The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Attwood

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood

Although the general view was largely positive, there were  a number of interesting perspectives so the discussion was not entirely dull! Two members of the book club, John and Andrew, were not present but had sent through their comments well before the meeting, and, at the meeting itself, everyone had actually finished the book, which was quite unusual from recent experience!

The Handmaid’s Tale was written in 1984 while Attwood was living in West Berlin. One of the interesting insights by Attwood herself given in the Introduction, which was actually written in 2017 following the recent Channel 4 Series, was that ‘One of my rules was that I would not put any events into the book that had not already happened in what James Joyce called the “nightmare” of history, nor any technology not already available’. Interestingly not all of the members had this Introduction included in their copies of the book, which was a shame at it did provide a number of insights. Mark W did observe that the Introduction was better read after finishing the book itself.

The other quite original structural device in the book is the epilogue or ‘Historical Notes on the Handmaid’s Tale’,  a ‘…..transcript of the proceedings of the twelfth Symposium on Gileadean Studies, held as part of the International Historical Association Convention,…..on June 25, 2195’. From this epilogue we learn a number of interesting things, other than a much needed wind down from the intense world created by the novel itself. The article is about the authenticity of the transcript of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ which had been ‘discovered’ some years (unspecified) previously. Obviously this puts us as the readers in an interesting situation as we know that the Tale is a work of fiction (therefore clearly can’t be ‘true’) but within the parameters of the suspension of disbelief, we know, or would like it to be, authentic! So we observe the Professor’s presentation with a detached sense of knowing superiority having just read the book and having been drawn into its meticulously created world.

The general consensus of the discussion was that the book was enjoyable. Chris W ‘really enjoyed it, although he wouldn’t describe it as ‘a good read’, because of the constant an air of menace, but it drew me in, and the constant tension was well described…the imagination was fantastic  and kept me involved’. 

Willm found the book ‘…marvellously constructed, with the short chapters and sentences working well in the context of the society’. He did however find that ‘the ending was a bit disappointing, but the epilogue was really clever’, but overall ‘a brilliant book by a brilliant writer’. 

Mark T found the book ‘well written and easy to read’. He ‘enjoyed the first person narrative’ and drew parallels with ‘Islamic State, Eastern Germany and Russia’.

Chris B wished he had read the book before watching the series as ‘it was more of a back story on the series’. He found it ‘..interesting that the Commander’s wife was disabled, whereas in the series she is more glamorous’ (To be expected, better TV!). He found it ‘a very good example of the genre’, and ‘it was well written’.

Steve was the only member of the Group who had already read the book (six months ago). He was hoping to find some impressions and ideas expanded upon but he found himself ‘irritated and niggled by reading it a second time’, although it was ‘very literary, very thoughtful and very considered by a classy writer’. It ‘reminded me of ‘The Crucible’. 

Richard found it ‘..a great feat of imagination and writing.’ He was ‘admiring of the psychological insights’ and found that ‘the language was beautiful’ but not all was positive, for him ‘the biggest problem was the confusion over time: she was supposed to be 33 years old and the coup was supposed to have taken place five years ago, and she had an eight year old daughter…yet it seemed that no-one could recall much about  ‘the time before’ and talked about it as if the coup had occurred 20 years ago not five’. However, he found ’the main characters were so real and reflective, and the use of English wonderful….the ending was very hopeful’.  However he did observe,  ‘the idea on how academics talk was inappropriate’ (as expressed in the epilogue). The rest of us disagreed of course!

Andrew  wrote that ‘Atwood creates the world of Gilead with such clarity and precision and completeness that I felt familiar with it whenever I opened my kindle’. He adds ‘…..while ‘Sea of Poppies’ became bogged down in waves of accessary detail at times, Atwood is able to create the environment and atmosphere through her precision, and, for me, the story progressed uncluttered because of her elegantly economic prose’. 

John, in his brief notes, found it ‘…an extraordinary book. Such a well-crafted commentary on a horridly plausible dystopia…..one in which apparently ‘freedom of is better than freedom to’. He found it ‘a highly personal narrative with so many different dimensions: moral, political, psychological, etc. but also one that keeps you enthralled. It also highlights what we all might do to survive in such circumstances’ . He ‘found it a dark, innovative and rather compulsive novel helped along by some superb writing and the end the vague suggestion that there is a positive future.

A number of specific points were made during the discussion: Chris W felt that a strong theme was the oppression of women, Mark W found it interesting how women were used to re-educate other women and enforce the requirements of the regime on them and, in the end, the women are capable of being just as ruthless as men on their fellow women. Andrew noted in his written notes that the regime ‘……is particularly cruel and brutal towards women. Like Sea of Poppies, it is gruesome stuff with women being enslaved, raped, tortured and surgically mutilated. They are controlled and silenced by men’. Richard observed how relevant still is the issue of the position of women in society, and drew the example of contemporary India, where gang rapes are still acceptable in some parts.

As Attwood discusses in her introduction, ‘all power is relative, and in tough times, any amount is seen as better than none’. Chris W also commented on the scene in the ‘hotel’ where the Commander takes Offred for a change of scenery. In the and, as in Animal Farm and many other similar novels, it is very difficult for leaders to accept the same conditions as the rest of the population and they start to give themselves extra benefits.

The effectiveness of the first person narration was also discussed. Willm suggested that ending such a narrative is challenging but he felt that the narrative was very effective. Andrew observed that ‘you are told exactly what Offred is seeing and hearing and feeling and thinking, her posture and her movement, the atmosphere and any changes in it, and how she decides her responses’. 

Chris B was interested in the theme of how humans have the capacity to adjust to anything, and whether you should rebel against oppression or not. Chris W added that ‘humans adapt to their circumstances, they just get on with it’. Chris B noted that we are now closer to Gilead compared to when the book was written rather than further away. Richard noted that Attwood had forseen the appearance of fake news back in 1984. He also observed that these regimes do change in the end and made a comparison with Nazi Germany and the experience of the Jews. Andrew concluded with ‘I thought this was a terrific book, thought provoking, ahead of its time though not dated, and in fact eerily perhaps more relevant to the present day and our uncertain future’.

So a generally positive and interesting experience for most  with a generally high set of scores  although there was a rather miserly 6.0 from Steve balanced by a very generous 10 .0 from Willm. Most were in the range 7.5 to 9.