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.

Buck3t while I feel your frustration, do you now see what a skillful ending it is? (If emotionally unsatisfying?)

Would we be having this discussion if the ending had been neatly sewn up? Almost certainly not!

The Handmaid's Tale is more than a work of fiction, it's an urgent cautionary tale. It's designed to make us think about our own society and the possibilities for our own futures, and the inconclusive ending is the most fitting way to achieve that.

How many times have people had similar conversations in the 30+ years since the book was first published? Countless times! And each time people get new persepectives and a deeper understanding of the novel and its themes.

If the ending had been neat, all those conversations would not have happened.

So although I still wish I knew what happened to Offred, I understand what Atwood's up to and appreciate her genuis. It couldn't have had a neat ending, it'd be too easy. It was designed to challenge us and make us explore the possibilities - it's done just that.

I appreciate the way the book ends. I like books that make you wonder, that don't give you a happy or sad ending and allow you to decide for yourself. TV shows/films that change them annoy me.

Like the ending of Stephen King's The Mist. In the book it's an ambiguous ending - onwards to Hartford, and hope. You can hope they got there or you can believe they were killed on the way. But it's your decision. However the film, well it's death and destruction and leaves a horrible taste in the mouth (and days of nightmares for me).

I think the Handmaids Tale ending was kinda perfect, and certainly made me think more about the book.

Great thread.

I hadn't really considered the (snigger, groan) in the final segment was designed to indicate the world was still predominantly patriarchal even centuries on.

Am about to suggest my teen reads the book .. and aligns it with some of the shit in the USA that is going on with Trump's 'blessing'.

Pengggwyn - fair enough. It is made clear that she is the Chair, simply introducing the Keynote Speaker, and that Pieixoto is the one who has been working on The Handmaid's Tale, however, and is responsible for organising the tapes into the order in which the narrative is presented to us. Crescent Moon is almost a sop to suggest that progress has been made but Atwood does a wonderful job of undermining that subtly all the way through the Notes.

Crescent Moon could almost be said to be a Handmaiden....

So in conclusion, I am not unreasonable in feeling my frustration, but I have a much clearer understanding of why it was written that way. Oldtrees it is skillfully done, which is why it is as frustrating as it is.
I don't think I got the message from it that many of you did. But I believe it is an important book for all young adults to read. I think the message received may be different for different people. Like any book ,you interpret it for what fits for you and your life.

It's definitely a book that benefits from being returned to, read more than once.

I read quite a lot of history books about women, Emma and the Vikings for example, or the diary of Martha Ballard.

You only have to read one or two such books to know the frustration of female characters dropping in and out of history, no one bothering to record them or what happened to them. Men having multiple wives who died in childbirth - but because there were no living male children from them and they were all called 'Mrs Pearson' (for example) it's difficult to work out how many.

One aspect of the ending was for me a damning indictment of the 'outside world' Offred ending up escaping to (if she escaped). No one there bothered to record her story. Bothered to note her birthday or when she died. How many people in the here and now go around collecting the stories of refugees from places like Syria - how many female stories are recorded? Do we care? If a woman lead a life like Offred's and escaped to the UK would anyone bother with her story? Probably not. And so we are just as shitty as MA in the lack of an ending. We don't deserve one.

Batteries
Word
Best summation

What a great discussion this is! I agree that the ending makes us all think far more than we would have done had it been sewn up nicely.
I read this while at university 25 years ago. Studied another of MA books, 'Cat's Eye' which prompted me to read it and it is my favourite book ever.

I love Sunday nights at the moment

Thinking about it more, Moira reminds me a bit of Victor Frankl in Man's Search for Meaning. She accepts that in physical terms freedom is a lost cause, but she also finds a way to be free in spirit by accepting going to Jezebel's. Gilead may be able to keep her captive and force her into prostitution, but they can't make her not Moira.

Offred, if she had to work Jezebel's, would have drunk and drugged herself to death, IMO. Like a poster upthread said, she's a survivor, not a fighter. There's a kind of bitter irony that the survivor comes closer to getting out, purely because she starts sleeping with a man who has power in the resistance.

Although......I think as a mother, Offred's fighting is different - motherhood means you can't fight and die, because you can't continue to protect your child if you're dead. So the "fight" becomes different and survival is part of that.

It's no coincidence that Moira is written as a childless woman.

Fair point.

I do think there is a black irony, and a highlighting of the gross injustices of patriarchy, that Moira, for all her courage and resilience and mechanical skill, ends her life as a slave of the regime in the book because as a gay woman she attracts no male help. Whereas Offred gets out, at least temporarily, because she happens to have sex with the right man.