Hmmm, maybe Offred is June. The book goes on to talk about Dolores, I get the impression that’s not Offred.
I found the passage I was looking for:
I hope you don’t mind if I join the discussion, even though I’m only in chapter 21. I hope to finish soon, but I’m a slow reader.
I think it’s so cool that this takes place in Cambridge, because that’s where I live. I’m trying to find clues that place the events of the story. The beginning of chapter 6 seems like it could be a description of Harvard Square and the Anderson Bridge area, but I’m not totally sure. Does anyone know where The Wall in that chapter is supposed to be? Are there any clues coming up that I should look out for?
I for one find it quite unlikely that we’ll ever reduce any section of the population to slavery, even with something like a major war. We value our freedom too much for that. I find that books like this and Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World are way over the top, probably intentionally so, to make a point. But sometimes I do wish that they would be more realistic (to me), to make the point more subtley.
Thudlow, I find THT to be one of those books where you are better served by finishing it as so to understand what you’ve read. Some books get better on successive re-readings, and THT is one of those.
The final chapter of the book are the notes to a Historical Symposium regarding the find of a collection of audiotapes collectively known as The Handmaid’s Tale. These tapes will help them uncover clues as to the formation and life of Gilead society, and the events in the last chapter take place far in the future, where Gilead is no more and Caucasion populations are in serious retreat due to the population/environmental problems. Essentially you are reading the transcribed ramblings of a woman who has been through hell, and might even be a bit insane.
Btw, Offred states a number of times that she won’t reveal her name in the narrative, so it is at best inconclusive that she is, in fact, Dolores.
Although it may be significant to note that the name Dolores means “lady of sorrows.”
Or maybe not. Just a thought.
I found a few references to Dolores:
This makes me think that Offred is June, I don’t recall her mentioning June but I could have missed that.
I also picked up the book to read it for the book club although I read it several years ago. There are things in the book which are cutting it a bit close to reality. The passage Slainte quoted has two of them. As others have pointed out, we’re becoming increasingly dependent on credit and debit cards, and I’m among those who use them at the grocery store. It’ll take a lot longer to phase out currency for such things as taking the bus or buying the newspaper, but you could argue that it would be much faster and more efficient to slide a cash card into a box on a bus than wait for someone to deposit change. Besides, it appears that busses and certainly newspapers were supressed by the Republic of Gilead.
After September 11th, the US government did push for more restrictions, and the FBI was granted broader powers to wiretap, etc. People’s attitudes seem to be that only people who had something to hide would object. Look at how people who criticized the government were called “un-American.” If the fourth plane had taken out Congress instead of crashing in the mountains of Pennsylvania, how much tougher would restrictions have been?
THT also talks about an increase in child kidnappings as being one of the causative factors behind Gilead. If you think about the hysteria we faced this summer despite there being no actual increase in kidnappings, that doesn’t seem implausible. Women were convinced their lives, bodies, and children were at risk which is one reason they were willing to accept restrictions.
Kat said:
The American economy has been in trouble for some years now, if you factor in the manufacturing sector. I was laid off from my last two jobs. Being laid off is a shock. I’ve seen it on a list of the five most traumatic events that can happen to a person. When it happens, there’s a period of disbelief, and it takes a while before you start to try to figure out why. If you’ve been living with mass layoffs for some time, it’s easier to blame it on the economy. It might also take a while to put things together. As for our narrator’s particular case, here’s the way it’s described:
Conditions in THT came about because of a cultural shift which somehow got translated to law. With a birthrate well below that which could sustain a population and women perceiving that they were under constant threat, restrictions became more reasonable. Also, with the US Government taken out of it, I assume it took a while to get things organized and Gilead was the result.
The copy of THT I got from the library has ten suggested topics for contemplation or group discussion. I’ll throw them out into the mix:[list=1]
[li]The novel begins with three epigraphs. What are their functions?[/li][li]In Gilead, women are categorized as wives, handmaids, Martha’s or Aunts, but Moira refuses to fit into a nich. Offred says she was like an elevator with open sides who made them dizzy; she was their fantasy. Trace Moira’s role throughout the tale to determine what she symbolizes.[/li][li]Aunt Lydia, Janine, and Offred’s mother also represent more than themselves. What does each of their characters connote? What do the style and color of their clothes connote?[/li][li]At one level, The Handmaid’s Tale is about the writing process. Atwood clearly weaves this subplot into a major focus with remarks by Offred such as “Context is all,”“I’ve filled it out for her,”“I made that up,” and “I wish this story were different.” Does Offred’s habit of talking about the process of storytelling make it easier or more difficult for you to suspend disbelief?[/li][li]A palimpset is a medieval parchment that scribes attempted to scrape clean and use again, though they were unable to obliterate all traces of the original. How does the new republic of Gilead’s social order often resemble a palimpset?[/li][li]The Commander in the novel says you can’t cheat nature. How do characters find ways to follow their natural instincts?[/li][li]Why is the Bible under lock and key in Gilead?[/li][li]Babies are referred to as “keepers,” “unbabies,” “shredders.” What other real or fictional worlds to these terms suggest?[/li][li]Atwood’s title brings to mind titles in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. Why might Atwood have wanted you to make that connection?[/li][li]What do you feel the “Historical Notes” at the books end add to the reading of this novel? What does the book’s last line mean to you?[/list=1] [/li]
I’ve got to admit, that list brings back memories of high school and college English, but there it is. My edition also has an interview with Margaret Atwood at the end of it, if anyone’s interested.
CJ
I think the women losing their jobs and such is much more frightening now than it was when written - since this is pretty much exactly what the Taliban did in Afganistan - “go home, you don’t have jobs. Make too big a stink and risk disappearing or being excuted.” There is little in this book that doesn’t have a basis in a historical event in some place or time in the past century. Even the forced reproduction has some basis in the child policies of 1970s Rumania or Nazi Germany (though granted, not to the extreme extent). Certainly, for much of the 20th century we removed healthy white children from their biological mothers (especially infants) if the mothers were “unfit” (unmarried) and placed them with more “appropriate” parents (married middle class parents)
As to genre, much of my acdemic work was in genre studies, and I’ve come to the conclusion that, while defining genre is interesting, the pigeon-holing of work as genre or not is counter productive. THT definately has elements of speculative fiction (I would say that is isn’t SF, as it contains little or no Science, but if labeling it as SF gets people to read it, I’m all for labeling it as such, as long as the label can be removed when people who “never read SF” are interested in it).
I think the Offred not having her own name makes the story that much more chilling. It becomes much easier to imagine myself as Offred - or someone I know. It also serves to depersonalize her, to turn her into an object. This seems different than the unnamed heroine of Rebecca, where the purpose of not naming her seems to be to make her lack of importance and weight contrast to the importance and weight of Rebecca herself.
Reading over this thread makes me want to read THT again. I first read it about 5 years ago, but I think I will pick up on more things now that I’ve grown and changed since then.
Hey, Dangerosa - Your audience is waiting for the next selection.
Thanks, I hadn’t gotten to reviewing that thread. I’m picking Lovely Bones, by Alice Sebold.
I’ll open a new thread to annouce and make Feb nominations.
I’d tried to read THT back in the mid-eighties, when it first came out in paperback, but couldn’t get started on it. So it’s selection as the January read of the SDMB book club motivated me to get to my local used book store (yeah, like I hadn’t planned on going there anyways :)), where the proprietor was able to locate a copy for me (he had to climb on his ladder to get it; the “As” were up on the highest shelf!). And I finished it Friday evening.
Like Thudlow, I wanted to like the book, or at least enjoy reading it, but Atwood’s writing style was distracting to me, and in all honesty, it’s not the usual sort of book that I do enjoy. That being said, I found the book to be thought-provoking, although the thoughts it brought up in me were not pleasant. As Dangerosa pointed out, the Taliban certainly imposed many of the situations described in THT while they were in charge in Afghanistan, right down to the destruction of thousand year old statues of Buddha. Not forgetting how they treated women–it was chillingly like how Gilead was run in THT, imo.
I found the Historical Notes section at the end to be an intriguing ending; even though many ends were left dangling–that’s as it was supposed to be–and much also was revealed from the glimpse of where society had gone to 100 or so years -after- Gilead.
I am looking forward to the February selection now. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by cjhoworth *
[li]Atwood’s title brings to mind titles in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. Why might Atwood have wanted you to make that connection?[/li][/QUOTE]
I’m actually interested in the answer to this if anyone wants to give it a shot.
I think THT is very interesting. While it is an indictment of an anti-feminist legal system, it is also about the 20th century feminist movement.
A lot of the first-wave pioneering feminists (like Offred’s Mom) have complained that younger women have claimed the benefits of feminism (workplace/education rights) while backsliding on social feminism (fewer women are inclined to keep their names when they marry, there is no stigma to staying home when the children are young). The first wave also feels that the worplace/education rights are taken for granted and their radical bra-burning protesting activity is not properly appreciated. Serena is very like Offred’s mom, in sume respects, and Offred is a second waver–all she wants is a private/non-political life of a husband, a child, a job and some nice clothes and makeup (from the brothel scenes). Even the oh-so-pc academic conference that wraps up the novel is a lot like the academic treatment of women’s studies today.
The biggest buggaboo in the current acedmic world of women’s sutdies is whether “Dead White Males” are relevant. Atwood takes on the New Testament, Milton and Chaucer, and I’m not sure what her answer is.
Consider:
-
The most famous handmaid is Mary, the mother of Jesus. “I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your will.” That was her response to the announcement of her unexpected, unwed pregnancy. The sword will pierce her heart (and the hearts of all mothers who lose their children, to a cause or otherwise). Does motherhood mean vulnerability of the sort that limits political activism? Did the dead white male (that would be Luke) who wrote that about Mary intend to oppress future generations of women into a passive acceptance of The Man’s edicts?
-
My man Milton gets dissed something terrible in THT. He WAS a member of an oppressive religious government. He was not at all nice to his very smart daughters. He did run his home as a dictator. He is exactly the type of dead white male that feminists love to bash.
BUT, the two poems targeted by Atwood are very personal, and deal with Milton’s own inner struggles with his blindness.
Samson Agonistes is the story of Samson (from the Bible, written by some dead white OT male) who was blinded in captivity before bringing down the temple pillars he was tied to. He asks, “is there no balm in Gilead?” (This line is in both Jeremiah and in Milton’s poem.) Gilead is a place like paradise where all wounds should be healed, so this statement is a cry over an unhealable condition (blindness).
The second poem dissed is On His Blindness. This poem (important to me–see my sig) ends with the line:
“They also serve who only stand and wait.”
Atwood singles this line out and turns it into an imposition of passivity on women by ruling religious men (tying into the handmaid language from Luke).
However, both these poems were deeply personal for Milton, and indicted only himself, if anyone. So, was Atwood rejecting these ideas simply because of the “dead white male” aspect (the hot topic in feminist studies and one that you would think she would intentionally address) or not? She’s almost too good a writer to do something like this (use the highly personal poems to condemn the stereotypical dead white male) without an undercurrent of some other intent. I don’t know what else to say about it, however.
I “read” this book on audiotape (unabridged), which is an interesting way to do it since, according to the boom itself, it was supposedly transcribed from Offred’s our tape recordings.
I had the same reaction Achernar had – I was partway into it before I realized that it was taking place in Cambridge, MA (where Atwood lived during at least part of the writing). The big Party scene takes place at the pyramidal Hyatt hotel along the Charles River, and much action is set in Harvard Square and Harvard Yard. It’s pretty weird, considering how liberal the whole area is (“People’s Republic of Cambridge”, some mockingly call it), but I suppose part of her point is that even such a bastion of liberalism could become afflicted with such extreme behavior. And I agree, by the judgment of most of those reading and writing science fiction, this is SF. I suspect a lot of authors deny or downplay such categorization, though, either because of their own prejudices or those of their presumed audience.
I found the feminism portrayed interesting as well. The old school bra burning feminism of Offred’s mother. The political underground lesbianism of Moira. The Phyllis Shaffley anti-feminism of Serena Joy. And, of course, the taking it all for granted feminism of Offred herself. Most interesting is the implication that the feminists hurt their own cause - joining with conservatives to protest porn.
My guess is that Atwood thinks dead white males are very relevant - at least to her, they allow her to make her points.
I read it a couple of months to ago, and while it was okay, I have to say that I didn’t think it had anywhere near enough ideas for novel length, and would have been better off as a short story. It’s certainly SF, but I wouldn’t put it anywhere near the same league as 1984. Overrated.
It seems like a lot of the men that have posted so far haven’t really enjoyed the book. Perhaps this is because they didn’t feel the tugs in their maternal instincts like the women did?
Because it is the subjugation of women, I think it hits closer to home for the women… It is something that we can see being dealt with every day in our lives and around the world.
That having been said, I will now go hide! 
::dodges a flameball::
I thought it was interesting that Offred made it a point to note that she didn’t consider her handmaid duties to be rape, since she had had a choice of what she could have become, and the other choice was worse than being a handmaid (been a while since I read this, so I’m struggling to remember).
liirogue: I love the book and have read it 5, 6 times (I’m now on my second copy).
Btw, I will now have to officially put you on notice for making me offended for suggesting that all males do not have “maternal instincts.” Have you no respect for us maternally-challenged boys? 
Humble Servant, Was the DWM bit was as big in the early-1980s as it became in the early '90s? I didn’t see THT as being critical of the past as it was so much the present, a “lets not stop fighting now, ladies!” novel. A lot of debatable things were considered “truths” in Atwoods novel, but a negative view of modern Western Civilization (as expressed in its liberal*, secular forms) didn’t seem to be one of them. At least not to me.
Her thoughts, her concerns seem far more recent and personal. She isn’t interested in devising a truly functional theocratic society, rather, it seems that she is more concerned with asking whether or not there is a quality inherent to women that brings oppression onto them, whether they are truly equipped to be the sort of fighters they need to be to continue resisting the old ways of social development.
*Old, 18th century definition.