Tournament of Books discussion

thread to discuss The Testaments by Margaret Atwood and whether this book would have been included if she had published pre-2016 election

(I personally was hoping to leave Handmaid's Tale as is and NOT read this one despite many friends encouraging me to do so)

Well I'm super bummed this one is on the list, honestly. I do not think it warrants the attention, certainly not the Booker. I discussed it twice on my podcast - once before it won the Booker and once afterwards (I think I am better able to articulate the specificity of my disappointment the second time.)

I think THIS was the book everyone read on the subway. This does not equate with a quality book.

If you don't want to read my issues with the book, I'll put them behind a click. (view spoiler)[

I don't believe I should have to watch a TV series to appreciate a book, and this forms the major part of my criticism of this book. I did watch the first season of The Handmaid's Tale, but the episodes came slower and slower, because I was having nightmares. I delayed watching the second season because real life seemed dark enough, and my husband finally went ahead and watched it without me.

When I got to the end of this book, I went and read the synopses of seasons 2 and 3 of the show and here's the thing - this book intertwines with the show and you simply will not understand it without all the parts. This is more aggravating than I can express.

My second major complaint is a complex frustration of this book being included in the Man Booker Shortlist. It is a good enough book in the sense that there are three narrators that rotate and tell different pieces of a somewhat exciting story, but as others have pointed out since two of the narrators are teenagers the novel reads like a pretty typical dystopian YA novel. And maybe not the best one I've ever read (The Hunger Games, for instance, has far more complexity, higher stakes, and dynamic characters.) The writing serves for the pace of a thriller-dystopia but there is nothing literary about it. Even Justin Cronin's vampire novels are of a more literary nature than this book, and I feel like the Man Booker judges are decades, maybe centuries, away from considering such a novel on their list. It does not deserve the spot it is occupying; there were books far better in writing and creativity and voice that were excluded for what, a nostalgia spot?

I also feel the book leaves several questions unanswered but as a reader, I don't even know if I should remark on them or assume they are explained in the show, to the extent that Margaret Atwood felt she didn't need to. For now I'll let them be. (hide spoiler)]

I'm actually pretty happy The Testaments made it on the list ONLY if it gets to go head-to-head with GWO. (Assuming that GWO would win).

The book was definitely written for fans of the TV show rather than fans of the book. I guess good for Atwood for capitalizing on this new fan base she has.

It was still an enjoyable page-turning read so I don't think that should stop anyone from reading it. Just don't expect it to be written in the same literary style as the first book.

I read it when it came out and enjoyed it. It was a good page turner, but it shouldn't win the TOB. It's merely a well-crafted revisit of a classic.

Having said that, people always tag Atwood with the "literature" label, but in doing so often forget that she creates damn suspenseful stories.

Jenny (Reading Envy) wrote: "Well I'm super bummed this one is on the list, honestly. I do not think it warrants the attention, certainly not the Booker..."

I was really hoping to pretend this book was never written, and leave The Handmaid's Tale on the prescient pedestal it deserves (along with the status of 'only Atwood Amy has ever liked) ... something along the lines of what my brain has done with Harper Lee's unmentionable recent release. I'm attempting to be a completist this year though, so I'll realign my expectations to 'this should be entertaining,'

Too bad this couldn't have replaced one of the play-in books as it seems to fit the bill (except there's no way it's a 3rd seed as most play-ins are).

I agree with everything here. The Testaments was a page-turning suspenseful read that didn’t add anything interesting or novel over the original book (Handmaid’s Tale). No reason it should be on this list except that it is difficult to avoid putting a Booker winner on the list. I think there’s an unspoken rule about that. At least we have Girl, Woman, Other also on the list. What a fantastic book that was!

I adore Atwood and have a love/hate relationship with the Hulu Series. (My favorite Atwood is the MaddAddam trilogy.)

As a fan, I had a great time reading The Testaments but was surprised that it won the Booker and earned a spot on the TOB.

I loved this book, but I agree that it might not be TOB worthy.

I am a big Atwood fan, but this doesn't seem up to her normal standards. I reread The Handmaids Tale right before starting The Testaments, and I think that only served to highlight the difference in quality of the story telling. So many of Atwood's books have been favorite reads, that this seemed extra disappointing. I would have preferred a book that was told solely from Lydia's viewpoint.

Like some others here, I was really hoping to avoid this book. I like Atwood’s writing for the most part, and this was no exception, but reading it confirmed for me that its goal was mercenary. Nothing about it felt new or exciting or important. At least it read pretty fast. Honestly still shocked at all the accolades; doesn’t even begin to measure up to Girl, Woman, Other in my mind.

As we get closer to the TOB, I think the lack of commentary here on this book is notable, especially because it’s probably the book on the shortlist that most people have read. Seems to suggest a “meh” opinion all around.

I think if The Handmaid's Tale didn't exist, and The Testaments was really book #1 and an original concept, I think the Testaments would have been received much better. The Testaments is so matter-of-fact (though that might be the point, like testifying in a court would be matter-of-fact) but it's so different from Offred's voice, it's like two different writers wrote these books.

I liked that Handmaid’s Tale dumped you into the world with just hints of how we got there (which seemed both plausible and also extreme) —- but the world changed since then and it feels like Testaments is the answer to “hey, you guys didn’t take the hint not to do this!” by showing all the steps (big and small) along the way. To be honest, it felt more prescient in Handmaid’s Tale while giving us the details in Testaments makes it too easy to dismiss it as “can’t happen here” by picking apart any extreme scene (arresting a mother-via-sperm-donor to get forced into Handmaidenhood e.g.)

It is compulsive though!

Amy wrote: "I liked that Handmaid’s Tale dumped you into the world with just hints of how we got there (which seemed both plausible and also extreme) —- but the world changed since then and it feels like Testa..."

Very true, Amy.

I just finished this last night. I wanted to read the print version since I didn't have a positive experience listening to the audio version of Handmaid's Tale. I'll go back and read that one in print sometime though.

I agree with the comments above. This was a page-turning story, but not much else. I thought the ending section was especially disappointing. It felt like a cheap way to wrap it all up, and another format could have created a more moving conclusion.

I marked various points in the book as I read though. I liked the comparison of executions and marriage, and these lines, "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer. Having no friends, I must make do with enemies," (speaking of cockroaches crawling over her face) "I did not slap them. After a while you welcome any kind of touch," and "Torture is like dancing: I'm too old for it. Let the younger ones practice their bravery."

I also marked some strange things though. I'm surprised the author used terms like "street people," "gypsy," and the line, "A tooth missing like that makes a person look illegal." I wondered if this language was intentional or if she's out of touch with what people are (and are NOT) saying these days...

This was reasonably entertaining but not high quality literature for me. I agree that it probably shouldn't have won the Booker or made the ToB shortlist, but hopefully the judges can pull a lively discussion out of us.

Testaments was entertaining but I'd rather read the novel about how Gilead came to be rather than its demise. I feel like we are living that novel...

Good Lord I’m finding this an indulgent mess. It feels every bit the longest book in the tournament to me. Such a shame, since the original (just reread) still has that breathless, golden quality.

(I also balked at the “illegal” person line. Talk about tone deaf! Whew...)

Huh. I really liked this book and am fine with it being in the ToB (even though my beloved Disappearing Earth is not). I found it to be the page-turner that everyone else did but I also found it to be literary (though that term is pretty nebulous).

And whomever said they wanted simply Aunt Lydia's narrative, yeah, I'd be down with that. She was definitely the most interesting character. I'm psyched to read the judgement tomorrow.

It will motivate me to reread The Handmaid’s Tale, but I enjoyed it for its standalone value. It will be interesting to see what the judge does with it though, as despite the Booker co-win, it doesn’t have the same literary feel as most ToB contestants.

Lee wrote: "I read the Handmaids tale when it was first published, I was a young woman and I thought it was amazing! I read it again 3 years ago and it frightened me. I haven't watched the TV program as I didn..."

One of my book clubs read The Natural Way of Things a few years ago and we thought it was excellent! I still remember it very vividly.