Michaeline: Making the Best of a Dystopian Timeline









(Images via Wikimedia Commons)

In preparation for Margaret Atwood’s new book, The Testaments (officially released Sept. 10, 2019), I re-read two classic dystopian novels. I finished George Orwell’s 1984 on Sunday, and Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale on Tuesday, then read right through The Testaments (the sequel to THT) on Wednesday.

That’s a whole lot of dystopia, folks. Fortunately, I survived the experience unbowed.

Orwell’s 1984 is THE fright novel about totalitarian systems. His vision is broad and deep, and his prose (generally) is economical and delivers its truth bombs with great precision. This is the book that gave us doublespeak, Big Brother and a clear way of talking about the rise of totalitarianism – in fact, he infodumps two chapters of a pretend totalitarian how-to manual in the last third, and it’s still a page turner. It’s not recommended for folks who need a happily-ever-after – Orwell’s book is bleak, and the only happy ending is death, and the government is stingy with even that.

I read The Handmaid’s Tale in high school, a year or two after it came out in 1985. The parallels between 1984 and THT are there, but Atwood looks at dystopia from the women’s point of view. The US government is overthrown by an evangelical faction, and women suddenly lose all their electronic money, the right to work, and most other rights, as well. They are segregated into Wives, baby machines and domestic workers, with some women being multi-purpose “Econowives” and all excess women sent to dirty and dangerous “Colonies” to clean up toxic waste. (Unless they are killed outright.)

It was a fascinating book, and horrifying. In high school, I read a lot of horror – Stephen King was one of my favorite authors – but this was horror in a new way. I could see how people like Tammy Faye Bakker (wife of Jim Bakker, a popular TV preacher who guilted people into contributions) were becoming mainstream; I could see the hypocrisy of Phyllis Schafly, who told other women that their place was in the home, as she went from city to city lecturing. Women were better off than they had been, but still struggling against glass ceilings and discrimination in the workplace. Atwood’s world did not seem 100 percent inconceivable.

I never thought I’d read that book again. It was frightening and scary, and some of the imagery lasted more than 30 years. I’ll never forget the loveless procreation, where the handmaid (according to Biblical precedent now made law in Gilead) lay between the knees of a Wife while the man of the household rutted until his business was done, and hopefully, the handmaid was impregnated. Hopefully? No, that’s almost entirely the wrong word. Hope in this world was something rationed, like the food, the clothing and the sex. Hope was just as likely to be a bedsheet tangled in an overhead chandelier.

However, I’m glad I read it again, because it’s a different book when read from the perspective of a woman with savings, who has spent much time working, who is beyond her reproductive prime. It’s still horrifying, but the details are so well-observed that you can forget about the horror for a little while.

And, it has an ambiguous ending that could be happy if you were the optimistic sort. I’ve always been optimistic.

THT was ahead of its time, and really, very little has changed in the relationship that this book has with our present day society. We don’t live in Gilead, despite everything that’s been happening. Not yet. But it’s still scarily possible that we could slip into Gilead.

The Testaments don’t really expand on that vision of horror, but rather, it explores the ramifications more deeply, through the recorded stories of a young woman of Gilead, a young woman from free Canada, and an old woman (my age, maybe) who holds an important position of power within this patriarchy. You can’t get rid of the women in any patriarchy, or you’ll have a very short-lived patriarchy.

I am pleased to report that there IS a happy ending. Atwood might be ready to write happy endings unambiguously, or she might maybe feels strong enough at this point in her long and renowned career that she can end a book in the way the book wants to end. Or maybe she’s just sick and tired of unhappy endings. It’s a far cry from Orwell.

And I feel if I say anything else, I might accidentally spoil things from either TT or THT. So, I’ll leave you to read the books.

But, as writers of romance and love, there’s a lot we can learn from Atwood’s books. There’s a lot of love, and it’s not easy love. It can’t be easy given the circumstances, but it can still be felt.

Second, women turn to humor to ease their troubles and burdens. And women are funny – with sharp humor that has been rewarded with muzzles and scold’s bridles in days gone by (when heard by the wrong parties). You can read the sense of humor in so many of our Ladies’ published works; we know how effective it is as a tool for truth and to ease some of love’s pangs.

Atwood also makes a point that there are always flowers. In real life, I think there are many men who are as attuned to the changing of the flowers; surely Mr. Collins, dolt that he is in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, surely even he knows what lilac’s bloom means, and feels deeply when the lilies scent the whole garden with their heavy fragrance. We don’t see that in Austen’s books, but women are allowed to talk about flowers, and assign all sorts of metaphors and hidden language to the botany.

So, even though we live in times where we can find dystopia in the pages of any news site, even though reading fictional dystopia seems like pure masochism, I think it’s worthwhile to read The Testaments. There’s hope inside those pages, and maybe the warning will be enough to keep us from sliding into Gilead.

6 thoughts on “Michaeline: Making the Best of a Dystopian Timeline

  1. Like you, I read The Handmaid’s Tale when it came out. I found it horrifying, and yet…I could believe that in some way, in some place, such things could happen. It seemed to me to be a clarion call to stay vigilant in protecting our rights. I’m glad to hear that The Testament has a “happy ending,” although I almost fear what that might be! And because I’m not able in these dystopian days to read dystopian novels, I will just have to wait a while before I tackle that one, happy ending or no.

    • I was very curious to see how Atwood would incorporate our present times into the plot and characterization, but it’s either so subtly done that I can’t see it, or it’s all subtext level. So many problems just seem to be recurring cycles. Women have been fighting for rights in 1899 (the Modern Woman), which is when my historical WIP is . . . and I know there were plenty of activists in the 20s, the 60s and possibly other eras that I don’t pay much attention to. I am sure there was a very active component around the Regency — Jane Austen wrote her books on the foundation of it, and Frankenstein’s creator’s mother was a very active activist.

  2. No dystopian novels for me, I’m afraid. I have enough troubles with reality. I was glad to hear your impressions of Atwood’s new book and about the potentially happy ending.

    Still not on my reading list, but now I know who to reach out to if I ever want to know more about it.

    • LOL, I have a brain like a sieve. Very good book, but I need to discuss if it I hope to remember it.

      I love science fiction, but a huge problem with that genre is that there are so many horrible dystopias. And one of my least favorite tropes is the poor, abandoned waif who is misunderstood by dystopian society. The Testaments does have abandoned (in a sense) waifs, but they’ve all got agency, and don’t tend to wallow.

      (I’m using “wallow” a lot — one of my favorite authors from high school/college had characters who wallowed a little bit. I probably needed it then, but when I outgrew it, I disliked it. She was quite influential, I believe, and some people who took after her REALLY wallowed in angst and teenage misery, so . . . IDK, flashbacks? I probably don’t need to be so critical of wallowing, because it does have a place, and it is a cup of good tea for many people.)

  3. Everything Elizabeth said. It’s fascinating that Atwood felt compelled to write a sequel after all this time, and I’ve been super-interested to read the commentary and discussion it has sparked, but I won’t be reading it. My kindle is a dystopia-avoiding rainbows-and-unicorns temporary refuge from reality, and I plan to keep it that way. In these crazy days it’s good to have a happy hideaway 😉 .

    • I should read more of the commentary and discussion. Good Omens had a super-fan-base, and I was surprised to read of people who brought books that had been almost read to death (falling apart at the spine, water-stained, losing their covers) for the authors to sign. I mean, I loved the book, but I wasn’t involved in the fandom, so I had no idea.

      I never think of literary stuff having a fandom, either, but I think the TV show for sure boosted a fandom. Even stuck over here in Japan, I’ve seen news of women cosplaying the red gowns and white bonnets of the Handmaids. I wonder how much the TV show had with Atwood’s decision to write a sequel? She does mention that people got things . . . not wrong but different from her original vision. For example, Offred (whose name would change every time she had to go to a new home) seems to be called June now, on a fan theory that Atwood said wasn’t in her mind at the time of writing. But, Atwood doesn’t provide the “right” (ie: author’s) name for Offred, so June it is. Again, I’m not in the fandom, so I don’t know the nuances of that. But, Atwood is pretty careful to provide at least some of the real names for the Of-Commanders in the sequel.

Let Us Know What You Think

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s