1984 + The Handmaids Tale

[boom^boom]

The Historical Notes show that the republic of Gilead was formed on the basis of many things that existed before it. Offred’s narrative about the pre-Gilead period shows the reader what flaws the Gilead Regime wanted to fix in society. The revolution shows the change in the status of woman, and the actual Gilead period shows many flaws in the new societal ways.

The analysis in the Historical notes shows that the post-Gilead period might have been a mixture of ideals in the Pre-Gilead period and Gilead period. I find Pieixoto’s comments about judging the Gilead period very interesting. He says that Gilead should not be judged too harshly because all such judgments are “culturally conditioned”. The novel gears the reader towards sympathizing with Offred, and disapproving of the actions of Gilead.

Pieixoto’s appeal of understanding suggests that such moral ambivalence sows seeds for future evils. He discusses her as a part in achieving the goal of reproduction, belittling her tale as only a crumb of history. This shows that even societies like ours and like professor Pieixoto’s that are considered progressive still hold seeds from the Gilead period, a period of oppression of women.

I don't think Pieixoto was belittling Offred. Seeing as how his entire lecture was based off of the intel she gave him and his compatriots, I doubt that he had anything but gratitude and respect for her. The lecture shows the difference between the Gileadean era and the one Pieixoto is speaking in. With the new (and at the same time old) freedom they have been given, men like Pieixoto can explore the past more freely. This freedom, however, would not have come into existence without the help of women like Offred and her friend Ofglen.

[boom^boom]

The end of the handmaid's tale ruined the "surprise" element of the book. Remember in "Inception", at the end where everybody in the theater stood up and cussed at the screen? That's the feeling at the end of the handmaid's tale, without the historical background. Lois Lowry didn't reveal what happened to Jonas at the end of "The Giver", and that was the whole idea. The reader is supposed to fill in the blanks for his/herself. With the historical background coming in at the end of Handmaid's tale, that element is removed to a degree. No, Pieixoto does not reveal what happened to Offred, but he does reveal how they got from point A to point B. Why even put it in the manuscript? What does it ADD to the reader's experience?

[fruit loops!]

One aspect of the historical notes that I found to be very important was Atwood decision to make the time gap between when Offred actually lived through the Gilead regime and the analysis on her perspective of the events which took place. The reason this time gap is important is because it seemed that Atwood wanted the reader to pay attention to the fact that the time gap allows the people analyzing Offred to develop their own opinion regarding the regime and to be able to look back at the regime and determine whether it was really worth the struggle or if it was even really necessary at all. This time gap also makes the novel seem a lot more realistic to me. It reminds me of Anne Frank’s Diary, and how Offred like Anne Frank lived through a very traumatic and horrible time period, yet she manages to keep some sort normalcy in her life, even if it is a constant routine or something as simple as interaction with a male. Also it reminds me of how in middle school kids are taught about Anne Frank’s Diary and the Holocaust, and in the “Historical Notes” the people attending the seminars are doing the same thing, only instead they are studying Offred’s recollection of the Gilead Regime and they are learning about all aspects involved in the Gilead Regime itself. Theses aspects combined also make the novel seem more dystopian which might have been Atwood’s goal all along.

[fruit loops!]

The end of the handmaid's tale ruined the "surprise" element of the book. Remember in "Inception", at the end where everybody in the theater stood up and cussed at the screen? That's the feeling at the end of the handmaid's tale, without the historical background. Lois Lowry didn't reveal what happened to Jonas at the end of "The Giver", and that was the whole idea. The reader is supposed to fill in the blanks for his/herself. With the historical background coming in at the end of Handmaid's tale, that element is removed to a degree. No, Pieixoto does not reveal what happened to Offred, but he does reveal how they got from point A to point B. Why even put it in the manuscript? What does it ADD to the reader's experience?

I think that the fact that the historical notes are added at the end of the novel gives the novel itself a more realistic touch. Keeping in mind that the novel is dystopian, shouldn’t a dystopian author to want to make the novel seem as realistic as possible? When learning about history we already know what happened and what the end result was, yet we still learn the little details involved in the event, and are not able to fill in the blanks our selves because it was history. By adding in the Historical notes, to me it seems as if this is exactly what Atwood was aiming for. I think that she wanted her readers to read the novel and in the end feel as if it really could happen in their world, that it could be their future, and people would eventually discuss that future in the same way the characters of the historical notes discuss the Gilead Regime. Also, even though at the end, we learn that Offred did manage to escape into hiding, the reader can still fill in the blanks for him or herself regarding what happened to Offred after she went into hiding.

[rachmaninoff]

I liked how Atwood had everything almost reverse itself in the end. This relates back to the "nature always wins" theme. Back during the time of exploration, the Europeans brought their diseases and greed which wiped out the Native Americans. Then during the time of The Handmaid's Tale, many of the Gileadeans wiped themselves out with toxins and poisons from the war and the colonies. About the people with odd names in 2195, I think this symbolizes both an increase in Native Americans and the ability for one to choose his/her own name. With the Caucasian population so low, all the minority groups have probably become the majorities. However, I think this favors the ability to pick names because I mean, after being oppressed for so long, the least someone could be allowed to do is to pick their name, especially since the handmaids couldn't even use their biological names during Gilead.

[boom^boom]

The names in this thing were awesome. I liked how Offred not only means that the commander's name was Fred, but also references the red color of the handmaid's dresses. When the Commander takes Offred to the jezebels, she gets to change clothes, and take the "red" "Off". This symbolizes a return, sort of, to her old life. Because she is not really Offred, she has a normal name, just as Ofwarren is really Janine. The same thing happens when she goes to Nick. She gets to remove her new life for a while, and return to what she used to be able to do with Luke. The way that Atwood works subtle things like that is really interesting.

On a totally different note, what were the significance of the greetings said between the handmaids? I didn't recognize them, hopefully someone can help me out with how that connects to the religious aspect of Gilead.

[rachmaninoff]

The names in this thing were awesome. I liked how Offred not only means that the commander's name was Fred, but also references the red color of the handmaid's dresses. When the Commander takes Offred to the jezebels, she gets to change clothes, and take the "red" "Off". This symbolizes a return, sort of, to her old life. Because she is not really Offred, she has a normal name, just as Ofwarren is really Janine. The same thing happens when she goes to Nick. She gets to remove her new life for a while, and return to what she used to be able to do with Luke. The way that Atwood works subtle things like that is really interesting.

I agree with this quote, and going off that, I thought the color symbolism was very appropriate for this novel. The Handmaids' red dresses reminded me of Hester Prynne's Scarlet Letter "A"; it draws attention to both of these women's sexual status. Atwood did say that Gilead was intentionally similar to the days of the Puritans and their religious intolerance. The red also symbolizes birth and blood. The wives' blue clothes symbolizes their sadness and frustration that they can't have kids, and the commanders' black items symbolize the power and (in Fred the Commander's case) evil for placing women in such an inferior place.

[rachmaninoff]

I found it interesting how the guardmen are called Angels. Yes, the guards are protecting the women, but they're also forcing them to stay and give away their futures to be handmaids. Angels are supposed to help people and be in heaven, but the women can't even talk to the Angels or anything. Gilead is definitely not heaven...more like the opposite.

A really sad part of this novel is when Offred is singing Amazing Grace with the messed up lyrics (54). If there is one word that doesn't describe Offred, it's definitely the word "free". It's sad how the Aunts teach that women have to "walk along the same street, in red pairs" (24) with no freedom whatsoever just so men won't "shout obscenities" (24) at them. The women of Gilead are brainwashed to believe that they are free. So Offred is free of being free, which actually means being a servant for life.

[sal7861]

1. Since the form of government in The Handmaid's Tale is a theocracy, religion (Bible) based, shouldn't access to the Bible be easier? Not being "kept locked up, the way people once kept tea locked up" (87)

2. After Offred and Ofglen see the old church they "turn our [Offred and Ofglen] backs on the church and there is the thing we've in truth come to see: the Wall" (31) Is the presence of the Wall being right in front of the church a symbol or a message that the Gildean government has in mind?
I was thinking that it could be like those saying, "die in front of god", thats why it is in front of the church. I am not sure about it.

[boom^boom]

The wall, to me is positioned directly accross from the church to show the contrast between the superficial nature of Gilead, and the true fuel of Christianity: sacrifice. Christianity was born out of a public execution. The wall symbolizes the crucifixion of Christ, with the Gileadean government (i.e. Eyes, Guardians, etc.) symbolizing the Romans. Gilead, in its attempt to relinquish those who would oppose it, has unintentionally created a revolution, once again similarly to the way that Jesus was silenced on the cross. Those who die on the wall become martyrs, and represent the sacrifice that Jesus made.

[rachmaninoff]

"So, the main question is, why are the religious illusions used ironically. Well, I believe it is to show that the goal is deceptive for no one is healed nor does anyone seem to be paid for the sacrifice. The is a perfect element to demonstrate a dystopia and perhaps that's why Atwood used the allusions in this manner." (hp4ever)

I think that Atwood used irony to contribute to the dystopian feel of the novel, and it also helps Atwood emphasize her point that "utopian" societies always fail. It's ironic that Gilead, a society supposedly based so much on religion, has a serious lack of religion. Nobody really talks about going to church, and the Aunts and commanders twist the words of the Bible to tell the handmaids that the only thing they are good for is their fertility. If a woman isn't fertile, she's up the creek. Only men are allowed to read the Bible (or anything at all) to keep women oppressed. In a way Gilead is like the Puritan society because the Gileadeans are willing to kill people "in the name of God".

[Generic_Idea]

Throughout our English course over the year, we've examine the aspect are often used to demonstrate a certain aspect of a character/characters (e.g. see my post on Nathan Price in The Poisonwood Bible). The same seems to true for Handmaid's Tale, except the religious aspect of the society is to demonstrate a common element in dsytopian novels: a deceptive societal goal. Firstly, let's start off by examining the name of the society, which is Gilead. Gilead is a religious reference to the Bible and it describes an area that was a peaceful and healing area. Yet, in reality, Gilead in the novel is the extreme opposite for the women. This is demonstrated by Offred's pain due to her new life: "I want her back. I want everything back, the way it was" (Atwood 122). Offred is filled with despair for her child and her husband are both far waay from her. She claims that "[t]here's nobody [she] can love, all the peoople [she] could love are dead or elsewhere" (103). This seems to quite a healing society huh? (being quite sarcastic there). Also, the concept of peace in this society is laughable for there is wall full of hangings! Thus, it can be concluded that this biblical allusion is used in an ironic sense.
Yet, it seems the majority of the allusions are used in an ironic sense. The Book of Job is another one for it is primarily about Job being tested by having Satan taking things away from him and Job not blaming God at all. Although this is taught to the society members to be willing to sacrifice everything for God but even those in power don't follow this and they make the Handmaids sacrifice all of their positions. This is seen by the existance of the black market (the Wives get Cigarettes and the Commanders get Vogue).
So, the main question is, why are the religious illusions used ironically. Well, I believe it is to show that the goal is deceptive for no one is healed nor does anyone seem to be paid for the sacrifice. The is a perfect element to demonstrate a dystopia and perhaps that's why Atwood used the allusions in this manner.

Closing thought: "Bible is kept locked up" (87) in this society: it's the source of truth. Therefore, the truth is hidden from the eyes of those that are powerless to be able to use the powerful tool of religion to justify their sinful desire for power.

The Irony may also be showing how some people think they are doing the right thing by doing this to the handmaid's. Of course there are people who don't truly car about religion, but there are still those that offred is afraid might, "be a real believer... I can't take the risk" (Atwood 19). Atwood may be warning people; following something or someone blindly can have great consequences, as seen in the rule of Gilead.

[boom^boom]

1. Since the form of government in The Handmaid's Tale is a theocracy, religion (Bible) based, shouldn't access to the Bible be easier? Not being "kept locked up, the way people once kept tea locked up" (87)

2. After Offred and Ofglen see the old church they "turn our [Offred and Ofglen] backs on the church and there is the thing we've in truth come to see: the Wall" (31) Is the presence of the Wall being right in front of the church a symbol or a message that the Gildean government has in mind?
I was thinking that it could be like those saying, "die in front of god", thats why it is in front of the church. I am not sure about it.

The Gileadan government is not a true theocracy. This is what separates Gilead from the Puritans; the Gileadeans are a vindictive, power-hungry government raised in depotism instead of piety. They keep the bible locked away to keep their subjects to keep them from learning the way, similar to the way that the Southern plantation owners kept their slaves from reading. Reading gives knowledge, and knowledge gives power, which is exactly what the Gileadeans want to prevent.

[boom^boom]

1. Why is there still football in Gilead? Who decided that football, a horribly violent sport that does very little good for one's physical/mental health, was ok, while things like reading and scrabble weren't?

2. What is the significance of the aunt's names? Offred references Aunt Lydia about 4349869583444309 times, which makes me wonder if it has some sort of connotation that I missed?

[rachmaninoff]

1. Since the form of government in The Handmaid's Tale is a theocracy, religion (Bible) based, shouldn't access to the Bible be easier? Not being "kept locked up, the way people once kept tea locked up" (87)

2. After Offred and Ofglen see the old church they "turn our [Offred and Ofglen] backs on the church and there is the thing we've in truth come to see: the Wall" (31) Is the presence of the Wall being right in front of the church a symbol or a message that the Gildean government has in mind?
I was thinking that it could be like those saying, "die in front of god", thats why it is in front of the church. I am not sure about it.

Answering #2, I think that the placement of the wall is a message. It shows the religious irony of this novel because religion is something that's supposed to unite people, not divide them, and the Gileadean government uses God (symbolized by the Eyes, Angels, and Guardians) to control by means of fear. Atwood shows the duality in Gilead by putting the wall across from the Church. The Gileadean government tells its inhabitants to praise and cherish God, but at the same time, they tell people that going against the government (God) will send them to the grave or colonies, good old human sacrifice. The placement of the wall shows how messed up Gilead really is.