The most trying blog to date, for me, is this one-THE HANDMAID'S TALE. It is dystopian and speculative fiction, according to Atwood. This is a totalitarian theocratically controlled society in which women's subjugation and adherence,by all, to sumptuary law hovers closely above the ridiculous. But, having bravely accused it of this I'm reminded of how very close it comes to current reality. I ask you to consider the FLDS in the U.S. now or perhaps Iran in the late 1970's. My plan is to blog from a general and open-minded perspective. There's enough in Handmaid to keep me talking until the end of this semester so I need constraint. Trading civil liberties & freedom for security? For eternal vigilance? Under the ever watchful EYE straight from the $1.00 bill and/or is it Homeland Security? Sumptuary laws? Econowives? Fezebels? Handaids? Porny Corners? Prayvaganza? Why am I thinking of Tinker Toys? Commanders? Oh, yes-those double-standard power-trip guys-those rulers of women? Epilogue and Peiexoto? Is this a Pope thing? Enough already! The physical setting in geographical realism, it's familiarity kept creeping into my senses and disturbing the moment. But, could I put it down? Was it compulsively readable. . . and eminently seductive? No. . . Yes. . . Yes. From chapter 35 I'll share a specific paragraph which probably conveys a Handmaid's heart-story. "The arrival of the tray, carried up the stairs as if for an invalid. An invalid, one who has been invlidated. No valid passport. No exit."

…it is not the first, not the second, not even the third, but the fourth time that I’ve read this book, and the third semester in a row that I’ve had it as a required reading for a class. At this point, looking at the book makes me cringe a little, but for the sake of the blog, I will bring myself down to a simmer…

"Nolite te bastardes carborundorum"
(don't let the bastards grind you down)

So Atwood, yes, we get that you had a strong opinion of the U.S. when writing this book, but in my opinion, she didn’t write it to predict what could become of our rambunctious society. I believe she was making a statement to the dominating patriarchal society that already existed (or exists? I’ll leave it up to you). Sure the Gilead is an extreme of American government, and when put side by side they do have their differences, but if we were to pull out the broader topics of both societies, it’s pretty clear where she was coming from. Many women of this time were up in arms about being recognized as their own; finding self and identity; fighting for rights, etc… and Atwood brought it home with the women of the Gilead (particularly the Handmaids) no longer owning their bodies, but rather having them used as tools for the society. Women are objects, and sex is not a pleasure, but a responsibility that has to be controlled for the “greater good” in order to survive.

How ridiculous.

But in response to the interview, it could happen to the U.S. but not in the way that Atwood claims, and if it were to happen, the U.S. would probably take over Canada and make it the location of their new “Birthing Center”, where children will be born and raised (and trained) to be contributing members of society; who will then be sent down to designated locations (wherever they need more people for jobs etc…) when they are of age…probably like 16. This will all probably happen within the next 20 years, and by then we won’t need to force women to have babies- but we will need many volunteers to donate eggs (and I’m sure there are plenty of men willing to donate their share as well)- because they can be grown in labs. If science was this developed when Atwood wrote her book, I’m confident she would have written it this way...

…no? Well I don’t see you coming up with any ideas!

I find the book very entertaining, I'm a fan of dystopian works: F451, 1984, Brave New World. I do think Huxley comes the closest to the mark in Brave New World and since we in the U.S. love to heavily medicate ourselves with pills and T.V. BNW is my favorite, since it seems to ring the most true.
In remark to T.B. I don't see the U.S. or any portion of it invading Canada for a birthing center logistically it doesn't make sense. Why put a B.C. north of the U.S. when you can put them in the middle of it like Kansas City or Overland Park and ship the children anywhere you like when they're raised.
With the climate changing I could see the U.S. or major corporate interests with in the U.S. grabbing up Canada for fresh water and future farmland, but that wouldn't be for a few decades.
Could it happen here? Not exactly as Atwood describes it, she's a author not a prophet or a seer, but it's a great novel of warning people not to mix secular and religious rulership into one body since that body tends to become oppressive and the women folk had better worry about losing freedoms and choices when such a thing occurs.
The thing I like best about the book is the reference to the Japanese Tourists taking photos in Bangor and the Arabic Dudes at Jezabelles (Spelling). I took that to mean that Gilead had to allow the Japanese Tourists for revenue in because they still couldn't make a good vehicle to sell domestically or abroad and that they needed to treat the Arabs well for oil, so Gilead's energy demands aren't much different than our own.
I just hope with the economy being in trouble we don't see more people turning toward religion and if there is a rise of a religious body, I suggest you move to Mexico, or perhaps we should cover ourselves and encourage hispanics and to populate the West and Southwest in vast numbers... of course that seems to be covered. Easier to get to Texas than Mexico and Atwood talks about a Republic of Texas, as far as I'm concerned illegal immigration is now good. Plus how are a bunch of old white male puritans who want to be Hugh Hefner going to assert their power over the fastest growing ethnicity/race in the U.S? I'll sign off now, I need to learn Spanish.

I had never read The Handmaid's Tale before, and frankly I found it fascinating. I think that this is by far my favourite book so far this semester.

I think that I would have to count myself in the "Jolly Good Yarn" category, not because I don't think it COULD ever happen, but I don't it WILL. As a proud Christian, I felt that this book was a little skewed, and maybe even a little bitter toward Christianity. I understand those feelings because there have been countless atrocities committed in the name of Christianity throughout history (even recent history). However, I think that Atwood does a really good job of keeping these sentiments to a minimum, and even dissipating them completely sometimes. Offred seems to know that the Bible is being used as a weapon in her society, and she is also suspicious that the passages read to them have been altered to serve the purpose of the authorities. I think this is really important for readers to understand - Christianity in Offred's society has been reshaped so drastically that it is barely Christianity at all. Jesus told his followers to love their enemies and do good to them.

One of the things about this story that I enjoyed the most was how detailed it is. Atwood seems to have thought of everything. Readers are presented with all these bizarre and horrible things, but through Offred's perspective they are the norm. It was kind of a shocking experience because I had to accept everything that Offred was telling me, without any answers to my infinite questions. I found this book really stressful, which was the right emotion, but at the same time I couldn't put it down. That is a sign of a good book.

Just one more thing - did anyone else wonder how many women killed themselves thinking that the Eyes were coming for them, when really it was Mayday?

I think I'll save the rest of my thoughts for my final essay, and I'm sure I'll read it again.

THE HANDMAID'S TALE by Margaret Atwood was my second favorite book that we have read this semester. My favorite part of the book was the format in which it was written. The fact that the reader has four different perspectives from which to view the story of Offred makes for a very compelling discussion of the book. The reader can look at the tale in the present perspective when these events were happening to Offred while in Gilead, when Offred has escaped from Gilead and is committing her memories of the near past to cassette tape, when the professors in the anthropology department reconstruct the recorded tapes that they found in what they believe to be the chronological order, and from the perspective of Atwood writing her novel. These four different mediums leaves the read questioning the validity of the narrator- one of the questions Atwood wants her audience to ponder. Offred continues to mention her possible unreliability as a narrator:

"In fact I don't think about anything of the kind. I put it in only afterwards. Maybe i should have thought about that, at the time, but I didn't. As I said, this is a reconstruction" (140).

The reader is hearing Offred's story of the Republic of Gilead over the recorded cassette tapes. This means that Offred had her memories as a reserve to look back at in order to tell the events that actually happened to her. She admits that many things may have been lost between the past and present and we must remember that this is in fact a reconstruction. Much of the poignancy or even accuracy has dissolved during the transition. As a reader, Atwood is showing us that not all narrators are reliable and one must always remain aware of this. Even the act of putting events into words simplifies those events and strips them of their poignancy because it remains impossible for one to capture everything they may have been feeling in words. Words prove a simplification of our world and the lives we live.

I would agree with the British and say that I found the novel to be "a jolly good yarn". Atwood extrapolates from the events that were occurring while she was writing the book in 1985, for instance the Cold War, Reagan's policies as president, and containment and the iron curtain. In this sense, the book is less about the future than it is about the present time and in many instances does not even come close to be relevant in today's world. I do not believe that any breakdown of our current democratic system could occur to this degree of perversion.

I truly enjoyed this unique piece of literature. The style of Atwood’s writing and her constant use of symbolism left me on my toes as I gobbled up each page. As this was my first time reading Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, I had many questions after the completion. However, I saw this as a story about the confusion that society can place on one’s identity. As a woman living in a cage that is societal and governmental rule, Offred attempts to make sense of the woman that she was and the servant that she has become. This makes me think about what freedom truly is. It is not until Offred’s freedom is stolen from her does she recognize that it is actually gone. However, when she was supposedly ‘free’ before Gilead took over, I wonder if she felt free. It seems to Offred that freedom is not what you have, but what you don’t have. And really, what does it mean to be free? Sure, I could say that I live in the US, the land of the free, but how do I know that I’m free, as an individual? Like Offred, I think of my freedom based on what I do or don’t have which is established by other’s ‘freedom’ or lack thereof. Why must we always compare ourselves, our accomplishments, our failures, based on the standards of others?
Even so, through all of the arising questions and theories that I developed throughout Atwood’s piece, I must say that I agreed most with the British. It seems that after her 300+ pages about women’s turmoil in a degrading society, Atwood left me wanting more. Her writing is so convincing that I find myself reflecting about this made-up world that seems to be not so made-up. Although this was the first time I have read The Handmaid’s Tale, I predict it to not be my last!

I had already read The Handmaid's Tale a couple of years ago. When I first read it, I thought it was interesting. But the second reading, already having some idea where the plot was going and what was in store for me, really caught my attention. I was fascinated by the way Atwood subtly depicts the hypocrisy of contemporary American life -- the fundamentalism, national security, sex, gender rights and roles. I also found it fascinating how Atwood manages to turn what most people would call a “woman’s novel” into a story about society. I don’t agree with critics who think that Atwood is just a crazy, raving feminist in this book. Her story isn’t just about society crushing women’s freedoms, but everyone’s freedoms.

I think I would fall into the "how long do we have?" category. Obviously, it's not that I think it'd ever be possible to create the dystopic world that Atwood describes, but, in a time when we have to deal with things like the Patriot Act, let's just say, Atwood makes me a little nervous.

I love dystopian novels. Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 are two of my favorite novels. I enjoy them because the question isn’t how much do they reflect society, but how much do they reflect society’s logic. It is often the point of a satire to use the logic of society, or a person, and apply it is an unimaginable way, but still follows the original line of thought.
We see this in the Hand Maid’s Tale. After we discussed the context of society during which the novel was written, it’s quite remarkable the level that Atwood takes the story to. The burst of Christian Evangelicals on to the scene in the 1980’s had people mystified and glued to them by their words.
The question that is asked above is one that I don’t think is relevant. Dystopian novels usually aren’t trying to predict the future, but rather they serve as a social commentary on the past or present. We can use Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal to illustrate this. The point of that piece wasn’t to suggest that eating the children of the poor would actually be a good solution to the famine in Ireland, but rather it was mocking the attitude that landlords had toward the poor. The same is true in Atwood’s novel. I don’t think it was her intention to create a fearful society, or rather one that actually had to have concern about one day living in the world that she created in a Hand Maid’s Tale. I believe it was her intention to create awareness; the situation in the 1980’s with the evolving Christian Right wasn’t one that people should sound the guard over, but it was a little bit…strange.
Ultimately, the novel does a good job of telling a powerful story that is interlaced with social commentary.

I'm not sure what a "yarn" is, and although the tone of the Handmaid's Tale certainly wasn't "jolly good", the writing most definitely was (if I have to identify with one of those three...). It's no wonder that Americans recognize Atwood's name when running through a list of Canadian authors-- not only was she capable of writing a novel that would reach the mind of any type of person, but she manages to strike a chord in those minds. Similar to the now deemed "classics," Brave New World and 1984, the Handmaid's Tale falls deep into the gut of its readers... and stays there. As I was reading the book I experienced every kind of emotion Offred was. Atwood's prediction of the loyalty of her audience propelled countless different but equally passionate opinions about the topic of her controversial novel, even a quarter-century after its release.

Having just finished reading Utopia, it becomes clear where Huxley, Orwell, and Atwood retrieved the initial idea for their thought-provoking novels. Their deviation from More's own idea is how each story and its respective author retains relevancy. For Atwood, this meant the bold decision to create a story within a story within a story about a controversial United States government.

This was the first time I have read The Handmaid’s Tale, and although I think it was a long book to finish in the time we were allotted, I did enjoy the book. Since usually I cannot relate to the struggles of younger women, regardless of the talents of the writers, realistic fiction or non-fiction books that focus on character development bore me. Although I think the book was quite a negative comment on American societies, the chance to escape to outlandish fantasy realities was somewhat refreshing, similar to how I felt about The Double Hook (or, I just like going against the opinions of the class).

I take her opinions with a grain of salt, but I still respect Atwood’s writing style. She reminds me of another writer who I studied in high school who wrote with the use of relics – telling a complete story with fragmented stories of inanimate objects revolving around the character. Part of the reason I felt this book took so long to read with not too much action was the immense detail in the descriptions of the environments Offred moves through. When she encounters certain objects, they serve as relics that start flashbulb memory narratives. Although this further slows the pace of the novel, Atwood works backwards and forwards, writing about Offred’s present life in the new world forwards, and revealing information about her past backwards through flashbacks.

I like the quote, “Things can change so quickly, buildings can be torn down or turned into something else, it’s hard to keep them straight in their mind the way they used to be” (165). I thought this was a good way to describe the totalitarian society was described through the eyes of the person living in the “old” world. Often, Offred has a short flashback, where she describes something she used to have, and muses over related objects or events, and then Atwood ends the segment with a single line, “they were called _____”. This is how I feel my memory works, before I can remember the name of something I haven’t thought about I have to pace about the subject to get to the answer. Likewise, that is how I feel Atwood paced the entire Handmaid’s Tale, small answers to how this new world happened and where the story is going is leaked out sporadically until everything is clear.

To answer what "camp" I belong in, it could never happen here, especially with the progression of the women's movement and the disenchantment with religion in this country. But if it does, hopefully I can apply to be a guardian.

I found the Handmaid's Tale to be actually a pretty enjoyable read. Though I do agree with Jeff's post that it was quite a lengthy and heavy read in the short time we were given to read it, but it was worth it. I really enjoy novels like this, one with a distopian view. My FAVORITE novel of all time is 1984, and as I was reading The Handmaid's Tale, I couldn't help but continuously compare the two. At times I was angry at Atwood because I felt like she was ripping Orwell off and just banking on something his brilliant mind had already developed. However, once I got further and further into the novel, I realized it was a story within itself; it was unique; it was captivating. Even though there is similar ideals between the two, The Handmaid's Tale is completely its own. The structure, the characters, the real plot behind everything is unique to Atwood's novel.

I also found this to be similar to a recent movie that came out a few years back called City of Men, in which women were infertile due to, I believe, pollution and other toxins, and the youngest person was 17 years old. I question whether the writers of this movie may have received some of their ideas from Atwood? Who knows!

My reaction to the book is somewhere between "That could never happen here" and "How much longer do you think we've got". I would say I am more of at "I want to believe this will never happen, or at least hope it never does, but who is to say that it can't?" However, if it does happen, I think that the whole situation will be reversed. It will be the workings of women. We will finally realize that we not only outnumber the male population, but are smarter than them too, and we will make them our handmaid's, that is, we will finally teach them how to cook and clean, how to corretly fold a towel, and how to do what they are told the first time. This sounds more like a Utopian society rather than a Distopian one. Who's with me?

That's a good call Katy; I think the movie you were thinking of was Children of Men with Clive Owen (City of Men is the sequel to City of God; unrelated but another one of my favorites). The problem was the same but the conflict was different, unlike the Handmaid's Tale where the government assists the rare birthing, the protagonists in Children of Men attempt to hide the baby from the government, knowing that they will steal and test it to uncover the secret. I'm surprised I didn't make the connection myself, that's a great movie.

"The Handmaid's Tail" by Margaret Atwood was easily my favorite novel of the semester (so far). The way Ms. Atwood blended the classic story of the lonely underdog/outsider within the context of a dystopian alternate reality was invigorating and refreshing. In response to the blog prompt I would say that my reaction falls somewhere between the British response and the American response. I was thoroughly entertained and would even go so far as to describe the novel as a pageturner; I was left at the edge of my seat waiting to discover Offred's fate and was thrilled when it appeared at the end that she may have survived. Also, while this is clearly a work of fiction, I was struck by how evocative Gilead's society was in relation to other totalitarian, religious dicatorships. I may not believe that America will ever befall the fate described in "The Handmaid's Tail," but I certainly believe it is possible; even more so after being enveloped in Atwood's beautifully rendered description of Gilead.

And to respond to the interesting discussion brought up by Katy and Jeff: This book reminded me so much of the fertility issues and dystopian future beautifully crafted in Alfonso Cuaron's "Children of Men" that I went out looking for the book it was based on. The novel, "The Children of Men" written by P.D. James, was published in 1992 and told a story similar to the one described in the movie. "The Handmaid's Tail" and its film version released in 1990 were hugely popular and I wouldn't be surprised if P.D. James was influenced by Atwood in his writing of "The Children of Men."

P.S. Katy, I was cracking up reading your last paragraph.

I think this question is absolutely relevant because it points out many different reactions to these kind of novels. However, I don't agree with America's reaction of believing this novel is a prediction of the future. I think it's sort of a wake up call to us, showing the perspective of someone who is psychologically distressed by the weight of our society's expectations. However, I think that our society is slowly moving away from many of the negative stereotypes that are pressed upon people considered "outsiders", which is why I disagree with America's reaction. Although, I think the British and the Canadians had a pretty niave reaction to this novel as well. I think novels like these are written to be taken seriously and to see that many people do see the world this way. To laugh it off or dismiss it as a possibility is to be close minded and silent. This novel was definitely the most interesting of the assigned novels in this course.

Thanks Jeff. You're a good pal. I'm not even mad about you walking in late for my poetry project anymore.

(in reference to his post correcting my post)

This is my second time reading the Handmaid’s Tale, and I loved it even more thn the first time I read it. Like many others have commented in this blog, I am a big fan of dystopian literature. I think it brings valid and important reflections to the table bou the way a society is constructed. I especially appreciate Handmaid’s Tale within this genre because I feel that Atwood brings a woman’s sensitivity and approach to the subject material, something that is lacking in pieces by Orwell or Wells.
The style in which the book is written is fascinating. Atwood utilizes a rather poetic and detail rich language which drew me in. This really draws me in because I felt like I was truly reading into Offred’s thoughts. Each sentence is full of meaning and raw emotion and exemplifies a masterful understanding of the human spirit and mind. The first time I read it I was amazed at the complex layers to the story. This second time though I was blown away. When reading the novel I marveled at how subtly Atwood demonstrated Gilead-culture slowly infiltrating the way Offred thinks. She constantly has to create her reactions and emotions to match what Gilead society wants to see in her. She creates what they want to see, instead of acting and reacting normally to her environment. As the novel progresses, I begin to see this line of thinking infiltrating her personal thoughts. In chapter 12 She says “I wait. I compose myself. My self is a thing I must now compose, as one composes a speech. What I must present is a made thing, not something born.” Even when Offred is alone now she composes her thoughts and her reactions. She has begun to cease true connection with her emotions. She creates her mindset like a formula instead of feeling her natural inclinations. She is slowly being trained to think and act according to what is expected or what she wants her reaction to be. Like we discussed in class though, this calls into question the validity of the story she is writing. During her first interaction with the commander alone she at first recounts wanting to stab him, but then admits that is not what she felt at all. Suggesting that lshe is also “making” this story according to what her audience would want to hear….which is even another layer of how Gilead society is changing the way she thinks.
This time around I also appreciated her ending significantly more. Writing this in retrospective of just reading Monkey Beach, made me truly appreciate Atwood’s ability to leave the story open ended and unsettled but masterfully. The novel is meant to leave you pondering and questioning but does so while making a profound and very developed statement. So in a way my distaste for the ending of monkey beach made me appreciate a handmaid’s tale even more.
As to the question of whether this could ever happen, I won’t say no. Will it be in my lifetime or 100’s of years from now I don’t know. I say its possible because history if anything, has taught us that the impossible or unfathomable is possible. Throughout time, there have been (and currently are) societies that oppressive and torture their members in unfathomable ways. Its amazing to see what fear will make people do and how it will make them submit to literally any line of thinking as long as it keeps them “safe” .

The Handmaids Tale is by far the most interesting book that I have read this semester. Its Dystopian outlook on future life can be summed up in one word, crazy. This novel brings the reader into the fictional future of the United States, where birth rates are down and women are oppressed and forced to have children to keep the human race surviving. Not only does the new government force women to have babies but it also takes away all of their individual rights segregating them into classes of higher and lower importance, and even shipping them off to work camps when they have become to old for reproduction purposes. One thing that I found interesting about this novel was that the story seems ridiculous however, we can somewhat see the possibility behind it. It stretches our ideas of what the future will be like, while at the same time it remains relatively believable. Atwood is really a genius when it comes to making us believe in this story because even though it is pure fiction we can somewhat come to believe the story could be true.

One thing that I really liked about this novel was the amount of layers the story had to it. This story is told to us through the first person perspective. This perspective is interesting to us because it is from a narrator who does not have all the knowledge required to tell us the story from start to finish. There are in fact discrepancies in the story and it remains choppy. She admits openly throughout the text that these stories are memories and that not all of these memories are complete. Nor can she remember if all of these stories actually happened or, if some of it was just dreams or false realties that she made up in her mind.

As a first time reader of Atwood and The Handmaids Tale, I was very impressed. Initially, as Atwood employed “mise-en-abime” to drop us into the thick of the story, I was rather confused and turned-off as I found myself searching for answers and finding none. This all soon changed as I began to peal back the many layers of this complex and untimely captivating dystopian work to find answers that blew me away. This was also one of the first novels I have read that had extremely interesting and relevant epigraphs. The Sufi proverbs, Swifts quote from a modest proposal, and the passage from Genesis all provide stunning insight into the conflicts presented in the story and help the reader to realize, as Atwood confirms, that nothing in the novel is invented that has not happened before. This aspect of the novel is very haunting for me because it highlights the horrible and easily forgotten atrocities of the past while highlighting the fact that if we do not learn from the past the future will hold even worse.
My favorite sections of this novel are the ones that occur at night. Throughout the book Offred, our main character, uses the nights stillness and solitude to drift into an alternate consciousness. She uses this time to slip away from the ever present oppressive grasp of Gilead and enter into a dreamlike state where she can remember her past and the love that once existed. These moments are incredibly important to the novel and allow the reader to become strongly connected to her character. As the story unfolds her thoughts become more erratic and hazy highlighting the effects of oppression and thought control on a persons sanity. It is because of these moments that this novel has incredible implications for human society and governance.
If I were to put myself in a “camp”, I would have to be in the “how much longer do we have” crowd. This is unfortunate but I feel untimely true. With the worlds resources being dried up, technology and new chemical engineering affecting our bodies in ways that won’t be detectible for years to come, and the rising power of violent religious groups I feel that government control will steadily increase until the human race destroys the planet. Although I do not fully agree with Atwood’s dystopian view I do feel that she is not far off. Fertility will drastically decrease, society will be re-engineered to accommodate new roles of power and control, and overall humans will slowly loose their freedom. Ultimately this book left me with a bad taste in my mouth but helps me to understand the volatile nature of our existence. Novels like these help us to remember what is possible and thus prepare us to make sure it never happens.

While reading the Handmaid's Tale I fell in with the British "good yarn" point of view. After reading the comments of others above I feel that I may have a slightly more optimistic and some may think naive take on where civilization is headed. I believe that stories like these are designed for us to take a closer look at what we can fix now rather than be warry of what will to come and possibly even point out what we are doing right. Along with the other novels mentioned above that Handmaid's Tale is similar to, it also reminded me of The Giver a young adult book that is one of my favorites.

I ascribe to the "how much longer do we have?" point of view in regard to this book. one of the reasons i enjoyed it so much was how convincingly atwood delivers the premise. granted i am giving her some leeway, i doubt that anyone could blow up the president and machine gun our entire congress to death in a single moment, but were something like this to happen i believe she describes the aftermath quite well. after the government is disassembled you see the people panicking, but there is not chaos. the people basically are too overwhelmed to do anything besides try and continue their lives. then in the wake of all the confusion the new powers in charge move swiftly to impose a new repressive theocracy. the people basically get blindsided, and before there is anything they can do it is too late. i believe that this would be pretty close to how americans would actually react to such an event. too scared and indecisive to do anything but try to continue on as normally after the initial attack, then they would lack the confidence and motivation to prevent the takeover of the country by the new regime. (i think tiVo has made americans docile)

at least i think this would be true as far as the thin skinned liberal elites living on the east coast, which is where the book is set, goes. all the fighting on the front lines that you hear about in passing i bet is from the south where everyone has guns and wasn't trusting the government in the first place. then again maybe they would be more open to signing over to the new religious authorities. maybe she should write a sequel.

I have read this book previously in Women's literature. We looked at it more strictly through the lens of feminism. In a lot of ways this is a feminist critique of a distopian society. By that I mean that Atwood gives you the worst possible scenario for a woman in the world, there is no ownership, no authority for the women struggling in this book. As much as we would like to think that what happens in this novel would never happen again we can not hold a blind eye to the atrocities that still happen to women. The last time I read this book my professor had the class think of a modern day problem happening to women and relate it to our the novel. I remember researching the masculine based societies of immigrants from Latin America. Their is a high rate of domestic violence among this group. Yet the women nearly never report abuse because they would be banished from their own families, all ties cut off even from their parents. Going to the police is worse then the abuse itself in their eyes. So these women end up trapped. If they stay they are subject to more abuse. If they leave they are on their own. In the Hadmaid's tale the women are under the threat from abuse from all ends. If Offred left she would be forcefully punished and sent to the colonies. She is in a bind throughout the novel.

I think i take the side of all three. in some ways i think the handmaids tale is just a good story. entertaining, suspenseful, a love story and well written too. its a chance to see life in a totally new light and be thankful that we do not have to be assigned to pop out babies for some guy who already has a wife. but then i think about it a little more and start to wonder how i would react to being in that situation. thinking about the things that our government changes in times of fear and crises and its not too far fetched to think this might actually happen. for me these worries don't come without a second thought (which thinking about it probably explains my hypochondria) and i start to take the mind set of "the americans", wondering home long do we have before this happens?! However, then my mom's calming voice of reason leaks into my thoughts and i hopefully think that no one would ever let it become that bad. taking away that much freedom would not be able to go without rebellion in this day and age, however it is a good idea to think about life in this way. if it was never said and this story was never spelled out it words and images such as Atwood does, it would be difficult to recognize if our society was leaning in this disastrous direction. stories like these are crucial to forewarn today of the danger tomorrow can bring. without them we might not be able to prevent society from falling into a freedom-less world based off fear.

I really enjoyed this book. I thought that the story was similar to 1984, another favorite of mine. To me, this story is a bit chilling due to its possibility of coming true at least in some part. In a world where terrorism is on the rise and people have less and less involvement with the government I can see how the rights of citizens could be sacrificed for "their own protection." Thomas Jefferson once said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." In this story, it is obvious that the people have become afraid of the government.

I agree with Peter that it would be interesting to see how the South reacted to a situation such as this. Loyalty to the government and Catholisim would be tested against the South's traditional willingness to fight and rebel. Interesting argument.

I hope that Americans would have the courage to stand and fight for their rights and freedom like we have in the past but I also believe that terrorist attacks and a large powerful government would strike a lot of fear. People may be hesitant to do anything right away such as in this story until it was too late.

I have read this book before, and this time around I really saw a stronger presence of language. The last time i read it was I focused much more the the IDEA of what was going on, could this happen, fearful that it might, even "how long" ... This time, it was less about what was going on and more of a look at how Margaret Atwood really created this world, down to the smallest detail. I don't have the book in front of me at this moment, but a part that really stuck out to me was early in the book when Offred was describing her room, and clothes etc... and she refers to the red gloves and red shoes as "theirs" or simply "the" whereas she refers to her own hand, fingers, etc as "hers" "mine" etc.. this is such a minute detail, but it really stuck in my mind, Atwood is really getting down to the tiniest detail to create how Offred is living in a world that isn't her own.
Furthermore, I reread this book again to write my final paper. This time the fact that I am taking a Corrections class right now came into play. This book the third time around really opened my eyes to the idea of a "total institution", in this world, Gilead, the women don't own their bodies, they don't even own their minds in many cases, not being able to read or write, they must follow the rules or they are threatened with death. This is so similar to a concentration camp, or a total institution that it scared me even more than the first time...
I think that this is the type of book that can be read over and over and each time something new can be taken from it... so we can only wait and see what i'll find next

The Handmaid's Tale was a very interesting read. I would probably take the "How long do you think we've got?" American response. The book was very reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. The frightening portrayal of futuristic societies that restricts the rights and freedoms of humans seem a common theme in dystopian works like these. What I liked about the handmaid's tale is the hold nothing back kind of attitude that Atwood presents. The dangerous mixture of sex and politics combines in full force and imposes itself on society, implicating powerful consequences for its characters and society. Gilead, the society in which Offred lives is by no means utopian. This is especially true for female handmaids like Offred who are forced to have sex for reproductive purposes. Yet some female characters like Serena and Aunt Lydia play strong roles in the anti-feminist movement(s). It becomes easy to see why these women hold such high prestige in their societies. They embrace the anti-feminist ideals that Gilead is founded on and as a result are valued highly in Gilead and feared by many, especially handmaid's like Offred who must be educated, instructed, and forced to give up control by people like Aunt Lydia and Serena Joy. A great example of this occurs right before a ceremony is to begin: "My arms are raised; she holds my hands, each of mine in each of hers. This is supposed to signify that we are one flesh, one being. What it really means is that she is in control, of the process and thus of the product. If any" (94). It is interesting and noteworthy that in order for women like Aunt Lydia and Serena to assume high social positions in Gilead, and become powerful, prominent, and respected female individuals, they must revoke any feminist beliefs and embrace a life that completely restricts the rights and freedoms of females. To say that America is heading in such a direction seems a far cry at the moment. With the ever-increasing technology surrounding science and genetics however, it is not unreasonable to imagine a society where genetics takes on a role similar to that in science fiction movies.

For some reason, I didn’t love The Handmaid’s Tale. I actually started reading it this summer and just abandoned it. I understand its value as a piece of literature, and a lot of other people certainly seem to like it, but there was something about both the voice and the story that felt overdone. The only thing that felt remotely original about it was its expanding the dystopic genre into a feminist arena. If in most feminist works of fiction the ideas of oppression and patriarchy are supposed to be inferred, this one mixes it up a little bit by leaving absolutely no room for an alternative reading. It’s almost self-reflexive in that sense. Ofglen, remembering Moira before the takeover, says, “…if Moira thought she could create utopia by shutting herself up in a women-only enclave she was sadly mistaken. Men were not just going to go away…” (172). Moira’s idea of a women-only utopia forces us to contrast it with the situation at present and recognize it as a male-dominant dystopia.
I think that I’m in the “that could never happen here” camp—well, maybe not NEVER, but it seems highly unlikely. The purpose of a novel such as this is to point out flaws in the current system by magnifying them tenfold. The tension it creates is obviously effective: anyone thinking, “how long do we have left?” will probably become hyperconscious of the flaws in the current system, making them less likely to expand, or, at the very least, making that particular person less likely to contribute to their expansion. While it’s true that things could always get worse, they could certainly always get better.

And some jolly good yarn it was. I really enjoyed Atwood’s keen interpretation of America’s next down fall. The yarn, spun carefully by Atwood of an amalgamation of past conflict, was woven into an intricate work of femme art. Strongly woman-centered, this book intrigued me to think about the past while reading about the future, while simultaneously thinking about myself, as a woman, in the present! What images am I watching on TV, what sounds on the radio, and how do they effect my everyday life?
Atwood’s careful attention to the rules of Gilead were crucial. What would I do without my voice, my power to read and write? Atwood was able to single out and adjust staple examples of those freedoms that make up the foundation of American identity to a queer level of uncomfort. I praise Atwood, too, for ending it the way she did. Ambiguity seemed to be one of the many threads and ending tied it down perfectly. “And so I step up, into the darkness within; or else the light.” (Atwood, 295)
I noted my feelings when I was reading this book and was rather surprised how helpless I felt. I would like to think that I could be as strong and last as long as she did. Would I end up being more rebellious like Moira? What a scary thought, dystopia.