Our Shared Shelf discussion

I think that the cast at said press conference was simply trying to be politically correct. Considering that Alexis Bledel (Ofglen) has spoken up about its feminist tones and how important they are.

Personally, I think that for them to deny its feminism is a bit silly. The entire novel practically screams feminism and it shows what a world without it could be like. Job roles aside, this novel is not far off from what women dealt with before the suffrage movement.

I have yet to finish the novel. I read half of it back in college a few years ago over a summer semester. Speaking of what I know about the media and mainstream news in general, though, until a tv show is immensely popular, most networks and the casts and crews of shows would merely be smart to not label a new program with anything that is remotely controversial at the time. No one involved would desire to isolate potential audiences. Conversely, the actors claiming the show to not be at all feminist could be them just following network protocol. After all, wouldn't you speak publicly the sentiments of the people signing your paycheck? Sure, any of them could speak their own opinions, as is their right. But then their characters could be written off the show later on, if the press given about the show BY them and OUTSIDE of the network's permission would cost the show potential or even current viewers. Fans of the original work may disagree with any denial of feminist sentiments in the show, but we need to look at the actions and words of those involved from their perspective.

Keith- You also make a great point about the abuse of patriarchal power. That is, perhaps, one of the controversial topics the show and book touches on. Fortunately, in most westernized countries we don't have to worry about that to the extent as many other countries around the world, most well-known being countries of the Middle East like Saudi Arabia. The controversial issue I meant, and should have clarified, is feminism itself. Feminism means so many different things to people from many different walks of life, yet the core meaning, equality of the genders, is being given a bad connotation thanks to some feminists acting to the extreme on the issues they fight for. I may be berated for putting that out there, but there it is. With the image the media can so easily plaster across our TVs these days of men and women acting violently (or extremely in other ways) in the name of feminism and its causes, it's truly no wonder that Hulu and possibly even the showrunners would want to put some space between The Handmaid's Tale show/Hulu and feminism. They must do everything to pull in an audience before explaining that yes, this story is feminist and humanist (according to Atwood).

I finished the book about a month ago and absolutely loved it. I haven't watched the film adaptation (very recently found out there actually is one), but I'm quite eager to watch the show (gripping trailer and all that jazz). Following this thread for the interesting discussion that's bound to unfold as the episodes come out. Also, has anyone watched the 1990 film, and if so, would you suggest it?

Hmm. So a couple of things to comment on. And fair warning, I am about 2/3 finished with the book - myself an Atwood Newbie.

1) until a tv show is immensely popular, most networks and the casts and crews of shows would merely be smart to not label a new program with anything that is remotely controversial at the time. Completely agree Samantha.

I do not see this as bad practice. To me, I see it as parallel to Emma's books in the subways. Sneaky feminism, the kind that inspires you to learn more without hitting you over the head with it.

2) From
"It's not a feminist story, it's a human story."
To
"“It’s not only a feminist story, it’s also a human story.”

I love this. Especially as in the States are constantly trying to one-up other parties. i.e. the Black Lives Matters vs All Lives Matter debate.

It doesn't need to be an either / or statement, It can be an AND story.

3) Moving on from that, this crosses into the hyphenation practice. Asian-American, Female-Doctor.

Is it wrong to say American or Doctor only?
Does hyphenation detract from the message?
Does hyphenation compartmentalize? I can see how this helps with categorizing it for easy recollection later, but can we leave it as a Science Fiction? Is this story something that can sit easily next to "Fahrenheit 451" or "Clockwork Orange"

And then completely off the rhetoric...
4) It's fascinating to see the age of the people involved. I feel that the TV show is playing up on the sexualized tone more so than the dissonance / enforced ignorance. I.e. the age of the Commander / Serena Joy. They are young! 30-40, not someone going silver or using a cane!

Does this make the virility and fertility issues more important than the power struggles?

My friend is wondering if she can watch (and understand) The Handmaid's Tale without reading the book first. I have yet to finish the novel myself so I cannot give her an answer. Thoughts?

Ayumu,

Based on the trailers that I've seen and considering that I finished reading the novel today, I think your friend will be just fine. I'm sure the show will give a proper and accurate exposition. If anything, it seems that the show will add on material that wasn't in the novel and expand characters' story arcs.

Is anyone watching the adaptation? Would love to discuss it if so - there are some really exciting and interesting aspects to it!

The show's a hit. It's already been approved for a second season.

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/05/hand...

From the linked article I can say both Brewer and Moss cleverly said it is a feminist story.

I haven't seen the show yet - I'm very eager but I want to finish the book first - and I am not up to date with any controversy surrounding these comments made by the cast, but I can see why it would have been said.
In a world where we are presented with so many options for entertainment or information, it's a risky bet to make any public statement that could possible alienate any potential audiences; if we don't like what we hear, we can so easily just ignore it and put our attention elsewhere. It's not like there is only one or two platforms for news, or only one or two television programs to choose from, the possibilities are seemingly endless.
The fact that referring to a TV show as 'feminist' could alienate audiences is, to me, very upsetting. I've only recently become a conscious feminist, and the looks of disapproval and offense I get from people when I tell them this, clearly reflects a widely held negative perspective on the concept of feminism - I am immediately seen as a loud-mouthed man-hater. When I have to explain myself and provide clarity to these people, I have Emma's voice on replay in my head "fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating...feminism by definition is: “The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.” " (See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/storie...)
It's unfortunate that this has to be explained in order to be taken seriously, as I'm sure it would be the same for the cast of the show, once they associate the show with the word 'feminism', they would then have explain and justify the show's validity in every interview before people have even seen an episode.
I like Maisie Williams' attitude to the misconceptions of the feminist label: "...I [also] feel like we should stop calling feminists 'feminists' and just start calling people who aren’t feminist 'sexist' – and then everyone else is just a human. You are either a normal person or a sexist." (See more at: http://time.com/4284168/game-of-thron...)

Ann Dowd (Aunt Lydia) does an excellent job in the show, to get people to hate her character. She's a fantastic villian.

She's like Nurse Ratched (played by Louise Fletcher) from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest; she gets off on hurting the ones she's supposed to be helping.

She drives you nuts, watching her, but you still can't take your eyes off of her, lol. Amazing performance.

She's right up there with Kathy Bates in Stephen King's Misery.

I think part of the reason they wanted to distance themselves from it being feminism is the bad rapport feminism has received due to people thinking/claiming they are feminism when they're fighting for superiority of women over men instead of equality. A common term that has cropped up for this is "feminazi" if you've heard of it. This type of feminist has given feminism a bad name in society and a lot of people don't realize that that's not what feminism is actually about.

The show is wonderful. Unfortunately, they made a bit of changes from the book to make it more dramatic and television-series appropriate. I suggest both versions of the story.

I think it is a really important update to the story, bringing it more into 2017 - for example in the way it approached LGBTQ+ issues.

There are elements which it truly brings out and makes far more interesting, for example the idea that it is impossible to suggest a man is infertile is not just left as a simple statement but explored in different ways across episodes.

It does a good job of not coming across as the very stereotyped 'man-hating' feminism and goes to lengths to show that such a society doesn't benefit men either.

I have to admit some ambivalence here. While the intersectional elements are good. There is a case for that a story about oppression of women has been appropriated and the message lost.

The patriarchy does work for the men in the story some more directly than others but all as a direct result of there systematic oppression of women. That I feel was a key message lost form the book.

But as I said I am conflicted the updating making the loss of equality in general and the cost of that the foucs does make the story more relevant and open to a wider audience.

I understand where you are coming from Ross but I would disagree: I think even in the book it is clear that the regime doesn't benefit men either - otherwise why is the commander breaking the rules to collect reading material, play scrabble with Offred and take her to Jezebel's? If it is so beneficial I would question why Jezebel's even exists - it is not an officially sanctioned part of this regime.

I think Gilead reflects our own world - patriarchy isn't just men treating women badly so life is better for them, that's too simplistic. It is people of any gender perpetuating the subordinate status of women - as many women do this too. In Gilead, Atwood has the Aunts taking on this role, and to some extent event the wives, while equally men such as the Doctor offer to help Offred, breaking the rules of the regime (potentially, if he is not an Eye - but even so we know there are male allies as they are regularly hung from the wall). 'Men are bad and women are oppressed' is far too simple, and I don't think that is what Atwood was ever getting at.

I don't think the TV show loses its message about the oppression of women by dealing with LGBTQ+ issues, or expanding on the issues for men. If anything the treatment of Ofglen actually goes further in showing how women are oppressed. For me the oppression, and systematic abuse and rape of women is being made horrifyingly clear by the TV show.

In the flashbacks in Episode 3, even the boss that fired all of the women was uncomfortable with the situation. All he said was, "You're all being let go." "We're being fired?" "No, you're not being fired. You're being let go. ... They only gave me 10 minutes. I'm sorry."

Aside from that, I'm as much in the dark as everyone else.

That boss in the flashback is probably dead by now, assuming that this show follows similar rules to what happened in Orwell's 1984. In that book, anyone that didn't think, the way of Big Brother, would either be killed, tortured or undergo severe brainwashing.

I do think it was awfully strange for the cast to deter from calling the show and the book "feminist" because the book is grounded in feminism and what it means to be oppressed as a person simply because you're a woman. It is a human story because the characters are human and it examines, so far from what I've read, what it means to be human but as a woman. I hope the cast has since made efforts to make it clear the story is about feminism because if they don't, I think they've missed the point of the story. Does anybody else agree?

Ashley wrote: "I think part of the reason they wanted to distance themselves from it being feminism is the bad rapport feminism has received due to people thinking/claiming they are feminism when they're fighting..."

Feminazis is a word coined by right wing radio personality Rush Limbaugh and referred to ALL feminists, not just the radicals.

From what I've read of the book so far, I would most certainly consider The Handmaid's Tale a feminist read, as it head on tackles a disturbing oppression of women to take make a clear point about gender inequality. Generally I would say, however, that feminism itself is for everyone as anyone can support the cause. Feminism is simply a cause that calls for gender equality.

Toria wrote: "I do think it was awfully strange for the cast to deter from calling the show and the book "feminist" because the book is grounded in feminism and what it means to be oppressed as a person simply b..."

I wasn't aware of that. I actually wasn't even aware it was a coined term, I thought it was slang. Thank you for that insight.

The point I was trying to make is that there are a lot of misconceptions about feminism that leave a bad taste in people's mouths. This article articulates that better than I did: http://www.upworthy.com/helen-mirren-...

Jason wrote: "Ann Dowd (Aunt Lydia) does an excellent job in the show, to get people to hate her character. She's a fantastic villian.

She's like Nurse Ratched (played by Louise Fletcher) from One Flew Over The..."

I know and I totally agree, someone give her an award!

Interesting question, personally I would say it's a Human story first, and it becomes a feminist one depending on your perspective. While it has themes about suppression, the overarching discussion Atwood presents is about the fragility of any political system, and therefore the fragility of the freedoms we enjoy under that system.

Feminism is about equality for all, but maybe this book isn't about fighting for more equality, but rather about how many of us take our freedom in the western world for granted. Though as feminists we can apply those themes to our own discussion – How can we change society for the better?; Who gets to choose what “better” is? – does that make the book itself feminist?

In Gilead is anyone truly free or equal? Does one gender enjoy more freedom than others? Nick isn't free either is he? He just decide to quit his job and move, he isn't allowed to buy nice things to furnish his apartment, and he can't have a family with anyone he chooses. Does anyone ever ask the commander for his consent during the ceremony - would he be punished for not participating? The prologue suggests the commander, despite his position of power, didn’t necessarily get away with bending the rules as easily as we may have assumed.

Feminism is about Freedom, but perhaps not all Freedom is about Feminism.

Apparently the TV show is going to a second series not sure if they will split the story from the book or if it will be new material.

@Ross: I feel like they're setting the series up for a dramatic rescue of June and I think we'll actually see retaliation against the regime in the second season. I really hope they don't try to save the world by allowing for the regime to be dispelled immediately...like that's GOT to take several seasons before that could happen--as we read in the book...Gilead lasts a while. It would be too unrealistic and I think the power behind this story is how possible it is.

Anywho--I have loved other details in the story showing us or giving us an idea how the rest of the US feels about this regime--there's a Civil War in Chicago (so the South and possibly the West aren't takers) and an alternative govt is set up in Canada. I have enjoyed seeing Little America in Canada and getting to see another woman not from June's circle who made it out of the handmaid school. Note--I say June to refer to Ofglen in the series since she officially names herself. I'll stick to Ofglen for the novel reference if I make any.

@Nikki I think you mean Offred rather than Ofglen. Offred is the protagonist of the novel, Ofglen her shopping/walking partner

Having finally finished watching the Hulu series, I'd have to say that it's a Human story, vs. Atwood's novel, which is more a feminist story, the reason being narrative changes. In the tv series, Offred's is not the only narrative we get - we follow several story lines and view things through the perspectives of Ofglen, Luke, Moira, Nick, and Mrs. Waterford. The show is more interested in world building than telling the feminist-focused story that Atwood built in her novel. The novel focuses just on Offglen's story, because the book is literally a collection of her memories. We see things solely through her perspective, a woman's perspective, and how she frames the lives of others from her perspective. That is a smaller world within a larger one. The Hulu series is more focused on the larger world, the world of Gilead, so it becomes more of a Human story, capturing how different humans are dealing with a shift in their world of freedom to one of restriction.

@Nikki, excellent analysis I hope the producers see this. Its a complex tail with many possible story lines that could be used to explore feminism, now and in the past. We could also see the role and effect of Gilhead on the wider world only really touched on in the book. Also use real world events for how Gilhead came about.