Hadley Freeman Margaret Attwood article guardian today

*I don't like Atwood, never have. I've always found her writing quite repulsive in the way she seems to enjoy piling misery on her female characters.

I'm not interested one way or the other about whether she's "gender critical" but Atwood is rich enough and feted enough that she could "stand up" if she wanted to.*

This is exactly how I feel. She doesn't seem particularly feminist to me to be honest, although I don't doubt that the discomfort that her books provoke in me is deliberate

A young man comes up to our table to pay his respects, and he tells her they grew up in the same area. At first, Atwood is interested and asks questions. But after five minutes she’s done. “OK, shoo! Shoo! Bye-bye!” she says, turning back to her avocado toast so suddenly that the man is left dazed, mid-sentence.

That made me feel slightly queasy. If she didn't want to be approached (which is understandable) she could have politely said so in the first place. But to encourage him, and then be so rude and nasty, is horrible.

Haven't caught up with this yet but am about to read. Horrible to see Twitter come for Hadley off the back of it - the abuse on there has been severe in a way I haven't seen it thrown at her before. Really horrible.

I kind of understand why an 80+ year old woman who lost her husband not that long ago might not want the kinds of lunatics Rowling has experienced since declaring herself GC.

I also understand that unlike gender critical people, many people are somewhere between TRA and GC, not fence sitting but not fully understanding and looking for a truth before making an allegiance or believing it’s none of their business (regardless of what we may think or feel)

I cannot blame an elderly woman for not wanting that kind of negative attention and creeps doxxing her, she dipped her toe in, saw what happened to her preferred mode of communication (twitter) and so left the conversation with everyone having lots of questions and her not wanting to come down heavily on either side.

I also see she likes to make mischief and I like that about her. In her 80s she can light a touch paper and sit back and watch the show. Whatever we think of people who behave like that, she’s allowed to do so.

J K Rowling's Harvard commencement speech had me in tears when I stumbled across it whilst a very very low ebb

I was so pleased that (despite being a cesspit) Twitter meant I could tell her how much it meant to me, and she actually read that message.

Without being disrespectful to Hadley, it reads like a more prestigious, wordy version of a thread here.

Us: what about this?

TRA: never mind that/whataboutery/shush!/ [silence]

No wonder the posters here can’t answer questions when people like Margaret Atwood can’t even string a sensible answer together.

I like to imagine the email trail to be a lot of “be kind!” from Atwood, and a version of the “Break it down for me” thread from Hadley.

I think one aspect of Rowling's character is shown in the commencement speech she gave at Harvard. She is someone who has actually failed and hit rock bottom. Perhaps this is the root of her greater development as a human being. Rowling is not a "great writer", she's no stylist, though she writes good sentences, sometimes. She's a very good story teller, and a competent writer, who pays a lot of attention to what she does, so she gets better all the time (Strike is much better written that Potter was). And she observes and writes about people, what motivates them and the way they behave rather than Great Ideas. She reminds me of Maugham (the Somerset one, not the fox one), and I like her for similar reasons. She's readable and re-readable, like Maugham. I think her best work is still to come.

I have never managed to get into Attwood.

"If someone like Atwood (who, whatever you think of her, is clearly very intelligent) won't have reasonable discussions about such an important topic in feminism, then what hope is there."

This actually gives me hope, because I think it shows most people in the public eye spouting TWAW etc don't mean it. They are being "kind" and don't want to be challenged because they know it doesn't stand up to any sensible discussion.

Hadley is great isn't she. Such a rich and interesting interviewer.
Very glad she didn't back down. As others have mentioned, I think the spiky, quirky intellectual thing is pretty damn rude (that poor guy who approached their table) and good on Hadley for pressing on.
Thank being said, I found the ending hopeful. If someone like Atwood (who, whatever you think of her, is clearly very intelligent) won't have reasonable discussions about such an important topic in feminism, then what hope is there. At least she seemed to rethink a bit

Hadley is simply the best.

I think living in a world of fantasy and probabilities explains some of Jeanette Winterson's recent novels and words on the trans debate. As a lesbian she very much knows what a woman is but likes to explore gender bending and fairytales subverting gender norms

I’ve enjoyed some Margaret Atwood novels, and when I read The Handmaid’s Tale decades ago it seemed like a powerful feminist warning. I’m a bit disappointed now. As others have said here, she’s such a big name now, she could have spoken up like JKR.

On the other hand, she does live in a literary world of fantasy and imagination, and I think she may genuinely see gender identity as an opening up of possibilities. (Which it is, for men, to the detriment of women, girls and children.)

My opinion of Hadley Freeman goes up and up. Excellent, thoughtful interview that didn’t stick to the easy path.

Hadley Freeman is one of the few reasons why I still check out the Guardian - I love her interviews.

I'm going to hazard a guess that Margaret Atwood is accustomed to being treated with deference by interviewers. I also imagine this can be intimidating so full credit to Hadley for not backing off. I'm also going to give Atwood some credit for continuing the conversation beyond the interview, it's just a pity we don't know what was said.

"And then there's stuff like writing the Ickabog, inviting children to provide illustrations, and donating the money to NHS charities"

Indeed, and look at the horrific abuse she got online when she did that.

That's the fundamental difference between her and JK Rowling as I see it - it seems to me that Rowling has deep respect for and commitment to truth, decency and actual kindness that she cleaves to in defiance of her own ego or self-interest. That is why I have such admiration for her.

Absolutely. Rowling is one of the most successful authors in the world and she could easily play the grande dame going round being rude to minions. Instead she does the opposite, like when she took the time to engage in lengthy correspondence with the female fan who had anorexia and then went on to play Luna Lovegood in the HP films. And no one would have known about that - she'd have simply done it out of the kindness of her heart. All the Harry Potter actors talk about how kind she was to them and how she helped them when they were feeling nervous about eg being on the red carpet. And then there's stuff like writing the Ickabog, inviting children to provide illustrations, and donating the money to NHS charities. She is, genuinely, a good person, driven by the desire to do what's right. I don't think there are many like her. And then look at the reward she gets - being bullied by the spiteful twats at the New York Times.

Someone got me Oryx and Crake a few Christmases ago. I've never finished it. The writing style is sort of preachy and you feel you are being played somehow? Still she is hugely influential so I hope she stands up while there's still time.

I too found the interview intriguing and would love to see the email exchange.

I'm very disappointed that MA clearly knows what's what but refuses to acknowledge it publicly. I guess she doesn't want her whole franchise/ universe to be forever tainted with the transphobia tag like JKR's has been. A shame she puts her own pride ahead of what is right for the women of today and tomorrow, especially given her age

Her quote "“This is going to take a while to settle down, but XY and XX are not the only chromosomal combinations possible" really illustrates that there is/was a black hole in her brain when it comes to biology.

She's belatedly realised she messed up and has not been big enough to acknowledge it. It diminishes her for me.

“Of course not! I’m Canadian, you’re not allowed to think that,” she laughs

Atwood has an ego the size of Canada. I don't necessarily object to that- whilst I personally don't like her books she unquestionably has a huge public presence and body of work. I don't mind people being egotistical if their body of work justifies it and they don't deny it.

The account of the exchange of e-mails comes across as A Very August Personage graciously condescening to spend time talking to a little person.

I wonder...dare I hope. This might not be the last we hear of this.

Fascinating!!!!

Hadley is fantastic.

I found the end of it really interesting actually - shame we can't be privy to the contents! This is pretty much all I want: Discuss it with honesty and a desire to actually find out what the other believes, where we agree, why we disagree. It has been shockingly hard to do this pretty much anywhere on the internet when the subject is 'gender'.

...Atwood surprises me with a plot twist. Just an hour or so later, she sends me several emails, some about the Galloway case, others elaborating on her thoughts about gender. This becomes an ongoing back and forth, in which she lays out her views, patiently and thoughtfully. Most of it is off the record, but I think she won’t mind me saying that, ultimately, we both want the same thing, which is truth and fairness.

The more we email, the more I realise we are not arguing about this the way I’m used to arguing about it, ie the social media way, which is just shouting at one another and not listening to the other’s point of view. We are genuinely curious to understand one another and send each other links we think the other will find interesting. After several days of this, I become self-conscious about how much of her time I am taking up, time she should be spending on her new book of short stories, and I apologise for being so stubbornly argumentative. She writes straight back: “Don’t worry, Hadley. Some people won’t really discuss things with me because they are intimidated. I agree with Orwell: the truth does matter.”

An excellent interview and article by Hadley Freeman, though. Thanks for passing it as I probably wouldn't have read it otherwise. I'll have to find more by her!

My impression of Atwood is that she takes pride in gratuitous rudeness, mistakenly believing it to demonstrate strength of character or independence of mind or liberation or some such.

Much as I like some of her books, she strikes me as someone much more concerned with being thought by others (in the social strata to which she belongs) to be well-informed, wise and "on the right side of history" than actually thinking things through and seeking after truth regardless of disapprobation she might receive from the very people she'd like to think well of her.

That's the fundamental difference between her and JK Rowling as I see it - it seems to me that Rowling has deep respect for and commitment to truth, decency and actual kindness that she cleaves to in defiance of her own ego or self-interest. That is why I have such admiration for her.