When I first finished the Handmaid’s Tale, I thought that the author left it open much like the Giver was left open: people were left to interpret whether the book had a happy or sad ending. But then I discovered that the historical notes were a continuation of the book and not actual historical attributions. I believe the author included this section because she wanted readers to be more inclined to think that Offred’s story ended positively. The meeting at which these people are analyzing her story sounds like society has been restored to some form of normalcy and that the “Age of Gilead” had ended. This makes it seem as though the author wanted you to believe that Offred was successful in her escape, and that eventually more and more rebels overturned that society.
Great text-to-text connection. The Handmaid’s Tale is definitely similar to The Giver in many ways.
As much as the ending of The Handmaid’s Tale is a punch to the gut every time that I read it, I cannot think of a more appropriate way to conclude the book. I’m so happy that you realized that the historical notes are a part of the novel (lots of readers have skipped over them in past years). Whether or not you read the historical notes completely affects your reading/understanding of the text.
Your interpretation of the historical notes has given me some perspective on my own reading experience. This particular section of the text has always made me question what I have just read; my understanding of Offred is totally turned upside down when I find out how her tale has been collected. This is part of what makes this novel very powerful for me.
Towards the beginning of The Handmaid’s Tale one particular quote stood out to me – “There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don’t underrate it” (24). To me, this represents women’s individuality and freedom being stripped from them. During the anarchy, women were free to do and say whatever they wanted to; this was when “women were not protected.” However, in the Republic of Gilead it is only women who suffer the ‘freedom from’ because what they like to call ‘protection’ over women in the Republic of Gilead is overbearing and alienates women from having a normal life. It restricts women to be voiceless and powerless.
You have selected a critical quotation from the novel. Though the “freedom from” scenario in The Handmaid’s Tale is exaggerated, there are certainly many situations today that operate on the premiss that it is important to remove/abolish certain practices, behaviors, situations, ideas, items in order to keep individuals “free from” harm.
As I began to read The Handmade’s Tale I noticed a few grammatical differences to other books that I have read. I noticed that there a fequently conversations that are not identified by quotation marks, but that there are also conversations that do have them. Is this to differenciate between past and present conversations? I have also noticed that there are several words that are capitalized throughout the book that would not usual be capitalized, such as Eye, Arms, Stop and Wall. All of these words are continually capitalized throughout the book. Do they have special meanings?
The presence and absence of punctuation marks are very important in this book. Your observations about capitalization are key, too. When considering the significance of capitalization, think about when and why words are capitalized. Why might Atwood choose to capitalize words that might seem ordinary to readers?
Margaret Atwood reveals the power and control that others had over women through a quote said by Offred: “When there’s meat they cut it up for me ahead of time, as if I’m lacking manual skills or teeth. I have both, however. That’s why I’m not allowed a knife” (228). This quote has a few meanings to me. First, it shows how women were treated as if they were useless and had no skills besides bearing children. The people of Gilead didn’t want women to feel any type of independence, which is why they didn’t allow women to do such a simple task like cutting up their own meat, despite the fact that they knew women were capable of doing so. More importantly, they didn’t want to allow women to have knives because they were scared of women using the utensils to harm themselves due to their unhappiness. For some women, the knife may be their escape from Gilead. Therefore they didn’t want women to have a way out if they wanted it. Women were trapped.
I think PC’s original question was a fairly legitimate one. I think The Handmaid’s Tale seems like more of a dire prophecy than a satire. However, the book could also be seen, as she said, as a satire of religion. There is a possibility that this book was an exaggerated version of what Margaret Atwood thought would happen if religion took over society: women would be downtrodden (original sin), lack of zeal punished and sex reduced to a completely objective activity meant only for reproductive purposes. It is very difficult to make a distinction on whether The Handmaid’s Tale is meant as a prediction or a satire of religion.
Personally, I hope she meant to convey a message of a “dire prophecy” as you said. This book could act as the perfect wake up call for society. (Just a little personal soapbox).
After finishing “The Handmaid’s Tale” I realized that Atwood tells Offred’s story as if it was a biography. She personalizes with the reader by refering to them as “you” and apologizing to them. “I’m sorry there is so much pain in this story. I’m sorry it’s in fragments, like a body caught in crossfire or pulled apart by force. But there is nothing I can do to change it” (Atwood 267). She apologizes to the reader as if there is nothing she can do to change what her story has become, even though it is fiction. Everything the Atwood writes is her own imagination and yet she feels obligated to have Offred apologize to the reader for the way her story has turned out. I found this form of writing very different from most other fiction novels that I have read, and I think it makes a good and interesting personal connection to the reader.
I agree with JH that the writing style of this book was different, and interesting. Through out the novel I realized that Atwood talks in near run-on sentences in parts. Her describing is also very, well different, then other books. I agree with JH that Atwood was very good at making the reader feel how Offred was feeling. When Offred felt hollow, so did the reader, just like when she felt angry or empowered. I thought it was cool how we both picked up on the same things JH
It seems like Atwood tried to relate this story to the Red Scare. Judging from the color of the Handmaid’s wardrobe to the deranged society that had taken over what was once the United States government. The accusations made against criminals were outrageous, spanning from having been divorced to being a doctor; just like many were accused of being communists during the Red Scare. I agree with Paige, I think that Atwood wanted the reader to interpret the ending as somewhat happy, by leading them to believe the Gilead society had been overturned.
Moira was probably my favorite character in this book. She was extremely brave and innovative, even in this new and hostile society. She became a symbol of what came before Gilead and what many hoped would come after, if there was an after. Atwood (and therefore Offred) is nowhere near as cautious in using Moira’s real name as she is with some of the others, like Janine or the original Ofglen. Moira is especially a symbol to Offred, not only of what came before Gilead, but also of strength. She became almost a role model to Offred, as well as something to hold on to when times got tough. Whenever something bad happened, Offred would think of Moira, wonder what she was doing, what she would do in Offred’s current situation. Moira was not quite a role model because Offred would never really do what Moira would, but Offred would secretly want to do what Moira would. Moira is a very important character, both to Offred and to the girls at the Red Center who were inspired by her.
I really enjoy Moira’s character, too–and I enjoyed reading your observations about Moira’s character! I also agree with you that Moira provides hope and inspiration for Offred and the other young women. I think that the following comment is very insightful: “Whenever something bad happened, Offred would think of Moira, wonder what she was doing, what she would do in Offred’s current situation.” This would be a really interesting idea to “track” in your reading notes or to discuss in one of your journal entries.
One of the things that really stood out to me when reading this book is that Offred doesn’t actually tell us her name until you are 84 pages into the book. If someone had just picked up the book and began reading without scanning the back, they wouldn’t even know who was telling the story. Offred for the beginning of the book is very much so a face without a name. Perhaps Margret Atwood did this to give off an feel of mysteriousness about the character. Maybe this is a useless observation, but she goes on to say that her name is “like something hidden, some treasure I’ll come back to dig up, one day” (84). One can’t help but feel sorry for her character, although self pitty wasn’t what Offred was trying to get across. The reader notices how strange and contorted the circumstances of the book really are when they find out the Handmaids are stripped of everything that made them unique, even their very name.
As I read the Handmaids Tale, like most other readers, I was trying to figure out what Margret Atwood was trying to make society realize through satire. I really like EM’s thought about the Red Scare, that was something I didn’t even think of! When I was reading I kept thinking of the Middle East. This may be an apparent observation but the forced oppression of women and religious tention and war reminded me very much of Afghanistan or the wars that happened over Jerusalem. I first made the connection when Offred and her “twin”, Ofglen, are on their periodic walk and see tourists. “Their heads are uncovered and their hair too is exposed, in all its darkness and sexuality,” Offred observes, “They wear lipstick, red, outlining the damp cavaties of their mouths…we are fascinated, but also repelled. They seem undressed. It has taken so little time to change our minds about things like this” (28). Later a tourist asks them if they are happy. At that moment I thought of all the women in Afghanistan who are force to wear burkas and can’t walk outside without a male escort. Are they happy? How could they be happy they arn’t aloud to do what our very human nature pushes us to do. They can’t express themselves or make their own decisions. Yes, it’s a way of life, and it’s not my place to question that, but how can you be happy when you are no longer treated fairly? How can those women feel human if they are treated like possesions by the men around them? And that was what Offred was. An object. An asset. It makes you wonder if other women feel that way.
I completely agree with you! There are many similarities between the women in the Handmaids Tale and in the Middle East. How women in both must cover up almost their entire bodies and are under the rule of males. Maybe some of them are happy and are like the “true believers” in the book, and they think that their society is right. I can’t imagine being happy while being forced, in most cases, to hide myself and be treated as a lesser person. But then again it is part of their culture and who are we to judge?
Your text-to-world connections to the Middle East and Afghanistan are thought-provoking–and I think that Atwood’s observations about gender and power do indeed go beyond the borders of the United States.
The power of this text is that it helps readers to recognize horrendous abuses and misuses of power. Atwood also helps readers to understand that these abuses and misuses of power don’t just occur in foreign lands–they can happen right in our own backyards.
One part of this book that really stood out to me was the description of The Ceremony. Although it was graphic and disturbing, it provided the understanding of what the Handmaid’s job really was. “What’s going on in this room, under Serena Joy’s silvery canopy, is not exciting. It has nothing to do with passion or love or romance…” (Atwood 94). This showed to me the use of power in Gilead, and the roles of the women. I think the satire in this chapter is showing the roles of women in society, and how they are thought of during this time. It really showed to me the power over women and how they can be controlled. Also, how this power was used in the wrong way. I thought EPM’s statement about wondering if other women feel that way because it is horrible the way the Handmaids are treated like an object, and it makes me think about what women were like in this time period, if they were also an object like Offred.
As I read The Handmaid’s Tale I couldn’t help but notice how unfulfilled, and at times desperate, Moira is within the walls of this “utopia” of the future. She has numerous flashbacks and dreams of the time before when she was happily married to her husband and playing with her daughter with such normalcy and the lack of restrictions. She then snaps back to her present situation where she is basically locked up in a room all day, only to have negligible time out of the house to shop for her “family”, pray to a God who seems so foreign to her, and acknowledge the gruesome examples of what will happen to her if she tries to put into practice the old habit of freedom.
“Every night when I go to bed I think, in the morning I will wake up in my own house and things will be back the way they were. It hasn’t happened this morning, either.”
This quote really stood out to me, not only because it was the first line of a new chapter, but because it exposed to the reader Moira’s extreme anxiety and aspiration to return things back to the way they used to be. For a Utopia, where things are supposed to be the ideal, this one surely misses the mark. It not only devalues the lives of women, but it also diminishes most of the emotions, excitements, and the true purposes of life from the various people who had the misfortune of being dragged into it. If you ask me…it’s a fail.
The pseudo-utopian world that Atwood crafts around Offred is both astounding and horrifying. As I read, I found myself considering what my own life would be like if I was to live in this society. The more I thought about it, the more I empathized with Offred for feeling so defeated and, as $-Money put it, unfulfilled. She had very little to look forward to than putting on her red dress and tramping around with others in her situation. She wasn’t her own person. She was a surrogate. Her one and only job was to produce the child of her commander. Therefore she had to relive all of her past memories. She remembered the times with her mother and her family vividly because for all she knew they were long dead. She had no choice, and that is what powerful. Her inability to act on her own free will is sickening. I can’t even imagine what it would have been like; what it could have been like. But she had to live it. She had no choice in that matter either; they took the glass out of her picture frame to see to that. By no means was this crooked world she lived in a utopia. It was regression, not progress.
I agree with EW. Throughout the novel I recognized the role that control and power played over the women of Gilead. Men not only wanted women of Gilead to be weak, and helpless physically, but also psychologically. By not allowing women to be literate, men were able to stay in control. This notion of using literacy as an instrument of power is especially clear when the Commander allows Offred to read while in his room. Offred states, “staring at the magazine, as he dangled it before me like fish bait, I wanted it” (Atwood 156). Although the Commander is allowing Offred to break the rules, by dangling the magazine in front of her, as if to take it away at any moment, he is still able to keep the power and stay in control.
After the first half of this book I decided to do a little research on the novel as well as its author. I was surprised to see that the novel is categorized as Science Fiction, not because the idea of an Dystopia is ridiculous, because I personally think its impossible, but because the oppression of Women in the novel directly reflects the Civil rights movements that ensued merely a decade before the novel was written. This novel seems to be a product of the issues that the Civil rights movements revolved around. Atwood was somewhat of a feminist herself and so she may have written the novel in order to exaggerate the debate and make clear its most negative qualities. In the novel, men and women are precisely divided and The Commander states that women are inferior to men scholastically, mentally, and physically. These themes are not far from what women were fighting against during the civil rights movements, and Atwood used the Dystopia to expose the faults of society prior to and during the time period.
While reading the Handmaid’s Tale, I found it interesting the multiple social ways and taboos of Gilead, and the ethics of the people. Firstly how the government prizes children, but have very high expectations of newborns. To read that the government only wanted perfect children was surprising. The way it was described in the book, it seemed like there was a very high concern that there was a sharp decline in birth rates at the time. It was suprising that, even though there so few children, the government would kill any child that had a deformity of any sort. What also I found strange were the multiple strict rules that stated that a man could only be with his wife and his handmaid (if he had one), but then the government has places like Jezebel’s which completely contradict those strict laws. It makes me wonder how this government could even function if they were banning something but then secretly allow it. I wonder why the people of Gilead did question the ethics of this government, or maybe they thought that because soceity was at such extremes that it was only expected of the government to function like this. And then how no one could really trust each other, it reminded me of colonial times especially the witch trials. It seemed like close friends would easiler turn on each other if it meant they could live another day.
Just a side note, I thought it was interesting how Offred never tells the reader her actual name, or the name of her daughter and mother. Maybe she does this to try and keep a few things private and to herself?
After reading the Handmaid’s Tale, I feel like we should be able to better appreciate the simple freedoms that we are allowed to experience each and every day. Reading was one of the more surprising regulations that applied to women, to the point where they stopped giving stores names and, instead, switched to simple pictures of things that the store had in stock. Other than the obvious answer of asserting power over the women, what was the motive in removing such a simple part of someone’s life, such as reading? One of the elements of the novel that made me question our society and what we hold as “special” or “valuable” the most was the fact that love was almost entirely done away with. The commanders were still allowed to have wives and could raise a “family”, but what about Offred and the other Handmaids? They weren’t allowed to show emotion and could only talk to a handful of people. Numerous times throughout Offred’s story, she mentions how she misses the embrace of another person, mainly Luke, but how she would settle for just about anybody. Looking back, she reflects on what love used to be: “Falling into it, we all did then, in one way or another…We were falling women. We believed in it, this downward motion..” (Atwood 225). From the tone in which she ends her thought, it seems as though Offred no longer believes that love can exist as it once did. And to think, we use love to describe even the simplest of things, such as a car or a flavor of ice cream. Maybe it is that we have never known what it is to not love, and therefore we can not know what it truly is to love.
To an extent, I agree with what EPM said. I do agree with the observation of what is being satired in the novel, and the oppression of women in the world. But I think as us being privileged, middle class, primarily Christian Americans, we can’t make the judgement that they aren’t doing what “human nature” wants us to, or that they can find no way to be happy under a burqa. We can’t say what we think is right about that topic, although I personally don’t agree with the way that society is set up. It is their religion and their custom, which they view as necessary. But this makes me think of another point that could be made about the novel, and the Republic of Gilead. Throughout the story, the women are carefully monitored, given shelter, and ways to become pregnant in a time where fertility rates are low. We, as readers, see this as oppression. But the majority of the characters see it as a necessary measure in wartime (as Aunt Lydia points out, a “freedom from” danger). There are also many references to religion playing a large role in making the society the way it is. Again, I don’t agree with this society at all, but I can understand how it came to be, this decline of freedom. And yet, I am making judgments about Atwood’s society; though fictional, I am still using my values and beliefs to stack up against this culture and use that as a way to criticize it.
It is so very easy to leave context out of a situation when judging real or fictional problems, and I think an alternative (but perhaps unpopular?) way to look at one aspect of The Handmaid’s Tale’s satire is to see it as mocking our prejudgments as if our society is somehow better. I say this because it is not until page 174 that the conflict is completely explained. “It was after the catastrophe, when they shot the president and machine-gunned the Congress and the army declared the state of emergency.” (Atwood 174) When we learn, so suddenly, that there was a national crisis, it gives us a better perspective on why their society is this restrictive and scary dystopia. For the first half of the book, we are left to speculation and thus our own judgement, then we are shocked to find actual reasons behind it.
In response to NL, I find it interesting that you see the world that Offred lived in to be the regression of a society that had previously existed. As humans, I believe that we are creatures of habit, those that go through the motions of the formalities of the life that has been dealt to us. As was said in the novel, it would be the hardest for the first generation of women to adjust with the changes being presented to them. After that, the younger ones would not know that anything had been or should be different. Offred even says, “I realize how unaccustomed I am to seeing [make-up], on women, because their eyes look too big to me…” (Atwood 235). I understand that it had only been a couple of years the change occurred, but imagine what a life time would do. Young women would no nothing of the olden days. So I don’t know if I would agree with you that it was a regression. I do agree that there are flaws, as all societies have, but do you think that if we were from a different upbringing, one that was full of horror and chaos, that we would view this “utopia” as a safe-haven? Just a thought.
After reading what CE has said, I do agree that this society may seem a safe haven to some. In fact, most of the people found themselves perfectly fine with their new stature or position. I wouldn’t believe the Commander or his chauffeur were complaining any about their accommodations. But for Offred, her idea of going through the motions and following habit was to be by her husband’s side and to care for her child. That was her normal, humdrum life that she was accustomed to. Only when she was forced out of her home and had her family taken did she begin to get accustomed to her more sheltered life. She, like her mother and Moira, were brought up in the believe that women had the right to choose. Now she not only was stripped of her ability to choose, but she didn’t even have her beloved family and friends by her anymore. So she had to accept her new life as her new habit; her new status quot. That’s why I believed she took all of the events that befell her in stride. She already knew she had no choice in the matter. But CE makes a solid point in saying that further generations wouldn’t feel the same as Offred. They wouldn’t have memories of lipstick and love and wearing the clothes they like. Their memories would be of their society, and not a life like Offred’s previous life. It’s horrifying to think of, but at some point in this future, these children will be happy with their predetermined fates.
The last point CE brought up was an interesting one. If we were women during this “anarchy” with the level of gender violence described in the novel (certainly exaggerated), would we be more open to this lifestyle? The tug of war between security and liberty throughout the novel, and the society’s extreme leaning toward the former, made me keep thinking of the famous Ben Franklin quote: “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” In Gilead, women were entirely without liberty (and I am speaking of active liberty, not of that “freedom from” business) but were, paradoxically, without security. Security certainly means safety from violent regimes, etc. But in Gilead, dissenters were brutally beaten, publicly executed, or forced to slave away over dead and dying bodies as punishment. So it seems that the Ben Franklin adage proved true: those who sacrificed liberty in exchange for security, really did end up with neither.
I think one of the most disturbing parts of the novel was the flashback to the gymnasium, when the handmaids in training were being told to shout and blame another girl for getting raped. Never, ever is a woman “asking for it.” Rape is not a sexual act. Rape happens because men want to aggressively assert power and victimize someone. Rape does not occur because a woman dresses a certain way. No style of clothing is ever the cause of victimization or brutality. Yet, in Gilead, gender violence was because of too many freedoms on behalf of the women. In the book, the role of men did not change very much. However, women became further marginalized, subjugated, and made into objects all while being told it was for their own good. It was safer this way. By punishing the victim, the evils of gender violence would never have been stopped. That was what got under my skin about this book.
Throughout reading The Handmaid’s Tale I recognized that a major theme is how compliant Offred is and what she will do in order to preserve her hope of one day returning to her former life. Although Offred describes many negative aspects of Gilead throughout the novel, she complies to all of the ridiculous rules and regulations of Gilead in return for a small glimpse of hope. Agreeing to secretly meet with the Commander, having an affair with Nick, and even having conversations with Ofglen puts Offred’s life at risk. However, she is willingly compliant with any illegal action as long as it reassures her hopes of returning to her former life.
Is The Handmaid’s Tale more of a satire of religion or an imminent downfall of our government/society?
When I first finished the Handmaid’s Tale, I thought that the author left it open much like the Giver was left open: people were left to interpret whether the book had a happy or sad ending. But then I discovered that the historical notes were a continuation of the book and not actual historical attributions. I believe the author included this section because she wanted readers to be more inclined to think that Offred’s story ended positively. The meeting at which these people are analyzing her story sounds like society has been restored to some form of normalcy and that the “Age of Gilead” had ended. This makes it seem as though the author wanted you to believe that Offred was successful in her escape, and that eventually more and more rebels overturned that society.
Dear PC,
Great text-to-text connection. The Handmaid’s Tale is definitely similar to The Giver in many ways.
As much as the ending of The Handmaid’s Tale is a punch to the gut every time that I read it, I cannot think of a more appropriate way to conclude the book. I’m so happy that you realized that the historical notes are a part of the novel (lots of readers have skipped over them in past years). Whether or not you read the historical notes completely affects your reading/understanding of the text.
Your interpretation of the historical notes has given me some perspective on my own reading experience. This particular section of the text has always made me question what I have just read; my understanding of Offred is totally turned upside down when I find out how her tale has been collected. This is part of what makes this novel very powerful for me.
Towards the beginning of The Handmaid’s Tale one particular quote stood out to me – “There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don’t underrate it” (24). To me, this represents women’s individuality and freedom being stripped from them. During the anarchy, women were free to do and say whatever they wanted to; this was when “women were not protected.” However, in the Republic of Gilead it is only women who suffer the ‘freedom from’ because what they like to call ‘protection’ over women in the Republic of Gilead is overbearing and alienates women from having a normal life. It restricts women to be voiceless and powerless.
Dear EW,
You have selected a critical quotation from the novel. Though the “freedom from” scenario in The Handmaid’s Tale is exaggerated, there are certainly many situations today that operate on the premiss that it is important to remove/abolish certain practices, behaviors, situations, ideas, items in order to keep individuals “free from” harm.
As I began to read The Handmade’s Tale I noticed a few grammatical differences to other books that I have read. I noticed that there a fequently conversations that are not identified by quotation marks, but that there are also conversations that do have them. Is this to differenciate between past and present conversations? I have also noticed that there are several words that are capitalized throughout the book that would not usual be capitalized, such as Eye, Arms, Stop and Wall. All of these words are continually capitalized throughout the book. Do they have special meanings?
Good eye, JH!
The presence and absence of punctuation marks are very important in this book. Your observations about capitalization are key, too. When considering the significance of capitalization, think about when and why words are capitalized. Why might Atwood choose to capitalize words that might seem ordinary to readers?
Oops that was me, EPM. I think I responded wrong haha sorry!!!
hahahaha ahh disregard that I’m all confused hahaha
Margaret Atwood reveals the power and control that others had over women through a quote said by Offred: “When there’s meat they cut it up for me ahead of time, as if I’m lacking manual skills or teeth. I have both, however. That’s why I’m not allowed a knife” (228). This quote has a few meanings to me. First, it shows how women were treated as if they were useless and had no skills besides bearing children. The people of Gilead didn’t want women to feel any type of independence, which is why they didn’t allow women to do such a simple task like cutting up their own meat, despite the fact that they knew women were capable of doing so. More importantly, they didn’t want to allow women to have knives because they were scared of women using the utensils to harm themselves due to their unhappiness. For some women, the knife may be their escape from Gilead. Therefore they didn’t want women to have a way out if they wanted it. Women were trapped.
I think PC’s original question was a fairly legitimate one. I think The Handmaid’s Tale seems like more of a dire prophecy than a satire. However, the book could also be seen, as she said, as a satire of religion. There is a possibility that this book was an exaggerated version of what Margaret Atwood thought would happen if religion took over society: women would be downtrodden (original sin), lack of zeal punished and sex reduced to a completely objective activity meant only for reproductive purposes. It is very difficult to make a distinction on whether The Handmaid’s Tale is meant as a prediction or a satire of religion.
Personally, I hope she meant to convey a message of a “dire prophecy” as you said. This book could act as the perfect wake up call for society. (Just a little personal soapbox).
After finishing “The Handmaid’s Tale” I realized that Atwood tells Offred’s story as if it was a biography. She personalizes with the reader by refering to them as “you” and apologizing to them. “I’m sorry there is so much pain in this story. I’m sorry it’s in fragments, like a body caught in crossfire or pulled apart by force. But there is nothing I can do to change it” (Atwood 267). She apologizes to the reader as if there is nothing she can do to change what her story has become, even though it is fiction. Everything the Atwood writes is her own imagination and yet she feels obligated to have Offred apologize to the reader for the way her story has turned out. I found this form of writing very different from most other fiction novels that I have read, and I think it makes a good and interesting personal connection to the reader.
I agree with JH that the writing style of this book was different, and interesting. Through out the novel I realized that Atwood talks in near run-on sentences in parts. Her describing is also very, well different, then other books. I agree with JH that Atwood was very good at making the reader feel how Offred was feeling. When Offred felt hollow, so did the reader, just like when she felt angry or empowered. I thought it was cool how we both picked up on the same things JH
It seems like Atwood tried to relate this story to the Red Scare. Judging from the color of the Handmaid’s wardrobe to the deranged society that had taken over what was once the United States government. The accusations made against criminals were outrageous, spanning from having been divorced to being a doctor; just like many were accused of being communists during the Red Scare. I agree with Paige, I think that Atwood wanted the reader to interpret the ending as somewhat happy, by leading them to believe the Gilead society had been overturned.
Dear EM,
This is a good text-to-world connection. Are there other elements about the Red Scare that remind you of The Handmaid’s Tale?
Moira was probably my favorite character in this book. She was extremely brave and innovative, even in this new and hostile society. She became a symbol of what came before Gilead and what many hoped would come after, if there was an after. Atwood (and therefore Offred) is nowhere near as cautious in using Moira’s real name as she is with some of the others, like Janine or the original Ofglen. Moira is especially a symbol to Offred, not only of what came before Gilead, but also of strength. She became almost a role model to Offred, as well as something to hold on to when times got tough. Whenever something bad happened, Offred would think of Moira, wonder what she was doing, what she would do in Offred’s current situation. Moira was not quite a role model because Offred would never really do what Moira would, but Offred would secretly want to do what Moira would. Moira is a very important character, both to Offred and to the girls at the Red Center who were inspired by her.
Dear LP,
I really enjoy Moira’s character, too–and I enjoyed reading your observations about Moira’s character! I also agree with you that Moira provides hope and inspiration for Offred and the other young women. I think that the following comment is very insightful: “Whenever something bad happened, Offred would think of Moira, wonder what she was doing, what she would do in Offred’s current situation.” This would be a really interesting idea to “track” in your reading notes or to discuss in one of your journal entries.
One of the things that really stood out to me when reading this book is that Offred doesn’t actually tell us her name until you are 84 pages into the book. If someone had just picked up the book and began reading without scanning the back, they wouldn’t even know who was telling the story. Offred for the beginning of the book is very much so a face without a name. Perhaps Margret Atwood did this to give off an feel of mysteriousness about the character. Maybe this is a useless observation, but she goes on to say that her name is “like something hidden, some treasure I’ll come back to dig up, one day” (84). One can’t help but feel sorry for her character, although self pitty wasn’t what Offred was trying to get across. The reader notices how strange and contorted the circumstances of the book really are when they find out the Handmaids are stripped of everything that made them unique, even their very name.
As I read the Handmaids Tale, like most other readers, I was trying to figure out what Margret Atwood was trying to make society realize through satire. I really like EM’s thought about the Red Scare, that was something I didn’t even think of! When I was reading I kept thinking of the Middle East. This may be an apparent observation but the forced oppression of women and religious tention and war reminded me very much of Afghanistan or the wars that happened over Jerusalem. I first made the connection when Offred and her “twin”, Ofglen, are on their periodic walk and see tourists. “Their heads are uncovered and their hair too is exposed, in all its darkness and sexuality,” Offred observes, “They wear lipstick, red, outlining the damp cavaties of their mouths…we are fascinated, but also repelled. They seem undressed. It has taken so little time to change our minds about things like this” (28). Later a tourist asks them if they are happy. At that moment I thought of all the women in Afghanistan who are force to wear burkas and can’t walk outside without a male escort. Are they happy? How could they be happy they arn’t aloud to do what our very human nature pushes us to do. They can’t express themselves or make their own decisions. Yes, it’s a way of life, and it’s not my place to question that, but how can you be happy when you are no longer treated fairly? How can those women feel human if they are treated like possesions by the men around them? And that was what Offred was. An object. An asset. It makes you wonder if other women feel that way.
I completely agree with you! There are many similarities between the women in the Handmaids Tale and in the Middle East. How women in both must cover up almost their entire bodies and are under the rule of males. Maybe some of them are happy and are like the “true believers” in the book, and they think that their society is right. I can’t imagine being happy while being forced, in most cases, to hide myself and be treated as a lesser person. But then again it is part of their culture and who are we to judge?
Dear EPM,
Your text-to-world connections to the Middle East and Afghanistan are thought-provoking–and I think that Atwood’s observations about gender and power do indeed go beyond the borders of the United States.
The power of this text is that it helps readers to recognize horrendous abuses and misuses of power. Atwood also helps readers to understand that these abuses and misuses of power don’t just occur in foreign lands–they can happen right in our own backyards.
One part of this book that really stood out to me was the description of The Ceremony. Although it was graphic and disturbing, it provided the understanding of what the Handmaid’s job really was. “What’s going on in this room, under Serena Joy’s silvery canopy, is not exciting. It has nothing to do with passion or love or romance…” (Atwood 94). This showed to me the use of power in Gilead, and the roles of the women. I think the satire in this chapter is showing the roles of women in society, and how they are thought of during this time. It really showed to me the power over women and how they can be controlled. Also, how this power was used in the wrong way. I thought EPM’s statement about wondering if other women feel that way because it is horrible the way the Handmaids are treated like an object, and it makes me think about what women were like in this time period, if they were also an object like Offred.
As I read The Handmaid’s Tale I couldn’t help but notice how unfulfilled, and at times desperate, Moira is within the walls of this “utopia” of the future. She has numerous flashbacks and dreams of the time before when she was happily married to her husband and playing with her daughter with such normalcy and the lack of restrictions. She then snaps back to her present situation where she is basically locked up in a room all day, only to have negligible time out of the house to shop for her “family”, pray to a God who seems so foreign to her, and acknowledge the gruesome examples of what will happen to her if she tries to put into practice the old habit of freedom.
“Every night when I go to bed I think, in the morning I will wake up in my own house and things will be back the way they were. It hasn’t happened this morning, either.”
This quote really stood out to me, not only because it was the first line of a new chapter, but because it exposed to the reader Moira’s extreme anxiety and aspiration to return things back to the way they used to be. For a Utopia, where things are supposed to be the ideal, this one surely misses the mark. It not only devalues the lives of women, but it also diminishes most of the emotions, excitements, and the true purposes of life from the various people who had the misfortune of being dragged into it. If you ask me…it’s a fail.
(Atwood 199) oops
The pseudo-utopian world that Atwood crafts around Offred is both astounding and horrifying. As I read, I found myself considering what my own life would be like if I was to live in this society. The more I thought about it, the more I empathized with Offred for feeling so defeated and, as $-Money put it, unfulfilled. She had very little to look forward to than putting on her red dress and tramping around with others in her situation. She wasn’t her own person. She was a surrogate. Her one and only job was to produce the child of her commander. Therefore she had to relive all of her past memories. She remembered the times with her mother and her family vividly because for all she knew they were long dead. She had no choice, and that is what powerful. Her inability to act on her own free will is sickening. I can’t even imagine what it would have been like; what it could have been like. But she had to live it. She had no choice in that matter either; they took the glass out of her picture frame to see to that. By no means was this crooked world she lived in a utopia. It was regression, not progress.
I agree with EW. Throughout the novel I recognized the role that control and power played over the women of Gilead. Men not only wanted women of Gilead to be weak, and helpless physically, but also psychologically. By not allowing women to be literate, men were able to stay in control. This notion of using literacy as an instrument of power is especially clear when the Commander allows Offred to read while in his room. Offred states, “staring at the magazine, as he dangled it before me like fish bait, I wanted it” (Atwood 156). Although the Commander is allowing Offred to break the rules, by dangling the magazine in front of her, as if to take it away at any moment, he is still able to keep the power and stay in control.
After the first half of this book I decided to do a little research on the novel as well as its author. I was surprised to see that the novel is categorized as Science Fiction, not because the idea of an Dystopia is ridiculous, because I personally think its impossible, but because the oppression of Women in the novel directly reflects the Civil rights movements that ensued merely a decade before the novel was written. This novel seems to be a product of the issues that the Civil rights movements revolved around. Atwood was somewhat of a feminist herself and so she may have written the novel in order to exaggerate the debate and make clear its most negative qualities. In the novel, men and women are precisely divided and The Commander states that women are inferior to men scholastically, mentally, and physically. These themes are not far from what women were fighting against during the civil rights movements, and Atwood used the Dystopia to expose the faults of society prior to and during the time period.
While reading the Handmaid’s Tale, I found it interesting the multiple social ways and taboos of Gilead, and the ethics of the people. Firstly how the government prizes children, but have very high expectations of newborns. To read that the government only wanted perfect children was surprising. The way it was described in the book, it seemed like there was a very high concern that there was a sharp decline in birth rates at the time. It was suprising that, even though there so few children, the government would kill any child that had a deformity of any sort. What also I found strange were the multiple strict rules that stated that a man could only be with his wife and his handmaid (if he had one), but then the government has places like Jezebel’s which completely contradict those strict laws. It makes me wonder how this government could even function if they were banning something but then secretly allow it. I wonder why the people of Gilead did question the ethics of this government, or maybe they thought that because soceity was at such extremes that it was only expected of the government to function like this. And then how no one could really trust each other, it reminded me of colonial times especially the witch trials. It seemed like close friends would easiler turn on each other if it meant they could live another day.
Just a side note, I thought it was interesting how Offred never tells the reader her actual name, or the name of her daughter and mother. Maybe she does this to try and keep a few things private and to herself?
After reading the Handmaid’s Tale, I feel like we should be able to better appreciate the simple freedoms that we are allowed to experience each and every day. Reading was one of the more surprising regulations that applied to women, to the point where they stopped giving stores names and, instead, switched to simple pictures of things that the store had in stock. Other than the obvious answer of asserting power over the women, what was the motive in removing such a simple part of someone’s life, such as reading? One of the elements of the novel that made me question our society and what we hold as “special” or “valuable” the most was the fact that love was almost entirely done away with. The commanders were still allowed to have wives and could raise a “family”, but what about Offred and the other Handmaids? They weren’t allowed to show emotion and could only talk to a handful of people. Numerous times throughout Offred’s story, she mentions how she misses the embrace of another person, mainly Luke, but how she would settle for just about anybody. Looking back, she reflects on what love used to be: “Falling into it, we all did then, in one way or another…We were falling women. We believed in it, this downward motion..” (Atwood 225). From the tone in which she ends her thought, it seems as though Offred no longer believes that love can exist as it once did. And to think, we use love to describe even the simplest of things, such as a car or a flavor of ice cream. Maybe it is that we have never known what it is to not love, and therefore we can not know what it truly is to love.
To an extent, I agree with what EPM said. I do agree with the observation of what is being satired in the novel, and the oppression of women in the world. But I think as us being privileged, middle class, primarily Christian Americans, we can’t make the judgement that they aren’t doing what “human nature” wants us to, or that they can find no way to be happy under a burqa. We can’t say what we think is right about that topic, although I personally don’t agree with the way that society is set up. It is their religion and their custom, which they view as necessary. But this makes me think of another point that could be made about the novel, and the Republic of Gilead. Throughout the story, the women are carefully monitored, given shelter, and ways to become pregnant in a time where fertility rates are low. We, as readers, see this as oppression. But the majority of the characters see it as a necessary measure in wartime (as Aunt Lydia points out, a “freedom from” danger). There are also many references to religion playing a large role in making the society the way it is. Again, I don’t agree with this society at all, but I can understand how it came to be, this decline of freedom. And yet, I am making judgments about Atwood’s society; though fictional, I am still using my values and beliefs to stack up against this culture and use that as a way to criticize it.
It is so very easy to leave context out of a situation when judging real or fictional problems, and I think an alternative (but perhaps unpopular?) way to look at one aspect of The Handmaid’s Tale’s satire is to see it as mocking our prejudgments as if our society is somehow better. I say this because it is not until page 174 that the conflict is completely explained. “It was after the catastrophe, when they shot the president and machine-gunned the Congress and the army declared the state of emergency.” (Atwood 174) When we learn, so suddenly, that there was a national crisis, it gives us a better perspective on why their society is this restrictive and scary dystopia. For the first half of the book, we are left to speculation and thus our own judgement, then we are shocked to find actual reasons behind it.
In response to NL, I find it interesting that you see the world that Offred lived in to be the regression of a society that had previously existed. As humans, I believe that we are creatures of habit, those that go through the motions of the formalities of the life that has been dealt to us. As was said in the novel, it would be the hardest for the first generation of women to adjust with the changes being presented to them. After that, the younger ones would not know that anything had been or should be different. Offred even says, “I realize how unaccustomed I am to seeing [make-up], on women, because their eyes look too big to me…” (Atwood 235). I understand that it had only been a couple of years the change occurred, but imagine what a life time would do. Young women would no nothing of the olden days. So I don’t know if I would agree with you that it was a regression. I do agree that there are flaws, as all societies have, but do you think that if we were from a different upbringing, one that was full of horror and chaos, that we would view this “utopia” as a safe-haven? Just a thought.
After reading what CE has said, I do agree that this society may seem a safe haven to some. In fact, most of the people found themselves perfectly fine with their new stature or position. I wouldn’t believe the Commander or his chauffeur were complaining any about their accommodations. But for Offred, her idea of going through the motions and following habit was to be by her husband’s side and to care for her child. That was her normal, humdrum life that she was accustomed to. Only when she was forced out of her home and had her family taken did she begin to get accustomed to her more sheltered life. She, like her mother and Moira, were brought up in the believe that women had the right to choose. Now she not only was stripped of her ability to choose, but she didn’t even have her beloved family and friends by her anymore. So she had to accept her new life as her new habit; her new status quot. That’s why I believed she took all of the events that befell her in stride. She already knew she had no choice in the matter. But CE makes a solid point in saying that further generations wouldn’t feel the same as Offred. They wouldn’t have memories of lipstick and love and wearing the clothes they like. Their memories would be of their society, and not a life like Offred’s previous life. It’s horrifying to think of, but at some point in this future, these children will be happy with their predetermined fates.
The last point CE brought up was an interesting one. If we were women during this “anarchy” with the level of gender violence described in the novel (certainly exaggerated), would we be more open to this lifestyle? The tug of war between security and liberty throughout the novel, and the society’s extreme leaning toward the former, made me keep thinking of the famous Ben Franklin quote: “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” In Gilead, women were entirely without liberty (and I am speaking of active liberty, not of that “freedom from” business) but were, paradoxically, without security. Security certainly means safety from violent regimes, etc. But in Gilead, dissenters were brutally beaten, publicly executed, or forced to slave away over dead and dying bodies as punishment. So it seems that the Ben Franklin adage proved true: those who sacrificed liberty in exchange for security, really did end up with neither.
I think one of the most disturbing parts of the novel was the flashback to the gymnasium, when the handmaids in training were being told to shout and blame another girl for getting raped. Never, ever is a woman “asking for it.” Rape is not a sexual act. Rape happens because men want to aggressively assert power and victimize someone. Rape does not occur because a woman dresses a certain way. No style of clothing is ever the cause of victimization or brutality. Yet, in Gilead, gender violence was because of too many freedoms on behalf of the women. In the book, the role of men did not change very much. However, women became further marginalized, subjugated, and made into objects all while being told it was for their own good. It was safer this way. By punishing the victim, the evils of gender violence would never have been stopped. That was what got under my skin about this book.
Throughout reading The Handmaid’s Tale I recognized that a major theme is how compliant Offred is and what she will do in order to preserve her hope of one day returning to her former life. Although Offred describes many negative aspects of Gilead throughout the novel, she complies to all of the ridiculous rules and regulations of Gilead in return for a small glimpse of hope. Agreeing to secretly meet with the Commander, having an affair with Nick, and even having conversations with Ofglen puts Offred’s life at risk. However, she is willingly compliant with any illegal action as long as it reassures her hopes of returning to her former life.