Map Thread XIII

[Medibee]

And how is the rest of the world?

That's a good question. The only direct mentions about the rest of the world that I remember is a failed escape attempt to Canada and a commander having the protagonist (Offred) listen to a brief message from Radio Free America stationed in Cuba.

I'm not quite sure what the rest of the world would be like. The US economy and investments would hit rock bottom, hurting South America and other regions. The UN would probably be moved, or put on pause. The Soviets would probably take more risks or invade a neighbor. Anyone else have some good ideas?

 

[Historyman 14]

That's a good question. The only direct mentions about the rest of the world that I remember is a failed escape attempt to Canada and a commander having the protagonist (Offred) listen to a brief message from Radio Free America stationed in Cuba.

I'm not quite sure what the rest of the world would be like. The US economy and investments would hit rock bottom, hurting South America and other regions. The UN would probably be moved, or put on pause. The Soviets would probably take more risks or invade a neighbor. Anyone else have some good ideas?

Hmm. China might try a move. Same with North Korea. Japan would throw Article 9 out the widow. South Africa might go to Hell. Arabs attack Israel again. Iraq-Iran war could go either way. (AKA: Saddam use every bit of Gas and Bio bomb he got on Iran) India become powerful. (Maybe) Something really bad will happen to Italy, or any other Catholic nation.

 

[Kulkasha]

I do like some parts of the book, such as the silent prayer machines, that completely miss the point of prayer and try to theologically game the system.

 

[B_Munro]

To be fair to Atwood, the intent was never to make a realistic alternate history, but more to, from what I can remember (haven't read the book since high school) to show what it would be like to live in a society akin to, say, Saudi Arabia or the Islamic Republic of Iran, but to do it in a more American way so it's more relatable and thus horrifying. It's actually a good book in my opinion.

Yeah, that was a little unfair of me.

I suppose the Handmaid's tale annoys me in part because it is often treated as SF rather than fairy-tale-ish allegory: under those circumstances the message[1] is somewhat diluted by the incoherent world-building. If it's an allegory, why set it explicitly in the US at all rather than in "extremely US-like country X?"

[1] BTW, what is the message, come to think of it? By making the group which carry out the coup an imaginary group and having them persecute the Baptists, Atwood to some extent is exculpating actual US hardline fundamentalists - many of which, IMHO, are basically in conflict with some of the most valuable principles of American life - from blame, and makes the message look more specifically anti-Islam.

 

[B_Munro]

I do like some parts of the book, such as the silent prayer machines, that completely miss the point of prayer and try to theologically game the system.

But isn't a lot of fundamentalist thinking about "gaming the system", such as deliberately trying to breed the right bull [1] to bring on the Apocalypse?


[1] http://najemoi.com/middleeast/apocalypsecow/

 

[Faeelin]

[1] BTW, what is the message, come to think of it?

Have you read the book?

 

[B_Munro]

Have you read the book?

Nope, just have heard about it and read the outline of the plot, which was enough to convince me that I wouldn't like to read it, and only just now heard that the plot includes the largest group of solidly Christian Christians in the US being oppressed, which to me seemed to change the meaning of the book somewhat.

If there is some sort of deep message that I'm missing here, please inform me.

 

[Nick Griffalco]

Nope, just have heard about it and read the outline of the plot, which was enough to convince me that I wouldn't like to read it, and only just now heard that the plot includes the largest group of solidly Christian Christians in the US being oppressed, which to me seemed to change the meaning of the book somewhat.

If there is some sort of deep message that I'm missing here, please inform me.

I think the book is also about feminism and women's issues give that a lot of emphasis is placed on how the regime treats and oppresses women

 

[Medibee]

I think the book is also about feminism and women's issues give that a lot of emphasis is placed on how the regime treats and oppresses women

Bingo. The society of Giland is focused on fertility and birth. Due to the abandonment of modern medicine and radiation-esque things, miscarriages and deformed births are *far* more common. Women who can give birth are called handmaids and are assigned to men to act as concubines. If they don't give birth in their 3 terms, they are declared "unwomen" and sent off to the colonies to die. Handmaids don't even get to raise their own children (wives of commands do), they are "wombs on legs" as the protagonist puts it. The protagonist is a handmaid and everything is from her perspective.

 

[B_Munro]

I think the book is also about feminism and women's issues give that a lot of emphasis is placed on how the regime treats and oppresses women

Well, of course. How religious fundamentalism impacts women's rights, etc. - that's clearly a central theme. I was asking in a rhetorical manner with respect to something I didn't realize about the religious aspect - previously I thought it was just anti religious fundamentalism in general as a threat to women's rights, but now I find myself wondering if there is more of anti-Islam slant here, or whether there is a deliberate slant to pacify US religious readers while others are supposed to get a "yes, religious fundamentalism is dangerous to women regardless of nation" impression. I suppose (urk) I'd have to read it carefully to get exactly what the author is trying to do.

Edit: and looking at what Medibee and others have said, perhaps there are women's rights messages in there extending _beyond_ religious issues, because it takes circumstances not really related to the religious issues to get the "handmaid" situation to start with.

 

[Medibee]

Well, of course. How religious fundamentalism impacts women's rights, etc. - that's clearly a central theme. I was asking in a rhetorical manner with respect to something I didn't realize about the religious aspect - previously I thought it was just anti religious fundamentalism in general as a threat to women's rights, but now I find myself wondering if there is more of anti-Islam slant here, or whether there is a deliberate slant to pacify US religious readers while others are supposed to get a "yes, religious fundamentalism is dangerous to women regardless of nation" impression. I suppose (urk) I'd have to read it carefully to get exactly what the author is trying to do.

I didn't get an anti-Islam vibe when I read the book. The people that stated the coup just used Islam as a fear tactic to justify the coup and the suspending of the constitution. I think it's mostly just a warning about religious fundamentalism and oppression against women in general. The author Margaret Atwood also hated the US and just loved Canada. So it's probably a bit of that too.

Read the book, no matter what you think, it's a generally interesting read.

 

[Witch0Winter]

Well, of course. How religious fundamentalism impacts women's rights, etc. - that's clearly a central theme. I was asking in a rhetorical manner with respect to something I didn't realize about the religious aspect - previously I thought it was just anti religious fundamentalism in general as a threat to women's rights, but now I find myself wondering if there is more of anti-Islam slant here, or whether there is a deliberate slant to pacify US religious readers while others are supposed to get a "yes, religious fundamentalism is dangerous to women regardless of nation" impression. I suppose (urk) I'd have to read it carefully to get exactly what the author is trying to do.

Edit: and looking at what Medibee and others have said, perhaps there are women's rights messages in there extending _beyond_ religious issues, because it takes circumstances not really related to the religious issues to get the "handmaid" situation to start with.

Beyond religious context, the feminism in the book is, I think, actually quite intelligent and nuanced. In particular, I enjoyed the fact that the sex scenes were purposefully terribly-described (literally the protagonist just says "I am having sex, he is having sex with me." as the sex scene) to depict a world where the context, the sensuality, the emotional aspect of sex is so removed that she doesn't even have the words to describe it, it's literally an act done to a woman to produce children. There's a lot of good commentary on women's issues in modern-day America and some early third-wave feminist outlooks on the issues, though unfortunately it's been too long since I read the book to really remember all of them.

 

[Lavanya Six]

[1] BTW, what is the message, come to think of it? By making the group which carry out the coup an imaginary group and having them persecute the Baptists, Atwood to some extent is exculpating actual US hardline fundamentalists - many of which, IMHO, are basically in conflict with some of the most valuable principles of American life - from blame, and makes the message look more specifically anti-Islam.

A reviewer I read a million years ago talked about how the book critiqued a political dynamic that doesn't exist anymore — apparently in the 70s and early 80s, there was an odd-couple alliance between anti-pornography feminists and the religious right. The reviewer said that Atwood was, in part, dramatizing how such alliances of convenience could backfire on feminists.

 

[Upvoteanthology]

Here's the most recent map for my Reverse Map Game (hosted on the Wiki) called Diversa Pars. This map is for the year 1955. I posted the 1972 map on the second page of this thread, but it's changed a lot since then.

 

[freivolk]

In The Handmaid's Tale the United States underwent a coup by a super fundamentalist Catholicish group. .[/QvangeUOTE]

Catholic? Really? I mean, I didn´t read the book, but all this Old Testaments stuff fits more for Evangelicals. And at the beginning of the movie we see Nuns getting hanged.

 

[Medibee]

Catholic? Really? I mean, I didn´t read the book, but all this Old Testaments stuff fits more for Evangelicals. And at the beginning of the movie we see Nuns getting hanged.

Hmm. Yeah, you're right. Evangelicals are a much better fit. I guess I just saw Catholic because of the New England setting and the killing of Baptists. Evangelicals make more sense.

 

[Mumby]

Yeah, that was a little unfair of me.

I suppose the Handmaid's tale annoys me in part because it is often treated as SF rather than fairy-tale-ish allegory: under those circumstances the message[1] is somewhat diluted by the incoherent world-building. If it's an allegory, why set it explicitly in the US at all rather than in "extremely US-like country X?"

[1] BTW, what is the message, come to think of it? By making the group which carry out the coup an imaginary group and having them persecute the Baptists, Atwood to some extent is exculpating actual US hardline fundamentalists - many of which, IMHO, are basically in conflict with some of the most valuable principles of American life - from blame, and makes the message look more specifically anti-Islam.

I'm not sure about this. Baptist is a very broad category, and I have friends who identify as Baptist and while they have some ideas I would say are a little cooky, they aren't a threat to the British way of life. There are certainly hardliners out there who have some very icky ideas, but I guess what Atwood was doing here was showing that even though they might seem similar to outsiders, its a case like that of left-wing splitters. The hardliners need to purge those most similar in some respects to themselves as they are the most coherent and eloquent opposition, they cannot co-exist so extermination is the only option.

 

[The Kiat]

A blurry map of a premature end of Byzantium.

 

[Utgard96]

It's Rhodian, not Rhodesan.

 

[Makemakean]

It's Rhodian, not Rhodesan.

Nah, mate, it's time-travelling racists gone back to the Middle Ages to create the Draka Domination.