The Handmaid's Tale (TV series)

Hmm. Not sure if what follows constitutes a spoiler, but just in case...

We never find out, Alexa. In the book, her story ends with her being taken away in a van, but we don't know if the men are resistance fighters who will help her escape or are part of the regime and she's going to be punished.

The end of the book is taken up with an epilogue that's set in the future where an academic is talking about the tapes they've discovered and transcribed, which tapes are her story. So we know the regime has fallen, but her fate remains unknown -- not least because the academic (a man, needless to say) is less concerned about what happened to her than proving the authenticity of the tapes and bemoaning the evidence she's failed to provide for him of the regime's bureaucracy.
 
Last edited:
I watched the first episode, but haven't seen the others yet, and since seeing the others will involve all the ad-breaks, I might not do so.

It might be naive of me, but I found it a bit incredible that they could have "evolved" all those rituals in just a few short years. I guess you could argue that the mindset from which they came was always there just under the surface, but one thing seemed especially unlikely, the impregnation ceremony. I couldn't believe that given the choice between (1) making a man have sex with a woman who wasn't his wife, and (2) using some means of artificial insemination, an extreme religious society would opt for (1). It felt like the result of someone trying to up the drama and push reader/audience buttons. But I'm happy to be argued against.
 
I've just finished reading the book (which I loved, but what a sad, bleak reality was Gilead). I was incredulous that this complex of a society could develop in - I think it was - less than a decade. But about a third of the way through, I considered the dramatic changes that resulted within the societies conquered by a very recent and current barbaric dictatorship, and it made using the old 'willing suspension of disbelief' much easier. (I'm not mentioning the dictatorship to avoid any sort of real-world, political/religious discussion.)

I do, though, wish that the story had happened, say, 25 years after the U.S. fell.

Looking forward to the series - big Elisabeth Moss fan. (Although I think some of the casting is a bit off...in particular, I would have expected Serena Joy and The Commander to have been a bit older in the book than they were cast.)
 
HareBrain said:
It might be naive of me, but I found it a bit incredible that they could have "evolved" all those rituals in just a few short years. I guess you could argue that the mindset from which they came was always there just under the surface, but one thing seemed especially unlikely, the impregnation ceremony. I couldn't believe that given the choice between (1) making a man have sex with a woman who wasn't his wife, and (2) using some means of artificial insemination, an extreme religious society would opt for (1).
Click to expand...
My bolding -- but I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I read that "making"! With all due respect to every man reading this who would never contemplate adultery, I really don't think these men are in any way forced to have sex with a handmaid. The men involved are at the top of the pyramid of power, and like all people who have power they are taking whatever they can get whenever, however and from whomever they can get it.

As to the religion argument, do you really think any extreme religious society so disapproves of men in power having sex with different women that it will pursue technological means to avoid it? The men who are allowed handmaids are the ones who make the rules -- and allow themselves to break them -- so what's more likely, that they'll deposit sperm into a cup, or straight into a woman?! We're talking power dynamics here, not simply the propagation of the species. (If I'm remembering correctly the prostitutes they use are sterilised first so there are no pregnancy complications, so the whole must-have-children rationale of the handmaids is seen as the fig-leaf it truly is). Having the real -- supposedly infertile -- wife there in the impregnation ceremony simply pays lip service to the religious ban on adultery without actually preventing it.

There's also the issue that it's a tenet of faith in this society that no man is infertile, only women are -- which is of course the age-old lie of barren women being at fault. Extreme religions tend not to be sympathetic to reproductive technology in any event, because it's, well, artificial and what man would know what sperm has actually been implanted into his property? But if it were available, it would surely raise rumours of the leaders' true lack of fertility, starting with the technicians who understand such issues as sperm motility and then getting out into the wider population.

I'm with CC on this. I never doubted for a moment that religious bigots could evolve such systems very, very quickly, but I'm perhaps more hopeful -- or more naive -- than he is, in that if it did happen to a previously civilised country there would be enough people around who remembered what life should be to bring it to an end relatively quickly. And, of course, the book only works because the main character has had a child beforehand and is still of an age to be fertile, so it's necessary for the timescale to be telescoped into a shorter period.
 
Hmm, I take your points, but I suppose my argument came from the fact that Joseph Feinnes's character looked so damned uncomfortable during the process. And what man of power, who'd made the rules, would want his wife there at the time? (OK, I guess some might, but surely only a tiny minority.) Also, if he'd had any influence over the process, or if the process was partly done for the purposes of sexual gratification, wouldn't he have been able to choose his own handmaid rather than being assigned one?
 
That to me points to its being a recent convention. To get the whole society going they've had to use religious rationale for everything, hence the lip-service being paid to it being a duty not pleasure, and the necessity for the involvement of the wife so the child produced is "hers". To my mind, the longer the society survives, the more likely it is the wife's role would be removed, eg she would leave once the handmaid entered the bedroom and they performed some ritual of passing over duty, or there would a symbolic representation of her there on the bed (which could be ignored or illegally covered up in her absence).

I can't now recall how the handmaids are assigned, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's not some way in which the most powerful seek to get the most beautiful handmaids. But in any event, 1) it's going along with the fantasy that it's a religious matter of duty, not a matter of sex, which is important for the social narrative, and 2) it's about power as much as sex.
 
(Possibly...?)
I can see by the casting list at IMDb that there are some differences between the book and series (to be expected, of course). In the book it's really clear that the Commander is digging having control over our protagonist...he has complete power over her and exercises this with sick little power/sex games.

And of course this is a discussion of the TV series, so it's not really relevant of me to mention the book, but I'll say that I cannot imagine the book's Commander displaying any honest discomfort at what he puts Offred (and others) through.

I found the politics of the book fascinating. Early in the narrative, I was wondering why there wasn't wholesale rebellion against the new rulers of Gilead (there were isolated pockets of rebellion, seemingly by various out of favor religious denominations). Patriotic America would fight to the death if there'd been a communist overthrow of the central government, or if one of the hated other-religions had been imposed by force of arms (and Patriotic Americans have stores of the weapons needed to foment rebellion). But I was chilled and horrified by the thought of whether patriarchal, Patriotic America would fight en masse, to the last man, to save its women from enslavement...I'm not so sure that some wouldn't welcome that particular change. Anyway, sorry - not sure how much of this is in the series, so I'll stop.
 
The Judge said:
To get the whole society going they've had to use religious rationale for everything, hence the lip-service being paid to it being a duty not pleasure, and the necessity for the involvement of the wife so the child produced is "hers"
Click to expand...

But why? What people are they needing to win over who would accept that, but wouldn't accept that Commander Wotsisface could (without being public about it, obviously) take his handmaid as and when he pleased -- or even any other female servant in his household, in case by some divine will she gets pregnant? Whence would come the resistance to one and not the other? Given that most of the population wouldn't even know what goes on in a commander's household, it seems needlessly convoluted and restrictive of the elite power it's supposedly intended to free up.

From what @Cat's Cradle says, the book might have convinced me more. And I might be unfair judging the TV series on one episode anyway. I perhaps would have preferred it if the development of the Gilead society had been shown chronologically.
 
Ah, I've not yet watched the episodes, so I'm going on how the book shows it, so that may well be why we're coming at it from different perspectives.

To me, after the initial shock of regime change is over, it's necessary for a new regime to have the backing of a sizeable part of the population. It can rely on self-preservation for a good many not putting their heads over the parapet, as long as there are sufficiently harsh punishments and secret police, but the powerful are absolutely dependent on those who carry out their laws, ie here the men with guns and the women in control of the other women. The religious narrative helps bind those people to the regime, so the powerful have to act -- or appear to act -- within that narrative. Acting outside of it, by blatant adultery and promiscuity which is forbidden, endangers them as individuals by creating jealousy among the servants and room for denunciation of not being godly enough, and endangers them as a group by showing that the religious issue is all a sham. If the spoils of the regime were distributed differently -- eg any man could take any woman -- then it wouldn't be as necessary for the charade. That's my take on it, anyway.
 
HareBrain said:
From what @Cat's Cradle says, the book might have convinced me more. And I might be unfair judging the TV series on one episode anyway. I perhaps would have preferred it if the development of the Gilead society had been shown chronologically.
Click to expand...

I've only seen one of the episodes but I did read the book recently.

It is a dystopia, so how we got to this society is not important IMO (Does one debate how the societies of Orwell's 1984 or Huxley's Brave New World might actually come into existence? You could but that's not really the point of dystopia is it?)

In a 'hard SF' way it may be highly unlikely as a society but it's power for me is that it does feel very plausible.
 
I agree. Offred's story is so powerful (and so powerfully sad) that after a little while all that matters is her. It just took this space opera/horror-loving chronner a little while to fully appreciate this.
 
I didn't read the book and honestly, I have no intention reading it either. This is really not my cup of tea.

Nevertheless, I watched all the episodes so far in a state of shock and outrage. I have kept watching and wonderning myself how could it be possible to imagine such a sick society.

In this Sunday episode, we had a glimpse of how these commanders planned the future society for women completely under their control. As they were supposed to be very religious, the wife had of course her facade role. And as all rich and powerful men, they indulged themselves a mistress for sex, so they covered her real purpose under *handmaid's* name. They imagined this future society for the benefit of a few rich men with no respect of all for the life of all the others.
 
Alexa said:
Nevertheless, I watched all the episodes so far in a state of shock and outrage. I have kept watching and wonderning myself how could it be possible to imagine such a sick society.
Click to expand...

It was imagined as a Dystopia. It is supposed to be frightening and disturbing. It is a warning.

But as for where it really comes from, I'm afraid a great deal is, like the Orwellian world of 1984, derived from real life just exaggerated and made worse - in this case the term handmaid specifically refers to the societies described in the old testament*: "...handmaid is applied to a female slave who serves her mistress, as in the case of Hagar being described as Sara's handmaid...In each of these cases, the mistress "gave" their handmaid to their husbands "to wife", to bear his "seed" (children). The use in the Torah of the prefix "to", as in "gave to wife", may indicate that the wife is a concubine or inferior wife. The text repeats that these people remain handmaids (i.e., slaves) of their mistress though they are also the mistress's husband's concubine."**

--------------------------
* Although I am sure such conditions have been endured and suffered by many women from many different cultures, not just Hebrew.
** From Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Yes, the basis is ultimately Old Testament Christianity (Judaism and presumably all other religions are illegal in Gilead) filtered through American hellfire televangelism with a bit of race prejudice thrown in for good measure (I don't think the TV show includes this aspect, oddly). The execution of the concept probably owes a lot to Islamism in the most brutal parts of the Middle East. Apparently, the outfits owe something to Puritans in Europe. So all in all, it just needs human sacrifice and a divine emperor and it would be all of the world's worst religious tyrannies mixed into one. If I remember rightly, the Russian government passed a law a couple of years ago explicitly legalising wife-beating, provided that you didn't hospitalise her. Lovely chaps.

1984 is really an extrapolated mixture of Nazism and Stalinism, presumably with a kind of Chairman Mao/General Tojo hybrid in Eastasia.
 
Last edited:
I do not think I am the right audience for this show. I am generally a feminist (yes guys can be feminists) when it comes to these types of things. My worldview is that women control relationships and have all the freedom in the world. I once made a joke stating that maybe there is a pay gap because it's the only last remaining thread of power men have to hold over women. I generally do not care for tongue-in-cheek "Women can do anything," crap because that just seems immature to me. As long as those people who call themselves feminists don't take themselves too seriously like Kimmy Schmidt on Netflix, it's all in good fun. But for most, I generally do not think they believe in the slogan that they are complaining about. When I very much do in every day life.

I tend to stay away from those shows that preach that nonsense. So you'd think I would actually like this right? A show that tries something different in this type of space? No. This show at least the pilot is the complete opposite of that. It was not enjoyable and made me extremely uncomfortable which may have been the point but the suspension of disbelief was too much. For someone who is a practicing feminist I just can't wrap my head around this type of society. I would never accept that society and would wish I would die off in the plague.
 
Maybe Margaret Atwood imagined this society as a warning for those who preach for totalitarian and fundamentalist religions.

Anyone know why commander Fred Waterford took his distances with his wife, Serena ?
 
Do you mean why they seem to have moved apart as a couple? From the book, I would give a few reasons.

1) Both of them have got what they wanted and don't seem happy with it, and are probably guilty and depressed as a result. Fred clearly misses the old world, and as well as being sexually frustrated (hence Jezebel's) appears to want to be able to talk to an intelligent woman (as per the Scrabble games). It's not made as clear with Serena, as she doesn't get as close to Offred, but I expect much the same is going on with her, especially since she advocated for "family values" before the coup - ie her own enslavement.
2) The natural conclusion of a regime like Gilead is to criminalise "deviant" sexuality (which covers almost anything short of literal breeding) and to make everyone guilty about any sort of sexual thoughts. After all, if you were a Gileadean, would you dare ask anyone "Is this normal?". I can't imagine why, but religious maniacs are always obsessed with sex and, in particular, a certain type of (maybe) gay sex, which they find both repellent and fascinating. Ultimately, this attitude in a government would make any sort of affection between a couple awkward and unpleasant.
3) I'll bet that weird Handmaid ritual would put a strain on any relationship.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Extollager Tolkien's opposition to illustrating fairy-tales JRR Tolkien 24
Harpo Tales Of The Empire Star Wars (TV series) 1
Sargeant_Fox British Library Tales of the Weird Horror 2
F The Handmaid's Tale Book Discussion 62
Omphalos The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood Book Discussion 1

Similar threads


Back
Top