There are three things that I noticed in this rereading of The Handmaid’s Tale.
- The use of time in the narrative.
- The importance of what is not said.
- The matter of world-building and perspective.
In all three, readers are wholly engaged. Engaged in the use of time, in the fast-paced movement through the story. This should be a devastatingly slow read, given the subject matter, but the structure (everything from sentence structure and chapter length to cyclical inner-rounds like all the “Night” chapters) shapes the story into a fast-paced narrative.
(The days are measured out in bells. Gardening makes the time pass, but it’s an activity restricted to the Commanders’ wives. The Angels “haven’t yet learned about existence through time”. Bodies are time travellers. Decades are measured in fashions like mini-skirts and pants. Offred notes: “I’ve filled in the time I’ve lost. I know how much there’s been.” There’s a “long parenthesis of nothing”. The Guardians have to spend so much time waiting, probably playing cards or reading. Luke: “Stopped dead in time, in middair, among the trees back there, in the act of falling.” And time has washed away June, like a “woman of sand, left by a careless child too near the water”. There are so many more. I’ll stop here.)
Engaged in the act of unearthing what is not said. For instance, learning that the glass in Offred’s window is unbreakable: this takes no effort, we simply absorb the information. But when we are told that there is no glass in a picture frame, we actively participate in finishing the sentence. Until, when we learn details like this, we not only complete the thought by acknowledging that June cannot throw herself from the window, that June cannot break the glass in that picture frame to slit her wrists. But we also become involved with the realization that other women threw themselves, other women slit their wrists. Their deaths were the motivation to make different choices.
(“As all historians know, the past is a great darkness, and filled with echoes. Voices may reach us from it; but what they say to us is imbued with the obscurity of the matrix out of which they come; and try as we may, we cannot always decipher them precisely in the clearer light of our own day.”)
This is also connected to the world-building aspect of the story, which readers also engage in, from the first mention of tokens for groceries and how the Marthas bake bread. A frequent complaint about dystopian fictions is that readers want more or less of an explanation. One advantage to scattering the information about Gilead (and what might exist of the world beyond, which isn’t entirely clear until the final pages of the book) is that piece-meal, it’s hard to gauge just how much we know. It’s more likely to satisfy more readers.
But even more important in this regard, is the fact that readers’ understanding of Gilead comes entirely from Offred’s experience of Gilead. What she doesn’t see, beyond the wings of her headpiece. What she doesn’t know (for instance, Ofglen encourages her to learn any small detail about the Commander’s travels and efforts), beyond the peripheries of her existence in the Commander’s house. What she doesn’t think about (for the most part, what other women’s experience of Gilead is/might be like, although there are plenty of phrases which reveal the inequities of the system).
We can’t see or know or contemplate something unless it’s in Offred’s purview. [Many of the criticisms which are levied against this story confuse the character’s presentation with authorial voice: it is deliberately limited to encourage readers to examine the limitations of their own perspectives.]
And, so, we are engaged in the process of building an understanding. Which, ironically, is an opportunity afforded to us because there is a symposium – in the future – about the historical Gilead.
How we see things.
Whether we see things.
Both are equally important. The more privileged amongst us might have the luxury of not-seeing. Of choosing to not see.
It matters to June. What she sees.
She thinks about how her mother used to burn magazines and how June didn’t take her position seriously. (This is an ongoing debate amongst feminists even yet, whether the fashion and porn industries are empowering or repressive for women featured in these media.)
She considers that Aunt Helena used to head a Weight Watchers franchise. (The diet and wellness industry also remain touchstones for women.)
She asserts that Aunt Lydia “pretended to do all that love-the-sinner, hate-their-sin stuff, but she enjoyed it”. And she reports her intention to aim for “a spirit of camaraderie among women”. Her belief: “We must all pull together.”
She wonders about Nick’s view of things: “Maybe he has no notion of the future, or does not bother or dare to imagine it.”
But ultimately, The Testaments is poised to offer another perspective on Gilead. Beyond Offred. Beyond June.
Tomorrow, I’ll be chatting about the TV series, and next week, I’ll have more to say about The Testaments.
Finally catching up on your Atwood posts. I love the observations you make about time and seeing and not seeing!
Are you planning to read this one? I’m sure you’re having a hard time making time for fiction these days, while trying to make so many other changes to your habits.
Yes, I am planning on reading it. I haven’t read Handmaid’s in ages so I feel like I should reread that first. 🙂
It’ll be so much more rewarding if you do. Whether or not all readers see the stories as all-of-a-piece, the author does, and the crafting of TT is best appreciated in concert with THT.
Love this. For me, the problem with The Testaments was that it filled in too many gaps – I’ve just finished reading it and will post my review tomorrow.
It seems to be such a personal thing – how much people want to know when it comes to reading dystopian fiction – as even in this comment thread it’s clear that for some readers, it was the idea of having the gaps filled which appealed to them most of all. Off to check your review!
Learning more about Gilead is the main reason I was excited about The Testaments. From The HT, I couldn’t get a good enough sense of where Gilead fit in with the rest of the world – I hoped The T would help with this (I won’t say whether or not it did).
I was also curious about Nick – what’s his story? Will we ever know more about him? Luke, too, but I was more sure about Luke’s story.
I re-read The Handmaid’s Tale about two years ago (I think)it remains an absolute classic for me. What you say about the reader only knowing as much of Gilead as Offred knows is key to the success of that narrative I think. I will be interested in your take on The Testaments, which I read the week it came out.
I remember how quickly you read it! And that we both attended the launch events (in our relative locations). Rereading is something I enjoy overall. Even when the story is simply one that I like and appreciate the opportunity to revisit. But rereading an Atwood novel is rewarding in the sense that there are always new layers to notice.
Time is such a detailed aspect of the Handmaid’s Tale that it’s been too long since I’ve read it to remember anything, although watching a few episodes of the show has reminded me of how horrific these little details are, like the fact that no one is allowed a razor to shave their legs b/c they will probably kill themselves with it, etc. Every time I read something else about these books i’m reminded of how powerful a writer Atwood is
So. Much. Waiting. It feels like all the characters here – even those with relatively more privilege – are filling in time. Not really living. Not actually alive. Days seeming to last a hundred hours. Which is also such a contrast to the way that so many of us now feel about our daily lives. As though there is never enough time.
A great post. What I really liked about The Testaments was the extra detail filling in the gaps of the time covered in THT as well as the more modern narrative.
Thanks, Liz. One thing that I really liked was the way she filled in the gaps. It felt very organic, small details slipping in, here and there, in a natural way, rather than an information dump.