The Testaments by Margaret Atwood WITH spoilers

[Pokemontv]

Who is up for a discussion ? What did you like ? What did you hate ?

I think June will go underground after the events of s3 of the show. It would stretch credibility too far for her to go back to another handmaid assignment. So she could have been moving between Gilead and Canada. And the book does say that they deliberately kept Nicole’s identity and whereabouts from her, to keep them both safe.

I found the truth about how Aunt Lydia became an Aunt very depressing. Because it is true that those who are detached enough and determined enough to keep quiet and prepared to throw others under the bus survive, and those who speak out, who won’t bury the truth or sacrifice others get a bullet in the head pretty quickly when things get serious. And what that says about the future of women’s rights...

Yeah, the stadium stuff, how calculating Lydia was even in the midst of all that horror, that was really something to read. How practical she was, how she realised immediately there was no point in doing X or Y as it was a waste of energy. That was the high point of the book for me.

The problem with June going underground is that it may change the tenor of the show too much.

So far it's been a fascinating look at the power imbalance between different strata of society. Between June and the Waterfords and later between Lawrence and June and the amazing tension that ensues.

But June underground would immediately lose a lot of interaction with everyone, except furtively. Women can't just walk around, talking to whomever they like, not even disguised. I worry it'd be a lot of "June being frustrated in the Boston Globe" again. That got old real quick.

And I'd really miss the domestic aspect. I absolutely love all the scenes in the big fancy houses, lifting the lid.

I enjoyed it but I am rather sad it's out there as it has closed off so many possibilities for the TV series, unless they are allowed to diverge completely.

I liked Aunt Lydia's voice but now we know how she got there she is less intriguing.

Loved the Pearl Girls and their recruitment of unwitting and vulnerable women to be handmaids in Gilead - that was chilling.

Not convinced by the logic of much of the plot. But loved Atwood's trademark dry humour.

Lydia is trained in law - by its very nature that training means being able to argue both a case for and against. And a judge must remain detatched from the people involved.

I've only had one public sector job - I worked at a university in finance admin for a few months in the 90's. Nobody referred to 'students' or 'faculty members'. Instead there were 'units of finance to be processed'.

I doubt Lydia thought Gilead would survive for so long and was initially hedging her bets. Once you've got hard won privelige and power it's probably very hard to let go of it.

I looked up Phyllis Schlafly who got a name check. Uber Aunt.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly

Loved it but thought it was quite predictable there were no huge moments. You knew immediately who Agnes and Daisy/Jade/Nicole were and AL was the source and she was hedging her bets. I felt it had a happy ending as well all meeting up with June. Poor Becca though another Gilead victim.

I thought it was really good. I read it in one 9 hour sitting and plan to read it again, more slowly.
The Aunt Lydia parts were fantastic. I really enjoyed reading her back story and how she ended up an Aunt.
Poor Becka though

Anyone on here love the first book; dislike the television series (from series 2 onward ), and enjoyed the written sequel? I first read the "The Handmaid's Tale" in the 80's upon the recommendation of my english teacher (our class was reading Orwell's 1984 at the time). The events depicted in the book, back then, from my 15 year old perspective, seemed quite fantastic; almost science fiction. It's frightening how those events resonate so deeply today. I thought series 1 of the television adaptation was, on the whole, faithful to Atwood's nightmare vision, but would anyone say "The Testament"is as equally as powerful? Does it depict the events in series 2 of the drama, or does it follow a different narrative trajectory? I would be interested in your thoughts.

I finished it this morning. I agree that it is a very easy, fast read, much lighter and less literary than THT. It’s very plot-driven and pacey. TBH I was surprised that Nicole and Agnes managed their escape so quickly and relatively easily. It made for a fairytale element that isn’t very Atwood. As much as I love her I don’t think it is a Booker-winner, especially if compared to The Blind Assassin.

I’ve deliberately avoided the whole THT TV series so don’t have any sense of how it fits with the novels.

I think i disliked series 2 of the drama was because the action-packed escape sequences, strained credabily for me. It all seemed so implausable to me. I also think the juxtoposition of the contemporary "free world" as opposed to the strange, hermatically sealed world of Gilead was too jarring. But perhaps, that was the point? Even though i found the contrast too great.

Would you recommend Testament" @YippieKayakOtherBuckets ? It's 8.30 pm here, and i'm trying to decide whether or not to part with $17.99 and buy the kindle edition

On balance I would, @NightLion. I found it a fairly quick read so it won’t give you days of entertainment for your investment. I am a fast reader and read it in about five hours.

It is entertaining and absorbing but for me it wasn’t as satisfying as THT. I don’t think it will stay with me in the way that the first book did, but then I first read THT at a very formative age. I am an English teacher and find THT really rich; I don’t think The Testaments is in the same way.

Either way, this is a spoiler thread so hide it for now!

Thank you @Yippie. I appreciate your comments. THT did have a great impact on me (like all good literature), which has filtered down over the decades as i've become a mother, and more socially and politically aware. I think i will take the plunge, and purchase The Testaments (out of curiosity more than anything else). Besides, its Sunday night here, and too early for bed!

I just finished it and came to see if there was a thread. Other than some parts of Lydia’s story it felt like an easy read, and I figured out the girls’ identities early on. The ending was very neat.

My overall feeling is that fans of the TV series will probably enjoy it more than people who loved the original book - but I suspect it was written to be a huge commercial success, so fair dos. I first read THT in school in about 1990, reread it when I first got a Kindle, then a third time just before the first series of the TV show. I enjoyed this book, but I don’t imagine I will re-read it.

I looked up Phyllis Schlafly who got a name check. Uber Aunt.

I remember her as being the punchline to many jokes in the 70s, when I was a child. (I'm Canadian and watched a lot of American tv.)

I always like to think about the significance of names used in books. I noted a few while reading and just looked them up.

Florence Wyle, for whom Daisy's school was named, was an artist. The school is fictional.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlorenceWylee_

Margery Kempe. I can't recall where her name appears. Anyone?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MargeryKempe

Hildegarde Library. I immediately thought of Hildegard of Bingen as I know of no other Hildegard's. Anyone?

Nellie J. Banks. There was an actual cod fishing vessel/rum runner by this name, in the first half of the 20th century,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NellieJ.._Banks

Cardinal Newman. I don't know much about him. He was Anglican and converted to Catholicism, eventually become a Cardinal. Unlike Florence Wyle, there are a couple of schools named for him in Toronto. Can anyone think of the significance, if any, of Aunt Lydia choosing a volume of his works to stash her testimony?

I was amused by the reveal that the Aunts take their names from an approved list of erstwhile women’s consumer brands: Aunt Estée, Aunt Victoria, Aunt Maybelline...

I liked that too, yippie.

I think Hildegard of Bingen was the reference.
In an era when not many women had the opportunity for literacy and scholarship, she did, under holy orders - another parallel.
Later in the book, her mist famous quote was dropped in, paraphrased and uncredited circa.
And all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.

Wait, am I mixing her up with Julian of Norwich? Is there any reference to her?

Just looked it up, it was Julian of Norwich. Born 1342, her book Revelations of Divine Love, from visions she had.

I was disappointed.
Very light easy read, neatly wrapped up loose ends.
Didn't feel any horror or shock.

As the second and third TV series were not made from any book the producers do not have to tie in or follow the story arc in the testaments.
I think many people think the two are going to be linked but not necessarily.
I did however like that MA used the character of Nicole, as I remember in THMT offred hadn't had a baby by the end. So baby Nicole is solely an invention of hula

MA was involved with they series although not the main writer. At the end of the book she says the HULU writers also followed the rule of not using anything that hadn't happened in real life.

I don't think the book contradicted anything in the series. Even though Aunt Lydia was a judge it says she spent a couple of years as a teacher which was, maybe, a bit contrived to fit the TV version. The events in the Testaments took place years later so there is still scope for HULU to fill in the gap.

I do think they really have written themselves into a corner for next year though.
Nobody really wants to see June in some safe house for the rest of the series. But to follow Atwoods Canon, it's either that or she goes to a new Commander which nobody wants either.

And Bradley Whitford has just won an Emmy for S2 and will likely win another in 2020 for S3, so how do you make use of him if June is in some safe house? How do you make use of Aunt Lydia?

I think it was significant that Baby Nicole returned to Gilead as an adult, of her own free will, and then escaped again. It completely takes away any argument of kidnap - she is an (very young) adult who chooses for herself, not a child owned by here "parents" or the state any more.

Also, she's very high profile in both Gilead and Canada so it gives the Testament that she carries far more weight.