4.5*****

"Better never means better for everyone...it always means worse, for some."

Wow. wow. Wow. Such an intense, compelling and gripping book. This book WILL make you feel uncomfortable.
This book is set in a society (what used to be the USA) that controls women's bodies through a fundamentalist religion, acting as government and dictating all of the rules. This society is called the 'Republic of Gilead'. Here, women are divided into groups and are given a certain dress code to learn their place in society and so that men can recognise them for their social hierarchy. Due to low fertility rates, some women, the women in red robes- the handmaidens- are given to men, 'commanders', for the pure purpose of breeding. The handmaids do the breeding as the wives cannot.

This book follows the first hand account of Offred (meaning Of-Fred, the man she was given to, her commander), who describes her life under this totalitarian regime. The book is fragmented to show you flashbacks of Offred's past; work and being a mother being things she took for granted, to how the social change suddenly came about; women's rights and equality being the first to go and any money earned was given to the males of the family, to the present; she is a handmaiden whose duty it is to breed and she is repeatedly raped and terrorised into doing this duty.
As tensions arise in the book and there is talk of an underground organisation helping women, the reader's want and need for Offred to escape is very real and almost frantic.

"We are not each other's any more. Instead, I am his."

This is about power. Stripping people of their individuality and freedom in a very warped society. Women are stripped of their names, and their bodies are under complete control of the government; autonomy, no make-up, no shaving. Women are also not allowed to read or write or speak (other than the few allowed phrases, or can answer questions directed to them). Any women who fall out of line are either sent to the colonies for hard labour and to work with radioactive waste, shortening their life expectancy to just a few years, or they are severely punished through forms of torture or death.

I found it interesting to see how the book delves into religion and how this is used as a bad influence to gain power (justifying actions through religion), however, it also can give people the hope and strength to rise up.

What is horrifying about this book is the level of possession and control over women's lives and their bodies. This book communicates what it is like for a woman to have zero power over her own body.

Despite this book being written over 35 years ago, it has such an impact as it resonates so deeply with today's cultures. Women's rights are fully debated in society and proposals for restrictions, etc. are ongoing, whether this is through a societal view of a woman was "asking for it" due to her dress, if she was drinking etc., to restricting abortion rights, dress rights, educational rights, through to domestic violence and femicide.

Margaret Atwood has previously stated that all of the things that happen in this book have a basis in history or present culture.... and that is truly frightening. I would definitely class this as more of a speculative fiction, rather than just a dystopian novel, as I find it parallels so much to women's experiences in real life.

n  Bulgarian review below/Ревюто на български е по-долуn
Do all tales begin with ‘Once upon a time, there was a…’? What if we tried something different? So… Once upon a time in a faraway land, there was no love, respect, and devotion. Also, there were no rights – only for some women though. It seemed that there was no hope too or it laid so low that everyone had declared it dead.
‘Maybe the life I think I'm living is a paranoid delusion. Not a hope. I know where I am, and who, and what day it is. These are the tests, and I am sane. Sanity is a valuable possession, I hoard it the way people once hoarded money. I save it, so I will have enough, when the time comes.’

Peeking through a keyhole into the macabre half-existence of a woman. One amidst an ocean of others like her. You try to see something more through the bloody keyhole but you only discern a very small portion. Obscure silhouettes, a figure pacing to and fro, you’re not even sure if you fathom out what you see. People get very frustrated when they don’t understand something. They start thinking it’s stupid just because they don’t get it. The civiliter mortuus described in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ is really hard to sink in. Elbowing their way from feminism, through suffragism to the women’s status at the beginning of the third millennium, the rights of the ‘weaker’ sex have always tried to keep their balance on a very loose and thin rope. In Atwood’s scenario for the future they have lost the unequal battle and have been pushed into the mud and completely disgraced. Women have assumed their roles in the centuries-long nightmare they know so well – those of reproduction tools, adornments, or addenda. You open your legs and shut your mouth and don’t expect much more from life. This is the safest attitude.
‘Let's stop there. I intend to get out of here. It can't last forever. Others have thought such things, in bad times before this, and they were always right, they did get out one way or another, and it didn't last forever. Although for them it may have lasted all the forever they had.’

Atwood chose to tell her story through the discontinuous contemplation of her protagonist, Offred (you are not even entitled to a name in that cursed future, you’re just someone’s property). The narrative is chaotic, it rambles between past and present, and sometimes it doesn’t even make sense. At one point it appears that Offred doesn’t know her own mind. Style-wise you won’t even find quotation marks in the rendering of direct speech, but then again, do you put quotation marks in your mind when you think about stuff?

Offred has lost ground under her feet, she’s searching something to hold onto, she wanders between despair and some glimpse of hope, feels smothering flashes of something akin to happiness but also the treacherous shriek of the instinct of self-preservation. Seemingly, there’s not much action in the plot and at the end events become so entangled that only a deus ex machina can descend from above and untwine the knots. Margaret Atwood uses a much more elegant mechanism than the Ancient Greek tragedians though. She beats the dust out of a rarely worn writer’s garment – that of the author asking questions and looking for answers, not the common storyteller which provides clear-cut decisions. ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ will leave you shaken and confused, but it will also do something much more valuable – it will throw a few sticks in the bonfire of your imagination. Just to give you a heads up. For you never know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Всички приказки ли започват с „имало едно време“? А ако пробваме иначе? И така… Нямало едно време в една далечна страна любов, уважение и привързаност. Нямало и права – само за определени жени обаче. Надежда май също нямало или така се била спотаила някъде, че всички я били обявили за мъртва.
„Може би животът, който си въобразявам, че водя, е параноична заблуда?… Здравият разум е безценно притежание, кътам си го… Пестя го, за да имам достатъчно, когато моментът настъпи.“

n  Disclaimern (познат и като „отказ от отговорност“): Ако не ви се четат лични излияния, пропуснете Нелирично отклонение 1 и 2. Обещавам, че няма да навреди на останалата част от рецензията.

n  Нелирично отклонение 1n: През 2016 г. завърших транслатология и дипломната ми работа беше превод на част от непревеждана на български език книга. Избрах именно този роман на Маргарет Атууд, който тогава все още не беше издаден в България, нямаше и сериал по него. Ето защо с първите 80-ина страници сме си стари познайници. Доста по-късно реших да си дочета остатъка на английски и тъкмо прочетох около 2/3, когато ми подариха българското издание. От признателност се захванах и просто изчетох цялата книга отначало. Та така.

Надзъртане през ключалката в мрачното полусъществуване на една жена. Една сред океан от други като нея. Опитвате се да видите повече през проклетата ключалка, но се вижда само мъничко. Неясни очертания, крачеща напред-назад фигура, не сте сигурни дори дали разбирате видяното. Хората много се дразнят като не разбират нещо. Започват да го смятат за глупаво, просто защото не го схващат. Гражданската смърт, описана в „Разказът на Прислужницата“ наистина е трудна за асимилиране. От първите зачатъци на феминизма, през суфражизма до положението на жените в началото на третото хилядолетие, правата на „слабия“ пол се опитват да запазят равновесие върху поразхлабено доста тънко въже. В сценария на Атууд за бъдещето те са загубили неравностойната битка и са позорно повалени в калта. Жените са заели своите роли в познатия им от векове кошмар – на инструменти за възпроизводство, на украшения или на притурки. Отваряш крака и затваряш уста и не очакваш много повече от живота. Така е най-безопасно.
„Да спрем дотук. Решила съм да се измъкна. Това не може да продължава вечно. И други са си мислели същото в лоши времена и винаги са се оказвали прави, измъквали са се по един или друг начин и проблемите наистина не са продължавали вечно. Макар че за самите тях сигурно е било цялото време, с което разполагат.“

Атууд избира да разкаже историята си чрез накъсаните размишления на своята протагонистка Фредова (дори право на име нямаш в онова прокълнато бъдеще, просто си нечия). Повествованието е хаотично, лута се между минало и настояще, на моменти логиката му се губи. По едно време ти се струва, че и Фредова много не знае какво иска. Стилистично липсват дори кавички при предаването на пряка реч, но вие слагате ли в главата си кавички, докато разсъждавате за разни неща? Мисълта ви тече ли гладко и последователно, без глупави отклонения какво ще бъде времето и защо, да му се не знае, пак сте се изпотили под мишниците? Будистите отдавна са установили, че умът си скача безцелно като маймуна и е трудно да го укротиш. Брилянтно предаване на тази несвързаност на размислите.

Фредова е изгубила почва под краката си, търси в какво да се вкопчи, блуждае между отчаянието и някаква вяра, изпитва задушаващи проблясъци на изгубено щастие, но и предателския крясък на инстинкта за самосъхранение. Наглед в сюжета няма особено много действие, а в края събитията така се усукват, че само deus ex machina може да се спусне и да разплете възлите. Маргарет Атууд обаче използва по-елегантен механизъм от древногръцките трагици. Изтупва праха от една от по-рядко носените одежди на писателите – тази на задаващия въпроси и търсещия отговори, а не на обикновения разказвач, който ви предлага готови решения. „Разказът на Прислужницата“ ще ви поразтърси и ще ви остави да се чудите, но ще направи и нещо много по-ценно – ще хвърли няколко съчки в кладата на въображението ви. За да сте мъничко по-подготвени. Защото никога не се знае.

n  Нелирично отклонение 2n: Вмествам това по повод израза „Надушвам плъх“, на който се натъкнах в превода на книгата. Уважаеми пишещи където и да е из интернет и особено уважаеми превеждащи и редактиращи, на български език фразеологично словосъчетание „надушвам плъх“ като превод на английското ‘I smell a rat’ няма. Извън контекста на превода, на български няма и устойчив израз „еди-какво си не е моята чаша (с) чай“. Последното бихте могли да използвате евентуално, ако сте поканени на гости в ранния следобед и някой ви подаде нечия друга чаша, пълна с чай. Някои биха казали да не се превземам и да се благодаря, че „фасулска работа“ все още не се е превърнала в „парче кекс“. Аз обаче инатливо искам да си се превземам – в българския има достатъчно идиоми, които биха могли да се използват. Равнозначно на горепосочените буквални заемки би било, ако на някой англоговорящ му се ще да сподели, че е „отишъл коня у ряката“ и използва ‘went the horse into the river’. Дълбоко ме съмнява това да се случи. Ако сте изтърпели текста ми дотук, благодаря за вниманието.

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood is a brilliant, endearing, scary as hell book.

Told with simplistic prose and stark attention to detail, Atwood describes life in the not too distant future where the United States has been transformed through military coup into a totalitarian theocracy. This dystopian horror story is made all the more real by the bridge Atwood has created between the world we know now and the world that could be – the story’s protagonist remembers the time before the change. This is, to my knowledge, a unique element in the dystopian genre, whereas in many others the setting is some time in the far future and there seems little hope for change or revolution.

More than that, the heroine, Offred (not her real name but the proprietary title she is given) is an approachable, likable character that brings the reader dangerously close to the action. Drawing an obvious correlation between far right conservative Christian movements and Muslim Sharia law authoritarian theocratic ideologies, Atwood has created a disturbing vision.

As the reader experiences the story from the perspective of a mother, this story has the added complexity of nurturing relationships turned horribly askew. This is not as terrible as Elie Wiesel’s Night, still in my mind the scariest nightmare I’ve ever even thought about reading, but Atwood’s talent has summoned a specter almost as dark.

The scariest thing about Atwood's dystopian fantasy, first published in 1985, is how prophetic it seems. There were references in the book which sent a chill of recognition down my spine. A right-wing government which blames Islamic fundamentalists for terrorist attacks and begins to suspend certain human rights, claiming it is doing so to protect the people from heathen bastards? I daresay it will sound familiar to any left-wing American who has ever looked with a wary eye at the country's increasingly influential religious right. Nuclear disasters which affect health and fertility? I know some Ukrainian women who could tell a few nasty stories about that. And of course the suppression of women which is the main subject of The Handmaid's Tale is only too real in places like Iran and Afghanistan, where many women are probably worse off than Atwood's protagonist, Offred.

So, yes, the novel rang true to me. I've read reviews by people who said their appreciation of the book was significantly undermined by the unlikeliness of the premise, but it didn't seem that far-fetched to me. I don't think a society like the one Atwood describes in The Handmaid's Tale would necessarily exist for a long time, but then regimes don't have to last long to cause untold damage. Just look at the havoc Nazi Germany wreaked in just over a decade, or Mao's Red Guards in Cultural Revolution-era China...

I found The Handmaid's Tale a compelling book, and not just for its powerful vision of a dystopian future. Sure, it has a cold, impersonal tone, but that is appropriate, given the subject matter. What stayed with me most, other than the disturbing descriptions of chants and punishments, was Offred's boredom, the sense of loss that pervades the book. Bereft of her job and the right to read books or own anything, Offred has no distractions from her own thoughts, which she refers to as 'attacks of the past'. She frequently dwells on people and things she has lost -- people and things she used to take for granted, and now will never see again. Furthermore, she endlessly analyses her own thoughts, feelings and actions, simply because she has nothing else to do. Atwood does a great job describing Offred's crushing boredom and her desire for distraction, for something to give her life a little meaning. At the same time, she shows how indoctrination and forced inertia can wear an otherwise intelligent and engaged person down. Atwood's Offred is no heroine, no rebel. She sometimes has rebellious thoughts, but she never actively goes out there and makes things happen. Instead, she waits for others to give her cues, showing little initiative of her own. As a modern heroine, then, she is flawed; she is too passive really to appeal. However, as an illustration of how fear and oppression can beat an intelligent woman down and paralyse her into near-submission, she is near perfect. Those readers who complain about her passivity and lack of active engagement obviously missed the point.

As far as I'm concerned, The Handmaid's Tale has only one real flaw, which is its ending. It felt rushed to me. I didn't necessarily crave more closure; I just felt the story deserved a less abrupt ending. As for the epilogue with its almost flippant tone, I didn't really care for that either, but I can see why Atwood felt the need to include it; it definitely answered a few questions, and offered a message of hope, as well. I can see how some readers might appreciate a message of hope after such a depressing read. Personally, though, I think the book would have been even more memorable if Atwood had remained true to the style and tone of the rest of the book. It would have made a chilling read just a tad more compelling.

"Mi presencia aquí es ilegal... Nuestra misión es la de procrear: no somos concubinas, ni geishas, ni cortesanas. Por el contrario, han hecho todo lo posible para apartarnos de esa categoría. No debe existir la diversión con respecto a nosotras, no hay lugar para que florezcan deseos ocultos; no se pueden conseguir favores especiales, ni por parte de ellos ni por parte nuestra, no hay ninguna bese en la que pueda asentarse el amor. Somos matrices de dos piernas, eso es todo: somos vasos sagrados, cálices ambulantes."

Margaret Atwood comenzó a escribir “El cuento de la criada” en la primavera de 1984. Qué paradójico es comenzar un libro que parece ser un digno sucesor del que escribiera Orwell y que coincidentemente se llamaba “1984”.
En esta distopia, la historia supone un futuro tan opresivo y controlado como el Orwell, y posee distintos elementos que Atwood tomó tanto de los gobiernos totalitarios más extremos como aspectos del estado terrorista islámico, junto con la abolición de todo derecho de expresión y prensa y un total sometimiento de las personas más vulnerables que en este caso lo son las mujeres.
A su vez, indudablemente, la escritora canadiense también supo informarse de lo que sucedió en tantos países dominados por gobiernos de facto, más puntualmente en la dictadura que sometió al pueblo argentino entre 1976 y 1983 y de esta tomó la reclusión de toda aquella persona que estuviera en disidencia con la junta militar y que era destinada a centros clandestinos, lugares en los que casualmente se exacerbó el robo de bebés que eran “obsequiados” a matrimonios protegidos por los militares.
En cierto modo, esto sucede en la ficticia República de Gilead, ese territorio que otrora fuera un estado libre de los Estados Unidos y ahora dominado por los hombres.
Una catastrófica guerra ha dejado a la población en los límites más bajos de su historia y ciertas mujeres, con capacidad de engendrar y dar a luz, pasaron a formar parte de “familias” (vamos a llamarlas así, con comillas) que las controlan.
De esta manera y con un sistema propio de la cría de animales, se las somete a quedar embarazadas para traer hijos al mundo sin ningún tipo de elección alguna, más que la de procrear, ni tampoco con la capacidad de poseer ningún tipo de derechos civiles o humanos.
El destino final de las mujeres luego de parir es mucho peor, o son destinadas a las “Colonias”, prácticamente campos de concentración donde son abandonadas o utilizadas para tareas forzosas con desechos tóxicos.
El futuro no puede ser más desolador. Todo está prohibido, nada puede hacerse sin el consentimiento de los que forman el poder dictatorial de Gilead, como los son los “Comandantes”, que se transforman en cierta manera, por un lado, en los padres de las distintas familias, mientras que por el otro, manejan todo como despóticos gobernantes.
Todo está organizado con un férreo control orwelliano que se asemeja al Gran Hermano pero sin la necesidad de monitorear con cámaras hasta el último detalle, a estas mujeres aptas y fértiles, las “Criadas”, vestidas con rigurosos hábitos de color rojo (así se las identifica para aludir a la sangre del alumbramiento), en donde las “Esposas” de los “Comandantes”, vestidas de azul regentean sus todos los quehaceres de su vidas.
Todo el aparato de control está observado por los Ojos, el personal militar preparado para dicha tarea, junto con los Ángeles y las Tías, una agencia de control femenino que funcionan a modo de crueles matronas.
En el libro se narra las vivencias de una de estas mujeres, a la que bautizan como Offred (Defred en la traducción al español), que al parecer se llamaría June, aunque ella nunca lo revela. Ese “of” indica la pertenencia al Comandante de la familia en la que está insertada, aunque si jugáramos con el nombre también podría significar “offered”, ofrecida. Ofrecida como un animal, un objeto, una víctima.
“El cuento de la criada” es un libro en donde por detrás de la historia, en el que los hombres lo dominan todo, uno puede encontrar la lucha que hoy en día llevan adelante muchas mujeres que sostienen el movimiento del Feminismo.
Es tranquilizador saber que hoy en día, esa tendencia machista que ha surcado cientos de años en la Historia ha ido cambiando, mejorando y afortunadamente evolucionando. Las mujeres del presente comienzan a torcer una historia que ha sido desfavorable e injusta, pero es lo que se cuenta aquí.
He notado que si algo tiene esta novela con respecto a “1984”, “Fahrenheit 451” o “Un mundo feliz”, que son las otras tres distopias que he leído, es que está narrada en primera persona y de esta manera (aunque no lo parezca) el lector cambia en forma radical su perspectiva del relato.
Al ser un “cuento”, que en verdad parece estar escrito a modo de diario en el que suponemos que el lector es Luke, el esposo real de Defred, desaparecido luego del intento de fuga con la hija de ambos y antes de que todo cambiara a la tiranía en la que vive en el presente, todos los sucesos adquieren más atención por parte de quien lo lee.
Es imperioso para uno como lector descubrir por qué se dieron así las cosas, aunque ya es tarde y todos están inmersos en un ambiente vigilado, en donde manifestar lo prohibido se castiga severamente, incluso hasta la muerte por ahorcamiento y posterior exhibición en un lugar denominado el “Muro”, ante la vista de todos.
Defred narra absolutamente todo lo que le sucede, en primer lugar como mujer, segundo como parte del objeto en el que ha sido transformada y posteriormente en su relación con los distintos personajes con los que interactúa.
Tal vez, hay un para de incidentes que modifican sustancialmente la lectura y que tiene que ver con la relación que establece con su Comandante y que logró sacarme del estado de tensión al que estaba enfocado en gran parte de la novela, pero que en el conjunto no significa que desvirtúe la naturaleza de los acontecimientos.
Mientras que en “1984”, las similitudes, especialmente el control, el abuso de poder, el inminente castigo o el dolor están asociadas en forma directa a esta novela, no sucede lo mismo con “Fahrenheit 451”, novela en la cual el poder está asociado a los libros, al conocimiento y al uso de cualquier elemento de inteligencia que atente contra el poder establecido. Tal vez haya puntos en común con “Un mundo feliz” en donde también se plantea la cuestión de los nacimientos, el trato genético de embriones, la clonación y el control de la población para lograr una raza pura que pueda asegurar niveles estables y saludables.
Un aproximamiento sustancial con esta novela es que en la de Huxley ya no existe más la condición biológica natural en las figuras de "madre" y "padre" y aquí los interlocutores carecen de su importancia posterior, son meros "instrumentos" de procreación. Ahondando más en el futuro, los niños que nazcan serán criados por gente substituta.
Aquí eso se establece más como una necesidad imperiosa que como un proyecto científico. Se somete a la mujer de la forma más denigrante (por más que se les inculque dogmas derivados del catolicismo) de la misma forma que sufrieron los judíos en la segunda guerra mundial o lo negros antes de la libertad otorgada por Abraham Lincoln en los Estados Unidos.
Tal vez yo lo veo así. Por momentos, el relato me produce escozor, bronca, azoramiento e impotencia. El hecho del sometimiento con el fin de la procreación sumado la descripción fría y cruel del proceso de “apareamiento”, puesto que ni Defred ni el lector puede verlo de otra manera, causa asco e indignación.
Estamos de acuerdo, esto es una distopia, un futuro no deseado, pero a la vez, todos sabemos que esto sigue sucediendo en muchos países, en los que la mujer es degradada, humillada y tratada a veces por debajo de lo que un ser humano se merecer y es algo inconcebible, que no me entra en la cabeza ni puedo aceptar.
Es imposible que en pleno siglo XXI, muchas de las vivencias que Defred narra siguen siendo reales. No se puede seguir sosteniendo ni aceptando algo tan retrógrado y vejatorio, máxime si tenemos en cuenta que todos los seres humanos nacemos de una mujer.
No quisiera imaginarme si lo que atraviesa Defred lo hubiera tenido que atravesar mi madre, mi esposa y muchísimo menos mi hija. Creo que me moriría.
Las novelas de este tipo son muy útiles para decirnos que todo eso en cierto modo alguna vez pasó y que sigue pasando pero que algún día debe detenerse.
Me chocó fuertemente el trato (y el destrato) hacia la mujer que con notable valentía describe Margaret Atwood en la novela.
No existe ser más divino y superior que la mujer. Todos los días aprendo de ellas y creo firmemente que ese es uno de los propósitos que Margaret Atwood estableció para lograr una novela tan brillante como perturbadora y que a la vez funciona como una advertencia poderosa e inquietante.

This book has been on my list for a very long time; but I never thought it would have such an impact on me. Many of my feminist friends have told me to read this book - it is THE one book that ALL my friends who are women have told me I had to read. So much has been said about this book (by those much more erudite on the subject of reproductive rights) that I will focus on the single aspect that really resonated with me - the 'gradual incrimination' of how woman are seen as a 'breading vessel' for the elite of society. As every sphere of choice is stripped away from women it becomes clear that their only 'worth' is to bring children into the world. This objectification is so profound that any other identity is moot: that which is defined by a single function can have no other aspirational desire...a hen that lays eggs is killed when she can no longer fill that single role. The fact that Margaret Atwood is able to implicate ALL of society is testament to her genius; she reminded me of the questions Karl Jasper asks in his book The Question of German Guilt - it is often the spaces 'in union' when you draw up that Venn diagram that ferments change - good or bad. Highest recommendation.

Tan duro que no podía leer más de diez páginas diarias. Era incapaz.

P.D Si no hubiese machitos escocíos con este libro, entonces significaría que Margaret no lo hizo bien.

Re-read for the fourth or fifth time, because I watched the beautifully shot and terrifying television adaptation with my husband - who hadn't read the book before. I had chills watching the show, the bad kind. The kind that brought tears to my eyes.

Jason was impressed by a dystopia that is more social than technological: it had never occurred to me to think of the "Handmaid's Tale"'s setting like that before, but he has a point: this isn't robots or climate change fucking us up, it's good old-fashioned religious fanaticism and the brainwashing that comes along with it. We talked about how familiar it sounded, how much it creeped us out that it all felt so real. People who think we have come too far in terms of human and women's right to regress need to remember what happened when the Roman Empire crumbled: a civilization where intellectual pursuits, science and philosophy used to thrive got plunged straight into the Dark Ages, where most of the technological and scientific advancements were forgotten for hundreds of years.

I watched the show, re-read the book and I thought about how fear and pain can break someone's character. How most people don't feel a need to resist oppression until things get really, really fucking bad. How sexism hurts everyone, not just women. I thought about the clever use of colors in the narrative, the rich and subtle power of Atwood's prose, that was rendered so well on screen.

It also occurred to me during this re-read that part of the re-programming women go through in "Handmaid's Tale" includes distrusting and scorning each other. Divide and conquer, put to practical use: but this is not something Atwood invented. I feel like women not trusting and supporting each other is a real and major problem. I read a completely surreal article about what Hillary Clinton has been up to since the election, and the double-standards of judgements she's had to face (throughout the campaign and since) baffled and gutted me.

The book is haunting me again, and so is the show. If you haven’t read it yet, read it. If you have, re-read it.
---
Original review:

One of the things that fascinate me the most about “The Handmaid’s Tale” is that the character of Offred used to be the kind of woman you see walking around in the street every day: a woman with a job, independent finances, a husband she chose, a child she wanted. All these things Western women take for granted in our day and age. All these things she never thought to defend until they were taken away from her. Even her name. What frightens me the most is that she remembers all of it and remembers what it was like to lose it.

When I first read this book, I had no idea it had been written in 1986. I figured that it must have been more recent than that, given the terrifyingly relevant topic of women’s reproductive rights (for instance, I love that birth control is not always covered by medical insurance, but now fertility treatments are, at least in Quebec and in other parts of Canada… the subtlety of the message seems to be lost on a lot of people…), the nuclear crisis, the political and religious extremism in the United-States in a post 9/11 world… But nope! Atwood saw that coming somehow, like the Canadian Aldous Huxley that she is… Some people compare “The Handmaid’s Tale” to “1984”, but I think it is also very much like “Brave New World”; but this is a dystopian novels and they all end up having a strong common message: please do something about the world or we are screwed!

Inspired by the sort of extreme violation of women’s rights seen in places like Saudi Arabia, Atwood wrote a plausible cautionary tale: if we let things reach their logical conclusion, we might just end up in a world where fertile women are precious property and where control over every aspect of their lives is justified by a load of hypocritical religious principles. Of course, this is greatly exaggerated, but that’s the point of speculative fiction: to ask “what if”. What if a country already inclined towards extremism used a terrorist attack on their government to justify putting the country under martial law (does anyone else remember the Patriot Act?)? What if one of the side-effects of nuclear war meant a massive infertility crisis in that country’s female population? What if instead of empowering the still-fertile women, they were turned into important men’s proprieties to make sure that the elite –and only the elite - could keep having children?

Women treated as baby factories – or if they can’t have babies, as sexual objects – is a feminist nightmare (which politician was it that said only whores used birth control?). It is a complete denial of women’s humanity, and it twists women’s power to give life into chains with which to control them. To make this more acceptable for them, all sources of intellectual stimulation must be removed, exposure to anything else than the reality of their function is strictly forbidden. And don’t even think about giving them the choice of their partners, in this baby-making process… I think women are already tricked in many ways by society into thinking they are much more free than they actually are, but that’s a whole other conversation. My point is that while such a premise is shocking, it is not that hard to imagine.

A successful dystopian novel should scare the crap out of you and “The Handmaid’s Tale” scares me. The bleak beauty of the writing hooked me and then the morbid need to know what happened to Offred kept me reading. But most importantly, a good dystopian novel should make you think. Think long and hard about the world you live in, and the world you want to live in. And this book will certainly make you think. Not about pleasant things, granted, but about things that are worth everyone’s attention.

Recommended to absolutely everyone.

Find all of my reviews at: http://52bookminimum.blogspot.com/

n  “Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.”n

The Handmaid’s Tale is the foretelling of what will happen once this guy . . . .

n  n

is elected President. I keeed. Maybe. Anyway, this is the story of Offred who after the rise of the religious right has been forced into the strangest form of indentured servitude – that of being a “breeder” for the wealthy. You see, the new world fell victim to all of our daily sins:

n  “Women took medicines, pills, men sprayed trees, cows ate grass, all that souped-up piss flowed into the rivers. Not to mention the exploding atomic power plans, along the San Andreas fault, nobody’s fault, during the earthquakes, and the mutant strain of syphilis no mold could touch . . .”n

which killed off many and left a good chunk of the remainder sterile so now the world needs to be repopulated before it’s too late.

Nearly EVERYONE loved this book. Except for Stacy. Thank Jeebus for Stacy and her review because it says EXACTLY what I thought the entire time I was reading. This book is supposed to be the end all/be all of dystopian literature as well as the voice for feminists the world over, but to me it was simply . . .

n  n
(*insert audible gasps and ohnoshedidn’ts*)

Sorry, but I didn’t enjoy it. Any 300 page book takes me THREE DAYS to read is not going to end up with a high rating. I didn’t connect with the characters or story at all and if this is Atwood’s typical writing style I’m fairly certain I won’t like any of her other books either. I don’t like getting caught up on mundane details and I’m not a fan of the MC entire farking population turning a blind eye to what had to have been tons of warning signs of the superbadawfuls that were getting ready to go down and then pointing the blame finger at everyone except themselves. I also don’t enjoy the thought process that being pro woman means you have to be anti-man . . .

n  “Men are sex machines and not much more. They only want one thing. You must learn to manipulate them, for your own good.”n

Srsly? Ick. I could get real ranty here, but I’m just going to pass because it won’t end in anything except a bevy of trolls coming out from under their bridges.

Basically, I wanted more than what this book delivered. I wanted to explore the world of the Unwomen and Unbabies, I wanted someone to be ballsy enough to take a stand even if it meant being sent to the Colonies. To do SOMETHING to take the world back. To do ANYTHING aside from being a bunch of mealy-mouthed nothings. But it never happened and in the end instead of getting super emotional, my reaction was kind of like . . .

n  n

I probably read it wrong. It happens.

We had this French au pair called Emilie, and she was writing a Masters thesis on The Handmaid's Tale. She talked about it incessantly. It was Handmaid's Tale this and Margaret Atwood that all day long. I'd never read it, but after two or three weeks I went out and bought a copy. I figured that at least I'd have more interesting conversations with her.

So I read it, and I thought it was OK. There was this scene which involved some tulips, and I told Emilie that I thought they rather reminded me of the Sylvia Plath poem. I was just trying to be helpful - people often like that kind of thing in a dissertation. She read the poem, and asked me why I'd made the association.

"Well," I said, "I guess it's partly because Sylvia Plath's feeling depressed and suicidal, and Offred is too."

Emilie seemed very surprised. She hadn't received that impression of Offred at all. I gave up. We clearly weren't going to be having any literary conversations.

After a while, Emilie stopped obsessing about The Handmaid's Tale, and started obsessing about John Waters movies instead. I considered buying a copy of Pink Flamingos from Amazon, but somehow I never got round to it. She was one of the few au pairs we didn't manage to make friends with.

Wow, I can't believe I hadn't added this to my read books before this, since this is the single most chilling and most significant thing I've ever read. First read this in the late 80s after the birth of my daughter, and the book gave me chills and heartbreak for a long time afterwards; then I picked it up and read it again in the late 90s when I was becoming more fearful than ever that we might actually be heading in this direction. Now I can't even bear to pick the book up anymore; with every single year I become more frightened by the possibility of this terrifying ending to the American Experiment. Margaret Atwood is a surgically-precise, no-holds barred, profound author and a prophetess. So much so, that I have been putting off reading the Oryx and Crake, Year of the Flood, MaddAddam trilogy for the better part of a decade now because everything she writes haunts my dreams forever. It's also why I can't read anything that the great Stephen King has written since putting down the dog meets psychopath scene in The Dead Zone. Yes, I am a bleeding heart, lily-livered coward and I cannot unread things and it messes with my head and my heart for a very long time (like forever). Yes, I miss a lot of great fiction that way. But this book, no matter how heartbreaking and harrowing is a must-read for every single female on the planet. A must-read.

Este libro me ha llegado.
Y no tanto por la trama o por ese mundo distópico aterrador que nos muestra (que también es brutal) como por la voz de la protagonista con la que he conectado desde el primer momento. Quizás por eso a ti no te llegue, no lo sé, pero es una lectura que a mi personalmente me ha gustado muchísimo.

Me ha recordado a muchos de mis libros favoritos como '1984' o 'La naranja mecánica' y a muchos acontecimentos Históricos como los ocurridos en Irán, Argentina, Salem...

Para releer y releer y releer....

Nolite Te Bastardes Carborundorum