I do not think anything could happen in the US as it did in the book, beacuse I feel that there are too many people and too many different kinds of people. However, I do think that someone would try to have a society in the US like the one in the book, but I really feel ( and hope) that it would not pass beacuse of the large amount of people here and he large amount of opinions here. Maybe it cuold happen in Texas, but not in libral states.

I agree with the British - it's a great story. I don't think such a society would ever develop in the U.S. or Canada although some aspects of it have occurred in Afghanistan and other countries.

What impressed me most about this story is that it celebrates the humas spirit's ability to survive despite great difficulties. Offred's circumstance is unbearable. Even though her position allows some measure of privilege, she has lost her husband, her child and her freedom. We never learn to what extent, if any, she is able to recover, but we do learn that she finds a way to tell her story. She exhibets a practical appproach to living through whatever her present circumstances present. She's a memorable and heroic character.

I think the potential is there. We tend to look at charactors in books and seperate ourselves from them as "the other." One of my huge problems with this book, and its very possible Atwood did this intentionally. is the enforcer charactors were entirley one dimentional. The only people who were really developed were the Commander and Offred. There was little insight into how the other peole became who they werein this new society. That distancing makes it very easy for us to say, well i'm not like that, or it could never happen. The truth of the matter is that any group of poeple pushed to thier limits will do anything they deem nessesary to survive. This society felt that re-orginzing itself into this new repressive one was the only way to continue, and it was carried out by a few people. I think under very spesfic, unlikey, circumstances this could happen. Especailly if it wascarried out gradually. In our country with our mindset, if all our rights were taken away at one, it would never fly. However, if things are done slowly like they are in the book, people will begin to accept it as the way things have always been done.

This was an amazing book that will never leave the back of your head. It was such a shocking story especially because everything had already occurred in same way in the world before. It is scary to think but its true and the way she pieced it all together in a novel was amazing. As to the question, i don't see this hapenning in my life time atleast, maybe some parts of the society but certainly not most.

I think the only lingering questions I may have would be what happened to the characters after Offred's story ended? And what became of her husband and mother? Overall, I thought it was interesting, but frustrating at times with how vague all the information is. It was difficult to piece together what happened to Offred and her husband, how this society came about, how these women were brought in, how no one stopped these people, what was going on in the rest of the world, etc.
I'd like to think something like that could never happen here, but you never know. If nothing else, I'd have to agree with the British that it was a good story.

I really enjoyed this book, especially the way that it was constructed. It was disorienting to read at first because you aren't given information in a nice, linear sort of way, but it was very cool once you got used to it. I liked that it was very conscious of the faultiness of memory, because that's so true of everything you remember about your life as well, but no one ever thinks about that. I also liked how it questioned the idea of authenticity. As for the last question, I'm with the American reaction. I don't think something like that is necessarily going to happen here, but I really think it could under the right conditions. I'm even more convinced of that after reading A Sunday at the Pool in Kigali. Under certain circumstances, anything could happen. I think we'd like to believe that no small fanatic group could take over like that, but why couldn't it? It probably wouldn't happen all at once, of course, but gradually, as in the book. All it would take is a slow erosion of the current structure of things. I feel like many Americans accepted a lot of changes pretty calmly after 9/11. If a group was able to convince us that we were in danger, physically or morally, I think we'd go right along like cows to the slaughter. It's nice to think we're individuals and that we'd make a fuss about things, but in all reality, we're pretty likely to go along with the group, and if you add fear to the mix, very few people will speak up.

I really enjoyed this book, especially the way that it was constructed. It was disorienting to read at first because you aren't given information in a nice, linear sort of way, but it was very cool once you got used to it. I liked that it was very conscious of the faultiness of memory, because that's so true of everything you remember about your life as well, but no one ever thinks about that. I also liked how it questioned the idea of authenticity. As for the last question, I'm with the American reaction. I don't think something like that is necessarily going to happen here, but I really think it could under the right conditions. I'm even more convinced of that after reading A Sunday at the Pool in Kigali. Under certain circumstances, anything could happen. I think we'd like to believe that no small fanatic group could take over like that, but why couldn't it? It probably wouldn't happen all at once, of course, but gradually, as in the book. All it would take is a slow erosion of the current structure of things. I feel like many Americans accepted a lot of changes pretty calmly after 9/11. If a group was able to convince us that we were in danger, physically or morally, I think we'd go right along like cows to the slaughter. It's nice to think we're individuals and that we'd make a fuss about things, but in all reality, we're pretty likely to go along with the group, and if you add fear to the mix, very few people will speak up.

I really liked this book. It takes a new look at ideas brought up in other books like "Brave New World" or "1984", bringing a woman's perspective to this theme. As whether or not it could happen here, I would like to think that it couldn't. But Atwood gives us such detail and it is so realistic that I don't think we can ignore the possibilities. It's not very likely, but it could be possible. We consider ourselves too civilized, it could maybe be possible in other third world, theocratic countries, but if we look at the example of Nazi Germany, we see that the so-called civilized Western world could be victim to such a scenario as well. (Hitler being elected, the general complacency of the German people at first, and the original attempts by other European nations to placate Germany instead of taking a strong stance against them, these facts mirror many things that happen in the book. I'm not trying to equate the Nazi's to the regime of this novel, but the comparisons are interesting.)

This was my favorite novel of the semester. It reminded me a lot of 1984, which I love. I don't believe anything like this could happen in American. I would hope the American people would stand up for themselves under these circumstances. One aspect of the novel did bother me. I felt the novel was rushed towards the end. I wanted to know more. What happened to Nick and Offred's family? Does Offred ever find them or do they die? Do the handmaids continue to exist? I have to hope that Offred is reunited with her family and everyone is happy.

This was my favorite novel of the semester. It reminded me a lot of 1984, which I love. I don't believe anything like this could happen in American. I would hope the American people would stand up for themselves under these circumstances. One aspect of the novel did bother me. I felt the novel was rushed towards the end. I wanted to know more. What happened to Nick and Offred's family? Does Offred ever find them or do they die? Do the handmaids continue to exist? I have to hope that Offred is reunited with her family and everyone is happy.

I hated this book at first, but it definitely grew on me. I think I just couldn't find a way to connect to it at first, and I just felt that it was unnecessarily graphic in some areas. (Although, Sunday at the Pool in Kigali was even more so...I think thats part of why I had a hard time reading that book as well.) Once the disorganized form began to piece together, and I realized it was a bit similar to Brave New World, I became much more interested in The Handmaid's Tale.
The picture that it formed of such a society was shocking, and very understandable. I agree that something like that probably wouldn't happen in the US, right now anyways, and especially not in New England, but it was very convincing. By the end of the novel, I wanted it to keep going too. I'm glad we read this in our class.

Ok. This is my favourite book we read. Hands down. Not only that, it's one of my favourite books ever. I love the way Atwood writes, poetically and yet sparsely. Every word is nuanced and teased out. And she really creates a voice, in the character of "Offred", and one I can hear within my own head a good deal of the time.

I wondered if I would like it as much upon re-reading it (i read it in high school fifteen years ago). What is amazing is that it is even scarier now than it was then, because so many things in it have come to pass. The PATRIOT act and the general sentiment in this country have gone much more in that direction- civil liberties and civil rights have seemed to retreat in importance since 2001 (9/11 not "a space odyssey") and our rhetoric has really outpaced our rationality- as we bring "freedom" to Iraq ("freedom to" or "freedom from"?)and have seen multiple episodes of "ethnic cleansing" (Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur). I think that this very much could and is happening in this country especially, though of course you don't see it cause the changes are subtle, they're masked by other things like a "paperless society" (remember how "Offred's" debit card just stopped working?) and a "war on terror". Don't forget you soon won't be able to cross the border into Canada without a passport, and the immigration records between the two countries have been streamlined.

I'm not saying we are all the way to Gilead, but in some ways we are there, we are continuing to comply with a system we might not all agree with if it admitted what it was really up to, but in the end we are very isolated as individuals and so we feel we can't really change anything alone.

Maybe it sounds weird to say I love a book that is so depressingly right on- I think it has to do with the intellect it takes to distinguish the human motivations to act in such a self-destructive way as the people in Gilead, and our society often do and the courage it takes to put it down.

Hats off to Atwood.

I agree with Stephanie in that I held a kind of American perspective on the book until I read A Sunday at the Pool in Kigali. The two books together helped open my eyes to the possibility of a Gilead society forming in America. I have read this book before for a Women's Literature class, but it was interesting to read it again this semester from a different viewpoint. I was really fascinated by the idea of questioning Offred's authenticity. I had never given much thought to that before. Probably becasue Atwood's writing is so realistic and captivating, I had a hard time questioning the trust that I had in the narration. Overall I loved re-reading this book, although, like others, I do have some lingering questions that I wished could have been answered in the "Historical Notes" section.

I agree with Stephanie in that I held a kind of American perspective on the book until I read A Sunday at the Pool in Kigali. The two books together helped open my eyes to the possibility of a Gilead society forming in America. I have read this book before for a Women's Literature class, but it was interesting to read it again this semester from a different viewpoint. I was really fascinated by the idea of questioning Offred's authenticity. I had never given much thought to that before. Probably becasue Atwood's writing is so realistic and captivating, I had a hard time questioning the trust that I had in the narration. Overall I loved re-reading this book, although, like others, I do have some lingering questions that I wished could have been answered in the "Historical Notes" section.

I really liked the open ended almost ambiguous nature of the book. The way the novel contained a fictional afterword was a creative way to really cement the themes of Offred's life. Furthering this was the narrative style of the entire novel, the ongoing and changing narration of Offred, which gave the book distinction from many other straight foward narratives.

i really enjoyed reading The Handmaid's Tale. In fact, i may make it a point to try and read it again soon, when i get some time.
it was written so wonderfully. Atwood's style of writing is so fluid and...well, i'm not sure really how to describe it. ethereal? potent? it's something that's very hard to put a finger on.
and beyond her writing style, the characters and the plot were so exciting and rich. i found myself not being able to put the novel down and not wanting to rush through it either. i really took my time reading this novel, rolling words over my tongue as i came across sentences and small phrases that i liked.
it really quite hard to describe everything i felt about this novel. there's so much good that i found in it with this first reading. i wonder what i'll find with the second, or third?

I was shocked by "A Handmaids Tale," as I am sure everyone was, but at the same time don't see it as impossible that it could happen. The only problem I have with the Gilead regime is everyone conforming so quickly, because as of now, we have some characters in this country. Even if violence was involved I think that hundreds of thousands of people in the US would not be willing to go along with the Gilead regime and would rebel. However thinking of the book as fiction I loved it. I love those kind of Twilight Zone stories where an alternate reality is imagined, especially when one is created as nicely as Atwoods. She does an excellent job of dreaming up this world, while at the same time creating an interesting plotline and writing beautifully.

What makes this novel so significant is the fact that right before it had been written a similar religious takeover had occurred on the other side of the globe, in the Muslim revolutions of Iran that deposed the Shah and returned to the oppressive code of the shariah, frighteningly similar to the Dystopic society envisioned by Atwood. The scathing satirization of academia at the end is amusing and also frightening in that it portrays the sense of distance and arrogant hindsight that characterizes such settings.

What makes this novel so significant is the fact that right before it was written, there was a revolution on the other side of the globe that was frighteningly similar to Atwood's dystopic Gilead. In Iran, after the US-installed Shah was rejected by the people, the Ayatollah led the "fundamentalist" Muslim takeover and reimosed the Shariah, an oppressive code of Muslim law in which the position of women was (and is) akin to that of Ofred. The satire at the end is also great in its portrayal of the arrogant academic distance of which the events of the past are looked upon, as if they could never happen again.

The most frightening thing about the novel is that the events outlined in the novel were silmultaneously occurring on the other side of the globe. THe strict Muslim revolution that overthrew the US-installed Shah adopted (with popular support) the strict code of the Shariah, an oppressive set of laws, in which women were relegated to positions similar to those of Atwood's dystopic Gilead. I also found the satirization of the arrogance and distance of the academic discussion of Gilead at the end to be scary.

I side with the Americans, in the sense that facets of the Gilead regime exist NOW, TODAY. Atwood has simply drawn on each of them, exaggerated them a bit, and worked them into the tenets of a single society. Issues of women revealing or covering up their bodies and the implications that come with this are at play today. Women must deal with the lust of some men, and may choose not to show off their bodies so they don't have to deal with fending off this arousal. Many women are in the crux of self-loathing, hiding their bodies, so like a handmaid, they do not have a sense of their own sensuality. Other issues that Atwood includes that happen now are not fully appreciating or understanding happiness. Atwood puts happiness into perspective, pointing out simplicity. Like many people, especially in first world countries, I am so guilty of not seeing small happinesses (family, exercise, reading, writing, sensuality, sexuality); I have never had them ripped away from me, either via displacement/emigration, or my the institution of a futuristic regime. In a way, our society is already moving away from words, books, writing. Vocabulary and handwriting is not emphasized. People speak in fractured language and do not have the focus to read; searching the net instead. Of course, this is nothing like dis-allowing language, but it is definitely an insult to language.
Anyway, while reading this novel, it was frightening to look around me and see little tidbits of the Gilead tenets at play in this very moment.

This book frightened me because I could see this happening but I also couldn't put it down because it was so beautifully written. I often found myself thinking about this book and have had many discussions with my parents because it scared me so much.
I found it absolutely amazing how Atwood was able to write about something that hasn't happened but something we can all see occuring very easily because of the power our government has over us.