The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret AtwoodOne of my favorite books to read is the 'Old Testament'. It has been a while I read it but I love the stories and while reading 'Handmaid's tale', I keep wondering where I've heard this term Handmaid. It is such a common and uncommon word to read. That's when I started to look up and found that it is part of the story of Rachel.
And 'A Handmaid's tale' refers back to the Book by subtle notions. The early years of the Republic of Gilead - which again is a reference back to the Biblical land - is when the story takes place. And the book written in the 80's is the story of a woman in the early years of the revolution that consumed America and produced a deep religious state in its stead. The deeply religious 'Sons of Jacob' - again Jacob is the husband of Rachel - take over the government after a bloody revolution and convert the country into a Theocratic republic with severe restrictions on the behavior, culture and other aspects of life, enforced with police and by turning the population against one another.
“But who can remember pain, once it’s over? All that remains of it is a shadow, not in the mind even, in the flesh. Pain marks you, but too deep to see. Out of sight, out of mind.”
The 80's see the ascent of the conservative politics in USA after a decade of feminist movement's success in the courts, business and culturally , the backlash of the Reagan years must've been scary for those who were part of the movement. And I can understand why Atwood chose that moment to write such a novel. What I was kept reminding myself of was that this is all happening here for centuries.
The 'here' I refer to is the Indian subcontinent - where there never was a huge feminist movement - and talking of women's rights usually gets a snigger and people move on. The construct of conservative religion subversively reducing the women to just carriers of children and objects of sex, is not a new concept here. This is all accomplished with no bloodshed and only through societal and religious constructs here. And the implementation of this entire subversion of rights is done through women.
So it was not much of a surprise for me to read through the book and keep coming back to relate it back to the history of women in here. I thought all the Republic of Gilead needed was better ways of brain washing the women and they can do without the policing and other measures of violence. Why spill blood when the same result can be achieved more subtly with a little more brain washing?
The context of the story itself is common across the world as it exists today - the dystopian nature of it comes only in the western context. Women being considered only as vessels of sex, Chalices, is a common thing in conservative societies and the strangest part is they are conditioned to accept it without question. Having a kid becomes the biggest achievement of life and existence and living in a relationship becomes mandatory because of the kid. The violence that is associated with these constructs of living is not understood or even discussed.
"If I thought this would never happen again I would die. But this is wrong, nobody dies from lack of sex. It's lack of love we die from.”
The book takes pains to express the various ways in which the Republic keeps the women marked for fertility to be used again and again for child bearing and sex with the 'commanders' who are a elite group of people destined to spread their seeds. So the initial part of the book has very little movement of the story and the strange part is that there is no back story as well (that comes as part of the epilogue). It is all the daily mundane life of a handmaid - called 'Offred' - as the women are not allowed to have names and identified only by the man who has them - in this case, she is 'of Fred'.
The scene setting of the book is extensive in explaining in details about the Aunts, Marthas, the Unwomen and the Eyes etc and still does not tell the story of how it all came about. There were hints here and there and a little of the details but there is no real story telling. I guess the point is not to have the story told explicitly but move it with the events. And the events are scare to go between.
There are Jezebel - the brothels run by the government for the commanders and the women who work them. Then there is the friend 'Ofglen' who disappears and Moira, the fiery lesbian - all their stories show a glimpse of what is going on in the society but never in full.
“All I can hope for is a reconstruction: the way love feels is always only approximate.”
The prose flowed like a river. I actually loved the way the narration was structured. I was able to buy into the premise because I live in one. Its been a long while since I found any writing to be actually likable. I was a little ashamed that it took me so long to find Atwood. The political and religious nature of a patriarchal society is brought out well and that again resonates so much into the actual world, it is stunning that no one sees it - the western readers I understand but those outside it - why?
For all the religious references through the book, it is all about power anyway. The power men have over the body of women - whether it is political or religious or through the rigid caste structure here - this power is what builds dystopian worlds like these and keep it going. That is the hard thing to understand. And understanding it only liberates.
'Don't let the bastards grind you down'
It is an interesting book and I was glad that she chose to write a sequel after all these years. I have not decided on reading the same yet but will have to give it some time and space before getting into it. For now, the story of Offred is enough to munch over. And have to find a way to watch the series.
