Critique: The Handmaid’s Tail (Margaret Atwood)

Religious fanatics overrun the USA and rename it Gilead. It’s a world where fertility is low so Gilead forces Handmaids to breed with Commanders (Gilead’s leaders). This story, unsurprisingly, follows the tale of the Handmaid Offred as she lives in Gilead and exposes the horrors therein.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

The situation of the Handmaids is horrific.

To be denied enjoyment, to be regularly raped, is the tip of the iceberg. Handmaids are denied a name, being instead referred to by the name of their current Commander. Their monthly rape is called ‘the Ceremony’, hence giving it a religious function, purpose and seal of approval.

Not to mention Handmaids are made implicit with Gilead’s punishments. They have to hold the ropes of the hanged, to show they consent to death (when in reality, not holding the rope leads to their own deaths, so not holding the rope is them consenting to their own death). Plus there’s the Particicution, when Handmaids can do any physical harm to the accused within a set time limit.

Finally, their rooms lack glass and anything rope-like. Both are to prevent self-harm and suicide. So society knows what being a Handmaid does to people yet the Commanders keep enforcing it. The cruelty is astounding.

 

Most religious Americans are pro-fossil fuels and anti-environmentalism. Yet it’s interesting to note that the fanatics of Gilead are pro-environmentalism.

 

 

Punctuation

 

Punctuation wasn’t the best.

            For example, there isn’t a closing bracket when the book talks about a virus experiment. Sure, it’s easy to miss out when you write it, but that’s basic punctuation that editors should be all over.

            Another peculiarity is that, for the most part, speech isn’t within speech marks. Amazingly, this is never a problem: it’s always clear when someone’s speaking and when someone is not. So that was impressive.

            Yet at certain points, we get speech marks. It’s not clear why these parts have speech marks whereas others do not. Is it an inconsistency or is there a pattern that’s not immediately obvious? To be left guessing over punctuation rather than plot is disappointing.

 

 

Problems

 

Goodness gracious me, there were a lot of problems. Some could be explained away by the fact a traumatised woman is the protagonist. That interferes with perception and memory. But others just don’t sit right.

Offred says that sometimes she bakes bread with Rita. In the next paragraph, Offred says Rita wouldn’t allow it. So which is it?

She says that people who don’t fall in love are ‘mutants… from outer space.’ I hope this is the perspective of the character rather than of the author, a real-life individual. Not everyone falls in love. Some, like aromantic individuals, just don’t feel romantic attraction. Others aren’t lucky enough to meet someone they could fell in love with. The lack of falling in love doesn’t make them lesser individuals, people with less worth than someone who does fall in love.

Offred takes off her underwear to put a dress on. In a conservative society where women are expected to dress ‘properly/modesty’, you’d expect going commando to be considered inappropriate if not outright immoral. Now, if going without underwear was for the Ceremony, it would make sense.

Another handmaid, Ofglen, dies instead of ratting on Offred. Ofglen died so Offred could live. In response, Offred mentally submits to Gilead’s rules rather than just following them: Ofglen dying scared Offred into submission. Yet Ofglen died resisting Gilead so the reader expects Offred to do so, too.

Nick comes for Offred and says he’s part of May Day. Offred wonders how he knew about May Day. But Offred says she told him about Ofglen: what else was there to talk about Ofglen other than May Day?

Lydia tells the Handmaids that they all know the rules of the Particicution. Yet just before this, Offred said she’d only ever heard rumours about the Particicution. How can these two be reconciled?

At the end of the book is a symposium from 2195 looking back at Gilead. Someone claims that there are Krishna and Kali elements in early Gilead religion. As someone who’s academic career focuses on Hinduism, I can say that there are no such elements. Krishna is about love and lively devotion: Gilead is about punishment. Kali is about not conforming to society and female dominance: Gilead is the exact opposite.

The USA is part of (/runs) NATO. If a NATO member is attacked, all other members are legally obliged to view it as an attack on all NATO nations. This Article is the main deterrent of NATO. So the fact that no NATO nation tried to help the USA against Gilead astounds me.

 

 

Good Parts

 

This book has a great premise and does a fantastic job at detailing how Handmaids, and the nation of Gilead at large, have to live. Aside from this, there are many good points.

Offred prays to get into Canada. She thinks, ‘What I thought I could do for whoever was listening… I’ll never know.’ People always try to bargain with a higher power, to do something for the deity in exchange for a favour. What can a mere human do in exchange for an all-powerful deity?

She says that she’s ‘a refugee from the past.’ I love that.

Playing on the philosophical staple of ‘I think, therefore I am’, Offred thinks, ‘I tell, therefore you are.’ By telling her story, she will the reader into existence.

‘Waste not want not. I am not being wasted. Why do I want?’ It’s a clever play on words. It’s life she’s trying to justify that what she has in enough, that wanting her lot to change is ungrateful.

 

 

This was a fascinating read. It’s scary to think what would happen if extremists took power, especially in a country that’s (at least nominally) all about democracy. The author accurately portrayed the fear factor. The flashes into Offred’s past to contrast with her present were well executed. Without the TV series, I never would have known about this book. For that, I am grateful.