James Metcalf on the fictionality of the latest archaeological page-turners
Stephen Puddicombe looks at the unusual appeal of Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot
Ciaran Rafferty investigates the science of book classification
The work is set in Cambridge, Massachusetts - commonly referred to under the new regime as the Republic of Gilead, following the overthrow of the U. S. government several years earlier. Having been taken over by a politically powerful group of Christian fundamentalists, Gilead has been transformed into a theocratic state totally inaccessible to the outside world. A victim of the new system, Offred is separated from her husband and child and given the horrific choice of going out to work in the Colonies, where she would inevitably die of radiation sickness, or face becoming a handmaid. Choosing the latter she becomes demoted to the status of personal property to one of the powerful Commanders, forced to be one of the few fertile women left after an unexplained environmental distaster into a life with a single purpose: to breed.
The world in which Offred struggles to survive, waiting hopelessly for news of her daughter and desperately concealing both a forbidden affair and her part in a quiet underground resistance, is one of the terrifyingly inhumane systems of social hierarchy and control entirely dominated by men. Disturbingly horrific, alien existence of life of Gilead is portrayed by the narrator in an objective and almost matter-of-fact manner; the descriptive images of brilliant, bleak emptiness being all the more powerful for their lack of emotion.
Repression and surveillance are central themes within the novel and the populace are subjected to a shocking lack of personal freedom and status within the social hierarchy. This is enforced by sumptuary laws that define who you are and resulting in a complete lack of freedom of thought, belief or expression. Sexual and emotional repression are an everyday reality; friendship is considered suspect and unnecessary. Punishments for treason are shockingly harsh in order to terrify the citizens into complying with the new system. This destruction of human life in a state so desperate to increase its own population demonstrates the chilling, irrational inconsistencies of the system and is one of many examples of the novel's caustic employments of satire.
Ultimately this is a darkly frightening and highly intelligent novel exploring the horrors of totalitarianism, beautifully written in astute, vivid and sharply satirical prose. Both moving and terrifying, this book has a shocking sense of impact and will hold you captivated right up until its fascinating, ambiguous conclusion.
#17 here - I'll break my own rule just this once. Gillian, I can't speak for any other Anonymous commenter on this thread, but I am not Mr Spelling (whoever that is) so whatever ad hominem point you may have been making is invalid. I'm just someone who is annoyed and a little unsettled by your constant wittering on this site. But, as I said before, if you want to be a troll then go for it. The rest of us can't get rid of you, so we may as well just ignore you.
Gillian if you keep this up I wouldn't be surprised if you're banned from writing for and commenting on the Yorker. Grow up a bit, please.
Freedom of speech, baby. Freedom of speech.
Gillian Love versus everyone else, Round... er, what round is this?!
(this is all quite amusing to follow you know 
)
J
"Mr Spelling, bless you, don't be afraid to put your name to your opinions."
For goodness sake, leave me alone, woman! You feel the need to invent arguments with me? And why me? If I want to debate with you, I will. But I'm not really bothered with this one. I'm not an Atwood fan but I have read 'The Handmaid's Tale'. Feminism is clearly a part of Atwood's thinking in terms of themes in this novel, yes. I agree. What of it? It is so obvious that surely it isn't worth debate of any calibre.
Please stop fishing out articles and commenting on them in the hope that I will engage you in debate. Your pouncing upon a hapless Anon and naming him/her as me makes me feel uncomfortable. Please don't do it again.
Is it weird that when I read Gillian's comments in my mind I hear a voice like Tokyo Rose?
Don't feed the troll. She'll tire of it all eventually.
Right...I feel I need to make a final comment to set the record straight against this barrage of crap.
In order to shoehorn feminism into a debate there would have to be a) a debate and b) no reason to mention feminism. As anon2 pointed out, I'm the first person to comment therefore no debate. As David Spelling pointed out, it isn't even a DEBATE whether or not this text is feminist. Therefore, as I pointed out, I was surprised feminism wasn't mentioned in a review of a very famous feminist text. Scoffing at me for commenting on an old article...oh, it's terribly passé, I grant you, but freedom of speech etc.
Soooo...instead of launching your own ad hominem attacks and assuming you know anything about me because I have commented on other articles, take your own advice, ignore anything you find annoying. Commenting on how much everyone should ignore the crazy troll is so self-defeating it's ridiculous.
Phew. Glad we've got that straight. Now leave me in peace to convert every Yorker reader to my crazy feminist cult, one comment at a time xxx
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report