Eerie, Politically-Fueled Modern Classic
“A Nasty book Not for Suburban Housewives, who Love their President. Nasty Women, who don’t love me, read this type of Nastiness, which was written by an Angry woman. So Angry, she hated my father and probably wrote this when she was bleeding out her eyes, or wherever. Nasty Women! covfefe. Why so much hate for me when I've done MORE for WOMEN than any PRESIDENT EVER!?!” Donny Trump

This 1985 novel is not as potent as I'm sure it was in the 80s, considering all the dystopian stories since, in both novel and film form. Yet, it's eerie in its own right and not that far-fetched, especially this year with the peril faced by all but middle-to-upper-class white males. A Handmaid's Tale is destined to be, if not already, deemed a dystopian classic alongside 1984 and A Brave New World.

The novel, unapologetic in its anti-religion bent, begins after the U.S. President and most of Congress are assassinated by a revolutionary movement called "Sons of Jacob," which suspends the US Constitution under the auspices of "order restoration" and the emergency posed by a falling population due to increasing sterility and infertility. The government of the new Republic of Gilead takes away nearly all rights of women, treating fertile women, such as the protagonist Offred, as property of the ruling class. These women are indoctrinated by forced schooling in an Old Testament view of the world and are forbidden to read or move freely.

Offred is concubine to a Commander named Fred (hence the name "Of Fred"), or, as she says, she is simply a "two legged womb." She was removed from her husband and daughter and has no idea where they are. During times of expected ovulation, she is forced by the Commander and his infertile wife to have sterile intercourse solely for purposes of conceiving a child. The rest would be a spoiler.

After having run the gamut of dystopian fare (in novels and films), I wasn't as affected by this novel as I'm sure I would have been if I'd read this early in life. Yet the years 2016 and 2017 make this novel seem all the more real to me.

Que novelon tan aterrador y angustiante. Una de las mejores lecturas que he hecho, eso está completamente asegurado.

Cuando empecé esta historia sabía que me encantaría pero tenía mucho miedo de que fuera un producto exactamente igual a su adaptación en formato serie. Y no, me equivocaba. Son productos muy diferentes y encaminados a un público objetivo. Pero bueno, eso ya es harina de otro costal así que solo hablaré de la novela.

Estamos ante un futuro en el que se han perdido muchas cosas del pasado; entre esas la libertad y muchísimos de los derechos que las mujeres habían logrado. Ahora, en este presente solo hay más de lo mismo e incluso peor; un régimen totalitario que despoja a la mujer de cualquier tipo de libertad, donde lo correcto y lo mejor lo dicta el sistema. Un contexto donde algunas de ellas pasan de lleno a ser solo un lindo objeto de decoración en el hogar y otras a ser consideradas solo una vasija que recibe y procrea en su interior.

El cuento de la criada es una novela intimista y muy cercana. Es tan introspectiva, que solo por medio de la protagonista (narrado en primera persona) es que conocemos más acerca del contexto; llegando al grado de empatizar demasiado por todo lo que tiene que pasar sin tener ningún tipo de derecho a elegir su propio camino. Esta protagonista vive con normas arraigadas en un lugar donde tiene que cumplir a rajatabla ciertos parámetros como el estar siempre callada y no hablar con las demás; cumplir la vital función de engendrar, algo tan normalizado como la continua violación que sufren en épocas especiales o donde la fertilidad alcanza picos más altos. Y si les llega la regla, pues decepción para la casa y decepción para absolutamente todos porque no han cumplido su deber como corresponde.

El gobierno de Gilead gira entorno al puritanismo, desde el cómo te vistes y el cómo hablas y te diriges al resto. Un sistema que toma como principio a la Biblia y que les quita vilmente a las Criadas sus nombres, algo que es vital para forjar una identidad propia; solo para posteriormente pasar a ser la Criada de fulanito o perensejito. Mujeres tratadas como objetos; simples accesorios de muestra. Es un contexto donde cada una de ellas están en desventaja y cruelmente oprimidas, yendo desde las Criadas hasta las Esposas de los señores. Donde algunas de estas últimas logran agarrarse a migajas para obtener un mínimo de poder que solo es un lujo, prácticamente nada ante todo lo que pueden hacer ellos con un gobierno que los favorece.

Es un mundo donde las mujeres que no son estériles deben sentirse agradecidas de poder dar a luz porque de lo contrario sería ponerse la soga al cuello. A las Criadas solo les queda conformarse o resignarse, no hay de otra. El machismo y la misoginia que hay para regalar en la historia también las transforma a ellas mismas llegando a puntos donde no se reconocen porque también se sienten partícipes de un sistema degradante. Es un mundo donde hasta las esposas pierden valor y se ven infravaloradas sin tener la opción de ganar posiciones de poder y en cambio deben estar en la casa haciendo tareas domésticas; porque así es como debe ser. Y sí, tal vez el libro a veces deja entrever que los hombres también son presas de ese sistema indirectamente, pero es que claro, cuando se está en una posición privilegiada comparada con la realidad de todas esas mujeres pues la propia carga parece una mota de polvo que se puede sobrellevar sin tanto problema.

En fin, que este libro es una joya para sentirte impotente, incómodo y angustiadísimo todo el rato. Hay pasajes que te ponen los pelos de punta y te dan ganas de vomitar; la pasas muy mal. Impacta tanto que lo aborreces. Margaret Atwood hizo una ciencia ficción especulativa (que no lo parece tanto) que logró ponerme muy disgustado con variadas escenas. Una distopía excelentemente hecha. El uso del narrador en primera persona a mí me parece un gran acierto y sé que a algunos no les puede gustar pero no se niega que el mensaje está allí; y es bastante potente y esclarecedor.

I've just binge-watched this on tv. I enjoyed the first series a lot and the second wasn't too bad. It went downhill after that because it lacked Atwood's inspiration and just became a dystopian soap opera. Why they didn't employ Atwood to continue the story I don't know because the writers produced nothing more than a hackneyed continuation of the story but without the horror behind it. Just little adventures and organising escapes and getting caught... oh dear. Still the book lives on in memory.

Reviewed years after reading it! Better late than never!

Read in 2011, update 2017, this link to NY Times article makes you think.... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/bu...

This book to me has been very very intriguing and clever because... the story just keeps you thinking, what happened, what's going on, what will happen? That is real quality, challenging writing material. Yes, it makes you think about 'Big brother is watching you...', Children of Men, this story just chills you to the bone, it's about a future world where women do have a really weird, troubling position.
Brilliant book, up until the very end. Therefore a big 5 star. My first book of Margaret Atwood, looking forward to more, but a bit scared too...

پس از گذشت ٣۵ سال، ما که الهام بخش این کتاب بودیم، صفحه‌هایی از این کتاب رو هر روز زندگی می‌کنیم. زن بودن در ایران یعنی تجربه‌های مشترک با آف‌فرد

و من اینجا به دنبال اغراق و سیاه‌نمایی نیستم. من، یک زن بیست و شش ساله، در خانواده‌ای مذهبی بزرگ شدم و با دین، چادر مادرم و جانماز پدرم هیچ خصومت شخصی‌ای ندارم. سال‌هاست که همراه با جدایی دردناک فکریم از دین، یاد گرفتم خوب و بد بودن آدم‌ها رو از روی دین‌داری قضاوت نکنم و دین رو تبدیل به معیار سنجش نکنم

من از تجربه حرف می‌زنم. از انتخابی که گاهی هنوز هم ندارم. از اجبار میگم

از چادر سیاهی که هنوز هم رهام نکرده. تظاهری که گاهی باید انتخابش کنم. تظاهری که بهای سنگین آرامش بقیه‌ی زندگیمه

از سکوت در جایی که باید حرف بزنم، نه، باید فریاد بکشم. از زمان‌هایی که درست مثل آف‌فرد جلوی فرمانده‌ها نشستم و به فکرهای پوسیده‌شون از روی اجبار گوش کردم

از این حس ناتوانی. و بهم نگو که تو زن قوی‌ای هستی. نه. من سال‌هاست که مثل آف‌فرد جنگ‌هام رو انتخاب می‌کنم و می‌دونم بعضی‌هاش رو حتی قبل از شروع شکست خوردم

از درد پاک کردن فکرهایی که روی مغزم حک کرده بودند. زجر ساخت یک سیستم فکری از آجر اول. من عمه لیدیای واقعی رو در جلدش دیدم. جلوش نشستم و ازش یاد گرفتم. یادم داد که تاریخ رو چطور بفهمم و خط مشی ولایت فقیه رو چطور در زندگیم به کار بگیرم

نه. من به دنبال سیاه نمایی نیستم. من پایین‌ترین نقطه‌های زندگیم رو در زندگی آف‌فرد می‌بینم و جمله‌هاش انگار در خونم جریان دارند. که درد آف‌فرد، نه لباسش بود و نه تعرض و نه دوری. گیلیاد یعنی زنِ بدون اختیار و این ریشه‌ی همه‌ی دردهاست

و من این رو می‌فهمم

کتاب و سریال
همیشه فکر می‌کردم که کتاب یک خونه در ذهن آدم می‌سازه که فیلم یا سریال خوبی که ازش اقتباس میشه، یک سری وسایل و دکور به اون خونه اضافه می‌کنه. ولی اینبار به یک مورد استثنایی رسیدم. عمارت بی‌نظیری که سریال در ذهنم ساخته بود رو این کتاب فقط کمی تزئین کرد

۹۸/۱۱/۱۳

This book is certainly thought provoking and disturbing with its themes, a visionary and cautionary tale and so befitting of the world today. But I struggled with the style of writing the way it's been written I could not evoke enough emotion for the lead character, I think it was deliberately written to have a sense of detachment a form of loss and of being stripped bare, thus I think it's a case of it's me not the book as I do struggle with dystopian themed novels. I'm glad I read this book and don't regret it but it solidifies that it's not my preferred genre but as always I love to delve outside my comfort reading zone as much as possible and it has still made me want to read what else Margaret Atwood has to offer as she has a great way to uncover uncomfortable themes in a subtle form. This book garners lots of discussion with its heavy themes so would be a good book club pick. I wish I could give a more in depth analysis but my head hurts after reading this book...

With the recent attacks on Planned Parenthood and the misogynistic comments made by members of the GOP, I could not have read The Handmaid's Tale at a better time. This chilling story takes place in the Republic of Gilead, where women known as handmaids exist for the sole purpose of giving birth. They have no access to books or magazines, friends or companions, or any of their own belongings. If these women fail to fulfill their purpose or commit any crimes or infractions, the patriarchal powers that be can send them to the colonies, where they would clean up toxic waste or endure harsh labor until they die. Margaret Atwood's award-winning piece of speculative fiction draws its strength from its unfortunate and continued relevance to contemporary society. This totalitarian society feels brutal and believable, like it could happen any day.

Atwood writes the feminist themes in The Handmaid's Tale with an intelligent force and subtlety. She shows the deleterious effects of controlling women and their bodies, the role of unquestioned religion in suppressing women's autonomy, and the psychological consequences of pitting women against one another in a society dominated by men. While Atwood incorporates many stellar ideas in this book, I most loved her focus on the role of reading and writing in securing independence. Through Offred's struggle and her narrative introspection you can see just how much power language and storytelling grants people in positions of weakness.

I also appreciated the way Atwood shapes Offred's character. Instead of only writing Offred as a pawn in this great totalitarian society, Atwood supplies Offred with insight, will, and a traumatic past that makes you empathize with her. Offred's flashbacks to her previous life and the horrid losses she has faced reveals the ramifications of anti-feminism on real human beings, as opposed to abstract, far-reaching ideals.

Overall, one of my favorite classics to date and a book I would recommend to anyone interested in feminism, dystopias, or the intersections of politics and sexuality. I wish more schools used this book as a staple in their curricula.

EDIT 02/06/2016: Lowering the rating to two. I finished it more than a week ago and now I realized I haven't thought of it once. It really left me nothing.

"Better never means better for everyone, he says. It always means worse, for some."

I used to think of my reading taste as predictable. Well, at least a very specific part of my reading taste: namely, there are very few things in the world that I love more than I love dyostopias in the style of n  1984n and, above any other, n  Brave New Worldn (seriously, you need to read that book). This is why I was convinced I was bound to like The Handmaid's Tale; and yet, right before I started it, I was caught by a hunch that my certainties were not certain at all.

I don't know if it's self-conditioning or whatever, but my gut feelings lately are unerring.

•Have you ever heard of Coleridge and the suspension of disbelief?

"...a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith."

In the majority of cases, we don't even realize we're granting the author and the story our suspension of disbelief. We just believe, because we are prepared to, because we know that if we don't, then reading is no use, especially if what we are dealing with is a fantasy or sci-fi book. Lo and behold, this book made me struggle to grant it my suspension of disbelief. I still have not decided if it was due to the writing, or the story in itself, or something else yet, but that is what happened, and it totally ruined it for me.

•In my defense, the lack of explanations, or better, the fact that they are given only when we are well into the story, practically towards the end, did not help. Most of the time, I just felt like I was groping around in the dark, and honestly, it was annoying, annoying, annoying. Besides, we are supposed to believe that this full-scale change that swept across the society happened in approximately eight or ten years at most, (we don't know the chronological details) and I found I just couldn't believe it. It's too radical a transformation, and according to the book the mentality it brought about is already well-implanted into the citizens -not everyone, naturally, but generally it is. It's par for the course for a dictatorship to establish itself in a matter of years, but it requires nonetheless the long-standing presence of a certain set of ideas that justifies and forms the basis of the building of an ideology. What we see in The Handmaid's Tale is the cause, the ultimate effect, and none of the passages in between. I need the in-between. I need the whole picture.

•This lack of "background", if you can call it so, made it impossible for me to lose myself int he story. The narrative voice, the protagonist's, is ineffective, bland, not nearly as trenchant as such a strong story requires. She should be able to heighten our disgust for the situation out of sympathy towards her and her circumstances, but to me, and you are allowed to call me heartless, nothing of this happened. I was horrified by what she and the whole female population have to suffer, but it was only an objective aversion due to an objective state of affairs, and not even partly to the empathy I should have felt for the character. I read stories to connect with the people in them; otherwise, I would read nonfiction.

•The plot is uneventful, almost literally. Usually this is not something I consider a priori as a flaw, but in this case it felt like one.

➽ On balance, I did not enjoy it. I acknowledge its value, but it was quite an effort for me to get through it.
Now that I think of it, probably it's kind of a 2.5 instead of a full 3.

[5.0⭐]

Ironically, Margaret Atwood wrote The Handmaid’s Tale around 1984. Indeed, it is commonly known that her novel depicts an Orwellian dystopia, as seen through the eyes of Offred, a handmaid. This term should not be understood in the ordinary meaning of the word (i.e., a domestic worker), but in the biblical sense, cf. the tale of Hagar (Genesis, chap. 16) or Zilpah and Bilhah (Genesis, chap. 29 sqq.). The novel contains many such subtle biblical references (Gilead, Jezebel). The handmaid, then, is a slave-woman with a gestational surrogacy role, whose sole value is her uterus. Offred’s story takes place in an authoritarian society — the U.S. turned into a totalitarian regime, where infertility is widespread, and men have the upper hand. In a nutshell: a nightmarish theocracy.

Every event in the story is seen through Offred’s eyes. Her claustrophobic world, her oppressive routine, everything in her life is fastidiously described in the form of a diary or stream of consciousness: the household, the neighborhood around the house, the people she carefully meets, her room, her dreams, her recollection of how she came to be there… Then, around the middle of the novel, some small changes (often sexually loaded) start to take place and slowly build up until, eventually, her horrific environment starts to crumble. The ending is somewhat abrupt.

Margaret Atwood’s major tour de force is indeed to make the reader dive right into the character’s perspective, without the expected exposition that would explain what this “sci-fi” world is about and how it came to be this way. In fact, all the explanatory parts are pushed back at the end of the book, in the surprising metafictional keynote entitled Historical Notes — a narrative device Atwood borrowed from 1984’s Appendix. In so doing, we are left somewhat clueless, guessing at every page. In so doing, the author manages, with a remarkable economy of means, a neutral voice, a lack of spectacular effects, to build an incredible sense of tension and anxiety.

In the end, Atwood's representation of an iron-fisted, misogynistic world is so appalling that it seems implausible and revolting. Yet, the author has repeatedly stressed that, as a self-imposed rule, she has refused to make up any of the details in her work. Every injustice, every abuse, every pain inflicted on women actually took place (and sadly still does) at some point or other of human history.

Edit: The Hulu TV show, based on Atwood’s barbaric dystopia, is a graphic, breathtaking, and incredibly absorbing adaptation. This is thanks to the excellent actors’ performance and the Bergmanian style of the film, which (as far as the first season goes) remains faithful to the novel while expanding on the plot and characters. The use of explanatory flashbacks dispels most of the confusion the audience might have had while reading the book; yet confusion is at the very heart of Atwood’s work. The following seasons further elaborate on the plot, beyond the boundaries of the novel. The Testaments is Atwood’s own sequel to her book, written more than thirty years later.

A true dystopian classic. This is incredibly well written, & I think that that is why it's fan base is so enormous & faithful. It made Entertainment Weekly's "Top 25 Best Books of the Last 25 Years" several years ago.

The account reminds me of, and is probably written trying to somehow emulate, "The Diary of Anne Frank." This new vision of the future is one devoid the female mystique, with only one sex becoming triumphant &) dominating the other. This is misogyny to the nth degree. It is a holocaust that mirrors the treatment of women in the Middle East. It is multifaceted & wondrous. But also terrible.

I must say that reading the last stretch of novel, I drifted & when the conclusion arrived, it hit me. It's impact waking me full tilt. What?!?!? It ends in a very Coen Brothers fashion! That it is tight, then unravels in plot is efficient... then chaotic. It belongs in the same shelf as "We," obviously, and I did not find anything funny about it, only pathos and ironic melancholy. Again, kinda like 'em Coens.

Living in a horrific, paranoid totalitarian dystopian universe where women are possessions of the men, where reading is forbidden, where people’s rights have been taken, where the gap between rich and poor is larger than my tbr list. : I think this is the scariest book I’ve ever read!

This is one of my favorite works. That’s why I chose to reread on my flashback Saturday. I love Hulu adaptation but I still prefer the original manuscript!
This is not a science fiction! This is terrifying foretelling! A nightmarish prediction to our near future. The writing is absolutely impeccable. I never get bored to read it over and over again!

Here are my favorite quotes:
“Knowing was a temptation. What you don't know won't tempt you."

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

Ordinary is what you are used to. This may not seem ordinary to you now, but after a time it will. It will become ordinary."

“It's not the husbands you have to watch out for, it's the Wives. You should always try to imagine what they must be feeling; of course, they will resent you. It is only natural, try to feel for them."

“What I need is perspective. The illusion of depth, created by a frame, the arrangement of shapes on a flat surface."

“A rat in a maze is free to go anywhere, as long as it stays inside the maze."

“Pain marks you, but too deep to see. Out of sight, out of mind."

“We were the people who were not in the papers. We lived in the blank white spaces at the edges of print...it gave us more freedom. We lived in the gaps between the stories."