The Testaments, Margaret Atwood - any recent readers?,

[DontDrinkDontSmokeWhatDoIDo]

I've just (forced myself) to finish it.

I have a theory that surely, this can not have been written by MA.

Let alone won a Booker prize for it.

Anyone else have it fresh in their minds?

I read it shortly after it first came out and agree that it is nowhere near her usual standard. It must be hers though. Maybe she was under JK Rowling style pressure to complete it and that’s why it’s not up to scratch? I reread Handmaids recently and the difference in quality is huge - THT is a masterpiece and TT is decidedly average.

So, not entirely fresh in my mind, but I’d still be interested to hear your theory!

I listened to it on audiobook and did quite enjoy it but it didn’t blow me away and no way near as good or thought provoking as the handmaids tale

It was certainly an easier and more predictable read than many of her other books.
I did enjoy it and ploughed through it to the end but was surprised at the Booker prize win compared to the quality of other prize winners and nominees and also the quality of her other work.

I should have added that I did enjoy it - if you take it at face value it was good enough. It just doesn’t compare well to her other work.

My take was that it was written for fans of the tv show rather than fans of her books. I enjoyed it in an easy reading sort of way, but literary it wasn’t. No idea how it won the Booker prize.

I was so disappointed.

The first quarter was ok - learning about the aunts training and Aunt Lydia was quite interesting.

From then on, the style changed and was no better than a teen novel.

I honestly can't believe it was written by MA -'let alone won a Booker prize.

I finally read it a couple of months ago and am genuinely shocked it won the Booker. It read like mediocre fanfic. I found the plot completely unbelievable, and the Aunt Lydia character seemed to be just a channel for the author to show off her wit. I just couldn’t believe in her actions or motivations. And don’t get me started on the Baby Nicole plot. The whole thing was was so implausible it sort of neutralised the menace of the original HT for me. I kind of want to believe Atwood deliberately wrote a bad book to troll everyone. And the Booker judges gave her the prize because they feel bad that HT was overlooked back in the day.

Yes, I read it fairly recently. I had misgivings, but it was even worse than expected. I found it surprisingly dull, unimaginative, not fully realized (I think that's the term), and seemed to me something she was likely pushed to write to capitalize on the success of the original.

Yes, it does come across as though they dangled a Booker prize in front of her so that she would write The testaments.

It's absolutely terrible.

I read it months ago... and in all honestly can't remember anything not the sign of a great book!

It was like eating candy floss. Great at the time, but disappears disappointingly quickly.

And a shockingly trite way to end the story too. Very much of the 'and then I woke up and it had all been a dream' school.

I couldn't believe that she won the Booker prize for it, especially as she was announced as a winner before the bloody thing was even published

... and even worse it meant that Bernardine Evaristo, who is the first black woman to win the Booker prize, had to share it with her. Talk about taking away her achievement.

I quite enjoyed it - but was definitely like reading mid-range fanfic.

It's not a real sequel in my opinion, and it's not part of the 'canin' of the story in my mind.

I agree completely. I kind of wish I hadn't read it (or watched season 2 of The Handmaid's tale). The original story ends perfectly and it should be up to the reader to fill in more details. The sequel takes away from the sinister tone of THT.

Oh dear! I'm re-reading it and thoroughly enjoying it.

Oh I enjoyed it eddie, I even shed a tear or 2 reading it. I just wouldn’t put it in the same ball park as other Booker winners.

Such a crap book.

Predictable, cheesy, didn't learn anything decent about Gilead that could have fleshed out the world (I was expecting some climate change stuff). Hated it.

Awful book. Didn't finish it.

Known as Carry On Up The Handmaid's Tale in our house. I've no idea how it won the Booker - it's not even like Scorcese getting the Oscar for Casino because Atwood has won it before.

Not a fan of it. It's inconsistent with the original The Handmaid's Tale, and seems to follow the TV series - the existence of Nicole, for example. Or the fact that Gilead only lasts a few decades. But it's also not even consistent with that - Lydia has a completely different backstory, Hannah has a completely different family and doesn't remember her mother. I call kack-handed moneymaker, from a person so entitled she doesn't even worry that she'll be called out on her BS. It's not even good (well-written) fanfic. Some people will say fine, popular male authors do the same thing.OK, but I don't read those hacks either.

It read like a YA novel to me - it was very plot driven with hardly any plausible psychological insights. Like all the other PPs, I was amazed it was even shortlisted for the Booker, much less won it. Poor Bernardine Evaristo .

I know this is old but I just finished the book tonight and I'm so disappointed, If I'm honest I found the handmaids tale book compared to the series disappointing aswell , they series really made it tbh , I was literally on the edge of my seat especially during season 1 , this book in particular I found myself not particularly caring about what happened to them tbh 🙈