I haven't read anything else by her, and even though I liked this one, none of the others appeal to me much.

I enjoyed Alias Grace but it was pretty much a well writtin formula book. A historical reconstruction of a crime. Not near as creative as the fables like Handmade, Orax or Blind Assasian.

I have to agree and disagree with Atwood's Speculative fiction. The term is beginning to be used as the catagory with sub genres below it. These inculde dystopic fiction which this falls into. Scinec fiction is the term for scinece based stories. Speculative fiction is possibly the newest genre starting in the 50s. Mysteries got thier start with Murder in the Rue Morge. Now mystery has many sub genres.

Alias Grace is one of my favorites by her. Check it out. I have to admit that it impressed me much more than Handmaid's Tale.

Has anyone read any other books by Margaret Atwood?
This was my first book by her, and it has made me very interested in her writing style. I've looked through listings for some of her other books and I think Oryx and Crake looks very interesting, as well as her new book The Year of the Flood. Has anyone read either of these, or do you have any other books by her you would recommend?

The more I think about it I do like the ending of the book, because it seems like society has "fixed" itself in the end, and they are reading the book left by Offred to learn about what life had been like, but life was no longer like that. So somehow, the women did revolt, and society was better.

Ally wrote: I still don't quite know what to make of it all. maybe it requires a bit of background reading. The treatment of women in the middle east maybe? or more Christian biblical teaching perhaps? - this book has left me with a lot of 'Why' questions!!!

I think what they were going for was this romanticized ideal of Victorian or Puritan attitudes. The room where they all sat (I can't remember what it was called but Serena Joy was there and there was a lot of description about the room) was very formal. I felt as though they were mimicking something they believed was the ideal domestic sphere without actually knowing what it was they were imitating.

yes - I agree - although the reliability of a first person narrator is always questionable, in this book the story is very much linked to how the new regime affected the individuals within it. The narrator Offred was therefore the most reliable source for her own story.

Offred seemed to understand Moira very well and therefore represented her very well - I believed in Moira's character and the portion of Moira's 'own words' near the end of the story was sufficiently different in tone to make it believable.

Those characters Offred knew little of or that she could not identify with (i.e. the aunts, the commander, serena joy) were left unrounded - which is as it would have been if the story were real. - We can't know everyone in depth - we only see the outward facing bits of other people - the scenes where she walked with the shopping partner(s) Ofglen demonstrated this well.

Overall I think the narration was inspired and added to the impact and immediacy of the story.

In response to your earlier questions, I do think that Offred was as a reliable narrator as any other person could have been. The truth in this story is different for every character, but Offred has to be one of the more pathetic and endearing. For example, Moira's telling would have been harder for me to absorb just because of her personality.

I don't know how I feel about the ending. At first I thought it was optimistic, but I thought more about it, and decided it was very likely a sad untold ending.

I like your romantic ending scenario for the book Ally! :o)

And I agree that this book is definately on that leaves a person with alot of why questions. It really is one of those books that you end up thinking about afterwards, instead of just putting it down and going "nice story" and then forgetting about it.

Anyone else have any comments on the book at all?

Well - I've just finished.

I've been reading some of the reviews on goodreads which relate this story to the political climate we live in today, in particular with the fundamentalism of Afghanistan and Iran and the treatment of women in some modern day societies.

However - this was not in the forefront of my mind as I was reading. - I can't say exactly what was but it wasn't about philosophy or higher ideals. - I think my reaction was more about identification - putting myself in Offreds shoes and walking around in them - trying her world on for size. - I stick by my morbid fascination statement. It would be terrifying to have my rights removed in this way but at the same time I do still want a return to some traditional values. - The problem is that now I don't know where to draw the line!!

OK - the 'Historical Notes' section - I didn't like this as an ending - might have been better as a prologue. - I like that Atwood left the ending open and as I'm a hopeless romantic I'm plumping for 'she escaped to England, gave birth to Nick's child, he joined her later and they all lived happily ever after thank you very much!'

I still don't quite know what to make of it all. maybe it requires a bit of background reading. The treatment of women in the middle east maybe? or more Christian biblical teaching perhaps? - this book has left me with a lot of 'Why' questions!!!

Ally

Here are a few more questions:

Several times Offred admits that the story she is telling is a reconstruction and not always an accurate one at that. Do think that Offred is a reliable narrator? Is her account a valid representation of what is happening within her society?

Is the ending of the story, “the historical notes” section, an optimistic or pessimistic ending? What do you think happened to Offred?

Morbid facination. Exactly Ally!
I like your comments about women who stay home too. I'm a stay at home mom. I love being a stay at home mom. But would I still love it if I didn't have the choice? I don't think so. I wouldn't like not having a choice.

Which makes me think of another questions.
What do you all think about how the women in this story reacted to what was happening to them? Why didn't the handmaids fight more? It seemed like they just gave up, gave in, and mostly accepted their fate. These were women who were independent women with lives before this occured.
Would you be so willing to just submit to what was happening? Was it just a survival instinct?

I'm about 2/3 of the way through and I'm really loving this book...maybe 'loving' is the wrong word - its probably more about morbid fascination.

I'm wondering about the gender thing - we're reading this as women and are identifying with the women in this story on that basis. I wonder how men who read this book react???

I'm also questionning my beliefs to a certain extent, which I'm sure Atwood wants and expects - are others doing that?

I'm an independent woman, I own my own home, I don't rely on anyone (except perhaps my parents) etc etc but I never really considered myself a feminist. My fundamental beliefs are in the traditional set up of hearth and home and if I'm lucky enough to marry and have children I'd want to be a stay-at-home mum. It worries me that the modern ecomony is based on both parents being workers - you need two wages to run a home. I've always thought that a womans place is in the home to a certain extent, that our evolution naturally tends us to a certain role in life. For example in my job as a manager I'm more inclined to the people aspect of the role than my male colleagues, who seem to be much more task focussed.

I'm now starting to question that fundamental belief of mine - its been generated in me through my own experiences of life so far - my mother stayed at home. BUT - what if it wasn't a choice? - would I still hold the certainty of my opinion? - I'm not so sure now that I'm reading Atwood's book.

Anyway - I'm off to read a little more. I'll be back to make more comments when I'm finished.

Ally

Sheila wrote: "...the women who were there acting as prostitutes seemed to have so many more rights and freedoms than the wives and the handmaids."

I totally agree with you there. That was what I was thinking of when I wrote the question.

I just finished the book last night. What a dramatic ending! This book really captured my attention, very unique writing style. I agree with Sheila, the whole story was very sad and frightening!

Good questions Brittany. Let's see.
Most sad: For me the whole book was pretty sad, to see what these women, who had been normal women like us, had lost. Their entire identity was gone. They became just the name of the man they were given to, like Offred, was Of Fred. They didn't even get to keep their names.
Angry: The scenes where women were killed for their supposed crimes made me angry, when the other women had to be there to watch.
Ironic: Hmm, I'm not good on things ironic. Maybe the part where the commander snuck her into that event, where she got to see her friend again, and where the women who were there acting as prostitutes seemed to have so many more rights and freedoms than the wives and the handmaids.

Okay, I have a few discussion questions:

What part of the story do you think was the most sad? What made you angry? Was there anything you found ironic?

I just am annoyed because none of the backstory was told... just now and flashbacks to then and nothing about how it happened. The only thing I recall was a reference to women not having money- that it was the first step, and she was upset when they froze her account.

Hi Brittany,
In the book it was all told in flashbacks too. And I'm just pulling these questions off a webpage I found for discussing the book. :o)

So please feel free to ask any questions or start throw out any topics on this book. Anything you got out of it. :o)

Adrienne, I love the fact that your husband thought you were losing your mind to read a book he was MADE to read in school. LOL

Personally, I really loved this book. It was very thought provoking, and I could actually imagine events like this happening. In fact, events similar to this may already occur in more conservative/extremist cultures and countries where women do not have the same standing in society as men. Thoughts?

Lovely. Missed that, too. In the audiobook I used, everything has already been done, and anything prior to the RofG is in flashbacks. Very little information about the massacre and transition was communitcated through it.

New Questions:

4. Is the build up to the formation of the Republic of Gilead believable? Do the event’s that precede its rise, the massacre of the President and Congress, seem possible?

5. Given the political climate in the 1980’s (when the book) was written, do you think an uprising such as the Republic of Gilead would be more likely to happen now than it seemed likely then?

The biblical quote sets the scene and forms the reason for Gilead's Handmaid system.

Speculative Fiction is a perfect description. Who better than the author herself to define it. :)

I loved this book. It had been a long time since I read anything with a futuristic tone to it (Orwell's 1984, etc.) and this was one I would definitely add to those favorite classics.

No, the version of the book I listened to did not open with any of that. Seeing the CliffNotes for the 3 epigraphs, I understand better how they fit in with the story. The story of Jacob and Rachel is the only one I was familiar with, and I think the fact that the Handmaids in the book literally bear children upon the knees of the wives because of the excerpt from Genesis is a prime example of the theme of taking religous causes to the extreme.

I completely agree with Atwood that the term Science Fiction is not the most appropraite for this story. Speculative is perfect. As absurd as the storyline seems to us, I don't think the underlying issues are too far removed from other societies and cultures today. Fortunately, we have not had to experience such a lifestyle.

I really liked the story overall, but none of her other works appeal to me on synopsis alone. I do want to actually read it sometime, since I feel like I didn't absorb everything with the audiobook.

my husband saw Handmaid at the top of my pile of books today and jokingly says, "Margaret Atwood! are you losing your mind? they MADE us read that book in school!"

i don't know what he is talking about. i've only read the first chapter and i'm hooked. haha

Thanks, Sheila! That actually helps clarify those epigraphs.

Nadia, I wasn't really sure what to make of the quotes at the beginning of the book. But while I was searching on the internet for discussion questions for this book, I did come across the CliffsNotes for the book, and this is what "Cliff" said about the three quotes:
***

The first, from Genesis 30:1-3, cites the crux of the scriptural love story of Jacob and Rachel. Having promised to work seven years in exchange for marriage to his uncle Laban's daughter Rachel, Jacob is tricked into marrying the elder daughter, Leah, who bears him two sons. In her jealousy and self-abasement, Rachel, Jacob's second and most beloved wife, insists that he bed her handmaid, Bilhah, who also bears two sons. This biblical event forms the justification for twentieth-century Gilead's Handmaid system as well as a prophecy: women who fail to conceive are devalued.

The second epigraph comes near the end of "A Modest Proposal Jonathan Swift's caustically satiric essay, published in 1729. Swift s incredibly objective speaker proposes the raising of children for sale as a food and commodity item in order to alleviate the poverty of poor families who produce more infants than they can afford to rear. The controlled, sincere tone of the unnamed proposer of this mad scheme parallels the earnest fanaticism of Atwood's Gilead.

The final epigraph, taken from an Islamic proverb, suggests that there need be no laws against the obvious. Because people were not meant to eat stones, a traveler in the desert would not expect to see a prohibition against such a meal.

Snodgrass, Mary Ellen. CliffsNotes on The Handmaid's Tale. 2 Nov 2009
<http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-122.html>
**
For anyone interested in reading the online CliffsNotes for this book, here is the link:

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitN...

Hiya Sheila! Thanks for getting this discussion started. Love your questions!

1. Well, if I look at each quote separately, I get that in the first one Jacob is mad because he cannot help Rachel produce "fruit of the womb"; the second one deals with Swift's satirical essay about eating babies; and the third is ridiculous because it states that people can eat stones but won't (why would they?). So, when I look at all three, they are concerned with food/eating/filling(maybe fulfilling/controlled eating? Its got to be a metaphor for the controlled manner in which women are subjected to producing children in this book. I guess they offer insight into the rigidity of the dystopian society Atwood has created (fantasy fiction?). I don't know, just some random thoughts on that one. What did you think the quotes offered?

2. I completely agree with Sarah's answer to this question. I love the label 'speculative fiction', because that is precisely what this book is. It provides us with an idea of how the future could possibly look (and perhaps does already look like in some cultures, but not this extreme?). Its like taking ideas that have been bandied about a bit and sort of developed, but really shaping them and taking them to one extreme. Love it! Definitely a valid distinction between science fiction and speculative fiction.

3. I did enjoy this book, a lot! Definitely a good book for discussion and food for thought.

Thanks for getting the discussion going, Sheila!

This book is very eery to me. I'm only on page 87, but I don't really see this book as Science Fiction. I like the term Speculative Fiction. The author has created a surreal world where women (and men) have completely lost their rights as individuals.

The writing takes a bit getting used to for me, but I am enjoying trying out something completely different. I haven't read a story like this one before! The transition from the past to present is a bit confusing, the past seems like a dream, as I think the author means for it to be.

Sheila,

In response to your second question, I think that Atwood's preference for the term "Speculative Fiction" in reference to this book is entirely valid. My reason for this being that the genre of science fiction generally refers to writings that are futuristic and, in many cases, based on fantasy. Although The Handmaid's Tale is based on a fictional society, the concept of a patriarchal society where women's primary purpose is to procreate, is not a foreign idea. I think Atwood prefers the term "speculative fiction" because it gives us a glimpse of what could happen in our own society were it to fall into the wrong hands.

In response to your third question - yes, I liked this book very much. Not at first, but I am so glad I didn't put it aside because it was one of the more thought-provoking books I read this year.

Brittany, they didn't read those quotes at the start on the audiobook? Well, that's okay. Doesn't seem like anyone like this questions anyway. :o)

Here's another one:

2.In at least one interview, Margaret Atwood has denied that The Handmaid’s Tale is a work of Science Fiction. Instead, she prefers the term Speculative Fiction. Do you think that is a valid distinction? Is this book a work of Science Fiction or not?

And if you don't like that questions either, how about this one:

3. Are you enjoying (or did you enjoy) the book so far, or not? :o)

man, i knew i missed so much by listening to the audiobook!

Since a bunch of us decided to discuss The Handmaid's Tale for November, but there was nobody assigned to "lead" I thought I'd get a discussion started, but I encourage everyone to feel free to add their own questions. I found some discussion group questions for this book online, so I'll start with one of them. :o)

1. The book starts with 3 epigraphs:
- Genesis 30: 1-3: And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister, and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die. And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb? And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her, and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her.

- a quote from "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift: But as to myself, having been wearied out for many years, with offering vain, idle, visionary thought, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal..

- a Sufi proverb: In the desert there is no sign that says, Thou shalt not eat stones.

What purpose do these three quotes serve?