Margaret Atwood

[Brian G Turner]

Neal brought her up in another thread...

Had to study "Cat's Eye" when I went to college to do an English A-Level (in case it helped with my writing). Interesting book - the childhood stuff is simply great and has the authentic ring of semi-autobiography. Unfortunately, the rest suddenly skips 40+ years of world-changing events to focus on a few small psychological details of the main character - who by now fails to be anything but a false projected persona. You can see this vividly in the way the child references celebrating Queen Elizabeth's birthday - yet the adult seems unaware of Kennedy, or the Cold War. As a work of literature, "Cat's Eyes" is very limited and it;s not going into the halls of the Classics, IMO.

Never read "Handmaiid's tale", or watched the film, though. Any thoughts on that?

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

I haven't yet got around to reading her books. although I have heard a lot of critical acclaim, and also grumblings from the SF community because she apparently prefers not to think of her works as SF.


I didn't know that a movie was made of Handmaid's Tale. The book is available in most stores, but I haven't yet felt compelled to pick it up.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Yes - she won the Booker Prize (literary award) over here at least once, with multiple nominations across the years.

Handmaid's Tale is apparently SF in some elements, but it's more a futuristic backdrop to a story, rather than speculative fiction in tself.

She is usually labelled a "feminist writer", but in an interview I saw of her she seems quite sick of that - as if a woman writing about women therefore implies some form of socio-political radicalism, rather than simple personal storytelling - which I believe is what she actually subscribes to.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I've since read Year of the Flood, which was a somewhat rambling dystopian novel.

Am now reading the Handmaid's Tale, but I find myself having to plod through it.

She's very good at making abstract connections between things, resulting into sometimes wonderful word play. But her characters - in any of her books - are overwhelmingly passive and emotionally detached to whatever happens.

If Handmaid's Tale was the first book someone read of hers, they may find it quiet a revelation. The narrative really fits the mood. But I've seen all this in her other books before. It's like literary Valium.

 

[The Judge]

Re: Margeret Atwood

Hmmm. I enjoyed Year of the Flood, though I'm sure I missed a great deal because I hadn't read Oryx and Crake which preceded it, but although I found it more than a little preachy about environmental issues, and not always easy to understand, I wouldn't have called it rambling. As for The Handmaid's Tale, by coincidence I've just read it in the last fortnight, and I was absolutely hooked from the first page, though I found it emotionally difficult to read, because it was so frighteningly plausible. (In the last couple of years I've also read The Robber Bride and The Blind Assassin, as well as her non-fiction In Other Words, so I was by far from coming cold to her work.)

I agree that Offred is passive and detached for the most part (though that's not something I'd have said about the two women in YotF who do act to save themselves, but see my remarks below about "action" which I think I may view differently from you) but I'm pretty sure that's the point Atwood is making -- we see the indoctrination Offred has undergone, the continual pressure, both mental and physical, exerted on all women to conform, and in Moira and Ofglen and their helpers (and possibly also in Offred's mother) what happens to those who actively resist the fundamentalist regime. Instead, Offred is forced into small acts, such as reading odd words, and remembering how things used to be, which are all that are left to her.

*puts on amateur psychologist's hat* I do wonder whether as a strong man yourself you are reading the books with a set, very masculine, view of what constitutes action, ie you require shows of force and active rebellion, so eg you want Offred to stab the Commander or somesuch to show her opposition to the system, even if that results in her immediate death. But for the bulk of the novel** that simply wouldn't be psychologically true, bearing in mind the oppression she suffers and the fate she'll face if she does anything -- and we see that many other women have committed suicide because they cannot act to free themselves in any other way, when they are so isolated.



**I won't spoil the ending of THT for you, assuming you want to read to the end, but Offred does have to make various decisions, all of which are literally life or death matters for her and others. There's still an element of passivity there, but ultimately she has to choose.

 

[martin321]

I've only read The Blind Assassin and The Penelopiad.

The Penelopiad is a retelling of the Odyssey from Penelope's point of view. I enjoyed it, but then I'm a sucker for anything based on Greek mythology. I think it's worth reading and it's very short.

The Blind Assassin, on the other hand, is a strange mixture of literary novel and pulp science fiction. It was okay, but I didn't find it particularly interesting. If I wanted to read pulp science fiction then there is much better pulp out there, and the literary parts were a bit dull. Not bad, but I don't really understand why it won the Booker prize. Then again, I'm often puzzled by the Booker winners.

 

[Dave]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I heard her on a BBC Radio 4 programme some years ago and she came over so badly in that interview that it put me off ever reading her books. She vehemently didn't want her books to be classed as science fiction. If you say she also doesn't like being classified as a feminist writer then you might think she just doesn't want to be labelled. However, she was happy to be labelled as a speculative fiction writer. To me, it seemed that she just had high literary pretensions and thought that science fiction was too far beneath her. I've since heard that her books are good, but I'm sure I can't be the only one who stayed clear of her following that PR disaster.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I haven't yet got around to reading her books. although I have heard a lot of critical acclaim, and also grumblings from the SF community because she apparently prefers not to think of her works as SF.

I watched an interview of her talking about SF. It is like she had tunnel vision about the mediocre to crap SF and then painted all SF with that brush. Kind of like judging all science fiction moveis on the basis of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHr0Q7I0m2E

But it is pretty similar to the first Alien movie though I was never so excited about that.

I started A Handmaid's Tale. Didn't finish, got bored.

Sturgeon's Law is from the 50s. 90% of everything is crud. He was talking about science fiction. Listening to Atwood comes across to me as a distorted perspective from people who want SF to be "Literary".

psik

 

[Brian G Turner]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I do wonder whether as a strong man yourself you are reading the books with a set, very masculine, view of what constitutes action

I think it's a fair argument that women readers will "get" a lot more from the story, not least the little details of oppression which exist in daily life (my wife always pointed to the detail of men taking control of money to 'look after' the women, leaving women feeling disenfranchised).

It's not so much that I expect dramatic action (my wife also uses this criticism on me ) as much as an impression I get from her books that her characters just stumble through her stories, not particularly caring about doing anything other than making clever observations.

However, it's a while since I read anything else by Atwood, so it may be the case that I'm allowing Handmaid's Tale to cloud my memories.

 

[Toby Frost]

Re: Margeret Atwood

Poor Atwood. She made some stupid and snobbish comments and they’ve certainly come back to bite her. Oh well: I suppose that’s what happens when you dismiss most of the genre you’re writing in as not worthy of serious consideration.

Seriously, The Handmaid’s Tale is a very good story about being miserable and nearly helpless in a dictatorship. I sometimes think of it as 1984 for feminists, in the way that Farenheit 451 is 1984 for readers and the film of Children of Men, with its Union Jacks and prison camps for immigrants, is 1984 for Guardian readers. I also disagree that Offred doesn’t do much, and that the lack of full-on action makes this a feminine book in a way (whatever that means): Winston Smith doesn’t do much either. Besides, Offred can’t do much, and she is looking for some way out, it seems. Like Winston, she appears to be close to joining the resistance before her contact is killed. That’s quite exciting.

I actually think that one of the main differences between normal and “literary” fiction is that in "literary" fiction, characters can’t change their circumstances and are effectively buffeted around by things out of their control (which seems like a stupid, arbitrary difference to me). However, more doctrinaire feminists might get an extra level of meaning from The Handmaid’s Tale: I’m told that the scene about burning pornography refers to the arguments between two different “waves” of feminism.

There’s another interesting comparison with 1984: Ingsoc is a mixture of Nazism and Stalinism, taken to their logical conclusions where they come full circle and meet, while Gilead feels like a mix of fundamentalist Christianity and Islam (although it’s nominally some crackpot sort of Protestantism). I’m not sure whether Atwood is saying that religious extremism inevitably regards women as a slave race, but the story seems to imply it. I suppose every dictatorship needs someone to oppress.

I read Onyx and Crake, which wasn’t bad. It’s a well-told story, although in terms of what’s in the book and the threats that it poses, it covers a lot of ground that Aldous Huxley, William Gibson or even Harry Harrison in West of Eden had considered. I wonder if this is a problem with SF for people who wouldn’t want to admit to reading SF: everything in, say, The Matrix was covered by Philip K Dick 30 years earlier. Still, there’s no denying that these are well-written and interesting books.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I liked Orxy & Crake a lot, and would recommend that, and The Handmaid's Tale too. She definitely counts as SF imo.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I finally read Handmaid's Tale and loved it. I thought The Blind Assassin was harrowing, but so amazingly well written. I also have a volume of Atwood's poetry which I like a lot. My wife has read most of her books, I still have to read the bulk of them but form what I can tell, Atwood is a good enough writer that it doesn't matter what silly things she may have to say about science fiction.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Re: Margeret Atwood

Seriously, The Handmaid’s Tale is a ... 1984 for feminists, in the way that Farenheit 451 is 1984 for readers

Now that is funny!

psik

 

[Brian G Turner]

Re: Margeret Atwood

Btw, just to clarify, I'm not saying that Handmaid's Tale is a bad book - I just wondered aloud if Margaret Atwood keeps writing about the same type of character. I am happy to stand corrected.

 

[GOLLUM]

Re: Margeret Atwood

No she definitely varies in that aspect. I have several of Atwood's books and I concur with JP that Handmaid's Tale is a superb book and should be viewed as a classic. I think it's her best (of what I have read).

Atwood IS very outspoken but also worth listening to in several interviews I've seen and heard and she can be extremely funny with her use of caustic wit. I've not heard the interview where she apparently distances herself from Genre writing though...maybe she was taking the P155 as we say here out of the question? Knowing Atwood that's not impossible either. I'll take a look at that link later.

 

[GOLLUM]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I finally read Handmaid's Tale and loved it. I thought The Blind Assassin was harrowing, but so amazingly well written. I also have a volume of Atwood's poetry which I like a lot. My wife has read most of her books, I still have to read the bulk of them but form what I can tell, Atwood is a good enough writer that it doesn't matter what silly things she may have to say about science fiction.

Interesting, I'm a bit of an Atwood fan and have several of her books but was not aware she wrote poetry per se.

Can you post a little more about her poetry and what the collection you have is called?

Thanks.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Re: Margeret Atwood

Atwood's poetry reflects the same kinds of themes her prose does: the clear eyed, sometimes unbearably so, examination of the 'battle of the sexes', for instance, the rich evocation of natural settings, the strain of interest in fairy tales is allowed more play in her poetry and perhaps she sometimes speaks with a more personal voice in them. Here is one I like a lot:

Siren Song

This is the one song everyone
would like to learn: the song
that is irresistible:

the song that forces men
to leap overboard in squadrons
even though they see beached skulls

the song nobody knows
because anyone who had heard it
is dead, and the others can’t remember.
Shall I tell you the secret
and if I do, will you get me
out of this bird suit?
I don’t enjoy it here
squatting on this island
looking picturesque and mythical
with these two feathery maniacs,
I don’t enjoy singing
this trio, fatal and valuable.

I will tell the secret to you,
to you, only to you.
Come closer. This song

is a cry for help: Help me!
Only you, only you can,
you are unique

at last. Alas
it is a boring song
but it works every time.

The collections I have are 'Eating Fire', which collects selected poems from 1965 to 1995 and her latest poetry book (as of now), 'The Door'. I recommend both. I also discovered the writer Carol Shields because Atwood contributed a glowing introduction to a collection of Shields' short fiction.

 

[GOLLUM]

Re: Margeret Atwood

Thanks!

That poem by Atwood is great. I'll try and source those books.

Carol Shields is good. I have 'Dressing up for the Carnival' collection and her novel Stone Diaries.

 

[Mangara]

Re: Margeret Atwood

Hmmm. I enjoyed Year of the Flood, though I'm sure I missed a great deal because I hadn't read Oryx and Crake which preceded it, but although I found it more than a little preachy about environmental issues, and not always easy to understand, I wouldn't have called it rambling.

It is certainly, in my opinion greatly improved by reading the first book. Indeed the way in which she intertwines the two novels is quite masterful. I can see with only half the story how some of the major plot moves could feel a bit forced or alien. I absolutely loved Year of the Flood but then again I am a nature loving humanist who spends half his time on an allotment

 

[Brian G Turner]

Re: Margeret Atwood

Well, I finally finished The Handmaid's Tale, but found it a slog.

What continues to frustrate me about Margaret Atwood's writing is my perception that the reader is supposed to fill in the emotional reactions for the characters. I thought this was especially underlined at the end of this book, where it finishes on a lecture, rather than delve into the fate of Offred.

There's a chapter opening towards the end of the book that really sums it up for me:

I wish this story were different...I wish it showed me in a better light, if not happier, then at least more active, less hesitant, less distracted by trivia.

That pretty much sums up my experience.

I willingly accept any criticisms that I may be missing the point through being male. I accept that I like to see a character struggle against adversity, and that isn't the point here. But what I struggle with as a reader is the emotional disengagement.

I posted a similar criticism for Iain M Bank's Consider Phlebas - I feel a need to know what drives a character, and feel frustrated without that. I guess that's just a personal bias.