The Handmaid's Tale Vol 3

[CruCru]

Hi all

As the last thread has all but totally filled up, I've started this new one.

Bit shallow - but do you think the Wives are allowed cosmetics? I got the impression that make up is banned but they do all look very polished.

I'm not sure I agree that characters such as aunt lydia and Serena are sympathetic in the series. Serenas treatment of June in the final episode is just awful. I like the way the series shows the characters as real people, with some redeeming features, rather than cartoon villains.

I do see that having two women in the room and being able to traumatise them both with one act would appeal to a rapist. However something about the set up of the ceremony feels deeply female to me. MA is a woman after all and it was her idea! Not sure I can articulate why.

I'm still confused by a lot of it though - it's clear in the Bible that Jacob carried on having sex with his wives whilst also shagging the handmaids. So why the whole sexless marriage thing was emphasised is a bit beyond me.

Maybe men are only supposed to have sex for procreation purposes - so if the wife has been deemed infertile/menopausal then sex with her would not be appropriate? Also, I suppose it shows up the "Commander's" hypocrisy even more when he prissily rejects Serena Joy's sexual advances but is secretly going to Jezebels.

You are right Batteries I think that too

But procreation is always possible when you have god in your heart right, hence the end of the Rachel story in the first place

Batteries you are right. I didn't really get the reasoning either. In the book I don't think it is ever mentioned if the Commanders still have sex with their wives.

Just thinking, if MA is involved in writing the script for the second series, I wonder if a follow up novel might be on the cards? That would be very exciting.

I assume this is the third thread about this programme? Apologies if this has been discussed already.

Was anyone else surprised that race seemed not be an issue at all? (I would have assumed that Christian fundamentalists would be racist.)
Did I miss a reference to this in the series? Does anyone recall if the book dealt with race at all?

I think one problem with the adaptation is that it places the events in contemporary times whereas the time of the events in the book were not anchored so it leads to such questions. (Or was the book just set in the vague future?)

The series producer made the decision not to make race an issue as he felt it would distract from the misogyny. If I recall correctly!
In the book POC are sent to the colonies.

Andylion
If you Google "Handmaid's Tale race" there are some interesting articles, including this one:
www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jul/31/the-handmaids-tales-race-problem
In the book, the regime includes white supremacy, but the series producers decided to change it because they wanted a diverse cast, I believe. Maybe they felt it was the "easy" thing to do rather than addressing the race issue. IDK.

Batteries MA is a woman after all and it was her idea

Well you could say that about every decision a man made in the book, couldn't you? I do see your point and it could well be true, it could be highlighting the misogyny felt by women. But Serena's mistreatment of June I saw that more as her trying to be superior to her. It's like the difference between the house slave and the field slave. One wants to think their better than the other but at the end of the day they're still slaves.

Also I think it's great that they kept race out of it. It would detract from the misogyny too much. And how women are treated and how we sleepwalk into situations is important to highlight.

The ceremony isn't really about sex or promiscuity though is it? It's not an excuse to be unfaithful, it's simply baby making, a chore for the husbands. They don't seem to have any choice about the handmaid they are assigned, the women are not chosen for their looks or sex appeal. The men have jezebels for fun or kinky sex, full of beautiful women they can rape any time they want. So why not have the ceremony routine, clinical, biblical. Janine's baby appears 'normal', but turns out to be a shredder in the book. Does anyone know what that means, will the baby be killed, literally shredded?

I know Buck and it was a flippant thing to say. I just feel like a lot of it doesn't add up / doesn't flow / seem realistic to me and the bit in the car was symptomatic of that for me.

The establishment of Gilead, the treatment of women, the book - I find all of that totally scary and believable. First few episodes were gripping. But some of the stuff in this adaptation just doesn't seem to have depth. The assumption bad people = bad things happen has been made too many times for me without justification of why.

Sorry probably shouldn't have come back to the threads in hindsight

Don't be silly of course you should. You're definitely making me look at it from a different angle.

Janine's baby appears 'normal', but turns out to be a shredder in the book. Does anyone know what that means, will the baby be killed, literally shredded?
Shredders aka unbabys are mentally or physically abnormal. I don't think the book or series specifies how they are destroyed, but the name is definitely a suggestion.

Thanks AS, I re-read the book recently but thought I might have missed it. I read quickly and sometimes miss out on details.

The chances are one in four, we learned that at the Centre. The air got too full, once, of chemicals, rays, radiation, the water swarmed with toxic molecules, all of that takes years to clean up, and meanwhile they creep into your body, camp out in your fatty cells. Who knows, your very flesh may be polluted, dirty as an oily beach, sure death to shore birds and unborn babies.

And

To go through all that and give birth to a shredder: it wasn’t a fine thought. We didn’t know exactly what would happen to the babies that didn’t get passed, that were declared Unbabies. But we knew they were put somewhere, quickly, away.

That's what I can find from searching my kindle book for 'shredder'

Thanks, Emma. On seeing Bonjour's reply, I googled and found that article. If fertility trumps race, as suggested in that article, I would have expected to at least have some reference to that.

This is a very interesting thread. If I didn't have a stack of books in my YTR (yet to read) pile, I'd reread the novel.

Not sure if anyone is still reading the thread but have just seen there is an Imagine show on Margaret Atwood on BBC1 on Monday night at 10:30.

Thanks starlight. Looks good, doesn't it!

Thanks Starlight, that's definitely one to watch!

I thought this was interesting...another good Guardian article, about Attwood's reactions to the modern retelling - and how it's more frightening because in modern day America, it's closer than ever.

www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/may/25/the-handmaids-tale-on-tv-too-disturbing-even-for-margaret-atwood

Well. It's coming at last. In April.
Springtime, for a fresh start.
Looks brilliant, dark, compelling, disturbing and captivating.
Looks gooooooood.

www.marieclaire.com/culture/a14759556/the-handmaids-tales-season-2-spoilers-exclusive/

This is the trailer for Season 2.

Can I join in?

I watched the series repeat on More4 October/November as I missed it the first time around. I read these threads alongside though and loved reading all your different interpretations.

Overall I thought it was brilliant TV though and I can’t wait for S2!

Hurray, I’ve been watching this thread for it to pick up again.

Bugger, I didn’t know there was an autumn series repeat, DP missed S1. Does anyone know if there’ll be a pre-S2 re-repeat?

I pretty much never watch telly but cannot wait for April. Hope S2 lives up to expectations.