The Handmaid's Tale discussion - spoilers

[litskispeciality]

I finally finished. I know a few folks said they'd be interested in a discussion. Seems like you either love or hate this, so don't take offense to anyone's negative feedback.

Overall I thought it was ok, but a bit of a let down. I guess since they were making a show I thought there would be a bigger fight, or more about her escaping...or just something more. I wasn't happy with the end. I guess in real life we wouldn't know what happened, but it just felt rather blah.

I think I got all of my questions answered, but it was still hard to tell when we were going back in the past in some parts.

Some thoughts:

Interesting that some of the commanders didn't seem fertile. Was there a way to test their fertlity?
    Also I wonder how you get chosen to be a Commander and/or one with the power to impregnate women.
Did they have enough Commanders to avoid insest? Assuming they impregnate enough women, even with several handmaids as the mother's eventually you'd run into a man and a woman with the same father right?
I wish the speech at the end from the future addressed when they decided not to continue with this process. - Or maybe it did and I missed that?

[aurora]

I understand the disappointment at the end in some ways, but I think some of that realism was what made the book so chillingly powerful to me.

Re. fertility, I was thinking about that while watching the show over the weekend. I have two possible explanations:

1. When the book was written in 1985, fertility science wasn't anywhere near where it is today. Atwood was writing for her "present" (making it seem like the storyline could really be happening), so it makes sense that she wouldn't have included futuristic fertility science. Similarly, they didn't know if the few babies being born would be healthy, and back then it was far less common to have ultrasounds and various fetal health tests like people do today, so they wouldn't have known until the baby was born.

2. The Republic of Gilead shuns technology far beyond fertility - note few electronics, return to pastoral homemaking systems, etc. This is in stark contrast to things you saw out of books like 1984 which assumed people would be controlled using technology. So, they could possibly not have wanted to even the fertility science they did have.


Re. the commanders and population, I think Gilead drew from the whole population of the U.S., which at the time was still over 200 million, so I would imagine there would be enough fertile women and men still to avoid too much inbreeding. Commanders were chosen from the ruling class, which I read as the rich people.

I don't remember the answer to your last question.

[litskispeciality]

Aurora those are great points. I think I even knew going into this that it was written in 1986, but lost track because it could fit any time period. To your point, I bet the author wouldn't have included any of the new technology as that's how the society ran (edit), we rely on the old fashioned way. I think they even referred to birth control as something from the past that was outlawed in the current.

It was sad though that they didn't want to take advantage of any pre-natal care. I guess with this written in 1986, not 2016 you don't have the technology. And that raises the moral question if you see a problem with the baby in the womb, which is probably part of why this book is making such a huge comeback.

[aurora]

May 1, 2017 13:24:39 GMT -5 litskispeciality said:

Aurora those are great points. I think I even knew going into this that it was written in 1986, but lost track because it could fit any time period. To your point, I bet the author wouldn't have included any of the new technology as that's how the society ran (edit), we rely on the old fashioned way. I think they even referred to birth control as something from the past that was outlawed in the current.

It was sad though that they didn't want to take advantage of any pre-natal care. I guess with this written in 1986, not 2016 you don't have the technology. And that raises the moral question if you see a problem with the baby in the womb, which is probably part of why this book is making such a huge comeback.

I think it's easy to forget how much has changed about pregnancy care since then. My younger sister was born in 1985 when my mom was of "advanced maternal age" and she didn't have a single ultrasound. When I asked my mom about it more recently, she said that it just wasn't standard at the time. There is a lot that wouldn't have been caught then!

[snshne322]

I'd been avoiding this thread because for some reason I thought it was about the show which I've only watched two episodes of. I did finish the book a few weeks ago.

It may be because I was warned that the ending was abrupt, but I really liked how it ended. Especially when we get the general narrative from the future and her time as a Handmaid ended at that time.

It's possible that I spaced out a little bit in the beginning or maybe I didn't quite grasp the issues, but I missed a lot of why there were Handmaids. For most of the book I thought it was just because the Commanders and their wives were old and no longer able to have kids. I don't know how I missed that it was a fertility thing. SO MUCH clicked after I was reading about the book afterward.

No spoilers from the show, but so far I'm finding it much more chilling than I did the book. Maybe it's the realism? Like you guys mentioned about the ambiguous time frame, I think it was easier for me to compartmentalize and put it in some not too distant past. The show is really giving it a more horrific feel.

[sassypants]

I've read the book and am watching the series. Does anyone else get a distinct M. Night Shyamalan's The Village feel for Gilead (I am aware that The Village is a much later piece)? The whole thing with being enclosed in Gilead with the highly modest dress and being threatened with being sent to "the Colonies" as some sort of heinous punishment/death sentence made me feel like it was just a scare tactic to maintain the order of the theocracy. Does anyone else get this impression?

[aurora]

May 17, 2017 11:12:21 GMT -5 snshne322 said:

I'd been avoiding this thread because for some reason I thought it was about the show which I've only watched two episodes of. I did finish the book a few weeks ago.

It may be because I was warned that the ending was abrupt, but I really liked how it ended. Especially when we get the general narrative from the future and her time as a Handmaid ended at that time.

It's possible that I spaced out a little bit in the beginning or maybe I didn't quite grasp the issues, but I missed a lot of why there were Handmaids. For most of the book I thought it was just because the Commanders and their wives were old and no longer able to have kids. I don't know how I missed that it was a fertility thing. SO MUCH clicked after I was reading about the book afterward.

No spoilers from the show, but so far I'm finding it much more chilling than I did the book. Maybe it's the realism? Like you guys mentioned about the ambiguous time frame, I think it was easier for me to compartmentalize and put it in some not too distant past. The show is really giving it a more horrific feel.

I actually haven't watched the most recent two episodes yet, but the show is definitely chilling in a different way than the book (which I've always found terrifying). I think it's well done, so far. I hope they don't ruin it by trying to add additional seasons.