Brilliant Margaret Atwood memoir review

[hholiday]

By Kathleen Stock https://archive.is/v2z51 and https://unherd.com/2025/11/what-margaret-atwood-got-wrong/

Just wonderful, humane writing that goes closer than anything else I have read to exploring the blind spots in Atwood’s views on gender, as well as expressing delight in her fiction writing. I particularly love these killer closing lines:

But honestly, the idea that, in the near future, Western governments will need to use direct force to make women do market-friendly things against their own interests is now surely, definitively preposterous. The case of genderism — and surrogacy, and “sex work”, for that matter — shows that authorities only need to persuade enough women that certain activities are kind, or glamorous, or nobly self-improving; at which point, tender-hearted armies will rise up to ruthlessly punish dissenters themselves.

@Howseitgoin In terms of being 'tricked' I would be very interested in your solution for policing such 'trickery'. As it turns out, jumping at 'trickery' shadows is exactly why cis women like Katie Delecky are facing harassment now.The increased scrutiny on women that's a direct consequence of trans panic hasn't made them any safer in fact more unsafe.

The solution, basically, is “good men stay out so that bad men stand out.”

That’s a very powerful social technology for managing risk. It’s been undermined.

The other one is institutional enforcement of the rules.

It’s analogous to why a high-trust society/economy functions so much better than a low-trust one. People don’t need to do costly local enforcement, people can interact/trade with strangers with a high degree of confidence so everything works better. And wrongdoers do less wrong because: i. it isn’t normalized, ii. they will stand out, iii. they can expect to be punished for their wrong when they are caught.

Atwood’s people don’t have souls.

Oh dear, I dunno what that says about me
I would rather say that Atwood's characters usually have damaged souls. And she is usually good on where the damage came from as well as what the damage makes them do.

Yes, I'm always surprised at where different women end up on this issue! Why we have to be so careful who we talk to, even. Impossible to generalise about who will end up where.

As for "characterisation", that's why Rowling is an excellent popular writer (and a truly great feminist), while Atwood was just a truly great writer. Good popular writers give everyone a backstory that nicely explains them. Atwood's characterisation is so much deeper than Rowling's that she gets to the places where we have to say "we just can't know". Well, that's where Atwood starts from.

And Atwood is a writer first and foremost. If you wanted to get Atwood to think through the contradictions about "trans" I don't think there's much point her arguing with Helen Joyce, that would just be irresistible force meets immovable wall. Better to start with a character and a situation and ask her "so what happens next"? That's usually what snags a writer's interest. And once Atwood started worrying at the question who knows where she'd end up. I suspect she feels entitled not to go there, though. It's a lot to ask.

It's so interesting that you think Rowling gives characters a neat backstory that explains them as that's not my take on her writing at all. I don't think that her (adult novel) characters can be summed up pat or a neat line drawn from their background to their present day, but I do think that she thinks about how they would think, their character 'voice' etc. and makes an effort to put herself in their shoes and inhabit the character she writes. It's slightly to the side of the issue (but related) but I notice that she throws in a lot of casual, incidental detail about how each of her characters move through the world in a practical physical sense (e.g. we might hear that X character had Y ailment at some point in the story and it will be remembered by the author, subtly affecting the character's movements and choices in 'pointless' ways unconnected to the narrative). It's not necessary to the story but it suggests to me that she has spent time trying to put herself in their place comprehensively and really thinking about what they would experience.

I'm trying to articulate to myself where I find Atwood's writing lacking in comparison and I think it's that she is very focused on telling the big themes and Points of a story (even if through a first person narration) and my take on her characterisation is less that it's so deep that you reach a level of the unknowable, but that it doesn't demonstrate that she's actually attempted to put herself in that specific character's place really at all. She's thought about what that type of character might think and feel but either not gone to the trouble of making them a truly fully physically inhabited individual or, more generously, made an artistic choice not to do so.

Horses for courses!

I'd rather the imaginary Atwood/Joyce conversation wasn't set up as an argument or debate, but rather Joyce taking her through a series of logical questions and steps to identify the disconnect or points of misunderstanding but I expect you are very correct that Atwood would not be willing to do that. From comments she has made in interview, she seems to be someone who would need to feel she had reached an original conclusion completely independently in order to credit it as a good idea. In the unlikely event she were to engage with such a process at all it would have to be from someone she properly respects and who would treat her with kid gloves. Probably a man. So maybe not Joyce. Stephen Pinker?!

@TheHereticalOne I think we'll have to agree to differ on characterisation. It's partly taste, I find that aspect of Rowling's writing too soap-opera-ish and I'd like her editor to have a word but it seems to suit many readers.

I am sure Atwood would rather think things out for herself. No-one likes being lectured and I expect she's been lectured by enough superior men to ignore them too. What I see is people saying "but this fact! and this fact! and that fact!" when what I suspect she'd listen to is "did you hear this story? what do you make of it?" and re. trans Canada has been hiding its stories for a long time.

I don’t think comparing J.K. Rowling and Margaret Atwood is at all trite—it’s actually really interesting. I guess, and I don’t want to place too much emphasis on personal experience, but Rowling’s life—escaping an abusive relationship and raising a child in hardship on her own—seems to give her a really striking emotional empathy, especially for women and children. You see it in her charitable work and in her writing. Her heroes tend to be overlooked or marginalised, and somehow that makes their courage and gifts shine even more when they face dark or dangerous situations.
Atwood, as you say, feels very different. She often lingers on what could have been, on lost opportunities—her work asks, “if life had gone differently, if this structure had not been in place, where did things go wrong?” That can make for some really haunting moments and incredible twists. Maybe that focus on plot and possibility can sometimes feel like it leaves less room for warmth or feeling and, according to Stock’s reading, she seems to struggle with empathy sometimes in life too. So for Rowling, the investment in the lives of women and children is practical and powerful, whereas Atwood dwells less on the social consequences and actual fall-out away from her fictional worlds. But I agree, it’s fascinating where they have ended up - and could easily have taken opposing views on this. Ultimately I love them both as writers for different reasons but I think JKr is utterly exceptional as a person.

1. Either you think there is a basis to separate certain things in the basis of actual sex or you don't. We can argue about what and when but I believe you've already conceded the point. If you think that because some women (albeit, 100th if the number of men) also engage in behaviour X that separation of the sexes is designed to protect women from, or because not all men are offenders, there is therefore no point in ever having separation in the basis of sex in the first place, we can discuss it. But, as I say, I think you have already conceded that there are times when the best organising principle is sex.

You said:

"in fact reached agreement that in reality of course men are not women, however much they may wish to present like them (and even if on occassion they succeed in fooling people into thinking they are the other sex in social situations)."

I simply stated why saying men are not womenis an oversimplification which is a separate concept from when biological sex matters. 'Men' & 'women' aren't just sex terms but socially constructed gendered terms.

"To be clear, the GLP case is not a judicial review of the Supreme Court decision; it is a review of EHRC guidance."

I never said it was. The Good Law Project is seeking a judicial review of EHRC.

"I disagree that the GLP arguments re the EHRC guidance were, in any event, compelling"

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. But arguing the guidance could cause harm, criminal liability for organisations & that it goes against the Supreme Court's intention to not disadvantage trans people possibly violating the Gender Recognition Act which makes it a criminal offense to out a trans person without their permission are well founded concerns.

"The solution, basically, is “good men stay out so that bad men stand out.”
That’s a very powerful social technology for managing risk. It’s been undermined."

So basically no policing like what has been going on since the Equality Act has been in place for the last 15 years where the 'trust' system worked out just fine till a couple of years ago when the politically driven trans panic decided there was a problem that didn't exist.

I love these discussions - so many insights into women and writing. I agree about JKR being an exceptional person. Her lasting legacy in terms of what she will leave society with (not just her literature) is immense.

So glad to see the thread back on topic with the midnight howler being limited in his ability to derail women from speaking about what interests and matters to us.

The Margaret Atwood book that’s stayed with me the longest is Cat’s Eye for its insights into female childhood friendships and specifically, bullying. I can’t think of any other novel that nails the subject as precisely as she does.

I’m not sure there’s much point in comparisons with Rowling as they’re such different genres but, if you’re going to twist my arm, then I think Rowling is a great story teller and, as far as I’m concerned, that’s the number one requirement for a writer. However I also find her incredibly long winded and the contrast with how pithy and concise she can be on Twitter always fascinates me.

Worked out just fine for whom?

For everyone given there was nary a whisper till the last few years when it became politically convenient.

I think in her writing Atwood often handles very painful feelings with irony and black humour and the "neutral" style. That appeals to me but maybe other readers see it as lack of empathy.

It's true that Atwood's main characters tend to be passive. Atwood knows their stories aren't always engaging - in Bodily Harm the main character Rennie even says that Lora has better stories than she does.

Yes. She's spoken about this - using humour and irony as a mechanism to "soften" writing about tragic / depressing themes

I haven't read Cat's Eye for a long time, but know I thought similarly when I read it - I'll have to revisit. I am also reminded that I thought Lionel Shriver's Mania made a good fist of portraying a particular type of female friendship but that, to be fair, I could criticise that book along exactly the same lines of Point and Plot ahead of Characterisation that I've made of Atwood. But I'm not inclined to because I just enjoyed it for what it was. So I'm being quite hypocritical and probably owe Atwood another read!

You're right about pithy gems on Twitter vs lengthy prose in Rowling's writing but I think that perhaps supports my sense that her novels aren't particularly trying to Make A Point (as her tweets are)? Different purposes, different styles.

Nary a whisper where?

You’ve got this the wrong way round. It’s the media and political classes that are late to the party on this.

Sex-based rights have been a major issue amongst grass-roots women for a decade plus. Look at MN. The suppression of debate was deliberate, institutional, and top-down.

The idea that humans don't have self awareness of their personal disposition & make decisions independent of social pressure to align with their personality is ludicrous.

And that’s a risible misunderstanding of my post.

Just read DocStock's piece this morning. Thought-engaging as ever.

Isn't she a great writer? I've noticed that whenever she writes a piece in the Times (and they're usually excellent) the comments are full of readers asking for more pieces from her.

Agree, MrsO. The sign of a sharp mind, indeed.

@hholiday very interesting comparison between Rowling and Atwood. I wonder if the difference in their ages is also significant.

I read Atwood back in the late 70s/80s alongside Le Guin and Marge Piercy, as well as that blockbuster The Woman’s Room and Kate Millett and Erica Jong(didn’t really get along with those last two).

a book such as The Edible Woman (which is the one that’s stayed with me) was tough and ground breaking coming out of the civil rights and women’s lib movements of the 50s and 60s in North America.

That body of work gave subsequent writers, such as Rowling, a vocabulary and a foundation on which to build. As if Atwood et al enabled us to first of all to see women and children as othered in the way Rowling picks up on. She does it as Robert Galbraith as well.

What you are calling 'gendered behaviours' are just behaviours which any human being can exhibit regardless of sex.

It has never worked out " just fine" for the women utilised in the process though; all of those women whose husbands took their cross dressing proclivities that one step further and then expected the whole family to revolve around it.

Two years is maybe about the time you have spent engaged with this issue; most here have spent far longer than that. If it wasn't an issue and was of no concern then we wouldn't have become se deeply engaged, would we?

and really reductive behaviours, with only two parameters, performative masculinity or performative femininity.

Compare it with the political compass with four - liberalism/authoritarianism, left wing/right wing, or Myers-Briggs, sixteen personalities built around introversion/extraversion, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, and judging/perceiving, or Astrology with its twelve star signs and reference to the sun and the moon. All of them more subtle and variable.

I'm always interested in one where people are on a true spectrum, one where most people cluster in the middle (and some don't show up at all), long-sightedness versus short-sightedness. There's a reason I'm better at wild flowers than birds, like reading, can't play ball games. Corrective lenses or not, it shapes your whole life experience.