I read this thread simply because it reminded me of the number one reason why I love art - subjectivity. I thought The Handmaid's Tale was muck. For me, in terms of female writers I can't stand, Atwood is topped only by Donna Tartt - writers with a truly superb mastery of the English language that's wasted completely in page after page of pretentious shite. We're so badgered and blugeoned into being horrified that I ended up rooting for the governors. And I'm a woman! I cringed when she introduced the scrabble. Dear God help me. Sorry folks, just my 'tuppence. Hated it.
Your opinion is perfectly welcome. The fact that I now have Feed the Birds (Tuppence a bag) earworming through my head for the rest of the day, unforgivable!
I disagree but definitely hear what you're saying. There was certainly a LOOK HOW HORRIFYING ALL THIS IS vibe to it. But I didn't care. A lesser author would have buggered it pretty badly but Atwood was at least able to back it up. One of those things (like the plausibility of the setting) that I didn't notice too much at the time but wore me down later. I call that the driving-home-from-the-movies plot hole. Like you're totally riveted in the theater but once you start discussing it in the car all the warts seem to pop out. The rise of the regime is actually beyond preposterous the more I think about it.
It's a little hazy in the text. "Something" has happened "out west" that leaves America an unlivable wasteland past the Appalachian area. It's kinda' hard to find a map that actually addresses the text rather than makes current political commentary based on the text.
Meanwhile, is anyone watching the Hulu series? I'm finding it visually fabulous. I can't make up my mind how I feel about the narrowing of the issues. Gilead has all-organic food, renewable energy, apparently zero racism, etc., etc. There may be poverty and starvation, but if there is, it really isn't mentioned. (There are obviously shortages--the cook of Offred's very high-ranked Commander had to trade away "most of our cheese" to get some cinnamon--but I don't remember any discussion of actual severe hunger.) All other issues are pushed aside to shine a brighter spotlight on the specific issues that the series is about, and I'm not sure how I feel about that. It reduces the realism of the series, IMO; sometimes it has a bit of a fairy-tale feel.
Well, it seems to pretty clearly believe that there is a risk of basic rights being eliminated. It is interesting that a man in the TV series refers to getting "the snip" illegally, so it's pretty clear that birth control is illegal for men as well as women. However, it's established that it's illegal to state anything that reflects a belief that a man might be sterile-- all reproduction issues are the woman's fault.
Has the TV series started already? I got distracted by my recent dive into Netflix... If the answer is yes, do you give it a thumbs up or down?
Worth watching. I find myself remembering that the new episodes come out on Wednesday and watching them either Wednesday or Thursday. But still somehow unsatisfying. I think it may be too much world building, too little plot.
I had to study this feminist twaddle for A Level. We had a choice between this and The Day of the Jackal. I was the only boy in the class. When asked what I thought, and said, Feminist Twaddle, you can imagine the reactions. But, I was right....
You were right because...? Or were you just seeking a thread where you could say "Feminist Twaddle" and this was the first one you found?
Ah, I meant the Peter Lloyd person as the misogynist. I wouldn't go quite that far with the poster yet--since they indeed haven't presented any argument, there's no telling.
To be fair hes got aright to see it as feminist twaddle if he wants - I don't agree, feminist yes, twaddle no - but lets not boil him alive in hot marmalade then nail him to the wall by his testicles yet. Peter Lloyd on the other hand is journalist/writer who gets off on being controversial... he tweets as @sufragentleman which tells us everything we need to know.
I see no marmalade or nails. When a poster presents an unsupported opinion as fact around here, it's not unusual for them to experience some feedback. I see no reason to make an exception in this case.
Obviously everyone has a right to see any book the way they want to. And they have a right to make troll-y comments about that book. And people have a right to respond asking for support for that opinion, and everyone has a right to not give that opinion, and others have a right to think they're trolls because of it, etc. etc. etc. No one's rights are at stake, here. I guess when a book is explicitly political the discussion of that book will be more prone to inflammation. Still, it'd be nice if there was actual discussion rather than drive-by comments...
Well I would love to give you the indepth reason why its feminist twaddle, but i was forced to study it 24 years ago and the details have been thankfully erased from my mind and only the foot note of Never read this feminist twaddle again, remains. I do vaguley recall the exam question being along the lines of The Handmaids Tale, feminist twaddle or not. Or words to that effect. Attwood has also recieved a lot of criticism about the feminist nature of the book, particularly when she tried to deny it was femenist. If you look up critical reviews online I bet you will find the phrase feminist twaddle used somewhere. I have certainly seen one calling it paranoid poppycock which i quite liked.
Maybe you should re-read the book--hopefully you've changed a bit in 24 years, and your reaction might be different, now. (I've definitely surprised myself by re-reading some of the books I hated when I was forced to read them for school... stories that were meaningless and annoying to an eighteen-year-old can have a lot more resonance for a mature reader.)
This is certainly true. This book came along in my AP English class as a senior in high school in 1988. This was the era where such classes were typically doused in a heavy load of Steinbeck and Hemingway. THT was enjoyable (for me) because it was vaguely Science Fiction-ie (though I know Atwood dislikes that term). It was new at the time, published just three years earlier, so it was also mildly scandalous for Mr. Pinchera (my teacher) to sneak it into the syllabus. Where was I going with this...? Oh, yes... Steinbeck and Hemingway. To an 18 year-old, Steinbeck and Hemingway were tedious and plodding and depressing as all getout. Much different read to my older self.
