame this largely on the narrator’s passivity. Passivity is a trait that rarely endears me to protagonists (or to real people, for that matter). She says she wants to know, but she just doesn’t make that much effort to find out. There is an echo of Nineteen-Eighty-Four when, much like Winston Smith, she is broken down. “They can do what they like with me. I am abject,” she says. This is in marked contrast to Ivie, the heroine of V For Vendetta. Ivie is active and engaged. It’s an interesting comparison as V For Vendetta and The Handmaid’s Tale have many similarities. Both were written in the early eighties. Both appear to take place in the late nineties. Both imagine a radical change in society coming after a perceived moral decline occurs in concert with ecological or nuclear disaster. Both feature secret police organizations called the Eyes. The biggest difference is that the government in The Handmaid’s Tale is explicitly theocratic, whereas the government of England in V For Vendetta is of the fascist and nationalist stripe. But the government of Gilead appears to have racist policies too, and the government in V For Vendetta certainly uses religion to legitimize its actions.This book is heavy (in the figurative sense). There is no comic relief whatsoever. It is a near-total chronicle of misery, from start to finish. And it is depressing, in a way. It is depressing to think about how easy it can be for a small group of fanatics (whether they be communists, fascists or religious zealots) to take over a country. All they need is for the silent majority to look the other way, to keep quiet, to believe their promises of security & virtue and let them get away with it. That’s the easy thing to do. The hard thing to do is to stand up and voice dissent. There is always a minority that choose that path. But the bigger the majority you have looking the other way, the easier it is to deal with the dissenters and malcontents (preferably quietly).
—Dalton Hirshorn
I found The Handmaid’s Tale to be one of the most compelling books I’ve ever read and definitely one of my favourites of this year.In a world that has reverted back to a day where totalitarianism is commonplace and accepted, women known as “handmaids” are given (literally) to elite couples that are unable to have children, with the sole purpose of reproducing for them. If they do not fulfil this purpose, they are sent to the “colonies” to either work in agriculture or clear up toxic pollution, which eventually kills them. Patriarchy is at the root of all laws and so the freedom of all women, not just handmaids, is severely restricted. There is severe punishment (including death) for those who disobey.Absolutely nothing in the novel was unbelievable, which is mainly why it is so terrifying. Atwood writes about some circumstances that may seem extreme and distant to us but are currently present in “other” countries and societies. Atwood has then applied these circumstances to a futuristic United States. This enables us to fully grasp the implications of control of freedom, especially sexual freedom, because whether we admit it or not, the events that bring out the most emotion in us are those that happen to us directly. This is partly why I loved this book so much. It is an important text to advocate women’s rights, it’s a text to create awareness, and it does it by using one of my favourite genres.Another reason is that the novel is also extremely intelligent. I couldn’t help but notice that every phrase, every word, every object, every character, every dialogue had its purpose. Nothing was there without good reason, from finding out that Offred’s name is not just oddly futuristic (“Of Fred” as in “Property of Fred”) to describing a football stadium and redbrick walls (as way of showing that the story is set near an abandoned Harvard University).I cannot recommend this book enough. It’s just brilliant. I also reviewed this book over on Pretty Books.
—Stacey (prettybooks)
I was really struck, upon rereading this, at how much this book could be seen as a commentary on the Harvard/Radcliffe relationship. Of course, there is the obvious parallel to the Iranian revolution of 1979, and the deft discussion of the Second Wave feminist movement, but now that I have spent a bit of time with Radcliffe history, I have to wonder how much of it Atwood, a Radcliffe alumna herself, was influenced by in writing this. The line that really made me think was the mention of graduation exercises in Harvard Yard, with the male grads in black and the female grads in red - Radcliffe women, though allowed to take Harvard classes at the time Atwood was attending, were still awarded separate diplomas and did not recieve the same priviliges as male students. The Handmaids, of course, wear red and are second class citizens. Radcliffe students were not allowed in the Lamont undergraduate library for quite a while, and the Handmaids were not allowed the gift of literacy. Radcliffe women certainly struggled with a myriad of contradictions in sexuality and sexual expression in an effort to be taken seriously as scholars and as equals.Okay, maybe that's just conjecture. Still, The Handmaid's Tale is a hell of a book, with beautiful prose and an intricate philosophy.
—Summer
