It might not happen quite as swiftly in the US, but I would disagree that it couldn’t happen swiftly. I left the US in '95, and the change I saw from outside in American society after 9/11 was swift and dramatic. The immediate increase in fear. mistrust, and desire for authoritarian protection were shocking. America in 2017 is no longer the country I knew. All you need are enough fearful people, and the ones who thrive on manipulating them will have them begging for Gilead.
To cook up The Handmaid’s Tale, Atwood takes a little of this reality and a little of that reality, in just the horrifyingly right proportions, to create a rich speculative feast from so many elements of our real world that, despite her novel as a whole being wildly alien to us, it makes us look at our society and think “What if?”
Can you imagine Facebook and Twitter if this were to happen now?
THAT would make for interesting conjecture.
I’m watching the first episodes today so no spoilers please if this is addressed in the Hulu show.
From 1976 through 1982, there were only seven executions in the USA, three years without any at all. In many states, it is virtually impossible in practice to get a legal abortion, because while they are not banned, they are regulated beyond accessibility.
“Banned” by edict is not the same thing as “abolshed” in practice., and I never said executions were banned. The American people discontinued executions, then re-embraced it. Conversely, the American people accepted abortion as a circumstantial alternative, then in many states, obstructed it.
The book is not about feminism, except as a marketing tool. Atwood described it as “a study of power, and how it operates and how it deforms or shapes the people who are living within that kind of regime”. The only reason it is pegged to feminism is because Atwood had the savvy to jump on the feminist bandwagon, which in the 1980s was sprialing up to a shrill crescendo. Exactly at a time when people were re-reading “1984” and discovering that it was about America, not the USSR. Plus she had the cachet of a woman-writer, with a willing and ready readership in place… All the ingredients of literary success.
All of Atwood’s novels are about feminism, including The Handmaid’s tale. She did not jump on a bandwagon. I encourage you to read her works chronologically.
Recognition and Rejection of Victimization in the Novels of Margaret Atwood
:dubious:
:dubious:
Of course it’s unthinkable that a skilled and popular novelist who has managed to be successful despite inherent societal and institutional obstacles based on her merit. It must be because she took advantage of easily manipulated, soft-brained feminists.
In addition the all the other wrong stuff in your post, 1984 was never “about the USSR.”
It wasn’t about either - Orwell was writing from the perspective of the British colonial and bureaucratic system, of which he’d been a part.
Are you kidding me with this?
jtur88, which of Margaret Atwoods’ works have you read?
That post, dripping with resentment, embodies the reason that J. K. Rowling published her first detective novel under a male pen name. No doubt Rowling hoped that the work would be judged on its merits, with no condescension or aggrieved speculation about bandwagons and such.
By and large, when someone describes a woman as “shrill”, I assume he’s sexist. Especially if he’s describing written words.
Not only sexist, but also misogynist.
Valerie Solanas and the SCUM Manifesto would qualify.
Well there you go. You’ve discovered one shrill woman, and therefore feminism is over. You’ve won! Back to barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen for all those bitches.
But it was widely interpreted, by western readers, to be a warning about the Soviet model , which Orwell was very aware of. The fact that Orwell never used the word “USSR” in the text of the novel is not proof that he did not have that in mind.
Why don’t you itemize “all the other wrong stuff” in my very short post, to give your attackee a chance to respond to it?
You expect me to remember all the books I’ve read in the past 30 years? And your only basis of criticism of me is that I can’t? Most of them were not memorable enough for me to remember, and I consider he to be barely average among modern woman writers. partly because she does cater to a feminist, rather than mainstream readership. And partly because I don’t think she is a truly great writer. The last book by Atwood I read was “Hag Seed”, which I admit was quite good.
And since I know you, or someone, is just dying to ask, I’d prefer to read Shirley Hazzard, Rachel Kushner, Elizabeth Gilbert, Ann Patchett, Zadie Smith, Herta Muller, Sarah Waters, Louise Erdrich, Anne Tyler, just to name a few who quickly come to mind.
Well, the capitalist ruling class has more to do with that particular one.
I have no expectations of you. Why you opine on Atwood without having read much if any of her works is of no particular interest to me.