I've not posted as I meant to, though I have read as I meant to ... my somewhat late book review
I read this book in December to ensure it could be included in my Read reviews. It seemed the logical companion to January’s Not Read selection, The Testaments, also by Margaret Atwood. I wasn’t sure if I’d read it before; it was included in one of my university modules, but we may have only studied exerts rather than read the whole book. So, with doubt put to rest in the run up to Christmas – on with the review. For those who do not know the premise, The Handmaid’s Tale is the story of Offred, a Handmaid in Gilead, a new state in North America. Gilead is a pseudo-religious state that takes (and twists) verses from the Bible to support its key purpose of making women subservient to men. This is most easily demonstrated in the existence of handmaidens – women who are believed to be able to conceive and exist simply to become pregnant and provide a child to the family she is positioned with. Atwood said when writing the story, she only used things that had happened in history to create her dystopian world, and it is this element that makes the story resonate uncomfortably - it can’t be passed off as ridiculous or impossible. It is our reality that the passage of time has not equated to an evenly paced increase of women’s rights and freedoms. That the symbol of the handmaid is now being seen at protests shows that the threat the story describes is not inconceivable. The element I like the most about the creation of this dystopian world is that it did not come about in a bloody revolt, but that ideas were introduced slowly, freedoms eroded in stages, and only when in a position of certain success, was the final step taken to break with the old way of life. I find it difficult to say what I don’t like, other than the premise as a possible future. I would like more details of those early days of Gilead, but as someone hungry for more detail rather than because I feel its lack detracts from the story.
I read this book in December to ensure it could be included in my Read reviews. It seemed the logical companion to January’s Not Read selection, The Testaments, also by Margaret Atwood. I wasn’t sure if I’d read it before; it was included in one of my university modules, but we may have only studied exerts rather than read the whole book. So, with doubt put to rest in the run up to Christmas – on with the review.
For those who do not know the premise, The Handmaid’s Tale is the story of Offred, a Handmaid in Gilead, a new state in North America. Gilead is a pseudo-religious state that takes (and twists) verses from the Bible to support its key purpose of making women subservient to men. This is most easily demonstrated in the existence of handmaidens – women who are believed to be able to conceive and exist simply to become pregnant and provide a child to the family she is positioned with.
Atwood said when writing the story, she only used things that had happened in history to create her dystopian world, and it is this element that makes the story resonate uncomfortably - it can’t be passed off as ridiculous or impossible. It is our reality that the passage of time has not equated to an evenly paced increase of women’s rights and freedoms. That the symbol of the handmaid is now being seen at protests shows that the threat the story describes is not inconceivable. The element I like the most about the creation of this dystopian world is that it did not come about in a bloody revolt, but that ideas were introduced slowly, freedoms eroded in stages, and only when in a position of certain success, was the final step taken to break with the old way of life.
I find it difficult to say what I don’t like, other than the premise as a possible future. I would like more details of those early days of Gilead, but as someone hungry for more detail rather than because I feel its lack detracts from the story.