THE ART OF FICTION

A couple of things I noticed in close reading of The Handmaid’s Tale is that Margaret Atwood seems to use lots of rhetorical questions when we’re inside Offred’s thoughts, usually at the end of a paragraph also, so it leaves the reader with something to ponder, or at least that’s what I think Atwood intended.

For example on page 191 in the opening, Offred asks (the reader? herself? God) “why is it that night falls, instead of rising, like the dawn?” then she goes on to describe looking at sunset and comparing night to a wool blanket.

Another example of rhetorical question is on page 177 when Offred’ is describing the day all the women got fired and how it all the women felt shame or guilty, Atwood closes the paragraph with “What was it about this that made us feel we deserved it?”

Atwood ends a paragraph on page 144 when talking about the commander’s request to play scrabble with “Context is all”. Then on page 192 she goes back to “Context is all; or is it ripeness? One or the other”.  All these examples give me the impression, and I think someone mentioned this in class and even Offred herself that this whole story is a “reconstruction” like at the end we’ll find Offred sitting on her porch somewhere, sipping a scotch and replaying the events of the story to some unknown listener, maybe even her daughter. I think these rhetorical questions are thrown in, to mimic how in real life, someone may retell a story and sometimes they’ll think out loud, or ask rhetorical questions of their audience, just to kind of acknowledge that they didn’t know what was happening at the time, or thought it to be unusual.

One last thing I want to mention about Atwood is her dark sense of humor, for example on page 181 when Offred is wondering what Nick gets out of the arrangement with the Commander and she worries about Nick turning her in, she says “Anyway what can he prove? it’s his word against the Commander’s, unless he wants to head a posse. Kick in the door, and what did I tell you? Caught in the act, sinfully Scrabbling. Quick, eat those words.” So this is so well written, with the double meaning of “eat those words” as the punchline and also brings us back to the example of Offred “retelling” her tale, the way she has “kick in the door, and what did I tell you?” another rhetorical question or just a question for the audience/reader.

One of the language structures I still haven’t quite grasped is Atwoods’ use of quotes during some conversation and not using quotes during other conversation. It makes it very difficult to always determine if you’re a thought internally or externally. Another piece is the sequences that are in the current time versus the memories that strike Offred at any moment. At various points they are blended in with real time events and others they are clearly separated by paragraph so the reader is well aware that we have left the present and have ventured into the past. It can be Atwoods’ way of showing the reader how scattered Offred is becoming as we understand the world she’s in, how she’s adapting, and perhaps a rebellious side of her slowly coming out to challenge the nature of how things currently stand. As much as Offred goes with the flow of normal every day routine, her thoughts about doing something different are always at the forefront and we begin to see these possibly play out in actions more so than thoughts. One very good example of this are her late night visits with the Commander. During her time with him, Offred becomes more and more comfortable. She is adapting to a new routine and experiencing breaking rules. Atwood introduces these moments with the Commander to give Offred a means to eventually break from the life she knows. I also think this shows that even in hard times, if someone is given an opportunity to rise to the occasion and rebel, they will take it. Along with these nights with the Commander, Atwood is also separating Offred’s memories of her previous life and giving us insight to what happened. The further along the story goes, the more Atwood starts revealing the past and maybe somehow connecting it to the present.

Regeat Berhe

October 30, 2016

Art of Fiction

Professor Dietrich

Homework Blog 5:

Reading chapters 26 through 30 in “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood, showed me that her writing techniques are very unique from other authors. Atwood starts her novel by showing readers that the story is a more dystopian novel due to every situations being unpleasant. In the story, the narrator and protagonist, Offred, is in a class called the handmaid. This class forces the women to bear children for elite barren couples. In this situation, Offred become a handmaid to a Commander. He begins to initiates an unorthodox relationship with Offred by secretly playing the game Scrabble with her in his study night. Though the commander is married, Offred is somewhat attracted and sometimes finds that she likes him in spite of herself. As I began to close read these chapters I realized that Atwood wants the characters and readers to have flashbacks throughout the story. For instance, Offred’s extended flashback provides an explanation of how Gilead was created. The pre-Gilead showed that it is the United States in the near future. All money is computerized and pornography and prostitution has become more accepted and accessible. This made me think to myself that I do believe the world is like that and will still continue as the future goes on. Later on, Offred mentioned “Pornomarts” and “Feels-on-Wheels” leaving the explanation out for readers to think about. This shows that Atwood wanted readers to rethink about what is going on and try to figure out the meaning that Offred didn’t tell us. Reading this story made me think about the actual future and how it connects to this story. What Atwood shows in her writing that other authors don’t is connecting it to the future and making you go back in text to reread certain passages to understand the situation. I find that very difficult but fantastic at the same time because it’s unlike other stories I have read.

An interesting part of Atwood’s writing is her use of flashbacks within the novel. Whenever she uses them it serves as an abrupt break in the story, where it serves to show us some sort of more information about Offred’s past. While exploring the past, you may notice the general mannerisms of the protagonist, whom at the time believes in her own monotonous lifestyle. Atwood seems to structure a sort of commentary with Offred whenever she experiences something. I believe this is to be a pretty interesting structure as it’s similar to many works such as within a setting of a movie, where you’d hear the inner monologue of the reaction that would arrive from a specific character. It’s interesting to note how descriptive of flashbacks that Atwood constructed from, creating a monotone atmosphere which is congruent to the daily life that the main character used to always experience, but in comparison to her now present life, it contained more of her inner thoughts and how she tries to survive the day to day tyranny from the oppression of a new regime. It’s an interesting process to switch from a monotonous free life, to a forced sheltered and degrading one. They are almost structured as the same thing, but ultimately both the narrator and the reader both look forward and relish in the detail of it. For example, for the readers they take interest in how shocking how the daily lifestyle of a handmaid is, but the contrast between the normalcy of such a lifestyle was shows how contrasting it is. Obviously for the handmaid, it serves as some sort of refresher for herself when she ponders her thoughts as well as serving as a tool for the narrator to use to show us a more detailed thought process. In specific, I find the passage containing Offred’s descent to madness was within chapter 28. It shows that Moira is a key-point of her thoughts due to the inherent mystery of her freedom, as well as her reliance on her. Apparently, the thought of such freedom is what gives Offred power to basically live on within such oppression. Many times, whenever she thinks of such of Moira, it serves as some sort of a trigger where she could possibly pull back into the flashback. And through this flashback, it emphasizes the contrast between her lives. For example, it describes the daily actions such as drinking coffee, sitting at a kitchen table, and speaking in certain voices. At this point, it shows her positive lifestyle of just living through the days, but once she got laid off of work, things start going wrong. Her card starts being denied and the banks refuse to acknowledge her ownership of $2000. All due to the fact that women couldn’t own anything, that fact started to show signs of shock inside of Offred, where everybody’s voices started to change tones. For example, her mother’s tone turned serious as well as Moira’s, but in contrast Luke’s tone turns sympathetic, but she refuses to put her arms around him. Why not? It’s as if she hates the fact that he retained his ability to own, while as she couldn’t retain such a right. This then on leads to how her realization of her world suddenly starts turning smaller, with realizing the differences of the army. The army that is of not of her own. Her denial to make love with her Husband, shows her inherent regret on the issue, but also shows her rage on the apparent shock of the situation.

Often Atwood utilizes flashbacks and interjecting memories to construct a complex narrative style. This dynamic narrative style creates a haphazard sense of time that reflects the overall mood of the setting and events within the novel. Furthermore, these recalled memories tend to build upon Offred’s characterization and the reader’s understanding of the complexity of a plot point.

Specifically, the passage wherein Offred recalls the mistress of a Nazi camp leader reveals various details about Offred’s thought process and the mood of the events that are presently unfolding in her life. Offred fixates on the amount of makeup the woman was wearing. This fixation suggests a perception of fallacy in the mistress’s outer appearance physically and emotionally. Furthermore, the mistress is said by Offred to insist the Nazi was not a monster, and Offred wonders what endearing characteristics the mistress observed in the Nazi.  Although she claims this, she soon after kills herself. This pondering connects to the pondering Offred experiences in her relationship with the Commander. The woman’s outward expression contradicts the inner turmoil and conflict she must have felt leading to her suicide. Similarly, Offred must uphold a certain demeanor while she internally grapples with her actions and general position within society. Overall, Offred’s character and thought-process is extrapolated upon through this moment of recollection.

I’ll start broad then I’ll trim the fat. This story by Atwood seems to be a more expansive exposé into themes of the short stories we have passed through this semester. In a way this piece of fiction is culminative by not only by serving as the last reading we’ll do, but also by thoroughly exploring previous themes that left me, at least, wanting more.

Atwood’s use of irony has surgical precision. (I finally have a tangible definition of irony now thanks to Proffesor Dietrich.) Atwood uses her humor to emphasize certain moments in her story. At these poignant moments in her story there usually is a presence of a more veiled criticism or a deeper philosophical or societal commentary that lays in the substratum of the implied and is visible only after a little bit of analytical digging.

Atwood’s use of flashbacks grows more rapid and unpredictable as the storyline ages. I interpret Offred’s choice to relive memories as a momentary dissonance from the circumstances that mark her present. Offred uses these memories as an escape. She uses them as a defense mechanism from discord. She uses them to momentarily taste personal choice and freedom again. The growing rate at which Offred takes an exodus from the present to trek to the past signifies a growing deterioration in Offred’s mental durability. Offred started the story with a formulaic approach to controlling thought spectrum and subsequently her emotional responses. These memories at first mostly took the form as a motivator, to stay steadfast and keep on course. But as Offred walks down the path of time, these memories take on a new form directly proportional to her weakening state. I once had a psych professor call this “shit stained glasses.” When you’re down everything looks glum. These memories seem to become teasing and intentionally self-deprecating. Atwood shows Offred’s yearning or desire for a reclamation of a multidimensional purpose. A return of her identity, of her hope, of her love.

Atwood likes to break to the past very quickly, with no transition. and she likes to break back to the present also with no transition. We have talked about this in class and it was demonstrated multiple times during this reading. She does it when she is thinking about Moira, then again when she is thinking about Luke. Atwood has done these sort of quick breaks throughout the novel, often throwing us, and making us reconfigure what is going on in the story. I think the theme that the repetition of this technique helps create is the anxiety and random thought that is faced by Offred, and what looks like the other Handmaid’s as well, as we learn during this reading that there is a rebel group that Offglen is in. I think this makes the reader see the quickness of the takeover, because in Offred head, it is still happening and she flips back into her old life, through thought, everyday. The theme could be confusion, or anger, all of which is displayed by Offred’s dissatisfaction with the happenings of her present life. As a human she is not able to let go of the past, and dull her mind. This flipping back and fort points to an awake-ness that is attempted to be hidden and snuffed out by the government running Gilead. This points to unrest, and creates in the reader a kind of urgency, as Offred’s recounting of her old life becomes more and more frequent. Things about the memories also are probably focused on purposefully agitating the reader, like not ever hearing Offred’s real name, or her daughters name. For the first time I think in this reading, she was called “daughter” instead of just “she”. Atwood is using cues to show the reader that were are in the rising action, to keep the reader interested, and possible annoyed that we are seeing more action faster.

I am going to start this blog stating I really don’t know what this story is all about yet, where it takes place or the time the story is set in. At first I thought it was set in like the 1800’s or early 1900’s but then our narrator mentions something about watching TV with no sound, and then there’s a reference to sort of punk rock haircuts and mini-skirts so that makes me think the story has to be set after 1980? After rereading the first chapter I’m getting the idea of some sort of refugee camp or situation, where everyone is sleeping in a gymnasium and the football field is surrounded by barbed wire. Also there are armed guards outside the fences.

The second chapter leads me to believe the narrator, in the 1st person POV for this story, is assigned to some sort of duty or to be a servant in the house of a military commander.  She talks about being escorted to her “new posting” by the guardian from the previous posting and meeting the Commander’s wife for the first time. The narrator, whom we don’t know her name yet, describes in great detail the clothing she seems forced to wear, even saying she looks like ” a sister dipped in blood” which is very visual. The narrator mentions when describing the room that it could be a rooming house for “ladies in reduced circumstances. That is what we are now. The circumstances have been reduced; for those of us who still have circumstances.” This leads me to believe that she’s part of a larger group of girls/women who have similar fates. She also talks about “Marthas” and how they dress differently and have different duties from her, and how “nobody much cares who sees the face of a Martha” then also mentions the Martha has “brown” arms, so I think there could be a reference to some sort of racial undertones going forward with these women, who they are and what’s going to happen going forward. One last quote that jumped out was “Thinking can hurt your chances, and I intend to last.” That to me suggests that the scenario she finds herself in can be temporary, if she navigates it correctly, but the alternative to that is her “not lasting” which can be interpreted many different ways, but to me means death.

The Epigraph in “The Handmaids Tail” is a biblical verse, a proverb, and a quote that seemingly have nothing in common but I think that as we read on they will become more apparent and relevant.  My first impression after reading all three was that they might be foreshadowing possible themes throughout the story. The first epigraph, I interpreted, Rachel wanted to have children but cannot carry a child. She then asks her sister to basically surrogate for her with her husband. Her husband hesitant at first allows it.  In reference to the first epigraph, in the second chapter the narrator meets the commander’s wife and she specifically says that the commander is HER husband. She is very hostile which lead me to the conclusion that the women in the red gowns are possible surrogates for the commander and the commander’s wife.

The second epigraph kind of confused me but I think that it was inferring to a new idea or new system of life. I got the first impression, with the description of the sleeping quarters being an old gym with dances, that something may have happened like a war or new leader and everything was disrupted. I hope to learn more about this quote in relevance to future readings. I found the final epigraph the most confusing. I thought that maybe it meant that just because there is not a blatant sign that you should not eat rocks it does not mean that you should go eat rocks. I feel like unwritten rules may be a common theme in this novel.

After reading the first three chapters and the epigraph of The Handmaid’s Tale, I’m left with more questions than I had when I was first beginning the novel. The first epigraph is taken from the bible, and I believe that the Rachel mentioned in the excerpt is an allusion to women in the society of Atwood’s book. Rachel claims that if she can’t give birth then she will die, which leads me to believe Atwood plays upon that sexist line of thought that women are only good for procreation. Bilhah reminds me of the protagonist of the novel, whom I don’t believe has been named yet, in the sense that she is the maid brought to a couple in order to serve them by giving them a baby.

The second epigraph is from Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, which if I remember correctly is Swift suggesting that the impoverished Irish can better themselves by selling their children as food to rich people. I think that this ties into The Handmaid’s Tale because it seems as if the protagonist is a part of a social class of young women that are “sold” to older couples in order to help them get pregnant. The protagonist’s purpose, in this society’s eyes, is to give birth to keep the human race going, as for some reason it seems like older women either do not want to or cannot “fulfill their duties”, so to speak.

The third epigraph is a little more vague to me, and I’m not completely sure how it could tie into the novel. Perhaps it is a reference to unwritten rules in the society of both the novel and our own?