Palimpsest: Novel vs. Show

[Ashforth]

On 1/9/2017 at 9:59 AM, wonderandawe said:

Just watched the teaser.  Seems like they made Offred's daughter a son instead.   Seems like a young boy in the beach scene and she calls out "Bobby!" in the woods scene.

I'll never imagine a woman screaming "Bobbbyyyyyy!!!!!" without thinking of the late, great Whitney Houston.

I'll see myself out now.

[LordOfLotion]

36 minutes ago, Ashforth said:

I'll never imagine a woman screaming "Bobbbyyyyyy!!!!!" without thinking of the late, great Whitney Houston.

I'll see myself out now.

I think the same thing.

[AnswersWanted]

This latest episode, “Postpartum”, made me think a good bit about how the book and the show have detailed the overall fertility system that Gilead has in place, and the more and more I think about it, the more I am truly convinced that Atwood wanted to emphasize just how faulty and poorly structured the regime’s “grand scheme” was. 

I have no doubt that was surely a part of why Gilead eventually falls, because this group is not really thinking ahead, they are not showing the presence of mind to really build a lasting foundation for their society, if anything they are continuously eroding it at every turn.

I think just the overall refusal to place infertility blame onto the men, especially the commanders, as if their fragile egos were too important and needed to be spared the humiliation of being exposed for shooting blanks, and yet because of that they are willing to steal and keep perfectly fertile women away from the potentially perfectly fertile men in their lives, their husbands or their boyfriends, that they were able to produce children with during a time when you would think that standout would be what was highlighted.

When the show introduced Omar and his wife, an Econo family that had proven fertile, they had a beautiful little boy to show for it, when they were found out by the regime, Omar was killed, a fertile man,  and they turned the wife into a handmaid, putting her into a fairly pointless pool of women forced to sleep with men that more than likely could not and would not get her pregnant again.

 The fact the regime so easily could slaughter men who are fertile to me is just the number one flaw in their argument about caring for producing more children for the future.

If you truly care about building the next generation, then you would focus on both halves of the equation, women cannot just produce babies on their own, they need viable sperm to do that.

So why have so many young men capable of impregnating women just been eradicated without a second thought? Even ones who have proven submissive to the new world order and are not fighting back?  Most of those men could be easily corralled just on the basis of the fact that they know that their wives and children would face punishment or worse if they don’t submit. 

What would be the harm of having these men locked up and utilized as they do the women? If they can control the ceremony with handmaids, why not do the same with fertile couples?

I utterly loathe the term “breeding farms”, I hate even the thought of that, but to me that would be the very first step one would take towards increasing the birth rate on as large a scale as possible, especially If those in control just go full out and take away people’s rights and enslave them solely for that purpose.

Both in the book and on th show, if the fertility crisis was really driving the Gilead PTB, June and Luke should’ve been captured alive, Hannah removed, and then they would’ve been put to work essentially producing more children. 

Maybe they wouldn’t even allow the couples to stay together, they would basically play musical chairs with them, different husbands being forcibly paired with different wives, just as they did during slavery when enslaved men with “desireable qualities “ would be moved around to different plantations with different women, especially those who seemed to produce a child more easily than others, and forced to impregnate them. 

So much about Gilead just screams “anti-baby”  to me. From conception on, these people do themselves and the little ones absolutely no favors. 

I think a misstep the show took in regards to that is when they showed during season one that apparently quite a few of the handmaids had managed to produce a good number of babies.

From my perspective in the book Atwood made it very clear that the Handmaid system was not working, a handmaid getting pregnant was almost unheard of.

 To me she wanted to make it clear that even though the regime had overhauled society in such a drastic way in regards to pregnancy and with forced rape during a monthly ceremony, things were not working, there was no upside to what they were doing, the results were poor if nonexistent. 

I always saw it as an exercise in futility, not a system that actually held any long-lasting  merit. 

[Umbelina]

Yes, it was a stupid, cruel system full of misogyny, xenophobia, oligarchy, and racism and it failed because of that.

That's why it's so difficult to watch in these times.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Umbelina

[alexvillage]

8 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

From my perspective in the book Atwood made it very clear that the Handmaid system was not working, a handmaid getting pregnant was almost unheard of.

 To me she wanted to make it clear that even though the regime had overhauled society in such a drastic way in regards to pregnancy and with forced rape during a monthly ceremony, things were not working, there was no upside to what they were doing, the results were poor if nonexistent. 

I always saw it as an exercise in futility, not a system that actually held any long-lasting  merit. 

Margaret Atwood also made it clear that the real reason for Gilead to exist is misogyny and patriarchy. I don't think the show is doing a good job in delivering that message. 

[AnswersWanted]

5 hours ago, alexvillage said:

Margaret Atwood also made it clear that the real reason for Gilead to exist is misogyny and patriarchy. I don't think the show is doing a good job in delivering that message. 

 

I think the show has dropped the purpose and plot of “The Handmaid’s Tale” in a lot of ways.

They seem so concerned with pushing this show to “10 seasons” and stretching out the storylines by not addressing the real issues at the core of the novel.

As you said in regards to the misogyny and patriarchy, it’s so dulled down and overlooked in general. The impact is being lost. 

The show seems, imo, way too focused on working their own ideas in, the whole trading handmaids to Mexico, and they aren’t giving Atwood’s vision half the attention and respect it deserves. 

[Umbelina]

Quote

In the book....

  Hide contents

….how is it that only whites suffer from infertility?  If it's the result of pollution, everyone would be effected.

@Ruby

They killed or deported all POC to crop raising colonies, so we honestly don't know about their birth rates in first world countries.  It's not addressed in the book.  Did they separate them by gender to avoid more black (and other POC) births?  We don't know.  The effects on POC birthrates in Europe are also not addressed.  We do know they were responsible for raising all crops in Gilead, probably manually, without much machinery (fuel shortages are likely) and certainly without GMOs or pesticides/herbicides.

What they DID say was something like plenty of people POC in India, Africa, possibly Pacific Islanders were still having the same numbers of babies they always did.  So, it's logical to assume that the birthrates were probably due, possibly in great part, to the overuse of chemicals such as pesticides on crops, as well as climate change issues, and of course the nuclear power plant accidents, which were mainly in the USA and Europe.

Gilead was founded specifically because the WHITE race was dying out, and that was unacceptable to the founders of Gilead.  Religion, racism, and eliminating pollution were probably the 3 biggest selling points of the men who started Gilead.  Women of course participated until they were completely shut out of the process of designing the new state.

If someone remembers this better, please chime in.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Umbelina

[Ruby]

Umbelina, thanks for the answer.  Why only whites would be effected doesn't make much sense, but then it's a dystopian novel, not a documentary.

[Umbelina]

1 minute ago, Ruby said:

Umbelina, thanks for the answer.  Why only whites would be effected doesn't make much sense, but then it's a dystopian novel, not a documentary.

As I said, I think it's more location than anything to do with the color of their skin.

[Ruby]

13 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

As I said, I think it's more location than anything to do with the color of their skin.

I haven't read the novel, but I'm guessing there's a lot of difference between it and the show.

[Umbelina]

8 minutes ago, Ruby said:

I haven't read the novel, but I'm guessing there's a lot of difference between it and the show.

Only that they eliminated racism really, which is huge.

[Ruby]

Anyone ever watch the sci-fi TV show, Sliders?  There was an episode, Love Gods, where in one of the parallel universes, men were scarce because of biological warfare.  So they were rounded up and put in, "breeding centers."

[nodorothyparker]

On 7/7/2018 at 10:56 PM, AnswersWanted said:

The fact the regime so easily could slaughter men who are fertile to me is just the number one flaw in their argument about caring for producing more children for the future.

If you truly care about building the next generation, then you would focus on both halves of the equation, women cannot just produce babies on their own, they need viable sperm to do that.

I want to cosign your entire post, but especially this point.  The book at least makes it clear that the women, the wives and handmaids both, know the system as designed isn't producing the bumper crop of babies it was supposedly set up to do.  So you get separate conversations with Serena in arranging Nick and Offred and later with original recipe Ofglen where they're admitting that it's fairly common knowledge among them that Janine's baby was fathered by a doctor rather than her commander, that there's a veritable black market of sperm that's been responsible for the mere handful of pregnancies that have occurred because they all know that the commanders aren't cutting it.  As gross as it is to think about people purely in terms of breeding stock, if they were truly interested in making as many babies as possible to repopulate the earth they would have had men known to have successfully fathered children being made available for stud rather than guys like Nick slipping around on the sly.  There's a powerful air of desperation and futility about the handmaid system in the book that doesn't seem to be nearly as present in the show, at least in part because there it is producing enough children to give you the idea that it is at least a marginally functional idea and focus instead on the emotional beats of separating birth mothers from those babies in a way the book doesn't.

Of course, it helps that in the book Commander Fred isn't creepily infatuated with Offred to the point where they can dispassionately discuss how the poor men needed the societal overhaul because they were dissatisfied and couldn't feel anything in marital partnerships as equals.  They weren't needed by women who were educated and could make their own money and choices the way he says men need to be needed.  Book Commander Fred is an early MRAer and in being so tips his hand that while the falling birthrate was a real thing to be concerned about, it was also a convenient excuse to take back the gains women had made and subjugate them under this ridiculous system.  Because babies.  As we've seen in book and show, they were able to get a lot of women to go along with it initially on the promise of babies and as wives, hey, you still won't have it as bad as them.

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

As we've seen in book and show, they were able to get a lot of women to go along with it initially on the promise of babies and as wives, hey, you still won't have it as bad as them.

I think that's where the show is falling apart a bit for me.

In reality it WASN'T "babies."  Gilead took over slowly at first, and it was a three-pronged attack/persuasion on the public before the violent overthrow and murders in DC of the elected leaders.

Religion. "Bring GOD back!" (and all that means, including of course, no more separation between church and state.)

Ecology. Global Warming and pollution and runaway chemicals and scientists who helped create nuclear power plants (it was all THEIR fault that God had turned his back on the people of the USA, and the government wasn't listening so...)

Race.  The white race was dying out and becoming a minority.  White Power!  God's chosen people, the pure, no mark of Cain on them.

It had a healthy dose of "controlling the free press" as well, again, giving up freedoms in the US constitution, until it was less "fake news" and more "let's murder everyone in the Boston Globe."  Dictators always have to get rid of the press, Gilead was no different.

Everything kind of stemmed from those.  For example, the birthrate was God's unhappiness, the pollution, the scientists who had ruined Eden, and also their duty as white people to reverse the lack of white babies being born. 

Same with subjugation of women, and all the rest.

I think the show has made a huge error in having the focus seem to just be "babies!"  The book made more sense, it was a cautionary tale about how each of these seemingly harmless changes and sacrifices lead to more and more being taken away.  Martial Law (as Gilead declared) isn't the only way to control the populace, it can be done with low wages, lack of health care, etc.  "Bringing God Back!" is a slippery slope, women's reproductive rights, or lack of equal wages?  Ditto.  White Power?  It's everywhere now, just as it began in Gilead.

The show pretending this is "all about babies" dumbs down the story and impact of Atwood's work, and it's no doubt that non-book readers think it's stupid, because, as presented here?  In many ways it is stupid.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Umbelina

[GraceK]

21 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I think that's where the show is falling apart a bit for me.

In reality it WASN'T "babies."  Gilead took over slowly at first, and it was a three-pronged attack/persuasion on the public before the violent overthrow and murders in DC of the elected leaders.

Religion. "Bring GOD back!" (and all that means, including of course, no more separation between church and state.)

Ecology. Global Warming and pollution and runaway chemicals and scientists who helped create nuclear power plants (it was all THEIR fault that God had turned his back on the people of the USA, and the government wasn't listening so...)

Race.  The white race was dying out and becoming a minority.  White Power!  God's chosen people, the pure, no mark of Cain on them.

It had a healthy dose of "controlling the free press" as well, again, giving up freedoms in the US constitution, until it was less "fake news" and more "let's murder everyone in the Boston Globe."  Dictators always have to get rid of the press, Gilead was no different.

Everything kind of stemmed from those.  For example, the birthrate was God's unhappiness, the pollution, the scientists who had ruined Eden, and also their duty as white people to reverse the lack of white babies being born. 

Same with subjugation of women, and all the rest.

I think the show has made a huge error in having the focus seem to just be "babies!"  The book made more sense, it was a cautionary tale about how each of these seemingly harmless changes and sacrifices lead to more and more being taken away.  Martial Law (as Gilead declared) isn't the only way to control the populace, it can be done with low wages, lack of health care, etc.  "Bringing God Back!" is a slippery slope, women's reproductive rights, or lack of equal wages?  Ditto.  White Power?  It's everywhere now, just as it began in Gilead.

The show pretending this is "all about babies" dumbs down the story and impact of Atwood's work, and it's no doubt that non-book readers think it's stupid, because, as presented here?  In many ways it is stupid.

Thank you very much for explaining this and giving such and informative post. This makes a lot more sense to me personally, because as someone who is not as familiar with the book as many on here seem to be, the show seems be dropping the ball and bordering on the absurd on so many levels. The first season seemed to make so much more narrative sense to me compared to this season.

[nodorothyparker]

I keep thinking back to that backseat of the car scene last season where three men, Commander Fred among them, sat around casually discussing how to implement the handmaid system and get the wives to go along with it.  I do wish we had gotten more of that and less long lingering closeups because it was a great illustration of how these men set about to convince the larger population that assassinations and attacks on the press and overthrow of the elected government and complete negation of basic human rights were all for the greater good.  They acknowledge in that scene that it's all going to be wrapped in religion and babies.  I remember saying at the time that I also really would have loved scenes of when they first pitched the whole handmaid concept to powerful educated women like Serena and maybe where the tipping point was where people just accepted that "oh, we're doing this now" in watching these women march two by two to the market in their blood red handmaid getups knowing what their purpose was.  Because you're right, there was a whole slide here that was so much bigger than just if we do this God will reward us with babies, but that's what the show has almost exclusively focused on.

[Umbelina]

Yes, and they skimmed over the "Islamic Terrorists" killing the elected leaders as well.

If you'd read the book, I'm beginning to think, more and more, this show makes more sense than it does for people watching it cold.

I've said from the beginning that changing the racial aspect was huge, but I'm realizing from comments from non-book readers that it's so much more important than I even realized.

Some were on board because of ecology.  Science, doctors, the "smart" people were to blame for the state of the world, let's kill them and go back to pioneer days!

Some were on board because the white race was dying out.  White power!

Some were on board because "Woo!  Religion!  God!"  Which was used to great effect to make misogyny cool again.  If women had only known their place, not been selfishly working, or using birth control (more anti science there) then God wouldn't be punishing our Godless country.

Some were on board because (more race/religion) the USA was ATTACKED by Islamic extremists (which nicely tied in the twin pronged religion/race motivation.)

The press was denigrated before being completely eliminated.  How much opposition was there to that?   How many were already on board?

As for the book, at the time, I had a hard time visualizing how any of this could become reality.  Now?  I don't.

[AnswersWanted]

10 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

I want to cosign your entire post, but especially this point.  The book at least makes it clear that the women, the wives and handmaids both, know the system as designed isn't producing the bumper crop of babies it was supposedly set up to do.  So you get separate conversations with Serena in arranging Nick and Offred and later with original recipe Ofglen where they're admitting that it's fairly common knowledge among them that Janine's baby was fathered by a doctor rather than her commander, that there's a veritable black market of sperm that's been responsible for the mere handful of pregnancies that have occurred because they all know that the commanders aren't cutting it.  As gross as it is to think about people purely in terms of breeding stock, if they were truly interested in making as many babies as possible to repopulate the earth they would have had men known to have successfully fathered children being made available for stud rather than guys like Nick slipping around on the sly.  There's a powerful air of desperation and futility about the handmaid system in the book that doesn't seem to be nearly as present in the show, at least in part because there it is producing enough children to give you the idea that it is at least a marginally functional idea and focus instead on the emotional beats of separating birth mothers from those babies in a way the book doesn't.

Of course, it helps that in the book Commander Fred isn't creepily infatuated with Offred to the point where they can dispassionately discuss how the poor men needed the societal overhaul because they were dissatisfied and couldn't feel anything in marital partnerships as equals.  They weren't needed by women who were educated and could make their own money and choices the way he says men need to be needed.  Book Commander Fred is an early MRAer and in being so tips his hand that while the falling birthrate was a real thing to be concerned about, it was also a convenient excuse to take back the gains women had made and subjugate them under this ridiculous system.  Because babies.  As we've seen in book and show, they were able to get a lot of women to go along with it initially on the promise of babies and as wives, hey, you still won't have it as bad as them.

 

Such excellent points, I completely agree.

I feel as if the show is doing way too much and not nearly enough all at the same time.

They want to skip ahead and show us a futuristic Gilead as it were, presenting a show that has, supposedly, progressed beyond the book, but they haven’t bothered to actually grow and show the Gilead that was in the book that all of this is based on in the first place.

There is no explanation for so much that they’re doing, and it could and would be there if they had only followed Atwood’s vision.

She gave them everything they needed to bring this story to life, to show that Gilead is not about babies, Gilead is not about a better life, they even used that line with Fred in season one, but it is as if they've forgotten that entire point themselves, that “better for some does not mean better for all”.

But we don’t see enough of the “all” involved, of the true scope of the impact Gilead has had from coast to coast, across race, religion, gender, sex, and LGBTQ groups.

I find it so frustrating that they seem to want us to put so much together in our own heads when they need to be telling the story, that’s what they’re there for, that is what should be the driving force behind the show, not trying out fancy ideas and using Atwood’s genius as the established background for it.

I think overall I feel as if the show is doing a great disservice to the book by spending so little time exploring the true themes and direction inside it. 

And also in doing so they are cheating the viewers, both those who have read the book and those whom have not, because at the end of the day the story just does not add up and it’s too confusing and too poorly put together to bother trying to make sense of it. 

[AllyB]

14 hours ago, GraceK said:

The first season seemed to make so much more narrative sense to me compared to this season.

Tbh, the signs that the show writers don't get it came halfway through the first season. Gilead being such a baby-making success that the Mexican ambassador would be chomping at the bit to trade for handmaids made absolutely no sense. It was the first time the showrunners decided to flesh out the world beyond the book and they completely undermined the whole point of the book.

[alexvillage]

15 hours ago, Umbelina said:

The book made more sense

I appreciate all the analysis and opinions but this sums up perfectly the essence of the show.

And please, allow me a little rant against the capitalistic drive of Hollywood: the show runners could have hired better writers. It looks like they decided to go with good proofreaders (for the first season) and gave up on the quality after that - bad writers, writers looking for a chance to succeed but not necessarily talented are *cheap* compared to how much money goes to the producers and other non-artistic interests.  My suggestion to Margaret Atwood (as if she cares, haha) would be to pull the plug (if contract allows) sooner rather than later. There is a risk that too many people will remember the show and not the book.

[AnswersWanted]

2 hours ago, AllyB said:

Tbh, the signs that the show writers don't get it came halfway through the first season. Gilead being such a baby-making success that the Mexican ambassador would be chomping at the bit to trade for handmaids made absolutely no sense. It was the first time the showrunners decided to flesh out the world beyond the book and they completely undermined the whole point of the book.

 

Right on.  

I will never forget that episode as a tipping point for the show, and the fact that they have not touched on it even once during season 2, if I recall correctly, to me says they realized way too late that was a giant fuck up and they didn’t know how to fix it.

Then, instead of going back to basics, reevaluating the book source and putting things, somewhat, back in order if possible, they pretty much doubled down on their skewed vision. 

Like you said, they undermined so much of the premise of what the book was all about and its purpose, and yet they still want to take snippets from it here and there when it suits them, even as they leave large enough plot holes to drive a semi through. 

They just cannot have it both ways, imo. 

Atwood didn’t think a mystical wolf dog beast was necessary to tell her story, it’d be nice if the show’s creators and writing department asked themselves why they, then, felt it could enhance their own. 

The novel has remained so relevant and impactful for over three decades and I’ve no doubt it will go countless decades more holding strong, in comparison I have a feeling the show is going to be better known for its’ wasted opportunities and misguided direction than a true representation of the incredible story it attempted to tell. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by AnswersWanted

[Empress1]

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but Atwood will be releasing a sequel to The Handmaid's Tale in September.

[PamelaMaeSnap]

On 11/28/2018 at 10:05 AM, Empress1 said:

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but Atwood will be releasing a sequel to The Handmaid's Tale in September.

I'd like to bump this to see if anyone has any info/intel/insight as to how much this follows the plot line laid out in S2/3?

Curious how much (if at all) Atwood had input into the show plot line beyond the end of the original book? 

I know there must be similar situations (i.e., bestseller book, TV series based on book, series life/it goes beyond what was written and THEN sequel is written/released) but can't think of any offhand. 

I have pre-ordered the book and will stay unspoiled on it ... plan to read it on cross-country flight I'm taking a week after release date. 

[Save Yourself]

On 6/18/2019 at 4:47 AM, PamelaMaeSnap said:

I'd like to bump this to see if anyone has any info/intel/insight as to how much this follows the plot line laid out in S2/3?

Curious how much (if at all) Atwood had input into the show plot line beyond the end of the original book? 

I know there must be similar situations (i.e., bestseller book, TV series based on book, series life/it goes beyond what was written and THEN sequel is written/released) but can't think of any offhand. 

I have pre-ordered the book and will stay unspoiled on it ... plan to read it on cross-country flight I'm taking a week after release date. 

Game of Thrones is the most famous example of when a TV adaptation went beyond the already published books. It was bollocks by the end 😕. 

[Umbelina]

The show is so completely different than the books that I seriously doubt Atwood's book will (at all) be following it.  The biggest issue of course, it the entire idea

Spoiler

that Gilead is color blind.  It's not.  It's completely white power racist and the only babies they care about are white babies.  There is not a birth problem in the entire world either, just in mostly white countries. 

I don't think she's stayed involved in the show at all, there were a couple of interviews with her posted (here?) where it seems like she was more "that is them, this is me."  If anything she may have finally been compelled to write her sequel so she can maintain her own vision being the lasting one? 

Sorry, I spoiler tagged that, couldn't remember if we are supposed to in this thread and now I can't remove it.

[alexvillage]

Margaret Atwood wrote a dystopia that is also a criticism on white male power. The show is something that rushed to do an adaptation in the first season and then lost itself. 

I guess Atwood was kind of a consultant in the first season and maybe the deal was that she would sell the rights of the book but after the first season she would not have a say on the direction the show took. I am still holding on to my theory that her upcoming book is a way for her to separate herself from this clusterfuck of a series. 

[Umbelina]

https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/handmaid/section13/

Decent summation of the epilogue here for anyone who is rusty on it.

Looks like Gilead is brought down by purges and "the civil war" so no outside invasion.

Although the epilogue takes place in 2195, Gilead is "LONG GONE" and history profs are thrilled to find June's tapes because the purges and civil war destroyed most documents. 

So, Gilead may not last 200 years, as some here have said.  I actually could end pretty soon, and to me it's very doubtful it lasted even 50 years.  I think there are more rebels and slaves than masters, it could happen.

This one https://www.bustle.com/p/the-epilogue-of-the-handmaids-tale-is-actually-the-most-disturbing-part-of-the-whole-book-7873951

may have already been posted, but it's a grim reminder that misogyny is alive and well in the future, and the white race is so minuscule now that it's a special studies, that presentation was lead by (one bit of hope) what appears to be a first nations or native American woman.

[Umbelina]

Handmaid's Tale sequel leads 'exacting' 2019 Booker prize longlist

Margaret Atwood’s The Testaments – not published until September – is chosen alongside 12 other ‘credible winners’ including Salman Rushdie and Jeanette Winterson

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jul/24/handmaids-tale-sequel-2019-booker-prize-longlist-margaret-atwood-the-testaments

September! 

[Umbelina]

https://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/the-handmaids-tale/66700/the-handmaid-s-tale-how-will-atwood-s-book-sequel-affect-the-tv-show

About Atwood's sequel (3 new handmaids testaments) and about Hulu's show.

Sigh.

I don't know how many questions will be answered by 3 new POV handmaids.  I already "get" what Gilead is, what I want to know is how it's brought down.

Unless one of them is in the resistance, (as in fighting with the rebels) this could end up being very frustrating.  OR, one could get out and actually interact with the world at large about the horrors of Gilead, which frankly, Moira and Emily and other escapees should already be doing on the show.

Edited July 31, 2019 by Umbelina
clarity

[chaifan]

I need a book refresher... Actually, not even sure it was discussed in the book (it's been decades since I read it), but I figured I'd post here first...

I understand how they got the first round of handmaids - women who "sinned" somehow and were known to be fertile.  But how does Gilead get the next generation(s) of handmaids?  I'm assuming Commanders' daughters stay in the elite class - married off to Commanders' sons.  Do they take handmaids from the econo-couples, or are econo-daughters allowed to marry econ-sons?  Do they wait to see which econo-daughters are fertile, then take them away as handmaids?  Do they invent new "sins" as a reason to put more women into handmaid service? 

Was this discussed in the book?  If so, what's the answer?  Thanks!

[mamadrama]

5 hours ago, chaifan said:

I need a book refresher... Actually, not even sure it was discussed in the book (it's been decades since I read it), but I figured I'd post here first...

I understand how they got the first round of handmaids - women who "sinned" somehow and were known to be fertile.  But how does Gilead get the next generation(s) of handmaids?  I'm assuming Commanders' daughters stay in the elite class - married off to Commanders' sons.  Do they take handmaids from the econo-couples, or are econo-daughters allowed to marry econ-sons?  Do they wait to see which econo-daughters are fertile, then take them away as handmaids?  Do they invent new "sins" as a reason to put more women into handmaid service? 

Was this discussed in the book?  If so, what's the answer?  Thanks!

This has always confused me as well. They're investing money in a big, fancy Red Center but where ARE these new handmaids coming from? The current ones were chosen because they previously bore children, but in the future how are they going to know a woman is fertile or not? As you said, the elite women will most likely marry other elite men. Econo people can apparently marry each other. But where are the Marthas and Handmaids coming from? Commander wives aren't allowed to have sex with their husbands so even if a Wife breaks some kind of law there's no way for them to know if she's able to bear kids. She'd probably just hang on the wall. Perhaps Econo wives can be turned into Handmaids if something happens to their husband and they had a child? This seems to be a legit plot hole to me and it bothers me. 

[Umbelina]

I'm trying to remember if the book addresses econowives suddenly being accused of being "sinners" so that the Commanders can snatch them.  I think it does, but it's been so long I'm not sure.

I don't think they ever talked about what happened when econokids grew up either.  Soldiers were econo-class, and it does mention that they were sometimes rewarded with "wives."  Also, many econofamilies had a soldier off fighting, but they had a sinless marriage before, and kids already.

June couldn't know much of the details this of course, she knew they looked down on her, as in the show.  The epilogue barely touches on the specifics of that.  

If an econosoldier dies in war, probably rather frequent occurrence, what happens to the wife and kids?  My guess is the kids are snatched and "reassigned" and the wife is made into a Handmaid as child bearing handmaid supplies dwindle, but of course, she might be assigned another soldier.

I wish the show had included the econofamilies more, that was another question I had, along with all the questions raised by the epilogue, which the show is finally addressing.

[Umbelina]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/books/review/margaret-atwood-handmaids-tale-age-of-trump.html

Lovely explanation about the book from Margaret Atwood, but again, the econowives are barely mentioned here.

[Umbelina]

6 hours ago, chaifan said:

I need a book refresher... Actually, not even sure it was discussed in the book (it's been decades since I read it), but I figured I'd post here first...

I understand how they got the first round of handmaids - women who "sinned" somehow and were known to be fertile.  But how does Gilead get the next generation(s) of handmaids?  I'm assuming Commanders' daughters stay in the elite class - married off to Commanders' sons.  Do they take handmaids from the econo-couples, or are econo-daughters allowed to marry econ-sons?  Do they wait to see which econo-daughters are fertile, then take them away as handmaids?  Do they invent new "sins" as a reason to put more women into handmaid service? 

Was this discussed in the book?  If so, what's the answer?  Thanks!

56 minutes ago, mamadrama said:

This has always confused me as well. They're investing money in a big, fancy Red Center but where ARE these new handmaids coming from? The current ones were chosen because they previously bore children, but in the future how are they going to know a woman is fertile or not? As you said, the elite women will most likely marry other elite men. Econo people can apparently marry each other. But where are the Marthas and Handmaids coming from? Commander wives aren't allowed to have sex with their husbands so even if a Wife breaks some kind of law there's no way for them to know if she's able to bear kids. She'd probably just hang on the wall. Perhaps Econo wives can be turned into Handmaids if something happens to their husband and they had a child? This seems to be a legit plot hole to me and it bothers me. 

This is interesting and may answer some questions.  (I need to buy another copy of that book!)

(longer thread here obviously)

[mamadrama]

6 hours ago, chaifan said:

I need a book refresher... Actually, not even sure it was discussed in the book (it's been decades since I read it), but I figured I'd post here first...

I understand how they got the first round of handmaids - women who "sinned" somehow and were known to be fertile.  But how does Gilead get the next generation(s) of handmaids?  I'm assuming Commanders' daughters stay in the elite class - married off to Commanders' sons.  Do they take handmaids from the econo-couples, or are econo-daughters allowed to marry econ-sons?  Do they wait to see which econo-daughters are fertile, then take them away as handmaids?  Do they invent new "sins" as a reason to put more women into handmaid service? 

Was this discussed in the book?  If so, what's the answer?  Thanks!

Hopefully this is something that will be addressed before the series comes to a crashing end. I'd really like to see more attention devoted to this so that we could get some kind of answers. 

[Trillian]

6 minutes ago, mamadrama said:

Hopefully this is something that will be addressed before the series comes to a crashing end. I'd really like to see more attention devoted to this so that we could get some kind of answers. 

It’s briefly (ie, a one-liner) addressed in the epilogue.  The Professor says that, in the “middle phase” of Gilead, the sinning women taken for Handmaids were eventually defined as anyone who married outside the state church.   

That line is just one more example of how the series has departed from the book and how it can’t be said that the series is depicting what’s in the epilogue. It’s really clear in the epilogue that Gilead lasted a long time: long enough for historians to refer to the early, middle and late periods of the Republic - that’s a lot longer than 5-10 years. Ofglen (she most certainly was not June in the book) is clearly placed in the early period and couldn’t possibly have been part of whatever events brought Gilead down.  With the series, we’re really not in the book at all anymore

[Umbelina]

56 minutes ago, Trillian said:

It’s briefly (ie, a one-liner) addressed in the epilogue.  The Professor says that, in the “middle phase” of Gilead, the sinning women taken for Handmaids were eventually defined as anyone who married outside the state church.   

That line is just one more example of how the series has departed from the book and how it can’t be said that the series is depicting what’s in the epilogue. It’s really clear in the epilogue that Gilead lasted a long time: long enough for historians to refer to the early, middle and late periods of the Republic - that’s a lot longer than 5-10 years. Ofglen (she most certainly was not June in the book) is clearly placed in the early period and couldn’t possibly have been part of whatever events brought Gilead down.  With the series, we’re really not in the book at all anymore

I really doesn't seem like Gilead would be sustainable for long, for one thing, most of the Commanders and Wives were pretty old in the book, and the economy was a disaster.  Maybe in The Testaments, set 15 years after the first book we will find out more.  How many men in their 70's, without access to drugs like Viagra, would really even be able to keep up with the ceremony?

As far as time span?  Honestly, a "period" could last 5 years or 5 decades, but I feel like years is more sensible.  The "middle period" when the purges happen could also be brief, and come to think of it, Fred's arrest and Winslow's presumed arrest, as well as the escaped children might be enough to bring that on.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/28/margaret-atwood-announces-the-handmaids-tale-sequel-the-testaments

I've always thought Gilead probably only lasted a couple of decades, partially because in 2195 they are studying it almost as if it's ancient history.  I know it was a closed and very secret society, but 200 years later and we know quite a bit about many societies like that, AND they would have had the soldiers who fought against, and eventually bring down Gilead, stories as well.  They would presumably restore relations ASAP, as well as communications, and be writing books, appearing on TV, etc.  

That part never made sense to me, and since the underground female railroad is also mentioned, including a connection with Quakers in Maine helping women escape to Canada, why wouldn't the escapees have been in communication with "the world" from Canada, as I keep hoping our cast in Canada will?

Anyway, since the middle period is full of purges, it seems like it would be rather brief, I mean how many more can they kill?  Fred is supposed to be one of them I believe.  

ETA The show seems to have babies all over the place, and that too is very different from the novel.  POC were still having babies normally around the world, but Gilead killed all of theirs, or sent them to work in the Crop Colonies, with males and females in separate areas, so lack of new births alone would doom it.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Umbelina
eta

[SuzieSioux]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

That part never made sense to me, and since the underground female railroad is also mentioned, including a connection with Quakers in Maine helping women escape to Canada, why wouldn't the escapees have been in communication with "the world" from Canada, as I keep hoping our cast in Canada will?

There is a brief mention at the end of the novel that Canada was rounding up refugees and sending them back to Gilead (similar to, for example, what China currently do with North Korean refugees). Perhaps they were too scared to speak up while in Canada in case they were deported? The Professor mentions this as being a reason why it would've been better for Offred to escape to England. Also, there is mention of Save the Women campaigns being particularly big in England so there was knowledge out there, but there is also mention of refugees being scared of speaking out even there in case retaliation was taken out on loved ones back in Gilead (body parts being sent to them in the mail etc.). Another similar real life thing happening at the moment in my country is that people from China, even if they are citizens here, are having their families back in China threatened by the Chinese government if those here speak out politically about what is going on back there; particularly if they are Chinese muslims.

Information would still get out of course, and it would be interesting to know what happened between the fall of Gilead and the symposium that resulted in so much loss of it. There is mention that the Gilead elite got rid of a lot of information themselves, particularly during purges. It's fun to speculate, anyway!

[chaifan]

WaPo's review of The Testaments. https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/praise-be-margaret-atwood-has-published-a-sequel-to-the-handmaids-tale/2019/09/03/88f17b7a-ce44-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

I don't consider the review a spoiler, but if you're a purist you might, so don't click on it.  However, (minor book spoiler ahead)

Spoiler

it does explain why we got such a tiny glimpse into Aunt Lydia in the show - she's the prime narrator of this book!

[Umbelina]

Vanity Fair article about the new book.

NPR first read

[Umbelina]

On 9/3/2019 at 6:58 PM, chaifan said:

WaPo's review of The Testaments. https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/praise-be-margaret-atwood-has-published-a-sequel-to-the-handmaids-tale/2019/09/03/88f17b7a-ce44-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

I don't consider the review a spoiler, but if you're a purist you might, so don't click on it.  However, (minor book spoiler ahead)

  Reveal spoiler

it does explain why we got such a tiny glimpse into Aunt Lydia in the show - she's the prime narrator of this book!

I started a new topic so we can openly talk about this.

Thanks for the great link!

[greekmom]

I'm wondering since both Fred and SJ are very popular characters in show if they will kill them now in the show like the did in the book? Seems unlikely at this point.

[Umbelina]

13 minutes ago, greekmom said:

I'm wondering since both Fred and SJ are very popular characters in show if they will kill them now in the show like the did in the book? Seems unlikely at this point.

Fred dies, but does Serena?

I have no problem with Fred being killed, painfully.  

I keep thinking Serena, the voice of the movement, the one who convinced so many, would be a powerful voice/weapon in taking down Gilead as well.  

[greekmom]

4 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Fred dies, but does Serena?

I have no problem with Fred being killed, painfully.  

I keep thinking Serena, the voice of the movement, the one who convinced so many, would be a powerful voice/weapon in taking down Gilead as well.  

In the epilogue of the novel states that Gilead fell after a few-decades long establishment as a result of "sinning" commanders who were not obeying the laws and traditions. As a result of such sinning, there was a purge and it is mentioned that Fred was one of the casualties taken out by an establishment of both his and Serena's own making.  

I just assumed that since Fred got the wall so did Serena. I mean what use would she be to Gilead? She's barren, she wouldn't be supported as a widow of a sinner and she old than the young nubile wives they are prepping for the up and coming commanders. Either she got the wall as well, she was thrown into working in the wasteland or placed as a Martha or at Jezebels? 

[Umbelina]

3 minutes ago, greekmom said:

In the epilogue of the novel states that Gilead fell after a few-decades long establishment as a result of "sinning" commanders who were not obeying the laws and traditions. As a result of such sinning, there was a purge and it is mentioned that Fred was one of the casualties taken out by an establishment of both his and Serena's own making.  

I just assumed that since Fred got the wall so did Serena. I mean what use would she be to Gilead? She's barren, she wouldn't be supported as a widow of a sinner and she old than the young nubile wives they are prepping for the up and coming commanders. Either she got the wall as well, she was thrown into working in the wasteland or placed as a Martha or at Jezebels? 

yeah, but no mention of her death.

Looks like she escapes (is kidnapped) into Canada so she may have more options now.

Gilead is done.

[Umbelina]

I think it's safe to say the show is now firmly into the second novel.

I still think the biggest mistake they made was ignoring the horrific and central racism issue.  Show the commanders ranting and raving about the normal birthrates in India, and Africa, and that the white race was being wiped out, show the damn white supremacy, it was key.

I think the cast could have still had plenty of POC, just not as Handmaids or in Gilead proper.  Start Moira in Jezebels, and have June run into her sooner there and they catch up.  Show the colonies.  Show the murders and purges at the University Emily is teaching at, or have her wife have to run to avoid being murdered.  Then since we moved to Canada so quickly, let us follow a few who escaped early there, including Moira and Emily's wife.  Have POC working for the resistance.  

I mean I get it, but you can't sacrifice such a huge part of the story that way and expect it to hold together well for non book readers.

Also, why be so coy about what part of the USA is still inhabitable, after all the power plant accidents, and pollution caused by people?  They actually had a map, but blurred it out.  We saved it in the spoiler thread, but still...

 

[EllaWycliffe]

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I think it's safe to say the show is now firmly into the second novel.

I don't agree in that the second novel was set 14-15 years out from the first book and we're not there. I'd also argue that Aunt Lydia of the book is a much different character than Aunt Lydia on the show. Book Lydia was a judge, who was tortured and broken into becoming an Aunt and who in her confessional writings admits she broke and took the easier path and was doing what she did in the book to make up for it. She was never on board with the Sons of Jacob before she was rounded up and mentally and physically tortured. 

TV Lydia was a school teacher who was somewhat embittered over her relationship difficulties and got religious and judgmental at just the right time. While she has the occasional soft spot, mostly for Jeanine, she's got the crazy eyes of a real true believer in Gilead. Now could TV Lydia grow a heart and learn some regret? Sure, but we're not even close at this point, in my opinion. 

[Umbelina]

26 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

I don't agree in that the second novel was set 14-15 years out from the first book and we're not there. I'd also argue that Aunt Lydia of the book is a much different character than Aunt Lydia on the show. Book Lydia was a judge, who was tortured and broken into becoming an Aunt and who in her confessional writings admits she broke and took the easier path and was doing what she did in the book to make up for it. She was never on board with the Sons of Jacob before she was rounded up and mentally and physically tortured. 

TV Lydia was a school teacher who was somewhat embittered over her relationship difficulties and got religious and judgmental at just the right time. While she has the occasional soft spot, mostly for Jeanine, she's got the crazy eyes of a real true believer in Gilead. Now could TV Lydia grow a heart and learn some regret? Sure, but we're not even close at this point, in my opinion. 

I said earlier that I think the author may have designated Aunt Lydia because she liked Dowd's performance, but in reality, it could have been any Aunt.  

I think June's heading for Chicago (I could be wrong) and in the second novel June is fighting in Chicago.  Also, her youngest IS raised in Canada, and her oldest stuck in Gilead.

We've, IMO of course, left book one behind, June is gone, and now we know where.  Straight up freedom fighter now, pulled off a major operation, which she also conceived and drove, and if I'm correct, now heading to the front to fight a more traditional war.  (also confirmed in the second book)

My guess is we will continue to explore what happens to June as the most wanted in Gilead, as she evades and fights, and her kids grow up by season 6 (with montages of battles, time forwards, etc.) None of this was in the first book.

ETA

Also of course being continually on the run while her kids grow up, also easy montage possibilities to push time forward.

I agree though, we are seeing the years between, the set up for the sequel is happening on screen right now.  Grey area?

Edited April 29, 2021 by Umbelina

[EllaWycliffe]

3 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I said earlier that I think the author may have designated Aunt Lydia because she liked Dowd's performance, but in reality, it could have been any Aunt.  

Sure, but in TV Lydia's case, we don't have a background where she was turned by mental and physical torture - and therefore likely to have some hidden resentments - TV Lydia joined in as an Aunt wholeheartedly. 

There's currently some other significant differences. June's husband in the book is never mentioned beyond how they were separated, and June's lover Nick only is mentioned in the second book as working with the resistance. Nicole in the book went to strangers in the resistance and the whole Serena Waterford being obsessed with the baby is unmentioned and everyone seems to know who has Baby Nicole. There's a Moira like character but its not Moira. Further, in the book it was always understood by June that she couldn't rescue Hannah. 

More importantly the Angel Flight on the show is unmentioned and that would have significantly overridden the attention Baby Nicole would have gotten - they don't have one little martyr, they have dozens and a huge diplomatic extravaganza (that should happen, but I kinda wonder) over the abduction of 85 more children from Gilead. And there's no way the Angel Flight stays a secret on either side, there's way too many people on both sides who know it happened.

Because I liked The Testaments, I'd be happy if the show went in that direction but I have a feeling the show and the books will always be Mirror Mirror verse versions of each other. 

[Umbelina]

22 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Sure, but in TV Lydia's case, we don't have a background where she was turned by mental and physical torture - and therefore likely to have some hidden resentments - TV Lydia joined in as an Aunt wholeheartedly. 

There's currently some other significant differences. June's husband in the book is never mentioned beyond how they were separated, and June's lover Nick only is mentioned in the second book as working with the resistance. Nicole in the book went to strangers in the resistance and the whole Serena Waterford being obsessed with the baby is unmentioned and everyone seems to know who has Baby Nicole. There's a Moira like character but its not Moira. Further, in the book it was always understood by June that she couldn't rescue Hannah. 

More importantly the Angel Flight on the show is unmentioned and that would have significantly overridden the attention Baby Nicole would have gotten - they don't have one little martyr, they have dozens and a huge diplomatic extravaganza (that should happen, but I kinda wonder) over the abduction of 85 more children from Gilead. And there's no way the Angel Flight stays a secret on either side, there's way too many people on both sides who know it happened.

Because I liked The Testaments, I'd be happy if the show went in that direction but I have a feeling the show and the books will always be Mirror Mirror verse versions of each other. 

I liked it too.

My thinking is that Atwood almost certainly gave them a hint that she viewed June as a freedom fighter, someone who got involved directly with the revolution.

I don't think she had the rest completely fleshed out yet, probably the whole daughters thing was something she knew she was going to include, but at best she told the producers the daughters would be even more important later.

Did she even know she'd have an aunt as kind of a warped mastermind?  Maybe, but I honestly can see watching Lydia's performance and deciding she liked it and it fit with what she was thinking about.  I think she may have told them to throw in some tender moments with her, but not why.  The whole background though?  Yet to be solidified.

Hers, of course, makes more sense, and is more compelling than show Lydia's.  However, even with the background she has, I think the show can bend it to fit, and they probably will.  For example, perhaps she's "all in" or thinks she is, but then is treated like crap and goes through the torture and all the rest, because in reality, women mean nothing once Gilead takes hold.  Conned a bit, in a similar way to Serena, thinking she would be a special one, but in the end?  Just another woman, and treated like dirt. 

Still other points (the ones I mentioned above) do fit in with Testaments.

If, next season, we see Moira and Luke hide Nicole with friends, I will not be surprised.  If we see Hannah growing even more all in with Gilead beliefs, yes, that would probably happen anyway, but...  She already looks almost of age in Gilead times to marry.  Her parents are kind and she can "twist her dad around her little finger."  Maybe that is how she escapes marriage as she does in the sequel.

Will it be a perfect fit to the sequel?  No.  The writers may have had hints, but they also had a show to produce and actors with contracts to keep on screen, etc.  

However, in the afterword, they mention that June (using that name as a short cut) is probably protecting people, so leaving them out of her first person tale, as well as a lot of details about what happens after she makes the tapes.  She's very secretive.

Oh and the whole plane full of kids being rescued?  I take that as the show writers taking the hint of June becoming a significant participant of the revolution, and upping it a notch for TV.

Even that though?  Can work with the sequel.  She is protected one last time by Lydia after being captured, (which yes, kind of idiotic) BUT that would explain about her being #1 on the most wanted list for years.

Now of course they have the book, and can adjust to have the two stories merge in a way that I think will work.

That's what I think we are watching this season, the beginning of June's lost years, with Hannah raised to be a faithful Gideon woman, and Holly/Nicole in Canada, possibly soon to be hidden away.  Although, the writers may change that to Luke and Moira going into hiding to protect Nicole themselves, again, just to keep the actors on screen.

The episode "Chicago" may tell the tale if I'm way off on this or not.  I think we're entering the world described in the sequel though, with June fighting, and running, and hiding, while the girls grow up.  (which again, I suspect will be fast forwarded, but not this season.)

As far as the first book?  Except for a bit of the afterword, I think we're done.  

Also, I wonder if June continues to send Luke tapes, and Luke is the one that leaves them behind somewhere, rather than June hiding away in some cabin and making her record?

Edited April 29, 2021 by Umbelina