Pajiba

I should have known my marriage was over when I recommended he read this book and it's two years later he still hasn't read it.

Awesome review, Genny. I felt the exact same way about this book; it's beautifully written, but very depressing and hopeless. And the idea of this being the end of humanity really is terrifying.

I've also read an Atwood book. It was also about the apocalypse. It was her new one, Oryx and Crake. She's very talented, but her writing is really damn depressing.

I fucking loathe Atwood. I read this and Oryx and Crake, and, like I said on the Gregory Maguire/Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister thread, I think the same thing bugs me about each author - they are talented and creative writers with good ideas who let their inflated sense of self-importance and intelligence colour every damn sentence of their novels. Each line just SCREAMS to me: "Look how clever I am! Admire this metaphor! My work is so meaningful, and I am so much more talented than you!" It just ruins the whole experience for me.

So in short - good idea, bad writing.

The Handmaid's Tale is easily one of my favorite novels of all time. For certain, it is my favorite novel of the 20th Century. And a major reason for that is how ambiguous that double-ending is. There is no certain answer because Atwood intentionally planted evidence for any number of interpretations from the first page.

It's also worth noting that I'm in the midst of a battle of wills with a professor (for once, a friendly battle) over which Atwood novel is superior: this or Alias Grace. The interesting part is how we both have almost identical arguments that clearly apply to both books. The point of dissension is I prefer the brutality of The Handmaid's Tale, while she prefers the constant shift of power in Alias Grace.

I really liked this book, as much as one can like a story like this. I agree with you completely, Genny (also Rusty), that Atwood really knew how to evoke dread in her readers. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

"Also, there was no good way to put this into the review tone-wise, but I did appreciate Ms.Atwood's touch of humor by having the cooks and housekeepers known as "Marthas". A nice touch of wit in between all the overwhelming bleakness."

Wasn't The Handmaid's Tale written in the 1980's, before Martha Stewart came on the scene?

Pretty short review for a great book.

I just recently read this book for a class called "women in literature" and it's just great isn't it?

The ending is absolutely brilliant, because (at least the way I read it) we learn that Offred does survive long enough to put her story on record, and she very well may have escaped. HOWEVER, Atwood denies us any satisfaction from this by jumping so far into the future that Offred's been long dead, and the whole phenomenon is just another historical matter for academic study. Gahhhhhh.

This was a fine piece of literature, Atwood is a master story teller with a keen insight into the psyche. I recommend this work highly, charmed, I’m sure. This Cannonball Read was exactly what I needed to reintroduce me into the world I’ve long forgotten, I speak of the classics. I’ve read about 58 books so far, each one more delicious than the last one. I can’t contain myself, I hungrily await the next read.

Hi GaR. Nice job, and your trepidation actually makes me want to read this. Is that a good thing? I don't know. Anyway, more reviews please.

Properly reprimanded Neil!

I remember reading The Handmaid's Tail when I was about 14. Can't remember much about it beyond recalling feeling depressed afterwards.

Guess I'm going to have to reread it...grudgingly...maybe. I'm in no hurry to feel depressed. This is precisely why I bought a copy of Atwood's The Robber Bride 3 years ago and still haven't gotten around to reading it - I'm a chicken.

io, Four Eyes: Why is it so necessary for a book to have a happy ending?

Holy crap, I'm watching the film version at this exact moment, starring the late Natasha Richardson and Robert Duvall.

The film version was pretty lame. If I remember correctly, it had her living beyond the borers of the New American Theocracy with her new husband and big ole pregnant belly for a "happy ending." I wanted to shake the readers and ask, "Did we read the same book?"

"As for this book: Doesn't cloning pretty much negate the premise?"

Cloning was much more sci-fi when Atwood wrote The Handmaid's Tale, sure. But I think it's worth considering how difficult cloning has been, even 25+ years later. Simple organisms seem to do well; complicated animals like sheep go...wrong. "This American Life" did a television episode about a man who cloned a beloved bull with disasterous results.

So, even if Atwood wasn't necessarily prescient about cloning, the book is all the stronger for cloning being a part of our present. Gilead, which takes a natural event and cultifies it (yeah, I create language; I contain multitudes) is doomed to failure because of this. Cloning also takes a natural event -- life -- and is unable to successfully recreate it. I can imagine that we'd implement a science-backward theocracy (or, did we already, for the past 8 years?) before we ever reach a success with cloning.

That is the only episode of the This American Life TV series I have seen. Poor old dude spent so much money on something that went so wrong.

Also, I love the link to the cosmetics tips directly under the review of the depressing novel. A good segue.

My link above didn't work. Here's the URL:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/TV_Episode.aspx?episode=1

Yes, from a scientific standpoint everything went fine. No two creatures are alike, it seems, even if they are genetically identical. Hmmmm.

from BarbadoSlim: "but from your summary it seems as if it was a failure stemming from their EXPECTATIONS, and not the science?"

from Snath: "Yes, from a scientific standpoint everything went fine."

I'd agree mostly with both of you. I think (and I'm not a genetic scientist, so my thoughts are probably worth this much: ) there are genetic issues with cloned animals that still aren't entirely worked out. These are beyond murderous crankiness and are more along the lines of defects that end up doing funky things to the spleen later in the animals life, or causing bizarre cancers that we don't normally see.

An argument might be, "Well, we see genetic defects all the time in uncloned offspring." But I think the incidences are higher in clones of complex organisms.

When science decoded the human genome, they talked about vast expanses of the code that they called "gibberish." What I'm worried about is: are we sure that's gibberish and not something sort of integral to the whole shebang?

(That was my fear when I found out that they included whale songs in that probe we sent out back in the '70s to search for intelligent life. We don't actually know what those whales are singing about, is the thing. And we're going to send a whale song? We've hunted them nearly to extinction -- I can't believe that the whales are singing anything good about us. This might explain either any lack of actual aliens, or alien hostility, depending on where you fall on the UFO continuum.)

I agree with Mike B. about science tending to forge ahead without thinking through the consequences. I call it the Jurassic Park Syndrome.

The clone talk is kind of eerie for me, because the theatre I work for is in rehearsals for A Number by Caryl Churchill - it's an absolutely fucking brilliant play about cloning and our shifting understanding of what makes us unique. If it's ever produced in a city near you, you should make an effort to see it. It's mind-blowing.

And on a totally shallow note, the role of the cloned son was originated by Daniel "Humina Humina" Craig.

The idea that the death of mankind will come not with a bang, but with a kind of slow fade out of humanity is somehow more terrifying than widespread disaster.

Poets and writers are so intuitive. If and when the world (as we know it) ends, it *will* probably be "not with a bang but a whimper."

Aside from the beautiful writing (not at all pompous, so not like Gregory Maguire) and the intriguing plot, one of the things I most loved when I read this book was the slow realization that it was taking place in Cambridge and Boston. It's not some unknown, could-be-anywhere place, but one of the most liberal and academic cities in the country. Gave me chills.

I remember reading this way back in high school. I don't remember much about it, except for one part where Offred's getting gawked at by Japanese tourists, and she's amazed by all the skin they're showing. That was so totally opposite from what I'm used to hearing that it stuck with me.

Mike B., gotta love Sondheim!

Thank you Mike for standing with me against these thugs.

I wholeheartedly love this book, but don't come away with quite the sense of "depressing ending" that y'all seem to be having. Rather, what makes me love the book is the incredible strength of the Offred character, and though I know her entire character can be negated by the fact that the narrative is merely a reconstruction by a male historian, I choose to ignore that part. Rather, I root for her the whole way, applaud her emotional honesty, and choose to see the ending in a hopeful way.

But that's just me.

As a ridiculous side note, I tried to teach this book in an 11th grade English class at a private school last year, only to have one of the hard-core catholic parents protest and withdraw his student from those classes because of the "pornographic" and "anti-Christian" nature of the novel. Fucking fucker.

I always thought the ending was one of the major strengths of the book. Offred's world is chillingly possible and a clappy-happy ending where she escapes with her lover would have made the whole thing seem silly. An ending should only be happy if it's believable. If you need to know that everything works out fine in the end, there's the professor's note explaining that Gilead eventually fell. As far as Atwood ending everything on a sad note, I thought Cat's Eye had a happyish ending in that the narrator finally makes peace with her past.
Does anyone else think Serena Joy when they see Anne Coulter?

What I love about this book is how foreboding and terrifically frightening it truly is! IT's really one of Atwood's best, I can't seem to get into anything else of hers except this book. Maybe because she sounds like a feminist Philip K. Dick because it's more science fiction-y than most of her novels or short stories. I'm so glad you reviewed it, because I've been meaning to read it again. I think the first time I read it I finished it in two days. Yeah that good people!

I loved this book, for all of the reasons already posted. One small part that stayed with me was the Offred loses her name, as well as any personal empowerment she may have had. "Offred" is taken from Fred, the husband she must copulate with. She truly is a handmaid at this point, much like the Old Testament stories of men who mate with their wives' handmaids.

I'd like to thank everyone for taking the time to comment on this review, because one of the things I love the most is talking to people about books I've read, and I love seeing the conversations even when I couldn't take part because of my stupid retail job. Now I will address a couple specific questions I noticed:

vaskark and Neil, The Handmaid's Tale was published in 1985. Martha Stewart's Entertaining was published in 1982 and launched her career. She had somewhere between 3 or 4 cookbooks out by 1985. It could be a biblical reference, but I like to imagine that Stewart was honored for similar reasons to Serena Joy, she represented an idealized female role and so female servants were encouraged to emulate her. But that's my interpretation.

As far as cloning goes, in addition to Mike. B's excellent arguments, many conservative Christians are vehemently opposed to cloning and it seems unlikely that they would resort to something that represented an affront to God in their eyes, especially when there were perfectly good women to enslave.

samantha t -- nope, any other book that features controversial language is allowed, that's the sad thing. This year I've taught Their Eyes Were Watching God and To Kill a Mockingbird with no complaint, and yes, us liberal commie pinkos are all about "the teachable moment" (I even have a worksheet on race and language to prove it!). Huck just happened to cause an upset, probably because the teacher who flipped over the book at the time didn't understand that Twain uses satire. Unfortunately, not all teachers are as smart as those who frequent Pajiba.

I agree with everyone who says Ms. Atwood is a terrific writer. I have read all her books and she is amazing. Do yourselves a favor and pick up any other of her books, and just read it to enjoy it - you really don't have to analyze everything, compare everything etc. etc. Just enjoy reading books for what they give you - enjoyment - and if they provoke your thoughts - great.

I just re read Brave New World. Keep reading and note how the author undercuts his arguement at the end.

This is one my of my all time favorite books. she based it on the Iranian Revolution, and as someone who is from there this book really resonates with me.

creepily enough, in Iran, they recently built a women-only high walled park; much like the training institute for the handmaids.

I almost would have prefered living in this dsytopic society than reading the actual novel. it was a tortourous and painful experience and i felt know pity for Offred as my experience of reading novel was greatly more unpleasant then her living circumstances. Margret attwood = devil

The Handmaids tale is possibly and most probably the dullest and quite frankly disturbing novel i have ever been forced to read by a clearly anorexic teacher who ironically was also attention and love starved, though she never pity shagged the commander and his 'carrott'. i spent the entire book wishing something would happen preferably Offred's slow and painful death. the ending was highly unsatisfying and not worth the hours of tedious boredom that led to it or the paper the novel was written on.

THT is actually my A2 level coursework book so it wasn't a personal choice book...the book itself was very well written...without a doubt, however the film version made all the imagery I had while reading way too graphic..seriously...if you can get hold of it have a look....yeah.. definately prefer books with a happy ending...as immature as it sounds...real life can be miserable enough, reading is suppose to be an escape from reality so a happy ending wouldn't be the end of the world! =]