To be disappointed with The Handmaid's Tale ending (the book)

[Buck3t]

Nothing has been resolved. It's infuriating me. Reminds me of how I felt at the end of Stephen King's Gunslinger series.

But what kills me every time I read it is the knowledge that she almost certainly never managed to get to her daughter.

It's the most disturbing thing in that novel, that she says so little about her daughter. I can imagine that some sort of protective denial kicks in - but it's so weird.

What about Moira, penggywn?

(I'm loving this discussion btw! I so rarely get the chance to discuss on this level.)

pengggwn I'm quite oblivious as to why.
My thinking is it's a book I read, where the things written about were sincere, hopeful and horrid and there was, albeit tragic and not fiction, a resolution.

Maybe I should have mentioned Friedrich instead as that was similar but fictional -oh and had a resolution. Could not for the life of me remember the book upthread. Plus not everyone has read it.

I was never sure why she ever thought she would see or get to her daughter. A part of me thinks she knows it wouldn't be possible. She just deluded herself into thinking this, so she wouldn't hate herself for her choices.

I wouldn't want her to have a definite ending that we know about, especially if it was a sad one. She left in hope, and I read it in the same hope. Killing her off, or describing the rest of a dreary, fearful life, would kill off the hope. I like to think she was smuggled out of Gilead altogether, although she probably didn't meet her daughter for a long, long time if ever, and surely Luke was long gone. But the nearest thing to a "happy" ending that was possible. Others may feel that a sad ending was more artistically correct. The author lets us make up our own minds.

Regarding the epilogue, the point is that for the lecture attendees it's all long ago, just as we look at, say, the Industrial Revolution nowadays; something that hugely affected the majority of people who lived through it, but is now just an academic study, something you can make the same flippant remarks and fatuous comments about as a soap opera because it doesn't affect you personally. Something Society may learn about, but doesn't really learn from in the long term. Hoicking the reader out of Offred's stream of consciousness straight into this detached, mocking academic world is a big shock but clearly deliberate one. The whole point of the book is to make the reader think, not to hand them a neat little yarn tied into a bow at the end.

I like the ending - life isn't a neatly tied up story - and it leaves us with the chance to imagine a range of endings ourselves

OP I'm with you!

I studied this book at A-level 20 years ago. Haven't read it since, although it remains one of my favourite books.

20 years on I still feel frustrated at the lack of an ending!

I completely understand why MA decided to end it like that (for reasons mentioned above) and have written essays explaining the technique and why she used it and I agree on an intellectual level that it's a powerful literary device. Most importantly, perhaps, it encourages us to examine the possibilities - what could have happened to her - we're doing it right now!

BUT on an emotional level I still want to know what happened to Offred even 20 years later!

I was never sure why she ever thought she would see or get to her daughter. A part of me thinks she knows it wouldn't be possible. She just deluded herself into thinking this, so she wouldn't hate herself for her choices.

Because that would have killed her. Despite all the pain she suffered, accepting the loss of her child was too much. You could extrapolated it and explore the possibility that her daughter symbolised hope for women in the future, so to accept her death/destruction was to accept the fate of women?

Tbh my heart sunk when I heard there was going to be a second series. My immediate thought was "that'll be for the people who need a happy ending."

peng, I can see that. At the same time, though, I think there's something glorious in her spirit, in her refusal to be dominated. It's the end of the line for her and she knows it - her choices are servitude or a miserable, painful death. So she accepts servitude - but only because she can use it to keep being who she is, defiant, vibrant, and gay.

Atwood doesn't fuck around with the reality of what a society like this means for women.

under I understand what you are saying, but although it wasn't in her nature, I would like to have known, after her getting to the Underground, was she so enraged with Moira's defeat, ofglen's end, the fact she can't have neither Luke (dead) or Nick, the injustice of it all, that she becomes an active member of the resistance? Or does she just wither and die. (Obviously two extremes, not her only choices)

In life there are people who stand up and those who don't. Everyone has to do what is right for them. I'm curious after her experience what would be right for her. Or was she shot in the back trying to explain.

Ach, as usual, cross posted with several people saying the same thing but in far fewer words. Not helped by my keyboard, or more likely the site, being on a go-slow so it takes several seconds to tidy up every typo.

And if there had been an ending Buck you wouldn't ever have considered the other possibilities...

Pengwwwn I see your point re Anne Frank. Noted. I suppose it did come across like that.

smile true, too true

Warning! TV spoiler alerts! Skip this post if you don't want to know!

I read the book many, years ago. I've just finished watching the TV series (I have access to the US episodes, and the series there has already finished). As I say, it's been a long time since I've read the book, so my memory of it is slightly hazy so I may just be remembering incorrectly, but I think the TV series answers slightly more questions than the book does. For one thing, in the TV series Luke manages to escape to Canada and receives a message from Offred, which is smuggled out by a Mexican official, which if I remember in the books we never truly know what happened to him. Similarly, I'm sure in the book we never know what happened to Moira, whereas the series confirms she escapes to Canada and meets up with Luke. We also know Offred is pregnant at the time she goes into the van, as Serena Joy gets her to take a pregnancy test. Offred also sees Hannah when Serena Joy takes her to the house where Hannah is staying, but Offred isn't allowed out of the car or make contact with her. The final chapter in the book where the history of GIlead is discussed in an academic conference does not happen in the series, which I guess leaves it far more open for series 2 to pick up from the end of series 1. That may answer some of your questions Buck3t.

Hmm interesting idea buck3t, would she ever have joined the Resistance, given a chance?

Honestly, I kind of think she didn't have the personality. Gilead for her was personal suffering, and although she always saw the political side it never seemed to make her political. All she ever wanted was to escape and to see her daughter again if she could. She was willing to take comfort in Nick and the safety that a pregnancy would bring her - there was no real repulsion at the prospect of conforming. Moira was a rebel - I don't think Offred was.

Kitkat I haven't seen the series yet, but ugh, that's disappointing! I suppose the reality in TV terms was seen as too grim for audiences.

The sad truth is that none of the women enmeshed in Gilead were ever likely to make it out alive - even the Commander doesn't.

When I first read it, a decade or so ago, I felt exactly the same as you do OP. It's so different from what books usually do. Since then, I've come to think it's wonderful, for the reasons listed in this thread. I think it works better than any other ending possibly could do. It's brilliant.

Have you just read it OP, or did you read it a while ago and the TV series has reminded you of how the ending pissed you off?

I don't know about that, Under - her reaction to the "don't let the bastards grind you down" graffiti suggested to me a rebellion.

I also felt slightly frustrated by the TV series as I think it's gearing up to a 'happy ending' (or at least, not as awful an ending as the book). It's dampening the power of the book down really.

Ghostly this is where I disagree. An individual's life is a neatly tied up story. Your born, you live, you die. With complications in the middle. What I guess is similar and possibly what you mean is that. Historically it is unlikely to be noted to the end and what is left is birth certificate, CV, death certificate. Which is suddenly very depressing.