I don't want to take the time to craft an elegant post around my hurriedly scribbled notes, so I'll just try to lay them down in a somewhat discernible fashion, and you guys can choose which, if any, you want to talk about.
1. I have had a number of people say to me, "I don't care about politics." Well, this book is a shining example of why we can't afford not to care about politics. I don't think much of people who don't vote, or who laugh about their willful ignorance of the affairs of the country. I like my stories and shallow pursuits, too, but I also read the paper and listen to the news, because I am a grownup.
2. In the Red Center they use the phrase "freedom from." As in, people used to have the freedom to do things, now they have freedom from things. It reminds me of a conversation I had with my cousin's wife. They lived in China for a year, and she commented about how much she loved being able to go running anywhere, at any time of the day or night, and how she didn't have to watch her kids, because China is so safe, and she'd love to move back there someday. That's a scary thought, to me. China is a fine place, I'm sure, but I like saying what I think without fear of imprisonment. I don't like exchanging liberty for safety, within reason. And "within reason" is something that you have to spend a lot of time parsing, if you're a responsible person. Because I've been blessed enough to live in safety AND freedom my entire life. Would my opinion change if I'd ever seen what it's really like to live in a bad area?
Also, the Aunts talk about how women are safe from the dangers of rape and other violence, but they aren't really. The flesh trade outside the city is still very vibrant, and despite the pretty face they put on it, the Ceremony is merely state-sanctioned rape. Lacking the authority to deny consent is the same thing as lacking the ability to give consent, and thus every sexual liaison between the handmaid and the Commander, and the more intimate relationship that Fred pursues, is rape.
3. In the flashbacks Offred is very different, and it took me a while to figure out what it is. But then I realized that her current self is very infantile, and I wondered if it was an example of how treating people like children is self-actualizing.
4. Offred misses the mundanities, like oranges and lingerie stores and going with her family to get ice cream.
5. In order to maintain control an oppressive regime relies heavily on its citizenry to be their eyes and ears, to inform on each other. How long would it take before we became as craven and duplicitous as the people in the book?
6. The nomenclature for the handmaids is abhorrent--once I realized that "Offred" stands for "property of Fred," I was disgusted. She doesn't get even an item name. The wives are called "Wife of So-and-so," but the handmaids don't even get that much.
7. Sexism is still alive and well in 2195, as evidenced by the jokes told in the keynote address at the conference. They joke about the handmaids' lack of education, they make a put about "tale" vs. "tail," they refer to the underground frailroad . . . groan.
That's what I have for now.
I just finished the book this afternoon, so I'm still processing. I was mildly upset by the lack of neatly tied up happy ending. I was easily distracted by how very dated to the mid-eighties it read, what with the compu-everything, USSR and extinct whales references. These are my initial, uncritical thoughts. I hope to come up with some slightly more intelligent.
ReplyDeleteI found it very unnerving how easily something like the takeover could go down, by the way. The reference to "blaming Islamic extremists" sent a chill down my spine.
I agree--it did have some very eighties-specific markers, but then you'd come upon something that you could swear you had just read about in the paper, the Islamic extremists bit for example. So reminiscent of the way the Patriot Act was passed.
DeleteI heard somewhere--and I can't verify the sourcing at all, so discount accordingly--that everything she wrote had either happened in the past, or was happening somewhere at the time, and she just combined them all. Pretty creepy, but when you think about it, not surprising. The only thing that is different about Gilead is its employment of so many tools of oppression at once.
By now you know that I want to discuss everything! hahaha 1)I am appalled by people who don't pay attention to what is going on in politics. Is it is a sign that people feel secure, or is it a sign they are lazy and entitled? Maybe we should discuss why people think it is acceptable to ignore politics. All the subterfuge disgusts me, but I stay as informed as possible. 2)I was very taken by the comparison of "freedom from" and "freedom to". I haven't thought about that much in my life. I admit I believe much more in "freedom to" since I'm American, but that might very well change if I lived in parts of Africa. Context is everything, I suppose. Those in power always get to define what is a crime, and they often exempt themselves from the definition. What the Commanders do is not rape, it's saving the race. I think we have heard that somewhere before. 3)I don't understand your reference to treating people as children self-actualizing. How is that possible? Perhaps oppression is self-actualizing? I'll have to think about that. 4)I think when your life changes drastically, it is always the fabric of life you miss most. When someone dies, for example, you miss being able to pick up the phone and give them a call to share something more than some exotic experience you had with them. 5) Ah, the subject of what extremes people are willing to endure to survive. I think this is governed by context as well. Are you only saving yourself, or are you saving others as well? Do you have enough hope to believe that it will change eventually? I think it is astonishing what some people will endure to survive, how much courage it takes, and how despicable some become to ensure survival. Extreme character tests that some unlucky souls get to take take. 6/7) The handmaids are just property. I think this concept continues to be timely for all women. The current debates about contraception, abortion, etc, are just continuations of the gender power debates that have always been present. This really enrages me, as I see it as some men treating women as the weakest members of the herd, easy targets for expanding their control and power. That is really what this is about, power and control. It is up to women to stop it. Why don't we? We are in the majority. By the way, I read an Everyman's Library edition with an extensive forward that explained that Margaret Atwood had done her dissertation on religious oppression in countries such as Afghanistan, and that she used this knowledge a basis for the structure of the book. Your assertion that she just used actual events rather than her imagination is correct. If you read about what happens today in some areas where religion is used to oppress women, i.e. the Taliban, you would read that all this is happening today in the world. Have you read Ten Thousand Splendid Suns?
ReplyDeleteI haven't read Ten Thousand Splendid Suns. I'll look for it.
DeleteAbout treating people like children being self-actualizing--I was saying that if you treat people like children, they tend to fulfill your expectations and start thinking and behaving like children.
I do think people are lazy and entitled. They assume that other people will do the heavy lifting of keeping our country running smoothly and justly.
OK, now I understand. You are saying that we live up to people's expectations of us. Yes, unfortunately, all of us are sheeples at one time or another. Must be some survival instinct of the reptilian brain.
DeleteYes, I think survival instinct is a very apt description of how Offred is behaving.
DeleteI hope I can get this on e-books, because I want to join the discussion and we're in Spain. I had a conversation with my American sister in law and Spanish brother in law last night on the subject of "bonjour" -- this relates to Bringing up Bebe -- and how Pamela Druckerman argues that saying hello means French children are raised to acknowledge the humanity of everyone in the room and that American kids are raised to think they're the center of the universe and don't bother to say hello. At first I accepted this at face value, but Amy (sister-in-law) and I talked about it for a while and we both remembered being totally aware of our friends' parents (for instance) but we didn't want to bother them, we wanted to remain invisible until they expressed interest. It was like they were MORE than human. You'd be sitting in the kitchen with a friend, her mom would come in, you'd know she was there and that she was human but to stand up and say, "Hello Mrs. Smith" would have seemed obnoxious. But then if she said hello to one of us, we would immediately say hello very politely and meekly.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right, Jennifer. I was raised to "speak when spoken to", and "to be seen and not heard". My parents were of the old school of parenting. I saw adults as the power structure in my world. Pamela Druckerman may have come to this conclusion subjectively. The initiation of speech with non-familial adults can be interpreted to be an attention-seeking behavior in our culture. It seems this may be one of those things that it is difficult to be objective about based on a lot of factors including culture and personal experience.
DeleteAll right, since you guys are talking about Bringing Up Bebe here, I have something to add. I haven't read it, but I am reading a book called French Kids Eat Everything - it was published recently and comes up when you search for BuB on Amazon. I'm sure it doubles up on some of the points hit in BuB, but I've found it really interesting (not to mention instructive in helping my picky eater learn to love food).
DeleteI bring it up because it seems like something right in the wheelhouse for this group, and I am curious to read BuB when I'm done and see if all the absolutes align or are truly just subjective observations.
I think the secret lies in the delivery. There is a world of difference between a child who throws open the front door, flounces in, and proclaims, "I'm HERE, everybody!" and a child who when their family comes over for dinner or whatnot says, "Hello" and then joins the other children. Obviously I prefer the latter, and think it's polite to greet your hosts, even if you are there under your parents' umbrella. But I'm probably not going to get bent out of shape in asking my children to do it. They'll get there anyway, as a function of aging and maturing.
DeleteI've seen that "French Kids Eat Everything" book, and I bet I'd love it. I think we encourage our children's neuroses, sometimes.