The Handmaid's Tale

Aug 31, 2012 Stephanie rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: lit, favorites

WARNING: This review is being written after I worked a 13 hour day, with another one on the horizon tomorrow, and a glass of wine and while watching the Rachel Maddow show. Current events have put this book on the forefront of my mind, and damn it I got to get this out.

I have never written a review on The Handmaid's Tale because I love the book, and it is so hard to write about a book you love.

Ehh, what the hell.

OfFred was a normal everyday woman with a career, a name, a life like all women ha...more

339 likes · like · see review

Mar 13, 2013 Pollopicu rated it 1 of 5 stars

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 used 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 someone asks you,...more

129 likes · like · see review

view all 54 comments

Josie Ryan First of all, the contrast between comments such as "praise be" and "he was fucking the lower half of me" is intentional to illuminate the expectation...more
May 12, 2013 11:46pm

Ursula Sindlinger Is this the account of a right wing religious nut?
May 19, 2013 02:59pm

Dec 04, 2007 Jennifer rated it 4 of 5 stars

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 happened shortly...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)

194 likes · like · see review

May 06, 2011 Kate rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: genre-science-fiction, metafiction, author-gender-female, publisher-random-house, read-in-2011, author-nationality-canada, genre-general-fiction-drama, genre-political, genre-political-gender-equality, misc-stand-alone-book, pov-first-person, rating-1-star, set-in-usa, tense-past, tense-present, reviewed-by-iamfantastikate

Should I read it? No. While I suspect The Handmaid’s Tale is one of those books people tend to either love or hate, I’m with the haters at the left. You’ve been warned.

What's the short and skinny of it? Extremist Christian beliefs have won the American culture war; as a result, women have no rights. They are slaves to men and the biblically-based, patriarchal society in which they live. The Handmaid's Tale is the first-person account of one of these enslaved women.

Tell me more.
Downvote!

Where to begin? Wh...more

67 likes · like · see review

Sep 19, 2011 Manny rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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

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 chattel and my plaything here through all e...more

22 likes · like · see review

Jul 09, 2007 Nathan rated it 4 of 5 stars

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)

86 likes · like · see review

Jun 14, 2012 Igor Tsinman rated it 5 of 5 stars · 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 вбивают в голову гвозди сюжета.

Эт...more

16 likes · like · see review

Jun 07, 2007 Victoria rated it 2 of 5 stars · 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...more 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 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)

68 likes · like · see review

view all 23 comments

M I agree with many excellent points in this review. What upset me most about this book, however,was that I could not at all tell how long ago this revo...more
Oct 15, 2012 07:12pm

Davytron If you consider history, say WWII when Germans joined the nazi party quite swiftly and seemingly by their own volition, it makes the time frame more d...more
Nov 22, 2012 07:24am

Dec 02, 2007 علی rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: novels

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 cir...more 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 easily in different conditions. Jackil & Hide? Remove the law, take the moral principles away, 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 principles! 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 gradually more relax about what terrifies her at the beginning! Everybody can be trapped in such a situation, in one way or another. Then we may justify Offred more equitably. Unbelievably fearful, isn’t it? 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 like an illusion, or full of fantasy, but I have at least a few good examples to prove such a society exists, right now, under our noses. Yes, our small happiness in a democratic society is really fragile. How the whole story seems quite away from us, and at the same time absolutely familiar!
The last chapter (prologue?) gives me some feeling of a doubt about ”a proper finish!”, but still in a very professional way!
وقایع رمان در یک دیکتاتوری خیالی در زمان آینده در ایالات متحده ی آمریکا رخ می دهد. نام این سرزمین "گلید"، از روی نام شهری از کتاب مقدس گرفته شده است، محور اصلی قصه بر روی "انسان- ترسی" بنا گذاشته شده، سرزمینی که هر حرف و حرکت انسان زیر ذره بین رژیم است، یک "جمهوری" که در آن زن ها از حق "خواندن" محروم اند.
(less)

10 likes · like · see review

Apr 10, 2011 Stacey (prettybooks) rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: read-after-university, dystopian-or-post-apocalyptic, classics, read-in-my-twenties, adult-fiction

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 pollution, w...more

10 likes · like · see review

Dec 10, 2007 Brian rated it 2 of 5 stars

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 th...more

33 likes · like · see review

Sep 15, 2010 Paquita Maria Sanchez rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: literature

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

62 likes · like · see review

Apr 03, 2011 K.D. Oliveros rated it 4 of 5 stars

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...more 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 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)

29 likes · like · see review

Jun 25, 2008 Dalton Hirshorn rated it 4 of 5 stars

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...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)

45 likes · like · see review

Dec 03, 2007 Summer rated it 5 of 5 stars

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 of graduati...more

25 likes · like · see review

May 20, 2013 Shruti rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: favorites, grand-dames

I should have written this long ago but then how do you, in all earnestness (or whatever earnestness one can dredge up online), write about something that makes you feel so tethered, raw and anemic.

So I waited. For the grip to loosen. For the anemia to be countered by drinking from the Grail of Distance and Banality. Now I am ruddy enough to write.

So this book is about *Insert a paraphrasing of the blurb.*

Offred. Of-Fred. Not her own. A prisoner of her un-name.

Why do we need names, not others’,...more I should have written this long ago but then how do you, in all earnestness (or whatever earnestness one can dredge up online), write about something that makes you feel so tethered, raw and anemic.

So I waited. For the grip to loosen. For the anemia to be countered by drinking from the Grail of Distance and Banality. Now I am ruddy enough to write.

So this book is about *Insert a paraphrasing of the blurb.*

Offred. Of-Fred. Not her own. A prisoner of her un-name.

Why do we need names, not others’, our own? To stick them to things, thoughts, people. “I” does not make sense to us unless it ricochets back towards us from something that is not “I”. Unless it becomes a different, stickier sound. A NAME. And then if you lose this sound? There are no ricochets. No sense in your “I”.

I have read people saying that this is just another feminist story. In that the protagonist is female and the antagonist is male? That’s oversimplification. The protagonist is a way of life, and the antagonist is that which kills it. This is a story of imprisonment. Not of women. But of minds. Human minds. The men whose names these women take, to whom they “belong”. They are prisoners too. They would have to be.

An imprisoned mind. Atwood writes this so well, I almost swooned. The very tone of Offred’s narration screams her need for air, for cerebral and emotional nourishment, for human connection. She often speaks in obscure anachronisms dug up from the recesses of her mind. Because there is nowhere else to go. No new mind to pick. No new lock to pick.

I wish I were the type of person who makes notes. I wish I were the type of person who manages to protect her notes from their inevitable binary crypts. But I am not. I cannot add quotes to this to bolster the point I made here. I remember just one:

But no matter what I do, sitting here in the dark, with the searchlights illuminating the oblong of my window, from outside, through the curtains gauzy as a bridal dress, as ectoplasm, one of my hands holding the other, rocking back and forth a little, no matter what I do there's something hilarious about it.

I remember this because I over-analyzed the “ectoplasm” here. Offred in her earlier life, had nothing to do with cellular biology. So this is one of those things she dredged up. It is definitely obscure for her. Hmmmm. I think I should have left this part out.

Summing up: This BOOK. THIS book. THIS BOOK.

(less)

11 likes · like · see review

Mar 04, 2012 Lisa rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: dystopian-post-apocalyptic

In Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, the United States, in reaction to Islamic terrorist attacks and reduced fertility rates, has devolved into an intolerant Christian-based religious society where women are stripped of their freedom and defined by their sole purpose as either a wife (Wife), womb (Handmaid), servant (Martha), prostitute (Jezebel), or propagandists (Aunt). Those who refuse these roles are stripped of the title of woman, being referred to as unwomen, and sent to colonies to d...more

30 likes · like · see review

Dec 18, 2011 Traveller rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: anthroplogy-world_paradigm, reviewed, urban-fantasy, speculative, sf-fantasy, sociology-politics-philosophy-world

I was originally going to give it only 3, since her style didn't really shine for me, and the whole world that Atwood paints is revealed only in bits and pieces and therefore seems to contain a few holes while one is still busy reading.

However, a lot of loose ends are only tied up at the very end, which then requires one to "ruminate" a bit on what you had read before making an assessment of it.
I finished the book a while ago, and in retrospect, I think it's worth at least a 4 if not just for th...more

15 likes · like · see review

Mar 19, 2008 Amanda rated it 4 of 5 stars

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.
Another c...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)

14 likes · like · see review

Feb 05, 2013 Jenn(ifer) rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: female-authors, read-in-2013

What can I say? I'm not particularly inspired by this book. I “liked” it. It wasn’t great; it wasn’t revolutionary, but it was decent. I’m not sure what it would take to really WOW me at this point. Does a book have to be a work of art in order for me to love it? In a word, yes. I guess it does.

But there was nothing wrong with this book. It’s like a Mad Men marathon on tv when you’re sick in bed. Or like a radio station that plays 3 songs back to back to back that you don’t hate, without any cha...more

32 likes · like · see review

Apr 23, 2009 Martine rated it 4 of 5 stars · 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...more The scariest thing about Atwood's dystopian fantasy, first published in 1985, is how prophetic it seems. There were references in the book which sent a chill of recognition down my spine. A right-wing government which blames Islamic fundamentalists for terrorist attacks and begins to suspend certain human rights, claiming it is doing so to protect the people from heathen bastards? I daresay it will sound familiar to any left-wing American who has ever looked with a wary eye at the country's increasingly influential religious right. Nuclear disasters which affect health and fertility? I know some Ukrainian women who could tell a few nasty stories about that. And of course the suppression of women which is the main subject of The Handmaid's Tale is only too real in places like Iran and Afghanistan, where many women are probably worse off than Atwood's protagonist, Offred.

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

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

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

(less)

41 likes · like · see review

Dec 20, 2010 Zeek rated it 2 of 5 stars

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 don't mind f...more 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 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)

16 likes · like · see review

Nov 17, 2010 Mon rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: i-am-woman-hear-me-roar

A lot of reviews on GR seem to dismiss the novel in terms of its predictability, unoriginality (in terms of breaking new grounds in feminist literature) and implausible premise. Personally, it is strange to think of literary criticism as a mere comparative study of its particular genre. For course, my appreciation for other similar 1984-ish dystopian novel is paramount to my experience of the novel. However, is it inferior to be 'moved' by a piece of work sensually rather than logically? One of...more

9 likes · like · see review

Nov 11, 2010 Tatiana rated it 5 of 5 stars 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...more 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 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)

60 likes · like · see review

Jan 15, 2013 Cecily rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: sci-fi-or-futuristic, dystopian, american-canadian

I read this many years ago and gave it 4 stars. I've just reread it for my Goodreads bookgroup's February read and upgraded it to 5 stars.

A wonderful hybrid: a book that is eminently readable, but packed with fascinating and thought-provoking ideas and symbolism.

It's set in the near future in a dystopian totalitarian theocratic state where pollution has rendered many infertile, so there has been a backlash against permissiveness and women are subjugated to the point where they are not even allow...more

23 likes · like · see review

Mar 08, 2012 Madeleine rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: head-in-the-clouds-nose-in-a-book, mmxii, our-libeary, maybe-it-s-time-to-live

I'm really at a loss regarding how to approach this review. There was so much going on in the plot, the storytelling, the writing, the editing-stage polish and the way everything's framed that I don't know where to start (not that being overwhelmed by a reading experience's array of awesome is ever a problem). What I CAN say for sure is that every inch of my inner English major was thrilled by the book's treasure trove of masterfully handled literary devices while the rest of me was downright ho...more

7 likes · like · see review

Jun 20, 2008 Mrs. Miska rated it 5 of 5 stars

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...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)

20 likes · like · see review

Aug 15, 2008 Stephen Gallup rated it 1 of 5 stars

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...more 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 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)

30 likes · like · see review

May 08, 2008 Stacey rated it 2 of 5 stars 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.

16 likes · like · see review

Jun 12, 2007 Sammy rated it 5 of 5 stars

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 lot of femin...more

17 likes · like · see review

title link	preview: The Handmaid's Tale
avg rating	preview: The Handmaid's Tale Goodreads rating: 3.97 (251142 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://d.gr-assets.com/books/1294702760l/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 (113)

Videos About This Book

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

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