BOOK CLUB: The Handmaid's Tale DISCUSSION (SPOILERS)

[byjove]

Finished! (except for the afterward from Atwood and some other appendix). Does the written novel include the historical note that is basically a record of an interview with a Gileadan historian at an academic conference set in 2195 (it was an hour long audio chapter). That was weird AF.

One question I'm left with- do you think the black van that was coming for Ofglen was also part of May Day?

[Taitai]

byjove I read the written novel, and I believe the historical note you are referring to is the same as the "Historical Notes on The Handmaid's Tale" section, which is at the end of the novel. In the novel, it is a transcript of a presentation at an academic conference in 2195 that is focused on historical analysis of the "Gilead Period."

I think the black van that was coming for Ofglen was not May Day. As Ofglen was part of the resistance, I think she would have had a heads up that she was getting rescued. Ofglen probably also knew her identity/status within the resistance was tortured out of those two men who were killed at the women's Salvaging earlier in the day. So...Ofglen probably figured her time was up...the real "eyes" were probably already watching her and it would be too risky for other resistance members to blow their cover by attempting a rescue in broad daylight. Hence, when she saw the black van coming - she knew it wasn't a rescue and decided to commit suicide. I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation.

Also - since Offred wasn't a member of the resistance and wouldn't have been known by the two guys killed at the women's salvaging, the May Day people probably thought they could get away with rescuing Offred during the day and avoid coming under too much immediate scrutiny.

[byjove]

Taitai what did you think of the historical notes?

[Risscaboobs]

Okay, finished.

I liked it. I found any parts of the books that mentioned her daughter to be really disturbing, and I'm sad to think that they probably never reunited. I was glad that she got to see a picture of her and that she was alive, though.

I didn't find the pacing to be too bad, but there were definitely some lulls.

I'm really interested in seeing the show's take on this. I am wondering how much they may change for dramatic effect.

[Risscaboobs]

Here are some discussion points if anyone wants to discuss further:


1. The novel begins with three epigraphs. What are their functions?

2. In Gilead, women are categorized as wives, handmaids, Marthas, or Aunts, but Moira refuses to fit into a niche. Offred says she was like an elevator with open sides who made them dizzy, she was their fantasy. Trace Moira's role throughout the tale to determine what she symbolizes.

3. Aunt Lydia, Janine, and Offred's mother also represent more than themselves. What do each of their characters connote? What do the style and color of their clothes symbolize?

4. At one level, The Handmaid's Tale is about the writing process. Atwood cleverly weaves this sub-plot into a major focus with remarks by Offred such as "Context is all," and "I've filled it out for her...," "I made that up," and "I wish this story were different." Does Offred's habit of talking about the process of storytelling make it easier or more difficult for you to suspend disbelief?

5. A palimpsest is a medieval parchment that scribes attempted to scrape clean and use again, though they were unable to obliterate all traces of the original. How does the new republic of Gilead's social order often resemble a palimpsest?.

6. The commander in the novel says you can't cheat nature. How do characters find ways to follow their natural instinct?

7. Why is the Bible under lock and key in Gilead?

8. Babies are referred to as "a keeper," "unbabies," "shredders." What other real or fictional worlds do these terms suggest?

9. Atwood's title brings to mind titles from Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. Why might Atwood have wanted you to make that connection?

10. What do you feel the historical notes at the book's end add to the reading of this novel? What does the book's last line mean to you?

[Taitai]

Jun 21, 2017 7:50:49 GMT -6 byjove said:

Taitai what did you think of the historical notes?

I thought they were interesting...definitely a unique way to wrap up the book and provide some additional perspective to the reader. Little things the speaker mentioned (like the infertility possibly being caused by a certain strain of syphilis) and the likely fates of the commander, Serena Joy, and Nick were interesting to me. It gave more of a sense of conclusion, than if the book had just ended abruptly with Offred's rescue - you know what I mean?

One thing I also found interesting about the historical notes was the detachment and almost levity in the tone of the presenter. Here are a bunch of academics/historians talking about a really brutal regime/historical period, and there is not much sense that the speaker or the audience are particularly struck by the sheer awfulness of what went on in the Republic of Gilead. So I kind of took that as another warning from Atwood - meaning that when we study and look at the nasty parts history, we should take care to acknowledge and consistently condemn the oppression and brutality which others in the past have experienced. At least that was my take away from that section.

[Risscaboobs]

Jun 21, 2017 8:23:05 GMT -6 Taitai said:

Jun 21, 2017 7:50:49 GMT -6 byjove said:

Taitai what did you think of the historical notes?

I thought they were interesting...definitely a unique way to wrap up the book and provide some additional perspective to the reader. Little things the speaker mentioned (like the infertility possibly being caused by a certain strain of syphilis) and the likely fates of the commander, Serena Joy, and Nick were interesting to me. It gave more of a sense of conclusion, than if the book had just ended abruptly with Offred's rescue - you know what I mean?

One thing I also found interesting about the historical notes was the detachment and almost levity in the tone of the presenter. Here are a bunch of academics/historians talking about a really brutal regime/historical period, and there is not much sense that the speaker or the audience are particularly struck by the sheer awfulness of what went on in the Republic of Gilead. So I kind of took that as another warning from Atwood - meaning that when we study and look at the nasty parts history, we should take care to acknowledge and consistently condemn the oppression and brutality which others in the past have experienced. At least that was my take away from that section.

I agree with everything you said. I liked that it ended there. It did give me more of a sense of closure, even though we'll never know for sure what happened to Offred or any of the other characters. I liked the more definitive explanation for the IF.

The detachment definitely was a little off-putting. And it is reminiscent of how we view horrible events of the past a lot. "This happened. It was bad, but it could never happen again."

[Risscaboobs]

Just to let everyone know that a discussion has started if they want to discuss now.

The tags are from all of our previous book club discussions - I realize some of you were not reading this book in particular, so please disregard.

If you wish to have your SN removed from this tag list at any time, just let me know.

angelashly, bunnyfungo, rach7170, budders, cdnfroggy, mamascarlett, pianolove, allisong, CestLaVie, rablissful, butlerfan, pearbear, tatorhead328, 45thparallel, pippa, @blanche, kittyforman, bookworm, betches, cake, nelzie, windwithfingers, roguelily, Peekaru, kclause, loves2read, scsmith, bonzo, silverspoon, oreobitsy, reginaphalange8, criss, lupineaura, Nymeria, Radley, flat, @frank, Cher, helloerrbody, nenarene, daisy818, ktg, coffeecoffeecoffee, sluttybigb00bz, wanderingheart, ginandtonic, @northernlights, moutonrouge, dreadpirateroberts, Taitai, haleyscott, scsmith, lucilleaustero, @definitelynotwallie, bearfootz, jewel, blurnette989, NamasteBirches, byjove, pinkflamingo

[byjove]

Jun 21, 2017 8:28:41 GMT -6 Risscaboobs said:

Jun 21, 2017 8:23:05 GMT -6 Taitai said:

I thought they were interesting...definitely a unique way to wrap up the book and provide some additional perspective to the reader. Little things the speaker mentioned (like the infertility possibly being caused by a certain strain of syphilis) and the likely fates of the commander, Serena Joy, and Nick were interesting to me. It gave more of a sense of conclusion, than if the book had just ended abruptly with Offred's rescue - you know what I mean?

One thing I also found interesting about the historical notes was the detachment and almost levity in the tone of the presenter. Here are a bunch of academics/historians talking about a really brutal regime/historical period, and there is not much sense that the speaker or the audience are particularly struck by the sheer awfulness of what went on in the Republic of Gilead. So I kind of took that as another warning from Atwood - meaning that when we study and look at the nasty parts history, we should take care to acknowledge and consistently condemn the oppression and brutality which others in the past have experienced. At least that was my take away from that section.

I agree with everything you said. I liked that it ended there. It did give me more of a sense of closure, even though we'll never know for sure what happened to Offred or any of the other characters. I liked the more definitive explanation for the IF.

The detachment definitely was a little off-putting. And it is reminiscent of how we view horrible events of the past a lot. "This happened. It was bad, but it could never happen again."

I was taken aback when the professor was trying to allude to one of the WWs and was like eh, not my period of history, just more wars. I was also surprised that Offred's commander was likely one of the masterminds of everything. I was also left wondering if Offred was in fact pregnant and had her baby after being rescued.

[Risscaboobs]

Jun 21, 2017 8:34:12 GMT -6 byjove said:

Jun 21, 2017 8:28:41 GMT -6 Risscaboobs said:

I agree with everything you said. I liked that it ended there. It did give me more of a sense of closure, even though we'll never know for sure what happened to Offred or any of the other characters. I liked the more definitive explanation for the IF.

The detachment definitely was a little off-putting. And it is reminiscent of how we view horrible events of the past a lot. "This happened. It was bad, but it could never happen again."

I was taken aback when the professor was trying to allude to one of the WWs and was like eh, not my period of history, just more wars. I was also surprised that Offred's commander was likely one of the masterminds of everything. I was also left wondering if Offred was in fact pregnant and had her baby after being rescued.

I wondered this as well.

I have read another of Atwood's books, Oryx and Crake, and it ended similarly with unanswered, unresolved questions.  At first, I hated it. But I grew to respect and like it. This one is very much the same to me.

[betches]

Ahh, I have like 50 pages left! I'm seriously considering putting the baby in the gym daycare and posting up in the locker room until I've finished it

[nelzie]

Thanks for the tag! I'm just starting, lol. But it's a reread for me

[angelashly]

I am going to go back and read the thread. I read this book years ago and did not do a reread.

[lupineaura]

Ack, I haven't finished yet. Thanks for the tag, I'll get to reading! The problem is I read like 4 books at once lol

[mamascarlett]

So, I hated the book. HATED it. The writers style is so boring and repetitive and jumpy and blah.

I tend to stay away from dystopian novels because while thought provoking (UO here)

SPOILER: Click to show

I feel like as humans we would NEVER allow this shit to happen. EVER. Look at WWII where there was so little way to get real information out compared to today and that was still handled.

. Although I have not experience IF or loss I found this book to be so triggery. Mainly because it's so degrading but also the whole bit about her daughter made me so angry and sick to my stomach. I could read a whole bunch of smutty books and never feel as degraded as this book makes me feel. Maybe that is the point though?

7. Why is the Bible under lock and key in Gilead?
I think there are a few reasons. They do not want to real text (in full) to be read so that it may not be interpreted in any way then what they say. I think another aspect of it is there are some very fearless and powerful women in the Bible who are treated as part of Jesus' inner circle. Again, they did not want those women to be "inspiration" for any behavior they deemed as disobedient.

8. Babies are referred to as "a keeper," "unbabies," "shredders." What other real or fictional worlds do these terms suggest?
I was thinking and I may be off since unbaby and shredder seemed to be used interchangeably sometimes.. Keeper - what is thought to be a "healthy" baby. Unbabies - babies born with disfigurations/disease (as suggested in the text, beyond what we currently have seen). Shredders - stillbirths. This terminology made me cringe every time I read it.

[Taitai]

mamascarlett The terminology for the babies bothered me too - I think that language served to really emphasize how totally screwed up and distorted the views of those in power were towards humanity in general.

I also agree with your sentiment that we should never ever let this kind of stuff happen, and it weighs on me that human rights violations of this caliber regularly happen today. The "war brides" abducted by ISIS/Boko Haram fighters in Africa, Iraq, Syria, etc., the brainwashing and torture that happens in North Korea every single day, abducted child soldiers in Joseph Kony's LRA, young girls kidnapped or sold into prostitution in Southeast Asia....these things are well documented and are happening right now. As someone who lives overseas and perhaps is exposed to some of these realities a bit more directly than the average American, sometimes I feel like there is not a whole lot of appetite from the West or "free" societies to do much about it. It's easier to look the other way or complain about issues that are more "comfortable" to address.

So that brings me back to cdnfroggy 's comment previously in this thread...wondering about how much the outside world knew about what was actually going on in the Republic of Gilead. I think they probably had a good idea of what was going on - but other countries had their own problems to focus on and didn't want to get involved in a huge civil war in the former USA. It's very similar to isolationist/nationalistic sentiments that many people throughout the word have today - in 2017. Plus, we have social media/internet, which makes the situation that much more unsettling for me.

byjove, I was also wondering if Offred was pregnant by Nick at the end of the book.  I feel like her narration became more unreliable towards the end, so I wasn't entirely sure if she was really serious when she thought (and told Nick) that she might be pregnant.  Either way, I hope she was...and I hope she had a happy ending, even though we'll never really know for sure.

[cdnfroggy]

Jun 21, 2017 20:32:07 GMT -6 mamascarlett said:

So, I hated the book. HATED it. The writers style is so boring and repetitive and jumpy and blah.

I tend to stay away from dystopian novels because while thought provoking (UO here)

SPOILER: Click to show

I feel like as humans we would NEVER allow this shit to happen. EVER. Look at WWII where there was so little way to get real information out compared to today and that was still handled.

. Although I have not experience IF or loss I found this book to be so triggery. Mainly because it's so degrading but also the whole bit about her daughter made me so angry and sick to my stomach. I could read a whole bunch of smutty books and never feel as degraded as this book makes me feel. Maybe that is the point though?

7. Why is the Bible under lock and key in Gilead?
I think there are a few reasons. They do not want to real text (in full) to be read so that it may not be interpreted in any way then what they say. I think another aspect of it is there are some very fearless and powerful women in the Bible who are treated as part of Jesus' inner circle. Again, they did not want those women to be "inspiration" for any behavior they deemed as disobedient.

8. Babies are referred to as "a keeper," "unbabies," "shredders." What other real or fictional worlds do these terms suggest?
I was thinking and I may be off since unbaby and shredder seemed to be used interchangeably sometimes.. Keeper - what is thought to be a "healthy" baby. Unbabies - babies born with disfigurations/disease (as suggested in the text, beyond what we currently have seen). Shredders - stillbirths. This terminology made me cringe every time I read it.

To the bolded, I actually disagree to a point, I think as humans (especially the west) we turn a blind eye to a lot of bad shit going on in the world, like Taitai , mentioned, there is a lot going on that we find morally reprehensible, yet don't do much about (as a country etc). And to your WWII point, yes it was handled, but it went on for years before it was handled, and many people knew what was going on for quite a while before they liberated the camps, so I do think we are capable of letting something like this happen (maybe not to the extent of the novel, but I can see it). And I think that is one of the reasons this book is still relevant and makes people uncomfortable, because we want to say never, but history dictates differently.


 

[mamascarlett]

I really hadn't thought about that. Hmmmm. so many new thoughts now

[byjove]

Jun 22, 2017 8:07:32 GMT -6 cdnfroggy said:

Jun 21, 2017 20:32:07 GMT -6 mamascarlett said:

So, I hated the book. HATED it. The writers style is so boring and repetitive and jumpy and blah.

I tend to stay away from dystopian novels because while thought provoking (UO here)

SPOILER: Click to show

I feel like as humans we would NEVER allow this shit to happen. EVER. Look at WWII where there was so little way to get real information out compared to today and that was still handled.

. Although I have not experience IF or loss I found this book to be so triggery. Mainly because it's so degrading but also the whole bit about her daughter made me so angry and sick to my stomach. I could read a whole bunch of smutty books and never feel as degraded as this book makes me feel. Maybe that is the point though?

7. Why is the Bible under lock and key in Gilead?
I think there are a few reasons. They do not want to real text (in full) to be read so that it may not be interpreted in any way then what they say. I think another aspect of it is there are some very fearless and powerful women in the Bible who are treated as part of Jesus' inner circle. Again, they did not want those women to be "inspiration" for any behavior they deemed as disobedient.

8. Babies are referred to as "a keeper," "unbabies," "shredders." What other real or fictional worlds do these terms suggest?
I was thinking and I may be off since unbaby and shredder seemed to be used interchangeably sometimes.. Keeper - what is thought to be a "healthy" baby. Unbabies - babies born with disfigurations/disease (as suggested in the text, beyond what we currently have seen). Shredders - stillbirths. This terminology made me cringe every time I read it.

To the bolded, I actually disagree to a point, I think as humans (especially the west) we turn a blind eye to a lot of bad shit going on in the world, like Taitai , mentioned, there is a lot going on that we find morally reprehensible, yet don't do much about (as a country etc). And to your WWII point, yes it was handled, but it went on for years before it was handled, and many people knew what was going on for quite a while before they liberated the camps, so I do think we are capable of letting something like this happen (maybe not to the extent of the novel, but I can see it). And I think that is one of the reasons this book is still relevant and makes people uncomfortable, because we want to say never, but history dictates differently.


 

Yes. And the point of the historical note was that they were able to look back at the events with the perspective that this civilization was quaint and easy to laugh at. History only repeats itself and is not taken seriously enough.

[cdnfroggy]

byjove, The historical note actually made it more chilling for me, because it shows how history does repeat itself, because the severity and horrific aspects of it tends to get watered down and becomes quaint, antiquated etc. Which is why I can see something similar (but again, not as extreme) happening, because history gets tampered down and discussed in ways that gloss over the true atrocities.

[Peekaru]

Risscaboobs, those are.... some deep questions. Am I back in college?


if so, WHERE IS MY COLLEGE BODY??!?

[byjove]

Taitai, I also thought she became uncharacteristically rushed towards the end. I wondered if she knew her time to record her story was rapidly coming to an end... or maybe she was out of tapes?

[Peekaru]

2. In Gilead, women are categorized as wives, handmaids, Marthas, or Aunts, but Moira refuses to fit into a niche. Offred says she was like an elevator with open sides who made them dizzy, she was their fantasy. Trace Moira's role throughout the tale to determine what she symbolizes.

I think that this misses the lower wives as well. The best I can describe this is as a caste system. The higher ups have delegated (whether they want to or not) to someone else. Moira doesn't fit into any of the categories. And in such a black and white society, someone who doesn't fit neatly into a box needs to be broken


4. At one level, The Handmaid's Tale is about the writing process. Atwood cleverly weaves this sub-plot into a major focus with remarks by Offred such as "Context is all," and "I've filled it out for her...," "I made that up," and "I wish this story were different." Does Offred's habit of talking about the process of storytelling make it easier or more difficult for you to suspend disbelief?
Let's assume Offred is a real person. If she were a real person, I would have a very difficult time believing everything she says. Do I think some of the things happened? Yes. Do I think they call happened in the manner to which she states? No. She appears to be in shock and possibly dental about her situation. But she also is brain washed. This is not a sudden change, and her mother does the things that we (general we) would do now if our society started to shift that way. We cannot fathom it happening now.




7. Why is the Bible under lock and key in Gilead?

All books or reading materials are under lock and key. If you have access to books, you can become literate, and if people become literate, they might have opinions. I'm sure a historical religious scholar would have more information on this.

8. Babies are referred to as "a keeper," "unbabies," "shredders." What other real or fictional worlds do these terms suggest?
A keeper is a healthy baby. I read unbaby as a miscarriage. And a shredder is a child brought to birth but not able to live on their own. When Ofwarren had her baby, they mentioned she was a keepers, and then talked about how she didn't make it. I think they called her (the baby) a shredder after all.


10. What do you feel the historical notes at the book's end add to the reading of this novel? What does the book's last line mean to you?

[Risscaboobs]

Jun 22, 2017 10:14:06 GMT -6 Peekaru said:

Risscaboobs , those are.... some deep questions. Am I back in college?


if so, WHERE IS MY COLLEGE BODY??!?

Haha! Some people like the deep questions. I usually just give my overall thoughts and just post the questions for those of us that like that sort of thing.

[jewel]

Jun 22, 2017 8:07:32 GMT -6 cdnfroggy said:

Jun 21, 2017 20:32:07 GMT -6 mamascarlett said:

So, I hated the book. HATED it. The writers style is so boring and repetitive and jumpy and blah.

I tend to stay away from dystopian novels because while thought provoking (UO here)

SPOILER: Click to show

I feel like as humans we would NEVER allow this shit to happen. EVER. Look at WWII where there was so little way to get real information out compared to today and that was still handled.

. Although I have not experience IF or loss I found this book to be so triggery. Mainly because it's so degrading but also the whole bit about her daughter made me so angry and sick to my stomach. I could read a whole bunch of smutty books and never feel as degraded as this book makes me feel. Maybe that is the point though?

7. Why is the Bible under lock and key in Gilead?
I think there are a few reasons. They do not want to real text (in full) to be read so that it may not be interpreted in any way then what they say. I think another aspect of it is there are some very fearless and powerful women in the Bible who are treated as part of Jesus' inner circle. Again, they did not want those women to be "inspiration" for any behavior they deemed as disobedient.

8. Babies are referred to as "a keeper," "unbabies," "shredders." What other real or fictional worlds do these terms suggest?
I was thinking and I may be off since unbaby and shredder seemed to be used interchangeably sometimes.. Keeper - what is thought to be a "healthy" baby. Unbabies - babies born with disfigurations/disease (as suggested in the text, beyond what we currently have seen). Shredders - stillbirths. This terminology made me cringe every time I read it.

To the bolded, I actually disagree to a point, I think as humans (especially the west) we turn a blind eye to a lot of bad shit going on in the world, like Taitai , mentioned, there is a lot going on that we find morally reprehensible, yet don't do much about (as a country etc). And to your WWII point, yes it was handled, but it went on for years before it was handled, and many people knew what was going on for quite a while before they liberated the camps, so I do think we are capable of letting something like this happen (maybe not to the extent of the novel, but I can see it). And I think that is one of the reasons this book is still relevant and makes people uncomfortable, because we want to say never, but history dictates differently.


 

Just so much all of this... It took the US so long to get involved in the war. Kristallnacht was in November of 1938, WWII didn't officially start until September of 1939 and the US didn't join until December of 1941... so much it's not happening to me so it's easy to ignore. At first the US wouldn't even accept refugees... Here is an article about the St. Louis, which had almost 1000 passengers fleeing Germany in 1939, who were repeatedly denied entry to the US and Cuba, eventually it was forced to go back to Europe, thanks to charity not to Germany though, but half of the people on board did end up dying. If people had not turned a blind eye so much death could have been prevented. 

I always think of the Martin Niemoller quote/poem:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.



Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.



Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.



Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Turning a blind eye is nothing knew, and it seems more relevant today with everything going on in politics, but it has been around forever. I've already said this book wasn't my favorite, but not because I think it could never happen, because totalitarian regimes do happen, and even if they do fall eventually, people not turning a blind eye to the suffering of other can help prevent them from taking hold and certainly stop them sooner. There is a difference between early intervention because others are suffering, and getting to it eventually, when it impacts you personally, etc. mamascarlett

[NamasteBirches]

Jun 20, 2017 7:26:15 GMT -6 byjove said:

Jun 19, 2017 14:20:22 GMT -6 bearfootz said:

I wasn't sure if Offred's detachment was mainly a coping mechanism - or a combination of that and being brainwashed.  She mentioned that she thinks she was drugged after capture and that she felt like she was being drugged on more than one occasion.  During the first part of the book the references to her daughter really bothered me, but I agree that as it went on I found myself more wrapped up in what was going to happen and how it would play out vs. focusing on the past trauma. 

One difference between now and the time the book was written is that now there is the factor of social media, internet, emails etc. I would like to think that the ability to spread knowledge more easily and rapidly would prevent such a thing. However, it seems we've also become more immune to troubling news - or even avoid it so that we can live in ignorant bliss.

As far as the foreign tourists - it made me think of how there are so many injustices in the world now that do not cause us as a country to limit trade or deter our residents from travelling.  The handmaid's encounters with the tourists that were asking them questions also reminded me of how visitors flock to Amish villages - as if they are a novelty item. 

You make some really good points. And I had forgotten about social media. The book seems so relevant and current that I forget it was written 30 years ago.

Who do you guys think she is telling the story to? That is what is currently on my mind. I know she ponders what a story is, and by thinking of an audience she is creating an audience... I feel like it reads like is talking to someone (herself?) more so than wrote it down (maybe someone else transcribed?).

Maybe her daughter?
FTR, I'm only halfway through

[Risscaboobs]

Jun 22, 2017 13:51:38 GMT -6 NamasteBirches said:

Jun 20, 2017 7:26:15 GMT -6 byjove said:

You make some really good points. And I had forgotten about social media. The book seems so relevant and current that I forget it was written 30 years ago.

Who do you guys think she is telling the story to? That is what is currently on my mind. I know she ponders what a story is, and by thinking of an audience she is creating an audience... I feel like it reads like is talking to someone (herself?) more so than wrote it down (maybe someone else transcribed?).

Maybe her daughter?
FTR, I'm only halfway through

byjove too - 

I thought it was just for the next Offred. Like that note from the previous one meant so much to her. i just figured she was leaving her story for the next one.  But then there wasn't a next one because, as revealed by the historical conference at the end, the commander met his downfall shortly after she was rescued, so he was never given another handmaid.

Does that make sense?

[moutonrouge]

I've always thought Offred was recording her story for those still inside Gilead. The historical note says she escaped and I thought these tapes might be smuggled in as propaganda to bring down the regime; maybe Mayday would distribute them to encourage existing members to keep fighting or recruit officers.

[bookworm]

I just finished. I am glad I read through this thread otherwise I would have completely ignored the historical notes. I didn't realize that was actually a part of the book at first.

While slow moving at points, I found the book deeply disturbing. I agree that it feels even more relevant now than 30 years ago. It terrifies me to think how easily a group of people can be persuaded to enact such horror.

[budders]

I finished a while ago (minus the historical notes, because I also didn't realize they were part of the book) but haven't been able to decide how I felt about the book.

I did like that, at least for me, the narrator's perspective made the idea that someone could be brainwashed into living this way so possible. I can relate to Offred and her choices in a lot of ways; I have always said that I would be one of the first gone in an alien invasion or zombie apocalypse. I am a strong woman in the sense of my everyday life as I know it, but I don't know that I would be a Moira when faced with a situation like this, especially if I knew that my kid was likely still alive out there somewhere.

Also, the way that society devolved in her flashbacks was less of a leap than I expected prior to reading/at the beginning of the book. The simultaneous obliteration of the executive and legislative branches was a bit inconceivable, but the idea that "they" can then slowly erode rights and freedoms, and that people wouldn't really balk until it was too late, was very realistic.

However, I also found the book very depressing, which is probably not unexpected (or unintended). The idea of Offred's daughter being taken away from her just ate away at me through the entire book. I read a lot of the book at night before bed, and was almost grateful when V woke up in the middle of the night so that I could hold him and feel secure with his presence. Additionally, the sense of hopelessness for a lot of the characters was hard at times. Even the women in more favorable situations were living a pretty shitty existence. The terms that they used to describe the babies were also very disturbing.

Finally, I hated the ending. I get the ambiguity, but I like a little more closure to stories with such difficult subject matter.

All in all, the book provoked emotion in me and caused me to draw correlations between myself, the world and the text, both of which I like in a book that I devote time to. I'm not sure I would recommend it to someone else, though, or ever want to reread it.