Looking forward to it Mz Moonchime!
Book #1 - The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
-
Moonchime
- Posts: 1451
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:17 am
"I made a rule for myself: I would not include anything that human beings had not already done in some other place or time, or for which the technology did not already exist."
I have very much enjoyed reading through all of your comments Mz Dee and Mz Lori and they have given me more than ample food for thought on an excellent debate. Although I have not quoted either of you directly, what you have written has influenced my thought processes and comments and continues to toy with my mind. There is so much I am still pondering but a start has to be made.
I loved the book and could not put it down when I read it which, I have to admit, was now nearly a year ago; someone has borrowed my copy and I have not re-read it. Nevertheless, there is much I remember and hope it informs what I write sufficiently well for some of the debate, if not for all.
Perhaps "love" is not the best word for the book as the subject matter is so dark, but the writing is so skillful and the use of language so interesting that you cannot help but be drawn in and fascinated by the world she creates.
What Atwood says in the quote above is one of the reasons I felt the book was so powerful; even though it is set in the future and could drift off into realms of fantasy, it keeps its roots firmly set in established patterns of human behaviour. This, I felt, was central to the feeling of menace and unease created in the state of Gilead. You did not have to ask yourself "could this really happen? would people really do that?" because the answer was yes and the precedent is set.
Unfortunately I do not believe we learn lessons from history; perhaps it's like trying to put an old head on young shoulders; you can try all you like but in the end it doesn't work.
Offred had come from a time and place that felt it was "progressive" and would always move in the "right" direction; the problem is what people think is "right and progressive" constantly changes.
Nothing is forever and power is a dangerous drug. Those with the greatest power are perhaps the ones that are most interested in keeping the state as it is; those with the least the ones that suffer the most.
"Which of us is it worse for, her or me?"
This got me thinking long and hard and at first I kept changing my mind.The position of both women is hard to bear. On the one hand is the Handmaid, used as a potential vessel; a reproductive tool, on the other, a woman forced to partake and witness the very process she cannot be a real part of. The expectation of being able to reproduce runs deep in the human psyche and is usually automatically assumed until found to be otherwise; it changes so many things. Despite being in a superior position to Offred, Serena does not have the value to the society that the fertile woman has. The Ceremony is a constant reminder of what she is assumed not to have.
Both women are sacrifices to the "ultimate" cause - survival of the human race; individual sacrifice for the "common good".
I think all societies struggle to balance the rights of the individual with what is considered best for the community as a whole; tension between these is constant.
Offred is a potential surrogate, but without her volition or any economic return. She has to perform the most intimate of acts for the state, just as Serena has to watch that act.
If Offred becomes pregnant she will have to carry her own child and then give it up. Could belief that it was "for the best" make it bearable?
If the circumstances cannot be changed - can the perception of them be changed?
If she had been brought up in that society from a child would she consider it very differently? Could she even be happy in the sacrifice?
Regulation of human fertility is a minefield, and no institution or government that has tried to control it has managed to do so without difficult, and frequently tragic, consequences.
I have very much enjoyed reading through all of your comments Mz Dee and Mz Lori and they have given me more than ample food for thought on an excellent debate. Although I have not quoted either of you directly, what you have written has influenced my thought processes and comments and continues to toy with my mind. There is so much I am still pondering but a start has to be made.
I loved the book and could not put it down when I read it which, I have to admit, was now nearly a year ago; someone has borrowed my copy and I have not re-read it. Nevertheless, there is much I remember and hope it informs what I write sufficiently well for some of the debate, if not for all.
Perhaps "love" is not the best word for the book as the subject matter is so dark, but the writing is so skillful and the use of language so interesting that you cannot help but be drawn in and fascinated by the world she creates.
What Atwood says in the quote above is one of the reasons I felt the book was so powerful; even though it is set in the future and could drift off into realms of fantasy, it keeps its roots firmly set in established patterns of human behaviour. This, I felt, was central to the feeling of menace and unease created in the state of Gilead. You did not have to ask yourself "could this really happen? would people really do that?" because the answer was yes and the precedent is set.
Unfortunately I do not believe we learn lessons from history; perhaps it's like trying to put an old head on young shoulders; you can try all you like but in the end it doesn't work.
Offred had come from a time and place that felt it was "progressive" and would always move in the "right" direction; the problem is what people think is "right and progressive" constantly changes.
Nothing is forever and power is a dangerous drug. Those with the greatest power are perhaps the ones that are most interested in keeping the state as it is; those with the least the ones that suffer the most.
"Which of us is it worse for, her or me?"
This got me thinking long and hard and at first I kept changing my mind.The position of both women is hard to bear. On the one hand is the Handmaid, used as a potential vessel; a reproductive tool, on the other, a woman forced to partake and witness the very process she cannot be a real part of. The expectation of being able to reproduce runs deep in the human psyche and is usually automatically assumed until found to be otherwise; it changes so many things. Despite being in a superior position to Offred, Serena does not have the value to the society that the fertile woman has. The Ceremony is a constant reminder of what she is assumed not to have.
Both women are sacrifices to the "ultimate" cause - survival of the human race; individual sacrifice for the "common good".
I think all societies struggle to balance the rights of the individual with what is considered best for the community as a whole; tension between these is constant.
Offred is a potential surrogate, but without her volition or any economic return. She has to perform the most intimate of acts for the state, just as Serena has to watch that act.
If Offred becomes pregnant she will have to carry her own child and then give it up. Could belief that it was "for the best" make it bearable?
If the circumstances cannot be changed - can the perception of them be changed?
If she had been brought up in that society from a child would she consider it very differently? Could she even be happy in the sacrifice?
Regulation of human fertility is a minefield, and no institution or government that has tried to control it has managed to do so without difficult, and frequently tragic, consequences.
-
Moonchime
- Posts: 1451
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:17 am
"Who knew we were happy then?"
Do we only know what we've got when it's gone? Often I think we do only learn the value of people/things in our lives when we no longer have them. Yes there are some moments when we feel joy or elation but they are transitory and so often our realisation of what we have is incomplete. Retrospective viewing makes so many things clearer, but I do like to think that we can learn to foster a greater appreciation of what we have in the present.
A sense of gratitude and awareness is by no means automatic or the value of the everyday always realised.
Of course happiness can be defined in so many ways and so often what we think will make us happy fails to do so.
I think an essential prerequisite is self respect ( from which respect for others stems) and a sense of human dignity. In Gilead the sense of self for so many is eroded and manipulated to strengthen the hold of those in power. Those who rebel stay true to themselves but at such a high cost; those who conform pay a different price, that of losing some of their true self.
Do we only know what we've got when it's gone? Often I think we do only learn the value of people/things in our lives when we no longer have them. Yes there are some moments when we feel joy or elation but they are transitory and so often our realisation of what we have is incomplete. Retrospective viewing makes so many things clearer, but I do like to think that we can learn to foster a greater appreciation of what we have in the present.
A sense of gratitude and awareness is by no means automatic or the value of the everyday always realised.
Of course happiness can be defined in so many ways and so often what we think will make us happy fails to do so.
I think an essential prerequisite is self respect ( from which respect for others stems) and a sense of human dignity. In Gilead the sense of self for so many is eroded and manipulated to strengthen the hold of those in power. Those who rebel stay true to themselves but at such a high cost; those who conform pay a different price, that of losing some of their true self.
-
Dee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11016
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:52 pm
Ok, I'm back. Funny, how whilst you're getting on with living your everyday life, your mind can be simultaneously engaged with thoughts about ongoing discussions, books you've just read, films and pictures you've just seen, segments of music playing constantly as background pushing to the forefront every now and then. Sitting in a church during a baptism, and you're properly there in the moment, and at the same time your mind makes the most random connections and the experience is just extraordinary... I love all this buzz.
Forgive my ramblings, now back to the discussion above.
Quoting Mz Moonchime here:
Unfortunately I do not believe we learn lessons from history; perhaps it's like trying to put an old head on young shoulders; you can try all you like but in the end it doesn't work.
Offred had come from a time and place that felt it was "progressive" and would always move in the "right" direction; the problem is what people think is "right and progressive" constantly changes.
This has always fascinated me. History is like a pendulum swinging to one extreme to the other, always pulled back to the centre. People try one thing, then try to perfect it, but at the same time they create new problems, ("better never means better for everyone") then comes the new government trying to fix the problems, and they do, but by fixing them, they create new problems... and it goes on and on like that. Everything in life seems to be cyclical. It's dictated by basic human nature. No amount of studying of history, of past successes and failures will change that. People just need to do their own thing again and again, reinvent the wheel every five minutes, and fall over running, no matter how many times they were told to slow down and look for potholes by their mums history.
Don't we all do this? In our everyday lives on a small scale? Resolutions followed by ever so valid reasons to break them? Doesn't the education system seem to be swinging from free to rigid and back again? Just the same as governments change everything round and then the next one will scrap and restore?
In this book, we see the government of Gilead push things to the extreme. Under the cover of trying to create solutions to the fertility problems, what they actually want is a perfectly controllable society, with seriously limited choices and individualism. It is unclear who seems to benefit from this society.
There is control, certainly, initially at least. Spreading fear is a powerful tool. But it's the arrogance of leadership that brings the downfall of all totalitarian rule. The overestimation of their own fearfulness and invincibility and the underestimation of the resentment, resistance, courage, resilience, perseverance of the opposition. No matter how this has happened a thousand times in recorded history. It's the arrogance of the conviction that they are better at this than anyone else has ever been.
What fascinates me most though is how it is unclear who benefits. Because this level of desire to control is very controlling for the controllers themselves. And control in itself doesn't make people happy. Without fail it results in disillusioned leaders who end up breaking their own rules, because after a while it grinds everyone down: the lack of answer to the question "but what is the point of all this?" In the Handmaid's Tale this manifests itself in the establishment 'Jezebel', where the disillusioned leaders are trying to recreate some of their personal freedoms and chase moments of happiness, but it's all set to fail. Because Jezebel itself is just an illusion.
Forgive my ramblings, now back to the discussion above.
Quoting Mz Moonchime here:
Unfortunately I do not believe we learn lessons from history; perhaps it's like trying to put an old head on young shoulders; you can try all you like but in the end it doesn't work.
Offred had come from a time and place that felt it was "progressive" and would always move in the "right" direction; the problem is what people think is "right and progressive" constantly changes.
This has always fascinated me. History is like a pendulum swinging to one extreme to the other, always pulled back to the centre. People try one thing, then try to perfect it, but at the same time they create new problems, ("better never means better for everyone") then comes the new government trying to fix the problems, and they do, but by fixing them, they create new problems... and it goes on and on like that. Everything in life seems to be cyclical. It's dictated by basic human nature. No amount of studying of history, of past successes and failures will change that. People just need to do their own thing again and again, reinvent the wheel every five minutes, and fall over running, no matter how many times they were told to slow down and look for potholes by their mums history.
Don't we all do this? In our everyday lives on a small scale? Resolutions followed by ever so valid reasons to break them? Doesn't the education system seem to be swinging from free to rigid and back again? Just the same as governments change everything round and then the next one will scrap and restore?
In this book, we see the government of Gilead push things to the extreme. Under the cover of trying to create solutions to the fertility problems, what they actually want is a perfectly controllable society, with seriously limited choices and individualism. It is unclear who seems to benefit from this society.
There is control, certainly, initially at least. Spreading fear is a powerful tool. But it's the arrogance of leadership that brings the downfall of all totalitarian rule. The overestimation of their own fearfulness and invincibility and the underestimation of the resentment, resistance, courage, resilience, perseverance of the opposition. No matter how this has happened a thousand times in recorded history. It's the arrogance of the conviction that they are better at this than anyone else has ever been.
What fascinates me most though is how it is unclear who benefits. Because this level of desire to control is very controlling for the controllers themselves. And control in itself doesn't make people happy. Without fail it results in disillusioned leaders who end up breaking their own rules, because after a while it grinds everyone down: the lack of answer to the question "but what is the point of all this?" In the Handmaid's Tale this manifests itself in the establishment 'Jezebel', where the disillusioned leaders are trying to recreate some of their personal freedoms and chase moments of happiness, but it's all set to fail. Because Jezebel itself is just an illusion.
-
Dee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11016
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:52 pm
Quoting Mz Moonchime again:
If she had been brought up in that society from a child would she consider it very differently? Could she even be happy in the sacrifice?
This is a very interesting question, and something addressed in the book:
“Ordinary, said Aunt Lydia, is what you are used to. This may not seem ordinary to you now, but after a time it will. It will become ordinary.”
It's something that has always fascinated me, especially given the fact that I was brought up in a communist state.
My personal answer to your question, MC, would be that it depends on the strength of the individual and the level of brainwashing involved.
Some people find solace in dissolving their individualism, blending in to a group identity and following a set of rules unquestioningly. May that be a political or a religious ideology. But I think the majority of people will inevitably reach a moment eventually when they would start questioning the presented ideology. To what extent and to what outcome, that varies enormously, but the questioning itself is bound to happen to most people.
As little kids, we grew up singing songs of praise about Uncle Lenin, and glorifying the Soviet Union. We sangs song about what happy little pioneers we were. The funny thing is, that we actually were. Being pioneers was a lot of fun. Excursions with your friends, sitting round campfires, exploring, adventures... but it was also indoctrination and distortion of history built on omissions and lies to get the new generation to accept the communist state. As we grew up though, we began to question things we took for granted as kids.
People who are brought up in a religious family, they grow up being religious. It's a way of life most of them don't question as children. As they get older and exposed to different views and lifestyles, this might change. At least there is a time of questioning again.
In Gilead, it was suggested that future generations of handsmaids would be much more accepting of their fate, they might even find pride in their role. There are times described in the book, where the group mentality already takes over the individual for most if not all: the salvaging, the birthing... all cleverly orchestrated situations to promote the dissolving of the self, going with the flow, the removal of time and space to question things.
But I'd argue, that in the moments of the "Ceremony" or the inevitable separation from the child they eventually have... most women will continue to have very strong feelings of resentment at the least, no matter how many generations of Handmaids have been before them. Accepting things as they are (if you think there is no way to change them) is a far cry from being happy about it. Unless you're severely tortured and brainwashed and reprogrammed... but I think by that point you really lose the ability to feel happiness in any shape and form. Like you said:
Those who rebel stay true to themselves but at such a high cost; those who conform pay a different price, that of losing some of their true self.
And without that, there is no ability or even need to pursue happiness. Life is reduced to sheer physical survival.
If she had been brought up in that society from a child would she consider it very differently? Could she even be happy in the sacrifice?
This is a very interesting question, and something addressed in the book:
“Ordinary, said Aunt Lydia, is what you are used to. This may not seem ordinary to you now, but after a time it will. It will become ordinary.”
It's something that has always fascinated me, especially given the fact that I was brought up in a communist state.
My personal answer to your question, MC, would be that it depends on the strength of the individual and the level of brainwashing involved.
Some people find solace in dissolving their individualism, blending in to a group identity and following a set of rules unquestioningly. May that be a political or a religious ideology. But I think the majority of people will inevitably reach a moment eventually when they would start questioning the presented ideology. To what extent and to what outcome, that varies enormously, but the questioning itself is bound to happen to most people.
As little kids, we grew up singing songs of praise about Uncle Lenin, and glorifying the Soviet Union. We sangs song about what happy little pioneers we were. The funny thing is, that we actually were. Being pioneers was a lot of fun. Excursions with your friends, sitting round campfires, exploring, adventures... but it was also indoctrination and distortion of history built on omissions and lies to get the new generation to accept the communist state. As we grew up though, we began to question things we took for granted as kids.
People who are brought up in a religious family, they grow up being religious. It's a way of life most of them don't question as children. As they get older and exposed to different views and lifestyles, this might change. At least there is a time of questioning again.
In Gilead, it was suggested that future generations of handsmaids would be much more accepting of their fate, they might even find pride in their role. There are times described in the book, where the group mentality already takes over the individual for most if not all: the salvaging, the birthing... all cleverly orchestrated situations to promote the dissolving of the self, going with the flow, the removal of time and space to question things.
But I'd argue, that in the moments of the "Ceremony" or the inevitable separation from the child they eventually have... most women will continue to have very strong feelings of resentment at the least, no matter how many generations of Handmaids have been before them. Accepting things as they are (if you think there is no way to change them) is a far cry from being happy about it. Unless you're severely tortured and brainwashed and reprogrammed... but I think by that point you really lose the ability to feel happiness in any shape and form. Like you said:
Those who rebel stay true to themselves but at such a high cost; those who conform pay a different price, that of losing some of their true self.
And without that, there is no ability or even need to pursue happiness. Life is reduced to sheer physical survival.
-
Dee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11016
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:52 pm
"... this could be a college guest room, for the less distinguished visitors; or a room in a rooming house, of former times, for ladies in reduced circumstances. That is what we are now. The circumstances have been reduced; for those of us who still have circumstances.
But a chair, sunlight, flowers: these are not to be dismissed. I am alive, I live, I believe, I put my hand out, unfolded, into the sunlight. Where I am is not a prison but a privilege, as Aunt Lydia said, who was in love with either/or."
But a chair, sunlight, flowers: these are not to be dismissed. I am alive, I live, I believe, I put my hand out, unfolded, into the sunlight. Where I am is not a prison but a privilege, as Aunt Lydia said, who was in love with either/or."
-
Lori
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5545
- Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:08 pm
Dee wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:36 pm
What I've found the scariest part of this book was how easily the transition happened from the world as we know it to this absurd society. Through lies and twisting of truths and pushing religious doctrines into the forefront. Creating chaos and then presenting a severely controlling regime that establishes "order". People welcome the order first as a relief from anarchy, before they realise what this "order" entails. Once in power, the new regime can push the boundaries and goalposts fast almost without any resistance. By the time people wake up to their world changed, it's too late.
Another scary thing is the indoctrination that only focuses on what is considered "better" in this new world and shuts down any discontent with the loss of rights and freedoms.
Moonchime wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:27 am
"I made a rule for myself: I would not include anything that human beings had not already done in some other place or time, or for which the technology did not already exist."
What Atwood says in the quote above is one of the reasons I felt the book was so powerful; even though it is set in the future and could drift off into realms of fantasy, it keeps its roots firmly set in established patterns of human behaviour. This, I felt, was central to the feeling of menace and unease created in the state of Gilead. You did not have to ask yourself "could this really happen? would people really do that?" because the answer was yes and the precedent is set.
You both have tapped into the main fear, I believe, this book presents. That this transition or a similar transition could take place in our current day and age is a scary concept. The fact Ms. Atwood utilizes tried and true techniques nearly paralyzes the reader. I found my mind railing against and constantly trying to deny the realism. Human behavior on display this way is repulsive in its brutality and there was meager relief from it. When a glint of light was offered it was suspect at best because trust was nearly nonexistent. Sad how quickly humans adapted and were diminished, much like prisoners of war.
Dee wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:34 am
Moonchime: Unfortunately I do not believe we learn lessons from history; perhaps it's like trying to put an old head on young shoulders; you can try all you like but in the end it doesn't work.
Offred had come from a time and place that felt it was "progressive" and would always move in the "right" direction; the problem is what people think is "right and progressive" constantly changes.
This has always fascinated me. History is like a pendulum swinging to one extreme to the other, always pulled back to the centre. People try one thing, then try to perfect it, but at the same time they create new problems, ("better never means better for everyone") then comes the new government trying to fix the problems, and they do, but by fixing them, they create new problems... and it goes on and on like that. Everything in life seems to be cyclical. It's dictated by basic human nature. No amount of studying of history, of past successes and failures will change that. People just need to do their own thing again and again, reinvent the wheel every five minutes, and fall over running, no matter how many times they were told to slow down and look for potholes by their mums history.
I must admit this depresses me, most likely because I fear it is true. Do we learn better when something repeats in quick succession? Do the lessons fail to be passed down and, if they do get translated, are they lost on the younger generation immediately? Is it the Teflon of youth that clouds the eyes and coats the skin to the point these memories and remedies become impermeable? I think it is correct that we seem to be destined to these cycles. Our lives are but blips on the timeline of civilization. Perhaps there are baby steps or even leaps we cannot detect that are taking a stronghold. One could hope?
-
Dee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11016
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:52 pm
I guess, in certain areas there is progress. I mean, there is some evidence for civilisation. 
But in so many sobering ways we are failing to move forward, to improve.
For instance: in Hungary, the first free elections in 1990 have resulted in electing a party that was made up of young intellectuals. One of their party rules was that you had to be under 26 to be in it. That got scrapped pretty soon. The party was this transparent fresh breath, set to wipe out all the horrors of the past, all the corruption. And look at them now: back in power, to the right of the right, and corrupt like the darkest night. It breaks my heart, what's happened to all that youthful promise.
But in so many sobering ways we are failing to move forward, to improve.
For instance: in Hungary, the first free elections in 1990 have resulted in electing a party that was made up of young intellectuals. One of their party rules was that you had to be under 26 to be in it. That got scrapped pretty soon. The party was this transparent fresh breath, set to wipe out all the horrors of the past, all the corruption. And look at them now: back in power, to the right of the right, and corrupt like the darkest night. It breaks my heart, what's happened to all that youthful promise.
-
Lori
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5545
- Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:08 pm
That's awful, Dee. So supposed young progressives can turn quickly into Big Brother? Who knew? I'd not heard the details of this. To even toy with the idea no one under 26 should be involved is astonishing!! This makes my head hurt. Thumbing the nose at experience and wisdom, assuming across the board it is cronies and stuffed shirts I suppose?
-
Dee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11016
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:52 pm
It was a very popular policy at the time, because all the old politicians (communists) were so corrupt. A fresh new generation was the only force you could trust back then. But now... they have become the very things they'd once detested. It's beyond sad.
Sad how quickly humans adapted and were diminished, much like prisoners of war.
Oh, there are ways of silencing people ever so efficiently. The threat of violence, torture, of yourself or even worse, your loved ones... and I think most people would pretty quickly shut up and do anything required. In societies where the secret police help to keep the power... everyone is watched and everyone is required to watch others, because even if you just turn a blind eye to the resistance, if you fail to report it, it could cost you dearly. You very quickly find you cannot trust anyone. The system of making the Handmaids pair up and the placement of Eyes in households were very effective devices of secret policing. At the beginning at least. But as always, resistance can never be stifled for ever. It's a force that inevitably only grows the more you try to suppress it.
Because after a while, people's spirits are so thwarted, they don't longer care whether they live or die. Life is not worth living anymore. Survival versus life. That's what this book is about.
Sad how quickly humans adapted and were diminished, much like prisoners of war.
Oh, there are ways of silencing people ever so efficiently. The threat of violence, torture, of yourself or even worse, your loved ones... and I think most people would pretty quickly shut up and do anything required. In societies where the secret police help to keep the power... everyone is watched and everyone is required to watch others, because even if you just turn a blind eye to the resistance, if you fail to report it, it could cost you dearly. You very quickly find you cannot trust anyone. The system of making the Handmaids pair up and the placement of Eyes in households were very effective devices of secret policing. At the beginning at least. But as always, resistance can never be stifled for ever. It's a force that inevitably only grows the more you try to suppress it.
Because after a while, people's spirits are so thwarted, they don't longer care whether they live or die. Life is not worth living anymore. Survival versus life. That's what this book is about.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest