7 ms·

I only recently read The Handmaid's Tale, and it hit pretty hard. Especially because it, like any good story of that type, is not nearly so outlandish as it see

I only recently read The Handmaid's Tale, and it hit pretty hard. Especially because it, like any good story of that type, is not nearly so outlandish as it seems. Things that might have seemed absurd at the time in Brave New World and 1984 have come to pass and been accepted as the way things are, with people even clamoring for the next step. The dimly illuminated cultural regression from Atwood's novel is far from absurd on modern reading, and in fact we've seen such hyper-conservative cultural shifts play out. It's not that far-fetched to substitute isolationist nationalism for regressive theocracy, when both have the same ultimate goals: reconcentration of power in an oligarchy, just like in the "good old days." Not that we've ever strayed that far from the concept, but still...

minipci1321 9y ago
Her other novels are excellent too.
Banthum 9y ago
It is fairly absurd to suggest that the mainstream American right has the goal of "reconcentration of power in an oligarchy". Even the furthest of the alt-right take their goal as the exact opposite: to break the control of the "cathedral" of left-globalist interests, who are embodied in the now-unified elites of academia, entertainment, high finance, big tech, wealthy industrialists, Democrats, journalists and media, and the unelected deep state. The term "reconcentration" also makes it sounds like power was concentrated before. Except it wasn't. In decades past, several of the factions listed above were at ideological odds. Their unification under the shaming-enforced dogma of social justice and identitarian victimology is a new thing and is part of what people are fighting against. Also consider government powers are ever-expanding over new domains of life, and being ever-concentrated upwards towards the federal level. Being against concentration of power is firmly a right-wing position at this point. On the other hand, leftists - like the people who laud Atwood's book in your way - always want concentration of power because they're utopians who think that all you need to make a great society is more control given to the correct, enlightened technocrats (who always happen to be people resembling themselves in values, outlook, and opinions). The sad thing is that an outcome like Atwood paints in her book is definitely possible from all this. But it won't happen after the free-speech and power-deconcentrating right succeeds; it'll happen after they fail, because the next reaction will be much much worse.
- gech 9y ago
  >because the next reaction will be much much worse. What does this mean?
  - cadlin 9y ago
    He means the next right-wing backlash (so Trump-->Democrats return to power-->next reaction). The term was used in the French revolution to describe conservative reactions against revolution. The most famous would be the Thermidorian Reaction, which saw the fall of Robespierre and the Jacobin faction generally. So the right wing backlash after Trump will look the Handmaid's Tale because the liberals went too far.
    - moomin 9y ago
      "Now look what you made me do."
      - alphonsegaston 9y ago
        It's almost as if fascism is some grotesque caricature of traditional masculinity mapped onto governance.
        WaxProlix 9y ago
        But it's NOT authoritarian and DEFINITELY in favor of dismantling centralized power. Got it.
    - goatlover 9y ago
      The threat of liberalism boogeyman is something made up by Fox News and right wing radio.
- babblefrog 9y ago
  I'm not sure there is a mainstream American right. There are several threads that appear to have incompatible ideas. Then the politicians try to give lip-service to all of them, which makes it impossible to actually deliver on any of their promises without pissing off the rest of their supporters. I think there did used to be a main-stream of conservative thought, from Buckley through Reagan. But they are just one of the threads, now.
pvg 9y ago
Things that might have seemed absurd at the time No they didn't. All of these were written, in part, as commentaries on their authors' times. Nobody writes fiction so that they're recognized for their prescient insight and patted on the back for it many years later.
- eschaton 9y ago
  Indeed, if you lived through the Reagan years, with its first national-level surge of right-wing political Christianity in decades (one which still hadn't abated), Atwood's book doesn't seem all that out there after all.
- devindotcom 9y ago
  Heh well I'm sure some fiction authors do, but point taken! I meant, however, things that might have seemed absurd to readers and critics at the time, many of whom would dismiss the possibility of a state regressing in the way the book imagines, or in 1984 people voluntarily submitting to intrusive surveillance, or in BNW eugenics becoming an everyday practice.
  - pvg 9y ago
    I meant, however, things that might have seemed absurd to readers and critics at the time Right. I meant this is almost certainly wrong. It's both weirdly self-centered (why don't we think these things absurd? In what way were people in 1948 or 1985 so different and clueless) and ahistorical. The eugenics movement was in its heyday when Brave New World was written, the (not-at-all-voluntary) surveillance in 1984 could have hardly seemed such a stretch right around the peak of atrocities performed by states. The Islamic Revolution in Iran took place only a couple of years before Atwood started working on the Handmaid's Tale. And so on.
Cyph0n 9y ago
I also finished it last week, mainly in anticipation of the upcoming Hulu show. My biggest issue was the timeline. From what I could glean, the overthrow of the government took place only around 10 years before the events of the book, maybe less. Yet society had changed to the point that basically nothing remained from the past, resulting in the main character no longer remembering much of her early life. On top of this, the new order of society was way too organized given the drastic change in its policies and norms. In a nutshell, the formation of the new society and the acceptance by its citizens was a bit too sudden for my tastes. It would have been much more believable to me if the author had set it up such that the overthrow took place during the main character's childhood. Maybe it's because I'm used to the expert world building and long timelines of other popular sci-fi works (e.g., Foundation series, Red Rising trilogy, Ender's Game). I actually finished Liu Cixin's Death's End (hard sci-fi, multi-century timeline) a day before I started with The Handmaid's Tale, so that could be one reason why I disliked the progression of events. Otherwise, it was an excellent novel.
- leejoramo 9y ago
  If you read Robert Heinlein's future history stories there is often included a timeline chart. Heinlein wrote stories that spanned the entire timeline. Except he left a gap where the USA became a theocracy and entered a dark age. Heinlein could not bring himself to write about that depressing era. Many have observed that Atwood's A Handmaid's Tale fits perfectly in this gap. In fact, Heinlein's Revolt in 2100 feels like a description of the collapse of the dictatorship in Handmaid. To my knowledge, Atwood has never acknowledged a connection. And it doesn't change that I feel A Handmaid's Tale is a masterpiece.
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
"isolationist nationalism" has its goals stated in its name - leave others alone while taking care of your own. Do you ascribe goals to every ideology based on the actions of the most corrupt people claiming to follow it, or just the ideologies you dislike?

minipci1321 9y ago

Her other novels are excellent too.

Banthum 9y ago

It is fairly absurd to suggest that the mainstream American right has the goal of "reconcentration of power in an oligarchy". Even the furthest of the alt-right take their goal as the exact opposite: to break the control of the "cathedral" of left-globalist interests, who are embodied in the now-unified elites of academia, entertainment, high finance, big tech, wealthy industrialists, Democrats, journalists and media, and the unelected deep state. The term "reconcentration" also makes it sounds like power was concentrated before. Except it wasn't. In decades past, several of the factions listed above were at ideological odds. Their unification under the shaming-enforced dogma of social justice and identitarian victimology is a new thing and is part of what people are fighting against. Also consider government powers are ever-expanding over new domains of life, and being ever-concentrated upwards towards the federal level. Being against concentration of power is firmly a right-wing position at this point. On the other hand, leftists - like the people who laud Atwood's book in your way - always want concentration of power because they're utopians who think that all you need to make a great society is more control given to the correct, enlightened technocrats (who always happen to be people resembling themselves in values, outlook, and opinions). The sad thing is that an outcome like Atwood paints in her book is definitely possible from all this. But it won't happen after the free-speech and power-deconcentrating right succeeds; it'll happen after they fail, because the next reaction will be much much worse.

gech 9y ago
>because the next reaction will be much much worse. What does this mean?
- cadlin 9y ago
  He means the next right-wing backlash (so Trump-->Democrats return to power-->next reaction). The term was used in the French revolution to describe conservative reactions against revolution. The most famous would be the Thermidorian Reaction, which saw the fall of Robespierre and the Jacobin faction generally. So the right wing backlash after Trump will look the Handmaid's Tale because the liberals went too far.
  - moomin 9y ago
    "Now look what you made me do."
    - alphonsegaston 9y ago
      It's almost as if fascism is some grotesque caricature of traditional masculinity mapped onto governance.
      - WaxProlix 9y ago
        But it's NOT authoritarian and DEFINITELY in favor of dismantling centralized power. Got it.
  - goatlover 9y ago
    The threat of liberalism boogeyman is something made up by Fox News and right wing radio.
babblefrog 9y ago
I'm not sure there is a mainstream American right. There are several threads that appear to have incompatible ideas. Then the politicians try to give lip-service to all of them, which makes it impossible to actually deliver on any of their promises without pissing off the rest of their supporters. I think there did used to be a main-stream of conservative thought, from Buckley through Reagan. But they are just one of the threads, now.

pvg 9y ago

Things that might have seemed absurd at the time No they didn't. All of these were written, in part, as commentaries on their authors' times. Nobody writes fiction so that they're recognized for their prescient insight and patted on the back for it many years later.

eschaton 9y ago
Indeed, if you lived through the Reagan years, with its first national-level surge of right-wing political Christianity in decades (one which still hadn't abated), Atwood's book doesn't seem all that out there after all.
devindotcom 9y ago
Heh well I'm sure some fiction authors do, but point taken! I meant, however, things that might have seemed absurd to readers and critics at the time, many of whom would dismiss the possibility of a state regressing in the way the book imagines, or in 1984 people voluntarily submitting to intrusive surveillance, or in BNW eugenics becoming an everyday practice.
- pvg 9y ago
  I meant, however, things that might have seemed absurd to readers and critics at the time Right. I meant this is almost certainly wrong. It's both weirdly self-centered (why don't we think these things absurd? In what way were people in 1948 or 1985 so different and clueless) and ahistorical. The eugenics movement was in its heyday when Brave New World was written, the (not-at-all-voluntary) surveillance in 1984 could have hardly seemed such a stretch right around the peak of atrocities performed by states. The Islamic Revolution in Iran took place only a couple of years before Atwood started working on the Handmaid's Tale. And so on.

Cyph0n 9y ago

I also finished it last week, mainly in anticipation of the upcoming Hulu show. My biggest issue was the timeline. From what I could glean, the overthrow of the government took place only around 10 years before the events of the book, maybe less. Yet society had changed to the point that basically nothing remained from the past, resulting in the main character no longer remembering much of her early life. On top of this, the new order of society was way too organized given the drastic change in its policies and norms. In a nutshell, the formation of the new society and the acceptance by its citizens was a bit too sudden for my tastes. It would have been much more believable to me if the author had set it up such that the overthrow took place during the main character's childhood. Maybe it's because I'm used to the expert world building and long timelines of other popular sci-fi works (e.g., Foundation series, Red Rising trilogy, Ender's Game). I actually finished Liu Cixin's Death's End (hard sci-fi, multi-century timeline) a day before I started with The Handmaid's Tale, so that could be one reason why I disliked the progression of events. Otherwise, it was an excellent novel.

leejoramo 9y ago
If you read Robert Heinlein's future history stories there is often included a timeline chart. Heinlein wrote stories that spanned the entire timeline. Except he left a gap where the USA became a theocracy and entered a dark age. Heinlein could not bring himself to write about that depressing era. Many have observed that Atwood's A Handmaid's Tale fits perfectly in this gap. In fact, Heinlein's Revolt in 2100 feels like a description of the collapse of the dictatorship in Handmaid. To my knowledge, Atwood has never acknowledged a connection. And it doesn't change that I feel A Handmaid's Tale is a masterpiece.

DarkKomunalec 9y ago

"isolationist nationalism" has its goals stated in its name - leave others alone while taking care of your own. Do you ascribe goals to every ideology based on the actions of the most corrupt people claiming to follow it, or just the ideologies you dislike?