Week 5 - Modern Lit: Handmaid's Tale

Irony is:
  "We won't be the only one to compare Margaret Atwood's haunting novel to Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange--it's that frightening. Atwood examines life after the extreme right has had its way. Believe us, you won't want to live that long. Read this novel--then contribute to your favorite liberal cause."
  -Playboy (this was 1985-86 Playboy by the way)

Thought about doing a Playboy cover as a joke, but I figure that may be out of my bounds for a school blog. I hope you get the irony nevertheless.

I don't give modern literature a chance. I think out of the 30 books I've read this year only two of them have been what most would call modern: The Life of Pi and Closing Time. The Life of Pi I read just because I saw a discussion on it on Reddit which inspired me to read it and I needed to change things up. That's partially why I am reading modern literature here, to change things up. Closing Time I read because it's the little-known sequel that came forty years after one of my favorite books Catch-22. Matter of fact, I was inspired to read The Divine Comedy after a discussion on the book between two of the characters. Matter of fact, Dante and The Divine Comedy is referenced in The Canterbury Tales, the book we're currently reading in class. MATTER OF FACT, the book I read alludes to how many of the stories were titled in The Canterbury Tale (i.e.,  [possessive role in society here] tale). In the book, the main character is a handmaid or a female servant, thus the title is The Handmaid's Tale. Woven like a quilt, that was.

So, I have some experience with the dystopian genre, I've read all the dystopian novels that are esteemed as classics by most. Those being Fahrenheit 451 (1953), Brave New World (1932), and 1984 (1949). All of those books I enjoyed immensely and with the genre it is always fascinating reading into what their respective philosophy might be. So, I went into The Handmaid's Tale with that in mind … well, it wouldn't be a dystopian novel if I disagreed with some of the ideas.

One of the advantages of reading modern literature is that you can understand the context and the espoused views easier than you can with classic fiction. Like in the classic, Brave New World, where it depicts a hedonistic (meaning the ultimate goal is to indulge in the senses such as drugs and sex) society that indoctrinates all citizens at birth. I really don't know where the author, Aldous Huxley, could've been coming from when he created such a society. I guess maybe people advocating for repealing the Prohibition Act may have had an influence on him, but that is the best I could do. Here I understand where Margaret Atwood was coming from. There was a revival in conservative values at the time and people were denouncing the ongoing sexual revolution and feminism in general.



For being made in 1985, the main theme of the novel, women under control in a patriarchal society, isn't as powerful as I thought it would be, however. With other dystopian novels, I usually see the society presented as what could be ours through a distorted mirror of the present. But I'm sorry to all the impassioned readers and supporters of the book, I have a tough time seeing society develop into the theocratic system described. You could say that's because you are a guy Alex, you just don't understand the female side of things. You got me, I guess, but at the same time they are forcing women into the constricting roles of this new system, they are taking away men's freedoms, from their current relationships, from their jobs, from all the comforts of modern society. Why wouldn't they protest this, I ask. And I never received an answer, the best explanation the author gives me is that their freedoms were gone before they could react to it. "The newspaper stories were like dreams to us, bad dreams dreamt by others. How awful, we would say, and they were, but they were awful without being believable." Heck, Atwood just does away with all African-Americans in a couple lines in the story and that's it. It feels like an editor pointed out a plot hole and she didn't want to deal with themes of race, so she just did a real quick patch-up job.

Nowadays, the minority would be so small in support of the society presented that, although the back of the book asks, "In the world of the near future, who will control women's bodies?" I can't help but think the book's argument is a bit outdated, women have made massive steps towards equality since then and I can't see all the progress being reversed by a particular group of people even if the argument is made currently referring to the presidency.

Women dress up as characters from The Handmaid's Tale to protest Vice President Pence. Therefore, you might see signs referencing the book or just signs saying "Abort VP Pence."

Protesters referencing abortion being restricted in some states in the U.S.

Alas, I'm getting too opinionated here, but with books rooted strongly in politics, I think that will inevitably happen when addressing the subjects especially with it being more relevant than say, my last book Dracula, its political belief being Western European countries forcing their society upon Eastern Europeans. When I say relevant, this is what I am typically referring to, this book experienced a resurgence when Trump was elected, even a TV show was made just recently in 2017 on The Handmaid's Tale.

I could've compared the book to the show, but it feels wasteful when I just watch TV for hours. Maybe it's good, I don't know. I hear they have black actors in some of the roles, but it doesn't change much.

The book was a refreshing change than my past classics, however. It's an enjoyable feeling actually being engaged in the environment and story presented and it is its own experience and can't be replaced with simply reading a summary from Sparknotes. In 1984, Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451, this was the case when reading those novels and it's the same here. With Dracula and The Divine Comedy, I couldn't help but feel that I would've received the same experience if I just read a chapter by chapter summary of the books. In The Handmaid's Tale, it begins with the dystopian society already progressed with the main character Offred  (Offred, get it? She subverts what is expected of her in the red gown) in a depressed situation and you want to know how it came to this, what's her background. Atwood answers all through flashbacks and discussions Offred covertly has with other characters in the book. It's well organized, feeling like an authentic journal coming from the protagonist, and it's not outlandish in how it is written, which is what I was looking forward to when reading this book, cleansing my palate of some of the classic books' prose. It's straightforward, doesn't try to be pretentious, except when it acts like this could happen to the U.S., and answers every question that you may have, making it a satisfying read.

The exception to that being the ending ... it was unfortunately disappointing. I was expecting something emotionally powerful that will remain with you and at the end make you contemplate, "could this happen to us?", or "is there really no path of recovery from that point forward?". I remember when I read 1984 (I won't spoil it as I know Kari is reading it currently and it will probably weaken your experience of the book if you plan to read it someday) that I was in a melancholy state after reading its ends, thinking:is there any way to avoid this? The answer lies with Orwell's original purpose in creating 1984, not allowing totalitarianism to continue and develop. Nevertheless, I am going to spoil The Handmaid's Tale. It is what I was expecting when reading the book, it doesn't mean that the ending can't be good although. Brave New World was what I expected, but the ending I found to be so much more powerful than I expected. It ends with her being captured by what looks the all-seeing Eye, the omnipresent government of Gilead, but her secret sexual partner says they're with him and she'll see freedom. Thus, it leaves us uncertain as to her fate. According to Offred, she'll be happy with whatever "new beginning" she experiences; either she receives death out of her intolerable life or she actually will escape the country and be free. It's a sound ending, not top ten material, but still, I appreciate it. 

 

Wait just a second Margaret Atwood, what are these twenty pages after the ending of our protagonist's story? Are you telling me that instead of strengthening your message by ending there with an air of uncertainty, you instead decide to resolve the story and then some? Not following the format of the book, there is a section titled "Historical Notes on The Handmaid's Tale." When I saw this I thought it was just a postscript from the author, but apparently, it is a transcript of a lecture discussing and presenting their thoughts on an audio recording of The Handmaid's Tale in the year 2195. The recording which was illegal in Gilead, Offred managed to do at some point in her journey to freedom. I do not understand why the author would want to go this route at the end. Maybe she instead wants her final ending point to be don't make assumptions which is what Atwood was doing a commentary with the speaker in the lecture I believe. But why? That theme wasn't even explored in any other part of this book.  If you have read this book, and I know a couple people have in our class, I would welcome your explanation and interpretation of this ending, because, at the moment, I don't get it.

Altogether, my experience with The Handmaid's Tale has been a positive one even if I've been overly critical of the book. Perhaps that's because I gauged this book on the impact 1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451  had on me. Perhaps I viewed those books through rose-tinted glasses. But the difference still remains I don't think my first-time reading experience of The Handmaid's Tale was as memorable as a journey as the others. For it being more modern than its counterparts, I feel like it is more dated. With classics, I feel like I always have an excuse for something repugnant or obstinate about the work. I give them the benefit of the doubt; it was a different time, I'll say. What can I say excusing a book made in 1985? Oh well, I'll say, maybe it wasn't for me. Ergo, that's the end of this blog for week 5. I would recommend this book for people who are a feminist and desire to read some literature surrounding that cause. Otherwise, read the other dystopian novels mentioned in this blog, then, if you are craving more, read The Handmaid's Tale.

If commenting, ask me about the novel's place in high school. The book used to be read in Modern Literature classes at CCDHS (how I got my book).  I wrote a decent paragraph on it, but cut it because it didn't relate to the focus of the blog.