Hadley Freeman Margaret Attwood article guardian today

[SadWordlePlayer]

Apologies if there is already a thread. Very interesting.

Pity their email exchanges after the interview are off the record!

www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2022/feb/19/margaret-atwood-on-feminism-culture-wars

"And then there's stuff like writing the Ickabog, inviting children to provide illustrations, and donating the money to NHS charities"

Indeed, and look at the horrific abuse she got online when she did that.

Hadley Freeman is one of the few reasons why I still check out the Guardian - I love her interviews.

I'm going to hazard a guess that Margaret Atwood is accustomed to being treated with deference by interviewers. I also imagine this can be intimidating so full credit to Hadley for not backing off. I'm also going to give Atwood some credit for continuing the conversation beyond the interview, it's just a pity we don't know what was said.

I’ve enjoyed some Margaret Atwood novels, and when I read The Handmaid’s Tale decades ago it seemed like a powerful feminist warning. I’m a bit disappointed now. As others have said here, she’s such a big name now, she could have spoken up like JKR.

On the other hand, she does live in a literary world of fantasy and imagination, and I think she may genuinely see gender identity as an opening up of possibilities. (Which it is, for men, to the detriment of women, girls and children.)

My opinion of Hadley Freeman goes up and up. Excellent, thoughtful interview that didn’t stick to the easy path.

I think living in a world of fantasy and probabilities explains some of Jeanette Winterson's recent novels and words on the trans debate. As a lesbian she very much knows what a woman is but likes to explore gender bending and fairytales subverting gender norms

Hadley is simply the best.

Hadley is great isn't she. Such a rich and interesting interviewer.
Very glad she didn't back down. As others have mentioned, I think the spiky, quirky intellectual thing is pretty damn rude (that poor guy who approached their table) and good on Hadley for pressing on.
Thank being said, I found the ending hopeful. If someone like Atwood (who, whatever you think of her, is clearly very intelligent) won't have reasonable discussions about such an important topic in feminism, then what hope is there. At least she seemed to rethink a bit

"If someone like Atwood (who, whatever you think of her, is clearly very intelligent) won't have reasonable discussions about such an important topic in feminism, then what hope is there."

This actually gives me hope, because I think it shows most people in the public eye spouting TWAW etc don't mean it. They are being "kind" and don't want to be challenged because they know it doesn't stand up to any sensible discussion.

I think one aspect of Rowling's character is shown in the commencement speech she gave at Harvard. She is someone who has actually failed and hit rock bottom. Perhaps this is the root of her greater development as a human being. Rowling is not a "great writer", she's no stylist, though she writes good sentences, sometimes. She's a very good story teller, and a competent writer, who pays a lot of attention to what she does, so she gets better all the time (Strike is much better written that Potter was). And she observes and writes about people, what motivates them and the way they behave rather than Great Ideas. She reminds me of Maugham (the Somerset one, not the fox one), and I like her for similar reasons. She's readable and re-readable, like Maugham. I think her best work is still to come.

I have never managed to get into Attwood.

Without being disrespectful to Hadley, it reads like a more prestigious, wordy version of a thread here.

Us: what about this?

TRA: never mind that/whataboutery/shush!/ [silence]

No wonder the posters here can’t answer questions when people like Margaret Atwood can’t even string a sensible answer together.

I like to imagine the email trail to be a lot of “be kind!” from Atwood, and a version of the “Break it down for me” thread from Hadley.

J K Rowling's Harvard commencement speech had me in tears when I stumbled across it whilst a very very low ebb

I was so pleased that (despite being a cesspit) Twitter meant I could tell her how much it meant to me, and she actually read that message.

@NotBadConsidering

Without being disrespectful to Hadley, it reads like a more prestigious, wordy version of a thread here.

Us: what about this?

TRA: never mind that/whataboutery/shush!/ [silence]

No wonder the posters here can’t answer questions when people like Margaret Atwood can’t even string a sensible answer together.

I like to imagine the email trail to be a lot of “be kind!” from Atwood, and a version of the “Break it down for me” thread from Hadley.

Ha yes true. Obvs love the thought that Hadders peaked Atwood with an innocuous link to the Lia Thomas story or something. We may never know

I kind of understand why an 80+ year old woman who lost her husband not that long ago might not want the kinds of lunatics Rowling has experienced since declaring herself GC.

I also understand that unlike gender critical people, many people are somewhere between TRA and GC, not fence sitting but not fully understanding and looking for a truth before making an allegiance or believing it’s none of their business (regardless of what we may think or feel)

I cannot blame an elderly woman for not wanting that kind of negative attention and creeps doxxing her, she dipped her toe in, saw what happened to her preferred mode of communication (twitter) and so left the conversation with everyone having lots of questions and her not wanting to come down heavily on either side.

I also see she likes to make mischief and I like that about her. In her 80s she can light a touch paper and sit back and watch the show. Whatever we think of people who behave like that, she’s allowed to do so.

Haven't caught up with this yet but am about to read. Horrible to see Twitter come for Hadley off the back of it - the abuse on there has been severe in a way I haven't seen it thrown at her before. Really horrible.

A young man comes up to our table to pay his respects, and he tells her they grew up in the same area. At first, Atwood is interested and asks questions. But after five minutes she’s done. “OK, shoo! Shoo! Bye-bye!” she says, turning back to her avocado toast so suddenly that the man is left dazed, mid-sentence.

That made me feel slightly queasy. If she didn't want to be approached (which is understandable) she could have politely said so in the first place. But to encourage him, and then be so rude and nasty, is horrible.

*I don't like Atwood, never have. I've always found her writing quite repulsive in the way she seems to enjoy piling misery on her female characters.

I'm not interested one way or the other about whether she's "gender critical" but Atwood is rich enough and feted enough that she could "stand up" if she wanted to.*

This is exactly how I feel. She doesn't seem particularly feminist to me to be honest, although I don't doubt that the discomfort that her books provoke in me is deliberate

I don't think Atwood's position has anything to do with not being brave enough to stand up.

She just doesn't get it. You can see that in the things she says. Some of that is probably because she is caught in a liberal Canadian bubble.

I don't like her writing, the people in her books all seem like they lack souls, they are usually quite selfish.

Margaret should be embarrassed about this performance. She has come across as someone more interested in building their own hype than doing what is right - bandwagon jumper really.

Got to the bit about the avocado toast and couldn't be arsed, to be honest. A difficult read, and far too much personal interjection from Hadley. Left me quite uninterested in both of them. Will leave Twitter to it

Brava Hadley! Would love to know the details of the email exchange, but just glad to know it happened.

On the point of how MA shooed away the fan, yes it does sound a bit rude, but he had way outstayed his welcome.
No celebrity is obliged to engage with random strangers who approach them (as most of us wouldn't). She was friendly, she chatted, but she was working - he should have had the manners to leave them to it way before 5 minutes had elapsed. Sounds like male entitlement taking up women's time. Fair enough that she not so politely let him know it was more than enough.

GCAutist I agree that I could understand all that. What I don't like is her, "I don't have to behave myself", "I get to be condescending", "I like to do my research", "I am not suspicious or cautious where others might be. Also, I don't have a job, so I can't be fired", "I'm too old [to be hurt to be criticised by people who once idolised her]!" schtick coupled with the approach you mention.

If one is afraid to either look at the issue square in the face, to research it thoroughly or to speak up with an heretical opinion (according to your circle) or with any opinion at all because an issue is too 'hot button' for you, well all of that is understandable, however much I might wish it were different.

But if that's how you feel, then at least some of the boasts quoted cannot be true and the contradiction (or lack of self-awareness) is quite annoying.

Growing up in Canada I’d see her on tv all the time. She always came across as very full of herself, condescending and sneery. This impression did not improve when she came to the bookshop I worked in for a signing. She was cold and contemptuous to the staff and book rep.

As for her saying Canadians could never think of themselves as August Personages, that’s ridiculous. We are incredibly deferential to anyone in authority (too much so, this is part of why the situation in Ottawa has been so shocking), and so of course some personalities, Atwood included, set themselves up as unassailable authorities on this and that and the rest of us just tug our forelocks and pay homage.

But she clearly doesn't believe what she saying. She's unable to explain her position or talk about it with passion. So why is she doing it?

Sorry I haven't rtft, I've just read the article.

Is it possible that Hadley is the first to be able to properly engage with her, at length, privately, in a way that MA made sense of?

Twitter just causes sides.

It strikes me that Canada really are clueless and so she's had no real discourse. That she's mentioned dsds before demonstrates naivety to me.

That was really creepy. Sounds like she was slumming it and toying with him. Hadley was obviously quite embarrassed. She was just on WH but I only caught the last 5 mins.

If Margaret does as much reading into subjects as Hadley described, I wouldn't be surprised if she peaks sooner or later.

She didn't come across very well in the article though.

I heard the end of the WH interview too (and the very beginning, at which point DH came in to Talk to me 😠) I was going to go back and listen again, but I don't know if I'll bother. Right at the end of the interview MA just threw in that Emma Barnett had a piece of hair sticking up on her head that made her look like a kitten. It seemed such a bizarre and unnecessary thing to mention on the radio - and at the point when EB was clearly winding the interview up - and like it could only have been intended to undermine her professionalism. To make her feel and seem a bit silly and young. Kitten comes across as a very gendered descriptor too. It made me think that MA is someone I don't particularly want to give my time and attention to these days.