We launch our journey together over the summer by reading and responding to two American novels: The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne and The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. As you read each novel, post original comments to the discussion blog as directed below.* Then respond thoughtfully to the posts of your classmates to create a conversation. Make sure you add something new to the conversation in your responses. Ask a question, challenge an assumption, offer a different interpretation or a new insight. "I agree" does not qualify as a meaningful response.
* Please avoid fishing for ideas on the Internet. We can all google Sparknotes and Shmoop for ourselves.
Here's how it works:
- Post at least THREE original comments to the blog for each novel. See the posting suggestions below.
- Then post at least THREE responses to other students' comments about each novel.
- Altogether, you should post at least SIX original comments and SIX responses.
* The goal of the response portion of the assignment is to set the tone for the year and develop a thoughtful conversation about our reading. Obviously, the conversation works only if people participate. Adding something at the last minute that no one will see does not equal participating in the conversation. Be aware that failure to complete these assignments before your return to school may result in your removal from the class.
Due dates:
- All posts about The Scarlet Letter should be completed by Friday, July 31st.
- All posts about The Handmaid's Tale should be completed by the first day of school.
. . . but try to post before the deadline!
Posting suggestions:
1. Cite a passage, and explain why it's important to the meaning of the work as a whole.
2. Cite a passage, and explain how it contributes to the development of a dynamic character.
3. Cite a passage that evokes a strong emotional response from you, and explore your reaction.
4. Cite a passage that you find confusing. Pose genuine clarifying questions for yourself and others. Posit answers to your own questions.
5. Cite a passage that strikes you as significant or interesting for another reason. Tell us why.
Assessment:
To earn maximum credit, post thoughtful responses that are at least a few sentences in length—and carefully proofread! Please avoid misspelling characters' or authors’ names. Also, be sure to include specific references to the text (either details or short quotations). Page numbers, too, are always helpful.
Read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, and share observations, analysis, and/or questions with your classmates in the comments section below. You should post at least three (3) original comments, and then respond to at least three (3) posts made by your classmates before the first day of school.
Towards the beginning of the book, when the reader is still a little confused about Offred’s situation, and the way that the novel is set up, Offred poses the statement, “When we think of the past it’s the beautiful things we pick out. We want to believe it was all like that” (Atwood 30). When I read these sentences, I thought of our lives right now. In history class when we look back at the past, we focus on the good things. The American Revolution, emancipation, “winning” world wars, and we sort of breeze over the destruction, and the bad things. We do this because it makes us feel better to think that everything in the past was happy, and that everything we have now was not based on corruption. I think that this passage is important to the story, because throughout the novel, Offred often goes went to talk about her past, and tell the story of how she got to where she was. I think that this passage was Atwood/Offred’s way of hinting to the reader that some of the past that she will talk about may be glamorized, because looking back, she may forget some of the bad things and focus on the good.
ReplyDeleteThinking about it, I do think that people in general tend to glamorize their past and events that happened in the past. I feel that this is human nature, since it is common to suppress your negative emotions and thoughts. Suppressing those thoughts often can lead us to forget about them, making the past seem better. The statement that Offred made about how the past is beautiful was important to the book because it did give the readers the idea that the past talked about in the book could be glamorized by Offred. Without this hint by Offred, readers may not have realized that the past was potentially worse than what Offred led readers to believe. Like you said, Offred glamorizing her past was a powerful way to show readers that maybe she went through more hardships than she let on.
DeleteOne passage that I found extremely interesting was in one of Offred’s flashbacks, when she and Luke and her daughter were about to leave their house, and they needed to get rid of the cat. Atwood writes, “I’ll take care of it, Luke said. And because he said it instead of her, I knew he meant kill. That is what you have to do before you kill, I thought. You have to create an it, where none was before. You do that first, in your head, and then you make it real. So that’s how they do it, I thought. I seemed never to have known that before” (Atwood 193). What drew me to this passage was how it related to what was happening in real time in Offred’s story. The people in charge of their society are making Offred and all of the other Handmaids “its” and treating them in ways that don't make them seem human. For example, forcing the Handmaids to kneel at all of the ceremonies, feeding them in their room with a tray, and giving them one outfit that covers their human characteristics. By making the Handmaids not seem like humans, it makes it easier to mistreat them without the public saying anything about it. They can force them to give birth, then have to give the child away. They can be taken away and never seen again, and no one will take a second look, because the Handmaids aren’t really people in their eyes.
ReplyDeleteIt's really fascinating to see how the society perceived women in this story. Like you said, the similarity between animals and women is actually really extreme. If you think about it, the Handsmaids in particular were seen, used, traded, etc. liek livestock would be. They were a symbol of wealth and power, and they were simply used for societys benefit at their own expense. I think the passage you chose and your thoughts go together very well, and I hadn't thoughtg to put the two together previously.
DeleteHannah
The novel ends in a big cliffhanger. The reader does not know whether Offred is being saved by fake “eyes” or if she is being taken away to the colonies. “The van waits in the driveway, its double doors stand open. The two of them, one on either side now, take me by the elbows to help me in. Whether this is my end or a new beginning I have no way of knowing: I have given myself over into the hands of strangers, because it can’t be helped. And so I step up, into the darkness within; or else the light” (Atwood 295). This leaves the reader wondering what is going to happen to Offred. I think that she is being taken away by “Mayday”. I think this because if Serena Joy was not the one that called the “eyes”, then who would have told them that she violated the state secrets. While there is a possibility that Nick had called them, and that he was a secret eye, I don’t think that he would have reported her. If he had called them to report her violation, there may have been suspicion about how he knew, which could lead to him getting in trouble. What do you think happened?
ReplyDeleteI'd like to believe she got away. It's like how she would imagine Luke in three different ways: dead, in the same spot where she was captured, in a cell somewhere, or alive across the border, and is coming back for her. There are options, but either way, she is escaping. I think the point is that she made the choice. She makes her own decision, and that is what matters. When you make your own decisions, you regain some of your identity back. I feel that is what mattered to her.
DeleteI also think that Offred is escaping and not being taken by the eyes. Part of this is because on page 293-4 it says, "he comes over, close to me, whispers. 'It's all right. It's Mayday. Go with them.' He calls me by my real name. Why should this mean anything? 'Them?' I say...'You must be crazy.' My suspicion hovers in the air above him, a dark angel, warning me away. I can almost see it. Why shouldn't he know about Mayday? All the Eyes must know about it; they'll have squeezed it, crushed it, twisted it out of enough bodies, enough mouths by now. 'Trust me,' he says; which in itself has never been a talisman, carries no guarantee. But I snatch at it, this offer. It's all I'm left with." While this passage could go both ways depending on what really happened, it does seem to have a bit of hope to it that seems like it's hinting that Offred is getting away. And if Nick was a secret eye, why would he have called her by her real name? Just to get her to trust him? Then he would have been questioned as to how he knew her name and then everything could have ended for him to.
DeleteI really like the fact that the novel ends in sort of a mystery. It reminds me of my favorite book, We All Looked Up by Tommy Wallach, in which the reader watches from the perspectives of four teenagers as society crumbles in anticipation of an asteroid that has a 66% chance of making contact and wiping out humanity. Unfortunately I’m going to spoil the ending as it is what reminds me of the Handmaid’s Tale. In the end, the reader doesn’t find out whether the asteroid makes contact or not, but is left to wonder and question whether that knowledge is what’s actually important. I think that the reason we don’t see what happens to Offred is because we know that no matter what, she’s no longer a handmaid, and what matters is her experience as one. What’s important to the reader is not what happens to her specifically because the book isn’t just about her, but about the corrupt system she’s in and what it’s like to be powerless to it. It’s the same way with We All Looked Up; it’s not about what happened to the specific characters, but about how humanity handled the threat of doom. The open-ended nature of the ending allows the reader to remember what the book is truly about, and how to connect its message to the real world.
DeleteI agree with Shelby, I love that this book ends on a cliffhanger, and that we don’t know what happens to Offred at the end of the story. It also connects with the rest of the book. Anya mentioned this too, but earlier in the story, Offred talks about her husband Luke, and how she believes more than one thing about what happened to him after they were caught. I feel like the cliffhanger leaves us with the same three options that Offred thought of for what happened to Luke: she either died, was imprisoned/sent to the colonies, or she did actually escape. Personally I really like to think that Offred escaped Gilead, and wasn’t taken by the eyes.
DeleteEmma
DeleteI personally don’t really like a cliffhanger and typically want a happy ending with answers. I do understand why Atwood chose to do this and I believe it makes sense. There is a lot left to the unknown in this book and each reader can have a different interpretation and find a slightly different purpose in it. Realistically, I can see that it is very possible someone called her in and she ended up getting captured or killed. Although I choose to believe she was saved by mayday and somehow reunited with Luke and her daughter. Nick plays a large part in the ending because whether a reader trusts him or not can determine the ending. I choose to trust him and I also choose to look at the last line of the book, “And so I step up, into the darkness within; or else the light.” (Atwood 295), and see that it ended with light instead of darkness.
There were many points in this book where I had to put the book down and take a deep breath so I didn't throw it against the wall in frustration. One such section is on page 61: "I almost gasp: he's said a forbidden word. Sterile. There is no such thing as a sterile man anymore, not officially. There are only women who are fruitful and women who are barren, that's the law." This simple sentence show us how controlled the women really are, as well as how efficient they are being in creating a new society. By placing the blame solely on women, eventually those who never knew life before will know nothing of any other way. In the future, handmaids and other women will believe that they are at fault for not having children, and that they are the only way for the population to climb back up. They won't question that it could be the men, or that what is happening to them is wrong. Ten pages later, Offred remembers Testifying, and what they told Janine about her being gang-raped at 14 and having an abortion. "But whose fault was it? Aunt Helena says, holding up one plump finger. Her fault, her fault, her fault, we chant in unison." (Atwood, 71) They claim that they have freed girls and women from sexual harassment and abuse; however, it comes with the cost of losing their value and their identity; they are but bodies being used for someone else's gain. These parts disgusted me. What scared me the most is that this isn't far-fetched; it is a drastic change, but realistic knowing the misogynistic beliefs still prevalent in today's society.
ReplyDeleteI also got extremely frustrated with the way that the women in this society were treated. One thing that especially frustrated me was that there were only three main "jobs" for women. They can be a Handmaid, a Martha, or a wife. Basically they can only reproduce, cook/clean or gossip and raise children. By only allowing women to do one of these three things, they make them believe that this is all that they are good for, and that they are not capable of doing anything else. There are many parallels to life now, as many people still believe that women are only good for those things and nothing else. One disgusting word that women are sometimes called is "dishwasher". The person calling the woman this word is implying that they are only good at house chores and should simply spend her time doing that. This same misogynistic idea is similar to the idea of naming Marthas and Handmaids.
DeleteLike you, I also got frustrated with the way women were viewed in this society. A quote that stuck out to me, "Give me children, or else I die." (Atwood, 61) This was said to Offred, and I thought it was a powerful example of how women are viewed only to have children in this society. The women are believed to be useless if they are not able to have children, since that is their sole purpose. I thought this was very reflective of our society currently. While women have gained more equality over time, at least in the U.S., it is still very common for women to experience sexism and to be looked down on by men. Many people still hold the idea that women are only supposed to have children and be housewives, much like in this book. I thought it was interesting that Atwood used this idea in the book, since it is very reflective of our society today.
DeleteSomething I found interesting was I kept picturing all the Handmaid’s as teens. This is partly because I am a teen and so I just naturally picture them as around my age, but it says in the book that she’s 33, she’s married, and she has a daughter. And after reading it I still have to remind myself that she is not a teen but is in fact a woman in a very real sense. But I also think that one of the reasons is because you’re supposed to. For example, on page 274 it says, “‘Good afternoon ladies,’ she says again, her voice now tinny and flattened. It’s ladies instead of girls because of the Wives.” I think one of the ways they control the Handmaids and get away with what they’re doing is by diminishing them from women back to girls, like they’re children needing to be protected and controlled. They had to go to school, essentially, in the Center, and they’re referred to like they’re young whereas the Wives, many of whom are the same age or younger as the Handmaids, are women and are referred to that way. Because the Wives have a status the Handmaids don’t. Offred says many times that the Handmaids are useful, they’re carriers and they are essentially the property of the Commander and his Wife that the Handmaid is assigned to to give them a child. This giving a human like they are property is much easier if they are seen as young and needing protection instead of full-grown women. As long as you turn a blind eye to they’re purpose and what they’re put through to fulfill that purpose. But that’s where the naming comes in. It’s the same kind of thing that other regimes have done to humans to make them seem less human so that they can serve some bit of morality they still have because they don’t look like humans and so they must not be and so this horrible thing that we’re doing is therefore ok. Like how the Nazi’s dehumanized the Jews in the concentration camps by shaving they’re heads and giving them numbers instead of names. It’s much easier to gas and kill 6489 than it is to gas Amelia for instance. It’s much easier to believe that a Handmaid is serving a singular utilitarian purpose if you can’t see her face and she doesn’t even have her own name, her name is denoting who’s property she is not a term of endearment or love given to someone who loves her but given to her by someone who sees her as a vessel not a human.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting point, which I also noticed in the book. What I thought was interesting was the way they assure the Handmaids that it is for their own good. The Aunts tell them that they are protected from men with bad intentions, because no man is allowed to have sex or sexual relations until they have a high enough status to obtain a wife or later a Handmaid. Along with convincing the Handmaids that they are young and need to be protected, they push that view onto men and other women as well, so that no one will question the maturity or rights of the Handmaids. If everyone else views the Handmaids as "its," then eventually the Handmaids will also see themselves only as "its," without identity or personality; they are only a purpose.
DeleteThis was a really interesting comment. I didn't really notice the wording of "girls" versus "ladies" until you mentioned it. However, I did notice that the the people in charge made sure the Handmaids knew that they were less than everyone else. The Handmaids had to kneel, not wear real clothes, and they weren't allowed to eat with the family. I wonder if one of the reasons why the Handmaids were referred to as "girls" rather than women or ladies, was to again remind them of their inferiority. I think that the Handmaids were reminded so often of their inferiority so that they won't try to revolt. It seems a lot more likely that a group of women would be able to bring about change, or fight back than a group of girls. By convincing the Handmaid's that they are "girls" and that they are so much less valuable than the wives, the people in control are convincing them that they are powerless to change anything.
DeleteThe Historical Notes at the end of the book is sometime in the future after the Republic of Gilead and therefore after Offred and her time as a Handmaid. But something that I found really interesting is that in most historically based novels the historical notes section is what really happened during that event in history, but the way Margaret Atwood used it was kind of like an epilogue to the story, especially since at that point she hadn’t written the sequel. The Historical Notes section was some group discussing Offred and her tale sometime in the future and it was explained that her story, The Handmaid’s Tale, was actually dictated onto cassette tapes after the fact. I noticed as I was reading the book that towards the end the feel started to change where Offred wasn’t just the protagonist in this particular story but this was her tale that she was telling, like what the Historical Notes suggest. For example on page 267-8 it has that feeling of someone telling their story long after it’s taken place after they’ve had time to reflect upon it and the events in that story. (I’m not going to put it in because it’s really long, but it goes from “I wish this story were different” to “this is the story then”.) Another is on page 135 where it says, “I want you to kiss me, said the Commander. Well, of course something came before that. Such requests never come flying out of the blue”. It’s like she’s giving the story to an audience and like she’s answering a silly question before she continues on with the story. She’s anticipating because she’s had time to think over everything that’s happened many times. But I think this could also show another side to Offred because while she doesn’t enjoy what’s happening, it takes a different kind of strength to lay out the story like this and relive it after it’s happened. And that’s something she mentions on page 267-8, but she does it anyway so that her story is out there and maybe someday somewhere, someone will be able to read it. And she hopes to be able to bond with other women who might have a similar story to hers. So even though this isn’t a chapter in and of it itself really, I think it still builds onto Offred’s character and that strength is probably something Margaret Atwood used when she wrote the sequel.
ReplyDeleteThe way that Margaret Atwood wrote the novel is very interesting. How she doesn’t just stick to one tense or one story but kind of weaves them all together in a compelling way. And from what I’ve seen this is common for her to write a book that’s not linear, telling just one story in one tense from beginning to end. Like how she weaves three timelines together of Offred’s life: ‘before’, in the Center, and then when she’s a Handmaid named Offred. But also, in what could be considered the present tense of her as a handmaid there’s times the story is told in present tense but there’s also times where it’s told in past tense where the Offred telling the story is recalling something that happened while being a Handmaid when she’s either no longer a Handmaid or during one of her many hours of downtime. Something else that I found interesting about how she wrote the book was how she uses quotes because she only used them when in the present tense. So when Offred was recounting either of the other two storylines or when she was remembering other things after the fact about her time as a Handmaid, Margaret Atwood wouldn’t use the quotes to designate when someone was speaking and the words would just be there like all the other words of narration. I think this really enhanced the story even more to have all that building as you reach the end of the novel and it worked a lot better than just having brief snippets of it come out in passing as Offred thinks about it and it adds a lot to the story and to Offred’s story. I think also it makes you sympathetic to Offred because she had no choice in any of this and so through her story, both past and present, you get a sense of how much control she has lost over her life and that lack of control to a lot of people is scary. But that’s another way government’s are able to control people, by taking away and power or control they have over anything. So the Handmaid’s have no choice, they have to breed and die for their government. And that is also really scary. Let's hope we never come to that.
ReplyDeleteIt was very interesting how Atwood wrote the story with three main story lines (her life with Luke and her child, her life learning to be a handmaid with the Aunts, and present time when she is a handmaid). I thought that it made the book a lot more interesting to read, because it left so many holes that needed to be filled in. For example, Offred tells the reader that she will eventually attempt to run away with Luke and her daughter very early in the novel. However, you don't know what led up to that point, or what happened when they ran away. As you read, you learn what they are running away from, and eventually you learn what happened to her and Luke. This made me want to continue to read the book, and pay close attention to what was going to happen next.
DeleteTo add on to what Maggie and Cora said, I liked how Atwood used this particular weaving of stories to draw the reader into the book. The small snippets of story help the reader become invested in the character, and as they become more invested in the character, the lessons the character learns are more easily translated to the reader. I feel it's interesting that when it comes to dystopias, empathy is a key factor in getting a message across. I agree with Maggie; the connection between the reader and Offred helps show the extent of the government's control over her and the other Handmaids' bodies, and shows the reader how dangerous sexism and not speaking out can be.
DeleteThe previous comment ("To add on to...") was made by me.
DeleteI agree with this; I like the way Offred's past is a mystery until revealed to the reader in bits and pieces, which helped to build a relationship between the reader and the character. By this, I mean that the reader has to pay close attention to what period in Offred's life she's thinking about, due to an excessive use of pronouns instead of proper names. For example, Offred continuously refers to her daughter as "she," giving only the context of past tense and some behaviors that sound like interactions with a child. "There used to be an ice cream store, somewhere on this block. I can't remember the name. Things can change so quickly, buildings can be torn down or turned into something else, it's hard to keep them straight in your mind the way they used to be. You could get double scoops, and if you wanted they would put chocolate sprinkles on top. These had the name of a man. Johnnies? Jackies? I can't remember.
Delete"We would go there, when she was little, and I'd hold her up so she could see through the glass side of the counter, where the vats of ice cream were on display, colored so delicately, pale orange, pale green, pale pink, and I'd read the names to her so she could choose. She wouldn't choose by name, though, but by the color. Her dresses and overalls were those colors too. Ice cream pastels.
"Jimmies, that was the name." (Atwood, 165)
The way that the reader has to pay close attention to Offred's constantly shifting mind--the fact that she doesn't spoon-feed information to the audience to ensure that it's understood what era she's remembering or what character she's referring to--forces the reader to pick up on details and patterns Offred's thought process, like the fact that she only refers to her daughter by pronouns.
(Olivia) I agree! The style is very non-linear in the way it switches from past to present tense at the drop of the hat, as Offred reminisces about her past life. It's implied at the end of the book that her story was recorded? And therefore told in a format in which one tells a personal anecdote. It changes the tone, certainly. The style of Atwood's writing, the run on sentences, the constant switching of settings from the past and present, all bring about a sense of peering into Offred's mind. It's all quite intimate, to say the least. It has the effect of drawing the reader into Offred's mind and her suffering under the Gileadean regime. Which is why her moments of depression and reminiscence feel more emotional and personal, because we as the reader feel like we are in Offred's head--and in turn, we feel like we know her as a person.
DeleteSometimes using multiple timelines can become very confusing for the reader but in this case, I completely agree that it improved the book in multiple ways. If we were only able to see Offred’s life as a handmaid, the book would be completely different. Seeing the different times in her life make Offred a character that you can easily become emotionally attached to. Hearing about her mother, daughter, and Luke made her life story a lot more fascinating to me. Personally, I think if there weren’t those three timelines I wouldn’t have been engaged or interested in the book at all. The different timelines also allow us to see how Offred changed throughout her life. At one point she was a working woman with a husband and daughter then she was alone and lost all control in her life. That obviously changes someone but it also allows us to see how the Republic of Gilead was trying to change and control people. The early timeline is also the easiest to personally connect to, most people today can’t personally connect to her life as a handmaid but they can connect to the little anecdotes such as when she went to the supermarket before Gilead took over.
DeleteThe last comment starting with "sometimes" was made by Emma
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne section which stood out to me was when Offred was asked to play Scrabble with the Commander. "'I'd like you to play a game of Scrabble with me, ' he says... ...We play two games. Larynx, I spell. Valance. Quince. Zygote. I hold the glossy counters with their smooth edges, finger the letters. The feeling is voluptuous. This is freedom, an eyeblink of it. Limp, I spell. Gorge. What a luxury. The counters are like candies, made of peppermint, cool like that. Humbugs, those were called. I would like to put them into my mouth. They would taste also of lime. The letter C. Crisp, slightly acid on the tongue, delicious." (138-139, Atwood) This part was an important part of the book because it is such a small action that has drastic results. Later, Offred notices how the dynamics of the household members has changed: "Circumstances have altered. I can ask for something." (143-144, Atwood) Before, Offred had no rights, no push or shove. I wonder, why did the Commander do this? Why would he give her power? He didn't give her a lot, but why would he create this game of give and take, of manipulation and owing something? Does the Commander feel sorry for Offred? Or does he give her this freedom for selfish reasons; he wants a companion, a lover, an emotional connection? As I thought about the reasons why the Commander would help Offred, I realized something. In order to have control, the government has attempted to take away love. By prioritizing duty, no one has a real cause to rebel; for love is often a cause of rebellion. In many people's opinions, sex is a fundamental act that shows love, or at the very least attraction. But sex is no longer a sign of love or affection; romance is a word that has been practically removed from the dictionary. Society without love or trust is a system of oppression and expression, and in the end, it's Offred's love for Luke and trust for Nick that sets her free.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with this comment and I love the thought process. One other thing that stood out to me in the initial Scrabble scene was the contrast between Offred's thoughts and the Commander's words. Offred constantly thinks, "I want to...," showing her greatest desire being to act on her own emotions and thoughts, as an individual who isn't being controlled. But the Commander says twice in that scene: "I want you to...," which I think is because he already has the freedom to act on his own. What he can't control is others. That's why he doesn't say, for example, "I want to kiss you," because if he did, he would just do it. What he wanted was for her to accept the kiss, and to feel that connection with another person. It's not a very important detail, but I appreciated the subtle reminder of the balance of power and of the fact that nobody was really satisfied.
DeleteI also saw this. And it's something that the Commander mentions during his meetings with Offred. They talk about love and how now the lack of love is a byproduct of their need for children and sex for reproduction purposes only. In their society, love is a weakness, something that needs to be eradicated for the common good. So that means that sex, often showing love between people, is no longer for pleasure but for purpose. But this lack of love shows up as a vacant hole, specifically in the Commander and Offred because it's something that humans crave. They need to feel loved and not just in the sense of someone loving you as a sexual partner, but that you are wanted in the world and not just needed for a purpose. That's been taken away and is something that the Commander and Offred both miss and can be assumed that others feel the same way. Like when Ofglen mentions that Offred would be surprised how many Commanders meet with their Handmaid's outside of the Ceremony. When Offred's Commander says that he wants her life to be bearable, he is essentially saying that he wants her to be more than just a purpose even though he's not supposed to. They are trying to create love in a society where love is the enemy and something to be avoided at all costs because love and to be loved is necessary for most humans to be happy and feel fulfilled in life.
DeleteSpecifically commenting on the part where you mentioned how Offred noticed the change in the dynamics household, I also recognized this section as a signifcant part of the storyline. I agree with your questions that you posed, as I was thinking similarly. I also observed the shift that Serena Joy made from the beginning of the book to this point of the story, and I feel as though all of these changes are simply reactions to all of the same events. Whether or not Serena knew about the relationship between Offred and the Commander, we may never know, but regardless it was really interesting to see this shift.
DeleteHannah
Something ever-present in the book and that I really loved was the stylistic choice to write in a way that sounds like an internal monologue. The constant word-association, run-on sentences, and sometimes complete nonsense feels very true to the mind of someone alone. One of my favorite examples of this was Offred's internal monologue after her first secret meeting with the Commander. "I can't see it in the dark but I trace the tiny writing with the ends of my fingers, as if it's a code in Braille. It sounds in my head now less like a prayer, more like a command; but to do what? Useless to me in any case, an ancient hieroglyph to which the key's been lost. Why did she write it, why she did bother? There's no way out of here.
ReplyDelete"I lie on the floor, breathing too fast, then slower, evening out my breathing, as in the Exercises, for giving birth. All I can hear now is the sound of my own heart, opening and closing, opening and closing, opening" (Atwood, 146-147)
There's so much about this passage that I love. The way that she lets the latin phrase run through her mind again and again, with her own experiences changing her perception of the words, despite not knowing any new information about the phrase itself. Her use of the Exercises from previous experiences to calm herself down despite them not being designed for her situation, which demonstrates her mind connecting two previously unrelated things for personal benefit. But what stood out to me the most was the last sentence, in which her thoughts become a simple pattern focused on her heartbeat, ending without punctuation. This so clearly depicts her experience of spontaneously falling asleep, it's as if the reader is experiencing it. The lack of punctuation also could represent the start of a new chapter in Offred's life, or the fact that the events of this chapter would be the first of many. Either way, none of this stuff I'm saying is really important to the overall plot, but exemplifies not only how truly dense Atwood's writing is with symbolism and double-meanings, but also how the writing style is able to so well depict the thought process of someone maddened by loneliness, yearning for freedom, and time.
I also really liked how Margaret Atwood wrote in a very nonlinear way to represent Offred's thought process. I wonder if part of it was because it made it easier to get into Offred's head when the world or her situation might not make sense at first. But I think it also connects to the hints scattered throughout the book that Offred isn't writing this down as it's happenieng, she's recording it later after everything is said and done. And so through her recording, she's trying to make sense of it herself while also telling a story and the telling of a story is never a cohesive process. Not without lots of editing it back. So this I think is how Offred remembers it herself, a jumble of lot's of things with no real plot or timeline to follow. No real trail of thought, just lots of little bits and pieces trying to make a story.
DeleteSomething I wondered throughout the story was whom Offred was narrating this to. At times, it seemed that we were just seeing her internal monologue, but then there were moments like when she says, "This is what she says, whispers, more or less. I can't remember exactly, because I had no way of writing it down." (Atwood, 243) It's strange to me how in these two sentences she shifts from present- to past-tense. It reminds me of how telling stories in conversation goes, which kind of gives me the idea that, no matter what happened, Offred survived in the end, and is telling her story to an unseen character, or perhaps writing it down like a book for the masses. Still, I think that a lot of the story is just her internal monologue, so maybe, the same way she cuts to past tense and remembers her time before being a handmaid, the story also cuts to future tense at times, to when she's telling someone about her experience as a handmaid. This is also evident in moments like, "I don't want to be telling this story.
ReplyDelete"I don't have to tell it. I don't have to tell anything, to myself or to anyone else. I could just sit here, peacefully, I could withdraw. It's possible to go so far in, so far back, they could never get you out." (Atwood, 225) When first reading it, I thought she was describing her thought process while she sat alone in her room between meals as a handmaid. But I realized that this moment, being a paragraph separate from everything else, seems almost like a brief window into Offred's future self speaking to someone about her past, but closing up due to the pain of telling her story. These little hints at how Offred is delivering her tale to the reader are what make me wonder what really is the present-tense, and whether the whole book is more of a timeline, out of chronological order, depicting the complete life of a handmaid, than a story of one specific period.
I also noticed how the narration style varied. I found the multiple switches between present and past tense intriguing. Sometimes when an author stays with one ‘tense’ too long, it gets kind of boring. The pace of the book slows down and it becomes harder to be as invested. But the fact that Atwood used those changes helped to keep it interesting and engaging. It could also be used as a clue to where Offred is when she’s telling the story, and what happened to her. I don’t get the sense that she’s telling the story from her bedroom in the Commander’s house.
DeleteI thought the variation in narration style was important to the plot of the story. While it was an interesting choice to switch tenses, and confusing at times, I believe it helped Offred tell her story more realistically. Telling the story with different tenses allowed a glimpse into Offred's future and into her past, giving the reader a better idea about the whole of Offred's life. I, personally, have not read many stories where the tense switches so often, but I thought it was very engaging and added to the overall story.
DeleteThe relationship between Offred and Luke was interesting to me. The reader starts the story, knowing that she had a lover. He is mentioned many times, always caring stories about love and their child together. As Offred keeps having flashbacks, a key point about a change in their relationship is revealed. Atwood writes "But something had shifted, some balance. I felt shrunken, so that when he put his arms around me, gathering me up, I was small as a doll. I felt love going forward without me. He doesn’t mind this, I thought. He doesn’t mind it at all. Maybe he even likes it. We are not each other’s, anymore. Instead, I am his.” (Atwood 182) This passage immediately stuck out to me. I realized that Luke unconsciously was already starting to conform to the new society in which men were in power. Offred uses the term “doll”. A doll is an inanimate object that you buy, and own, and you can do whatever you want with it. She felt owned. She says that “...we never talked about it… I was afraid to.” (Atwood 182) It’s definitely scary, when someone you see as your equal suddenly gains new power. Yet, she still yearned for him while she was at the Commander’s.
ReplyDeleteI also found the relationshiop between Offred and Luke interesting and odd. Almost in the same way that Offred felt like a doll, an inanimat eobject, the way she spoke of Luke, simply as a figure of her memory, was similar to an inanimate object as well. At times, Offred spoke about Luke in a manner that I couldn't tell how exactly she felt about him. At time sit was almost with hatred it seemed like, for making her feel so miniscule, but at the same time, like you said, he was something she longed for. In her reflections on her and Luke's past, Offreds thoughts seemed almost youthful.
Delete(Olivia) I really think that the subtle change in dynamic that Offred and Luke's relationship experiences at the start of the Gilead regime mirrors real life in a way. Often times, men will say that they respect women, they will say that they do everything they can to not be sexist, however, in the same breath, they will stay silent when another man harasses a woman, they won't speak up when they see sexual harassment or verbal harassment. It's the same concept here. Atwood paints Luke as a considerate and loving man, given their relationship and the way in which Offred looks back upon it, she loved and respected him. But the ease in which he chooses to accept the new power dynamic and comforts her by saying that 'He'll take care of her,' showcases men's willingness to ignore their responsibility to fight for women outside their own actions. Which, if anything, is even more important to dismantling the system of oppression which keeps women at the bottom. Oppressors which choose to use their privilege to help the downtrodden are the most powerful of allies, because oppressors only listen to other oppressors.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I liked best about this book was how Margaret Atwood took the time to go into depth about emotions. I feel like it is a reflection on the character, and how they view the world. Everyone interprets emotions differently, so if a reader can understand how a character thinks, it provides a deep insight into their mind. There were a couple passages that stood out to me, one being where Offred talks about love. Atwood writes “falling in love, we said; I fell for him. We were falling women. We believed in it, this downward motion: so lovely, like flying, and yet at the same time so dire, so extreme, so unlikely. God is love, they once said, but we reversed that, and love, like heaven, was always just around the corner.” (Atwood 225) Offred talks about love as if it was over, a thing of the past. In a strange way, I think that makes it even more poetic. Offred continues the theme of talking about certain emotions as if they were in the past. In a memory of Luke she says “He was so momentary, so condensed. And yet there seemed no end to him. We would lie in those afternoon beds, afterwards, hands on each other, talking it over. Possible, impossible. What could be done? We thought we had such problems. How were we to know we were happy?” (Atwood 51) In this passage Offred almost dismisses her old life as a trivial thing. She puts in into perspective: compared to her life now, the problems of her past are nothing. Again, it’s poetic, nostalgic, and a little bitter. Although we are not in the same society as The Handmaid’s tale, I think everyone can relate to the nostalgic emotions of the past.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of The Handmaid’s Tale is outrageous to think about for many (including me). We live in a progressive society, where each year we seem to fight for a new minority, constantly rewriting our laws so that everyone is included. Offred’s society seems to be doing the opposite of that. They once had equality, and then all of sudden women are inferior and the country is run by violent dictators. It’s so weird to think that this could ever happen. I found myself wondering, why would Margaret Atwood ever want to write about this? What is the basis for this dystopian world she created? But as I was reading, I found a passage that helped me see it in a new light. In one of the many sections where Offred is deep in thought about gender roles, she thinks “Maybe none of this is about control. Maybe it isn’t really about who can own whom, who can do what to whom and get away with it, even as far as death. Maybe it isn’t about who can sit and who has to kneel or stand or lie down, legs spread open. Maybe its about who can do what to whom and be forgiven for it. Never tell me it amounts to the same thing.” (Atwood 135) This makes so much sense to me. It really is about what we are willing to forgive people for. As soon as we allow one person to be forgiven, all others think they will be forgiven as well. It’s about not speaking up because it doesn’t affect us directly. I think this a huge underlying theme for The Handmaid’s Tale.
ReplyDelete(Olivia) While I agree with your point, I raise an alternate perspective on Atwood's purpose. The way I see it, the Handmaids Tale is a warning. It's a warning about the fragility of freedom that modern women have fought for. One that they became complacent with, given their reaction to the suspension of the constitution--which was minimal to no resistance ("There wasn't even any rioting in the streets,"). With this in mind, I think it's important to point out how liberal and progressive the world of the United States appeared to be before the Gilead Regime took over, with its "Pornomarts" and its "Feels on Wheels," it would seem as though the society which came before Gilead was quite sex positive and pro-bodily autonomy, which makes the hyper religious and conservative takeover of Gilead all the more unsettling, because it sends the subtle message to the reader that this can happen to any society, should the citizens let it. So while I agree with your point, I simply see it differently!
DeleteEmma
DeleteI really liked the perspective of forgiveness in all of the outrageous events in Offred’s society. It was not something I ever thought of but I did constantly wonder what Margaret Atwood wanted from this book. Originally I had the perspective that Margaret Atwood wanted this book to bring attention to women’s rights and bring light to the fact that even though there has been so much improvement, our society could move backward. The idea of what people are willing to forgive is complicated because at some point a society could become unforgivable and each individual’s interpretation of forgiveness can be different. Now I see the purpose of this book as a bigger picture than just women’s rights and oppression. I think that Atwood’s society is very much exaggerated as a novel should be and our world turning into something like that is very unlikely. However, I think it’s very possible that Atwood wanted to warn against negative change in our society and the manipulation of power whether it involves women’s rights or anything else.
This is Olivia (content warning; rape mention): the dystopian genre is often seen as a lense which frames what the world could become, should we choose to turn a blind eye to things like injustice and cruelty. Atwood is no different in the way that she uses the setting and social environment of Gilead to comment on the patterns and pillars of the society she was writing in at the time. She does this with the worldbuilding of the book. With the way that the system of oppression for women is set up, it categorizes women into separate boxes, for which there are three cardinal purposes: housework, companionship to men, and reproduction. This hyper patriarchal system not only serves to establish the type of society that Gilead is and what its priorities are (men at the top, women are but tools for reproduction and serving men), but it also divides the women from each other. By separating them, it helps to avoid solidarity and keep the power by creating a system that makes it easier for the women to rat out each other. And thereby ensuring obedience from the oppressed party. This mimics our lives in a way; societal patterns in which the oppressed class turn on each other, such as victim blaming are a prevalent problem in our post #metoo world, in which people choose to take the side of the sexual abuser by implicating that the woman was somehow at fault for the actions of her abuser. Atwood highlights this sort of oppression, or "victim blaming" and frames it as a source of peer oppression that Gilead uses to keep control. As a form of indoctrination, the women at the Red Center were instructed to provide details of their past life, and the other Aunts and Handmaids were instructed to "judge" them for it, using Gilead ideals. The example that Offred provides the reader is that of Janine's experience, in which she admits she was gang raped at the age of 14. The women then start chanting "your fault," repeatedly, while laughing and taunting. The Aunts commented that Janine "lead them on," and therefore it was "her fault." These accusations sound familiar because they're the same ones that other women and men use against abuse victims to keep the power structure that is rape culture in place. It shifts accountability, and allows so that the man is never at fault. But most importantly, in the society of Gilead, it fosters hatred among the Handmaids, by enforcing these societal rules, and keeping each other in check, it helps so that the ruling class never has to. When people who are similar to you begin to dictate their own oppression--and believe in it-- that is simply more powerful that anything a man could do in a patriarchal society. Conversely, the message that Atwood conveys is that bodily autonomy starts when people claim responsibility for the actions of themselves, as well as others. You cannot claim responsibility for an act that wasn't your own, and therefore cannot take fault. In short, Victim blaming in our society needs to stop, because it only helps the oppressors.
ReplyDeleteThis was a really good analysis of the structure of the dystopian society that Atwood created. You made a lot of points that I had not even thought about bu make a ton of sense! I agree that splitting the women up into different categories such as Handmaids, Aunts, and Wives allow them to feel isolated and turn against each other when it is really the men/rulin class they should be against. This is a common tactic for many different kinds of people, even today. When you feel alone, it is easier to foster hatred and sadness instead of fighting back. The section where the Handmaids chant at Janine made me sick, but it was necessary to the book to show how the society works. Victim blaming is prevalent even now, and by making the girls in the Red Center blame each other, it strengthens the abuser.
Delete(Olivia Tobin) I find that the concept of the Handmaids Tale is interesting, more specifically, the way in which the United States started becoming Gilead. Atwood mostly comments on the way in which shock and complacency can paralyze a society into believing and trusting the government far too much for their own good. By doing this, she comments that the fight for freedom and control of our bodies is a never ending fight, no matter how "progressive" society appears to be--things can always take a turn. I drew this conclusion because of the way in which Offred tells her story. I find it similar to movies in popular culture which the world becomes either apocalyptic or dystopian in some way (I also find some parallels to our global pandemic world,)the society goes slowly, surely, and ultimately--silently. But I digress. Offred starts her story by detailing the catastrophe which triggered the downfall of the US. An attack on Congress which (if my memory serves me) killed everybody in the Legislative branch, which essentially topples the government. The Constitution is suspended shortly after--and she highlights that, because of shock, nobody questions it ("there wasn't even any rioting in the streets."), while to the reader it seems like a massive red flag-- and by the time people began to protest, the government already had too much power and quickly killed and suppressed dissenters. Soon after, she was denied her own money as well as a job, and only then did she realize it was probably time to leave. With all this, Atwood makes it clear that shock and misinformation can easily pull the wool over the collective populations eyes, when she says that the Constitution was suspended shortly after the attacks, "There wasn't even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction," in short, when people are paralyzed with shock and fear, and become complacent, that's the exact moment that tyranny strikes. This mirrors our own world now more than ever. The importance of Atwood's message cannot be understated. The protesters on the West coast were thrown into unmarked vans (similar to the Eyes throwing dissenters into their black vans off the streets) for peacefully protesting. A curfew was briefly imposed in the city of Los Angeles, a few weeks after protesting began, and tanks were rolling through neighborhoods at night. People are being ratted out online for protesting peacefully and being arrested for "disturbing the peace." Her message resonates with me now more than ever, and we cannot understate how fickle freedom really is. The moment shock and fear overtake anger and determination is the same breath which democracy dies.
ReplyDeleteAmen, Olivia!
Delete(Olivia) While being the shortest section of the book, I find the Historical Notes to be the most enlightening part of Atwood's commentary about society; in which a group of historians and social scientists, organized in Canada, analyze the long history of Gilead, many years after its collapse (in the year 2195, I believe). Not only does this section reveal how Atwood feels about the detached nature in which academia approaches oppression and suffering in history, but it adds layers to her overall themes about freedom and complacency in society, and how they cannot coexist. To start off, I wanted to note that we spent the majority of this novel experiencing Offred's suffering, her trials as a Handmaid, and what her life was like under an oppressive regime. Atwood contrasts this with the "Historical Notes" section in which it starts off with academic jargon and one Professor Pieixoto using words like "Gileadean Symposium," to describe this event. It almost feels like a cruel joke that these people can stand so detached from the source of Offred's suffering and even make light of it's content, he remarks about it's validity as well as its severity, "I hesitate to use the word 'document'[…]" and "wishing to trade no doubt on the sensationalism of such stories," which both implies his detachment as well as his overall disbelief of such suffering and tragedy. At one point, he even offers a moral plea to the Gileadeans, saying "we must be cautious about passing moral judgment upon the Gileadeans. … Our job is not to censure but to understand." It all seems like such a cruel slap in the face to everything the reader just experienced through Offred's point of view. To see the uncaring and cavalier attitude, and even an attempt to avoid imparting judgement on a fascist regime highlights Atwood's attitude toward academia and its tendency to dull down real human suffering in order to impart a "logical" gaze onto something, with the real danger of ignoring the real lessons from history. We are doomed to repeat the same mistakes should we think that our society is "too liberal" for a fascist regime which imparts a theocracy on its people. Even 200 years into the future, Atwood remarks that society is never too progressive to fall into fascism again, and that vigilance is a full time job for everyone.
ReplyDeleteSimilrly to one of Coras posts, I noticed how inanimate, impersonal, and dehumanizing the society of Gilead was towards women. In desperation to gain control and power, women were turned into figures and tools, used by societys men as a sign of power and control. In a sense, women were simply turned into animals; owned by the men, traded and sent off when considered "sterile" and out of good use, and as a result women felt just teh same. When Offred spoke of her past, especially about Luke or her mother, she mentioned how much she was forgetting about them, and the way life used to be. Offred spoke about her outing with Ofglen one day, talking about the different paths they would take, just to make the most of their time. At one point, she says "A rat in a maze is free to go anywhere, as long as it stays inside the maze." (Atwood, 165). This line really spoke to me and my idea in relation to the characterization of women and their roles in Gilead.
ReplyDeleteI found Margaret Atwood's use of reflections and flashbacks to be a really vital part of the story and its influence. Offred developed into a really dynamic character, and seeing the ins and outs of what was going on in her head made me feel sympathy and a great deal of emotion for her. Specifcally in relation to her reflections about Luke and her mother, it was really meaningful when Offred began to realize just how disconnected she felt from her former life.
ReplyDeleteSince Offred can't remember the last tiem she saw her mother or what their conversations were,and she regrets not paying closer attention to the imperfections and qualities of Luke, it is almost like a fantasy being made and romanticized within her head. Are her reflections real, or are they simply fabricated in order for her past to be her only glimpse of hope? As a whole. I have focused a lot on the flashbacks and recollections that Offred has told us about. I find myself drawn to those sections, and I am appealed to such sections because it causes questions to come up in my head and a sense of emotion and sympathy towards Offred.
I thought the style of going back and forth between the future and the past made the story hard to follow sometime, but it paid off much more than writing chronologically would have.
DeleteI found it interesting that Margaret Atwood classified this novel as "speculative fiction," opposed to science fiction or other genres of books. This is very reflective of many of the main plot points in the novel, showing how although this novel takes place in a dystopian society, many of the practices are a reflection of practices that take place in our world today. The quote that Cora used in her response, “When we think of the past it’s the beautiful things we pick out. We want to believe it was all like that,” (Atwood 30), stuck out to me because it shows how many of the political, economic, and social standards in the Gilead society were problematic, in Offred's past and in the current time. Atwood uses this book as an example of speculative fiction because many of the economic and social standards taking place in the book are very common with standards in place in the U.S. today, and have happened in the past. The women's role in the society of Gilead is an extreme standard of how some people perceive women in our society today. The book being classified as speculative fiction leaves an uneasy feeling with the reader and causes them to think about how certain ideas and themes present in the society in the novel are similar to ideas and themes in the real world.
ReplyDeleteUsually when I think about this book I call it dystopian, and calling it science fiction doesn’t make sense to me. Sci-Fi in my mind usually seems less attainable, with worlds, that I can only imagine because the book is telling me about them. The world of “The Handmaid’s Tale” at its core has lots of things that line up with our world, the base of religion and misogyny are both real things in our world that if taken a step too far might have a bad result. I don’t really think that the story of “The Handmaid’s Tale” would happen in our world, but calling it speculative fiction instead of science fiction makes more sense, because it could happen.
DeleteI agree. I think that although the story is fictional, it is a true representation of the issues she thinks are important and the future she sees emerging. To me, it is similar the George Orwell's 1984 because although it may be a bit unrealistic, most of the major issues and predictions are rational, just wrapped in a fictional setting.
DeleteThe recurring theme of identity was something that stuck out to me when reading this novel. In the book, Offred states, "My name isn't Offred, I have another name, which nobody uses now because it's forbidden. I tell myself it doesn't matter, your name is like your telephone number, useful only to others; but what I tell myself is wrong, it does matter." (Atwood, 84). I thought this quote was interesting because in the Gilead society, people's identities are suppressed. They aren't able to use their real names, and they are supposed to become whatever the society wants them to become, whether that be a handmaid, an aunt, a wife, etc. People adapt to whatever role they are given, and their true identity is pushed to the side. Offred shows, in this quote, that she understands how the society is suppressing her identity. Offred showing that she realizes how her true identity still matters evokes sympathy from the readers, and I found this idea of suppressed identity sad.
ReplyDeleteThe dictatorship shown by the society of Gilead was interesting to me because I thought it was a good reflection of the way many countries run in our world today. A quote that stuck out to me when thinking about a controlling society was, "The Republic of Gilead, said Aunt Lydia, knows no bounds. Gilead is within you." (Atwood, 23). This idea about a society being "within you" expresses totalitarianism ideas, showing how the Republic of Gilead maintains control over everything and everyone. Many times throughout the novel, Offred reflects on the past, acknowledging how women used to have more rights and more power. When Gilead was established, many rights that the people held were taken away, reflective of a totalitarian society. I believe when Atwood was creating the society of Gilead, she intended for it to show how many societies in our world were created. Many countries in the world have a central source of power that has a say over what happens to the citizens, what laws are created, etc. While Gilead is an extreme example of a totalitarian society, I believe Atwood intended for it to show the potential power that a government/society can hold over people, and how this can lead to many issues.
ReplyDeleteI also made many connections between the fictional society of Gilead and real countries in our world. It reminds me of many different totalitarian countries that we have learned about in history class, and even some countries currently. I like your point about the country being "within you." It shows that they are trying to make it personal, so the citizens will be more likely to go along with their dictatorship. They seem to put on a false act of caring about their citizens, when really it is just a tactic to remain in control.
DeleteAs Olivia said, the "Historical Notes" section was quite possibly the biggest sections of the book. Obviously it was different than teh rest of the book due to teh nature of it being futuristic, but aside from being based in 2195, it was practically a mockery of Offreds story. In a sense, I appreciated this section because it did address some of the questions ans speculations I had thought about; I had wondered who the Commander was, what made him special enough to be a Commander, and I found it really fascinating to read about who it may have been. Obviously this is a story afterall, and it's not like it was a relaity, but it was still interesting to learn more about Gilead and the practices it upheld. I also suspected that the names, such as Offred or Ofglen, were composed of the word "of" (contributing to the possessive state that women were demoted to), and the name of their Commander. This isn't neccessarily a big part of what the book contained, but it is just one more way that society dehumanized women and made them into beings that were simply owned and used by the upperclass men in particular.
ReplyDeleteI also found this section of the book very intriguing because it inspected Offreds story differently than I had thought of it. Knowing that this story was retold via a tape, it makes more sense that some of her thoughts and sections seemed to ramble on aimlessly, get sidetracked, and romanticized. Whether or not this was simply a detail I forgot about from teh beginning, or if it was just included in the end, I am unsure. Either way, I feel that the "Historical Notes" section was a powerful way for Atwood to end this book.
Ending the book with the Historical Notes was definitely a good choice on Margaret Atwood's part. It helped to wrap things up, and as you said shed some new light on why the book was written the way that it was. However, I hadn’t really thought of it being a mockery of the story until you said that, and I kind of agree with you. The section starts off with a very talk show feel, and then even though the people in this section go into detail about the tapes and story, it sort of feels like they don’t really care about what they are saying, and they aren’t connected to it. I’m not sure if Atwood meant to write it like this, but even so, the historical notes section was a good way to end.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne thing about this book that I found interesting was what Offred knew, and what she didn’t know. She tends to only know, or tell us about things that she can remember (these are the flashbacks), or she only tells us about what is currently happening. There is a lot of mystery involved with both people and events. Often they do eventually get explained, but sometimes they don’t, and because Offred is the narrator, if she doesn’t know something that means we don’t either. One instance where this is really obvious is on page 104, where Offred tells about what she thinks happened to Luke. “Here is what I believe. I believe Luke is lying face down in a thicket, a tangle of bracken, the brown fronds from last year under the green ones just unrolled, or ground hemlock perhaps, although it’s too early for the red berries.” (Atwood, 104) The first of her scenarios for what happened to Luke is that he died, but after fully exploring that idea, she goes on to think about what he would be like if he had been imprisoned, and then finally she discusses what would have happened if he had escaped. Her not knowing this adds some more mystery to the story, and gives Offred drive to figure things out. There is a similar effect with the story of her daughter, because she originally wasn’t sure what had happened to her, it was a good incentive for her to agree to meet the commander, and then ultimately to work with Serena Joy. I found that this lack of information that Offred had made the book even more interesting, because she did know some things, she just didn’t know everything, and that not knowing was a really good part of the story.
ReplyDeleteI found that the classifications of the women in this story were really interesting, and that I had several questions about them. The Aunts, Wives, Marthas, and Handmaid’s are the big for classifications (there are also the Econowives, and the younger children). These classifications brought up questions for me about, how they were created, and who was supposed to be part of them. Obviously the Handmaid’s are the fertile women of the country. This seems to be about the only quality that they have to have, although as far as I can tell they do seem to be younger than the wives and aunts. The Aunts presumably are the women who helped in forming Gilead, or they were women who instead of becoming wives were put into a different position of power. Aunt Lydia seems to hold more power than the wives, and as a whole group the Aunts are allowed to write, so they definitely have slightly less limited rights, but still because they are women they do have some limitations. Offred does talk about the wives some (or at least Serena Joy). “Sometimes when I could find any I would watch the Growing Souls Gospel Hour, where they would tell Bible stories for children and sing hymns. One of the women was called Serena Joy. She was the lead soprano.” (Atwood 16). Since Serena Joy was a popular woman who was religious, and Gilead is highly based around religion, it could be possible that the other wives have similar backgrounds to her, maybe without the religion or without the fame. And then the Marthas, have the least information, I had kind of assumed that they were similar to the Handmaids except for the fact that they aren’t fertile. These classifications are all put in place to separate the women, and take away their power, but I just found it interesting to think about how the women would have been put into a classification.
ReplyDeleteOffred’s real name is never actually confirmed in the book, and because Offred is the narrator it would have been really easy for Margaret Atwood to just have Offred call herself by her real name, but she doesn’t. The only name she is referred to by is Offred. Atwood even explains why Offred doesn’t call herself by her real name. “My name isn’t Offred, I have another name, which nobody uses now because it is forbidden. I tell myself it doesn’t matter, your name is like your telephone number, useful only to others; but what I tell myself is wrong, it does matter. I keep the knowledge of this name like something hidden, some treasure I’ll come back to dig up, one day.” (Atwood 84) I find it odd that Offred herself doesn’t want to call herself by her real name, especially since she never really seems to overly care about the rules. She follows them, but she only follows them out of self preservation, and I feel like calling herself by her name wouldn’t be breaking any laws because it wasn't spoken. At the end of the book when Nick uses Offred’s real name, we aren’t even told it then. It makes sense at the end, because we wouldn’t really know if that was true or not, but overall, it seems to be kind of an odd choice to not include her name at all. However, it does make sense because a name makes her a person and just calling her Offred (of Fred), makes her less of a person and more of an object. I personally think that she is June, because when names are listed at the beginning of the book, June is the last name, and the only one never mentioned again in the story.
ReplyDeleteEmma
ReplyDeleteBeing alive in two very different times makes Offred’s life even more intriguing. The flashbacks allow us to see what her life was life before the Republic of Gilead took over. As the book goes on Offred almost can’t imagine anything other than what she knows. The rules, oppression, and fear all become normal to her. This caught my attention because I feel like if I were in her shoes I would constantly be feeling like I was living in a bizarre world. When looking at what she was wearing Offred would be thinking, “Did I really wear bathing suits, at the beach? I did, without thought, among men,” (Atwood 63). When it came to working she had a similar thought, “It’s strange, now, to think about having a job. Job. It’s a funny word. It’s a job for a man.” (Atwood 173). The normalcy of her old life was no longer normal to her and even though she struggled in life it was now what was comfortable. At some point what was familiar to her changed and bathing suits and working as a woman seemed like crazy ideas. She still remembered her old life and missed parts of it but it also seemed like the government’s tactics were working by beginning to create a world where people didn’t know anything other than Gilead.
Emma
ReplyDeleteEach dystopia involves emotion and specifically fear in a different way. People living in fear is something we can definitely see in The Handmaids Tale. While reading I was constantly thinking about whether certain fear was valid or just another way the government kept people following their rules. Offred mentioned multiple times that something was “too dangerous” and sometimes that was related to punishment and getting caught. Singing songs that mentioned freedom was also “considered too dangerous” (Atwood 54), which also had to do with the government controlling what people thought. This control and fear became overwhelming for many people which made suicide a topic that was referred to multiple times. Earlier on in the book, there was a more subtle introduction, “There were incidents in bathrooms at first: there were cuttings, drownings” (Atwood 62). This only progressed to where we heard about the handmaid before Offred had committed suicide along with Ofglen. Offred herself even thought, “How can I keep on living?” (Atwood 195). Fear was often the cause of these suicides and when people heard the eye coming in vans or saw people hung at the wall that fear was very real and valid. I still do wonder how long some characters would’ve lived if they didn’t commit suicide.
Emma
ReplyDeleteI constantly went back and forth on how I felt about certain characters and if I liked them or thought they were good or bad. I did this with Nick, Serena Joy, and even other handmaids and marthas. I found the commander a very complicated character because of his relationship with Offred. Commanders have a reputation for being the leaders that believe in the religious patriarchal rules and the oppression of women. The Commander is portrayed this way in his description, “The Commander has on his black uniform, in which he looks like a museum guard. A semiretired man, genial but wary, killing time. His manner is mild, his hands large, with thick fingers and acquisitive thumbs, his blue eyes uncommunicative, falsely innocuous. He looks us over as if taking inventory” (Atwood 86). The Commanders are portrayed as the bad guys and somebody to fear. Then when the Commander has Offred come play scrabble with him his character becomes more complex. Offred gets to break rules and read magazines and use lotion but there is still something awkward about their interactions. It is later realized that the Commander’s actions are caused by his guilt when Offred states, “You want my life to be bearable to me” (Atwood 187). Even though he helps Offred, he is still acting to benefit himself and is in a place of power and privilege. I don’t think one character or person can be all good or bad but the Commander in this book is definitely portrayed as more of a bad guy than a good guy.
That is something that I really like about the writing. Although some characters make poor decisions some times, for example, the commander. You are able to understand why they make those decisions and you still don't entirely like or dislike the characters because they are so rounded.
Delete(Anya)
ReplyDeleteI really liked how Atwood wove the life of Offred before this new way of living into the story. It’s not always huge chunks of flashbacks; sometimes it’s just small observations and wishes. For example, on page 43, Atwood writes: “It’s almost like June, when we would get out our sundresses and our sandals and go for an ice cream cone.” Other times, Offred remembers whole conversations; usually these involve Luke, her mother, or Moira. The different lengths in backstory help keep the reader’s attention fixed on the book. Pieces fall into place the more you read, and slowly you understand how Offred came to be in this place. But not only that; through the memories we see Offred hold onto, we become more aware of her character, and can make inferences as to what happens at the end of the book. We know Offred loves reading, and has been influenced by her activist mother and carefree friend. I feel the small details are the ones which share the most information; they are often the short sentences which jar you with something unbelievable, such as stating “Women were not protected then.” (24) after Offred recalls how she would never run at night. This sentence almost justifies what is happening to women now; now they are protected, now they aren’t assaulted. This small clue shows how this new society tries to brainwash women; by leaving it by itself, there’s a very clear difference between “then” and “now.”
One of the main concepts the book deals with is the idea of living for love vs. survival/necessity. By the standards of society in this book, love is an unhelpful way to live, and it's better for the government to control relationships and sex for the sake of reproduction and humanity's survival, but it's very clear in Offred's internal monologue and experiences that living this way does not feel like a complete life. Still, there are pros and cons to each argument. "He waved a hand at his stacks of old magazines. They were always complaining. Problems this, problems that. Remember the ads in the Personal columns, Bright attractive woman, thirty-five... This way they all get a man, nobody's left out. And then if they did marry, they could be left with a kid, two kids, the husband might just get fed up and take off, disappear, they'd have to go on welfare. Or else he'd stay around and beat them up. Or if they had a job, the children in daycare or left with some brutal ignorant woman, and they'd have to pay for that themselves, out of their wretched little paychecks. Money was the only measure of worth, for everyone, they got no respect as mothers. No wonder they were giving up on the whole business. This way they're protected, they can fulfill their biological destinies in peace. With full support and encouragement. Now, tell me. You're an intelligent person, I like to hear what you think. What did we overlook?
ReplyDelete"Love, I said." (Atwood, 219-220)
I think that Offred's relationship with the Commander is exactly that concept come to life. By this, I mean that they both first exist by the rules, not knowing anything about each other and performing the "ceremonies" as if they were just another chore. But once they developed a bond of any emotional level, they became people to each other, no longer just tasks to endure for brief periods. Although this was actually uncomfortable for Offred and made the experience worse, she also claimed internally to be generally happier, as she had made a real connection for the first time since she became a handmaid, and she was, at the very least, experiencing something remotely interesting. This idea, that the "natural" order of things (attempting pregnancy) became more difficult with a bond with the person, but also that life became easier after having made a friend, is exactly what this book philosophically tackles. The book, and Offred's story, show that, although life may have physically been easier following all of the rules and living to carry a child as a handmaid, emotionally she wasn't even living. Even though life, unguided by the rules and regulations of the system in this book, can be messy and painful as the Commander said, it's also how people are supposed to live. That's why the story ends when Offred's life changes; no matter what became of her, she was set free, no longer shackled to maintaining her handmaid appearance.
One of the major differences that I noticed between the handmaids take and the scarlet letter were their approaches to feminism. While the scarlet letter was revolutionary because it depicted a female protagonist, flaws and all and showed her in a controversial situation, the handmaids tale attempted to tell a story of feminism that opposed the sexuality of women. In other words, the two stories showed different perspectives of feminism, one of sexual liberation and another of sexual disdain. This divide is something we commonly see argued about by modern feminists although it was most like unintended by the authors.
ReplyDeleteThe handmaids tale depicts women in a dystopian future in which their bodies are used as political instruments and wombs for others. The author states “we are for breeding purposes only: we aren’t concubines, geisha girls, courtesans….we are two-legged wombs, that’s all”(170). This shows that in their society women were below traditionally specialized women and were simply used for their wombs. In my opinion this says a lot about what the authors believes would truly be female liberation.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the story I thought it was very interesting how the author told a story that took place in the future and still brought in issues more prevalent in the past. It is a very interesting combination because most often in literature, books about the future show the world as being more equal towards women. It is also interesting how the author shows how the characters justify the society that they live in. For example when Lydia states, "Consider the alternatives. You see what things used to be like?" (Atwood 118). It shows just how skewed the characters perspectives are.
ReplyDelete