There was an allusion to an event that precipitated suspension (I think in ep 3):
The entire Congress was taken out by New Order types, and terrorists were blamed for it, which provided justification for suspending the Constitution and declaring martial law.
This is a disturbing series, for sure. My wife is totally freaked out by its themes of miscegenation and brutalization of women.
I am unable to respond to your post without violating the mod instructions given earlier in this thread.
Just saw the first 3 episodes - man that was bleak. But really shocking and powerful was that certain things that happen are views that are held by some people in our society:
The aforementioned ‘it was your fault’ scene
It just isn’t taken to that sort of extreme. But good science fiction (and yes, this is a science fiction tale - I think some authors shy away from the genre because they think that others will consider it not ‘serious’ enough) does that to ask questions about our society today. And I think this adaptation does that.
*Note, I haven’t read the book - though it’s been on my Amazon list for like forever.
I can see not calling this science fiction. It has none of the hallmarks of what I expect to see in science fiction—a setting in which human society is radically altered by technological developments, such as artificial intelligence (Westworld, Blade Runner, I Robot), extraterrestrial contact (Alien, War of the Worlds), interplanetary or interstellar travel (Star Trek, Dune), virtual reality (Snow Crash), development of some kind of technology to come that changes society in a significant way (Minority Report, Gattaca), or the like.
This is speculation about social and political changes in a dystopian future, but the “future” part is not really the important part. I can see how Atwood can justifiably say she’s not writing science fiction without imputing any kind of arrogance or other suspect motive to her. If she doesn’t consider her own work science fiction, then I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. I don’t see how she needs to “get over” anything.
And I don’t know why genre writers or fans need to have chips on their shoulders about this kind of stuff. Science fiction, fantasy, horror, romance, mystery, etc., sell quite well in the modern day. They’re much more a part of popular culture than traditional literary fiction.
Science Fictions are notoriously miffed by authors who don’t want to call their works by that moniker due to negative assumptions about those genres. If someone like Cormac McCarthy (“The Road”) or Atwood would say yes, they wrote science fiction, then maybe others would consider the genre worthy of literary merit. So it’s more of a kind of “help us out folks”! It may be a part of popular culture (to a point), but things like that are easily forgotten if they are considered more of a fad rather than worthy of carrying forward (and too often folks unfortunately say ‘worthy of being considered more than a genre work’)
I recently got into an argument with someone who said that Science Fiction can’t be considered Literature. This mentality tends to exist and yes, you can say, what do you care what other people think. But fans would like the genre to be considered more seriously. One can easily turn it around and ask why Atwood should have a chip on her shoulder about being considered sci-fi.
Anyways, I think a story set in the future, where mass infertility occurs due to pollution is obviously sci-fi. I mean, heck, no one really questions if the movie “Children of Men” (based on a similar, but more mysterious, starting premise) is really science fiction.
I think the answer is pretty clear—stop looking to other people to validate science fiction.
There’s no reason why they should and there’s no reason why the science fiction community should care whether or not they do.
Science fiction doesn’t need validation from those who like traditional literature, and and the literary community doesn’t owe science fiction validation anyway. It has its own body of work, body of artists, and body of fans.
And if Atwood says she doesn’t consider her work to be science fiction, I will take her word for it.
Yes, I’ve mentioned you can say that, and you can have your opinion and sci-fi fans can desire validation from those outside the in-group (which among other things can contribute to greenlighting more projects). As for Atwood’s opinion - I tend to be of the opinion that once an author releases a work to the outside world, that author is no longer fully in control of what it is anymore. We all get to decide what a work is or is not. Though an author’s opinion can help.
I think this Guardian review of Atwood’s latest work encapsulates the issue very well (It’s in the middle of the review), esp with Le Guin’s response:
I can kinda see the POV of they don’t give a shit about you, so rather than desire their praise, fuck 'em (though I guess can say similarly of Atwood’s or McCarthy’s particular novels - I can declare it to be science fiction and fuck 'em if they disagree). However, we all desire some validation from the supposed gatekeepers of taste. I don’t think it’s a bad thing if folks want the powers that be to acknowledge their craft. I think it’s something all of us do to some level and is a part of how we exist in our societies. And fighting until the work you appreciate is celebrated by those tastemakers is perfectly fine.
Except her Oryx and Crake is in fact entirely dependent on advances in bio-engineering and gene manipulation, technologies that in her novel radically alter human civilization, yet she still claims it’s not science fiction.
It’s as if someone writes a novel about a private investigator who solves a murder yet claims it’s not in the mystery genre.
Porfiry Petrovich works to solve the murders of a pawnbroker and her sister:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2554/2554-h/2554-h.htm
Not to hijack but is there anything that differentiates “The Road” from many other post-apocalyptic novels like, say, “Earth Abides” that are universally regarded as SF. If THT is not SF, is 1984? Clearly, this is a matter of definition. Could you have two books that were greatly similar but one would be SF and the other not? I think not.
I’ve seen the first three episodes. Hands down, the most chilling moment for me was when Janine
Sang “Three Little Birds” to her newborn daughter.
The music direction/soundtrack is high quality. Really does its job.
The cast is impressive, particularly June, Emily (Ofglen I), Janine, Moira, Serena Joy, and Aunt Lydia. Nick is too young, which I find distracting. Not sure why the production decided to go with a youthful Commander and Serena Joy. Perhaps they thought that a reference to the Bakkers wouldn’t be understood by a modern audience, and that Crazy Evangelicalism is no longer the sole province of Old Men.
Regarding the “salvaging,” it has been a while since I read the book, but I recall there being some doubt as to whether
the “rapist” was in fact, a rapist, or simply a victim of the State. All the reviews I have read seem to assume that the charge was true. Given the trial that we see later, I think any official declaration of the State is suspect, particularly in capital matters.
The Ceremony makes for great Religious Theatre but
[SPOILER] does no one in the dystopian future remember anything about tracking ovulation in pursuit of babymaking? Or that babymaking sometimes requires sex more than once a month?
There were hospitals once, we saw them in flashback, but no one uses them for childbirth anymore? Were they all bombed? At least have a physician on hand for the birth. (Perhaps this was or will be addressed. . .I plan on rereading the book shortly.)
If babies were such incredibly precious commodities, you’d think that people would treat the Handmaids better consistently, to encourage higher rates of conception and healthier babies. “Here’s someone I would like to get pregnant right away. Let me terrify her and stress her out completely; surely that will help this process.”
No wonder they’re having such difficulty perpetuating on the human race.[/SPOILER]
Did anyone catch the cameo in Episode 1?
Margaret Atwood played one of the Aunts.
When I watched that episode, I actually assumed that the guy had consensual sex with a handmaiden and had been found out. I, too was surprised that all of the reviews and forum comments I read all seemed to assume that the guy was actually a rapist.
I’m really enjoying the series is expanding on Gileadean society and showing us stuff that was only hinted at in the novel.
Ofglen/Emily for example; her subplot is completely unique to the show. It the book she kills herself to avoid being taken alive and that was it. Here she was literally bound & gagged during her “trial”, and then had to watch her girlfriend hang, then subjected to female genital mutilation (which doesn’t appear to have been told about until after the fact). Extremely dark, it’s like the Nazis merged with the Taliban.
Regarding the Particulation (Salvaging is where they hang a woman)…
…IIRC it was specifically designed to give the Handmaids an outlet to vent their anger and frustration. The authorities arranged then at the equinoxes & solstices whether they had enough rapists or not.
Presumably the Ceremony is scheduled for when the Handmaid is ovulating, but yeah they should be performing it multiple times that week. The people who designed the Handmaid system seem to be far more concerned with reconciling it with scripture and their extreme aversion to sexuality outside of wedlock that with making it effective.
As to the Handmaids’ treatment; the vast majority of them are convicted “criminals” who were only spared extermination through labour (or immediate execution) because they have functioning reproductive systems. In a way it’s actually surprising they’re treated as well as they are. I imagine the profoundly “unruly” ones are kept locked up on secure units in the Red Centers and their assigned couple have to come to them for the Ceremony. Either that or they just have limbs amputated.
In the book there was a ambulance outside when house with male physicians ready in case something went wrong, but Gileadean ideology dictates that as far as practicable childbirth be a female only affair. The Sons of Jacob consider certain types of medical technology forbidden (like artificial insemination or in vitro, both of which would be extremely helpful in this scenario).
BTW did anyone else find the scene with the Daughters apparently going to school a bit odd? 
If it’s all women (other than Aunts) who are forbidden to read & write and not just Handmaids why even have schools for girls? Also how are Marthas (& Econowives, whom I hope we’ll see) supposed to do basic things like read cookbooks or instructions on cleaning supplies?
I regret asking for boxed spoilers in this thread. Sorry guys, I didn’t realize what a pain they would be.
(I should have just waited until I was current on the episodes and THEN started the thread. :smack:)
Clearly the Daughters are going to school to learn things like how to run a household, basic childcare, and so forth and not learn reading, writing, and arithmetic.
I wonder if, in the last episode, the epilogue that was in the book will be shown. It’s the one that takes place after the breakdown of Gilead, and was a historical academic seminar.
So it’s been renewed for season 2. That’s surprising; I thought this was a limited series. They’re going to have to vastly expand on the book. 
We’re going to see a lot more of how Gilead functions. Did anyone else find the scenes of all the street signs being removed and the book & art burnings somehow *more *disturbing than bodies hanging from the wall? Also apparently the Euro (& be extension the EU) still exists. 
I find it all too easy to believe that a fundamentalist Christian theocracy would care more about reconciling their practices with scripture than they would about good science/medicine.