Palimpsest: Novel vs. Show

[nycapa]

I wanted to chime in about the choice to make the show's version of Gilead "post-racial".  I agree that it is very problematic to suggest an extremely misogynistic world would not also be extremely racist, it does not make logical sense and I don't think ignoring race was the only way to avoid ending up with an all-white cast.  They are, after all, making the flashback scenes much more elaborate than the book, and could have included plenty of diversity in those scenes, even if they felt that delving deeply into the Children of Ham story was out of the scope of the series.  But now that they've made this decision, I hope (and feel they may) use this diversity to add nuance to these characters and perhaps the showrunner was downplaying the impact of the casting on the story.  For example, Moira has been portrayed from the beginning as being more cynical, more politically aware, bolder, and with much more of a rebel's spirit than June.  She has a personality that could inspire resistance, and clearly she does inspire this in June.  I see this part of her character being very tied to having lived a life fighting prejudices even in normal society in a way that June as a cis white person never did.  That contrast could be very compelling to explore.  Ofglen/Emily is similarly portrayed, she has a lifetime of being a marginalized person to draw from.  For June, though she is a woman and obviously the evil of the patriarchy is the heart of story, she still lived a life of relative privilege.  She had probably done fine in life just going along with the status quo, not having to think much about oppression, hence why she did not wake up until it was too late.  She is obviously not a willfully ignorant person, but perhaps allowed herself to be a little blissfully ignorant.  Making Luke and therefore Hannah POC is fascinating to me, because I want to know more about how June perceived their experiences as a person who never had to personally deal with racism.  And what does that say about June that the two people she was closest to in life - Luke and Moira - were people of color?  Did she consider herself colorblind?  Or did she recognize how their experiences of the world were different from her own?  When you take a look at the palette of different characters this adaptation works with, they do in fact represent a large spectrum with no two major characters occupying exactly the same status in this world.  From highest privilege - Fred, to lowest - Moira, and multiple levels in between.  Where would a black man like Luke fall in the spectrum?  Of greater privilege than Aunt Lydia because he is a man?  Or of less because he is black?

[Umbelina]

https://thinkprogress.org/making-dystopia-diverse-how-hulus-the-handmaid-s-tale-updates-the-classic-3e3f9f23401

Article on the race question, show vs book. 

Quote

 

“What’s the difference between making a television show about racists and making a racist television show? I don’t know that there is any apparent difference when you’re watching.”

But once Miller and the writers made the decision to move the timeline of the novel up about 30 years, Miller said they asked themselves what’s changed since the book came out. The conservative evangelical movement, fairly homogenous at the time the novel was published, is “a little more diverse” now, Miller said. While it is “a generally very Caucasian movement still,” the leaders of Hulu’s Gilead are less fixated on race than they were in the book. As Miller put it, their worldview is: “Being a different color is not being a heretic. Believing something different is being a heretic.”

 

I think they completely blew it by not including the racism.  In 2017, as we are seeing right now in our world, racism is just as bad if not worse than in 1985. 

They could have a diverse cast, just include the Children of Ham and what becomes of them, since they are doing two seasons anyway, and they are racing through the book material on the show.  They could have also included scenes in rounding them up and getting rid of them, breaking apart friends and families.

It really takes away from the utter horror of this story.

They aren't really doing a first person account anymore, or we wouldn't have seen OfGlen wake up from surgery or the hanging of her "Martha."

In the book, first person works very well, the limited information OfFred has increases the horror and isolation.  In a show?  No.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Umbelina

[ChromaKelly]

On 5/3/2017 at 10:01 PM, stagmania said:

I agree an all-white cast would've been the wrong way to go, but it wasn't the only option. They just need to explain why this society appears to be post-racial. Build something into the mythology, come up with a plausible explanation, but don't just ignore it. Our 2017 brains keep tripping over the obvious omission of the most prevalent oppression in our society, and the "I don't see color" approach to racism doesn't fly. 

Yeah, I just commented on that in the episode thread. I was distracted that whole scene because my brain kept shouting "this doesn't make sense!"

I agree. Either explain it - "The leaders of Gilead declared there were no more races, no more ethnicities, we were all one people. If one expressed displays of their ethnic background they were deported or shipped to the colonies." or follow the book and expand the scope to show what's going on in the colonies via Moira since they decided to make her black.

[Umbelina]

Anyone else feel like they are speeding through this book?  For example, the relationship with the driver/handyman and Offred?

I really expect to see the sex club on this week's show.  More and more now, knowing we will have at least two seasons, I wish they would have stuck more closely to the book, and showed us the other areas of Gilead, especially The Children of Ham area.

I'm ready for the Econowives, but I have a feeling they will go for the sex first.  I hope not.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Umbelina

[MV713]

what state is this supposed to take place in?  I assume very close to Canadian border.

[OtterMommy]

1 minute ago, MV713 said:

what state is this supposed to take place in?  I assume very close to Canadian border.

It takes place in Boston, MA.

[dmc]

16 minutes ago, legxleg said:

He's not supposed to have fashion magazines either, much less let Offred read them, or play illicit Scrabble with her. I think it's pretty clear that Fred/the commander only obeys the rules when he wants to. I imagine that the men in Gilead talk about their days with their wives, the same as they do everywhere (well, the men who are close to their wives that is), whether they're supposed to or not. And we never see him saying that he can't talk to Serena Joy about something because he's not allowed, or it's classified. He just freezes her out altogether, or makes a pointed comment about good men handling it. I could be reading too much into things, but I think he's sticking it to her to sort of twist the knife. But I suppose we'll see more about the state of their marriage as the series progresses.

In the book, he is basically having a sort of affair with Offred.  Any urges he has left over from that life he does with her including contraband.  

 

In front of his wife, he fully represents the interests of the state.  

 

The book is is so dark that words like love have no place in it even for the people in charge.  He's actually worse in the show than the book.

[PamelaMaeSnap]

Never mind. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by PamelaMaeSnap

[Eureka]

Watched episode 5 last night. My 2 cents:

In the book, we were never told explicitly that Nick was an Eye, were we? Offred was just told that "someone in the house" was and while it's a good assumption, I hate that they have to take away all the ambiguity from the book. I always assumed that Nick was officially an Eye but looked the other way (pun not intended) because he was also Mayday. I did like how they wrote the last scene because he didn't say a word and that is true to the book that he's a man of few words. He should have been holding a toothbrush or book though when she came to the door, like the book describes.

Was not a fan of the whole Emily at the outdoor market thing. Although in the book, she committed suicide so basically that is what she just did here too. They just took a detour to get her there. I did like how her Commander Wife was nice and sympathetic. She was also older than Serena Joy and maybe didn't feel the competition/ did not care if she had a baby. I just had a thought -wouldn't it be weird/gross if because in the book, so many of the Wives were older, if they had a grown daughter who ended up stationed at their own parents' house? Because all other identity seems to have been lost by then. Eeew.

I also did not like the hotel scene with Luke. I was under the impression from the book that he was already separated from wife #1 when they got together. I also, like some other people have been saying, don't think there's much chemistry on the show and in the book I always read it like they were "meant" for each other. YMMV.

It seems clear to me that the mother's feminist protesting theme stuff is never going to be included in the show.

[chocolatine]

1 hour ago, Eureka said:

I also did not like the hotel scene with Luke. I was under the impression from the book that he was already separated from wife #1 when they got together.

He wasn't separated yet. He and June were meeting at hotels in the book as well, and his wife kept calling her house when she found out. It sounded like Luke was already checked out of the marriage by the time he met June, but his wife wasn't.

[Eureka]

1 hour ago, chocolatine said:

He wasn't separated yet. He and June were meeting at hotels in the book as well, and his wife kept calling her house when she found out. It sounded like Luke was already checked out of the marriage by the time he met June, but his wife wasn't.

Thanks. I remember the hotel part from the book but not the wife calling.

[Umbelina]

I could even accept all of that if the show was showing any "LOVE" between them, but I'm just not feeling it.  Shit happens, people make mistakes, they aren't perfect.  The Luke scenes all just fall flat to me.  Even when June talks about his fetish for word origins it's like "So?" 

Yeah, the guy died, in the end he did try to get his wife and daughter out of there.  Or we assume he died, it's more than likely he died.  Still, I've just got nothing from the script or actor that makes me even like the dude, let alone see why someone like June would love him.  The gay comment and the "I'll take care of you" bullshit seriously nailed that coffin shut for me, as did his cheery "OK!" when June told him she wanted him to leave his wife.  How about a moment of guilt or shame or resignation or something that showed that he actually gave one damn about his wife, even if he had fallen in "love" with June?  Not excuses, just a flicker of an eyelid, clearing his throat, a swallow, a brave smile.  SOMETHING!

After that sadistic joy The Commander took in humiliating and endangering his two women during the ceremony on the last episode, I guess we are ready for Jezebel's now.  Holy shit.

I hope they aren't leaving the Econowives out of this story.

ETA

If these guys really cared about the lack of children they would be doing fertility tests and not killing men who can actually produce viable sperm, like Luke.  Of course, Luke was white in the book, and that opens the entire color blind fantasy the show has chosen to use.  I know they've explained it away with the whole "men aren't sterile it's all the women!" stuff, but think about it, in reality, if the birthrate and elimination of white Americans were such a big fucking deal, someone, somewhere, would still be trying to solve that.  They were worried about those POC taking over the world after all.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Umbelina

[dmc]

On 5/5/2017 at 2:13 PM, nycapa said:

I wanted to chime in about the choice to make the show's version of Gilead "post-racial".  I agree that it is very problematic to suggest an extremely misogynistic world would not also be extremely racist, it does not make logical sense and I don't think ignoring race was the only way to avoid ending up with an all-white cast.  They are, after all, making the flashback scenes much more elaborate than the book, and could have included plenty of diversity in those scenes, even if they felt that delving deeply into the Children of Ham story was out of the scope of the series.  But now that they've made this decision, I hope (and feel they may) use this diversity to add nuance to these characters and perhaps the showrunner was downplaying the impact of the casting on the story.  For example, Moira has been portrayed from the beginning as being more cynical, more politically aware, bolder, and with much more of a rebel's spirit than June.  She has a personality that could inspire resistance, and clearly she does inspire this in June.  I see this part of her character being very tied to having lived a life fighting prejudices even in normal society in a way that June as a cis white person never did.  That contrast could be very compelling to explore.  Ofglen/Emily is similarly portrayed, she has a lifetime of being a marginalized person to draw from.  For June, though she is a woman and obviously the evil of the patriarchy is the heart of story, she still lived a life of relative privilege.  She had probably done fine in life just going along with the status quo, not having to think much about oppression, hence why she did not wake up until it was too late.  She is obviously not a willfully ignorant person, but perhaps allowed herself to be a little blissfully ignorant.  Making Luke and therefore Hannah POC is fascinating to me, because I want to know more about how June perceived their experiences as a person who never had to personally deal with racism.  And what does that say about June that the two people she was closest to in life - Luke and Moira - were people of color?  Did she consider herself colorblind?  Or did she recognize how their experiences of the world were different from her own?  When you take a look at the palette of different characters this adaptation works with, they do in fact represent a large spectrum with no two major characters occupying exactly the same status in this world.  From highest privilege - Fred, to lowest - Moira, and multiple levels in between.  Where would a black man like Luke fall in the spectrum?  Of greater privilege than Aunt Lydia because he is a man?  Or of less because he is black?

In the book, the only mention of African Americans is offhand and mentions their resettlement to North Dakota for forced labor.  The only way to address that would be to casually mention it (ie the book) which would mean an entirely white cast because they clearly want to focus on one main handmaiden's story like in the book.  I think they wanted to stay as close to the book as possible while allowing for diversity within the cast and I think it's working.

[Umbelina]

Or, they could have simply shown the colonies and the forced removal of POC from Gilead proper which would have been more horrifying and appropriate, in addition they are liberally using flashbacks in this show.

There was no reason to gut the story in order to diversify the cast. 

SO many ways this could have been amazing and followed the story in the book as well.

[AnswersWanted]

3 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Nick was a huge character in the book as well though.  That part of this story seems to be jiving very well with the book. 

Anything else could be spoilerish, so maybe in the book thread?

 

As far as his general connection to Offred goes, yes, that was a big part of the book, but as the ending showed we never really know "who" he truly is, what his true motives are, that is what I was referring to with the show fleshing him out further, as they have done with the other characters.

The book created a great character but as with many of the figures from the original material, most have their lives, their grand purpose in this world, left open ended. We have to guess what happened to them, where they might have ended up, and where did their real loyalties lie.

I am actually looking forward to seeing what the show does with Nick now, some things have changed from the book already, but I like the direction so far. That's why I am not yet convinced he is a real "Eye", for the book had us believe, at least assume, otherwise.

[Umbelina]

Quote

As far as his general connection to Offred goes, yes, that was a big part of the book, but as the ending showed we never really know "who" he truly is, what his true motives are, that is what I was referring to with the show fleshing him out further, as they have done with the other characters.

The book created a great character but as with many of the figures from the original material, most have their lives, their grand purpose in this world, left open ended. We have to guess what happened to them, where they might have ended up, and where did their real loyalties lie.

I am actually looking forward to seeing what the show does with Nick now, some things have changed from the book already, but I like the direction so far. That's why I am not yet convinced he is a real "Eye", for the book had us believe, at least assume, otherwise.

@AnswersWanted

I think that in both the show and the book Nick is an Eye.  However, he's also a member of Mayday, which is why he gets Offred the hell out of Gilead at the end.  He's in a seriously tricky position.

That said, I honestly think the show did a better job of showing Offred's motivations for beginning the affair.  In the book, that just seemed too OTT for me, so dangerous.  The show?  Made me a believer.

[AnswersWanted]

7 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

@AnswersWanted

I think that in both the show and the book Nick is an Eye.  However, he's also a member of Mayday, which is why he gets Offred the hell out of Gilead at the end.  He's in a seriously tricky position.

That said, I honestly think the show did a better job of showing Offred's motivations for beginning the affair.  In the book, that just seemed too OTT for me, so dangerous.  The show?  Made me a believer.

 

Like I said, to me Nick was left an open ended character in the book and I am not yet convinced how the show intends to use him now. Could he be an "Eye"? Sure, but it isn't set in stone, at least nothing so far has me entirely convinced about it, and I actually like the idea that he may turn out to be someone entirely different, as he seemed to do in the book.

One of the reasons I liked the book so much was because Margaret wasn't determined to make the reader believe every single line as absolute fact. She allowed for us to come away with our own assumptions, our own personal beliefs and thoughts about what had happened. Even at the end of the book we're left with the knowledge that

Spoiler

we may not have ever even known any of the characters' true names, as Offred's name is never known even though the show decided to name her officially, that they were all aliases, so even on that note "Nick" was a cover for someone, someone who may or may not have been a truly "good guy".

So I do think that the book left a great guideline for the show to follow, but they aren't following it word for word, thankfully I feel, and I do believe they can do more to explore and expose these characters.

I like both versions of the affair because I feel they both fit with the themes within the book and the show. The Offred in the show that climbed on top of Nick is not the same one in the book who basically throws all caution to the wind in the most careless way because, to me, she's starting to fall apart.

The affair in the book seemed shrouded in darkness for so many reasons, while the affair we're now seeing coning together on the show appears to be about light, about life.

I liked how the show didn't have Nick and Offred make love in the dark; why dare to keep the lights on during such a risky encounter? So they could see each other, as clothing was removed and body parts were exposed and they watched each other's faces, taking pleasure in all of it, wanting to see the pleasure they were giving and taking from each other, it was a masterful scene.

I think that in the book you get a sense of hopelessness from Offred turning to Nick the way she does, but the show wants us to see her taking a leap of faith, having hope, daring to take something she wants, to have some ounce of control back in her own life.
 

[PamelaMaeSnap]

"I did like how her Commander Wife was nice and sympathetic. She was also older than Serena Joy and maybe didn't feel the competition/ did not care if she had a baby."

I found that scene really interesting/intriguing. Maybe I put more thought into it because this episode (well, and the last one with Ofglen/Ofsteve -- do we even know her name is Emily in the book? -- and "her Martha") are the first points for me where the show is veering very much out of book territory from Offred/June's POV to expanding on the bigger picture. 

Maybe I am not remembering it correctly but I wonder what was being implied or at least what we were to infer from Ofsteve's response to the seemingly kind, sympathetic woman about how she always seems to be too ill on ceremony night to go through with it. I inferred at first (totally me, here) that in a way Ofsteve is ... well, not offended but maybe worried or upset that if she goes through another posting without a baby she will indeed be shipped off to the Colonies and that could happen if her Commander's Wife keeps bailing on it. Yet, you would think that of any of these "Ofs," she would be the one who wouldn't care ... she's clearly miserable, suicidal, etc. Yet perhaps there is still that part of her clinging to survival and if so, rather than being relieved by not having to go through the Ceremony, she might feel like the CW is bailing and depriving her of her only chance to get out of there ...

Thoughts?

(BTW, I think Alexis Bledel really was great in this. Excellent casting. Just my humble opinion). 

PS Hubby has agreed to watch the first few episodes of this in time for him to decide whether to watch the last five with me if I will watch the first few episodes of Fargo to watch that with him ... most of our "watch together" shows are almost done for the summer. 

[dleighg]

1 minute ago, PamelaMaeSnap said:

she might feel like the CW is bailing and depriving her of her only chance to get out of there ...

I didn't see it that way. I saw it as "yes you're being nice, and helping me out right now, but you can't keep protecting me from the ceremony forever. I'm screwed. (literally)"

[PamelaMaeSnap]

14 minutes ago, dleighg said:

I didn't see it that way. I saw it as "yes you're being nice, and helping me out right now, but you can't keep protecting me from the ceremony forever. I'm screwed. (literally)"

I just realized that when I read the Episode 5 thread and commented there! Thank you! I like that reading of it much better because the wife really did seem like one of the more sympathetic characters we've seen ... now that I see it in that context it makes sense!

[Eyes High]

28 minutes ago, AnswersWanted said:

Like I said, to me Nick was left an open ended character in the book and I am not yet convinced how the show intends to use him now. Could he be an "Eye"? Sure, but it isn't set in stone, at least nothing so far has me entirely convinced about it, and I actually like the idea that he may turn out to be someone entirely different, as he seemed to do in the book.

One of the reasons I liked the book so much was because Margaret wasn't determined to make the reader believe every single line as absolute fact. She allowed for us to come away with our own assumptions, our own personal beliefs and thoughts about what had happened. Even at the end of the book we're left with the knowledge that

Although Book Nick is a cipher, I think the fact of Offred's escape at the end is enough to vindicate Nick, since he was the one who told her the van people were with Mayday, and it turns out that she was right to trust him. 

 

Quote

The Offred in the show that climbed on top of Nick is not the same one in the book who basically throws all caution to the wind in the most careless way because, to me, she's starting to fall apart.

Yes, Book Offred really falls apart towards the end, in between the reckless affair, learning of Moira being recaptured and broken, and seeing the photograph of her daughter.

Although there are still plenty of episodes left for Offred to start coming apart at the seams, it seems as if the show is leavening a lot of the book's darkness after 1x03 and 1x04. Both 1x04 and 1x05 ended on a positive note (June reflecting on how the other Handmaid helped her through the darkness, June claiming pleasure for herself with Nick). June is inspired not only by Moira's courage as she was in the book but by Ofglen's act of rebellion with the car, so maybe Moira being broken won't be as devastating for her as it was in the book. The show is also leaning pretty hard on the theme of the Handmaids helping each other and supporting each other: even Ofglen 2.0 for all her "Don't mess this up for me" talk seemed to be trying to protect Offred later on in the episode.

[Umbelina]

Ofwhoeversheisnow will die anyway if she doesn't have a baby.  While the wife was, I believe, both being kind and just not wanting to do this shit anymore, Emily has no options.  At that time, she was still trying to live.

I'm pretty convinced Nick was both an Eye and in Mayday.  That's why he warned her about Emily.  That's why he's so cautious about telling her anything.  At the end, he gets her out, at least long enough to make the tapes, so he saves her.

We don't have to spoiler tag in this thread by the way.

Anyway, the sex definitely worked more for me in the show than in the book, it was triumphant in the show, while in the book, it just felt so foolhardy.  I think Atwood's intentions could have been triumphant so it worked for me better here.

I loved the idea floated in the epilogue that maybe June made it all the way to England and kept her real identity secret to protect her child and others back home.  I hope she did.  I was so bummed when they got to the Questions part and the book ended!  I thought I read recently that Atwood is adding the questions and answers to the book.  New book, or show, or what?

That will be amazing.  They are doing two seasons and they've almost finished the book on the show really, so hopefully we will get a much longer epilogue.

ETA

I actually think the show is telegraphing Nick's belonging to the Mayday resistance much more than the book did.  I don't see why anyone would doubt him being an Eye either, they've done that as well, and he just risked his life admitting it as well.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Umbelina

[chocolatine]

41 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I'm pretty convinced Nick was both an Eye and in Mayday.

That was my impression in the book as well. I think Mayday had him pose as a model Gilead citizen so he could infiltrate their intelligence by becoming an Eye.

[AnswersWanted]

Frankly all I really want is for the show to show us who Nick really is, and I don't just mean what part of the government he's working for or if he's an insider spy, or if he's something else altogether.

I want to get to know the person himself. I like the actor they've chosen to play him on the show and I think he and Elisabeth have fantastic chemistry, not withstanding that amazing sex scene, but they genuinely seem to click and connect and, especially in this sort of setting, telling this sort of story, I find that to be paramount and key to making this all work.

I would like to see them explain more about his past, what was his life "before"? Also how did he end up with the Commander, how has he managed to prove his loyalty for so long, not just to the Commander but to the top heads of the Gilead Regime in general? What secrets lie in his past? There are so many questions I have about him, even when reading the book I found him the most interesting male figure in the story.

Pretty much all the others were either blank slates for the most part (Luke) or they were the rapists, those who enslaved, and the cold blooded murderers (The Commander and his ilk). Nick was not like the rest of them in many ways, he was the most human, I found, the most fully realized.

 

Quote

Yes, Book Offred really falls apart towards the end, in between the reckless affair, learning of Moira being recaptured and broken, and seeing the photograph of her daughter.

 

When the end nears for Offred, the way she reacts when she realizes she's lost Ofglen, she's crossed so many lines at this point, Serena Joy is out to get her, I remember thinking that if the van hadn't arrived when it did she was going to fall into a sort of abyss anyway. The Offred at the end of the book, in my eyes, has lost it all.

The Offred in the show, at this point, is refusing to give in just yet. As she said at the end of the first episode "she intends to survive".

[Eyes High]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I loved the idea floated in the epilogue that maybe June made it all the way to England and kept her real identity secret to protect her child and others back home.  I hope she did.  I was so bummed when they got to the Questions part and the book ended!  I thought I read recently that Atwood is adding the questions and answers to the book.  New book, or show, or what?

That will be amazing.  They are doing two seasons and they've almost finished the book on the show really, so hopefully we will get a much longer epilogue.

Atwood added questions and answers to the new edition of the audiobook, available here. Has anyone listened to the new edition?

I really want to know what happened to Offred after the end of the book's events. 

 

Quote

The Offred in the show, at this point, is refusing to give in just yet. As she said at the end of the first episode "she intends to survive".

Yes. I'm interested in whether the show will maintain a positive(ish) tone--although 1x03 was sooooo dark, my goodness--or match the book's spiral into despair. Too early to tell either way, I think.

[Umbelina]

$30 for questions.  Well, hopefully someone will write about them and we'll get the details soon.

[Eyes High]

2 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

$30 for questions.  Well, hopefully someone will write about them and we'll get the details soon.

I guess I've just outed myself as being too cheap to shell out for the audiobook myself. Oh, well.

I thought Atwood promised questions and answers:

Quote

I've added the questions and answers that I think the people at that symposium, occurring in 2195, might ask. It was an engrossing challenge for me to revisit that last scene of the book and address some questions that I know many readers and listeners have had, over the years, after finishing The Handmaid's Tale

[Umbelina]

http://pages.stylist.co.uk/books/margaret-atwood-handmaids-tale-alternate-ending-audiobook-sequel-books-hulu-tv-series-spoilers/

There may be more out there, a quick look found this.

Here's the free, not updated audio book:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z30Dl_uU8Qs

Edited May 12, 2017 by Umbelina

[chocolatine]

3 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

$30 for questions.  Well, hopefully someone will write about them and we'll get the details soon.

Yeah, I'm not spending that kind of money just to get the questions (I'm already splurging on Hulu just for this show). I have the Kindle version of the book, and Amazon pushes free updates to some Kindle books, so I'm hoping it will become available that way.

[Umbelina]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/handmaids-tale-audio-book-10-questions-991282

Reading between the lines?  There is a new book coming and not much REAL information comes from those ten questions, except things got worse for the women and Jezebel's more popular, nearly rock star status with trading certain women around. 

Edited May 12, 2017 by Umbelina

[Umbelina]

A bit more.  http://www.vulture.com/2017/04/margaret-atwood-hints-at-handmaids-tale-sequel-extended-audiobook.html

Searching Amazon reviews now, maybe someone spilled.  https://www.amazon.com/The-Handmaids-Tale-Special-Edition/dp/B06XFX6QJP/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494550862&sr=8-1&keywords=handmaid's+tale+audio+book+2017#customerReviews

Nevermind, there are thousands of reviews, and more of the "this is great" or "this is bullshit" variety along with "read this years ago."  Maybe someone spilled about the new additions to the book but I haven't the patience for it.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Umbelina

[Eyes High]

Thanks for the sleuthing, Umbelina. I think you're right about Atwood being stingy with information so that she can save it for the next book in the same universe. Le sigh.

I forget whether the epilogue indicates how long Gilead persisted, but I was under the impression the regime lasted for quite some time.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Eyes High

[dmc]

13 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Or, they could have simply shown the colonies and the forced removal of POC from Gilead proper which would have been more horrifying and appropriate, in addition they are liberally using flashbacks in this show.

There was no reason to gut the story in order to diversify the cast. 

SO many ways this could have been amazing and followed the story in the book as well.

I don't think they gutted the story.  They simply didn't want to take one sentence and turn into a huge plot.  All the flashbacks have to do with the main character because it's told from her pov and changing that is gutting the story.  So we would have to see from her pov the forced removal and then that would be it for diversity. Plus showing the hardship of African Americans through a white character is also problematic.  This way we get a diverse cast for the entire run hopefully.  

[AnswersWanted]

5 hours ago, dmc said:

I don't think they gutted the story.  They simply didn't want to take one sentence and turn into a huge plot.  All the flashbacks have to do with the main character because it's told from her pov and changing that is gutting the story.  So we would have to see from her pov the forced removal and then that would be it for diversity. Plus showing the hardship of African Americans through a white character is also problematic.  This way we get a diverse cast for the entire run hopefully.  

 

I agree. Even Margaret herself decided not to try and tackle the issue of the "Children of Ham" in great detail, as you mentioned. Frankly in a way it was a throw away line to explain why everyone in the book were of the same race as Offred herself.  Personally I never viewed this book as literature that dealt heavily with racism, the true horrors of it. And I believe that is because Margaret knew how easily that issue could swallow her story whole and take over from all other points she was attempting to make. It was part of the story but it was not the main subject matter.

And so far I wouldn't say the show is merely ignoring the subject of race and racism as if they are turning a blind eye; I see it already integrated in the infrastructure of Gilead. There are a tiny group of people of color who have been "allowed" to benefit from this new world order, but the majority are serving. They are in roles of servitude either physically or sexually.  African American bodies being exploited is at the very core of racism in this country, having their general rights removed, being subjugated, and being raped. I see those elements still in this show and I feel the way they're handling it keeps it grounded to what I see as my reality instead of a world that is removed from modern day to the point where it seems unbelievable or highly unlikely from happening.

I am a Moira, a gay, black woman and watching this show makes me aware just how easily down this dark rabbit hole I could fall based on the current attitudes and beliefs and government that surround me.

Edited May 12, 2017 by AnswersWanted
Name editing.

[dmc]

34 minutes ago, AnswersWanted said:

 

I agree. Even Margaret herself decided not to try and tackle the issue of the "Children of Ham" in great detail, as you mentioned. Frankly in a way it was a throw away line to explain why everyone in the book were of the same race as Offred herself.  Personally I never viewed this book as literature that dealt heavily with racism, the true horrors of it. And I believe that is because Margaret knew how easily that issue could swallow her story whole and take over from all other points she was attempting to make. It was part of the story but it was not the main subject matter.

And so far I wouldn't say the show is merely ignoring the subject of race and racism as if they are turning a blind eye; I see it already integrated in the infrastructure of Gilead. There are a tiny group of people of color who have been "allowed" to benefit from this new world order, but the majority are serving. They are in roles of servitude either physically or sexually.  African American bodies being exploited is at the very core of racism in this country, having their general rights removed, being subjugated, and being raped. I see those elements still in this show and I feel the way they're handling it keeps it grounded to what I see as my reality instead of a world that is removed from modern day to the point where it seems unbelievable or highly unlikely from happening.

I am a Moira, a gay, black woman and watching this show makes me aware just how easily down this dark rabbit hole I could fall based on the current attitudes and beliefs and government that surround me.

Agreed, these people are so horrible that I don't view the fact that some African-Americans are handmaidens as them not being racist either. I think since it was only one line in the book anything they did with it in detail would clearly have to differ from the narrative but I think the main reason they didn't tackle it is because of the first person POV.  The only way for them to include it would be for them to deviate from that narrative or show it through Offred's eyes.  So much of the power of this book lies in that it is one person's story.  Yes, we realize that there are other people in Offred's position but this is her personal narrative. 

 

Their only other option is we would to have view it from  Offred's perspective and I am really glad that people are moving away from showing racial stride through the perspective of a white person.  Because that wouldn't be about the African American people, it would be about how seeing that affected Offred and Offred's perception of that event. 

 

First person POV are so hard to bring to the screen, I think we all seen many failures.  IE: almost every version of the Great Gatsby

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, dmc said:

First person POV are so hard to bring to the screen, I think we all seen many failures.  IE: almost every version of the Great Gatsby

I'm convinced that The Great Gatsby is unfilmable. 

I agree about first person POV. I read a film article once pointing out that voiceovers in film (and presumably in television as well) are a pretentious lazy storytelling device--I guess because the idea is that sufficiently good dialogue and acting can convey the necessary emotions and thoughts--so I think a lot of screenwriters recoil at using them unless absolutely necessary. Sometimes, though, I don't think there's any good substitute. When The Handmaid's Tale was made into a film, they ditched the voiceovers, and I think a lot was lost as a result. Interestingly, the screenwriter for the film--the famous playwright Harold Pinter--hated voiceovers, so he ditched them, to disastrous effect in my opinion.

[crowceilidh]

Quote

The sheer inhumanity of not even having your own first name was mind boggling to me.

During the slave trade, this is what was done to many slaves when they came to America (or wherever).  They had white names or pseudo names (Caesar, f'rinstance) foisted upon them and lost their birthnames. Sheer inhumanity.

Quote

The only reason the rest of the world are allowing Gilead to exist at all is because they must also be dealing with their own fertility and environmental crises. Smart politicians are probably able to use Gilead as a cautionary tale for unwoke societies and it's helping other countries to come up with realistic workable solutions to their problems. 

So why is the rest of the world allowing Chechnya, just as one example, to persecute, torture and kill their gay people?  Because not enough politicians are gay to be indignant?

I teach THT once or twice a year, and for me, one of the things they are not expressing quite as clearly as Atwood does is that this kind of fascism is enabled by people's failure to understand the nature of the threat quickly enough -- a combination of disbelief and apathy. Because Offred herself is guilty of this same combination, I'm sorry they dropped her mother in favour of her going out to protests etc.  For me, Offred's youthful confused memories of her mother's political activism more strongly reflect Atwood's stance about how Gilead came to be.  Offred becomes even more apathetic about Gilead once she becomes involved with Nick.  I think Nick's casting is odd - he looks quite satanic (which is correct and purposeful (Nick)) but not adult enough to be worth risking your life for. 

I wish that Serena Joy was more like Tammy Faye and I find Joseph Fiennes as the Commander strangely effete, beard or no beard.  Because of the Tammy Faye Baker analogy, I always pictured the Commander as much more instantly dislikeable and pretend-macho like Jim Baker.  Especially during the Jezebel's scenes.

Quote

The previous Offred had committed suicide. I wonder if that's going to be brought up? Again, that would really affect the dynamic in that triad even if June had no knowledge of what had happened to her predecessor.

In fact, IIRC June does know in the book and contemplates doing the same on more than one occasion I think.  When June describes her new room at the beginning of the show, we got hints that she might know, which is fairly similar to how the issue comes across in the book.  It's one of the aspects my students often miss because it's talked about more indirectly than directly (and because they don't read very carefully<grin>).

Edited May 12, 2017 by crowceilidh

[Umbelina]

I understand those feelings, I simply don't share them.  The racism aspects in the book  horrified me as much as the misogyny. 

I've already given several ways they could have brilliantly integrated the cast, so I'm not going to repeat myself.  A perfect example really is the Hunger Games Trilogy.  Another first person book, and the film adaptation brilliantly expanded that world without changing it.  Katniss couldn't have seen all of that from her POV, but it worked.  They've already had scenes in the show that Offred couldn't possibly have seen, so they are already expanding that world.

We can agree to disagree.

[Pachengala]

You know, I suddenly have a question, watching the show, that's never occurred to me in the few times I've read the book. (Though admittedly, I have a lot more time on my hands to consider these things, given that I'm so wracked with fear from current events that I can't sleep anymore.) I don't think Atwood goes this deep in her world-building, and rightfully so given it's a POV story, but how did Gilead survive financially? I mean, the talk of sanctions says to me there was no money to be made from trade, and the worker pool has been slashed AT LEAST in half thanks to taking women out of the workforce, so that's a pretty big hit to your tax revenue, and the military costs at least have skyrocketed; how are they paying for all these new soldiers? For the Red Centers? The Commanders' salaries? It seems unsustainable to me; how many missed paychecks would your military accept before they turn on you? I hope the answer isn't that the money is coming from all the women's bank accounts they seized because a) wouldn't they have thought it through better than that? and b) that money would run out within five years at the most generous. 

[AllyB]

From latest episode thread;

On 5/10/2017 at 9:18 AM, Umbelina said:

It was more than that to me, I just didn't find Luke at all interesting as a person, not with his stupid gay sex questions, not with his lying to his wife, not with his "I'll take care of you" crap.  I just don't understand why she loves him, or really, why he loves her.  Seemed a lot more like a brief affair than a marriage to me somehow.  I mean, at least show some conflicting emotions there, or a reason why his marriage isn't working.  Or why he "loves" June, that would be helpful.  That banter about sex was painfully awkward to me as they discussed how and where they would have an affair.  The grooming part was good, but that was Moss nailing a weak scene.  Well, weak if this was supposed to be tru luv that is.

With so much of this show in so much depth, that whole relationship rang pretty hollow.

That's consistent with the book. Offred realises that in his own way Luke was part of the problem. He didn't set out to create Gilead but once he found himself living in it he didn't see it as a problem because he didn't intend to take advantage of the power he now had over June. Offred grew to accept in hindsight that part of him enjoyed his new position. They didn't belong to 'each other' any more, 'she was his' and it suited him just fine. Luke had a regressive streak that he would see as benign but was ultimately what allowed for both Gilead to flourish and prevented his family from escaping while they might have still had a chance. Note how in the protest scenes in the series he was not with Moira and June. He didn't feel the need to protest at women being forced out of work and having control of their bank accounts handed over to their male family. We don't see the scenes when June gets home after witnessing her fellow protestors being gunned down but I can just imagine him holding her while she cried, 'sensitively' insisting she calm down, shutting down any instinct she might have had to run for the border. He would have been secretly relishing the paternalistic role he found himself in, he and June probably even had great sex that night with him on top so he could comfort and protect her.

Luke has always been a personification of 'First They Came..." He wasn't overly bothered when women lost so many rights because he wasn't a woman. He probably wasn't bothered enough to act when homosexuality was criminalised because he was straight. (Book) Luke likely told himself his Jewish colleague had always wanted to live in Israel and closed his doors and turned up the tv when the black family down the street was being relocated to the Homelands. He would have said all the 'right' things, muttered about how terrible it was, 'sincerely' talk about how it must surely all blow over soon. And inside he would have had an ever growing sense of satisfaction at how pronounced his privilege had become while congratulating himself on what a great guy he was to still treat his wife well. And then of course, Gilead came for him.

[Eureka]

19 hours ago, Eyes High said:

I'm convinced that The Great Gatsby is unfilmable. 

I agree about first person POV. I read a film article once pointing out that voiceovers in film (and presumably in television as well) are a pretentious lazy storytelling device--I guess because the idea is that sufficiently good dialogue and acting can convey the necessary emotions and thoughts--so I think a lot of screenwriters recoil at using them unless absolutely necessary. Sometimes, though, I don't think there's any good substitute. When The Handmaid's Tale was made into a film, they ditched the voiceovers, and I think a lot was lost as a result. Interestingly, the screenwriter for the film--the famous playwright Harold Pinter--hated voiceovers, so he ditched them, to disastrous effect in my opinion.

Reminds me of Outlander. The first book was all Claire's pov and the series had to use a lot of voiceover (though imo some things were obvious from the visuals and they could have cut back) to get the inner monologue across. I'm not sure how they could have done this Handmaid's Tale series without voiceover. The entire book is literally Offred (I refuse to call her June) telling her story.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Eureka

[Eyes High]

Yes, I agree. Offred's running commentary on things, full of things she could never say out loud in Gilead--ironic, witty and biting (Book Offred compares Ofglen to a trained pig walking on its hind legs)--is absolutely essential to her character.

When I think of Atwood's work, I think of a particular mordant sense of humour, wordplay, a certain ironic detachment, etc. If you take that away from the story, to me it wouldn't really feel like Margaret Atwood anymore.

TV Offred's monologue feels to me like it lacks some of the sharp edges in the book. I think the show has a more optimistic vision of the power of female friendship than Atwood, another blunting of the pointier parts of the source material.

Good point about Outlander. Come to think of it, I remember Outlander got a fair amount of blowback from critics in its first season over the use of voiceover. 

Edited May 13, 2017 by Eyes High

[AllyB]

19 hours ago, crowceilidh said:

So why is the rest of the world allowing Chechnya, just as one example, to persecute, torture and kill their gay people?  Because not enough politicians are gay to be indignant?

Lack of gay politicians plays a part but isn't all of the reason. The situation in Chechnya is awful but it's not scary for Westerners. Rightly or wrongly, few people realistically fear that what's happening in Chechnya could spread to the EU, the US, Australia, etc. And how many world leaders fear for themselves if it did? Xavier Bettel is the only openly gay world leader in the world and Luxumborg isn't exactly a powerhouse of world influence with the authority to change anything in Chechnya. On the other hand if America fell to Gilead most of the world's population would be terrified and if Gilead's influence spread it would be some of the world's most powerful people first in front of the firing squad. Angela Merkel, Liu Yandong, Theresa May. They would care about ensuring Gilead was a fast and immediate failure in a way that is incomparable to any thought they may or may not ever have had about Chechnya.

[crowceilidh]

I think that more of the US would be complacent than terrified (many people would be terrified, but the US is mightily evangelical - just look at stats on how many read religious apocalyptic fiction or how many people STILL support #45 and think he's a righteous dude and just look at how many people are still saying, give him a chance because it's their perception, based on nothing, that he's a good Christian<!>).  I guess I think complacency is a very very strong influence on people's actions and wrong-headed sanctifying of pseudo-Christians is a particularly American reflex (although I suspect it's somewhat like Ford Nation - believing the multimillionaire who slums with the people in order to soak up the worshipful response is actually not self-interested).  But, I take your point.

[DangerousMinds]

3 hours ago, AllyB said:

From latest episode thread;

That's consistent with the book. Offred realises that in his own way Luke was part of the problem. He didn't set out to create Gilead but once he found himself living in it he didn't see it as a problem because he didn't intend to take advantage of the power he now had over June. Offred grew to accept in hindsight that part of him enjoyed his new position. They didn't belong to 'each other' any more, 'she was his' and it suited him just fine. Luke had a regressive streak that he would see as benign but was ultimately what allowed for both Gilead to flourish and prevented his family from escaping while they might have still had a chance. Note how in the protest scenes in the series he was not with Moira and June. He didn't feel the need to protest at women being forced out of work and having control of their bank accounts handed over to their male family. We don't see the scenes when June gets home after witnessing her fellow protestors being gunned down but I can just imagine him holding her while she cried, 'sensitively' insisting she calm down, shutting down any instinct she might have had to run for the border. He would have been secretly relishing the paternalistic role he found himself in, he and June probably even had great sex that night with him on top so he could comfort and protect her.

Luke has always been a personification of 'First They Came..." He wasn't overly bothered when women lost so many rights because he wasn't a woman. He probably wasn't bothered enough to act when homosexuality was criminalised because he was straight. (Book) Luke likely told himself his Jewish colleague had always wanted to live in Israel and closed his doors and turned up the tv when the black family down the street was being relocated to the Homelands. He would have said all the 'right' things, muttered about how terrible it was, 'sincerely' talk about how it must surely all blow over soon. And inside he would have had an ever growing sense of satisfaction at how pronounced his privilege had become while congratulating himself on what a great guy he was to still treat his wife well. And then of course, Gilead came for him.

I do wonder how all of these men were able to continue supporting their wives and families without the second incomes they likely very much needed.

[Umbelina]

7 hours ago, AllyB said:

From latest episode thread;

That's consistent with the book. Offred realises that in his own way Luke was part of the problem. He didn't set out to create Gilead but once he found himself living in it he didn't see it as a problem because he didn't intend to take advantage of the power he now had over June. Offred grew to accept in hindsight that part of him enjoyed his new position. They didn't belong to 'each other' any more, 'she was his' and it suited him just fine. Luke had a regressive streak that he would see as benign but was ultimately what allowed for both Gilead to flourish and prevented his family from escaping while they might have still had a chance. Note how in the protest scenes in the series he was not with Moira and June. He didn't feel the need to protest at women being forced out of work and having control of their bank accounts handed over to their male family. We don't see the scenes when June gets home after witnessing her fellow protestors being gunned down but I can just imagine him holding her while she cried, 'sensitively' insisting she calm down, shutting down any instinct she might have had to run for the border. He would have been secretly relishing the paternalistic role he found himself in, he and June probably even had great sex that night with him on top so he could comfort and protect her.

Luke has always been a personification of 'First They Came..." He wasn't overly bothered when women lost so many rights because he wasn't a woman. He probably wasn't bothered enough to act when homosexuality was criminalised because he was straight. (Book) Luke likely told himself his Jewish colleague had always wanted to live in Israel and closed his doors and turned up the tv when the black family down the street was being relocated to the Homelands. He would have said all the 'right' things, muttered about how terrible it was, 'sincerely' talk about how it must surely all blow over soon. And inside he would have had an ever growing sense of satisfaction at how pronounced his privilege had become while congratulating himself on what a great guy he was to still treat his wife well. And then of course, Gilead came for him.

Thank you so much for this. 

I don't know why, but I always did feel that about Luke, but didn't feel like the book spelled it out so well.  The last time, I just listened to it on tape, because I can't find my copy.  Anyway,  I was recovering from a sudden acute shell fish allergy, and the really, really surprisingly long recovery from that, and may have been a bit out of it while listening to the book.

This makes complete sense, and makes the scene in the show make sense as well.  It also explains for me, why I just can't stand Luke, or really begin to understand why in the world Offred ever loved him  Bad taste in men maybe?

I do kind of miss the mother being in the show/cast.  I think they've compensated for her presence pretty well, but in thinking about it, June shared some of Luke's traits there as well, not as many, but some.  It took her a while to appreciate her mother didn't it?  I've got to find my hard copy of this book...

Edited May 13, 2017 by Umbelina

[nodorothyparker]

Doesn't Offred mention at some point in the book that they never went to protests or did anything to resist until they ran, that they mostly stayed home and watched everything go to shit on TV at least in part because Luke kept  framing it as they had a family to think about and shouldn't be risking themselves like that?  That's probably why this portrayal of Luke doesn't really bother me much.  I never expected him to be any better than he is.

[AllyB]

14 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

This makes complete sense, and makes the scene in the show make sense as well.  It also explains for me, why I just can't stand Luke, or really begin to understand why in the world Offred ever loved him  Bad taste in men maybe?

People love people who aren't really worth it all the time. It took a long, long time for me to realise that my ex husband is a selfish narcissist and pretty much all of the nice qualities I loved about him were insincere. I have a number of female friends who are just great people but their current/past husbands have at best treated them poorly, at worst some literally make my skin crawl. I have an uncle who has somehow convinced three different women to marry him before they realised just what he was really like and divorced him. June loved Luke because some parts of him were so attractive to her that she overlooked his bad qualities to the point that she never quite recognised them while they were together. And that's just a really common factor in a lot of relationships/marriages.
 

Quote

I do kind of miss the mother being in the show/cast.  I think they've compensated for her presence pretty well, but in thinking about it, June shared some of Luke's traits there as well, not as many, but some.  It took her a while to appreciate her mother didn't it?  I've got to find my hard copy of this book...

To be fair to June, if my mother had the habit when I was a small child of telling me she was taking me to the park when in reality she was taking me to a protest, I'd have a hard time appreciating her too. When I take my son to a protest, I tell him we're going to a protest and talk to him about why in a way that he can understand. Lots of my friends take their kids to protests and they do the same. When we tell them we're taking them to the park, we take them to the park to play. To do otherwise would be truly crappy parenting, no matter how important the protest. I've always wondered what point Atwood was making when she wrote Offred's mother and I wonder if she was making a point about the overly dogmatic nature of some protestors. The mother was proven mostly right in her politics but the way she undertook her activism ensured that even her own daughter mostly disregarded her. I also wonder about the way we were introduced to the mother, not just misleading and disappointing her very young daughter but doing that so she could engage in the dramatic censorship of publicly burning magazines. Neither act makes her a sympathetic character because while I suspect that much of the pornography industry is exploitative, burning magazines makes me much more uncomfortable than porn. (Though maybe that was different in the mid-80s when the scene was written and burning porn magazines was normal feminist activity?)

[Umbelina]

Too bad there weren't hundreds of thousands of more crappy parents like her mother.  Gilead may have never happened if there were.

[stagmania]

On 5/11/2017 at 11:58 AM, Eureka said:

I also did not like the hotel scene with Luke. I was under the impression from the book that he was already separated from wife #1 when they got together. I also, like some other people have been saying, don't think there's much chemistry on the show and in the book I always read it like they were "meant" for each other. YMMV.

You're right, but you read it like they were meant for each other because the story was being told from June's POV. That is surely what she told herself to rationalize having an affair with a married man.

On 5/11/2017 at 3:17 PM, Umbelina said:

I hope they aren't leaving the Econowives out of this story.

I hope not, either. Thus far, they haven't really spelled out a lot of the mythology, including the difference between someone who gets to be an Econowife and someone like June who is forced into being a handmaiden. I'm not sure why they would include the affair backstory if this wasn't going to be fleshed out, though, so maybe it's coming.

On 5/12/2017 at 1:54 PM, crowceilidh said:

I teach THT once or twice a year, and for me, one of the things they are not expressing quite as clearly as Atwood does is that this kind of fascism is enabled by people's failure to understand the nature of the threat quickly enough -- a combination of disbelief and apathy. Because Offred herself is guilty of this same combination, I'm sorry they dropped her mother in favour of her going out to protests etc.  For me, Offred's youthful confused memories of her mother's political activism more strongly reflect Atwood's stance about how Gilead came to be. 

This was absolutely an important theme of the book and unfortunately an extremely relevant one to our current political moment. I agree that cutting out June's mother and the tension between them results in losing the resonance of that theme.

8 hours ago, AllyB said:

That's consistent with the book. Offred realises that in his own way Luke was part of the problem. He didn't set out to create Gilead but once he found himself living in it he didn't see it as a problem because he didn't intend to take advantage of the power he now had over June. Offred grew to accept in hindsight that part of him enjoyed his new position. They didn't belong to 'each other' any more, 'she was his' and it suited him just fine. Luke had a regressive streak that he would see as benign but was ultimately what allowed for both Gilead to flourish and prevented his family from escaping while they might have still had a chance. Note how in the protest scenes in the series he was not with Moira and June. He didn't feel the need to protest at women being forced out of work and having control of their bank accounts handed over to their male family. We don't see the scenes when June gets home after witnessing her fellow protestors being gunned down but I can just imagine him holding her while she cried, 'sensitively' insisting she calm down, shutting down any instinct she might have had to run for the border. He would have been secretly relishing the paternalistic role he found himself in, he and June probably even had great sex that night with him on top so he could comfort and protect her.

Luke has always been a personification of 'First They Came..." He wasn't overly bothered when women lost so many rights because he wasn't a woman. He probably wasn't bothered enough to act when homosexuality was criminalised because he was straight. (Book) Luke likely told himself his Jewish colleague had always wanted to live in Israel and closed his doors and turned up the tv when the black family down the street was being relocated to the Homelands. He would have said all the 'right' things, muttered about how terrible it was, 'sincerely' talk about how it must surely all blow over soon. And inside he would have had an ever growing sense of satisfaction at how pronounced his privilege had become while congratulating himself on what a great guy he was to still treat his wife well. And then of course, Gilead came for him.

Just wanted to give this whole comment a hard agree, and thank you for spelling it out. I almost did a long post about this in the episode thread before I realized much of what I was referencing was from the book and not yet part of the show. Luke is representative of how most people react when fascism arrives-which is why fascism has been able to take over so many times in human history.