The Handmaid's Tale

Shirley Neuman is the author of a scholarly article titled, "Just a Backlash": Margaret Atwood, Feminism, and The Handmaid's Tale." (via Salem Literature) In it she analyzes Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and also argues against the interpretations of other critics as well as those of most readers. What Neuman tries to convey is that there is a significant relationship between our society, both past and present, and the society Atwood creates in her novel(also both past and present). And with that, I think she is trying to say(or what she feels Atwood is trying to say)that we can learn from the novel, take a lesson away from this. If we pay attention we can see our own fate, as a society, in this very story. 

Neuman explains that the Gileadean government-represented as a dystopian state-resembles our own 'fundamentalist' government, when it was established by the Puritans. There are many biblical references in the novel as well, which our presidents have been known to repeat; Reagan, who was president when Atwood wrote this, was one of them. Also, at the time-1980's-there was a feminism backlash that included the bombing of abortion clinics, planned single motherhood, sexual assault increase, etc. There seemed to be an overconfidence in young women, as they felt they didn't need feminism; these same women, ironically, were the product of 1970's feminism. As Neuman points out, we see this all taking place in the novel as well. Offred is the daughter of a 1970's feminist and when she talks about "the time before" she describes it as if it took place in the 1980's: sexual assaults, abortionists killed, etc. (Neuman) Of course, not everything is the same since events in the novel are actually taking place in the future, but I think Nueman makes a clear connection in her article. 

What Neuman really gets at is that Atwood's novel implies some kind of utopia outside of the novel entirely. Neuman states, "But also implicit in every dystopia is a utopia. As Atwood herself observed, ’we the readers are to deduce what a good society is by seeing what it isn’t (Neuman)." She goes on to explain that, in "The Handmaid's Tale," Atwood is making it clear that neither Gileadean times nor "the time before" in the novel represent a utopia and neither does our real and present world.

Neuman argues that other critics and many of the readers are-especially when it comes to the "so-called" romance between Offred and Nick-misinterpreting the book. She says the common mistake among readers(and critics alike) is thinking Offred wants everything back the way it was(and that "the time before" is the implicit utopia); that's not so according to Nueman. She refers to all of the times Offred would think back to "the time before" and makes a valid point that Offred was often very critical of her former self and looks at both past and present negatively. Neuman explains this somewhat, while quoting Offred:

          "Remembering this past, the novel’s Offred concludes that ’I took too much for granted; I trusted fate, back then’ (27). As her story unfolds she becomes tougher on her earlier life: ’We lived,’ she says, ’by ignoring. Ignoring isn’t the same as ignorance, you have to work at it… . There were stories in the newspapers, of course, corpses in ditches or the woods, bludgeoned to death or mutilated, interfered with as they used to say, but they were about other women, and the men who did such things were other men… We lived in the gaps between the stories’ (53). Her willed ignorance anaesthetizes any impulse to resist the increasingly repressive actions leading to the coup that establishes Gilead. Willed ignorance, Offred learns, is sister to victimization and to passive acceptance of blame for what is done to one." (Neuman)

Neuman concludes that Offred gained political awareness and has reassessed her former-and current-life. Since Offred believes she was "willfully ignorant" she became crucially attentive in her current life in Gilead. But as Neuman points out, that all changes when she meets Nick and begins their affair. She has no interest in escaping or helping Ofglen anymore; that, as Neuman reveals, is when Offred "relapses into willfull ignorance." And Offred realizes her enormous mistake-her slip back into the past-as events snowball right up to the end. As Neuman puts it, "She has ceased, she realizes as she sees the dreaded black van arrive for her at the end of the novel, ’to pay attention' (Neuman)." 

There is, however, and interpretation in this part of her article, regarding their romance, that I disagree with. Nueman boldly states, "Atwood is, I would argue, telling us something else. There is no evidence in the novel that Nick’s ’rescue’ of Offred is motivated by anything other than self-preservation. In the world of sexual relationships, after all, his final words, ’Trust me’ (275), are as clichéd and unreliable as the Commander’s explanation that his wife doesn’t understand him or as Serena Joy’s final reproach as Offred is hustled out the door: ’After all he did for you’ (276) (Neuman)." I understand that we have no proof of whether Nick did this entirely out of self-preservation, but I would not go so far to say there is no evidence to the contrary. In fact, it is more evident that Nick did do this out of love or, at the least, for more than just himself. Nick could have exposed her and/or the commander at any time, but he never did. He did the opposite of that by helping her see the commander at night for scrabble and the night they went out. It was also made clear in the novel that their affair was more than just a job to both of them. Even before the affair started, Nick was obviously upset with what the commander was having Offred do and wear the night they went out; he couldn't bare to look at her. 



This next article comes from the website Sparknotes. There isn't just one analysis for "The Handmaid's Tale" in this article; there's one for almost every chapter. So I am going to focus on the analysis they gave for chapters 41-44, which talk about the relationship with Nick. In this author's interpretation it mirrors some of what Neuman was saying. The author states, "As soon as she begins her affair with Nick, Offred slips into complacency, showing how it is that oppressive regimes like Gilead come to power and survive unchallenged when their subjects become listless (Sparknotes)." She explains that this relationship-the romance-gives Offred a small glimmer of hope, a reason to keep going on and for this life to finally be bare-able. But this makes her so content that the idea of change is now too hard to handle. However, the salvaging and Ofglen's disappearance wakes Offred up. And just as Neuman says as well, she has come to a realization and is once again reassessing her former and current life. The author also goes on to make additional comments similar to Neuman's, about Offred's willingness to turn a blind eye to what was going on around her.

What I find interesting is that the author of this article does not agree with Neuman's opinion that Nick was only interested in self-preservation. The author states this: "By telling us that The Handmaid’s Tale was transcribed from tapes found in an “Underground Femaleroad” safe house, the epilogue undercuts the powerful ambiguity of the novel’s ending, letting us know that Nick was a member of Mayday, and he did attempt to get Offred out of the country. Offred’s final fate remains a mystery, but the faithfulness of Nick does not (Sparknotes)." Of course, as I've already mentioned, I completely agree with that interpretation. 

This article is quite different from the scholarly article, in the way it was laid out and the style it was written; it's obvious that it's geared towards a different (and maybe not as knowledgeable in this area) audience. They do both go into great detail and end up with very similar, if not identical, interpretations. Neuman's article does have many references that include other scholars and she also refers to times in history and historical events that play a huge role in deciphering this novel. However, even without those references, the Sparknotes article was able to produce a deep and thorough analysis that-in my opinion-interpreted the "romance" correctly.

I would like to focus on how Katniss is characterized in The Hunger Games; clearly, she defies the stereotypical female in this book. I, particularly, like that she is portrayed as cold-hearted and guarded. Her demeanor is quite similar to mine, so I relate to her trust issues, as well as her survival instinct. However, it is not as if she were raised as a boy or to be masculine in any way-her personality and character is all a response to her childhood and the environment around her. Katniss, in fact, IS the "typical" girl. And when I say typical I mean what society deems as the quintessential female gender role. As far as we know, Katniss grew up with a loving mother and father that dressed, treated and raised her as such, up until her father died of course. Because of such a traumatic tragedy, Katniss had to grow up quickly, taking on the role that her father had played. Her mother's incapacity forced her to fend for herself and her little sister, but this is also a "mothering" role. Katniss seems to do a very calculated balancing act of gender behavior throughout  the book, to please the audience, in my opinion. And I don't mean just the Gamemakers; this includes everyone reading the book. She uses her intelligence, wit, perseverance, and hunting skills as a means to defeat her opponents--although never truly stepping out of her female gender role. Those attributes have been attached to only men or "masculine" women--only recently has that line between society-based gender roles begun to dissolve. And this book is a great example. I do admire that fact, however, I feel there is still quite a way to go in erasing the lines that separate us based on gender. Katniss, seemingly, takes on this incredible, death-defying challenge by herself, with no help from another, especially a man. She is all on her own, in unknown territory, fighting for her own survival, and does a pretty damn good job doing it. She fights terrifying weather and terrain, not to mention people trying to kill her; yes, I'd say that's very admirable. Unfortunately, in swoops a man(Peeta)to-at the very least-help and/or protect her. Why? Why couldn't Katniss do this all on her own? In fact, she had an alliance with Rue, why did she need more help? Because there needed to be a romantic involvement. Well, that is one answer anyway. I guess another answer could be that there needs to be a man involved in the winning of this story, which brings me back to the first answer: romance. I think, for some reason, it is necessary for there to be a budding romance in all coming-of-age novels, because somehow that is what captures the attention of ALL ages. I wonder why that is though. Is that why everyone is preoccupied with gender characterization? Because that is what we all yearn for? To find love with the opposite sex(or same sex if homosexual)? And so, in order to do so, we need a clear definition of gender; this is because anything other than heterosexuality is frowned upon, or considered taboo. And although we are further than we have been in the past, regarding homosexuality, society has not accepted it as a whole. Therefore, it remains an issue, and obviously something that can't be disregarded when writing a novel aimed at pleasing the present-day audience. I have a feeling that is why Collins has this romance between Peeta and Katniss included in her novel. Almost everyone wants to fall in love; this is something everyone can relate to. But why isn't the romantic part of this story between two men, or two women, or a transgender and a man, or woman? All questions point back to our societal view.