Historical Notes: Making the Handmaid’s Tale Real

I think the Historical Notes section in The Handmaid’s Tale is a very “interesting” conclusion of the book, to say the least.  I feel as if this ending is a little anti-climactic to the previous 300 pages of the book.  Before this epilogue, Atwood leaves the reader on the edge of their seat(s); for we do not know what happens to Offred.  I am however a little “torn” with my opinion on this closing section of the book.  While I think it detracts a little from the suspense of not knowing what happens to Offred, I also think it provides a little bit of closure with giving extensive background information on the origins of the story.

I believe the function of the prologue of the book is to make the story seem more believable.  Reading the book from Offred’s point of view makes the story a little bit more real (as opposed to hearing it from a narrator’s point of view), although there is certainly some doubt that the story could ever be real since life is so different in the story than ours.  Hearing the (bulk) of the epilogue from Professor Pieixoto makes the story much more believable (for he could very easily be a real person), and in my mind it makes Offred sound like she actually lived, and it helps her story become even more realistic.  One example that I rather like of the prologue making the story seem realistic is the very last sentence of the book.  “Are there any questions” (Atwood, 311) shows that Professor Pieixoto is addressing a specific audience.  I rather like this ending because of its sense of finality, also because I felt like he was addressing the audience, straight from the book.

 

“Are there any questions?”

The historical notes section of The Handmaid’s Tale serves a very important purpose because it gives context to the story and answers some questions, while also asking more. The way that Offred’s account of her life ends on tape does not satisfy the reader, and so the historical notes give you that little bit more that the reader desperately wants.

Professor Pieixoto’s keynote address gives us more information about the larger society of the Republic of Gilead and the way it functioned, information that Offred would not know. We find out the larger context in which Offred and the rest of the people of Gilead lived, such as all of the civil wars and the theology and reasoning of many of the rules of the government. We also learn more details about the Underground Femaleroad and the large amount of resistance that Gilead faced. This information gives us a whole new set of circumstances in which to read Offred’s story.

We also find out answers to some questions in the historical notes, such as the fact that Nick must have been part of the Mayday group and orchestrated Offred’s escape because Offred’s tapes were found in a safe house of the Underground Femaleroad. We also most likely learn the Commander’s real identity, as well as his role in and contributions to the Republic of Gilead. Most importantly, we learn that the Republic is no longer a reality and is now something just to be studied. This brings the story to an absolute close because this society is no longer a threat to women and their freedom.

However much resolve the historical notes and Pieixoto’s address gives us, there are still questions that remain. We never learn Offred’s identity or her ultimate fate, along with those closest to her that she spoke so much about in her tapes. The fact that the address ends with Pieixoto saying “Are there any questions?” (Atwood 311) is represents how there are many more questions, but we do not get to learn the answers, for he stops the story there.

 

Historical Notes: a challenge to The Handmaid’s Tale

The historical notes section of The Handmaid’s Tale challenges the rest of the book in a variety of ways. One of the first and most obvious differences in regard to this section is the differing style of writing. The town hall meeting discusses average daily business and is filled with wit and laughter, a strikingly different tone then the preceding eerily memoir. The ending has a “lighter feel” and allows the reader a chance to recover from the story and gain a sense of closure. If Atwood had choose to omit this section, the story would have ended on a much graver note.

The reader is further comforted by the fact that much time has passed since the days of Gilead, and the customs of that society are merely a thing of the past. There continues to be much secrecy surrounding Gilead even to the present day and many questions remain unanswered.  I found it very interesting that the tapes had songs in the beginning of each to disguise their true content thus adding to the secrecy surrounding the story. The choice of these songs is also important to note, each adds meaning and irony to the story.

The historical note section may also serve as a warning to today’s society as, “some of the failure to reproduce can undoubtedly be traced to the widespread availability of birth control of various kinds”. It also blames many other byproducts of today’s society such as the AIDS epidemic, genetic deformities caused by nuclear power plants, chemical and biological warfare, and the uncontrolled use of insecticides and other sprays.

Choosing this ending also helps to legitimize the story. It attempts to show how a society like Gilead truly could have come about and in reality is not so different from other events that have occurred in history.  As the historical notes cleverly addresses, “there was little that was truly original with or indigenous to Gilead: its genius was synthesis.” I completely agree with this statement and believe that society is merely a culmination of the world’s past events and little is original, but rather a recombination of events and ideas.

 

Instructions for Blog Post #7 – The Handmaid’s Tale, part ii

The end of Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale has a section entitled, “Historical Notes on The Handmaid’s Tale.”  In your blog post #7, write a post responding to the “Historical notes on The Handmaid’s Tale.”

What do you make of this section of the book?  How does this challenge the rest of the book (the previous nearly 300 pages)?  What is the function of having THIS ending (i.e., the historical notes)?  What would the text be like had Atwood omitted the historical notes?

The usual list of criteria is below:

• Give your post a good title.
• Add tags (keywords) to the post.
• Posts must be at least 250 words.
• Posts must include at least one quotation from Atwood’s text.
• Stay focused on answering the prompt. Avoid repeating the question and be as specific as possible in your answer.  Remember to clarify the importance of your post.  Don’t just tell us that something is “important”; rather explain why it is important.
• Make an argument.  Don’t summarize the text.
• Use specific moments from Atwood’s book to support and illustrate your argument.
• Be sure to introduce, quote, cite, and comment on all quotations.

This response is due before class on Tuesday, March 1st. Blog comments (at least 2) are due before class on Thursday, March 3rd.

“Freedom from” vs. “Freedom to”

In The Handsmaid Tale, freedom of women is something that is not talked about much. The women just do as they are told and live by the rules. In Chapter 5, Aunt Lydia says to Offred,“There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia.  Freedom to and freedom from.  In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to.  Now you are being given freedom from.  Don’t underrate it.” This quote says a lot about freedom; it hints to Offred not to take the type of freedom she has “for granted” because things could be a lot “worse”. Freedom from, the type of freedom Aunt Lydia says Offred has, can be defined as protection or security. A few lines before this quote, we see the words “Women were not protected then.” This gives us the hint that freedom to during the “days of anarchy” must have been when women were not protected. Now, what Offred has, freedom from, keeps her confined, from whom?  Men. Men are no longer able to speak, touch, or make any typeof contact with them. The text states, “Now we walk along the same street, in red pairs, and no man shouts obscenities at us, speaks to us, touches us. No one whistles.” This type of freedom, freedom from, can be a good and a bad thing. Good, because the women are somewhat protected from men and out of harm’s way. Bad, because now women may have a hard time finding a soulmate, or possible husband. Also, sex life for them is also scarce. Aunt Lydia tells Offred “not to underrate it” because in some way, it is better than freedom to. Overall, in my opinion, it’s a “lose-lose” situation. Women can not have total freedom. They can not have their own voice or do what they please in either situation. Men will always have the “upper hand” and control them. As in today’s society, the male gender is the dominant gender. This is a reoccuring trend in society which may never be reversed.

Lay the Law

The Laws of Gilead, in Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, are well calculated to be as manipulative as possible. This particular passage establishes the rhetoric of these laws that consistently develop as the story progresses.

The syntax itself is conducive to the laws of Gilead. Aunt Lydia speaks in short, concise statements that offer no room for rebuttal or explanation, asserting the idea that reasoning for these laws are extraneous to the peons, and one must simply obey authority without question. Aunt Lydia also exploits misleadingly connotative language when she says “in the days of anarchy” (Atwood 24). The past existence was not an anarchy, yet Aunt Lydia still chooses to employ this term to arouse disdain for their former lives. This implication is conducive to the way Gilead propagates their laws and ideals. For instance, while watching the news with Serena Joy, Offred makes note of how “They only show us victories, never defeats” (Atwood 83). This news is misleading the viewers to believe how perfect the Gilead military is, yet if there have only been victories for this long, it does not seem likely that there should even still be a war. It demonstrates how the Republic of Gilead edits their projections to their benefit with no regard for integrity.

When Aunt Lydia vehemently says, “Don’t underrate it”, there is a commanding tone (Atwood 24). This instills a sense of duty to the women, and that they have to fulfill the demands of their authority. The severity of the statement also implies how there are dire consequences for transgression. It is clear how effective this domineering quality is from Offred’s mentality; she is often times presented opportunities to disobey the law, even in minute instances, like reading her “FAITH” pillow, yet she is always frantically conscious of the penalties (Atwood 57).

Aunt Lydia claims “Now you are being given freedom from”, as if their present existence was vouchsafed to them (Atwood 24). To be given something reaps gratitude, and implies that there is recompense to pay, which is how Gilead keeps the women from revolt. It is actually absurd that Gilead should be considered the benefactor: the republic has taken from these women their families, their identity, and their livelihood. Aunt Lydia’s “freedom from” idea is an oxymoron that presents the absurdity of these laws. “Freedom” is to be limitless, yet “from” implies that there are boundaries that is keeping something away. This presents just one of the numerous undermining discrepancy of Gilead, and foreshadows the impossibility to follow such absurdities.

Safety vs. Oppression

In this story, Offred is a girl who is living in a world of safety.  The life she leads is different from our lives in countless ways, however, it is all veiled in the idea of being safe and under protection.  The individuals in this story are being protected, it would seem, against their own will and to such a degree that it is no longer just protection and has moved so far to the extreme it has become negative.  Margaret Atwood’s story “The Handmaid’s Tale” is an intriguing discussion of the difference between being protected and being oppressed.

The women, and especially the handmaids, in this tale are confined to incredibly stringent rules that the concept of their safety has in many instances become a secondary concern to the need to reevaluate the freedoms that have been lost.  The women in this story used to have “freedom to” act the way they pleased and dress in a manner they wanted, whereas now due to all the oppressive protective measures that have been taken, they are able to “walk along the same street, in red pairs, and no man shouts obscenities at us, speaks to us, touches us. No one whistles” (Atwood 24).  Although these women have been given the “freedom from” men such as the ones who would yell at them on the street, they have lost much more than they have gained it appears.  While there may be less crime and this may be a safe place for them to exist physically, oppression is never a good place for individuals to exist.  The women of this novel will never really feel free because “freedom from” is being obedient and allowing someone else to make your decisions whereas “freedom to” is an individual making their own decisions and learning to be safe in the process.

Dehumanization of Women

In the city of Gilead in The Handmaid’s Tale, women are protected from violence but at a horrible cost- their absolute freedom. Women are no longer raped or abused by strange men but must submit to the state-sanctioned rape by their commanders. In chapter five Aunt Lydia speaks about freedom: “There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia.  Freedom to and freedom from.  In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to.  Now you are being given freedom from.  Don’t underrate it” (Atwood 24).

The “freedom to” she is referring to is the freedom to choose. In chapter eleven we can see how Gilead has taken away Offred’s ability to choose. The doctor has given Offred an escape and yet she is horrified at the thought of such freedom, of being able to make her own decisions: “Why am I frightened? I’ve crossed no boundaries, I’ve given no trust, taken no risk, all is safe. It’s the choice that terrifies me. A way out, a salvation” (Atwood 61). Offred has become accustomed to the prisoner lifestyle of Gilead. When she bears her chains well they are almost comforting for her and she does not dare to do otherwise.

The “freedom from” that Aunt Lydia talks about is freedom from violence. “Now we walk along the same street, in red pairs, and no man shouts obscenities at us, speaks to us, touches us. No one whistles” (Atwood 24). In chapter thirteen Janine testifies about how she was raped and had an abortion at fourteen, something that would never happen now in Gilead. However, with this freedom from, another freedom is taken away. In the society of Gilead, women are always the guilty party as is shown when the women in the group chant that the rape is Janine’s fault for leading the men on. The next week Janine admits, “It was my own fault. I led them on. I deserve the pain” (Atwood 72).

Through a close reading of Aunt Lydia’s quote in chapter five, we see that in Gilead women are protected and given freedom from many evils but at the cost of their own free will and choice. Furthermore women are dehumanized in this society as shown in the quotation: “I used to think of my body as an instrument, of pleasure, or a means of transportation, or an implement for the accomplishment of my will . . . Now the flesh arranges itself differently. I’m a cloud, congealed around a central object, the shape of a pear, which is hard and more real than I am and glows red within its translucent wrapping” (Atwood 73). Before, Offred’s body was an extension of herself but now she is no longer the master of her own body. Her body is now only the covering of the only thing that matters in Gilead- her womb. Offred is no longer a woman or even a human being-only a womb.

 

Security at the Price of Freedom

A fear plagues the women of the society and that fear has led them to cling to security over freedom.  The appreciation of security is furthered by citing everything that the women are to be given “freedom from” (24).  This is most evident in some of the old pornographic films that the women were shown during their time in training with the Aunts.  The films featured “women being raped, beaten up, killed” with sound included in order to create the greatest fear and trauma in the women watching (118).  Now the women are protected to the point that they are suffocated by the security and lack the “freedom to” which they held back before the collapse of the government and decline of the birth rate.  The protagonist often flashbacks to little moments of freedom that she never realized were so precious, such as having a job and having possession of her own property.  These freedoms were steadily traded for security as the people stopped the marches, due to the men with machine guns and poor attendance, then stopped trying to escape.  The quote from page 24 highlights the transition that the society has taken from freedom to security without allowing the characters to think about what they have sacrificed by defining both as a type of freedom.  The quote is given early on, before the audience receives details on how the society was constructed, and uses the early time to show the audience the dualism present in the novel and how it affects the mindset of the characters, allowing them to continue with the suffocating and oppressive regime.

“Freedom from”: A Supposed Luxury

In the first half of The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, freedom is largely the issue of focus. This passage, “There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are given freedom from. Don’t underrate it” (Atwood 24), suggests that freedom from such things as control and decisions is more of a luxury than Offred may think. This lack of control and decision-making is constantly shown in the first half of the book through simple, everyday occurrences such as what the individuals wear. What makes this passage so important is the way Aunt Lydia presents “freedom to and freedom from”. This differentiation presents a great contrast between Red Center and society outside of it.

This direct comparison of “freedom to and from from” is shown when Offred and Ofglen encounter Japanese tourists of Westernized society (that Aunt Lydia would refer to as “anarchy”), the society to which Offred once belonged. At one point, Offred is “mesmerized by the women’s feet” (Atwood 30) and continues to fantasize about what wearing open-toed shoes with polished toe nails felt like. She delves so deeply into this thought that she even says that “I can feel her shoes, on my own feet”. Something that is so simple, to people who have the freedom to paint their toe nails and wear open-toed shoes, is a daydream to an individual who has “freedom from” having to go through the complications of choosing a color and finding a way to paint their nails.

When Aunt Lydia says “don’t underrate it”, she is trying to convince Offred that giving all control to the Commanders of the Red Center is more liberating than having the ability to do whatever she pleases. She makes it seem that the freedom to do something was found only in the days of anarchy and chaos, implying that a place of stability and order provides an environment that requires no thought from the individual besides completing the task assigned to them.

This is main struggle for the first half of the book; despite every attempt by women of the house to show Offred that the “freedom from” is more valuable than the “freedom to”, quite often she still finds herself thinking about the way her life used to be and how badly she wants to return to it, flaws and all.