Not a very well written book. The writing itself is clumsy. It doesn't feel like you're reading a story; it feels like you're reading a piece of writiNot a very well written book. The writing itself is clumsy. It doesn't feel like you're reading a story; it feels like you're reading a piece of writing. Good writers put their words together for a calculated effect, but Atwood's words aren't just calculated-- they're contrived. In a good piece of writing, you shouldn't see the writer at all. You shouldn't see the structure of their writing. All you should see is the story. If you're seeing the deliberate cadence of a phrase, or the use of repetition instead of its effect, then these style choices weren't done subtly enough. If you can see the writer's style through their words, then they're just not doing it right. I think Atwood very much falls into this trap. Her style lacks the subtlety required to tell a story like this.
The other problem is that it's impossible to forget that this was written in the mid-1980s. The appeal of dystopian fiction, I thought, was that it served as a timeless warning against the pitfalls of humanity. Of course, I'm not a big fan of dystopian writing, so I can only draw on 1984 again as a reference, but: the great thing about 1984 is that it doesn't read like it was written in 1948. It doesn't read as an unambiguous warning against communism, which would make it static and irrelevant today, where the red threat has passed. It is as yet a timeless story, a warning against the state, which did not discredit itself in 1989, but which instead took on a new meaning. Today, one doesn't read Orwell as a warning against communism in particular, but against oppression in general. What's great about 1984 is that it is ambiguous enough to remain dynamic and relevant through reinterpretation, but real enough that it resonates across the years to mean something still.
The Handmaid's Tale doesn't carry that kind of resonance. It's just not, to me, that powerful a story, and then Atwood drops in details, devices, that ground it more and more solidly into the mid-80s. That the novel is set contemporary to her writing it fixes the action in time. She makes reference to real movies, real magazines, real time frames, real places, real events. But to understand them, you need to have an intimate understanding of what was going on in the world in 1985. You need to understand what North American culture was like. You need to understand how American history was being interpreted. But you also need to understand that Iran was a new player, a new threat on the world stage, and you need to understand how the world reacted to it.
But these background concepts are not universal, nor are they timeless. Already people are forgetting about the 1980s brand of feminism, and already people are forgetting about the Iranian revolution. And North American culture is not a homogeneous as it once was: today the religious right could not stage a coup as is described in the novel, because there are too many diverse groups and networks today who would oppose it. Arguably the religious right has seized power, but not like that. Atwood's vision of an extremist revolution is dated, which makes me question the validity of the other warnings she puts forth.
That's not to say that I think it's a bad book. Atwood does advance some chilling theories about the future of mankind, and even as I sat there shaking my head and going, "that could never happen," the possibilities are deeply disturbing. The novel served as a warning in its own time, and it is interesting to read it with that in mind. And if you like dystopian fiction, then it is definitely worth a read. I just have a problem in reconciling the novel's message with today's reality, where Atwood's fears actually seem to be the least of our worries....more
Loading...
