The Themes Found in "A Handmaid's Tale"

"Handmaid Under the Eye"
Created March 11, 2008
by Segeton
Source: Wikimedia Commons

According the timeline in A Handmaid's Tale, in the early 1970’s, radicals took over the United States, killing the President and all of Congress simultaneously. To erect their totalitarian regime, the country’s new founders suspended the Constitution to create their own laws. These laws are mostly anti-laws steeped in Christian sentiments, like pro-life, anti-sex (citizens are denied sex unless they are married, and even masturbating is a punishable offense), free speech censorship, and even laws prohibiting literacy (for women).

 Offred is a Handmaid of the Republic of Gilead. The remnants of the United States is formed into Gilead, and woman are no longer allowed to have a job or own property in the land of Gilead. A rise in sterile men and women has prompted the leaders of Gilead to promote the use of Handmaids. Handmaids like Offred are put into households of commanding army officers to do what their sterile wives cannot: produce a child. Often, a Commander is sterile (though it is treasonous to blame men for anything in Gilead), and a Handmaid must secretly turn elsewhere to become pregnant.

When Offred’s Commander begins a courtship with her, their forbidden affair is one she takes as  just another duty of her Handmaid status. Yet, the affair opens her up to another affair with the Commander’s chauffer, Nick, and she finds herself falling in love for the first time since the empire of the United States ended and the reign of Gilead began.

A Handmaid’s Tale reads like a series of diary entries, and the writing is just as intimate. Atwood is not afraid to make her characters real, even if sometimes that means their descriptions are crude beyond belief: “Below me, the Commander is fucking. What he is fucking is the lower part of my body. I do not say making love, because this is not what he’s doing. Copulating too would be inaccurate […]; Nor does rape cover it: nothing is going on here that I didn’t sign up for” (p. 121).

Female freedoms and male expectations are two large themes Atwood constantly revisits in her novel. Simple things women may take for granted like having a bank account, going where they please, reading a book, and having a job are all defining characteristics of female suffrage. Offred, and all women in Gilead, are denied these basic rights. Why? The founders of Gilead believe that by returning women to a more ‘traditional’ role (traditional role in the Christian or even Islamic sense), they can guarantee the happiness of most. Like other totalitarian governments, Gilead has achieved a few things that modern civilization has not: rape, murder, and theft have been eliminated (for the most part).

Author Margaret Atwood attends
 a reading at Eden Mills Writers'
Festival, Ontario, Canada in
September 2006.
By Vanwaffle
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Men of Gilead expect their women fill the role of the caretaker (cooking, cleaning, ect). In a way, women are natural caretakers as they give birth and instinctively feel the need to take care of their progeny. Does that mean that women should be responsible for taking care of all household duties, and nothing else? Well, in Gilead, that is exactly what being a woman means. Men of Gilead also expect their women to be natural sluts (but publicly, they denounce wanton sexual behavior). Gilead Commanders maintain a brothel outside of town, named the Jezebel. At Jezebel, women wear ‘retro’ costumes, like lingerie and cheerleading outfits. When Offred asks how a place like Jezebel is allowed, the Commander responds with “Everyone’s human […] you can’t cheat Nature. Nature demands variety, for men. It stands to reason, it’s part of the procreational strategy. It’s Nature’s plan. Women know that instinctively. Why did they buy so many different clothes, in the old days? To trick the men into thinking they were several different women” (p. 308). 

A SF Literary Study isn't complete without "Critical Theory and Science Fiction". And here's why.

An idealized version of what the SF genre is (or was).

Cover of the fantasy fiction magazine

             Avon Science Fiction Reader no. 3 (1952)

           by Frank Belknap Long 

Source: Wikimedia Commons

A comprehensive (and often) exhaustive study on the validity of science fiction in the literary canon. In fact, author Carl Freedman dedicates an entire section of the book to the description, history, and importance of the literary canon and why science fiction works are to be included in the canon.

Freedman’s text redefines science fiction as ‘cognitive estrangement’, as coined by author Darko Suvian. To better understand Suvian’s meaning, a quote is rather necessary: “estrangement ‘differentiates [science fiction] from the realistic literary mainstream’, while cognition differentiates it from myth, the folk tale, and fantasy […] science fiction is determined by the dialectic between estrangement and cognition” (p. 16).

To Freedman, the genre of science fiction is constantly evolving, and it is hard to pinpoint what exactly constitutes the epitome of science fictional text. Freedman’s views of science fiction are so broad (or maybe so idealized) that he believes all general fiction to be a sub-category of science fiction, and not the other way around (p. 20). The expansive reach of the science fiction genre in Freedman’s eyes is boggling. Freedman believes that every fictional text ever written is a sort of science fictional story as well, because some apt descriptions of science fiction say it is the creation of a new world. Arguably, every fictional novel is a ‘new world’ created by the author and the characters that populate it.

In three not-so-short chapters, Freedman takes the reader on a new expedition into the academic world of science fiction. Chapter one is titled “Definitions”, and it does just that; chapter one defines critical theory and science fiction, melding the two together with Freedman’s conclusions (juxtaposed with other academic opinion of course). Chapter Two, “Articulations”, first discusses genre, literary canon, and theory. Then, science fiction is measured against three critical dynamics: style, the historical novel, and utopia. Chapter three, “Excursuses”, give detailed overviews of Solaris, The Dispossessed, The Two of Them, Stars in My Pocket, and The Man in the High Castle.

Lastly, Freedman includes a section that explores critical theory and science fiction and how it may later evolve, as Freedman concedes that “it is in the nature of critical fiction and science fiction to speculate about the future” (p. 181).

Freedman’s section on utopias and feminism make a nice addition to the academic conversation. In that same section, authors Ursula Le Guin and Joanna Russ are compared and contrasted in a very satirical manner: “The basic contrast frequently adduced is between the gentleness of Le Guin’s feminism and the angry militancy of Russ’s” (p. 129). Freedman makes fun of such comparisons, stating that they are responsible for creating further rifts for women in science fiction (or in society in general). He also muses on the fact that for early pulp science fiction of the 1900’s, it was hard for the genre to recognize able-bodied women, or admit the fallacy of phallic dominance (p. 129).

Throughout the book, Freedman’s tone is one that strives to reach the reader, but always falls a little bit short with a myriad of unknown adjectives and a mountain of footnotes on almost every page (even though in the preface Freedman expresses his own dislike of footnotes, on the grounds that it is a ‘pseudoscholarly practice of citing works in order to suggest, truthfully or not, that one has read them’ [p. xx]). Despite that, once the reader is able to follow Freedman’s ideas and take hold of them, his tone is suggestive, humorous, and down-to-earth.

Critical Theory and Science Fiction was published in 2000. That fact only becomes evident in the last section which mentions the evolutionary pattern that will take hold of science fiction, namely, cyberpunk. To an extent, Freedman is correct, so it is a forgivable error in his effort to create a timeless account of the science fiction genre. Since his studies in the book mention books in the literary canon from 1818 until the late 1980’s, the year of publication is nominal in this instance.

Generally, I prefer not to read academic texts unless they are strictly related to what I am studying. Freedman’s book was one that did not let me forget what I was studying, and it was an academic text that I highlighted like a lunatic, madly muttering to myself things like “yes….and yes…” and “of course!”. If future readers can get over the flowery detailed language in the preface, then they will count themselves lucky to have stumbled upon the fascinating overviews provided by Freedman in his three, seventy-five-page chapters.

Freedman is an associate professor of English at Louisiana State University. He is the author of several articles and four non-fiction texts. An excerpt from his book Critical Theory and Science Fiction was chosen as featured text for discussion at the Theory Roundtable of the International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts in 2002. 

Freedman, Carl. Critical Theory and Science Fiction. Middletown, Connecticut: Weslayen University Press, 2000. Print.

Uses of Imagery in "The Wife of Bath"

While reading "The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale", many instances of imagery are apparent. Geoffrey Chaucer uses the narration of the wife of Bath to describe how men marginalize women unfairly. When speaking of her fourth husband, the wife says, "By God on earth, I was his purgatory/ for which I hope his soul lives now in glory,".

Earlier, she told of how he kept a mistress, therefore her allusion to maintaining a purgatory on earth was most likely revenge for his unchaste ways. Later, she goes on to say, 

"There was no one, save God and he, that knew/ How, in so many ways, I'd twist the screw,". In these lines of prose, the wife means that only she, her husband and the Divine Creator knew how she punished him for his adultery. Perhaps she did subtle things to make him sorry for what he had done, but they were humiliating nonetheless.

Lines and imagery like the ones mentioned give insights into the character the wife of Bath. While being married to her fourth husband, she described herself as 'young and full of passion'. Her naivety faded once she discovered her lascivious husband, and she hardened herself to make him suffer for hurting her. Overall, the insights from imagery in the story develop a plot that negates the chauvinistic view of women in society at the time. As a reader, the imagery evokes feelings of humor at the wife's approach to life, marriage and even virginity.

Greenblatt, et al. (Eds.). (2006). Teaching with the Norton Anthology of English Literature (8th ed.).New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company

Fire and Brimstone

If "Pilgrims and Puritans literally believed that all humankind was stained by Adam's fall,", one has to wonder how much further they would cast their judgments on modern society.

One such Puritan, Jonathan Edwards, condemned many for their lifestyle choices, including "wicked, unbelieving Israelites,". In his sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, there are several statements he makes that alludes to the belief that humankind is inherently tainted, like "The use of this awful subject may be for awakening unconverted persons in this congregation [...] That world of misery, that lake of burning brimstone, is extended abroad under you,".

To further scare his congregation into compliance, Edwards goes on to describe how the wicked among them shall be punished, "There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell's wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor any thing to take hold of; there is nothing between you and hell but the air; it is only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up,".

A sermon delivered by Edwards in the 21st century would not have the same impact as it did in 1741, because many of the modern populace believes in a more forgiving God than the angry torturer described in detail in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. In 1741, perhaps churchgoers believed that if they had one sinful thought or committed one sinful deed, then God would come down upon them with all of the wrath he could muster. In today's world, people adhere to a moral code, but not one that is so restricted based on fear of retaliation from their God. Hopefully, modern individuals adheres to a moral code because they know it is the right thing to do, God or no God.