The Apolyton Science Fiction Book Club: The Handmaid's Tale

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by JohnT
Bump. Was I the only one to read this book, ever?

I've read it.

Like Animal Farm it is a perfect novel for high-school kids to study in literature class. I'll let you decide for yourself whether that is a good or bad thing.

I agree with most of JohnT's opinion's above. The book reads (IIRC... it's been a while) like only half an idea. Atwood is a very talented authoress, but this is far from her best work - she could have done so many more interesting things with the themes and story. The fall of the society seems a natural and logical conclusion of the book, but quite how it ever rose in the first place is never really adequately explained.

It most certainly is Science Fiction, btw, no matter what little-miss-snooty Margaret Atwood says. So are 1984 and Brave New World - where Atwood goes wrong in her definition is that she uses Sci-Fi as a euphemism for 'crap' instead of regarding it as a genuine genre.

[chequita guevara]

I read the book a few years back. Bush and Ashcroft have me thinking back on the Republic of Gilead constantly.

Obviously the RoG is unsustainable. Fascism is inherently an unsustainable government, a reaction to a society that is already out of control. The RoG cannot last, but it can do a lot of harm in a very small amount of time.

I will probably reread it later this week, but I'm already intimidated by JohnT's commentary.

[chequita guevara]

We should have our own forum for this, outside the OT!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I read the book a few years back. Bush and Ashcroft have me thinking back on the Republic of Gilead constantly.

Obviously the RoG is unsustainable. Fascism is inherently an unsustainable government, a reaction to a society that is already out of control. The RoG cannot last, but it can do a lot of harm in a very small amount of time.

I will probably reread it later this week, but I'm already intimidated by JohnT's commentary.

Don't worry about it... I'm gonna be like that every month. I feel, as moderator, that I have to know enough about the book in order to keep the discussion going, so I always take notes and write up stuff about the books I read.

I think if I made a mistake here it was in dumping it all out at once, overwhelming the thread from the first minutes. Next time I'll parcel my thoughts out over time a bit more - it'll help the thread. I'll also be able to add a bit more than "bump" when the thread starts to die.

I don't know about the new forum though. This will do just fine in the OT imo. Technically,

Spoiler:

being a club thread

, this is against the rules, but we'll keep that between you and me, ok?

Guy to guy, I gotta ask all of you: if you had a chance to design a society where you had the "right" to a succession of "God-given" mistresses, would you come up with Gilead?

[St Leo]

Guy to guy, I gotta ask all of you: if you had a chance to design a society where you had the "right" to a succession of "God-given" mistresses, would you come up with Gilead?

Hell, no.

The fall of the society seems a natural and logical conclusion of the book, but quite how it ever rose in the first place is never really adequately explained.

The same thing could be said - very wrongly - about Zelazny's Forever After.

[Ben Kenobi]

Christianity prevented further expansion by turning it into a convert-or-die situation.

-St. Leo

How tolerant were the Romans of Christians before Constantine? The Romans had lots of other problems besides conversion to Christianity. One factor, not even citing Gibbon as a source, but the Lead that lined all the drinking water slowly lead poisoned large swaths of Romans. Another could be increasing reliance upon non-Roman mercenaries to hold the empire together.

Besides, it's not a feature of Christianity to have forced conversions, although Constantine did push infant baptism as a state institution. So blame Roman alterations of Christianity for forced conversions.

In any case, you got me to re-read a good book.

Thanks John T.

[St Leo]

How tolerant were the Romans of Christians before Constantine?

How tolerant would you be of people who made a habit of vandalizing your most treasured property ("golden idols") and sacred sites ("pagan temples") much like the neoNazis of today who vandalise synagogues and the White Supremacists who are into burning churches?

Edit: For example, I recently read Nino Ricci's Lives of the Saints for class. The book features excerpts from a book of Catholic hagiographies of the protagonists' namesakes.

One of the hagiographies was about St. Christina, some pre-Constantinian saint. After being converted by some life-long fixture of Roman Empire's Most Wanted, she steals valuable and exquisitively crafted figurines from her employer, sells them, and "donates the money to charity".

Naturally, she is caught and brought to a court of law. Blah blah blah. She eventually ascends to heaven in the middle of the Mediterranean with no witnesses (angels having murdered everyone on her ship).

[molly bloom]

People who enjoyed (or didn't) 'The Handmaid's Tale' might also find Robert Heinlein's 'Coventry' and 'If This Goes On' of interest, and also Keith Roberts' 'Pavane' .

I do find Attwood's definition of s.f. to be somewhat short sighted and snobbish- given that as a genre it encompasses a wide field from the likes of Samuel R Delany to H.G. Wells, Zoe Fairbairns and Joanna Russ. Her book easily fits into the genre, whatever she may think- although I do think as another poster said, that the problem with Offred's world is that it seems half-realized. I suspect this is not the result of a limited scope or point of view of the character, but is Attwood's own failure of imagination. I believe this to be because she is more concerned with exploring the theme of the treatment of women, women's role in society, and how women may betray themselves (Serena Joy- a wonderfully ironic name for someone who does not possess 'serene joy') than in conceiving or picturing the world fully.

[chequita guevara]

I think we should explore the theme of Offred's being the object, rather than the subject, of her own story. She never acts, but once. She tries to feel out the new handmaiden which her contact in the underground. She has been passive so long that once she tries to act, it is too late.

No, I'm wrong. She acted one other time, when she tried to escape. But again, it was the same. She waited too long, so that when she did finally act, it was too late.

In this, The HandMaiden's Tale is a longer version of Rev. Niemoller's poem:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

If you wait too long to act against tyranny, even if simply to save yourself, you doom all.

[JohnT]

"No, I'm wrong. She acted one other time, when she tried to escape. But again, it was the same. She waited too long, so that when she did finally act, it was too late."

Actually, I believe it was Luke that made the decision.

In my earlier posts, I suggested that while Atwood took it for granted that men were pigs, the real problem (as she sees it) seems to be the inability of women to be nothing but *****y and catty to each other. Anybody who has spent a lot of time with the fairer sex can't help but notice that women don't really trust other women. Oh, they'll make allowances for their friends and family, no doubt about that, but even then they can be vicious: "Did you just see what she was wearing today? " Atwood rails against the lack of true sorority among females that she sees in the fraternization in males: their greater ability to temporarily subsume personal emotions to achieve a larger goal.

From what I've read over the past few days, the cruelty of women to other women is a common theme in Atwoods works, including Cats Eye and The Robber Bride.

[JohnT]

"... and also Keith Roberts' 'Pavane'."

I've read Pavane and it is possibly the most languid book I have ever read. The only reason I enjoyed it was because I'm a Reformation-history buff and I enjoyed a fair number of the subtleties that I recognized. But other than that,

Some day I'm gonna get a copy of Kingsley Amis' The Alteration and read that bad boy.

By the way, who is Molly Bloom? We had another poster here whos s/n was a takeoff of that name (MBloomIII), and while I could Google it, that wouldn't be any fun.

[Eli]

Originally posted by JohnT
Bump. Was I the only one to read this book, ever?

I started reading it couple days ago. 20% is done, more or less. It sucks.