Two things:

Hit us with your first impressions right here.

And is anyone interested in being the discussion leader?

I re-read this book every few years since high school (1988??? or so). Also own the movie. Eagerly awaiting this discussion.

I could be a discussion leader if you tell me what I need to do.

We'd love to have you as the leader, Mawgojzeta.

I'm looking forward to an intelligent discussion of this book as well.

I've read the book at least 7 or 8 times since finding it in college (1988 or so = ), and I own two copies - a 'keeper' and a 'loaner' that I don't mind losing. I've recommended/loaned out the book countless times.

My number one impression, and why the book probably had such an impact on me is that I could see it happening in my lifetime. Not that it will definitely happen, but definitely could see it...

Looking forward to the discussion Mawgojzeta!

Carolyn: I felt that way when I first read the book. It blew me away and scared me quite a bit. I was 16, not politically aware, more interested in music and poetry than current events, no experience with sociology, and raised by a bunch of raging liberals who saw the future marching forward a world quite different than the one this book creates. This is the book I credit with inspiring me to become more aware and more active in what is going on around me.

I finished the book last week and really liked it I find it hard to comment on it, or put in words my impressions, I am out of words. I found it creepy and disgusting at some times. I hated almost everbody in the book. I loved the end.

I too own two copies of this book. I have even taught it my writing class. My students loved it. It is a powerful novel because you can see it happening.

I agree with what everyone has said thus far. I have also re-read it several times and what still scares me is that nothing in our world has changed enough for me to stop thinking that this could happen in my lifetime.

Do you think the "it could happen" feeling is the reason that Margaret Atwood adamantly refused to call this book science fiction? As a teenager in Canada I saw/read a lot of interviews with her in which she decried the labeling of her book. I've always assumed it was anti-genre prejudice, but now she has written 3 books that could fit that category. My theory now is that she didn't want it dismissed as farfetched - she wanted it taken seriously.

Absolutely. I just looked the novel up on Wikipedia and read this (bolding mine):
<quote>In interviews and essays Atwood has discussed generic classification of both The Handmaid's Tale and Oryx and Crake as "science fiction" or "speculative fiction", observing: "I like to make a distinction between science fiction proper and speculative fiction. For me, the science fiction label belongs on books with things in them that we can't yet do, such as going through a wormhole in space to another universe; and speculative fiction means a work that employs the means already to hand, such as DNA identification and credit cards, and that takes place on Planet Earth. But the terms are fluid."[2:]

Langford observes parenthetically: "(…The Handmaid's Tale, won the very first Arthur C. Clarke award in 1987. She's been trying to live this down ever since.)" and goes on to point out: "Atwood prefers to say that she writes speculative fiction—a term coined by SF man Robert A. Heinlein. As she told the Guardian, 'Science fiction has monsters and spaceships; speculative fiction could really happen.'[2:] She used a subtly different phrasing for New Scientist, 'Oryx and Crake is not science fiction. It is fact within fiction. Science fiction is when you have rockets and chemicals.' So it was very cruel of New Scientist to describe this interview in the contents list as: 'Margaret Atwood explains why science is crucial to her science fiction.' … Play it again, Ms Atwood—this time for the Book-of-the-Month Club: "Oryx and Crake is a speculative fiction, not a science fiction proper. It contains no intergalactic space travel, no teleportation, no Martians." And one more time: on BBC1 Breakfast News the distinguished author explained that science fiction, as opposed to what she writes, is characterized by 'talking squids in outer space.' "[3:]

In distinguishing between these critical generic labels science fiction and speculative fiction, Atwood has observed that while others may be using the terms interchangeably, whether classified as "science fiction proper" or as "speculative fiction", her narratives give her the ability to explore themes in ways that "realistic fiction" cannot do.[2:]</quote>

Yep. That's the disdain I remember!

I loved this book, but I DON'T see it as probable in the slightest in my lifetime.

1. We have a workforce that is so integrated with both parents working that people wouldn't be able to survive on one income.
2. We are so used to instant messaging, online access, cellular service, and 24 news channels that the SECOND something happened to our government people would be questioning everything in sight.
3. We have a highly armed population. Armed revolt would be almost guaranteed, with a lot of our military and national guard against a group like Gilead.
4. We now have a generation entering the workforce that consider the women's movement to be ancient history. To them women have always been able to hold any job a man could, there was always anti-sexual discrimination policies in the workplace, women as supervisors, etc. Heck I was born in 1977 and to me its practically ancient history.
5. Our country is too large to assume that any group could take over all of it. A small section sure, but all? No way in heck. The size of force needed to organize to attempt a coup like this nationwide would have been raided by the FBI years before they had the numbers needed.
6. Other countries would not blindly sit by as this happened. A coup like this would destabilize the world market. Not only are we a major importer, but we also owe quite a few countries money. They would be offering all sorts of support to any kind of resistance to bring back a country that will pay those debts and continue to import their products.
7. Men would argue with the idea of handmaidens. Most men would be having "econowives", and anything that took away their existing wives & girlfriends (second marriage, etc) and reduced the number of available spouses would lead to revolt.

So while I find the book incredibly emotionally stirring, the odds of it happening in a country as advanced and heterogeneous as ours is nil.

Lara Amber

Lara Amber wrote: "I loved this book, but I DON'T see it as probable in the slightest in my lifetime.
... So while I find the book incredibly emotionally stirring, the odds of it happening in a country as advanced and heterogeneous as ours is nil.
"

Respectfully, I have to disagree Lara, here's why:

1. We have a workforce that is so integrated with both parents working that people wouldn't be able to survive on one income.
While there are still many SAHM families right now, the need for two incomes isn't really paramount in the story. In the Republic of Gilead (RoG), many children are removed from their parents and handed off to creche-type collective raising, or to upper-level couples who have the resources/status, but no children of their own. Many women are likewise removed from their family structure - if fertile they are 'reallocated' like Ofglen, if not, many are shipped to the wastelands to work until they die. So the majority of the society left is a lot of single men, many of whom are de-facto in the RoG's military and on the fighting lines (and being killed off that way.) The 'state' in the Republic is almost communist in that the state seizes ownership of everything (assets, labor, body & mind), provides everything to the 'worker' - with some getting more than others. A perfect example of this is what happened in Communist Russia.

2. We are so used to instant messaging, online access, cellular service, and 24 news channels that the SECOND something happened to our government people would be questioning everything in sight.
True, but can you say 'baaa-aa'? What I have seen here (when 9-11 happened, for example) is total chaos and a breakdown of higher function when something major happens that cuts those lines of constant communication. The majority of people panic, they respond to the first firm voice telling them what to do, who to blame, etc. Principles of democracy, etc. go out the window when people are called on to do something in the name of defending something integral to them - in the case of 9-11 we defend America/patriotism, for religious zealots, they defend what their god has told them to do, especially as it refers to 'family values'. Also, one good EMP will kill all those cell phones, etc.

3. We have a highly armed population. Armed revolt would be almost guaranteed, with a lot of our military and national guard against a group like Gilead.
It is true that we have a highly armed population - that is the source of my belief that a RoG-entity could take over an area of the continental U.S. and declare it 'theirs', draw a boundary and defend it. The people with the guns control the ones who don't have guns. And if they act quickly enough, they can consolidate their hold by arresting those who don't follow their 'thinkspeak' and confiscating their weapons.
We already have areas of the U.S. with very strong 'militias' who are anti-Federal government. They are our home-grown terrorists (see Oklahoma bombing for reference). In the briefings I've seen, our internal, armed 'militia' groups are the largest domestic threat to the United States as an entity.
Combine a network of those with a charismatic leader of one of the religious cult groups (see Waco, or the Yearning for Zion ranch for reference), and we could easily see a RoG here in part of the continental U.S.

4. We now have a generation entering the workforce that consider the women's movement to be ancient history. To them women have always been able to hold any job a man could, there was always anti-sexual discrimination policies in the workplace, women as supervisors, etc. Heck I was born in 1977 and to me its practically ancient history.
How I wish! Unfortunately, there are always those (regardless of age) who think that a return to the 'values' of yesteryear will fix all the ills of the country (poor people, homosexuals, pubescent sexuality, etc), totally ignoring the fact that all those things have always existed in this country, we just didn't have the information/media network to broadcast every little bit of it all over the place. A prime example is the election yesterday of a (R) governor who wrote in a thesis when he was 37 years old!!! (less than 20 years ago) that women should be in the home, and that women in the workforce is the major cause of the 'destabilization of American society.' Granted, he's a bit older than the group you are mentioning, but I was born in 1970 and I'm sorry to report that I know men *my* age who believe this as well. The religious colleges continue to churn out believers who take this as a basic tenet. Major talking-heads still propose this as a 'fix' for all our society's ills (and conversely lay the blame for all of them on working mothers.) Women are 'allowed' to work, in this view, until they conceive a child, then they should stay home and care for that child (and preferably breed more if they are white and christian). The Eagle Forum, the Heritage Foundation and others are prominent 'think tank' policy-influencing groups - they exist! Here's the abstract of a study cited on the Heritage Foundation sub-site http://www.FamilyFacts.org :"Young adults of more educated mothers tended to be more supportive of premarital sex and cohabitation and less supportive of a breadwinner-housewife model than peers of less educated mothers, controlling for fathers’ education." The corollary for that is a page out of the RoG playbook - do not educate the women!

5. Our country is too large to assume that any group could take over all of it. A small section sure, but all? No way in heck. The size of force needed to organize to attempt a coup like this nationwide would have been raided by the FBI years before they had the numbers needed.
IIRC (and I allow I might be wrong = ) the RoG has finite borders that it is fighting along, it isn't the entire continental U.S. I always read it as a coherent group takes over a significant area (say the 'flyover' portion of the country) and control what is within their borders. Besides fighting off guerrilla forces (yay for them!), they are also keeping their borders manned with their militia and conscripted armed forces.

6. Other countries would not blindly sit by as this happened. A coup like this would destabilize the world market. Not only are we a major importer, but we also owe quite a few countries money. They would be offering all sorts of support to any kind of resistance to bring back a country that will pay those debts and continue to import their products.
This is definitely a valid point, and perhaps this is the place where we find the support for the guerilla fighters, etc. Either way, it would not be an overnight thing, and I think we see only a small segment of time in the story of the handmaid's tale, which only covers a couple of years, at most.
I always loved the 'academic conference' type 'historical' comments at the beginning and end of the book, because they placed the RoG on a timeline that at least showed that it eventually ended. Any sort of interference by other nations would take significant time to organize and might not materialize much at all if the RoG managed to gain control of some of the ICBMs which would create a valid nuclear threat to those other countries. Economic debt can always be renegotiated, or even take some kinds of loss (as we're seeing world-wide right now), but a nuclear wasteland is [almost:] forever.

7. Men would argue with the idea of handmaidens. Most men would be having "econowives", and anything that took away their existing wives & girlfriends (second marriage, etc) and reduced the number of available spouses would lead to revolt.
True, but first you have to subtract all the 'righteous' religious zealots, then you have to subtract all the ones who are simply either conscripted into the military or are shipped off to the wastelands on 'cleanup duty', a sure death sentence. Meanwhile, all the old men with power in the new structure are keeping their wives, getting handmaidens, and as a bonus get access to the 'incorrigible' or expendable women sent as sexual slaves to brothels like Jezebels (was that the name?) Unfortunately, the carrot/stick does work in these situations. An artificially created society/culture where following the Supreme Leader's dictates gets you sexual access is not unknown (see Roman legionnaires, etc.) Finally, yes, there will be good decent men who know it is wrong, and they will either be conscripted, deported, executed, or escape to become guerrillas in the mountains.

Thankfully in HT, eventually the rebels win and the RoG is no more, but that does not preclude it from ever existing in the first place.

So, while I don't say it will definitely happen, we certainly have the makings of it here in the United States. Red states v blue states, anyone?

ETA: removed what might be a spoiler - sorry!

Carolyn,

You bring up some great points.

In response: I don't think comparisons to communist Russia work that well anymore. We are primarily a service based economy with a highly educated population instead of a manufacturing based economy. So people aren't interchangeable behind the plow.

I would point out in response to the "there are still people who believe women belong in the home" that while there may be a great deal of people who would like to return to "magical perfect time" the majority of power, education, and money in this country is in the hand of that "elite" they are always railing against. We live in a country where a majority of our OB-GYNs are now female. Taking women out of the workforce would remove a lot of our doctors, lawyers, power brokers, elected officials, civil servants, and financial experts. So any attempt to remove those women from power would meet with some backlash. (Especially the whole banking thing, there are a LOT of women in banking as managers and VPs.)

One would need a heck of a charismatic leader to pull off something this large. Waco, etc. were all small, and were put down by the government. There is no evidence that there is a charismatic leader in the book, just a bunch of interchangeable males (hints of communism).

I also argue against comparisons to the Patriot Act/post 9-11. The reason the Patriot Act got passed was it required so little of us. The second the government starts crossing the actual threshold of homes and ripping apart families, expect revolution. We're talking about taking away spouses, kids, sisters, daughters, etc. The second someone started spouting that nonsense, my dad would be calling every friend he has in the Navy command and CIA about resistance. I already have my license to carry concealed, and would continue to do so, no matter how they changed the law. With our large Catholic & Hispanic population, could you imagine the response to "we're taking away your daughters to hand them over to be sex surrogates". It would be open war. It's one thing to say "women belong in the home" but when it crosses into "and we get to make them have sex with whoever we want" now you're in enraged dad & brothers territory.

I just can't imagine the Republic of Gilead involving more then a few thousand people and probably less land then Rhode Island. We're a country that firmly believes in government stay off my lawn, individual freedom, religious freedom, marrying for love, and cherishing parenthood for both parents. Now if we lived in a country where we were taught from birth that the good of the state came before personal fulfillment, that we weren't valued as individuals, or if 90% of us believed a dogmatic religion with a clear religious leader, that would be different.

Lara Amber

We find it difficult to imagine under current parameters. But what happens if the economy tanks harshly (the next Great Depression) and jobs are scarce? What family is going to complain that the government institutes a one-member-only job guarantee? (Say, all male head of households are guaranteed a job so long as the females remain at home to care for the children?)

Fear changes the playing field. It doesn't take a whole lot to go from where we are now to undergoing our own Cultural Revolution.

I have to respectfully disagree with the premise of "this could not really happen here and now" with two historical examples.

One: Iran. Has anyone else read Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis 1 The Story of a Childhood? Do you know how fast the change of regime made it impossible for women to have jobs outside the home and to move around freely (and unveiled). It's pretty chilling! And it happened in my lifetime.

Two: Germany after WW1. One of my strongest memories of visiting the Washington DC Holocaust Museum 10-years ago was the archival video presentation showing newsreels of how the German population was devastated economically after WW1 and how the Nazi party rose to power by focusing the population's fear, anger, and frustration on the "Other". In that case, the Jews along with Gypsies, Handicapped, and Homosexuals. That happened pretty quick too. Just a years, (maybe 15? I'm guessing). And Hitler/the Nazis, and WW2 sure made a mess of our modern world with fallout still today.

Also, there are a few fairly insane seeming vocal political leaders around our world today that would like to touch off genocide in order to gain more power for themselves. That could happen easily, with just a few things going wrong. I'm sure we can all think of a few people we'd be scared to have in control of our lives.

;-) Hmmm.... I just noticed that (other than Brad) no 'obvious' men are participating in this discussion.

Interesting. Is this not a book that interests them? Or do women just feel more strongly about the plot?

Nothing wrong with that, btw... I'm not being
critical, just making an observation.

* * * * *

One other observation: Maybe one reason that "this couldn't happen here" is because so many of us HAVE read The Handmaid's Tale and HAVE had a huge reaction to it. Maybe the fact that she did write it made it less possible as a future scenario???

MB,

Your examples prove my point!

Iran: A homogeneous population. Almost everyone is Muslim, a highly regimented religion, and believe in following the directions of living holy men. In addition you have a country's history that includes several dynasties with strong caste systems and absolute rule. Contrast that to the United States, where you have a country that has promoted religious freedom and individual accomplishment over birthright since day one. Every voice counts since everyone can vote and hold office. Every religion is protected. It's a completely different mindset being passed down from generation to generation.

Germany after World War I: The German monarchy had just collapsed, creating a power vacuum. The country went from the absolute rule of the monarchy to a power struggle between multiple factions, including the communists, who were trying to continue the ideas of absolute rule and obedience. In the case of Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler was legally appointed to power and supported by many people in the beginning. The Republic of Gilead is presented as a terrorist coup, not a mandate by the people.

In both cases you're still talking about much smaller countries with mostly rural and uneducated populations and smaller educated urban elite populations with limited communication abilities across areas. In both cases you're talking about countries with a ongoing indoctrination over generations of the state being absolute and willed by God. Since Americans don't grow up believing that, we would have a harder time accepting a leader who attempted to tell us he or she was ruling by divine right. Nope, we're rude little people who think our opinions matter no matter what our station in life. That's what makes us so lovable and frustrating.

My degree is in sociology, which is why I'm looking so much at underlying factors in each country's makeup. Do I think something like the Handmaid's Tale could happen in modern times. Sure. But as it was written with it taking place in the United States? No. We don't have the right raw material.

Lara Amber

Hmmm... Lara, I think my thought was that the status quo can and has changed rapidly due to sudden, or somewhat sudden, cataclysmic changes. (I.e. economic devastation after a war (Germany), or political regime change (Iran). Or the Cultural Revolution as Meghan mentioned above. People don't always think about long-term consequences very well when they're frightened or threatened...

So, yes, it would be difficult for something like the Republic of Gilead to happen in 'today's America', I don't doubt that. But I don't think it'd be impossible if civilization were disrupted by X calamity, that led to Y, then to Z leading to a breakdown of the norm/standard.

* * * * *
Off on a tangent as I often go... This discussion reminds me of a strange, if poorly written, book that posits this type of scenario in a different way. (Red State vs. Blue State). It was Orson Scott Card's Empire. Very strange book!

MB wrote: "Hmmm... Lara, I think my thought was that the status quo can and has changed rapidly due to sudden, or somewhat sudden, cataclysmic changes. (I.e. economic devastation after a war (Germany), or p..."

And don't discount the power of a charismatic leader. Looking at Hitler, one would not think he would be of great importance, let alone dictator (hence Europe's complete dismissal of him in the beginning). But it was his ability to charm the masses that got him where he was.

And don't forget the President IS the Commander in Chief. And if we ever elect one who has the military pedigree of someone who's actually commanded forces and gained the respect of our armed servicemen (and women), it wouldn't take a whole lot for said President (with the military backing) to seize control of DC, dissolve Congress, and declare martial law on the major cities of our country. We Americans believe down to our DNA in the idea of government by the people. However, world history has shown us time and again, that whoever weilds the biggest stick gets to rule.

Meghan,

A slight correction on your post. They didn't have to change the Constitution to allow FDR to run for a third and fourth term. The Constitution didn't have any term limits on the president. Presidents kept to two terms because of the tradition set by President George Washington who refused to run for a third term in office. The Twenty Second Amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1947, two years after FDR's death, and it instituted term limits on the Office of the President.

I also believe that only Congress can declare martial law. The President doesn't have that power, or the power to disband Congress. Congress is equal in authority as the Office of the President.

Lara Amber

P.S. I'm really enjoying this discourse. I love a good intellectual debate.

Lara Amber wrote: "Meghan,

A slight correction on your post. They didn't have to change the Constitution to allow FDR to run for a third and fourth term. The Constitution didn't have any term limits on the preside..."

Oh thanks. I was so way off in what I said, I deleted it. I was confusing George Washington's refusal to run beyond two terms and thinking that's when they established term limits. I knew FDR was the time though when there was the controversy over going beyond 2 terms.

And my point about the President is that if he had the backing of our military it doesn't really matter if he has the authority or not--he has the power, which essentially gives him the authority, to make such decisions. (I made a slight edit in hopes that it clarified my point.)

But it does give you pause to offer up a brief thanks to the forefathers who put together our system. They made it EXTREMELY difficult for any one person or small group of people to overthrow our government.

I started reading this the other day out of the blue only to realize it's this month's book. What a nice coincidence!

I picked up this book after several people recommended it to me because I like dystopian themes. After reading several novels in the same genre, I'm wishing that I had read this earlier. Even though I'm still in the first third of the book, I feel like I've read this before and I know where it's going.

Despite all that, I'm still enjoying the book and I hope that it holds some nice surprises.

Louise: I do hope you like it, also.

I just discovered that my wife has a copy of The Handmaid's Tale. She recommended it to me, so I plan to read it before the end of this month.

I skimmed the first couple of pages and it looks very intriguing.

rytr_1 wrote: "I just discovered that my wife has a copy of The Handmaid's Tale. She recommended it to me, so I plan to read it before the end of this month.

I skimmed the first couple of pages and it looks v..."

Great! We (I) want more male conversation on the book.

Just started it. But I've only read a few pages so still don't really know what's going on yet. I'll be sure to chime in though. :)

This weekend I'm hoping to read quite a bit of it.

I am now about a fourth of the way through the book. Wow. This is some amazing stuff. I love how Atwood drops a little bit of background at a time, just enough so the picture emerges gradually; no info dump here. It makes the story much more effective.

I'm also having some difficulty imagining how this could all take place in the United States as it is today, although my confusion is mostly centered around the short length of time: it would seem that such radical changes would require a longer span to really kick in. From a couple of clues I picked up on, it must be within only about seven years. This is probably because I still don't have all the details of the background behind the Republic of Gilead. It could also be that I don't want to believe it. There's some comfort to setting unpleasant societies far into the future (I'm thinking of Planet of the Apes specifically), so you don't have to imagine it happening within your own lifetime.

But it's really excellent so far. The loss of individuality, the rampant censorship, the forced changes to sexual standards, all combine to create a nightmarish near-future. It's both heartwarming and tragic to see the narrator cling, in her mind, to details of her former life that we all take for granted.

My wife also recommended Alias Grace. Any other recommendations from club members?

rytr_1 wrote: "I am now about a fourth of the way through the book. Wow. This is some amazing stuff. I love how Atwood drops a little bit of background at a time, just enough so the picture emerges gradually; ..."

Alias Grace is loosely based on a true story. While the story itself wasn't a roaring favorite of mine, I thought how Atwood weaved the facts with speculation was quite well done. It's a satisfying read at least.

I really, really, really like Oryx and Crake. However, a lot of people I know find it confusing and weird. To me it's her best science fiction (speculative fiction?). If you can get past the blue baboon butt people, you should enjoy the story.

Blind Assassin is good. But honestly, I enjoyed after I read it and had time to think about it all. It's a story within a story and sometimes it was a bit of a challenge to keep everyone straight.

Robber Bride, Lady Oracle, and Cat's Eye are her "normal" fiction. I enjoyed them, but they are so vastly different from her speculative fiction it took me a bit to adjust. I enjoyed them, but not in the same way that I enjoyed O&C and THT.