Richard - on page 183 in my edition Atwood writes: "It was after the catastrophe, when they shot the President and machine-gunned the Congress and the army declared a state of emergency. They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics, at the time. /.../ That was when they suspended the Constitution."
Yes, that it's an inside job is my speculation but the Islamic terrorists/fanatics are mentioned in the book. And the referral to a "they" who suspended the Constitution makes me think that it was planned by someone who was tired of the way life was at that moment - and Offred's commander makes me think this even more when he talks about how it was and that it's better now.

Sometimes I think the need to end "happy" or at least on a hopeful note is sometimes a sort of cop out. I just did not feel that the Historical Notes really added to the story. And most dystopia's never really explain how the world turned out in the way that it did. In 1984 it is never laid out how things got to be that way.

I liked how it ended with the historical notes, just because we needed to know that things would get better. At least I did. i liked the referrence to "May Day" it gave that hope that she wasn't going to be hanging off the wall.

I just started Stolen Innocence. It does actually give a totaly different perspective.

I was wondeirng what did people think of the very end? That last few pages where appernetly they no longer live according to this system and talk about how they came across this Handmaid's Tale. I was somewhat put off by it. I thought it should have just ended with Offred being taken away and it being ambigouous what really happend to her and what the future would hold.

It seemed Atwood made an effort to give this a more hopefull end than is in the tradidtion of usual distopia with a future that has changed from the oppressive system, though we do not know much about what this new world holds.

I have not read 1984 yet, but plan to read it soon. I did like this book a lot. It made me think about the slippery slope that can be found with some of our current privacy laws and safety laws - how much control should government/ruling class have over the individuals. I think the part of the book i keep coming back to is when Offred met with the Japanese(?) tourists who wanted to take her picture. It made me realize that we do the same with some of today's cultures - the amish or mormons, for example. We treat them like objects on display, rather than simply people living under a different set of values and norms.

;o)

Ha - well, at least we both have one person agreeing with us, Lorena!

Christina wrote: "...That the narrator doesn't know anymore about it, I think, is because the new people in charge tried to keep people in the dark as much as possible"

Ha! Christina we were writting the same thing in different words ... he he he ... it just took me a little longer to post. ;o)

I have a friend that had the same objections to Blindness, by José Saramago the emphasis on the human factor rather than the sanctioned story can be distracting and a deterrent for some, and in some instances the lack of background is indeed a turn off for myself; however, in the case in point it didn't bother me because I took it as a lack of information on the main character's part, which it made it all the more real for me, how many times are we not in a situation where the people in power make choices that affect us all but we have no substancial information on the real motives, sometimes for decades-sometimes I'm sure we never really get to know. The motives for wars in the eyes of soldiers, the motives for economic embargos to other countries in the eyes of merchants, etc.

This is what is so great about art, about the written word, the beauty of sites like this and the grace of literary freedom. We can all read the same book and while some will love it, some will hate it, and some even will remain unaffected.

I too found this book very relevant - even more so after recently reading Stolen Innocence.
Richard, the world came to be this way because the president and the entire congress was gunned down - presumably by islamic terrorists. People got scared because of this and accepted that they lost more and more rights - because they believed it when they were told it was necessary... That the narrator doesn't know anymore about it, I think, is because the new people in charge tried to keep people in the dark as much as possible. Especially because I believe it to be an inside job so of course they wanted to keep it under cover.
One of the things I found very curious when reading this book was the epilogue/post script where academians discussed the tale and wheter it was true or not. This added some extra flavour for me - although I'm not quite sure what to do with it in terms of dealing with the book ...

Richard, in my review I mentioned that I was particularly touched by the chapters that relate to the way the changes were introduced into her life. I was very taken by the scene where she goes to the store and discovers that her bank card is no longer valid, or the other paragraph where she is told she can no longer smoke. Even more during her flashbacks where her daughter and partner are taken. I don't remember exactly in which pages these situations happen, but would love to look it up for you.

I was not living in New York in the 60's ... and actually it would be a whole decade before I was even born, so I don't know what it was like for people, or their "movements" or affiliations and how it might affect someone to like or dislike a book. I do know that I liked the book, it seemed relevant to the situation in so many countries today, Iran, some parts of Afghanistan, some countries in Africa ... that is what I thought of while reading, their wardrobe was reminescent of Burqas (burkha or burqua, depending of the color and degree of covertness), and their rules very much like Fundamentalist decrees.

I did not find the book to be that irrelevent becasue distopia's are not about the present world but about the posibbiblity of a future world and particuarly with the talks about outlawing abortion in the book. I could very well see the Conservitive Christains wanting to create a simillar world to that in the book if they were given the power to do so. I mean if they have thier way on abortion, once one right is taken away...what will be the next right to go? And wanting to ban books is something that still goes on today.

I just have to say that I am glad our world is not like this. I felt for all the women as I would not be able to tolerate a world where I wouldn't be able to read. But when I look at the big picture it really was a world for the "Man" in charge. The other men where little nobody's. They basically had no rights and seemed like they were not allowed to have a relationship. Granted, this is mainly from the Handmaids side but all the women were treated so poorly.

It's almost like some overpowering person like Hitler took over. It brings a lot of issues out but mainly focused on one-treatment of women. But the underlying environmental issues, this is big we are using too many of our natural resources and as a society as a whole have caused pollution some toxins so bad that they are causing severe and crippling illness.

Over all I enjoyed the book. IT was a good read. It was hard to hate most of the characters because the new society was so hateful.

At the time it was written it was meant to be creepy and unspeakable. Unthinkable. I think it was making a statment. Not in the class of 1984, nor, I think was it meant to be. I believe it said a lot about the station and subjucation of many women. They were calculated coldly as to their value and purpose. Sub human. It has been many many years and I need to read it again to refresh my memory. I still think it an important book. Sandra

I just finnished the book and I really enjoyed it. Like any good distopia it had the frightening factor of being able to imagine that could indeed really happen. That it is not as far from the truth as one might at first wish to think but the potential is always there.

One of the things I enjoyed about this book is the way in which on one hand it might be easy to find fault and dislike with all the charactors for varrious reasons. It would be easy to hate the Commandor, or the Wife, or even the Narrator of the story, she annoyed me at times. Yet in thier own way they are all victims. Even those that were put in charge are still part of this system and everyone has lost of sacrificed something. Though the Commander tries to justify it when he speaks of Offred. I think that is just what it is, a justification but in all the paraphernalia of the past he keeps shows that even he is not fully comitted to this new world.

I also found it interesting that how on the one hand it is terrible what is happening, and I feel sorry for the women in general and think it is awuful what they had to go through and how they had to live, Atwood did not make the narrator of the story a completely symmpathectic character. While she was a vicitim and did not deserve what happend to her, she also was not innocent. I thought it was interesting how it came out that her relationship with Luke was the restult of an affair I think it does change the readers opinion and view of her.

I remember when this book came out in the 80s, and it caused a stir. Most male readers didn't like it and gave it low marks. Females like Phyliss Schlafly gave it low marks. Atwood did do one thing and that was to raise the consciousness level of a lot of women. Soon after its publication it seems more attention was given to women and their roles in such
societies where they had to dress like the men told them, and were held in bondage almost. Some, even in
America, were discouraged and prevented from working outside the home, therefore, they did not have their own money. They were like kitchen slaves, and even though they went into these arrangements agreeably and starry-eyed, it later took on new meaning and became boring or prison-like. THE HANDMAID'S TALE
is scheduled for my book club in Raleigh in April or
May, but I hope to have it re-read (been a long time)
by March 31 so I can join in your lively discussion.

I read this not long ago and this was the review I posted here on GR ...

While reading this book I could not but to draw parallels with the current situation in so many countries where the rights of women are near to non-existent. While reading the chapters that tells us how the changes came to be and how women were stripped of their most essential rights with the excuse of protecting them from the evils of the un-educated male population I remember vividly how a friend of mine who’s an immigrant of Iran told me very similar stories about the “Iranian Revolution” and how from being a country where life was good, their lives became unbearable, ultimately resulting in her family fleeing to the States. When you hear about wearing the Burqa, -which became law and not an option- as well as having a male companion at all times while going outside, the redistribution of wealth leaving women destitute, the cancellation of drivers licenses etc, Atwood’s world all of the sudden doesn’t seem as fictional anymore.

There are so many places in the book that made me think of the Fundamental Christians as well, with the women who dress very much the same, the compounds, the multiple wives … there was a passage where our “heroine” talks about an encounter with tourist who asked them if they are happy and she conveys to us the readers her feelings about the need to self denial in order to preserve, to keep your sanity, to survive.

This was my first Atwood and I truly enjoyed it. More than a dystopian fictional society I think it was perhaps her reflections on the changes that were taking place at the time around her.

I just finished the book this evening. I found it less Orwellian and more like Ayn Rand's books. I found the writing confusing at times because she kept saying that she had told what hse would have liked to happen, not what really did. The women were subjugated into serving a role, however, the men, at least those of a certain status, were able to follow "nature" in finding someone that the desire, as at the Jezebel Club. In this book, I felt that it would almost be better to belong to some of the lower classes, as they did not have the pretense that the higher classes did. The handmaid's job, overall was a little creepy. Having sex with a man while his wife holds your hands...giving birth while pretending the wife was instead. It was just a little too weird.

I would really hate to live the way these women live.

I am not done yet either. I like it. Hope to finish it this weekend.

I am not yet finnished with this book but I personally really enjoy Atwood's writing. But everyone has thier own personal tastes.

Richard wrote: "finished it this afternoon on the bus-more out of a sense of obligation than interest since it is the first club selection i have read-even though it was only 311 pages it was a struggle to stay aw..
I agree completely. I am glad that someone voiced what i was afraid to say since in many reading circles Atwood is verging on being saintly. As you promptly noticed: Atwood is no Orwell.

I actually do not like Atwood at all. I'll wait for the next month's read :-)

Silver the discussion is ongoing! So please feel free to join in at anytime!

I want to read this book. I will see if I can get it done in time for this discussion.

I'll see if I can get this from the library in time.

I am going to start it tonight!

I read this book a few years ago and it is also one of my favorites.

This book is one of my favorites! I think I might have to re-read it, I haven't read it since high school.

Here are some questions to think about when reading and ready to discuss this book:
1. The novel begins with three epigraphs. What are their functions?

2. In Gilead, women are categorized as wives, handmaids, Marthas, or Aunts, but Moira refuses to fit into a niche. Offred says she was like an elevator with open sides who made them dizzy, she was their fantasy. Trace Moira's role throughout the tale to determine what she symbolizes.

3. Aunt Lydia, Janine, and Offred's mother also represent more than themselves. What do each of their characters connote? What do the style and color of their clothes symbolize?

4. At one level, The Handmaid's Tale is about the writing process. Atwood cleverly weaves this sub-plot into a major focus with remarks by Offred such as "Context is all," and "I've filled it out for her...," "I made that up," and "I wish this story were different." Does Offred's habit of talking about the process of storytelling make it easier or more difficult for you to suspend disbelief?

5. A palimpsest is a medieval parchment that scribes attempted to scrape clean and use again, though they were unable to obliterate all traces of the original. How does the new republic of Gilead's social order often resemble a palimpsest?.

6. The commander in the novel says you can't cheat nature. How do characters find ways to follow their natural instinct?

7. Why is the Bible under lock and key in Gilead?

8. Babies are referred to as "a keeper," "unbabies," "shredders." What other real or fictional worlds do these terms suggest?

9. Atwood's title brings to mind titles from Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. Why might Atwood have wanted you to make that connection?

10. What do you feel the historical notes at the book's end add to the reading of this novel? What does the book's last line mean to you?