I don't understand The Handmaid's Tale

[Haphazard]

BBC News | Europe | Norway's androgynous polar bears

http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_map/articles/article_14.mhtml

EPA Bans PCB Manufacture; Phases Out Uses | EPA History | US EPA

Amazing.

But anyway, that's not the point. The point is at the top of the post.

 

[Zarathustra]

Is that it? That it seemed like this had a chance to happen *to some people of particular cultural and political biases*, but it didn't, because we are not apt to plunge into depths of inaccurate dystopic visions but instead suffer whiplash by being yanked back and forth?

See bolds, italics, and strikethroughs for how I think it could be better put.

 

[PeaceBaby]

H, I added a bunch more references for your enjoyment in that post too.

Again, what IS your question?

 

[Zarathustra]

H, I added a bunch more references for your enjoyment in that post too.

Again, what IS your question?

I think I've been offering answers to it, PB.

I think it's, "Why did the vision in this book not affect me?"

(PB: fyi, I decided to offer my opinions on this topic, because I'd written a few posts back and forth with Haphazard about dystopic visions in other authors [Orwell, Philip K. Dick, Bradbury, and Huxley] just minutes before she posted this one.)

 

[Haphazard]

Usually in books I am very interested in historical context. I did an entire research project on the historical context of various satires, after all.

However I tried to look up historical contexts for this book but what I found was people saying how "frightening" and "relevant" it was.

I suppose I'm not used to the culture shock.

 

[Zarathustra]

Usually in books I am very interested in historical context. I did an entire research project on the historical context of various satires, after all.

However I tried to look up historical contexts for this book but what I found was people saying how "frightening" and "relevant" it was.

I suppose I'm not used to the culture shock.

Sorry, Haphazard, but I don't really know anything about you, other than that my girlfriend thinks you're extremely bright.

Mind filling me in a bit on where you're from and anything else you might feel is relevant (I already know you're approximate age), so that I might have a better clue as to why the vision in the book seems to not resonate with you personally?

 

[Haphazard]

Sorry, Haphazard, but I don't really know anything about you, other than that my girlfriend thinks you're extremely bright.

Mind filling me in a bit on where you're from and anything else you might feel is relevant (I already know you're approximate age), so that I might have a better clue as to why the vision in the book seems to not resonate with you personally?

17, Jewish, suburbanite with severe money troubles. I do not live in a "liberal" area of the USA, but the flavor of conservatism is not redneckish but more of the wealthy sort.

 

[Zarathustra]

17, Jewish, suburbanite with severe money troubles. I do not live in a "liberal" area of the USA, but the flavor of conservatism is not redneckish but more of the wealthy sort.

Bingo.

 

[Haphazard]

Bingo.

Which part? That I'm young, that I'm Jewish, that my neighbors are upper-middle-class conservatives?

 

[PeaceBaby]

I think I've been offering answers to it, PB.

I think it's, "Why did the vision in this book not affect me?"

Thanks Z; I was seeing what you were answering, but I was hoping H could articulate it more completely, more ... specifically. I wanted to pin down the source of the discontent.

Question still stands.

(PB: fyi, I decided to offer my opinions on this topic, because I'd written a few posts back and forth with Haphazard about dystopic visions in other authors [Orwell, Philip K. Dick, Bradbury, and Huxley] just minutes before she posted this one.)

Thanks for providing the context.

 

[Haphazard]

Thanks Z; I was seeing what you were answering, but I was hoping H could articulate it more completely, more ... specifically. I wanted to pin down the source of the discontent.

Question still stands.



Thanks for providing the context.

I guess, the biggest thing was in that book, where did everyone go? I suppose there could have been blacks running around in the book and I didn't notice, but it had gotten down to the point of sectarian violence between only Christian groups. What happened to all the Hindus? The Buddhists? The Muslims? I see them all over here. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I didn't read anything about mass genocides in there. The colonies? WHAT colonies? Where are they talking about? The Bikini Atoll? Where the hell is Canada in all this, just sitting passively on top there? Is it still the same? Don't they know that stuff like this tends to spill over (as we are seeing with the drug violence in Mexico)? Where the hell is the rest of the country? I never heard of anything West of Appalachia mentioned. What happened to all the money? Would megacorporations really fold that easily to something as poor as protestantism?

I'm trying to think. Perhaps the surge in religion she sees is anticommunist sentiment. In communism, religion is a way to hold down the masses. "Under God" was only added in the pledge of allegiance because of the Cold War, after all.

 

[Zarathustra]

Would megacorporations really fold that easily to something as poor as protestantism?

As poor as Protestantism?

According to Max Weber, it was Protestantism that built those megacorporations...

I'm trying to think. Perhaps the surge in religion she sees is anticommunist sentiment. In communism, religion is a way to hold down the masses. "Under God" was only added in the pledge of allegiance because of the Cold War, after all.

Perhaps.

More likely she's just being reactionary to the rise of religious fundamentalism that took place in the 20th century, itself a reaction to the "death of God" and the underlying sense of uncertainty produced in its wake.

 

[Haphazard]

As poor as Protestantism?

According to Max Weber, it was Protestantism that built those megacorporations...



Perhaps.

More likely she's just being reactionary to the rise of religious fundamentalism that took place in the 20th century, itself a reaction to the "death of God" and the underlying sense of uncertainty produced in its wake.

And yet, Protestantism isn't going to take them away. In America, there is an underlying belief that religion and prosperity go hand in hand. Making the country poor means that the religion isn't working.

 

[Haphazard]

Maybe I'm just stupid...

 

[Thalassa]

Oh.

I liked the writing style, I just totally didn't get it. I guess I just feel like I'm missing something of vital importance to understanding this book.

This may seem off topic, but Cat's Eye is my favorite book by Margaret Atwood. I recommend it if you couldn't get into The Handmaid's Tale, it's more her "usual" style of writing.

 

[Zarathustra]

And yet, Protestantism isn't going to take them away.

I don't think it's trying to, but yes, I agree, I don't think it could if it were...

The most effective mode of production will almost always win out (at least in the West...)

In America, there is an underlying belief that religion and prosperity go hand in hand.

I think you're somewhat accurate here, but I'd say the belief has more to do with "morality" than "religion".

And, well, in a lot of ways, that belief is true...

We wouldn't find ourselves in this whole stupid economic mess if we'd had better morals...

Maybe I'm just stupid...

No, you're not.

You wouldn't be thinking about these questions if you were.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Thanks for the explanation H. I hear what you are saying. I think though it's important to remember that the very definition of a dystopia excludes certain social issues and isolates and exaggerates others in order to point out negative qualities of the ones under examination.

Thus, many of the "loose ends" you rightly point out here, are *poof* magically gone. So interestingly, complaining about the lack of realism is irrelevant in the context of any dystopian "thought experiment."

 

[Haphazard]

This is what struck me in her comment (aside from the silly sci-fi thing)

First of all, ask yourself the following question: If you were going to take over the United States, how would you do it? Would you say, "I'm a socialist and we're all going to be equal"? No, you would not, because it wouldn't work. Would you say, "I'm a liberal and we are going to have a society of multiple toleration"? You probably wouldn't say that if you wanted mass support. You would be much more likely to say, "I have the word from God and this is the way we should run things." That probably would have more of a chance of working, and in fact there are a number of movements in the States saying just that, and getting lots of dollars and influence.

No, what you would be more likely to say is, "I can make us prosperous again, I can keep us the world's greatest power." At the risk of invoking a reducto ad hitlerum, I'd guess we're more likely to have a Hitler than an Ayatolla Khomeini here.

 

[Haphazard]

Thanks for the explanation H. I hear what you are saying. I think though it's important to remember that the very definition of a dystopia excludes certain social issues and isolates and exaggerates others in order to point out negative qualities of the ones under examination.

Thus, many of the "loose ends" you rightly point out here, are *poof* magically gone. So interestingly, complaining about the lack of realism is irrelevant in the context of any dystopian "thought experiment."

So anything I think is irrelevant.

I think I know what it is about this book that I don't like, it's that it makes me feel marginalized. Nothing that I see in the world is in this book. It takes parts of the world that I, and many others, see as insignificant, give them tremendous power, and destroys the important things in our lives with no explanation and barely a whiff of remembrance.

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ I don't mean it like that; I mean that the author gets to tidily toss aside a certain reality in favor of the things he or she wants to reveal to you the reader.