Bailey's/Orange Women's Fiction Group discussion

Happy New Year.
Our first book of 2020 is The Testaments by Margaret Atwood.

I agree about the tone Sheri, it has a cast of characters most of whom don't appear in The Handmaid's Tale as well. I don't think it would work all that well without the earlier book though, so it is a sequel in the sense of being set in the same world.
Has anyone read it without reading The Handmaid's Tale, or seeing the television series?

For me it was more hopeful and less oppressive than THT. It felt more like a sequel to the series than the book.

Still brilliant though.

I enjoyed the multiple viewpoints and the insight into the Aunts.

I ve not read The Handmaid’s Tale yet so thought I should do that first. Has anyone listened to it?

I listened to the Handmaid’s Tale on Audible the second time that I read it. Mine was narrated by Joanna David. It was well done. But I felt the content was even more disturbing.

I just cannot get over a special prize separated by gender.

cameron wrote: "I just cannot get over a special prize separated by gender."
Yes, you have said that a few times before, Cameron, in much the same words. How about making it a new year's resolution to try?
You could look back at previous conversations on this point and see if they help.

I read The Testaments last week and I have to say, I loved it. It felt very different in tone to the Handmaids Tale, but I liked it. I read the hardback and also listened along to the audiobook, which cemented the story for me - it is the first time I have both read and listened to the book (I’m normally either/or). I only read three Handmaids Tale for the first time last year, and I think reading both books in the current uncertain climate, made them even more powerful.

I read this last month and quite enjoyed it. I loved Handmaid's Tale. I agree with others about the tone. Testaments definitely felt less oppressive.

Almost done - it’s getting very tense!!!! Have loved it so far

I finished this. I thought it was brilliant. Much more gripping than THT. How ingenious of Atwood to subvert like this. My only criticism was the ending was rushed. I wanted to ‘witness’ the destruction of Gilead not just hear about it ‘many years later’

I really enjoyed this book. It is a much better companion to the series than the first book.

I haven't seen the series, but I'm guessing the 'Baby Nicole' character and storyline link into it.

what did you think of the ending Val?
I was left wondering what happened to the structure and power holders within Gilead. I wanted to know what the survivors would have thought about their collaboration with such an evil regime and their own brainwashing.
I wonder if it would have been like any area today that is assimilated and not fully opened up to its evils. For example it is still only recently that many atrocities by Franco are being talked about or written about in Spain. The people of Biafra , their uprising and subsequent squashing and famine, we never hear about the people's feelings about these things later and I think it would be interesting to hear.

We already know that the regime will fall eventually from THT. I can't remember how long it was supposed to have lasted overall, but I think it was supposed to have lasted past the fifteen years later when this book is set and more attentive or recent readers would know exactly. This means the ending has to be a bit fudged to blur any inconsistency between Gilead's longevity and the hope of its imminent destruction in this book.
I can't say I liked the book stopping when it did, but I can see why Atwood did it that way.

Ah .. yes I didn’t pick up on that