Victoria’s review of The Handmaid's Tale > Likes and Comments
659 likes · Like
If one is familiar with metafictional literature, then the tone and word choice of the writing feeling, as the first commentor stated, "like you were reading a piece of writing" would make more sense.
It is a classic example discussed in graduate schools of post-modern literature.
How refreshing to see someone who recognised this book the mediocre effort it is.
It's an awful book - banal, badly written, uninspired and predictable. It's a joke that so many people love it simply because it panders to their prejudices.
i agree...i had such a hard time with the back and forth. nothing made sense...the chapters...titles...i didn't appreciate this writing at all.
Yes, yes, yes. Your review sums up all my issues with A Handmaid's Tale. It's not one of the worst books in the world...but it's certainly not a very good one, and hardly deserving of the praise it gets. If you read it immediately after 1984 (as I did), it's impossible not to notice just how much it suffers by comparison.
Anybody who thinks this is a wonderful, nuanced book clearly has had their brain addled reading too much academic criticism.
(As for metafictional devices, I'd love an explanation as to how they are remotely appropriate for this sort of dystopian novel.)
1984 against Communism? Lol, at least Orwell tried.
Chris wrote: "How refreshing to see someone who recognised this book the mediocre effort it is.
It's an awful book - banal, badly written, uninspired and predictable. It's a joke that so many people love it sim..."
Panders to their prejudices? Open your eyes. It's 2010 now, and the religious "right" *would* take over this country and force their beliefs down everyone's throats. I'm not saying what happened in this book would happen, other than the US becoming a theocracy, but it wouldn't surprise me if it *did* happen.
Tremendous book, incredible writing.
5 stars! Haha, that's so funny. If you give five stars to this book, what would you give to a really good book, like Winnie The Pooh or Noddie in Toytown? :)
The initial commenter had stated that it feels like you are reading a piece of writing. I would agree and so would Atwood. The book is supposed to read like a primary source document, not a novel. Atwood took great care to include things in the book that the patriarchy actually does or has done to women. To write "A Handmaid's Tale" in this form is to enhance the reality of the situation.
Just so you know, schoolgirls and boys WORLDWIDE are studying this book in this century. When you say we need to have a thorough understanding about the '80s to get this book, you clearly forgot about the millions of schoolchildren, born AFTER the '80s, NOT living in America, who CAN STILL understand this brilliant story no problem!!! How can you justify saying the book has no resonance unlike 1984, if people still care about it?
The point of the novel isn't the American culture, the '80s feminism, and certainly not Iran. It's about human nature. It's about suppression. It's about fear and power and freedom. And to think a female born in the twentieth century, into an education system more developed than any other in the history of mankind, is just plain disappointing.
I disagree. I enjoyed the post modern style and I think it related very well to the theme of the book. Offred's intend was to set down a sort of memoir, but women in her society weren't allowed to write. Thus, the narration reads in a certain stream-of-consciousness style, which you notice when she tries to remember something, when she inserts a flashback image into the narration, or when she uses multiple similes and metaphors, almost like she's searching for the one that's most appropriate. It also explains the lack of quotation marks. I didn't find it distracting, I thought it enhances the novel.
the book i got my hands on had a chapter at the very end "historical notes" supposed to be an interpretation of tapes she left because it had to be translated, at a conference for discussion of validity. i think that ending added some depth, for sure. I wished I had known what happened to her after...
if that was the case, remember, translations don't always come through perfectly...
In other words, I agree with Meredith & Amy
and i don't think it was supposed to be written as a "written diary" rather than a rough verbal translation
couldn't disagree more. just because the style didn't appeal to you, doesn't make a book badly written. this book had something to SAY and it gripped me completely.
It's highly surprising that you say this book is stuck in the 80s and not relevant today. The rise of Rick Santorum and the crazy things that happened with Rush Limbaugh are what lead me to this book today. It's more important than ever.
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 revolution had happened. Many points make it difficult to determine offred's age. She had had a husband and child, was still of child-bearing age, yet acted as though she had been assimilated so deeply into this new way that she had trouble remembering alternatives. Remembering the cultural revolution and other similar fast, intense value shift.... It didn't make sense to me. I was waiting for the "point" the entire time, expecting some kind of "the village" surprise ending...nope. I love distopias and had good recommendations. I was disappointed.
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 digestible. In fact, I think the speed at which Americans adapted to the new order is an excellent commentary on humans in general. If you look at some classic studies in psychology (e.g. the Milgram experiment), humans are often quick (within the time frame of meeting someone in authority) to forget their values and worldview. I don’t mean to simplify it – of course there is a whole iceberg of things to consider, I just think Atwood’s depiction of the change over to this oppressive regime is more realistic than you give credit.
The critique of irrelevance to the 00’ world is one of the major issues I have with your review: If some of the candidates in the last few American election are any indication, I think this novel is skillfully relevant to every time period. I mean, 1/2 of the candidates in the most recent would have happily stripped millions of women of their rights without batting an eyelash because he felt it was the right thing to do – worst, people actually voted for him. Even if he didn't win, that mindset is still prevalent and that scares me.
I’m not trying to change your mind on how much you enjoyed the novel but I do think some of your criticisms are a bit unfounded.
The ending clearly states that the book was a transcription of multiple cassette tapes. That was the method Atwood employed...
Oh, I gotta tell you...I really hate some reviews of this book. If a book uses unconventional method or structure ask yourself two questions: (1) Why is the author doing it? And, (2) was it effective? Don't look at blatantly obvious departure from convention and rate a book in a vacuum. Doing so is rigid and myopic. Language can be a beautiful thing and is flexible. It ALWAYS has been that way. You're forcing me to use a cliché. "Rules are meant to be broken."
I see where you're coming from with Atwood's writing style, it's dissonance can seem grating and hard to read; it doesn't, like many great pieces of literature, seem to "flow". However, this is where the true beauty of this book lies.
Through this style of writing, Atwood does indeed makes her narrator constantly present in the readers mind. However, once truly engaged with, this allows a deeper understanding of the emotional journey Offred has been on.
Her lack of quotation marks show the oppression of females like Offred in the society they are now faced with, and questions whether or not they had a voice in the first place, as the absence of quotations continues even when she describes her past.
Lastly, the world Atwood creates in this novel is fragmented and unclear. I think it is very important to note that this world is created solely through the voice of Offred and her descriptions of the past and present. I think it's incredible, and a true testament to the power of this book that Atwood can simultaneously create a new world for the reader, and explore it's emotional impact on Offred, even as she delves into the past. Furthermore, she does all this through a unique writing style, reflecting her characters mental state and it's transitions very subtly.
I wish I could comment more about the points you raise about the novel, but this is where most of my literary knowledge ends, and so will my response. On a final note, writing style and themes are such a small part of what makes a book great, but when these are done so fantastically, and open up so much discussion, what remains that effects it's timelessness?
I'm curious if those who have read the book and commented upon its fragment structure, had carried on to read it the historical notes? It is revealed that the tale was a bunch of recordings gathered and collected together to provide the tale itself, hence why it seems to be broken.
YES. My thoughts exactly. Most cringe-worthy moment? "Pen is envy." How clever and subtle.
Atwood chooses her words very carefully. The same goes for her style. She writes poetry, and I'd say her style in novels is often poetic prose. Therefore she doesn't write like you were taught in middle school.
It's often a sort of stream of consciousness effect that, in my opinion, fits well with what amounts to a person's thoughts put to paper (or pixels, as the case may be). The same style can be found in Atwood's novel "Alias Grace". The first person sections are almost devoid of quotation marks and include lengthy sentences filled with commas where a traditional author would place periods. Does this take some getting used to? Yes, but I can appreciate the style.
I guess I don't mind literary sophistication over bland by-the-numbers writing. It's a refreshing change.
I agree with everything you've said. I gave up on this book towards the end. I found that Atwood left so much unsaid and it frustrated me. Was looking forward to reading this, but it failed to live up to my expectations. May revisit it again.
I feel like it's wrong, I have only read The Handmaids Tale so I don't know what her writing style is like in other books, but she got into the head of the character so well that I feel like her writing style only complimented the narrative.
I'm only about 40 pages in, but it's written beautifully, in an elegant and artistic style. What is it exactly that qualifies you to say that it's "badly written" as opposed to just admitting that you personally didn't like it?
Liking or disliking a book comes down to personal taste so I can understand why you dislike this book. That said, I have to disagree when you say this book " not very well written". On the contrary, I think Atwood picked her tone carefully and there are lot of passages in this novel that have stuck with me, years after reading this. One of the strengths of this book, in my opinion, is precisely the writing. Again, it's probably just a matter of taste. I'm continually confused when people call Stephen King as "masterful" writer even though I enjoy some of his stories.
That this book was written in the 80s never once occurred to me on reading this. Could you possibly explain why you thought this? Maybe I missed something when I was reading it. You drew parallels with 1984 in your review but I think they are both timeless in the themes they explore.
Liking or disliking a book comes down to personal taste so I can understand why you dislike this book. That said, I have to disagree when you say this book " not very well written". On the contrary, I think Atwood picked her tone carefully and there are lot of passages in this novel that have stuck with me, years after reading this. One of the strengths of this book, in my opinion, is precisely the writing. Again, it's probably just a matter of taste. I'm continually confused when people call Stephen King as "masterful" writer even though I enjoy some of his stories.
That this book was written in the 80s never once occurred to me on reading this. Could you possibly explain why you thought this? Maybe I missed something when I was reading it. You drew parallels with 1984 in your review but I think they are both timeless in the themes they explore.
She's a poet! That's what's with the writing style. It's poetry flavoured prose.
I read this in 2016, and thought it timely. I would have been about Offred's age in the 80's so I understood those times well, too.
This book certainly polarises opinion, Victoria.
And I agree with you. I also think that her writing is clumsy, although this seems to be a minority view.
I am wondering if you, Victoria.....sill feel the same way today, in 2016..since you wrote this review in 2007.? Specifically when you talk about the religious right. Also, I have to disagree with your opinion that the book is not well written...you even call it clumsy. Atwood is also a poet, which accounts, at least partially, for the writing style. The broken sentence structure also often alludes to the main character's frame mind, which I can just imagine would be just as broken if it were me. Just my opinion.
I found the writing full of exactly the voice Atwood meant it to have. At the end, we learn that the story was a transcript of a set of recorded tapes that were found. The voice of the teller is an ordinary woman who is talking into a voice recorder, which to me is captured in the albeit "clumsy" writing. The teller of the story isn't supposed to be a professional communicator. I thought it made it more real, added to the eeriness.
I love 1984 and the threat of communism is still real, it is called liberalism, progressivism, but it is still communism.
Thank you! Her writting really is quiet clumsy. Its vauge, spotty, shallow, egocentric, jumps around, and is just generally poor. I personally could have totally gotten into the story line had it been written better. This sort of book is right up my alley and I can read almost anything if its written well. After watching the movie from the 80s and seeing the reviews I was ready to be wowed then I started reading and I was just plum confused. I was reminded of 10 years ago when everyone told me to read twilight or recently with 50 shades....and I so I did. It was bad. They were both very bad. This felt like that level of writing. The story line had more potential and it was harder around the edges, less fluff not - for the kiddies, but the writing sure didnt.
I find it funny you think this is stuck in the eighties when I was born in the eighties, remember almost nothing from then, and found it completely relevant to current events. A Russian plant, a resurgence in oppressing women and bodily autonomy? What could be more relevant?
The writing is meant to mimic tape recordings transcribed. Zzzzzzz....
I too felt I could get into the story had it been better written. I do like the thought about it mimicking the tape recordings. Just too many unanswered questions and holes in the story for it to be satisfying to me as a reader.
I haven't read this book yet, but I enjoy reading positive and negative reviews. Something that I'd have to disagree with is "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." This is basically what the analysis of a good novel involves. "Bad" novels lack a structure, or even the essence of the writer. Oscar Wilde for example, particularly made an effort to focus on the structure of his work rather than the substance of the story itself, and he was a very critically acclaimed author.
Faulkner earned the right to break any grammatical rule he wished to break. Comparing the two isn’t fair to poor Margaret Atwood. It’s like comparing “Who Let the Dogs Out” to “Imagine.”
More than 10 years have passed. What do you think of it based on today's political climate? I am genuinely curious.
I've not read the book, for some of the reasons you stated in your review. I think you can relate the oppression of women to what goes on in the middle East, but apparently questioning the values of the middle east is considered oppressive these days. As shown in the middle east a patriarchal society is very dangerous for women. The novel sounds like it explores themes of what would happen if a religious right group came into power in America, but like the review says it is never a real threat as too many opposing more mainstream groups. There is democracy and freedom of speech so I'm not sure how people see similarities between the trump administration of today and a dystopian book about total suppression and control of women
One thing you mentioned and it's what I agree with is that it lacks universality and timelessness. "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" however I do not thing it's the least of our worries anywhere in the world. I think the world Atwood created is incredible but I think if it's ever to happen or should it be perceived as possible it's going to be a quite different versions and the exploitation and oppression would be exercised in different ways.
back to top
If one is familiar with metafictional literature, then the tone and word choice of the writing feeling, as the first commentor stated, "like you were reading a piece of writing" would make more sense.It is a classic example discussed in graduate schools of post-modern literature.
How refreshing to see someone who recognised this book the mediocre effort it is. It's an awful book - banal, badly written, uninspired and predictable. It's a joke that so many people love it simply because it panders to their prejudices.
i agree...i had such a hard time with the back and forth. nothing made sense...the chapters...titles...i didn't appreciate this writing at all.
Yes, yes, yes. Your review sums up all my issues with A Handmaid's Tale. It's not one of the worst books in the world...but it's certainly not a very good one, and hardly deserving of the praise it gets. If you read it immediately after 1984 (as I did), it's impossible not to notice just how much it suffers by comparison.Anybody who thinks this is a wonderful, nuanced book clearly has had their brain addled reading too much academic criticism.
(As for metafictional devices, I'd love an explanation as to how they are remotely appropriate for this sort of dystopian novel.)
1984 against Communism? Lol, at least Orwell tried.
Chris wrote: "How refreshing to see someone who recognised this book the mediocre effort it is. It's an awful book - banal, badly written, uninspired and predictable. It's a joke that so many people love it sim..."
Panders to their prejudices? Open your eyes. It's 2010 now, and the religious "right" *would* take over this country and force their beliefs down everyone's throats. I'm not saying what happened in this book would happen, other than the US becoming a theocracy, but it wouldn't surprise me if it *did* happen.
Tremendous book, incredible writing.
5 stars! Haha, that's so funny. If you give five stars to this book, what would you give to a really good book, like Winnie The Pooh or Noddie in Toytown? :)
my kids loved winnie the pooh they'd rate it a 5 and me a 4
The initial commenter had stated that it feels like you are reading a piece of writing. I would agree and so would Atwood. The book is supposed to read like a primary source document, not a novel. Atwood took great care to include things in the book that the patriarchy actually does or has done to women. To write "A Handmaid's Tale" in this form is to enhance the reality of the situation.
Just so you know, schoolgirls and boys WORLDWIDE are studying this book in this century. When you say we need to have a thorough understanding about the '80s to get this book, you clearly forgot about the millions of schoolchildren, born AFTER the '80s, NOT living in America, who CAN STILL understand this brilliant story no problem!!! How can you justify saying the book has no resonance unlike 1984, if people still care about it?The point of the novel isn't the American culture, the '80s feminism, and certainly not Iran. It's about human nature. It's about suppression. It's about fear and power and freedom. And to think a female born in the twentieth century, into an education system more developed than any other in the history of mankind, is just plain disappointing.
I disagree. I enjoyed the post modern style and I think it related very well to the theme of the book. Offred's intend was to set down a sort of memoir, but women in her society weren't allowed to write. Thus, the narration reads in a certain stream-of-consciousness style, which you notice when she tries to remember something, when she inserts a flashback image into the narration, or when she uses multiple similes and metaphors, almost like she's searching for the one that's most appropriate. It also explains the lack of quotation marks. I didn't find it distracting, I thought it enhances the novel.
the book i got my hands on had a chapter at the very end "historical notes" supposed to be an interpretation of tapes she left because it had to be translated, at a conference for discussion of validity. i think that ending added some depth, for sure. I wished I had known what happened to her after...
if that was the case, remember, translations don't always come through perfectly...
In other words, I agree with Meredith & Amy
and i don't think it was supposed to be written as a "written diary" rather than a rough verbal translation
couldn't disagree more. just because the style didn't appeal to you, doesn't make a book badly written. this book had something to SAY and it gripped me completely.
It's highly surprising that you say this book is stuck in the 80s and not relevant today. The rise of Rick Santorum and the crazy things that happened with Rush Limbaugh are what lead me to this book today. It's more important than ever.
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 revolution had happened. Many points make it difficult to determine offred's age. She had had a husband and child, was still of child-bearing age, yet acted as though she had been assimilated so deeply into this new way that she had trouble remembering alternatives. Remembering the cultural revolution and other similar fast, intense value shift.... It didn't make sense to me. I was waiting for the "point" the entire time, expecting some kind of "the village" surprise ending...nope. I love distopias and had good recommendations. I was disappointed.
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 digestible. In fact, I think the speed at which Americans adapted to the new order is an excellent commentary on humans in general. If you look at some classic studies in psychology (e.g. the Milgram experiment), humans are often quick (within the time frame of meeting someone in authority) to forget their values and worldview. I don’t mean to simplify it – of course there is a whole iceberg of things to consider, I just think Atwood’s depiction of the change over to this oppressive regime is more realistic than you give credit. The critique of irrelevance to the 00’ world is one of the major issues I have with your review: If some of the candidates in the last few American election are any indication, I think this novel is skillfully relevant to every time period. I mean, 1/2 of the candidates in the most recent would have happily stripped millions of women of their rights without batting an eyelash because he felt it was the right thing to do – worst, people actually voted for him. Even if he didn't win, that mindset is still prevalent and that scares me.
I’m not trying to change your mind on how much you enjoyed the novel but I do think some of your criticisms are a bit unfounded.
The ending clearly states that the book was a transcription of multiple cassette tapes. That was the method Atwood employed...
Oh, I gotta tell you...I really hate some reviews of this book. If a book uses unconventional method or structure ask yourself two questions: (1) Why is the author doing it? And, (2) was it effective? Don't look at blatantly obvious departure from convention and rate a book in a vacuum. Doing so is rigid and myopic. Language can be a beautiful thing and is flexible. It ALWAYS has been that way. You're forcing me to use a cliché. "Rules are meant to be broken."
I see where you're coming from with Atwood's writing style, it's dissonance can seem grating and hard to read; it doesn't, like many great pieces of literature, seem to "flow". However, this is where the true beauty of this book lies. Through this style of writing, Atwood does indeed makes her narrator constantly present in the readers mind. However, once truly engaged with, this allows a deeper understanding of the emotional journey Offred has been on.
Her lack of quotation marks show the oppression of females like Offred in the society they are now faced with, and questions whether or not they had a voice in the first place, as the absence of quotations continues even when she describes her past.
Lastly, the world Atwood creates in this novel is fragmented and unclear. I think it is very important to note that this world is created solely through the voice of Offred and her descriptions of the past and present. I think it's incredible, and a true testament to the power of this book that Atwood can simultaneously create a new world for the reader, and explore it's emotional impact on Offred, even as she delves into the past. Furthermore, she does all this through a unique writing style, reflecting her characters mental state and it's transitions very subtly.
I wish I could comment more about the points you raise about the novel, but this is where most of my literary knowledge ends, and so will my response. On a final note, writing style and themes are such a small part of what makes a book great, but when these are done so fantastically, and open up so much discussion, what remains that effects it's timelessness?
I'm curious if those who have read the book and commented upon its fragment structure, had carried on to read it the historical notes? It is revealed that the tale was a bunch of recordings gathered and collected together to provide the tale itself, hence why it seems to be broken.
YES. My thoughts exactly. Most cringe-worthy moment? "Pen is envy." How clever and subtle.
Atwood chooses her words very carefully. The same goes for her style. She writes poetry, and I'd say her style in novels is often poetic prose. Therefore she doesn't write like you were taught in middle school. It's often a sort of stream of consciousness effect that, in my opinion, fits well with what amounts to a person's thoughts put to paper (or pixels, as the case may be). The same style can be found in Atwood's novel "Alias Grace". The first person sections are almost devoid of quotation marks and include lengthy sentences filled with commas where a traditional author would place periods. Does this take some getting used to? Yes, but I can appreciate the style.
I guess I don't mind literary sophistication over bland by-the-numbers writing. It's a refreshing change.
I agree with everything you've said. I gave up on this book towards the end. I found that Atwood left so much unsaid and it frustrated me. Was looking forward to reading this, but it failed to live up to my expectations. May revisit it again.
I feel like it's wrong, I have only read The Handmaids Tale so I don't know what her writing style is like in other books, but she got into the head of the character so well that I feel like her writing style only complimented the narrative.
I'm only about 40 pages in, but it's written beautifully, in an elegant and artistic style. What is it exactly that qualifies you to say that it's "badly written" as opposed to just admitting that you personally didn't like it?
Liking or disliking a book comes down to personal taste so I can understand why you dislike this book. That said, I have to disagree when you say this book " not very well written". On the contrary, I think Atwood picked her tone carefully and there are lot of passages in this novel that have stuck with me, years after reading this. One of the strengths of this book, in my opinion, is precisely the writing. Again, it's probably just a matter of taste. I'm continually confused when people call Stephen King as "masterful" writer even though I enjoy some of his stories. That this book was written in the 80s never once occurred to me on reading this. Could you possibly explain why you thought this? Maybe I missed something when I was reading it. You drew parallels with 1984 in your review but I think they are both timeless in the themes they explore.
Liking or disliking a book comes down to personal taste so I can understand why you dislike this book. That said, I have to disagree when you say this book " not very well written". On the contrary, I think Atwood picked her tone carefully and there are lot of passages in this novel that have stuck with me, years after reading this. One of the strengths of this book, in my opinion, is precisely the writing. Again, it's probably just a matter of taste. I'm continually confused when people call Stephen King as "masterful" writer even though I enjoy some of his stories. That this book was written in the 80s never once occurred to me on reading this. Could you possibly explain why you thought this? Maybe I missed something when I was reading it. You drew parallels with 1984 in your review but I think they are both timeless in the themes they explore.
She's a poet! That's what's with the writing style. It's poetry flavoured prose.
I read this in 2016, and thought it timely. I would have been about Offred's age in the 80's so I understood those times well, too.
This book certainly polarises opinion, Victoria.And I agree with you. I also think that her writing is clumsy, although this seems to be a minority view.
I am wondering if you, Victoria.....sill feel the same way today, in 2016..since you wrote this review in 2007.? Specifically when you talk about the religious right. Also, I have to disagree with your opinion that the book is not well written...you even call it clumsy. Atwood is also a poet, which accounts, at least partially, for the writing style. The broken sentence structure also often alludes to the main character's frame mind, which I can just imagine would be just as broken if it were me. Just my opinion.
I found the writing full of exactly the voice Atwood meant it to have. At the end, we learn that the story was a transcript of a set of recorded tapes that were found. The voice of the teller is an ordinary woman who is talking into a voice recorder, which to me is captured in the albeit "clumsy" writing. The teller of the story isn't supposed to be a professional communicator. I thought it made it more real, added to the eeriness.
I love 1984 and the threat of communism is still real, it is called liberalism, progressivism, but it is still communism.
Thank you! Her writting really is quiet clumsy. Its vauge, spotty, shallow, egocentric, jumps around, and is just generally poor. I personally could have totally gotten into the story line had it been written better. This sort of book is right up my alley and I can read almost anything if its written well. After watching the movie from the 80s and seeing the reviews I was ready to be wowed then I started reading and I was just plum confused. I was reminded of 10 years ago when everyone told me to read twilight or recently with 50 shades....and I so I did. It was bad. They were both very bad. This felt like that level of writing. The story line had more potential and it was harder around the edges, less fluff not - for the kiddies, but the writing sure didnt.
I find it funny you think this is stuck in the eighties when I was born in the eighties, remember almost nothing from then, and found it completely relevant to current events. A Russian plant, a resurgence in oppressing women and bodily autonomy? What could be more relevant?
The writing is meant to mimic tape recordings transcribed. Zzzzzzz....
I too felt I could get into the story had it been better written. I do like the thought about it mimicking the tape recordings. Just too many unanswered questions and holes in the story for it to be satisfying to me as a reader.
I haven't read this book yet, but I enjoy reading positive and negative reviews. Something that I'd have to disagree with is "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." This is basically what the analysis of a good novel involves. "Bad" novels lack a structure, or even the essence of the writer. Oscar Wilde for example, particularly made an effort to focus on the structure of his work rather than the substance of the story itself, and he was a very critically acclaimed author.
Faulkner earned the right to break any grammatical rule he wished to break. Comparing the two isn’t fair to poor Margaret Atwood. It’s like comparing “Who Let the Dogs Out” to “Imagine.”
More than 10 years have passed. What do you think of it based on today's political climate? I am genuinely curious.
I've not read the book, for some of the reasons you stated in your review. I think you can relate the oppression of women to what goes on in the middle East, but apparently questioning the values of the middle east is considered oppressive these days. As shown in the middle east a patriarchal society is very dangerous for women. The novel sounds like it explores themes of what would happen if a religious right group came into power in America, but like the review says it is never a real threat as too many opposing more mainstream groups. There is democracy and freedom of speech so I'm not sure how people see similarities between the trump administration of today and a dystopian book about total suppression and control of women
One thing you mentioned and it's what I agree with is that it lacks universality and timelessness. "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" however I do not thing it's the least of our worries anywhere in the world. I think the world Atwood created is incredible but I think if it's ever to happen or should it be perceived as possible it's going to be a quite different versions and the exploitation and oppression would be exercised in different ways.
The review below says this book is clumsily written. Although this may be one perception, I think Atwood has picked her tone very carefully for the topic. It doesn't flow like classic english literature, but, where are we, 1850? The flow depicts Offred's thoughts. The odd placement of commas, sometimes lack of commas and very short sentences represents the neurotic nature of thoughts and the brain. And this itself is a very significant theme within a state which tries to reduce thought.
Compared to 1984 by George Orwell I think it relates his themes and ideas in a very fluid, perceptive way. Asked which I prefer, I'm sorry Mr Orwell....this book just seems to encapsulate it all in a much more fluid way. The obvious themes of destruction of language, choice, freewill, dystopia, the individual, society, communism are all there, and their personification in the book is very vivid.
The nuances of her writing and the analysis of words within Offred's thoughts is enough to make Atwood's comments on the fundamental and evangelical christianism of America very clear. Although read as a feminist book, the place of the man is as much abused by the state as the place of the woman.
The dehumanisation of the individual is evident. Sex is a mechanical, communal action. Everything is communal: birth, sex, executions. It's like pre-historic rituals. The historical digression is unbelievable; yet this is supposed to represent a fracture and a possible outcome of our society now!
I felt scared after reading this novel. Terrified of the future. But Atwood, I hope, doesn't want us to feel like this. "Or else the light" right at the end suggests that Offred will be saved. But I find the concept more compicated. Maybe Offred means she will be relieved of this terrible world, or maybe she will be saved to continue living in it.
The truth is, I'm sure, that Offred would rather die than live. Her constant desire to steal a knife resembles her die to grasp hold of her life and have control. She cannot release herself from society, she has no control or choice over her destiny. To take her own life would be to be human again. Perhaps this is Atwood' "light" right at the end of the tunnel.
Whatever Atwood means, she does mean stop living in a world where human nature is denied. We are communal animals, yes. But to deny the body and the brain of choice, sex, language and love is to kill. Any religion that seeks to do this denies the very nature of our own existence.