There's an interesting article about the historical inspirations for Atwood's story, based on a phone interview with the author.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/watc ... twood.html
The interview was prompted by the tv series, but the content applies to the story, not the screen interpretation. I've not read it all yet, as it has episode by episode breakdown, but here are some excerpts from the introduction:
"The women of Gilead all wear clothing and colors prescribed by their status in this society: red for handmaids, blue for wives, green for Marthas, brown for aunts. “Organizing people according to what they’re wearing — who should wear what and when, who has to cover up what — is a very, very, very, very old human vocation,” Atwood said. It dates back to the first known legal code, the Code of Hammurabi, one part of which stated that “only aristocratic ladies were allowed to wear veils,” she added.
“If you were caught wearing a veil, and if you were in fact a slave, the penalty was execution,” Atwood continued. “It meant that you were pretending to be someone that you were not.”
The handmaid’s garb comes from a variety of sources (mid-Victorian bonnets and veils, nun wimples). Atwood’s trip to Afghanistan in 1978 — where she wore a chador — was also an influence. “They weren’t imposing it on everybody, at that point,” she said. “They did later.” All of these codes of attire — including the Third Reich’s yellow stars for Jews and pink triangles for gays — were ways of “identifying people, controlling people,” she said. “It’s easy to see at once who this person is.” The handmaid’s assigned color, red, was used by Canada for its prisoners of war, Atwood added, “who had the privilege to wear because it shows up so very well in the snow.”
The red is also borrowed from Christian iconography of the late-medieval, early Renaissance period, she said, in which “the Virgin Mary would inevitably wear blue or blue-green, and Mary Magdalene would inevitably wear red.”"
Book #1 - The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
-
Dee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10997
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:52 pm
About the salvagings:
Gilead likes its ceremonies, and it has one to punish political enemies or disruptive elements that also acts as a release for the otherwise tightly controlled handmaids. The women stand in a circle and collectively participate in an execution, in some cases by tearing the accused apart with their bare hands. In the novel, it is called a “particicution,” a portmanteau of the words participation and execution. “When the mob takes over, no one person is responsible,” Atwood said. And this kind of frenzied murder party has a very old precedent, she added, citing “the Dionysian revels of ancient Greece,” in which Maenads tore apart sacrificial victims for the god Dionysus.
The mob will sometimes demand justice. “During the French Revolution, Princesse de Lamballe was torn apart and had her head put on a pike, which was paraded under the window of Marie Antoinette,” Atwood said. “And in Émile Zola’s novel ‘Germinal,’ which is based on real-life 19th century coal-mining enterprises, the guy who runs the company store is exacting sex from the wives and daughters of the coal miners in order to sell them goods because they didn’t have any money. So when the women get the chance, they tear him apart, and put not his head but his genitalia on a pike, and parade it around.”
Gilead likes its ceremonies, and it has one to punish political enemies or disruptive elements that also acts as a release for the otherwise tightly controlled handmaids. The women stand in a circle and collectively participate in an execution, in some cases by tearing the accused apart with their bare hands. In the novel, it is called a “particicution,” a portmanteau of the words participation and execution. “When the mob takes over, no one person is responsible,” Atwood said. And this kind of frenzied murder party has a very old precedent, she added, citing “the Dionysian revels of ancient Greece,” in which Maenads tore apart sacrificial victims for the god Dionysus.
The mob will sometimes demand justice. “During the French Revolution, Princesse de Lamballe was torn apart and had her head put on a pike, which was paraded under the window of Marie Antoinette,” Atwood said. “And in Émile Zola’s novel ‘Germinal,’ which is based on real-life 19th century coal-mining enterprises, the guy who runs the company store is exacting sex from the wives and daughters of the coal miners in order to sell them goods because they didn’t have any money. So when the women get the chance, they tear him apart, and put not his head but his genitalia on a pike, and parade it around.”
-
Dee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10997
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:52 pm
About forced childbearings and child abductions:
"We get an early peek at how ends justify means in Gilead when Janine gives birth and can’t accept the reality that she will not get to keep the child. “There are a lot of utopias and dystopias based on economics, but this is one that goes to the absolute root, which is how many people are you going to have?” Atwood said. “And how are you going to get them? In some cultures, you don’t have to make special laws about it. But in other cultures, you have to bring in oppression to get the results that you want.”
Tyrants and dictators like Adolf Hitler and Nicolae Ceausescu have often dictated the terms of fertility and criminalized those who did not comply. “It’s no accident that Napoleon banned abortion,” Atwood said. “He said exactly why he wanted offspring — for cannon fodder. Lovely!”
An added wrinkle, of course, is that the handmaids aren’t just being forced to give birth, they’re being forced to be surrogates, and the children they bear are then forcibly taken from them and placed with high-ranking officials. After a military junta took power in Argentina in 1976, as many as 500 young children and newborns were “disappeared,” only to be adopted by military and police couples. Hundreds of thousands of children of indigenous populations in Canada and Australia were separated from their families. “It must have been public in that it wasn’t a secret, but it also wasn’t known at the time,” Atwood said. “Nobody registered that this was happening. And it was probably presented like, ‘Oh, we’re giving these children a wonderful opportunity. We’re sending them to school.’ You see how that could sound?”"
"We get an early peek at how ends justify means in Gilead when Janine gives birth and can’t accept the reality that she will not get to keep the child. “There are a lot of utopias and dystopias based on economics, but this is one that goes to the absolute root, which is how many people are you going to have?” Atwood said. “And how are you going to get them? In some cultures, you don’t have to make special laws about it. But in other cultures, you have to bring in oppression to get the results that you want.”
Tyrants and dictators like Adolf Hitler and Nicolae Ceausescu have often dictated the terms of fertility and criminalized those who did not comply. “It’s no accident that Napoleon banned abortion,” Atwood said. “He said exactly why he wanted offspring — for cannon fodder. Lovely!”
An added wrinkle, of course, is that the handmaids aren’t just being forced to give birth, they’re being forced to be surrogates, and the children they bear are then forcibly taken from them and placed with high-ranking officials. After a military junta took power in Argentina in 1976, as many as 500 young children and newborns were “disappeared,” only to be adopted by military and police couples. Hundreds of thousands of children of indigenous populations in Canada and Australia were separated from their families. “It must have been public in that it wasn’t a secret, but it also wasn’t known at the time,” Atwood said. “Nobody registered that this was happening. And it was probably presented like, ‘Oh, we’re giving these children a wonderful opportunity. We’re sending them to school.’ You see how that could sound?”"
-
Dee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10997
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:52 pm
On declaring women barren:
"It’s not initially questioned in the show why women would be used to solve the fertility woes of the period — until Offred visits a doctor who offers to help her out. Turns out, the Republic of Gilead has never considered the other half of the equation: men.
“There’s some confusion about this, because here you have Aunt Lydia saying it’s the wives who are barren,” Atwood said. “And for centuries and centuries, that’s what people thought. They thought it was the woman’s fault.” King Henry VIII kept changing wives (and the state religion), Atwood noted, adding: “That’s why Anne Boleyn knew she was doomed when she had that miscarriage. The idea was that the child was fully formed inside the seed of the man, and his seed was simply planted in the woman, the way you’d plant a seed in a field.”
A book titled “Eve’s Seed: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History” by Robert S. McElvaine is illuminating on this front, she said. “You said a piece of land was barren, you said a woman was barren. You said a piece of land was fertile, you said a woman was fertile.”
In the story, the doctor knows otherwise. As does Serena Joy when she decides that Offred should use Nick. “That’s one of the things Anne Boleyn was accused of — having sex with her brother in order to produce a child,” Atwood said."
"It’s not initially questioned in the show why women would be used to solve the fertility woes of the period — until Offred visits a doctor who offers to help her out. Turns out, the Republic of Gilead has never considered the other half of the equation: men.
“There’s some confusion about this, because here you have Aunt Lydia saying it’s the wives who are barren,” Atwood said. “And for centuries and centuries, that’s what people thought. They thought it was the woman’s fault.” King Henry VIII kept changing wives (and the state religion), Atwood noted, adding: “That’s why Anne Boleyn knew she was doomed when she had that miscarriage. The idea was that the child was fully formed inside the seed of the man, and his seed was simply planted in the woman, the way you’d plant a seed in a field.”
A book titled “Eve’s Seed: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History” by Robert S. McElvaine is illuminating on this front, she said. “You said a piece of land was barren, you said a woman was barren. You said a piece of land was fertile, you said a woman was fertile.”
In the story, the doctor knows otherwise. As does Serena Joy when she decides that Offred should use Nick. “That’s one of the things Anne Boleyn was accused of — having sex with her brother in order to produce a child,” Atwood said."
-
Moonchime
- Posts: 1449
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:17 am
Atwood said. “And for centuries and centuries, that’s what people thought. They thought it was the woman’s fault.”
Unfortunately women being given the blame is very common throughout history, and in some places it is still the case.
I mean look at Eve and Pandora - both blaming women for all the evil in the world; poor old Adam, not able to resist the apple that that evil woman had picked!
The belief that Eve was responsible resulted in much of the fear/suspicion of women, and consequently many of the witch hunts that took place in medieval times.
Furthermore there is still a prevalent belief held by some that menstruating women are unclean, and should not be allowed to be a full part of the community at their time of menstruation.
No wonder that Atwood decided Gilead would find it hard to consider men as likely to be at fault as women! This has a long held precedent indeed.
Unfortunately women being given the blame is very common throughout history, and in some places it is still the case.
I mean look at Eve and Pandora - both blaming women for all the evil in the world; poor old Adam, not able to resist the apple that that evil woman had picked!
The belief that Eve was responsible resulted in much of the fear/suspicion of women, and consequently many of the witch hunts that took place in medieval times.
Furthermore there is still a prevalent belief held by some that menstruating women are unclean, and should not be allowed to be a full part of the community at their time of menstruation.
No wonder that Atwood decided Gilead would find it hard to consider men as likely to be at fault as women! This has a long held precedent indeed.
-
Moonchime
- Posts: 1449
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:17 am
Dee said:
I think everyone, religious or not, is "restricted" by the values/beliefs of their parents and to some extent, the society in which they find themselves.
It is not possible, or I think desirable, to raise children in a vacuum.
What you do, what you say, what you value, these things will all imprint on your offspring and they will reflect your values and beliefs in their early years.
However when they begin to realise their own individuality, then most of them will question and often kick against what they have been taught.
It is interesting that some societies - often more "primitive" ones, where there is a clear ritual to denote the transition of child to adult, do not experience the same level of rebellion/rejection that most Western/developed societies do. I think questioning is a good thing and if dearly held beliefs are worthwhile, then surely they are going to withstand rigorous examination. Obviously those in power who do not think their structures/rules cannot withstand such examination must instill fear into their subjects lest their edifices crumble.
Lori said:
That is not to say that what is learnt/created will last, but it can affect those in the future in a positive way. Anaesthetic, to name but one example, has transformed the lives of millions and I am so grateful that I didn't have to live before its existence. Of course many discoveries bring good and bad results so nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and the precise source of happiness is not easy to define. I was told by a lecturer that people only ever revolt when their conditions are getting ever so slightly better, and they are not totally ground down by circumstance; if they are weak from hunger or illness then there isn't the energy for opposition.
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.
I think everyone, religious or not, is "restricted" by the values/beliefs of their parents and to some extent, the society in which they find themselves.
It is not possible, or I think desirable, to raise children in a vacuum.
What you do, what you say, what you value, these things will all imprint on your offspring and they will reflect your values and beliefs in their early years.
However when they begin to realise their own individuality, then most of them will question and often kick against what they have been taught.
It is interesting that some societies - often more "primitive" ones, where there is a clear ritual to denote the transition of child to adult, do not experience the same level of rebellion/rejection that most Western/developed societies do. I think questioning is a good thing and if dearly held beliefs are worthwhile, then surely they are going to withstand rigorous examination. Obviously those in power who do not think their structures/rules cannot withstand such examination must instill fear into their subjects lest their edifices crumble.
Lori said:
Trying to find some positives here Lori and Dee, I do believe that when people are in a stable society without fear, and their immediate physical needs are met, then the arts and sciences flourish and wonderful things can be created and learnt.Perhaps there are baby steps or even leaps we cannot detect that are taking a stronghold. One could hope?
That is not to say that what is learnt/created will last, but it can affect those in the future in a positive way. Anaesthetic, to name but one example, has transformed the lives of millions and I am so grateful that I didn't have to live before its existence. Of course many discoveries bring good and bad results so nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and the precise source of happiness is not easy to define. I was told by a lecturer that people only ever revolt when their conditions are getting ever so slightly better, and they are not totally ground down by circumstance; if they are weak from hunger or illness then there isn't the energy for opposition.
-
Lori
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5532
- Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:08 pm
Yes, creativity and the arts can openly thrive in a stable society without fear. Does such a society exist? There are certainly levels of it. I suppose one fallout of a stable society without fear can be a propensity to create it. It interests me that the very concept of stability can foster the opposite.
It is similar to a patient who arrives in a critical physical state to the hospital. While under such stress and panic, generally gratefulness prevails as organs are repaired, feeling returns to limb and leg, etc. Then, after that fades and a patient is feeling better, suddenly the potato is too cold or the nurse took too long to bring a pillow or checks on them too frequently, etc. Suddenly, the patient cannot be pleased even while having needs reasonably met.
A society that does not feel the need to concentrate on protecting, defending, and perpetuating itself may not provide an element that humans need to actually idenfity their comfort or freedom and truly appreciate it. Instead, there can be a restless propensity to fracture and hone in on minutia. Then, the opposite also fractures with a heavy fearful state.
"You got to have some gray clouds to appreciate the sunshine." Such simple statements.
Indigenous tribes are pretty fascinating to hear about and juxtapose to the developed world. Rites of passage into adulthood making a positive difference? We seem to be going back to a time where adulthood is less defined. Oh oh.
I'm loving this discussion and all of these perceptions, though my brain power is not keeping up adequately! I think we've discovered more deeply that there is a tender balance between these states of being. Perhaps that is why things recur cyclically in this world. The balance is so hard to define and maintain with the vast amount of variables.
Perhaps what you've said, Moonchime, that these positive effects and efforts will shine through and make the future a better place to be is what we all cling to. We can only keep trying.
If you all could state simply a complicated concept: What are we offering our youth to reach for now? What was it in the past? In Gilead, the past was wiped out. Who you were and what you valued was stripped from you and redefined by the government. Eventually, it was believed those desires would fade, and general expectations would diminish or be redefined. With nothing to reach for; with no history to draw from, what is left? Then, with the rising fight to defend the previous way of life, would the past become a holy shrine, sanitized and rewritten, thus making forward momentum even more difficult?
All right. Brain hurts. Must eat.
It is similar to a patient who arrives in a critical physical state to the hospital. While under such stress and panic, generally gratefulness prevails as organs are repaired, feeling returns to limb and leg, etc. Then, after that fades and a patient is feeling better, suddenly the potato is too cold or the nurse took too long to bring a pillow or checks on them too frequently, etc. Suddenly, the patient cannot be pleased even while having needs reasonably met.
A society that does not feel the need to concentrate on protecting, defending, and perpetuating itself may not provide an element that humans need to actually idenfity their comfort or freedom and truly appreciate it. Instead, there can be a restless propensity to fracture and hone in on minutia. Then, the opposite also fractures with a heavy fearful state.
"You got to have some gray clouds to appreciate the sunshine." Such simple statements.
Indigenous tribes are pretty fascinating to hear about and juxtapose to the developed world. Rites of passage into adulthood making a positive difference? We seem to be going back to a time where adulthood is less defined. Oh oh.
I'm loving this discussion and all of these perceptions, though my brain power is not keeping up adequately! I think we've discovered more deeply that there is a tender balance between these states of being. Perhaps that is why things recur cyclically in this world. The balance is so hard to define and maintain with the vast amount of variables.
Perhaps what you've said, Moonchime, that these positive effects and efforts will shine through and make the future a better place to be is what we all cling to. We can only keep trying.
If you all could state simply a complicated concept: What are we offering our youth to reach for now? What was it in the past? In Gilead, the past was wiped out. Who you were and what you valued was stripped from you and redefined by the government. Eventually, it was believed those desires would fade, and general expectations would diminish or be redefined. With nothing to reach for; with no history to draw from, what is left? Then, with the rising fight to defend the previous way of life, would the past become a holy shrine, sanitized and rewritten, thus making forward momentum even more difficult?
All right. Brain hurts. Must eat.
-
Moonchime
- Posts: 1449
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:17 am
Suddenly, the patient cannot be pleased even while having needs reasonably met.
I so understand what you mean here and see this exact sort of thing in other contexts. Knowing what we have and valuing it is something that definitely needs fostering. It seems that no sooner do we manage to get what we have sought after (be it mended limbs or a bigger house) then we move the parameters of our satisfaction and start to see new obstacles to our happiness. How many times do we think something will put everything right only to find when we have it that it does not and so we begin our longing for the next thing? Maybe though, we find contentment in constant pursuit but do not know it.
Yep my head hurts now too.
I so understand what you mean here and see this exact sort of thing in other contexts. Knowing what we have and valuing it is something that definitely needs fostering. It seems that no sooner do we manage to get what we have sought after (be it mended limbs or a bigger house) then we move the parameters of our satisfaction and start to see new obstacles to our happiness. How many times do we think something will put everything right only to find when we have it that it does not and so we begin our longing for the next thing? Maybe though, we find contentment in constant pursuit but do not know it.
Yes I think it probably would, as so much opposition focuses on the worst of what it seeks to change whilst remembering the best of what it had. The struggle takes on a nobility of purpose which is so often lost in the realities of power finally gained.Then, with the rising fight to defend the previous way of life, would the past become a holy shrine, sanitized and rewritten, thus making forward momentum even more difficult?
Yep my head hurts now too.
-
Lori
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5532
- Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:08 pm
(Then, with the rising fight to defend the previous way of life, would the past become a holy shrine, sanitized and rewritten, thus making forward momentum even more difficult?)
So much opposition focuses on the worst of what it seeks to change whilst remembering the best of what it had. The struggle takes on a nobility of purpose which is so often lost in the realities of power finally gained.
MC, this actually created a lump in my throat, it is so insightful.
It dances alongside what Dee said regarding Hungary, as an example, that many times this history (we do not learn from) is repeated and those bucking previous power and seeking their own "become the very things they'd once detested".
...a nobility of purpose which is so often lost in the realities of power finally gained.
So much opposition focuses on the worst of what it seeks to change whilst remembering the best of what it had. The struggle takes on a nobility of purpose which is so often lost in the realities of power finally gained.
MC, this actually created a lump in my throat, it is so insightful.
It dances alongside what Dee said regarding Hungary, as an example, that many times this history (we do not learn from) is repeated and those bucking previous power and seeking their own "become the very things they'd once detested".
...a nobility of purpose which is so often lost in the realities of power finally gained.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest