There are
plenty of spoilers ahead, so read on at your own risk.
I can’t find
it now, but I remember reading a passage in which Orwell talks about his
political fiction and how it was important to him that his novels be art first
and political second. Political fiction that
is mere didacticism will not have an impact because it will never be read or
tolerated.
Atwood was
clearly inspired by Orwell’s 1984, and she also appears to have shared
his position concerning political fiction.
The Handmaid’s Tale flies far above political handwringing to
create a compelling and disturbing narrative.
Atwood can successfully critique the direction she saw America heading
in the mid 80s because she wrote a story about a character with real blood in
her veins and placed her in a world made of flesh and bone, bricks and
concrete. The arts of language and
narrative come first in her telling of Offred in Gilead, and Atwood is a master
of those arts.
Part of what
makes the novel powerful—the part that I was struck by—is how imperfect a hero
Offred is. She didn’t see the warning
signs about where the world was heading when she was younger, and when she finally
did, she didn’t think much further than herself and possibly her daughter. As readers, we rally behind her insight and
her ability to analyze the horrors that she endures, but once she kicks off her
affair with Nick, she loses interest in the larger movement that Ofglen and
others are fighting for. Offred is not
here to start a revolution; she just wants her own freedoms back. To the reader she is simultaneously understandable
and frustrating. Presenting her
protagonist in this way allows Atwood to position her readers both behind
Offred’s eyes and above her, so that we can feel for her without being trapped
in her perspective, always forcing a little distance between us. Most readers are savvy enough to know that
you can’t fully trust a first-person narrative, but that doesn’t mean it’s
always easy to be critical of what we’re told.
Offred’s shortcomings help us do just that.
But what I
really want to talk about are the endings.
I use the plural because there is the ending to Offred’s account and
also the ending of Atwood’s novel, the “Historical
Notes on the Handmaid’s Tale.” Talk
about a roller coaster ride! First,
trained by 1984 and similar dystopias, I was expecting some real dark
shit to go down at the end of Offred’s account.
That it ended with her being escorted out to the Mayday folks was
surprisingly uplifting. Yes, technically
it’s a Lady-or-the-Tiger ending, but since we know she is writing the narrative
we have just read, it is unlikely that she was taken away and killed by the
Gilead government (although as I write that, I am certain some enterprising
scholar out there has written a solid essay about why we should believe that
very thing). So boom, surprise happy ending! But wait!
Enter James Darcy Piexoto and the Twelfth Symposium on Gileadean
Studies.
What a
powerful and devious move by Atwood!
After taking us through a dark and emotional journey through the looking
glass, she jerks us into the brightly lit halls of some convention center or
hotel where smug pricks like Professor Piexoto is saying shit like this:
If I may be permitted an editorial aside, allow me to say that in my opinion we must be cautious about passing moral judgment upon the Gileadeans. Surely we have learned by now that such judgments are of necessity culture-specific. Also, Gileadean society was under a good deal of pressure, demographic and otherwise, and was subject to factors from which we ourselves are more happily free. Our job is not to censure but to understand. (Applause.)
Fuck you and your detachment from which you
can look at the subjugation of half the populace and be simply fascinated. Instead of Gilead becoming this historical
moment that is learned from, it has become a subject for scholars to analyze
and chuckle politely over. There is a
Gileadean Society? This is their twelfth
symposium? Good God. It reminds me of Don Delillo’s White Noise
and Jack Gladney’s position as head of Hitler studies. Instead of Offred’s story having any power to
change the world, we learn in this afterward that it has been absorbed by the
world and turned into a curiosity. This
is a much darker ending than if Offred had been hung on the wall. Even when Gilead falls, nothing will have
changed except the names of places and people.
That final
chapter is both horror and warning. Heed
this tale and the emotions it stirred, and threat them with reverence. Don’t let the monstrosities of our past and
present become intellectual playthings without meaning.
The most
disturbing thing about reading the novel in 2018 is how prescient it has proven
to be. Though written in the Reagan
years as the religious right was first becoming a political force, it is only
more apt today as the GOP in the Senate fights to confirm Brett Kavanaugh on
the highest court in the country.
Moreover, Atwood identifies the growing environmental concerns and the
rampant racism in America and a panic over the “browning” of America. The Handmaid’s Tale is a wonderful and
disturbing novel.
No comments:
Post a Comment