Talk:The Handmaid's Tale

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mayadray.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Original Research?

This line: "In the novel, women are depicted as the property of men in both societies, in the United States as private property and in Gilead as social property." doesn't read like an objective summary from the text to me. While the main character was fairly passive even before Gilead, there's no indication that her legal status is that of 'property'. If it refers to the abrogation of women's rights to property, et c. that occur within the pre-Gilead timeframe, those are pretty clearly first steps to Gilead, not persistent aspects of the pre-Gilead USA. This reads to me like original criticism. Opinions?

LaPrecieuse (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the character was more in line with your views, too. Others? --Doclit (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto to both of your ideas. Can someone please remove or change? 99.230.241.37 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding a Spoiler Alert

I really feel the need for a spoiler alert on this page as reading just after the toc will immediately give away details of the book a visitor might not want to read.

I would do this myself, but i dont know how... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno Barrera (talk • contribs) 06:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler alerts are implied for all of Wikipedia. Encyclopedias are not expected to have spoiler alerts, why should Wikipedia be any different? 207.67.97.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

For any readers curious about spoilers on Wikipedia, please read Wikipedia:Spoiler, in particular the section Wikipedia:Spoiler#Why spoiler warnings are no longer used. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Satire and Science Fiction

I'm deeply unconvincted that the book is a satire, and not sue that it is science fiction. Any EngLit people wish to comment / edit? --Tagishsimon (talk)

From my copy of Webster:

satire: 1) A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. 2) The branch of literature constituting such works. 3) Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

Perhaps it isn't a textbook example of satire, but I think the word loosely fits. As far as it being science fiction I think a lot of that is in comparison to Atwood's other books, many of which are blatant sci-fi. I think Atwood's description of the US and Christianity in and of themselves within this book are a type of satire, whether or not they're comical in nature. --mixvio

I've only just started reading the book, but in general science fiction is a very broad genre and The Handmaid's Tale cound be said to fall within its blurry boundaries on account of being a sort of alternate history type story. It might be more appropriate to say "speculative fiction" (which encompasses science fiction, fantasy, etc.), but Margaret Atwood's name is pretty much the only thing that's keeping it out of the fantasy/science fiction section of your local bookstore. --nekoewen

I found it in the science fiction section of both my local Barns & Noble and my kitchy neighborhood bookstore. But then again I live in NYC. --mixvio

i think that speculative dystopic stories, for better or worse, tend to be lumped with sci-fi. Streamless 14:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Speculative novels like this are at the very heart of science fiction ("sci-fi" is often considered a pejorative) literature, from Brave New World to 1984 to Philip Roth's The Plot Against America. The fact that they are often not treated as science fiction is a whole 'nother rant entirely. It's like putting Octavia Butler in the respectable, not-science-fiction section so you can talk about the things she discusses in her science fiction novels without getting any sci-fi cooties on you.--Orange Mike 16:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)--129.89.253.116 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Handmaid's Tale won an award for best SF novel 1987 raptor 13:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Atwood herself actively rejects the term Science Fiction in describing the Handmaid's Tale, and she prefers the term Speculative Fiction, as the developments in the novel could easily occur today (i.e. they don't involve any technological innovation). However, the current description of dystopian fiction is probably the most accurate --Lord Pheasant 09:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is part of the broader topic I addressed before, the desire among "respectable" critics, academics and their allies to draw as narrow a circle as possible around the term 'science fiction' and to claim magic realism, dystopian and utopian fiction, alternative histories(a/k/a "contrafactuals") and so on as something separate from and superior to "that sci-fi crap" enjoyed by lesser beings; rather than admit that 'speculative fiction' is just a broader (and perhaps more prestigious-sounding) term for what most people know as the variegated genre of science fiction & fantasy.--Orange Mike 14:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little more sympathetic to "desire among "respectable" critics, academics..." because that list includes many authors and their (nonprofessional) fans. Many would like more narrow definitions just for the sake of accuracy and truth in advertising. The sad reality is that marketing departments of book publishers do have over-riding representation and influence over the categorization of books, like it or not. The book is sold as sci-fi, in sci-fi sections of bookstores(online and offline)etc.,etc. Therefore it's justifiably labeled sci-fi. There's no need to dismiss the argument against the practice as snobbery- it's just a reality dictated by commerce.Cuvtixo (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Handmaid's Tale is a dystopia, a sub-genre of utopia and as such by definition sci-fi. Even though most of us might not agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.201.34.137 (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To the end of the Plot:

"In this respect The Handmaid's Tale is similar to Egalia's Daughters by Gerd Brantenberg, Dune by Frank Herbert or The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien."

Absolutely shit! Why respect? And waht have these books to do with this novel? There shouldn´t be build a line to the masterworks "dune" and "LOTR" just because there are appendices at the end of the book!

I think that it's not a comparison of quality per se, but rather a way to recognise the underlying optimism even in despair that forms part of the novel; after all, if we didn't mention classic texts, the reader wouldn't be able to see the comparison! --Lord Pheasant 09:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

unencyclopedic comment moved to talk:

=== Analysis ===

Perhaps it's ironic that after the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack civil liberties in the US were severely restricted without people really noticing or caring. The Handmaid's Tale also described the great restriction placed on the people by the US government, who use attacks allegedly committed by 'Islamic fanatics' as an excuse. In the book, the lax attidude of the people towards losing their liberties is what paves the way for a religious revolution; as long as changes don't effect them on the short term, they won't care about the long term.

- Montréalais 02:49 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

If you want to include the Analysis paragraph in this article, please find some way to do so that's NPOV. Attacking the US government doesn't do that. -- Zoe

Yes, Zoe, I believe that's why I moved the thing to Talk. - Montrealais

Yes, Montrealais, but the paragraph was moved back to the article and I reverted it. -- Zoe

I fail to see how the US government is being attacked in the paragraph, but if you disagree with the contents of the paragraph, either change it till you no longer disagree, or put in a different opionion. Just moving the paragraph around does not accomplish anything.

I await your edits, but will leave the removal as is, for now. branko

It has nothing to do with whether "the US government is being attacked" in the paragraph. That's not the point. The point is that it is an opinion unqualified by any attribution. That's not NPOV- Montréalais 15:06 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Montréalais: that bit about 9/11 is pointless and has no place here.

I myself wrote a w/u for Everything2 a while ago in which I made the same comparison - but that was E2, this is Wiki. The comparison that SHOULD be pointed out in this article is to the Iranian revolution and the rise of the "moral majority" under Regan, as those things actually influenced the book. -- stewacide 15:18 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this but shouldn't the fact that it was turned into a film and an opera come before the plot details and spoiler warning? Saul Taylor

Couldn't the ending also be seen as a kind of intellectual joke by Atwood? Suddenly she wrenches the narrative away from the timeframe of the rest of the book as if to say "ha ha, I'm not going to tell you how it ends because it's my book and I don't want to. Suckers!". That's how I read it, anyway. I rather like that anticlimax, though I know a lot of people simply choose to ignore the epilogue altogether. Bonalaw 13:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think Atwood was pointing to the fact that all histories and narratives are mediated - by time, by your own values, by emotion, and lastly by historians who arrange your words. An An 21:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Novel's structure

The article really doesn't talk about the Book's extraordinary structure. At the end of the book she suggests that Offred has narrated the whole thing - stream of consciousness style - onto an assortment of Audio tapes, the intended order of which is unknown. (Perhaps actually joking that the work has been edited by the historians who found it). What we get is not of stream of consciousness at all, but a cleverly calculated structure - it begins by dropping us in to a bizaar world we can't understand, and bit by bit fleshes out detail in a clearly ordered way. The net result is that book works as a thriller.

Then we pull out to a wide historical focus in which the fate of one woman ceases to be so important - so Attwood does not tell us her heroine's fate. --Indisciplined 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

Is it too POV to say the character of Serena Joy was loosely based on Tammy Faye Bakker? Other websites have at least remarked on the resemblance...and I say it's quite blatant. Mike H 06:20, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

-- No, I think this was clearly Atwood's intention.

Iranian revolution

It is vital that some mention of this be made. This novel was definitely Atwood's attempt to say "it could happen here, too" about the Iranian revolution.

Well, unsigned person, please note this somewhere! I think its an excellent point to draw out. An An 22:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Atwood herself, in an article in the New York Times, recently explained that it was her trip through Afghanistan in the 1970's that was the inspiration for the novel and its female subjugation theme. --Naidipuz 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the epilogue a reference is made to Iran, saying that both Gilead and Iran were 21st century theocracies if I remember correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.136.50.180 (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Subjection/Subjugation

From www.m-w.com

Subjection Main Entry: 3sub·ject Pronunciation: s&b-'jekt, 's&b-"jekt Function: transitive verb 1 a : to bring under control or dominion : SUBJUGATE b : to make (as oneself) amenable to the discipline and control of a superior 2 : to make liable : PREDISPOSE 3 : to cause or force to undergo or endure (something unpleasant, inconvenient, or trying) <was subjected to constant verbal abuse> - sub·jec·tion /s&b-'jek-sh&n/ noun

Subjugation Main Entry: sub·ju·gate Pronunciation: 's&b-ji-"gAt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -gat·ed; -gat·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Latin subjugatus, past participle of subjugare, from sub- + jugum yoke -- more at YOKE 1 : to bring under control and governance as a subject : CONQUER 2 : to make submissive : SUBDUE - sub·ju·ga·tion /"s&b-ji-'gA-sh&n/ noun - sub·ju·ga·tor /'s&b-ji-"gA-t&r/ noun

They're similar words, but I thibk subjection (3) is what Offred is undergoing. She is consicous, and she is made to endure. She never internally submits to the system.An An 23:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was one of the people who edited Subjection to Subjugation. I now favour Subjection for the reasons listed above.Fifelfoo 01:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's lovely then. Did you fix it, or shall I? An An 05:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why Subjection? To use subjection would completely remove meaning from the subtitle - 'subjugation' is a fairly self-contained verb, but with just 'subjection', the title isn't actually saying what she's subject to. --Lord Pheasant 09:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Are the "Marthas" of African descent?

Someone added the statement that they were, and someone else reverted it right back out. I don't have any hard-and-fast evidence to offer one way or the other, but the statement that they *ARE* of African descent always matched my impression. Does anyone know for sure? Or is it time to read the book gain? (Obviously, the answer may turn out to be "Some, in fact, an over-represntation are, but some aren't."

Atlant 14:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When we did analysis in our English class, we concluded that Cora and Rita, at least, were black, but other Marthas were not explicitly black. I think it wouldn't be wrong to state that there is much evidence to conclude that Cora and Rita were black women. Mike H 07:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

The "Children of Ham" (negroes) were all "resettled". This is alluded to in chapter 14 (part 4), the moments before the ceremony when the household watch TV waiting for the Commander. Its page 93 in 1995 Virago Press edition. There are no statements in the book to the effect that the Marthas are negroes, and if there are, I would like to see them reproduced here. The idea that it "fits" the marthas that they are black may be more easily attributed to points of view which equate black skin with domestic slavery (i.e. mainstream American ideology, to name but one). An An 09:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was never explicitly stated in the text that Cora and Rita were black, but their speech patterns in the novel were not on par with the other white characters. I guess that could be interpreted a number of ways (common white?) but that was the conclusion we drew. Mike H 10:55, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

There were also examples of other kinds of people who were believed to be completely resettled but weren't. I can think of religious minorities who were originally supposed to be sent away but chose to live under the new laws, only to be found practicing their religion in private (say, the Jews, who had the option of taking a boat back to Israel, unlike the other minorities). Mike H 10:58, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

On reading the first chapters, the Martha's immediatley struck me as African American women. However, I think that has to do more with my perception of the culture seen in the USA. I also read it to be in the USA, without knowing anything about the book at all. Personally, I think this is a cultural perception rather than something that is seen explicitly in the novel.00:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If you're saying that your reading of it as being set in the former US is a "cultural projection", then, no, that's not the case. The story is unambiguously set in the Cambridge/Boston area and explicit references are made to many of the existing geographic/commercial features that exist today. But if you're speaking of the Marthas being A-A as a cultural projection, then you may be right. I guess I'll just have to read the book again. :-) Or we could wait and see how Bushworld actually evolves. :-(

Atlant 12:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I read the book again. And right there on Page 12 (in my eddition), it makes explicit reference to the "brown arms" of the dominant Martha. So regardless of whether the "Children of Ham" were generally resettled, I think we still have pretty good evidence that Fred's two Marthas were, in fact, African Americans before the Gileadean revolution. But I agree that there's no evidence that all Marthas are (were) A-A.

Atlant 18:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The "brown arms" may simply be swarthy, or suntanned; "brown" is a very ambiguously broad term in English, and indeed it may be argued that the vast majority of the human race is some shade of "brown" (broadly defined). This is a weak reed to lean on. Orange Mike 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In the same section where Atwood describes Rita's arms as brown (p. 10 in 1st ed.), there is a conversation between Cora and Rita. Cora says "If I hadn't of got my tubes tied, it could of been me, say I was ten years younger." Her age and tubal ligation kept her from being a Handmaid, not her skin color. It seems that in a society where African Americans are "resettled," they wouldn't have the option of becoming Handmaids and making a new generation. Leakyowl (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the speech patterns are working class, or servile class? Speech doesn't mean skin colour, and it is not enough to say that the speech is low-class so these women are black. Cora and Rita are the only Marthas that we hear speak at all - so there can be no determination of whether their speech is typical of their caste.

As for the "resettlement" attempts - Atwood makes it clear that these may be (and probably are) falsified for propaganda purposes. Whether negroes were murdered (as the epilogue asserts that jews were) or actually resettled is not in contention. Marthas are not possitively identified as negroes by Atwood, and any assertion that they are needs to be substantiated. An An 12:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rita's brown arms maybe be a result of work, exposure to the heat of the ovens or the sun. It may be a symbol of the effects of work on her body. Cora says to Rita that she could have been selected as a handmaid, given different circumstances (ch 2). If Cora were negro, this would be incompatible to a society sufficiently fixated on racial purity to 'resettle' negroes and jews. On a broader note, why is it necessary to state that "all marthas are black", when there is at best conflicting evidence to this effect? An An 11:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, In the movie, they were both white. Carolynparrishfan 19:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

biblical refrences

hello all as an access student i am witing an essay on the campative qualities of the handmaids tale and genesis chapter 1-4 including adam and eve does anyone have any views on the subject bex

No, bex, I have no views on anything campative here or elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.72.161 (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Unwomen

I was puzzled by the part of the article that mentions male unwomen. Could someone point out to me where in the book this is mentioned? I wasn't aware of it even being implied. 84.69.25.238 12:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Offred mentions that anyone sent to the Colonies is an "Unwoman" and that being forced to wear long grey dresses is supposed to demoralize them. (Alphaboi867 02:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

Should "widows" be removed from the Unwoman category as the text does not say they are banished and Offred sees one in chapter 5? raptor 10:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read the book about three times and I'm not sure I ever read a reference to widows being shipped to the colonies - if I'm wrong, can someone please cite the quote for me?

When Offred is talking to Moira at Jezebel's (chapter 38) Moira recounts seeing a film about the Colonies:

"It's old women--I bet you've been wondering why you haven't seen too many of those around anymore--...I'd say it's about a quarter men in the Colonies, too."

Widows are former Wives. The old women in the colonies are likely elderly Marthas, and maybe Econowives. But Commander's Wives are not shipped off, they just become Widows and probably don't leave the house much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.172.131 (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Feminist social critique

I am quite shocked that in the section of the article that describes the social critique in the book, critique of the oppression of women in modern society isn't mentioned. This book is first and foremore a feminist book. I find that it maps out very accurately society's perceptions about women, their gender roles and acceptable (as well as unacceptable) behaviour.

Anyone up for adding this aspect to the article?

Silentium 12:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you are ;-) ! Be bold!

Atlant 16:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember to cite your sources - a link to a review describing the book as feminist would be good! — QuantumEleven 12:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it "social oppression" to deny women hand cream and cause them to resort to using a pat of butter to soften the skin of their hands? Who says that Atwood is a stranger to irony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.72.161 (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Republic of Gilead is a copy-paste of large parts of this article - I think just about the only thing in the article that isn't in The Handmaid's Tale is the flag of Gilead. I propose that Republic of Gilead be changed to a redirect to The Handmaid's Tale, as I don't see enough information being found to be put into the former article which doesn't also belong in the latter. Opinions, anyone? — QuantumEleven 12:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with that.

Atlant 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This was recently discussed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Gilead and the outcome was that Republic of Gilead stays. Jayvdb 05:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but AfD decides on Keep/Delete, not Keep/Merge. To be fair, there is no reason for an article where the only element not already present in another article is a picture should be kept separate. I'm going to merge. — QuantumEleven 13:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the AfD; merge, redirect or keep were all considered but keep was the final outcome. I am not disputing that the duplication is undesirable, but merging is the simple way out. Also, the flag of The Republic of Gilead does not belong on this article about the book. It belongs on the film. Jayvdb 23:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Offred's job

I would like to challenge this comment:

"In the former society, despite holding a University degree from an unspecified North American University (which is implied to be Harvard University), Offred was a menial white collar worker"

Offred's job is a librarian, which requires at least a college degree and often an MA/MLS as well? I'm not sure a librarian is a menial white collar worker? That aside, I'm also sure that it wouldn't be unusual for any graduate to end up doing menial adminstrative work, I'm not sure there is any feminist critique to be read into that.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LouiseCooke (talk • contribs) .

I'd support your changes. Atlant 18:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is POV, but the wages paid to librarians, compared to the educational requirements, would indicate that they are regarded as menial white collar workers. --Orange Mike 16:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC) (formerly of AFSCME locals 1, 82 and 91)

Judaism in the novel

Jews do not seem to be treated as ethnically different in Gilead. If they have converted to Christianity, they are not considered a problem. The jews who are hanged are ones who are secretly following their faith. It is difference of faith, not race, here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LouiseCooke (talk • contribs) .

I agree.

Atlant 18:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"In the novel, the two main non-white ethnic groups mentioned are African Americans and Jewish Americans..." Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it is my impression that Jewish Americans are not an ethnic group, but a religious group. The ethnic group would be Hebrews. Hebrews, are white, no? Am I mistaken here? Were they Beta Israel? 71.57.90.171 17:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's one or the other, but on my reading of the book it was a little religious, as well as a little ethnic. While they were allowed to convert, they were also described as 'sons of Jacob', which would imply their identification based on lineage, and therefore ethnicity, rather than religion. So I'd say keep it there. --Lord Pheasant 09:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Jews" and "Jewish" are terms that can refer either to religion or ethnicity. "Jewish American" (Note that there is no hyphen.) is not a term that is commonly used. In this case it may have been used specifically, as one might say "Christian Americans grow up seeing Christianity as the norm, as is not the case in all countries." although people don't commonly refer to themselves as "Christian Americans (again without a hyphen)." "Hebrews" is not a present-day group. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrews. The Jewish people who went to all corners of the globe in the Diaspora from Israel after the destruction of the Second Temple intermingled with whatever other people they were around, and are of all skin colors. Some people consider Jews to be a separate "race" while others consider those who are light-skinned to be "white." I myself am a human (race) Jewish [or more precisely, Ashkenazic] (ethnicity) atheist (lack of religion). 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:605D:A9B7:2C28:DC26 (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Reference to Baptists

I understand that Atwood is clearly warning of the rise of religious fundamentalism in denominations including the Baptists. But - I would say that it is misleading to mention the Baptists in the article since in the novel they are explicitly mentioned in the novel as fighting against Gilead. Additionally, it would probably be more NPOV to not include a specific denomination. For the reference to Iran, I propose changing it to the actual Iranian theocracy, since it is often cited as a strong influence on Gileadean society. So yeah, any thoughts? --Lord Pheasant 09:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a tradition among spec-fi writers that, when warning against impending dystopian theocracy, you take care to rule out the most obvious real-life candidaates who resemble the bad guys you're writing about. So Atwood mentions the Baptists as fighting *against* the Gileadites. Likewise, Robert A. Heinlein, in his "If This Goes On -" (repub as "Revolt in 2010"], describes a US theocracy headed by a polygamous Prophet. Just as you're thinking "Aha, this is the Mormons", Heinlein throws in a passing mention that the Prophet's armies are fighting against Mormon separatists in Utah.

More about "If This Goes On"

There are actually a number of parallels between this book and Heinlein's "If this goes on". (1) Both describe theocracies led by a self-proclaimed Prophet. (2) the story is narrated by a servant of a high-ranking official (in Heinlein's case, one of the Prophet's bodyguards) who is able to describe the ruling class "from the inside". (3) the narrator, fully loyal at first, falls afoul of the rulers because of an illicit love affair (4) He/she escapes and narrates the story from refuge.

If THE HANDMAID's TALE is an important book, Heinlein should get more credit for antipating it. CharlesTheBold 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please add your comments to the bottom of the talk page in the future; it is easier to read and comprehend users' comments when they are chronological. Second of all, what you are suggesting seems to be original research; if you can find a reliable, trustworthy source that the novels are related, then it could be added to the article. Without it, however, the statements are WP:OR. María: (habla conmigo) 14:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also a very dubious proposition. Heinlein was writing from a different background, with a different perspective (especially in sexual politics), in an era when religious extremism was a trivial element in American mainstream politics. These are structural coincidences, many of them due to plotting exigencies. RAH, however one feels about him, is irrelevant to this book. (As is Suzette Haden Elgin's Native Tongue, a vastly superior novel on the same topic which is ignored because Dr. Elgin is an admitted science fiction author, rather than a "mainstream" writer dabbling in SF while denying that she does so.) --Orange Mike 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Orange Mike; I wasn't familiar with Heinlein, but it sounded rather iffy even with my lack of experience. Thanks for the SciFi lesson. :) (ps: fixed your link to NT because it lead to an album of the same name.) María: (habla conmigo) 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link fix. (Since you don't know the field, I understand that you didn't realize that the term "sci-fi" [however spelled]] is generally regarded as pejorative within the science fiction community, and should be avoided.) --Orange Mike 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Salvaging?

I really hate this book, but I do think there should be some mention of the Salvaging that takes place in it. MosheA 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarah and Hagar

"Due to Sarah's reproductive generosity, Sarah's fertility is restored by God at an advanced age."

The restoration of Sarah's fertility in the Bible has more than one interpretation. Sarah is not particularly kind to Hagar. Hagar and her son run away once, come back, and are banished by Sarah years later. If the above, that Sarah's ability to have a child was a reward for kindness to Hagar, is the interpretation presented by Offred/Atwood, then we should say so. Darkfrog24 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Science Fiction?

I note that the sidebar lists this novel's genre as "science fiction". To me, this really does not fit, as it describes more of the Star Trek type thing than the content discussed in this novel.

I'm really not sure what this novel is. I'll think about it for a bit. It certainly does not deserve to be lumped in with sci-fi.68.117.37.220 02:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is covered in an earlier section of this talk page, and the sub-genre 'dystopian' is the best proposed so far. If you can think of a better one, by all means change it again. John Vandenberg 02:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a dystopian science fiction novel. Please do not allow your prejudices to blind you to the broad variety of works that fall within the genre of science fiction, from 1984, Brave New World and Aniara to The Dispossessed, The Road, and, yes, The Handmaid's Tale. --Orange Mike 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes it Science Fiction is the presumption of ecological collapse and a negative effect on human fertility. It is near Future Science Fiction the same way the film Children of Men is Near Future Science Fiction. Both are Dystopias. WHile the emphaisis in this novel is on the scoietal effects of these catastrophic changes, the changes nevrtheless took place and seemingly precipitated the societal shift.LiPollis 12:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is Speculative Fiction! Not science fiction! Atwood herself said it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.177.41.172 (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Speculative fiction is just a sub-genre within science fiction. 190.194.206.43 (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

..since the Inquisition

136.152.132.139 has removed a statement that implied that the Inquisition reflects the society in the novels plot. There is some truth in this comparison to the Inquisition, but the comparison needs to be attributable to a critical review. Note that the removed statement comes from this section rewrite by 63.246.179.199. John Vandenberg 09:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is actually no truth to the comparison between this novel with whatever that IP imagined to be "the times of the inquisition". It was rightfully removed. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Bizarre graffiti

There seems to be a lot of weird graffiti in this article (e.g., "Five are mentioned - Alma, Janine, Dolores, your ugly cause danas better Moira, and June.". Perhaps it should be locked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flycandler (talk • contribs).

Just your average juvenile time-wasting vandalism :-(. Wiki policy wouldn't support protecting the article just for this level of vandalism; I've reverted it. If you haven't already done so, you may want to read Wikipedia:Vandalism to learn more about how to deal with vandalism of the encyclopedia.

Atlant 17:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Material clipped from the article and brought here

This article is incorrect, Gilead (more correctly, New Gilead) is not named it the opening paragraphs until a point at which the reader has no information, but is expected to know what has not been introduced. This article does not make sense to a reader who has not read the book. Furthermore, New Gilead is not the territory that was previously the United States, (set up by wild theocratic christians) it is one of many puppet state governmental sects that once was the United States, each with its own belief system (evidence of this can be noted when Offred hears news of babtist and anglican revolts.) The entire territory of the U.S. is broken into many, maybe hundreds of religious sects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cessnasoarer172 (talk • contribs)

Serena Joy

The article suggests that Serena Joy is similar to Tammy Faye Bakker. It is true that Tammy Faye Bakker is an example of a female tele-evangelist and the character of Serena Joy is probably a composite of many anti-feminist women of the early 80's. However, I think a better analogy for Serena Joy is Anita Bryant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Bryant). Bryant began her career as an evangelical entertainer and then moved on to political activism.

Serena Joy says in chapter 3 "It's one of the things we fought for" [the legal structure that enforces the first marriage being in place until death of both partners] and then Offred remembers seeing Serena Joy on television in a gospel choir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amspeck (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Boston / Cambridge

Shouldn't the article make mention of the fact (as previously stated here) that the story is set in the Boston / Cambridge area, and specifically around Harvard Square and the Harvard campus / Charles river area?

--chrisfeohpatti —Preceding comment was added at 16:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Ceremony Quote

The original quote, as found in the book, uses the word "fucking" rather than "doing". As stated in Wikipedia:Profanity, a direct quote trumps Wikipedia's disdain for foul language. --72.12.30.181 (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Some editors might disdain foul language, but Wikipedia does not (and can not). The censorship you fixed was done by an anonymous user, 68.35.167.36 (talk · contribs). I have removed that same censorship in the past, incidentally by the same IP address. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

Not sure this will go anywhere, but a parent of a Toronto District School Board student is asking that this book no longer be assigned reading. http://www.thestar.com/article/571999 --Padraic 12:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Kate

Greetings. Not sure I'm contributing properly, but I'm sure if I'm not, someone will tell me.

The following paragraphs are confusing:

"Offred is a patronymic which describes her function: she is "Of Fred", i.e. she belongs to her Commander, Fred, as a concubine (see slave name). It is implied that her birth name is Kate. All of the women training to be handmaids recite their names, and all are later accounted for except June. In addition, one of the Aunts tells Offred to stop "mooning and June-ing". It may well be a pseudonym, as "Mayday" is the name of the Gilead resistance and could be an attempt on the protagonist's part to invent a name; the Nunavit conference that takes place in the epilogue is held in June. [1].... It is speculated that Offred's real name is June. At the end of the first chapter she mentions the names of a few other women who are attending the women's academy. They whisper names across the bed at night. The names are "Alma. Janine. Dolores. Moira. June." Throughout the book, we meet all the characters named, except June. It is speculated that "Kate" is the main character, who never mentions her name in the book."

The second paragraph above contains redundant information, making me think two separate contributors entered the info, possibly copying and pasting from another source. In addition, the character Kate does not appear anywhere in the book. Kate was a name made up for the movie version. The narrator, as mentioned in both of the above paragraphs, is most likely June. At least that's my read, and I've read this novel dozens of times since 1985.

Also, the name of the resistance organization Mayday is unlikely to be related to June, as in the book the narrator clearly recalls that the etymology of the word 'mayday' is from the French m'aidez—help me. Someone who only saw the movie might not have gotten that nuance.

I guess the summary of my comment is that I thought this was a page on the novel, not the movie adaptation, and mention of a character named Kate doesn't fit here. If someone can show me anywhere in the book where Kate is mentioned, I'd sure like to see it. Bucinka (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Offred is NOT a patronymic!

A patronymic is "based on the name of one's father, grandfather or an even earlier male ancestor". Thus, "Offred" doesn't qualify since Fred is not an ancestor. (Yes, I know the novel calls it a patronymic. It's still wrong.) We should acknowledge that the novel calls it a patronymic, but shouldn't we point out that it in fact is not? The practice is actually much closer to a slave name, especially Roman forms like "Marcipor" (from "Marci puer", "Marcus's boy") being the slave of Marcus. Vultur (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It actually goes beyond a slave name, since that is actually a name. The handmaids were reduced to a function. As Offred says, they were 'living wombs' and so 'of fred' is to remove the human entirely from the equation and reduce this woman to simply the organ that is to perform the function of producing Fred's offspring. That said, this kind of hair-splitting analysis is great for a book club or a class room discussion, but isn't necessary or appropriate in an encyclopedia entry. The article would be longer than the book. [Anon]

It is a patronymic, in the sense that the rulers of Gilead have organized their society as households headed by a patriarch. He has sway over his household, whether its members are his issue or just servants. They belong to him, and so, it seems reasonable to refer to the handmaids' names as "patronymics". This also seems to be the accepted usage for anyone discussing the story. You're taking it too literally, Vultur. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)theBaron0530

Citation Errors

In this article, after nearly every paragraph, there is a "citation needed" mark. These are completely unnecessary, as the content of those paragraphs is factual information from the book itself, so an outside source is irrelevant. Unless this editor wants to go through the entire novel themselves and make citations, they should be removed. Carl wilhoyte (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations to primary and/or secondary sources documenting the information in this article are still needed; page references to an edition of the novel used throughout should have been supplied by the editors adding the information about it. For Wik. policies, see WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE; there is no way to verify this information without proper source citations (page references if printed sources, like the novel) and (if online sources) URLs w/ full citation information following prevailing citation format of the article. I did not provide this content initially, and I am not able to provide citations for it; those editors who may have consulted an edition or editions of the novel need to return to provide their sources (page references); an edition of the novel is provided in the Works cited list. Citations to its pages are still needed. Otherwise, there is no way to gauge the reliability of the claims about the novel in this article. If secondary sources were used by other editors and not identified properly, the result is plagiarism: see Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If the editors created the content themselves, that is original research; see WP:NOR. Wikipedia requires documentation (source citations) for its content. The templates indicate that citations are needed. --NYScholar (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Rather than lifting a litany of policy (and thus wikilawyering), have one simple citation message at the top of the page. Adding a citation tag for every single line is petty and un-necessary. I will remove them myself if you don't, since all it does is make more work for future editors to have to delete every un-necessary cite tag. SiberioS (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And, for the record, since you are unable and unwilling to furnish the citations your shotgun blast of them is even more egregious. Since I actually have the novel I guess I'll actually do the work of filling out most of sections. SiberioS (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, NYScholar is now permanently blocked. I brought this up on the village pump, and got pointed to the discussion on the WP:How to write a plot summary talk page here. So long as you are just summarising and not adding research or synthesising etc. then the subject of the page is implicitly assumed to be the reference. EasyTarget (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned out the worst of the citation tag spam; there is no need to have a section cite-needed tag AND tag every single statement with an inline tag, even if some of the info needs citations. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction vs Speculative Fiction

This section is based primarily on what appears to be an amateur blog by David Langford. Not only does the section lack proper tone, it is mostly just a long quote from this dubious source. I think that the section needs extensive revision, and that David Langford should not be cited as a credible source. 149.166.137.43 (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the references to the dubious source, added a hyperlink to "the guardian." 149.166.137.43 (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not "an amateur blog", that's a column by a multiple-Hugo-winning author, (a/k/a User:DeafMan here in Wikipedia, incidentally), in a notable publication. In the science fiction/speculative fiction, there is no more reliable source than Langford! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dave Langford most assuredly is a proper source, per Orange Mike. Artw (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pillow?

There was a reference in the section about Offred to the decorative pillow (the one with the word "Faith" embroidered into it) in her room. It mentions her "hiding it" whenever someone entered the room and Offred "living in terror" that the stitching would be ripped out. This isn't accurate at all since Offred actually indicates that she thinks there are two other pillows that should go with it and that the Marthas probably have them. Why would she hide them if Serena Joy decorated the house and presumably knows about them, or if she thinks other members of the household have matching pillows in their rooms? I removed it because it made no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.97.117 (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Related works by other authors"

User:Jneil, who readily admits that he is J. Neil Schulman, author and now publisher of The Rainbow Cadenza, has repeatedly added his book to this article. I've removed it both because of the conflict of interest issue and because I don't see the connection between Handmaid's Tale and Schulman's book. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is J. Neil Schulman -- User: Jneil -- author of The Rainbow Cadenza. I understand the conflict of interest objection. I therefore challenge Orangemike to read both The Rainbow Cadenza (published 1983 by Simon and Schuster, and recipient of the 1984 Prometheus Award) and The Handmaid's Tale (published 1985 by McClelland and Stewart, and nominated for a subsequent Prometheus Award) then come back to this page and assert, once again, that The Handmaid's Tale isn't NOTABLY derivative of The Rainbow Cadenza. Orangemike says on his Wikipedia User page he's a fan of science fiction; this should be fun for him. I'll go so far as to provide Orangemike with a complimentary PDF copy of The Rainbow Cadenza for this purpose. I only need a way to message him privately to accomplish that. I can be emailed at jneil@pulpless.com.

If Orangemike is unwilling to take up this challenge, I suggest that he is not qualified to edit the Wikipedia pages of novels he has not read. I'm sure there's a rule about that somewhere, or should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jneil (talk • contribs) 09:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Jneil, you can't expect people to read a whole novel just to disprove an editor, and even if he did, he is not a reliable source, so his opinion would not count. The easiest way for you to get this included is to find some Notable 3rd party that has claimed that THT is derivative of your book. If you can't do this, then I'm afraid the point is probably not notable. Ashmoo (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I realize it's years too late, but, having just read both books, I don't think The Handmaid's Tale is derivative of The Rainbow Cadenza. They're both obvious reactions to Reaganism, tackling similar issues of sexual and procreative politics, but that's about as far as the similarity goes. The structure is completely different. The setting is completely different, and even the reasons behind the sexual politics are different.

At any rate, Ashmoo was right that, even if the books were more similar, it wouldn't be all the relevant. If published critics compared the books, or Atwood talked about Cadenza in an interview, it wouldn't even matter if the books were objectively not that similar, and, in the absence of anything like that, it wouldn't matter if Atwood were directly plagiarizing Schulman. The important question isn't whether the books are related, but whether there are sources saying they are. I only included this reply because Schulman brought up the issue. (As an even more off-topic note, Schulman's book is pretty good, and in some ways it's more relevant to the 21st century than Atwood's, so I'm glad I read it.) --173.228.85.220 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Major overhaul

This article needs a major overall. While most of it is obviously written by people that care about the topic and is pretty reasonable, it is unfortunately too focused on (unsourced) analysis and reconstruction facts about the world Atwood has created and not enough on the basic facts. For example, the plot summary contains almost no mention of the plot, but is rather a description of the world in which the novel takes place, as well as a few asides into the real name of the character amongst others. I see there has been fact tags on many of the bolder assertions for over a year. I'm going to start removing unsourced claims. Ashmoo (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative in this. I have edited the plot summary a little to reflect your concerns. I don't think it's feasible to delete too much of the info about Gilead in the summary, as that is so much what the book is really about, and the summary doesn't make enough sense if the world it contains is not described. But I deleted some of the info about the epilogue and added a bit about what Offred spent the novel doing. Let me know what you think and if you need help with the overhaul.QuizzicalBee (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your changes look good, thanks. I agree that the plot summary needs to make sense, but I think we should make it represent the experience of reading the book as much as is possible. In the book (from my memory of last reading it) you are given the details about Gilead piecemeal but it is still understandable as a story. Her isolation and information deficit is a key part of the story. So basically, I feel another section should be used to synthesise the nature of the novel's world and the plot summary should summarise the story. Which is what you have done, so I've got no complaint. Ashmoo (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

How about if we do what is done for Nineteen Eighty-Four? They have a "background" second that describes the dystopia, and a "plot" section that summarizes the plot.QuizzicalBee (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that is definitely the way to do it. Ashmoo (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Prof Pieixoto description

There's a bit of a dispute about this, with one person not wanting to mention the jokes that the prof tells, arguing that it's just a guy telling a few jokes and there's no deeper meaning. However, such an assertion is a point of view. That is, your point of view is that the jokes this guy say don't matter. It is not up to you to make that determination. A bare description of what the professor does is relevant and consistent with all of the other descriptions of characters in the novel and should not be removed. To deliberately remove it with the argument that it is irrelevant is to attempt to propagate a point of view. Therefore, it should be left in. I reworded it so that what was said there would not express a point of view (the POV being that the prof. was insensitive of the women's plight and objectified them by referring to their "tail" and that they're "frails"). What remains should be acceptable to all and express NPOV. However, just to address your POV for a sec: these aren't just jokes that guys giving talks at symposia say. There is no "guy". These are characters Margaret Atwood invented and she very carefully chose everything about them. She had a point in mind by choosing to have the framing device at the end of the novel in which people comment on the events of the novel. And she put words into the mouths of these characters, deliberately having them make jokes at the Handmaid's expense. By doing so, Atwood was making a point. Therefore the jokes this character said aren't "just" anything--they're very carefully planned and DO have meaning. There's no doubt that Atwood wanted to put into question sexist comments of this sort. You're missing the whole point of the novel if you dismiss the insensitive comments Atwood put into the mouth of her character by saying they're meaningless. Imagine if you went to a conference on slavery in the United States, and there was a lecture on slave owners raping slaves and then taking the subsequent babies away from the mothers, never to be seen again. Now imagine that the lecturer joked about the slave owners getting some "tail" and that the raped slaves were frails. These are not jokes that would ever be appropriate in any professional setting, and would be greatly criticized as being appallingly inappropriate. QuizzicalBee (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Several of Pieixoto’s comments suggest Nunavit is a sexist society that regards the treatment of women in Gilead with more humor than horror. First he makes a joke around the words tale and tail, in reference to Gilead women. Then he refers to the “The Underground Femaleroad” as “The Underground Frailroad”.

The former text (which I removed) was IMHO wholly unacceptable. Somehow the two jokes of Pieixoto are more than enough material/evidence that we can classify/judge/evaluate his whole (fictional/future) Nunavit society. IMHO that's just educated speculation: Pieixoto makes two jokes and someone reached the conclusion that his whole society is sexist. Using one of your sentences: It is not up to [us) to make that determination. I wish to point out that us means the article of Wikipedia, as every reader is certainly free to reach his own conclusions but he has to know that different ppl will reach different convulsions, having different options about the jokes. I think that you agree that the former sentence above had to be removed.

• While speaking at the symposium, he treats the plight of women in Gilead with humor, making several jokes about women's women's bodies.

I like to be honest, so here it goes:

We can go on and on if his jokes are about the plight of women and about their bodies and what's the meaning of the jokes. However our interpretations are just our own conclusions and little else. The questions is: Should our own conclusions be in this article? IMHO Pieixoto is not treating the plight of women in Gilead with humor, making several jokes about women's women's bodies. First of all, he doesn't make several jokes, he tells only two jokes: one about the title of the novel (the tail-joke) and another about the female underground road (the frail-joke). He is the orator at a lecture and tells two jokes to his audience. AFAIK almost all long speeches begin with a couple of jokes and we have to analyse the situation very carefully.

As a matter of fact I personally think that the two jokes matter a lot (you jumped to the wrong conclusion). I think that they are meant to show that at the end a society like Gilead is meant to fail in the long run but that a certain degree of misogyny will always exist.

Extrapolating this further: one of the many points of the novel might be to show that oppressive societies (which oppress women) may exist for a time under extreme situations (the Gilead situation is very extreme). However in the long run such societies are doomed to be replaced by better/more equal societies but a perfect society is probably impossible (two sexes = two different kinds of treatment; the degree of the difference may vary but true equality is impossible). I might be wrong in my conclusions but notice that my opinion is as worthy as yours (I never claim that my conclusions are prefect).

• In the end we have to ask ourselves is if our opinions/conclusions/judgements should be in the article at all. IMHO they shouldn't be; the reader should read the book himself and find his own truth (reach his own conclusions). Flamarande (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I see where you're coming from. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I agree our opinions have no place in the article per NPOV policy.QuizzicalBee (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The fate of Jews

In the epilogue, the professor states that "more than one boatload" of Jews were just dumped into the ocean; I changed the text in that paragraph to make it explicit that not all of them were murdered, but that at least some of them were. Samer (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Native American successor nation

Per this source [1], after the fall of Gilead, Native American culture experiences a resurgence and Native Americans become a prominent party in the post-Gilead area.

The world of 2195 is one in which women once again assume positions of authority, in which Native North American peoples are evidently part of dominant North American culture

I've also found references to this in several other locations, including study guides of the book itself. We've had two reverts by a single user, so probably should discuss it here [2] [3]. -OberRanks (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• The former version "The novel epilogue strongly implies that, following the collapse of the Republic of Gilead, a new society run primarily by Native Americans rose to take its place." [4] is IMHO largely speculative and therefore unacceptable.
• The present version The novel epilogue also implies that, following the collapse of the Republic of Gilead, a new society emerged where woman again held authority and Native Americans were part of the dominant culture. [5] is a step in the right direction.
• I suggest that we improve it further into The novel epilogue suggests that, following the collapse of the Republic of Gilead, a more equal society re-emerged where women and Native Americans are full members of society. It's further suggested that freedom of religion was also re-established.

In the end it's a matter of the details.

The epilogue is a fictional international gathering of historians in Nunavit. The person in charge of this gathering is Prof Maryann Crescent Moon who gives a small opening speech. In it she mentions a certain Prof. Johnny Running Dog among a couple of other academics. Then she gives the floor to the main lecturer, a certain Prof. James Darcy Pieiexoto from the University of Cambridge, England. Read his speech carefully: he mentions that the building of a new Quacker temple led to the discovery of other unrelated documents (that suggests that freedom of religion was re-established).

There is no statement about the system of the new (after-Gilead) government, its ethnic demographics, etc. The gathering doesn't begin with a native American ceremony. Only two professors have Native American names, and notice that one of them (Maryann Crescent Moon) uses an English given name. IMHO the terms used by the lecturers don't suggest that the new society has a different cultural basis. There is no condemnation of the former WASP society and no statements how the (supposedly) new Native American society is somehow better because stands upon Native American culture. How can we be sure that the new society is run primarily by Native Americans? We simply can't. Flamarande (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I like your third suggestion. Thank you for giving my comments due consideration. -OberRanks (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Republic of Gilead

Republic of Gilead is mostly synthesis from the story and is unsourced (and has been for years). Some small summary should be added here, instead. --Buck 01:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Strongly support - but see prior AfD referenced above. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Moira's Bisexuality?

The article says that "An important aspect of Moira is her bisexuality". Pretty sure I remember Moira being explicitly described as gay intext, what justification is there for describing her as bisexual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.60.109 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Based upon a 'Narrow, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible'"

Obviously this whole article treats this book with kid gloves, but before I re-write this paragraph (under Politics), may I simply ask what a 'fundamentalist' interpretation is? Is this a grammar-based, literal, context-based interpretation? What fundamentals are we speaking of, or are we just using this term 'fundamentalist' as some sort of a vague, evil right-wing bugaboo phrase?

Might I remind you people that the very term 'Separation of Church and State' is a fundamentalist, Baptist formulation?

A fundamentalist Catholic can be defined based on those things which are fundamental to Catholicism, or those things ascribed as fundamental by such a group; whether this be the veneration (worship) of Mary, the Latin Tridentine Mass, the Seven Sacraments, the Episcopal polity and Priesthood, the Pope as God's Vicar on Earth, the universalism of the Church, etc.

A Fundamentalist Christian can be defined as one who believes in the inspiration of scripture, the birth, life, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the necessity of personal faith, holiness, Baptism, Lord's Supper, etc.

A Fundamentalist Presbyterian would be a subset of this, and would presumably believe in the primacy of certain confessions of faith, such as the original Westminster Confession, the use of a Presbyterian polity (church government), etc.

A fundamentalist Muslim would be one who holds to -- at very least what he perceives to be -- the core principles of the Qur'an and the hadiths.

A fundamentalist Airplane pilot would be one who holds to the core principles of aeronautics.

A fundamentalist Socratian philosopher would be one who held to the core principles of Socrates' philosophy.

A fundamentalist interpretation however is what exactly? Deriving the core principles? That is done by hermeneutic method, not by being 'fundamentalistic'.

Clearly this article is riven with this sort of erroneous logic, due in no small part to the inadequacies of the subject matter. Which obviously, being fiction, doesn't have to be true. The question would be then, do the statements made about this book in this wikipedia article have to conform to a strict understanding of words, their meanings and logical construction of sentences and thoughts or can the article be sloppy in describing such sloppy thinking? LikkerdySplit (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You are taking the word literally. (Christian) fundamentalism is a well known form of religious understanding that stresses the unwavering attachment to its fundamentals. The term is reserved for those who do so in the strictest form. Biblical literalism is a must for this kind of view, but also distinct is the fact that it was always a reactionary movement against the tendency in modern times towards less controversial and more inclusive, principial faith. Old hatches wre buried and doctrines formerly used to discriminate were spoken out against. So yes, it can be seen as a form of religious ultraconservatism. But it does so for a reason. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Handmaid's Tale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091201022613/http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/governance/annualreport/annualreport/annualreportarch/20022003/conferences.cfm to http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/governance/annualreport/annualreport/annualreportarch/20022003/conferences.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2009/01/16/atwood_novel_too_brutal_sexist_for_school_parent.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

a fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement calling itself the "Sons of Jacob"

1. According to Professor Pieixoto, they were (before the Revolution) rather a clandestine elitist club than a movement.
2. Although the regime established by "The Sons of Jacob" can be described as a religious totalitarianism, they are not likely to be too religious themselves.
3. Alghough the official religion of Gilead unmistakebly resemble that of radical christian groups such as Christian Reconstructionists and evidently designed by the novel's author to castigate such groups, itself it cannot be shown to be Christian from the text of the novel:
   1. Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as the Christ. Therefore all christians are known to warship or at least to venerate Jesus Christ. Apart from really following his teachings, the members of a christian denomination must do everything religious in the name of Jesus Christ. A bizzare christian sect might perform cannibalism as a religious practice, but they must do it in the name of Jesus Christ. And the name of Jesus Christ appears nowhere in the novel, despite that two religious events are described there, and the inhabitants of the state are required to use religious manner of speaking (see, for example, the dialogue of Offred and Ofglen during their first promenade).
   2. The most common and most sacred symbol of modern Christianity is the Cross. It is used in every today's christian denomination I know. And not only it isn't used in Gileadean state symbology, but neither is it used in religious symbology during special religious events. Neither are other symbols specifically associated with Christ, such as Ichthys or Chi Rho.
   3. Professor Pieixoto in his lecture calls the religion of Gilead simply "the Religion of Gilead" (while the religion of medieval Europe he calls "Medieval Christianity").
   4. Professor Pieixoto and other attendants of the Twelfth Symposium on Gileadean Studies tell about elements of nonchristian cults in this religion, the elements absolutely foreign to American soil, so they cannot be said to be simply tolerated by Gileadean religious authorities like elements of prechristian cults in medieval Europe

Эйхер (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Although I do not disagree with any of the substance of the above comment, let me point out that calling Christianity a monotheistic religion is inaccurate, inasmuch as "monotheistic" refers to having one single unitary deity, while Christianity features a trinity, or three. This split from monotheism is what caused the split of Christianity from Judaism, although it originated as a Jewish subgroup. This, even though Christians refuse to acknowledge that a trinity can not be monotheistic, due to the O.T. Biblical insistence on monotheism. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:605D:A9B7:2C28:DC26 (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Mentions of President Trump

There is currently a discussion here regarding the validity of mentioning the President on the article, specifically because the book was written over 30 years ago and events of the 21st century cannot possibly be of any influence here. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

For clarity's sake: the discussion mentioned above is over at the talk page of the article for the 2017 television series adaptation of the novel. – BoogerD (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

In commenting on the TV series I have the same objection as expressed by Jdavi333. I dropped in on this page to get thoughts on how this phrase can be modified on the TV series page. I was surprised to see this duplicated text. Besides obvious concern raised by Jdavi333 there is the evidence by Ms. Atwood, despite her not liking Trump, that she has not apparently endorsed her book as somehow exposing Trump trying to establish Gilead. It appears that it is the left leaning media commentators who are frantically attempting to turn the Handmaid's Tail into left-wing propaganda tool. I encourage the removal of references to Trump. TheBlackMark (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As it stands today, the sentence about (a media discussion about) parallels between Gilead and Trump is pointless and unencyclopedic. If this is suppoed to have merit, then the parallels have to mentioned. If they can't be mentioned, they are likely non-existant. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of current political theories

There was some speculation here as to whether this 30-year-old book was prophetical about the election of Trump/Pence but it was not encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.196.154 (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You misread that section. The section wasn't "speculation" about it being "prophetical"; it briefly discussed the extensive coverage of parallels in the media. Given the extensive coverage, it is WP:DUE to briefly mention that that such discussion existed. --Aquillion (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Fred Waterford

In the epilogue, entitled "Historical Notes", a late 22nd-century historian speculates that the "Commander" might be Frederick R. Waterford. He is never referred to by name in the story itself, not even as "Fred". In the TV series, he is referred to throughout as "Fred Waterford", which is presumably why he is called that in the Plot Summary and Characters sections. I am taking it out. Scolaire (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

American English, British English, or Canadian English?

Just curious--which type of English should we use in this article? Many of the words are on par with British English... Should it be kept that way? RayDeeUx (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Additions and Changes to the Article:

1. I believe that there is a content gap in the critical reception portion of the article under the subheading "Race". There are plenty of critical, scholarly reviews regarding the idea that Margaret Atwood borrowed from the African-American experience of slavery and applied it to white women in her novel. The Race portion does not adequately explain the reasoning for this critique of The Handmaid's Tale and I feel as though it needs to be better explained and further analyzed. This portion also needs more reliable scholarly sources. Below, I have attached the additions that I am planning to include within the article under the "Race" subheading:

Note: I want to make sure my added portions are as objective as possible and are clear to the readers. Also, if you note any grammar mistakes or changes please feel free to bring those to my attention as well.

Race

Many argue that readers cannot simply ignore the parallels between racism and sexism within the The Handmaid’s Tale. Ana Cottle characterized The Handmaid's Tale as "white feminism", noting that Atwood does away with black people in a few lines by relocating the "Children of Ham" while borrowing heavily from the African-American experience and applying it to white women.[57][58] Critics believe that Atwood chooses to erase the black community from the novel by sending them elsewhere in order to make the Republic of Gilead a white society. In the novel, she refers to blacks as “The Children of Ham”. Plenty of critics and scholar, Ben Merriman, believe that Atwoods portrayal of society in The Handmaid’s Tale mimics that of a society run on black slavery. This is due to the novels heavy focuses on “sexual exploitation, isolation, and compelled ignorance that accompany severe economic and political powerlessness”, of white women, which are themes often associated with African-American slavery. In Gilead, Handmaid’s are forbidden to read or write and the men in charge have a strong control over literacy. In black slavery, African-Americans had restrictions on literacy as well. Atwood pools from a norm in slavery, uses it in her novel and, refuses to recognize it. In addition to the beliefs of the novel pulling from the Black experience, many believe that the novel is a mimic of a slave narrative. The Handmaid’s Tale is written as an oral narration of Offred’s experiences. Oral narration’s are often a huge theme within slave narratives. Atwood also draws from the African-American slavery experience without acknowledgement. Because Atwood’s talent, critics say that Atwood purposely did not acknowledge the parallels between her novel and the African-American experience. ————The source I used for this novel is Ben Merriman's "White Washing Oppression in Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale" ———— ————I was also planning to add a few more sentences after I had dug for more research————

2. The Genre Classification section includes large bulks of quotations. Wikipedia recommends for writers to avoid these large chunks and include smaller ones. I was planning to delete these larger portions and either make them smaller or paraphrase the point that Atwood was making in these interviews and cite the source of the interview. Below is a proposed edit:

Note: Please feel free to provide feedback

Genre Classification

The Handmaid’s Tale is a feminist dystopian novel,[25][26] combining the characteristics of dystopian fiction: “a genre that projects an imaginary society that differs from the author’s own, first, by being significantly worse in important respects and second by being worse because it attempts to reify some utopian ideal,”[27] with the feminist utopian ideal which: “sees men or masculine systems as the major cause of social and political problems (e.g. war), and presents women as not only at least the equals of men but also as the sole arbiters of their reproductive functions.[28][29] The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction notes that dystopian images are almost invariably images of future society, “pointing fearfully at the way the world is supposedly going in order to provide urgent propaganda for a change in direction.”[30] Atwood's stated intent was indeed to “take conservative opinions and dramatize them, carry them to their furthest logical conclusions” dramatize potential consequences of current trends.”[31]

In 1985, reviewers hailed the book as a "feminist 1984,"[32] citing similarities between the totalitarian regimes under which both protagonists live, and “the distinctively modern sense of nightmare come true, the initial paralyzed powerlessness of the victim unable to act.”[33] Scholarly studies have expanded on the place of The Handmaid’s Tale in the dystopian and feminist traditions.[33][34][35][36][32]

The classification of utopian and dystopian fiction as a sub-genre of the collective term, speculative fiction, alongside science fiction, fantasy, and horror is a relatively recent convention. (See also: The Internet Speculative Fiction Database) Dystopian novels have long been discussed as a type of science fiction, however, with publication of The Handmaid's Tale, Atwood distinguished the terms science fiction and speculative fiction quite intentionally. Atwood acknowledges that others may use the terms interchangeably. But she notes her interest in this type of work is to explore themes in ways that "realistic fiction" cannot do.[37] Among science fiction aficionados, however, Atwood's comments were considered petty by some, perhaps even contemptuous.

3. Wikipedia prefers for books to include a background section of the novel following the lead section, which includes background information of the author and how the novel came to be. This article does not include a background section. In this article, the heading labeled "Historical Context" includes a lot of information that can go into the background section that I am thinking of adding. I was planning to change the historical context section into the background section and move it under the lead section. It will include the same information that is already in this historical context section.

4. Smaller Fixes: A lot of the information within the article is repetitive. I plan to go through and make sure the repetitive information is no longer considered repetitive. In addition, I want to fix the sentence structure and grammar mistakes in order to make the article more fluid and appear as a more reliable source.

Please feel free to comment on any other suggestions or concerns

Thank You!

Mayadray (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Offred claimed here as a pun

Article says: "Offred" is also a pun on the word "offered", as in "offered as a sacrifice", and "of red" because the red dress assigned for the handmaids in Gilead. What is the source? I would assume this is the theory of some literary critic, but it's presented as though it's one of the facts of the novel's plot. Equinox ◑ 08:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• The source is Margaret Atwood herself. She has mentioned this many times in the past, like when the novel came out in 1985, but the source easiest to access is a New York Times article from March 2017: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/books/review/margaret-atwood-handmaids-tale-age-of-trump.html?searchResultPosition=1. "When I first began 'The Handmaid’s Tale' it was called 'Offred,' the name of its central character. This name is composed of a man’s first name, 'Fred,' and a prefix denoting 'belonging to,' so it is like 'de' in French or “von” in German, or like the suffix 'son' in English last names like Williamson. Within this name is concealed another possibility: 'offered,' denoting a religious offering or a victim offered for sacrifice."QuizzicalBee (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Marthas ( Handmaid's Tale)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Marthas ( Handmaid's Tale). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7#Marthas ( Handmaid's Tale) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating a sub category of "Illegitimate Women" under "Setting"

The definition of "unwomen" and "jezebels" are included under the "analysis" description and more specifically under "Feminist Analysis". Should these terms be moved under "Setting" and placed in a sub category after Legitimate Women called "Illegitimate women?" I believe this edit will add more cohesiveness to the article. Cmswim18 (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography

• Callaway, Alanna (2008). "Women disunited: Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" as a critique of feminism". Master's Theses. 1: 6–56. Alanna Callaway dissects first-wave and second-wave feminism in relation to Margaret Atwood's own professional views towards the topic based upon her works. Callaway also provides other post-apocalyptic novels to further support ideas of hyper-political idealism, sexism, polarizing feminism, and a distinct power struggle within women's own hierarch. Within these systems Callaway argues Atwood's unique commentary on women's antagonistic approach, primarily in second-wave feminism, that denotes a higher concern on communicating the misunderstood gap between men and women. Sean.Robi733 (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2021

• CRĂCIUN(Monica), ROBU(Danielle) (January 2018). "Exploring the Representation of Some Themes in Margaret Atwood's Novel "The Handmaid's Tale"". Translation Studies: Retrospective and Prospective Views. 21: 24–32. This article focuses on themes that are present within the novel and what direction does the novel go with those themes being represented. Feminism, objectification, oppressions, and stereotyping are all themes that Atwood aims to create a story around. Pittmanraven (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Filipczack, Dorota (1993). "Is There No Blame in Gilead? Biblical Intertext in The Handmaid's Tale". Literature and Theology. 7 (2): 171–185. Retrieved 1 April 2021. This article explains how the novel uses references from the Bible in it's text. Though sometime ambiguous, the Christian text plays an important role. Locked in a box in every home, it becomes a device of as the article calls it, a "totem of the totalitarian system". The bible also is seen as a trapped text turned into a lethal instrument because the regime(male dominated) generates oppressive laws. This article also goes on to explain how men seem to not have any blame, and women are seen as second class citizens. By these men, women are only seen as child-bearers, and because of this, they do not see anything wrong with the way they treat the handmaids. This article does a great job of exploring how the male characters think in the novel.Jennifero2000 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hitesh, Karan (2019). "Agony of Wives and Handmaids in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale". Languages in India. XIX: 231–236. The article “Agony of Wives and Handmaids in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale ” discusses how the protagonist of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ endures bitterness throughout her private and public life. The article also focuses on how Atwood central point of victimized females and what would happen if women’s rights were taken away. Overall, the article provides key insight into feminist backlash and radicalism. User:haley.carter1 (talk) 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ingersoll, Earl (1993). "Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale Echoes of Orwell". Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts. V (4): 64–72. Throughout this article Ingersoll compares similar writings of Winston Smith in George Orwell's novel 1984 to the writings and reconstruction of Offred in Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. Both writers in the novels are in dystopian worlds and using their stories in hopes of someone eventually being able to read them in the future. The author also contrasts that Winston's writing is only fictionalizing history and Offred's job is to make babies. Offred is writing and reconstructing her story the way she wants to in order for the ending to be what she desires. Ivy.sapp (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Kalantarian, Shir.in; Zarrinjooee, Bahman (2017). "Women's Oppressed and Disfigured Life in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale" (PDF). Vol.8No.1: 66–71. Retrieved 1 April 2021. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help) The following article explores the oppression of women in The Handmaid's Tale. Throughout this article, the author demonstrates a women's oppression within the patriarchal society. In a male-dominated society, the woman's body is objectified. Women are no longer viewed as human beings but rather as tools. Many women experience loss of identity in Atwood's novel.Anawimpy98 (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Kiss, Beatrix (January 2020). ""Elimination of Gender Equality in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale."". ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries. 17 (1): 57–66. Retrieved 29 April 2021. Kiss' article is one that talks about the elimination of equality in Atwood's Handmaid's Tale. She mentions the four D's. "[D]istinction, dependence, division and dominance," (57). The four D's are one of the main topics of Kiss' article and they pertain to the elimination of equality present in Atwood's work. Abi sap (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Roland, Karla (2013). "The Symbolic Power of Red in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale". Digital Commons East Tennessee State University: 4–6. Roland explores the many symbolic representations in Atwood’s novel. One of the main symbols she analyzes is the color ‘red’ in the novel. According to Roland, “The red dress also masks individual identity by making the women virtually indistinguishable from eah other.” Overall, Roland concludes that there are many different ways the color red can be portrayed in the novel. RyanArian (talk)RyanArian (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Stillman, Peter G.; Johnson, S. Anne (1994). "Identity, Complicity, and Resistance in The Handmaid's Tale". Utopian Studies. V (2): 70–86. The author of this article focuses on Offred's identity before Gilead and she adapts to the Gilead ruling without losing who she was prior. The author defines Offred as being savvy when it comes to living a controlled life by Gilead. She uses what she sees from the commanders and their wives to determine how wealthy they are and she uses her love of words and puns in attempt to better understand the secrets of Gilead. The article analyzes the drastic measures Gilead leaders took in order to make women only property with no rights, education, friends, or a job. The author states that Atwood wrote the novel as a warning for the future but also for people to have a strong sense of self in order to maintain a liberating society. Ivy.sapp (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Restorative Sexes

Within Allanna Callaway's article feminism, religious zealotry, and identity are used to subvert the narrative of modern feminism to allow for critical analysis of women's treatment of women in A Handmaid's Tale. A differencing spectrum of genders has always existed though a conceptual detailed understanding has only recently been discussed amongst intellectual peers. First wave feminism regards women's ability to vote and own property while second wave feminism falls into a broader category of cultural feminism pertaining to women's individuality and distinct nature known only to themselves. Callaway argues that Margret Atwood aligned herself more with the former ideals of women more so than the later explaining the concept of women's own mistreatment towards one another in the novel. Consequently, issues that are present in modern society regarding women's lack of transparent rights goes unnoticed because of second-wave feminism and its antagonistic approach to certain issues. Communication becomes severely powerless once a personalized echo chamber is fixed within oneself. Second-wave feminism regretfully established itself as superior to first wave feminism providing a platform to cultivate an identity that hinders a progressive goal, unity. For if two separate sides remain isolated in a fixed state then a unifying change to learn from one another to the betterment of each cannot happen.|Sean.Robi733 (talk) 4:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Relationship with Nick

The article states that the Commander's wife "arranges for Offred to begin a covert sexual relationship with Nick". This makes it sound like it was intended to be an ongoing relationship, however other events in the book make it clear that it was only meant to be a single event. On a subsequent visit to Nick she describes having to sneak out, without the aid of the Commander's wife, avoiding the search lights around the house, which the Commander's wife arranged to be disabled on the initial visit. At the end of the book, when the black van arrives Offred is uncertain which of her transgressions was the one that resulted in her being taken and it seems that her subsequent visits to Nick is one of the possible reasons she considered.

The wording of this section could be changed to something like "arranged a sexual encounter between Offred and Nick" to make it clearer that it was a one-time affair. Idesdev (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Idesdev I've edited the article to reflect that it was meant to be a covert sexual encounter instead of an ongoing relationship. Thank you for your input and welcome to Wikipedia. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

White Supremacist?

As far as I can tell that seems to have just got shoehorned into the first sentence in the last few months without much discussion. In the lead all that is supporting it is a single source which hasn't as far as I am aware been discussed for reliability, and all it has is a single sentence about the "white supremacist nature" of the revolution in the book. True, the later paragraphs do have a section about race, but none of it says anything about white supremacy. I personally think it should be removed. Thoughts? 22090912l (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

EBook in 1986?

I highly doubt an ebook version was published in 1986, and certainly not on Kindle, as Google might have you believe. Rather, it seems like 2012 is the correct year, per this article - https://www.curtisbrown.co.uk/news/atwoods-the-handmaids-tale-released-as-an-ebook. luckymustard (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)