Goodreads | The Handmaid's Tale

topics	replies	last activity
Into the dark or into the light...what do you think?	6	04/08/2008 08:37AM

Jennifer Brown rated it:

12/04/07

bookshelves: classics, fiction, science-fiction

Read in August, 2005

(edited from a paper I wrote in college about the book)

In 1986, when Margaret Atwood published The Handmaid’s Tale, Ronald Regan had declared “Morning in America,” and society was going to renew itself by returning to the old values. The Christian right, in its infancy at the time, was rising in reaction to the Free Love, and the horrors of AIDs. The 1984 election gave us Willie Horton, and a reminder about how violent and evil society had become. Finally, even though Chernobyl happene...more (edited from a paper I wrote in college about the book)

In 1986, when Margaret Atwood published The Handmaid’s Tale, Ronald Regan had declared “Morning in America,” and society was going to renew itself by returning to the old values. The Christian right, in its infancy at the time, was rising in reaction to the Free Love, and the horrors of AIDs. The 1984 election gave us Willie Horton, and a reminder about how violent and evil society had become. Finally, even though Chernobyl happened shortly after the book was published, the Union Carbide disaster in Bopal, India was still fresh in the headlines—a reminder that even the air is not safe. It was not hard at the time to extrapolate the ultimate end that this cocktail of fundamentalism, conservatism, violence, disease, and disaster would bring, but what Atwood could not know, is how much of her novel would become reality in the world.

Amazingly, twenty years after it was written, there are elements of the story that have become true—perhaps not in the United States, where the story takes place, but throughout the world. The most obvious first connection is with many of the issues regarding women’s rights and religious fundamentalism that are taking place in the Middle East. It was shocking to read in the book that the initial attack on the US Government was blamed on Islamic Fundamentalists, though the story was written after the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing, and the massacre at the Rome airport. While this kind of terrorism was only in its infancy, Atwood’s insight is almost prophetic in the book. When the Murrah building in Oklahoma City was bombed, the initial reaction by the media was to blame Islamic terrorists, when in fact—like the novel—the terrorism was homegrown. The scale of the attack that took out the US Government in the novel is also eerily similar to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Reading this novel in the post-9/11 world can send chills down one’s spine: the novel includes suicide bombings at checkpoints, restrictions of rights in the name of safety, blind patriotism, and an overwhelming belief that there is only one true religion, and deviants from this should be killed.

While George Orwell’s 1984 is often referred to as an insightful perspective on modern society whenever someone puts a video camera on a street lamp, or the government begins referring to negative events with positive doublespeak. Orwell’s world never materialized in full, and likely never will materialize to the degree he created. Instead it is Atwood’s distopia, seemingly outrageous at the time it was written, that became reality. This novel should serve as a cautionary warning about the result of any extremist view taken to its logical conclusion—the Taliban is proof that society cannot dismiss the notions of this book as outrageous and extreme. They have proven in the last decade, a plausible end to the error of letting fundamentalism in any form guide one’s society.

...less

Like this review? yes (9 people liked it)

2 comments

Dalton rated it:

06/25/08

Margaret Atwood didn’t make up anything in this book. All of the things that take place in the Republic of Gilead have happened at some point in history (which now includes 1985, the year the book was published). She also arrived at the society depicted in the book by taking certain attitudes, both feminist & conservative, prevalent at the time, and taking them to extreme conclusions. So the place and the culture she depicts are believable. What comes across as far-fetched is the rapid...more Margaret Atwood didn’t make up anything in this book. All of the things that take place in the Republic of Gilead have happened at some point in history (which now includes 1985, the year the book was published). She also arrived at the society depicted in the book by taking certain attitudes, both feminist & conservative, prevalent at the time, and taking them to extreme conclusions. So the place and the culture she depicts are believable. What comes across as far-fetched is the rapidity with which it occurs. In a little over a decade, America becomes so louche and licentious that the morally aggrieved have overthrown the government and set up a totalitarian theocracy totally at odds with the history of American governance. In a scant 10-15 years? I don’t really see that happening. Recently, I saw “the final cut” of Blade Runner. It takes place 11 years from now, but the world depicted looks like it should be 150-200 years from now. Things rarely change as quickly as novelists imagine. Architecturally, Manhattan in 1988 looked pretty close to how it does today. Watch a film from the 90's, and you’ll see people dressed in much the same clothes you see today.

Margaret Atwood had a clear idea of what sort of shape the story would take: it is a diary. The curtain is pulled back slowly, and we only know as much as our narrator knows. Even the “Historical Notes” section at the end doesn’t really answer that many questions. It definitely swings the open ending in one direction, but it doesn’t really give you that much extra information on the society of Gilead or how it came about. We never find out that much, and that’s kind of frustrating. I blame this largely on the narrator’s passivity. Passivity is a trait that rarely endears me to protagonists (or to real people, for that matter). She says she wants to know, but she just doesn’t make that much effort to find out. There is an echo of Nineteen-Eighty-Four when, much like Winston Smith, she is broken down. “They can do what they like with me. I am abject,” she says. This is in marked contrast to Ivie, the heroine of V For Vendetta. Ivie is active and engaged. It’s an interesting comparison as V For Vendetta and The Handmaid’s Tale have many similarities. Both were written in the early eighties. Both appear to take place in the late nineties. Both imagine a radical change in society coming after a perceived moral decline occurs in concert with ecological or nuclear disaster. Both feature secret police organizations called the Eyes. The biggest difference is that the government in The Handmaid’s Tale is explicitly theocratic, whereas the government of England in V For Vendetta is of the fascist and nationalist stripe. But the government of Gilead appears to have racist policies too, and the government in V For Vendetta certainly uses religion to legitimize its actions.

This book is heavy (in the figurative sense). There is no comic relief whatsoever. It is a near-total chronicle of misery, from start to finish. And it is depressing, in a way. It is depressing to think about how easy it can be for a small group of fanatics (whether they be communists, fascists or religious zealots) to take over a country. All they need is for the silent majority to look the other way, to keep quiet, to believe their promises of security & virtue and let them get away with it. That’s the easy thing to do. The hard thing to do is to stand up and voice dissent. There is always a minority that choose that path. But the bigger the majority you have looking the other way, the easier it is to deal with the dissenters and malcontents (preferably quietly). ...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Anna rated it:

07/08/07

bookshelves: feminism, modernclassic

Amazing read. Utterly gripping, compelling, smart. I need to find another one like this.

Atwood's novel presents a dystopic vision of a world in which religious fundamentalists rule and women are confined to female roles, without property or education.

Atwood explores the mechanisms and narratives that must be put into place in order to create such a society. She warns that rights are unstable and should not be taken for granted. Our liberties and freedoms are not inalienable.

Some of t...more Amazing read. Utterly gripping, compelling, smart. I need to find another one like this.

Atwood's novel presents a dystopic vision of a world in which religious fundamentalists rule and women are confined to female roles, without property or education.

Atwood explores the mechanisms and narratives that must be put into place in order to create such a society. She warns that rights are unstable and should not be taken for granted. Our liberties and freedoms are not inalienable.

Some of the mechanisms of newly enforces oppression include denying women their property/money, their right to workd, and education. The first step is the closing of all women's bank accounts and the transferring of her funds to her nearest male relative. The protagonist describes that although her husband assures her that everything remains the same, she already notices a difference from the fact that she no longer has money/ is able to work.

The second mechanism is the denial of education to women. They are no longer allowed to read. Ideas are dangerous and so is language.

They are no longer free to choose their destiny but forces into an extremely strict sexual division of labor in which women with viable ovaries are handmaids (baby machines).

The narratives required to justify such a system include the fable that all men are fertile, that there is an outside enemy force constantly threatening the stbaility of the social order. In addition, dissenters and non-cooperatives are sent to labor/death camps or "colonies." Ceremonies and rituals of public punishment, shaming as well as reinforcements of class structures are mandatory events especially for women. Women are strictly separated according to their roles (indicated by color-coded uniforms) and are thus highly unable to form alliances and mold solidarity (the potential for resistance.)

The system is overall enforced by "ancient" texts, rewritten to suit current dominating needs. Appeals to tradition and continuity are very important for this repressive social structure, although there are also "unofficial" brotherls in which the high-ranking men of the society can let loose once in a while. (Of course.)

Considering that Atwood published this while Reagan was president, it is really compelling to see how she really got into how it is possible to fundamentally change a society without anybody really complaining. The mechanisms she describes are mechanisms that have put in place the cultures/governments/nations we live in/with now and it is important to acknowledge their huge potential to conceive all kinds of social organizations. It is important to remember that "good" narratives only distinguish themselves from "bad" narratives in the eyes of the beholder. Everything's subjective, baby.

...less

Like this review? yes (7 people liked it)

add a comment

Mrs. Miska rated it:

06/20/08

Read in January, 1999

Fantastic dystopian masterpiece.

Re-read, June 2008:
I read The Handmaid's Tale for the first time as a wide-eyed, pure and innocent AP Lit student. Although it was not my first foray into the macabre world of dystopian literature, it was one of my first pieces of women's lit (sad, isn't it, that it took me twelve years of education and prolific independent reading to get there?). My teacher for the course was what I imagined an ardent feminist to be: cool, powerful, passionate, independe...more Fantastic dystopian masterpiece.

Re-read, June 2008:
I read The Handmaid's Tale for the first time as a wide-eyed, pure and innocent AP Lit student. Although it was not my first foray into the macabre world of dystopian literature, it was one of my first pieces of women's lit (sad, isn't it, that it took me twelve years of education and prolific independent reading to get there?). My teacher for the course was what I imagined an ardent feminist to be: cool, powerful, passionate, independent. Her guidance through this novel is still my strongest memory from AP - the Serena Joy/Tammy Faye Bakker ties, the Pen Is Envy, the deliciousness of Scrabble words.

I must have re-read the novel at some point in college, based on the notes I have in my current copy of the text (something about the Oresteia, Clytemnestra, and Offred contemplating the murder of her Commander, discussing his blood, potentially, "hot as soup, sexual, over my hands"). The comparison, however, is not apt, as Offred is not ruthless or cunning, as Aeschylus portrays Clytemnestra.

In this third reading, this is one of the issues that struck me most significantly: that Atwood is a classically educated individual. There are constant allusions to Tennyson, Greek and Roman mythology, Latin, Shakespeare. It makes me feel like I'm part of a secret club and I know all the passwords. Back when I did my student teaching, one thing my cooperating teacher bemoaned was the lack of focus on classic Western civ. In our efforts to provide students with a broad world view, we are neglecting our "own" heritage ("own" of course is subjective). It's reassuring that modern authors still find merit in requiring their readers to know and understand classics in order to get the meat out of their works. Maybe I've been reading the wrong authors, and there are many more of them doing the same thing; I don't know, but it nonetheless endears Atwood to me even further.

I could continue my rant into the area of Atwood's prophecies, the situations that bring about the rise of Gilead that have occurred our society since she published this in 1986. Blaming problems/attacks on Islamic fundamentalists? Check. Suspension of certain human rights? Check. Digitization of currency? Check. It scares me to think how close we've come. Maybe the focus in our current society isn't on the treatment of women, or the birthrate, but we teeter dangerously on the edge of other issues. Hopefully our fearless and feckless leader won't do anything so stupid before next January.

Regardless of from which angle I choose to view The Handmaid's Tale, I find myself wishing for a group discussion; it needs more time, more energy, more perspective than I can give it in a blog post. This is why I love it, and will likely re-read it again and again. Gilead has happened, is happening, will happen. It is always up for discussion....less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Nathan rated it:

07/09/07

Read in July, 2007

The Handmaid's Tale portrays a terrifying but very real and possible dystopia. At first, it's difficult to tell what exactly is going on in the handmaid's world, although her spare narration is filled with a deep sense of fear and danger. It's challenging but exciting to try to make sense of all the frightening details that she describes, and that's one of the things that made this such a compelling read for me--I was desperate to figure out what was happening as well as how and why things had g...more The Handmaid's Tale portrays a terrifying but very real and possible dystopia. At first, it's difficult to tell what exactly is going on in the handmaid's world, although her spare narration is filled with a deep sense of fear and danger. It's challenging but exciting to try to make sense of all the frightening details that she describes, and that's one of the things that made this such a compelling read for me--I was desperate to figure out what was happening as well as how and why things had gone so wrong. The story progresses beautifully, as the details of the present unravel at the same time and with the same urgency as the events of the past, tracing a frighteningly believable path from our world to hers.

One thing that I really liked about the development of the story: as the circumstances of the handmaid's life and surroundings become clearer and more oppressive, she actually seems to gain some small measure of hope. There's a constantly escalating contrast between the powers threatening her and the growing strength of her voice.

For me, I guess the most beautiful and thrilling theme of this novel was its focus on the fragility and importance of our small little moments of happiness. So many times the main character reflects on images from her past and thinks, "And we didn't even know we were happy then." Atwood has done a masterful job of portraying how quickly and uncontrollably the things by which we define our daily selves can be destroyed and rewritten, and how our fear and desire to keep on living makes us silent in the face of power.

I love books that stay with me during the time when I'm away from them, and this is definitely one those books. Over the past few days, I've frequently found myself sitting on the metro, looking out the window and thinking about different passages and themes from the novel, marveling at how the story seems both far away and very familiar.

I'd be interested to chat with anyone else about their take on the book. I'd like to know if other people think it's just terrifying all the way through or whether it ever reaches a point at which it's somewhat hopeful. Looking back on it, I can't really tell. At times, the terror in this novel seems so great that even the smallest glimpses of hope seem bigger than life.

4.5/5...less

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

1 comments

Amanda rated it:

03/19/08

bookshelves: fiction

Read in March, 2008

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

I just re-read this book and felt like with this reading I related to it in a very different way. One major shift for me was that, as a new mother, the parts in which Offred reflects on the loss of her daughter hit me in my stomach and made knots of tension between my shoulder blades. The need to protect a child and the very thought of having them taken away feel so much more concrete to me now, and I was devastated by the i nightmarish clarity with which this was captured in this book.
Anot...more I just re-read this book and felt like with this reading I related to it in a very different way. One major shift for me was that, as a new mother, the parts in which Offred reflects on the loss of her daughter hit me in my stomach and made knots of tension between my shoulder blades. The need to protect a child and the very thought of having them taken away feel so much more concrete to me now, and I was devastated by the i nightmarish clarity with which this was captured in this book.
Another change is that the dystopic vision that Atwood presents seemed much less far-fetched to me. While the political climate at this exact moment (with the 2008 democratic presidential race) feels somewhat hopeful, for years now I have avoided having too much knowledge outside of my liberal little NYC bubble, because the growing power of fundamentalist Christian conservatives and their extreme values, leaves me cold and shaky.
The Handmaid's Tale imagines a society where this group has taken control and created a regimented lifestyle that is just as oppressive and frightening as the worst of the fundamentalist Islamic societies that we are currently supposed to see as our enemy, though with Christian doctrine at the forefront. It is a lonely world where individuality, especially for women, has been completely supressed and people must live within a very strict moral behavioral code and under the constant fear of being seen relaxing into their humanity for a moment and the violent punishment they receive if discovered in even the slightest deviation. It is horrifying because it is not totally out of the realm of possibility, largely because most, if not all, of the restrictions placed on people's lives happen or have happened in other countries.
The first half of the book is very vague and creepy. You are trying to piece together where this is, and what exactly is happening, and the enigmatic oppressive horrors are fascinating, and Offred's memories of the life before poignant and beautiful. As the book goes on and the situation becomes more clear-- and especially in the irritating last chapter, taking place at some academic symposium in the year 2095-- I felt that some of the beauty of the book was lost. Maybe if more of the whys and hows are filled in, it is harder to believe that this world could exist and easier to dismiss it as alarmist science fiction. In any case, I felt that the spell it had over me was broken.
I would still definitely recommend the book. It is haunting and gorgeously sad....less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

2 comments

Ali rated it:

12/02/07

bookshelves: novels

Read in December, 2007

What I feel to say about Handmaid’s Tale, won’t be a review at all. Handmaid’s tale is compelling. I’m amazed to read the novel by a Canadian writer, written just a few years after the Revolution in Iran, but brimful of details of what was going on there behind the walls, yet unknown to local people! Is it a co-incident? I doubt it. It’s just because, I believe, Margaret Atwood is a great writer with a spread knowledge about human being’s attitudes.
Whether we like it or not, there...more What I feel to say about Handmaid’s Tale, won’t be a review at all. Handmaid’s tale is compelling. I’m amazed to read the novel by a Canadian writer, written just a few years after the Revolution in Iran, but brimful of details of what was going on there behind the walls, yet unknown to local people! Is it a co-incident? I doubt it. It’s just because, I believe, Margaret Atwood is a great writer with a spread knowledge about human being’s attitudes.
Whether we like it or not, there exist a little bastard totalitarian in every single of us, waiting for proper circumstances, suitable climate to grow up like a monster. Just water it, and observe how it’ll grow up, unbelievably. I’ve experienced honest and most liberal people, been changed easyly in different conditions. Jackil & Hide? Remove the law, take off the principles, so you’ll see what will come up with convincing rationalization!
I’m not surprised by seeing / hearing ”outsider enemy”’s force which constantly threaten our social priciples! Just think about what is going on in Iran and US right now! Aren’t we Handmaids in one or another way?
Imagine about how Offred gets used to the situation, becomes gradualy more relax about what terryfies her at the beginning! Everybody can be trapped in such a situation, in one way or another. Then we may justify Offred more equitably.
How we consider every single Muslim in the world since 9/11! How we think about Iraqies after what we’ve read about Saddam, how we imagine Iranians when we read about Iranian regime in media, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe some people think Handmaid’s Tale seems ilusional, or full of fantasy, but I have at least a few good examples to proove such a society exists, right now, under our noses. Yes, our small happines in a democratic society is really fragil. How the whole story seems quite away from us, and at the same time absolutly familiar!.
The last chapter (prologue?) gives me some feeling of a doubt about ”a proper finish!”, but still in a very proffesional way.
...less

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

Jamie rated it:

06/10/08

bookshelves: feminism, thesis

Read in June, 2008

recommended to Jamie by: a very wonderful high school friend
recommends it for: everyone, feminists, fans of dystopic or speculative fiction

First read this in high school under a friend's recommendation--to think, I was under the impression that it was some boring pseudo-historical novel about the trials and travails of an actual handmaid. Little did I know the "speculative" ride I was in for, at the deft hand of Atwood's prose. Just finished re-reading this for potential use on my honor's thesis, and it's amazing how fresh and riveting it was all over again. Atwood reviews the intersection of sex and politics, as many ...more First read this in high school under a friend's recommendation--to think, I was under the impression that it was some boring pseudo-historical novel about the trials and travails of an actual handmaid. Little did I know the "speculative" ride I was in for, at the deft hand of Atwood's prose. Just finished re-reading this for potential use on my honor's thesis, and it's amazing how fresh and riveting it was all over again. Atwood reviews the intersection of sex and politics, as many reviews note, but does so without writing a polemical or being heavy-handed in her dealings with the feminist topics at hand. For a novel with so little real-time action and a narrator with so little knowledge of the strife going on around her, this is truly one of the most terrifying novels I think I've ever read. Atwood noted somewhere that this is no science-fiction novel; it is "speculative fiction" in the style of Orwell's 1984 with a completely fresh perspective. And it's amazing how possible the events of this novel seem to me in this time of American upheaval. This is nothing to say the reality of gendered norms in various other cultures that pretty frighteningly reflect Atwood's vision; but to read this novel in a time where reproductive rights, gay marriage (and indeed, gay citizenship), "the war on terror," and Ann Coulter dominate the American hot-button issues really makes me pause and wonder if we could be heading for a totalitarian existence not unlike the one in "The Handmaid's Tale." One of the things I think Atwood is particularly skilled with is creating a cast of characters that are so fascinating as to make you want to read each of their stories. What I mean is that I would just as willingly pick up a novel from Offred's perspective, as I would for Moira, Luke, Nick, Serena Joy, the Commander, Ofglen, Offred's mother, etc. Every character is integral and illuminative to the greater storyline, and Offred's account is merely one brief gasp of a moment among many. This is a novel I honestly believe everyone should read at some point in their lives--at turns comic, cynical, hopeless, hopeful, devastating, and of course, terrifying...but always brilliant. ...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

SVK rated it:

02/18/08

Read in January, 2005

recommended to SVK by: My English department
recommends it for: People interested in women's rights and a (creative) historical context for it.

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

I read it because my school used to teach it. We gave up on it, I guess, because we got worn down by the critics--who call it, well, a lot of things. I guess they think it's pornography.

Summary
The story is narrated by “Offred” who alternates between present and past experience—usually without an obvious transition.

Offred is a handmaid in the militant Republic of Gilead, a post US theocracy. Gilead suffers from a low birth rate and is ruled by a fundamentalist governme...more I read it because my school used to teach it. We gave up on it, I guess, because we got worn down by the critics--who call it, well, a lot of things. I guess they think it's pornography.

Summary
The story is narrated by “Offred” who alternates between present and past experience—usually without an obvious transition.

Offred is a handmaid in the militant Republic of Gilead, a post US theocracy. Gilead suffers from a low birth rate and is ruled by a fundamentalist government that outlaws “gender crimes”, 2nd marriages, and domestic partnerships, thereby exalting an approved married class and creating a supply of concubines for “Commanders” to use when their wives failed to produce. These handmaids suffer at the hands of “aunts” first, then wives. The “Rachel and Leah Center" attempts to convert/brainwash them. Education and reading are withheld from women, who generally have low status but are “saved” through childbirth. Executions for sedition are frequent and public.

Men are likewise portrayed as victims in a world which has suppressed women, maintained heirarchy, neutralized love, and denied political, religious, or moral freedoms. Certain men are executed through “particicutions” where handmaids are incited toward mass beatings.

Though controversial in conservative circles, the book contains only frank language, nothing gratuitous or erotic. The few sexual scenes are not “experienced” by the reader play by play, but rather quickly summarized in bland terms which emphasize the ugliness of objectification. Because Gilead is so afraid of pleasure and joyful love, the sex is even portrayed as boring. Harems are exposed as institutions where women… wait. They don’t enjoy exotic sex, they spend their time sitting, waiting to be used. Both men and women seem to begrudge their sexual duties. Even forbidden sex is unexciting, empty, regretful. The real excitement happens when the commander begins secret meetings with his handmaid, initiating Scrabble games!

...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Lindsay rated it:

04/03/08

Read in February, 2008

This book was recommended to me by the school’s librarian when I asked her to list her favorite modern fictional books. The Handmaiden’s Tale: A Novel definitely deserves to be on this list, as well as many others. This book takes place in a recognizable futurist society. While reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984, Atwood’s manages to make this cautionary tale her own. In this society, women’s freedom is compromised nationally, categorizing each woman depending on their ability to give ...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Holly rated it:

10/10/07

bookshelves: recentlyread

Read in October, 2007

recommends it for: future world fans/

I really enjoyed this book. It was extremely well written. It was written like a memoir, but you dont know that until the end. Up to that point it reads as current events. It is about the world around the year 2000-2010, (the book was written in the 1970's). The US has basically broken down and there are aspects of civil wars. Lines between government and religion have broken down, so not Baptists are radicals who are against the nation, when in fact they are trying to hold unto their beliefs...more

Like this review? yes

1 comments

Summer rated it:

12/03/07

bookshelves: 2007, gender-studies, i-will-lend-this-to-you, novels

I was really struck, upon rereading this, at how much this book could be seen as a commentary on the Harvard/Radcliffe relationship. Of course, there is the obvious parallel to the Iranian revolution of 1979, and the deft discussion of the Second Wave feminist movement, but now that I have spent a bit of time with Radcliffe history, I have to wonder how much of it Atwood, a Radcliffe alumna herself, was influenced by in writing this.

The line that really made me think was the mention of grad...more

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

5 comments

Brian rated it:

12/10/07

Read in December, 2007

I have a hard time with art that grapples with totalitarianism, especially in futuristic, Orwellian form. For me, basic human consciousness as it is already exhibits tendencies that are horrific enough in and of themselves to make totalitarian scenario-type books, even if allegorical (i.e. meant to be describing things as they are even though presented as taking place in a future time and place), seem a bit unnecessary. I have no idea if Margaret Atwood is considered a feminist writer, but in ...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

Sammy rated it:

06/12/07

bookshelves: the-best

Read in January, 2007

What an amazing read. This was a book I literally could not put down so I read it in a night. Offred's journey should become everyone's journey. What do I mean by that? I mean pick up this book! Go buy it, check it out from the library, borrow it from someone who owns it. This book definitely makes you think and want to strive for a change of sorts.

Reading the summary you may automatically think this is a mild, entertaining form of feminist propaganda, but it's not. While their is a lot of f...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

kathleen rated it:

08/16/07

Read in August, 2007

When I put The Handmaid's Tale down, my first thought was relief. Relief that this wasn't my life, relief that it was so impossible to imagine a world like this, relief that my life was still my own. And then I remembered.

This world does exist.

There are countries where women are made to wear the veil everyday, where the government is convinced that the sight of a woman's ankle or neck might drive a man to impure thoughts or actions. Where a woman must walk down the street several step...more

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

3 comments

thefourthvine rated it:

06/04/07

bookshelves: sff

Read in January, 1988

Come, let us be honest with each other - or, okay, let me be honest with you. I read this book once, at full-tilt, couldn't-put-it-down, pry-it-from-my-dead-hands speed, almost twenty years ago. I spent an afternoon, evening, and part of a night reading it. And then I could never read it again.

Mostly, that was because it terrified me: it seemed so grimly possible. Partly, that was because this one of my early exposures to books about women and women's issues, and it hit me like a punch to th...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

sydney rated it:

07/26/07

Read in July, 2007

recommends it for: feminists, people who fear the future, people who fear the present

Some days, you might find yourself wondering, What would happen if a bunch of religious zealots who hate women took power in America? (Hey, wait a minute....) The answer is in this book.

It's a fascinating dystopian novel in which Cambridge, Massachusetts, has become Gilead. Women are forced into one of several roles. They can be Marthas, who are basically servants in important men's houses. They can be Wives, who are bitter and nasty because their marriages are shams and their husbands ...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

T.J. rated it:

The Handmaid's Tale

discuss this book

groups with this book

friend reviews (0)

lists with this book

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 31158)