The Handmaid's Tale (The Handmaid's Tale, #1)

by Margaret Atwood

IN THE WORLD OF THE NEAR FUTURE, WHO WILL CONTROL WOMEN'S BODIES?

Offred is a Handmaid in the Republic of Gilead. She may leave the home of the Commander and his wife once a day to walk to food markets whose signs are now pictures instead of words because women are no longer allowed to read. She must lie on her back once a month and pray that the Commander makes her pregnant, because in an age of declining births, Offred and the other Handmaids are valued only if their ovaries are viable.

Offred can remember the years before, when she lived and made love with her husband Luke; when she played with and protected her daughter; when she had a job, money of her own, and access to knowledge. But all of that is gone now... everything has changed.
--back cover

• ISBN10: 0449212602
• ISBN13: 9780449212608
• Publish Date: 12 December 1986 (first published 1 January 1985)
• Publish Status: Unknown
• Publish Country: GB
• Imprint: Fawcett Books
• Format: Paperback
• Pages: 10
• Language: English

Reviews

[Bianca]

Shameful, immodest. I avoid looking down at my body, not so much because it’s shameful or immodest but because I don’t want to see it. I don’t want to look at something that determines me so completely.

— This is a good and thought-provoking book, but the writing style isn't just for me.

[Jo]

4.5 Stars.

Originally published on Once Upon a Bookcase.

I've had The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood on my TBR for a while. I tried reading it a while back, but I wasn't in the right mood for it. But since watching the TV show, I was desperate to know where the story would go, so dug out my copy. And it was such a fascinating read.

The Handmaid's Tale is a really good story, and so thought provoking and really makes you angry. I was shocked and yet not shocked by what I read, and terrified that this story doesn't seem all that implausible, that it could happen fairly soon, with the way the world is going. However, I wasn't as wowed by it as I expected to be.

When Louise O'Neill's Only Ever Yours came out, it was always compared to The Handmaid's Tale, and I can see why, there is a level of similarity. But Only Ever Yours was the book that really opened my eyes, and shocked me to my core, so perhaps I read the two in the wrong order, and should have read The Handmaid's Tale first. Because it's just a lot quieter than a number of other books I've read.

Quiet isn't necessarily a bad thing. But it wasn't just that I wasn't in the right mood for the story the first time round, it was the voice - Offred's voice, and the style in which the story is told. If I hadn't already started watching The Handmaid's Tale TV show, I'm not sure I would have got all that far into a second attempt at reading the book. It was having watched and listened to Elisabeth Moss - who plays Offred in the show - that helped me with the book, because I could then hear her narrate, and I already kind of "knew" Offred. But most of the book is very much in Offred's head; it's what she thinks, what she remembers, her telling us about her life, and her thoughts often go off in various different directions; it all makes sense, but at first, it just seems odd and confusing.

There's also very little that actually happens in the book, which is kind of understandable, and Offred isn't allowed to do much, but it just felt really slow, this steady pace that doesn't go much of anywhere, not until the very end. Offred is mostly passive throughout; she might think about how wrong things are and how she doesn't want to do them, but she goes along with it all, because the consequences of not are unthinkable. But I'm so used to dystopian novels where people fight back, or try at least. And there is an underground movement trying to change things, but Offred isn't part of it.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the story is really good, and it has the desired affect, and it's one that will stay with me, but although it's still relevant, I feel it may be a little dated now? Just because dystopian novels published today tend to be much more active, and because of that, I was expecting more. It's still a book that has affected me, though. It's one I can't stop thinking about, but that might also be because of the TV show (which I find more engaging). Still, a really great book for making you think. Do give it a read.

[Linda]

The Handmaid's Tale is, in a way, reminiscent of both Animal Farm and 1984. The reason I say this is that for a dystopia, some of the things that happened in Offred's narrative definitely seem like they could happen. Taking away women's rights to 'protect' them from men, for example. Banning birth-control. Nuclear disasters. New strains of illnesses the world thought it was done with. Too many people in some places, and not enough in others. Strict rules...

FRC

[Mercy]

Necesito procesar todo lo que me ha dejado esta novela y así poder hacer una reseña decente.

[clementine]

So much more chilling now than it was when I first read it in 2011.

[ross91]

This book was published in 1985 and yet it is as relevant today as it was 32 years ago. This is the thing I'm the most concerned with.

[inlibrisveritas]

The Handmid’s Tale is one that most people have heard of at least, but I’ve sort of avoided it for years. (I have this thing against reading books that people tell me I need to read…) To be honest I’m glad I waited until now to read it because I don’t think I would have appreciated it as much.

The tale follows Offred, a Handmaid in the home of a Commander and his (kind of intimidating) wife. As a woman she has been assigned to the job of the Handmaid, and once a month she has to lay with the commander to try and get pregnant. Her only job is to provide the Republic of Gilead with children, and her whole reality revolves around that. She’s required to stay healthy and devoted to theirs cause. Occasionally we are given flashbacks of her life before Gilead and during the first days of the Republic, and she frames it in a way to show the differences and slow progression of a woman who lived independently to a woman who is forced to have a companion to walk to the market. It’s a chilling story to say the least, and it’s hard to not kind of pull personal politics in to how you view the story because it’s sort of a political message in itself.

We see a world where women’s rights are taken away, reduced to the bare minimum (like breathing and living), and then given back in shitty wrapping paper that they swear is actually golden. They reinforce the message that the world before was a mess, choices for women lead to all kinds of disruption and lude enterprises that made the world fall into madness. Things like rape and sexual assault are reinforced as being the woman’s fault, abortions are illegal and punishable by death, and the lgbt community outlawed. It’s a stark and unforgiving book, that presents a stark and unforgiving reality. I think after the year that I’ve had, where I’ve witnessed a very public rise in dissension for minorities, women, and the lgbt community this book sort of hit home. Well it more of punched home and then proceeded to kick it a little.

I will say the writing style is going to be a love it or leave it affair. You’ll either walk away from it feeling somewhat unimpressed or bored, or you’ll enjoy it and fall into the unique quality. It is a short but slow feeling read.

This is my second Atwood novel and I think I like her! This one was really different from Hag-Seed, but she has a way of presenting human nature that really works.

[cornerfolds]

I have heard about this book for years, but never actually felt compelled to read it. When I found an audiobook and discovered that it was narrated by Claire Danes, I decided it was finally time to take the plunge! I had no real idea of what to expect, only that it was supposed to be pretty shocking. I came away extremely confused.

This is probably the hardest book ever to review and rate because it seems like everyone loves it. I didn't. Maybe because it's 2015 and it takes a lot to shock me? I don't know. This book was just a big confusing mess that was honestly kind of painful to get through. There were times when I had no idea what was going on, when the narrator would jump back and forth in time or go off on some random tangent. It was difficult to keep up and, honestly, really hard to believe. I know this is fiction and I know there has to be a level of suspension of disbelief, but this book asked for more than I could give.

Since everything that could possibly be said about this book is already out there, I'm just going to focus on a couple things. My biggest issue with The Handmaid's Tale is the idea that this society even exists. I think the biggest strike against this book is that Margaret Atwood set it in a recognizable time and place. If this had been a dystopian novel set in the distant future, it would have been a lot easier to accept. But asking me to believe that Offred lived in both "normal" America and in this completely insane dystopian society? I just can't.

Could something like this ever happen? I really doubt it. But IF it did, it would not happen in a matter of five years or so. People would never accept it. Husbands would not just roll over and allow their wives to be taken and used. And even more obviously, women would NOT allow themselves to be used in this way. I've read other dystopian fiction where children were raised in a cult-like setting and grew to accept completely insane lifestyles. But society as a whole could not be taken from modern America and thrown into this. The Handmaid's Tale doesn't do nearly enough to justify these circumstances. The fact is, society is not nearly as terrible as the author seems to imply. We are actually living in the most peaceful times in history. Certainly, we will not end up like this, at least in the very near future.

I wanted to love this book so much! Most of you probably know that I'm a huge fan of dystopian fiction. But The Handmaid's Tale was just ridiculous. Maybe in the 80s people were shocked by this. And if Margaret Atwood was aiming solely for shock value, perhaps she hit her mark. But as a cautionary tale, this really fell short for me. I'm not down with books that only exist to scare people, and I feel like that was this one's main goal.

Actual Rating: 1.5 stars

[Michael @ Knowledge Lost]

Most people would be familiar with Margaret Atwood’s novel The Handmaid’s Tale; a Christian totalitarian theocracy has overthrown the US government and are controlling reproduction. Set in the not so distant future, this dystopian society serves as a platform for Margaret Atwood to explore some real issues. Written in 1985, it is surprising to think that these themes and issues are still relevant thirty years later.

When I read this novel about four years ago, I think I missed the point, saying “I felt like Margaret Atwood spent too much time trying to explain the dystopian world in which The Handmaid’s Tale is set rather than the story itself.” I obviously was reading this book for its plot rather than trying to understand what Atwood wanted to say. To be fair I recognised this, citing “I understand she was trying to create a world that was a metaphor of a totalitarian society and explore the issue of women’s right” but even that makes me sound naive or stupid. One reason I like rereading books is for the fact that it shows me how much I have improved as a reader. I gave The Handmaid’s Tale three stars when I read it in 2011, but it is now clear to me that this is a brilliant novel and needs a much higher rating.

Looking at this dystopian society; the government wants control over reproduction. To do this, women become a political tool, rather than humans. This government was created due to a dramatic decrease in birth rates. Women become the property of their husband or the state. Women are not allowed to vote, have jobs, read or anything else that might make them have individual thoughts.

“There is no such thing as a sterile man anymore, not officially. There are only women who are fruitful and women who are barren, that’s the law.”

This one quote really summed up this novel for me; the whole idea that women are only useful for one thing. Women are considered subhuman and their only use involves their ovaries and womb. Even the main character, Offred reflects in one scene that her body was an instrument of passion and desire but now she has only one purpose; reproduction. She does not consider it rape, because she signed up to be a Handmaid; but what other choice did she have? In fact rape is severely punished and the government believes the women are protected. Yet would it not be considered rape if we take away the women’s rights, including their right to give consent?

There are many layers that could be explored within The Handmaid’s Tale, I would like to explore the novel deeper. I think looking at this book from a religious angle would be interesting as well, and I think I will need to give it a reread before considering that. I am glad to give this book another go; rereading this was eye opening and really highlighted just how much I have grown. One thing I found humorous was that Margaret Atwood set this book in the United States of America and references escaping to safety in Canada. This is an iconic novel and Atwood is an author well worth exploring; having said that, I have only read The Handmaid’s Tale and the MaddAddam trilogy. Lucky for me, I have so many more Margaret Atwood novels to explore.

This review originally appeared on my blog; http://www.knowledgelost.org/book-reviews/genre/classic/the-handmaids-tale-by-margaret-atwood/

[mbtc]

I'm not really sure what to think about this book. A sad and horrifying tale.