The Handmaid's Tale

Feb 23, 2010

Mrs. Crane rated it

I guess Margaret doesn't believe in quotation marks. I don't think I've ever come across a novel yet in which there's no distinction between the narrator and the character, and It took me quite a while to get use to it. I had to go back and re-read sentences again, which doesn't lend itself to a relaxing reading experience. It slowed me down quite a bit.

First 100 pages:
Really annoying. ..why?, well because I felt like a juicy bone was being waved in front of my face. Like when ...more

like 36 likes

· see review

Dec 04, 2007

Jennifer rated it

Shelves: classics, science-fiction, fiction

(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 happe...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 130 likes

· see review

Sep 12, 2008

Anna rated it

Shelves: 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 inalienab...moreAmazing 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 work, 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 stability 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" brothels 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 48 likes

· see review

Jul 09, 2007

Nathan rated it

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...moreThe 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 47 likes

· see review

Sep 19, 2011

Manny rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: science-fiction, too-sexy-for-maiden-aunts, celebrity-death-match

For the Celebrity Death Match Review Tournament, The Handmaid's Tale (7) versus The Divine Comedy (26)

As she neared the gates, Offred saw an inscription over them which read

ABANDON HOPE, ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE

She passed through, and they closed silently behind her. A moment later, she heard a voice that seemed to come simultaneously from the ground, the sky, and the inside of her head.

"You have forfeited all your rights," said the voice. "You will be my chat...more

like 13 likes

· see review

Jun 07, 2007

Victoria rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: fiction, sf-f, 2005

Not a very well written book. The writing itself is clumsy. It doesn't feel like you're reading a story; it feels like you're reading a piece of writing. Good writers put their words together for a calculated effect, but Atwood's words aren't just calculated-- they're contrived. In a good piece of writing, you shouldn't see the writer at all. You shouldn't see the structure of their writing. All you should see is the story. If you're seeing the deliberate cadence of a phrase, or the use of repet...moreNot a very well written book. The writing itself is clumsy. It doesn't feel like you're reading a story; it feels like you're reading a piece of writing. Good writers put their words together for a calculated effect, but Atwood's words aren't just calculated-- they're contrived. In a good piece of writing, you shouldn't see the writer at all. You shouldn't see the structure of their writing. All you should see is the story. If you're seeing the deliberate cadence of a phrase, or the use of repetition instead of its effect, then these style choices weren't done subtly enough. If you can see the writer's style through their words, then they're just not doing it right. I think Atwood very much falls into this trap. Her style lacks the subtlety required to tell a story like this.

The other problem is that it's impossible to forget that this was written in the mid-1980s. The appeal of dystopian fiction, I thought, was that it served as a timeless warning against the pitfalls of humanity. Of course, I'm not a big fan of dystopian writing, so I can only draw on 1984 again as a reference, but: the great thing about 1984 is that it doesn't read like it was written in 1948. It doesn't read as an unambiguous warning against communism, which would make it static and irrelevant today, where the red threat has passed. It is as yet a timeless story, a warning against the state, which did not discredit itself in 1989, but which instead took on a new meaning. Today, one doesn't read Orwell as a warning against communism in particular, but against oppression in general. What's great about 1984 is that it is ambiguous enough to remain dynamic and relevant through reinterpretation, but real enough that it resonates across the years to mean something still.

The Handmaid's Tale doesn't carry that kind of resonance. It's just not, to me, that powerful a story, and then Atwood drops in details, devices, that ground it more and more solidly into the mid-80s. That the novel is set contemporary to her writing it fixes the action in time. She makes reference to real movies, real magazines, real time frames, real places, real events. But to understand them, you need to have an intimate understanding of what was going on in the world in 1985. You need to understand what North American culture was like. You need to understand how American history was being interpreted. But you also need to understand that Iran was a new player, a new threat on the world stage, and you need to understand how the world reacted to it.

But these background concepts are not universal, nor are they timeless. Already people are forgetting about the 1980s brand of feminism, and already people are forgetting about the Iranian revolution. And North American culture is not a homogeneous as it once was: today the religious right could not stage a coup as is described in the novel, because there are too many diverse groups and networks today who would oppose it. Arguably the religious right has seized power, but not like that. Atwood's vision of an extremist revolution is dated, which makes me question the validity of the other warnings she puts forth.

That's not to say that I think it's a bad book. Atwood does advance some chilling theories about the future of mankind, and even as I sat there shaking my head and going, "that could never happen," the possibilities are deeply disturbing. The novel served as a warning in its own time, and it is interesting to read it with that in mind. And if you like dystopian fiction, then it is definitely worth a read. I just have a problem in reconciling the novel's message with today's reality, where Atwood's fears actually seem to be the least of our worries.(less)

like 48 likes

· see review

Jun 12, 2011

Igor Tsinman rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: the-best

"Рассказ служанки" (Маргарет Этвуд) это роман/рассказ женщины о близком (2050 годы) нереально страшном времени. Место - территория Сев. Америки, полу-фашистская Республика Гилеад.

Книга небольшая по размеру. Анг. подлинник я просто не прочувствовал, поэтому "Рассказ служанки" я прочел на русском. Стиль книги, худ. приемы и язык, по-моему сильно отличаются от сегодняшней/современной прозы. Короткие абзацы, короткие предложения, даже слова короткие. Они как молоток в...more

like 9 likes

· see review

Dec 10, 2007

Brian rated it

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 27 likes

· see review

Sep 15, 2010

Paquita Maria Sanchez rated it

Shelves: literature

THIS BOOKS ABOUT ORGIES AND PEOPLE WHO LIKE ORGIES AND SOME PEOPLE WHO H8 ORGIES.

like 28 likes

· see review

Apr 03, 2011

K.D. rated it

Recommended to K.D. by: 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die (2006-2010), Governor General Award for Fiction

Shelves: 1001-core, 501, sci-fi

In Atwood’s book this novel is a speculative fiction. She says that science fiction is something that cannot happen in the current times (knowledge, technology) including those that happen outside Earth. Speculative fiction, on the other hand, has the feasibility of happening and the current and in the near future especially in here on Earth. Had I not read this book, I would not have learned the difference between this two. I originally classified this book as a sci-fi until this morning. I ori...moreIn Atwood’s book this novel is a speculative fiction. She says that science fiction is something that cannot happen in the current times (knowledge, technology) including those that happen outside Earth. Speculative fiction, on the other hand, has the feasibility of happening and the current and in the near future especially in here on Earth. Had I not read this book, I would not have learned the difference between this two. I originally classified this book as a sci-fi until this morning. I originally thought that this book is a feminist work until this morning when I was thinking of what to put in this review.

More than being an imaginative work of art, this book is a social, political and religious criticism. Particularly on people who have extremist views. Social: For example, proponents of feminism align with religious organization which might backlash because those fundamentalist belief the religious organization might result to a Gilead-like situation where rules are based on the Old Testaments like Leah-Rachel which in the book translates to Serena Joy-Offred. Political. Gilead is created via a military coup where the ruling class believe in the theocracy. So, they created a government whose laws are based on the Old Testament. A man whose has a sterile wife can have a concubine (handmaid). A divorcee is considered to be committing sin so he has to go back to his original wife and his current wife is considered as an adulterer and their child is born out of wedlock. Religious. That the Old Testament, if taken literally, can create a totally different dystopian totally-distorted world.

Thus, there are so many lessons here that Atwood chose to tell not by just listing them down but by creating a whole different sad world and provide an opportunity for her reader to reflect on what is currently going on around him and at the same time be entertained on knowing what could happen if people with extremist views rule the earth. The mood is totally dark. The narrative is shifting but basically in first person: Offred (means the handmaid of a man called “Fred”) alternately addressing his narrations to herself (in chapters entitled “Night”) and to the reader (in the alternating chapters). The characters are coded according to colors: handmaids wear all-red except for the wings, aunts wear brown, marthas in green, econowives in multi-colored dress.

Salvaging is a term that originated in the Philippines and Atwood entitled her second to the last chapter with it. Salvaging, in the Philippines, means an execution of unwanted elements, normally politically motivated and done in secrecy. However, Atwood used it in the book as public execution of dissenters by hanging. This book came out in 1985 at the height of the political unrest that led to the People Power Revolution and the ouster of ex-President Marcos in 1986. I was not a voracious reader then so I just ignored this. I am now glad that I finally read this.

My only comment is that Atwood spent pages and pages for Offred to reminisce and miss her husband, Nick and children who were exiled when they were caught fleeing to Canada at the start of Gilead. In the end, I thought that Atwood would give something for the readers to be happy about by having the family reunited. Me being a romantic wanted to have a bit of happy ending there in the last chapter.
(less)

like 19 likes

· see review

Jun 25, 2008

Dalton Hirshorn rated it

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 wi...moreMargaret 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 25 likes

· see review

Dan Overall I enjoyed Dalton's review. I do have to disagree with his thoughts about all these potential changes happening too quickly. That they are not ...more
Oct 28, 2009 02:57pm

Toni the extinction of caucasians is imminent today, i really liked the book. Sorry the book was heavy, but I could not keep my eyes out of it! It seems p...more
Jun 23, 2011 08:16pm

Susannah I also agree that things can happen much more quickly than you might think (or want to believe) - What wouldn't necessarily change so quickly is peopl...more
Sep 14, 2011 10:54pm

Dec 03, 2007

Summer rated it

Shelves: 2007, i-will-lend-this-to-you, gender-studies, 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...more

like 18 likes

· see review

Mar 19, 2008

Amanda rated it

Shelves: fiction

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.
...moreI 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 13 likes

· see review

Apr 23, 2009

Martine rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: dystopia, film, modern-fiction, north-american, psychological-drama, science-fiction

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 incr...moreThe 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.

(less)

like 30 likes

· see review

Dec 20, 2010

Zeek rated it

Shelves: post-apocolyptic, dystopian, classics, literary

Considered a modern Classic, The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood had been on my must read list for some time now. I checked it out once before from the library and never got past the first couple of pages before I had to return it. I probably should have left it at that, because I'd rather be wishing I read it, then feeling the keen sense of disappointment like I do now.

The story is narrated by Offred- not her real name; which I'll get to later- in the first person. Technically I do...moreConsidered a modern Classic, The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood had been on my must read list for some time now. I checked it out once before from the library and never got past the first couple of pages before I had to return it. I probably should have left it at that, because I'd rather be wishing I read it, then feeling the keen sense of disappointment like I do now.

The story is narrated by Offred- not her real name; which I'll get to later- in the first person. Technically I don't mind first person. There are quite a number of books I've truly enjoyed from that POV. However, for this book, it didn't work for me. Even though it was written from the most intimate of narratives, I still felt like I was watching from afar. None of Offred's true feelings came through to me, which frustrated me completely, because this story demands that we connect with the character.

Here's the lowdown;

The story is set in the not too distant future where a totalitarian state is in control and the women are treated shamefully- right down to forcing the women to wear oppressive clothing.

Something has occurred- which is never quite clear to me- where the nation's birth rate is nil and many women are unable to have children. (The author hints at a nuclear war but she also hints at the low birth rate trend.) Of course, the men in control blame it on the women and not their own sterile likelihood and have set up a system to alleviate the problem.

Enter The Handmaids. They are women who have been ripped from their families- families from 2nd marriages after divorces and "living together" unions- neither of which are valid in the new States' laws.

These women have given birth to children in the past and are therefore considered an effective tool to alleviate the world "problem". They are reprogrammed and subjugated into becoming the "handmaid" for leaders who are unable to begat children on their wives- much like what happened in Biblical Old Testament times when women were barren.

The new names for The Handmaid's are given to them at the time of their programming and they are a connected to the Commanders they will eventually be given too- names such as Of-glen, Of-warren, and for this narrative, Of-fred.

The premise of the book fell apart for me because it was a little too obvious and preachy, and, to make things worse, I couldn't follow Atwood's style of writing. It also seemed scattered and disjointed- which I believe is why I couldn't connect with Offred.

As scary dystopian fiction, this book's as good as any- it's a frightening world Atwood conjures up. However, I'm giving this one 2 out of 5 because it fell flat and failed to hold my interest- I ended up skimming two chapters towards the end! (less)

like 9 likes

· see review

Nov 11, 2010

Tatiana rated it

Recommends it for: those who are not afraid to dive into the worst feminist nightmare

Shelves: 1001, 2009, contemporary, favorites, dystopias-post-apocalyptic, booker

Imagine the near future where power is overtaken by the religious right under the guise of protection from Islamic terrorism. Imagine the future where the roles of the women reduced to those assigned to them in Old Testament - they are no longer allowed to read, work, own property, or handle money. Imagine that due to the pollution and man-created viruses, the fertility rates are so low that the few fertile women (the Handmaids) are now a communal property and are moved from house to house to be...moreImagine the near future where power is overtaken by the religious right under the guise of protection from Islamic terrorism. Imagine the future where the roles of the women reduced to those assigned to them in Old Testament - they are no longer allowed to read, work, own property, or handle money. Imagine that due to the pollution and man-created viruses, the fertility rates are so low that the few fertile women (the Handmaids) are now a communal property and are moved from house to house to be inseminated by men of power under the watchful eye of their wives. Imagine the future where women can only be the Wives, domestics (the Marthas), sexual toys (the Jezebels), female prison guards (the Aunts), wombs (the Handmaids), or, if they are unsuited for any of these roles, Unwomen who are sent off to the Colonies where they harvest cotton if they are lucky or clean out radioactive waste if they aren't.

Well, after you've imagined that, you can imagine very easily how much I was terrified by this book. As a modern woman, I am horrified by the notion that at some point in time I can become nothing more than a servant, a toy, a reproductive organ. The world created by Atwood seems too much of a stretch of imagination at a first glance, but if you just turn your gaze towards Middle East, how implausible this feminist dystopia really is?

To say I am impressed by this novel is to say nothing, really. This book is one of those that stays in your brain and you keep coming back to it over and over again.

Having said that, I have to note, that this is definitely not an easy read. Offred (the protagonist Handmaid) is in many ways a frustrating narrator: she is broken, she is passive, she is desperate and her only goal is to make it through another day. The ending is ambiguous. The narration is complex with constant switching from present to past and back. But it all worked perfectly for me. For me, "The Handmaid's Tale" is a powerful novel that is in my mind next to Saramago's "Blindness," another book that left me sleepless.

Reading challenge: #22(less)

like 32 likes

· see review

Jun 20, 2008

Mrs. Miska rated it

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, passionat...moreFantastic 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 15 likes

· see review

Aug 15, 2008

Stephen Gallup rated it

Here's a story that describes the essentials of what life would be like for women if Islamic fundamentalists took over our civilization. Long robes are mandatory, as are some kind of facial covering. Education is forbidden. Women exist for the pleasure and procreation of the men who control them. In short, pretty much like the situation that prevailed under the Taliban. Mark Steyn makes a pretty convincing case for that being Europe's inevitable future, but Margaret Atwood places the action here...moreHere's a story that describes the essentials of what life would be like for women if Islamic fundamentalists took over our civilization. Long robes are mandatory, as are some kind of facial covering. Education is forbidden. Women exist for the pleasure and procreation of the men who control them. In short, pretty much like the situation that prevailed under the Taliban. Mark Steyn makes a pretty convincing case for that being Europe's inevitable future, but Margaret Atwood places the action here in North America.

I'm being flippant, of course. The grim future Atwood presents is supposed to be the result of not standing up to the conservatives, with their Moral Majority. I see it was published in 1985, during Reagan's second term, and the narrative tells us that the utter collapse of all that's good occurred at about that point.

Since then, unless I'm living in an alternative universe, life has continued along more or less as before. This year it looked for a while as if a woman might even become president.

So much for Atwood's dire predictions of the future.

Again and again in writing reviews of books, I run into this situation in which somebody uses fiction to advance some harebrained political view. It's getting quite old. It's even worse when the author's aim is so poor. Every culture faces threats, but the Christian Right is and always has been pretty far down the list. A coworker lent me this one, so at least I spent no money on it. But I regret the time wasted.

As a story, the narrative improves somewhat toward the end: Things build toward a climax, there's foreshadowing that something dreadful is about to occur, and clues provided lead one to imagine what is likely to happen. But then the author just drops the ball. When the story ends we don't know for sure if the protagonist was betrayed or rescued. I'm at a loss for understanding why it was handled that way.

Anti-utopian writing is an honorable genre. As far as I know, however, nothing has approached those two classics, 1984 and Brave New World. In this case the comparison is pathetic.(less)

like 20 likes

· see review

May 08, 2008

Stacey rated it

Recommends it for: masochists

Shelves: time-i-will-never-get-back, dystopia

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

like 9 likes

· see review

Dec 02, 2007

علی rated it

Shelves: novels

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...moreWhat 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 8 likes

· see review

Jun 12, 2007

Sammy rated it

Shelves: a-the-best

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 ...more

like 12 likes

· see review

Jun 13, 2011

Ben Babcock rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: caitlyn-mcmillan-collection, own, 2011-read, canadian-author, gender-issues, religion-fiction, science-fiction, utopia-dystopia

Margaret Atwood looms large in that particularly Canadian part of my literary subconscious, the part that natters at me to call stuff "CanLit" and berates me for having never read anything by Michael Ondaatje. Atwood is Kind Of A Big Deal, but so far I have managed to avoid reading any of her novels and have read, as far as I can recall, one of her short stories. Already, though, I have a bone to pick with Atwood. She has this weird bias against science fiction and insists that she doe...more

like 5 likes

· see review

Jun 24, 2011

Amber ~Geektastic~ rated it

Recommends it for: anyone

Shelves: owned, 20th-century-classics, dystopian-and-speculative, bucket-list, tbr-challenge-2011, reviewed, 2011

In The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood has created a claustrophobic vision of the near-future that is as lyrical as it is chilling. Truly great speculative or dystopian fiction is based in reality; the horrors of the future must be believable to have power, and this is powerful stuff.

The Republic of Gilead, the name given to the society that was once America, is a place ruled by a shadowy government of religious fanatics who have imposed their values by terror and lies. Women no l...moreIn The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood has created a claustrophobic vision of the near-future that is as lyrical as it is chilling. Truly great speculative or dystopian fiction is based in reality; the horrors of the future must be believable to have power, and this is powerful stuff.

The Republic of Gilead, the name given to the society that was once America, is a place ruled by a shadowy government of religious fanatics who have imposed their values by terror and lies. Women no longer have access to the things they once took for granted, like a job, money or even literacy. In this new construct there exists a strict hierarchy, and within that hierarchy perhaps the strangest and most precarious role is that of Handmaid. The narrator of this tale is the Handmaid Offred, a woman who once had a life and a family, but is now reduced solely to her biology: she is a walking set of sexual organs whose sole reason for existence is to give birth to a child who will then be given to the family of a high ranking political official, to be raised within the new system.

Offred’s story is told through observation, perception and intuition. As a woman, she is not privy to direct information of any kind, but must glean what she can from other women, who may or may not be trustworthy. This method of storytelling is particularly effective, as it only reveals things in brief glimpses, evoking the very feelings of confusion and loss that Offred is experiencing. Atwood has always excelled at conveying the inner turmoil of her characters, something I first noticed when reading Cat’s Eye. She is a master of highlighting the nameless feelings that make up so much of our existence and creating a narrative from the bare bones of seemingly trivial observations.

The events of The Handmaid’s Tale are presented as a reconstruction, and thus Offred is an unreliable narrator. However, this is unimportant; it is not the events so much as their emotional and personal impact that truly matter.

One of the most frightening and subversive elements of the story is not revealed until the end, in the “Historical Notes” epilogue.(view spoiler)

It is these elements, the personal and the ephemeral, in combination with a frighteningly plausible vision, that gives this book so much power and makes it, for me, a 5-star read.
(less)

like 8 likes

· see review

May 03, 2011

Isamlq rated it

Shelves: favorites

I was actually quite hesitant to take it on. Yes, sadly, I only became aware of this because of allusions made to it in a couple of Wither reviews. So I was really hesitant to read on two counts. First, would it be accessible? Would I ‘get’ it? Second, would it live up to snuff especially since Wither was just not so good. My worries were unfounded because I truly did get caught up in her story, her world. From the start, it was so easy to imagine (making it all the more scary.) As to allusions...moreI was actually quite hesitant to take it on. Yes, sadly, I only became aware of this because of allusions made to it in a couple of Wither reviews. So I was really hesitant to read on two counts. First, would it be accessible? Would I ‘get’ it? Second, would it live up to snuff especially since Wither was just not so good. My worries were unfounded because I truly did get caught up in her story, her world. From the start, it was so easy to imagine (making it all the more scary.) As to allusions to it made in various Wither reviews, those comparisons do THT a disservice. I do get the connection though, a world where a woman's value is based on her ability bear child. But that's it. Offred's world is scary and realistic… and not a simple love story.

It alternates between Offred reminiscing of her past and wanting it back~ even if “the way back when” wasn't perfect, and of her describing her present. On one end it’s all “Want, want, want,” on the other it's, “Shit. This is how things are.” A cycle of scary, I suppose. Why? Everything in it just seems so possible. Knowing it was published in the 80’s just gives it a tinge of prophetic. I’m coming off as an easily excitable reader, but the thing is, nothing in this sounds made up.

Offred is in turns scared, resigned, terrified and at the oddest of moments funny, (well at least her past self was.) But you’ve got to understand that she’s also broken and resigned to what she has to do to get by. Is she the heroine that I’ve been wanting to read of? Yes and no. She is honest; she doesn’t sugarcoat despite her segueing into her little fantasies of what she wished would have happened. To reiterate she is far from perfect. The circumstances just shaped how she acted.

What’s worse is I knew precisely what she was like before the things were the way they were. It just made me sad, that she/they could be reduced to such a state. It was her memories of her old life as contrasted to her present that made the story seem very possible, and thus terrifying. And what’s in a name? Once I recognized the significance of their names, I felt as she did: was nothing sacred?

Then the men. There are two sides after all. Told from Offred’s point of view, his position in relation to her put a face on what/who was holding her in. At first I thought the story would end with the revelation that he too felt as she did: Trapped. They actually did feel the same way to an extent. The difference was in who could act on what they wanted.

Out of everything, I think it was the cat that broke my heart a little more.

(less)

like 3 likes

· see review

Feb 05, 2011

Cory rated it

I've read a lot of science fiction, not hardcore science fiction, but I think I could have a decent conversation with someone on the topic. Margaret Atwood claims that The Handmaid's Tale is speculative fiction. Speculative fiction is science fiction that could actually happen today. That's where I have to disagree. As with the The Hunger Games, I had difficulty suspending my belief for the entirety of the novel.

Written in 1985, The Handmaid's Tale was published right after the woma...more

like 6 likes

· see review

Apr 10, 2011

prettybooks rated it

Shelves: read-after-university, dystopian-or-post-apocalyptic

I found The Handmaid’s Tale to be one of the most compelling books I’ve ever read and definitely one of my favourites of this year.

In a world that has reverted back to a day where totalitarianism is commonplace and accepted, women known as “handmaids” are given (literally) to elite couples that are unable to have children, with the sole purpose of reproducing for them. If they do not fulfil this purpose, they are sent to the “colonies” to either work in agriculture or clear up toxic ...more

like 3 likes

· see review

Jul 25, 2008

Trevor rated it

Shelves: literature

I can be a bit of a dag at times – before I started this I heard somewhere that it was her first novel – and so I figured I would start my review by saying something like, “it was okay, but I’m sure she will get better as she goes on.” I’ve just checked and it was not her first novel, or anything like her first. All the same, I stand by my conviction that she will get better as a novelist – even if it turns out that some of those better novels will now have been written before this one.
...moreI can be a bit of a dag at times – before I started this I heard somewhere that it was her first novel – and so I figured I would start my review by saying something like, “it was okay, but I’m sure she will get better as she goes on.” I’ve just checked and it was not her first novel, or anything like her first. All the same, I stand by my conviction that she will get better as a novelist – even if it turns out that some of those better novels will now have been written before this one.

That seems an unduly harsh criticism – and there were things about this book I liked very much – but I didn’t feel that it quite worked as well for me as her other books have. I’m not as keen on her overtly science fiction works. This one and Oryx and Crake didn’t quite work for me. I think because they reminded me respectively of 1984 and Brave New World - both of which I think were better novels. It seems that one of the key ingredients in a science fiction dystopia is a war that may or may not be real and the banning of love. How hard can that be to write?

Well, no, this is a much better book than that. There was a point at about the middle where my ears pricked up. She was describing the first time she went into the Commander’s room and told the story twice, with modifications, and said at the end of each telling – ‘that is a reconstruction’ – or words to that effect. There are a number of times in the telling of this story where that sort of irony, that sort of mirror holding, happens and it is quite nice and quite interesting. The book ends in another interesting kind of mirror holding, an ironic questioning of the verity of the story we have just been told. All this should have been enough to get me to say this is a very good book.

The loony, totalitarian types in this novel are Fundamentalist Christian types of the Old Testament school – you know, this book should have had everything going for it. It has been frequently challenged in an attempt to have it banned from US high school libraries, due to the supposed anti-religious nature of the text – something that says an awful lot that is very interesting (and frightening) about what those bastards think religion is.

But it still didn’t work for me. I couldn’t help feeling that it was more a collection of short stories on a theme – rather than a novel. I’m not sure I can explain that as well as I ought. It made sense that this was her first novel – even when it turned out not to be. It reads like a first novel, by someone not yet comfortable with the form. Other of her books - The Blind Assassin say, or Cat’s Eye didn’t feel like that at all. The Robber Bride did in part too, I guess, but it was told in various voices and so that helps explain that – and this one is too, of course, but even the long bit told in a consistent voice is more bitsy – or felt more bitsy to me.

The thing she does in this and in The Blind Assassin is to tell you a story where you think, “Gosh, imagine making all that up – what a horrible world – these fiction writers have such nasty imaginations”, and then she will tell you where in history precisely these things happened, really happened, not just made up. This doesn’t leave the reader thinking ‘fact is stranger than fiction’, but more ‘god, have we got things to answer for’.

It might be that now was just not the right time for me to read this book, but it just wasn’t as good as I had hoped it might be.

There is a film, I believe – the sex scenes (based on one of those truly bizarre stories from the Old Testament that makes you wonder how the Bible ever got to be considered a book of moral guidance – and which gives this novel its title) might be quite amusing to watch on the film. I don’t mean for any assistance these scenes might offer for masturbation, there was little to nothing ‘sexy’ about the sex scenes in this book – well, unless one attended an English Public School, perhaps. It is a pity I’ve gone off films so much – as this might have been one that would be worth watching – although, given how much of the book is inside the main character’s head, I’m not sure it really would work too well on film. Hard to know.
(less)

like 10 likes

· see review

Jul 30, 2008

Dini rated it

· review of another edition

Recommended to Dini by: Meghan

Shelves: fiction, favorites

The Handmaid's Tale is a frightening look into a future where the US, now called the Republic of Gilead, is run by religious fundamentalists. In this grim world, women have no right to property, are forbidden to read and write, and are assigned to specific functions. One of them is that of the Handmaid, who is assigned to a family as a means of reproduction.

The story is told through the point of view of Offred, a Handmaid assigned to a prominent family in Gilead. She can still rememb...more

like 8 likes

· see review

Aug 04, 2007

Mark Simmons rated it

Recommends it for: fans - and not fans - of traditional science fiction

Shelves: fantasy

This is one of the few works of science fiction that my mother likes, and my mother is a classical literature sort of person, so I feel I can enthusiastically recommend this book to people on all sides of the fantasy continuum.

Set in America after an ultra-conservative revolution, The Handmaid's Tale chronicles a few years in the life of a woman reduced to the status of a handmaid, little more than a walking womb in a world where fertility is rare. She has been brainwashed and beaten...more

like 8 likes

· see review

Jul 04, 2007

Clare rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: distopian idealists

I love Margaret Atwood. This was the first of her books that I read and it snatched me in right from the beginning. Perhaps the most clever thing about it is that as a distopian view of the world, it feels a million miles away, but little details prove disturbingly familiar. Although there isn't a society based entirely upon the lines detailed here, there are certainly regions in the world that treat their women in a similar way and resort to the same kind of justifications.

Offred...more

like 5 likes

· see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Saucy Whores ...: January - The Handmaid's Tale	34	5	Feb 07, 2012 03:23pm
KCS Book club!: Reading Progress	18	3	Jan 18, 2012 07:03pm
ELEVEN READERS CL...: Analysis of The Handmaid's Tale	1	8	Jan 18, 2012 05:12pm
Literary Exploration: December 2011 - The Handmaid's Tale	78	122	Jan 15, 2012 10:07pm
ELEVEN READERS CL...: The handmaid's tale	1	5	Jan 12, 2012 02:57pm
ELEVEN READERS CL...: interest in The handmaid's tale	1	4	Jan 10, 2012 07:05pm
Fantasy Book Club: Kindle Daily Deal - 12/29/2011 - A Handmaid's Tale	7	56	Jan 09, 2012 06:50am

title link	preview: The Handmaid's Tale
avg rating	preview: The Handmaid's Tale Goodreads rating: 3.95 (130501 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38447.The_Handmaid_s_Tale?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1294702760m/38447.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38447.The_Handmaid_s_Tale?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood[/url]

The Handmaid's Tale

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (86)

Genres

Readers Also Enjoyed

About Margaret Atwood

Books by Margaret Atwood

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Handmaid's Tale

Quotes from The Handmaid's Tale

Groups That Shelved The Handmaid's Tale