Book Review - The Handmaid's Tale.

Title: The Handmaid's Tale
Author: Margaret Atwood
Published: 1985
Dates read: 13th-18th September
Rating: 9/10. 

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood is one of those novels that the moment you turn the last page, you shut the back cover, you put the book down and you just stare at it in awe. I finished this book at about midnight, and I was laying in bed wide awake after finishing it with my mind just reeling.  Even a week later, and trying to focus on Nabokov's Lolita, I keep finding my mind wandering back to Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. 

Atwood's novel is set in the dystopian future of the Republic of Gilead, (I think I read somewhere its allegedly set in 2005) and depicts the radical takeover of the US government by Christian organisation . Within the strict regiments of this totalitarian patriarchal government, women not only have no rights, but are not allowed to work, nor have money or ownership. Lack of ownership extends not only to property or physical belongings but to their bodies too. In particular, this subordination of female bodily ownership is explored through the figure of the handmaid's and the main protagonist Offred. In the novel, the handmaid's role (and Offred's) in society is to provide offspring on account of the fact that the population has been rendered infertile due to radiation and allegedly the spread sexually transmitted diseases. The novel follows Offred's experiences of her handmaid duties, as well as the ordeals of her past and her struggled to come to term with it, during the state process of dehumanising the women. 

As a woman in the twenty-first century, I've definitely struggled with my position within feminism. Whilst I definitely know I am a feminist, I wasn't for a long time sure why. I spent a lot of my third and final year of university exploring women and actually ended up writing my dissertation on female sexuality in the inter-war period. I think this particular focus gave me a lot to consider and definitely solidified my views and opinions as a feminist . I spent a lot of my time researching female sexuality before the First World War and its changing nature within society, and moreover, the changing role of women in society. How female sexuality wasn't intrinsically tied in with motherhood, or her role as a wife domineered by men and that surprisingly enough, women are autonomous sexual beings in their own right who are in fact capable of orgasm. Of course, The Handmaids Tale examines this exact idea which is perhaps why it appealed to me. The novel reverts women back to a pre-War society. One in which their sexuality is placed precisely back into their roles as mothers and even more extreme than that, it removes their sexual autonomy completely. Sex is a means to an end, a way to procreate and nothing more. Women are not even allowed to show their bodies in public or private. They are forced to wear loose, long gowns and facial veils which means they cannot look nor be looked at.

In this way, women then lose control of their bodies. They are not allowed to dress as they please, experience their body, look at others, nor be looked at and are forbidden from participating in sexual enjoyment in any form which in Gilead punishable by death. I felt like in our current 21st century world the idea of losing control of our bodies was such a relevant topic. In a world of consumerism and expectation, as a young woman both in education and the workplace, and growing up in our technological world there seems to be so much pressure to look and behave a certain way. We feel we have to adhere to societal expectations of the 'female', and in a similar way we lose control of our bodies. I know that Gilead is a complete hyperbolic and extremist version but in the same way that Offred loses control of her body because she is not allowed to experience her body in any form, she has to hide it away because that is what her society demands, young women in this century hide their body and change their body so it adheres to our societal demands. I thought The Handmaid's Tale explored this issue so well and was really very thought provoking.

Another really interesting dimension I found to the book was the idea of removal of one's identity. I also did some work in this in regard to another dystopian novel which was Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. I explored the idea of Foucault's theories of selfhood in Nineteen Eighty Four and how the construction of Big Brother denies sexuality, individuality and history as a control technique in order to strip someone of one's identity. For more than one reason, I saw a similar trend in Atwood's work, not only in the denial and restriction of sexuality but also within the depravation of the women's history. In some parts of the book Atwood conveyed the state as convoluting certain parts of the past, such as videos of feminist marches in the 1960's and erotica to seem destructive, and I suppose to change women's memory of their past, from positive and empowering to negative and evil. Furthermore, I took particular interest in the issue of names. Offred means literally Of Fred, alluding to the property of Fred, the man with whom she is expected to procreate with. She frequently refers to her 'real' name as forbidden or secret and indeed, we never do learn of it. The idea that the state are denying Offred her individuality through the dispossession of her name, arguably the one thing that helps us to identify ourselves physically from others is incredibly interesting.

I feel like this has been less a book review and more of a massive feminist rant, and I feel like I haven't even said half of what I want to say for fear of ruining the whole plot! However, Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale is such an interesting, important and relevant piece of literature. It depicts every woman's worst nightmare. I found myself actually afraid and scared at points of this book. Whilst I sit comfortably in my 21st century British bedroom, where I enjoy relative equality and respect, where I have access to education and work, my mind can't help wandering to those women who in this century, in less fortunate area's of the world are subject to the realities of this novel. The Handmaid's Tale just made me firstly thankful for my fortunate upbringing to be a strong and independent woman, who should pursue personal, sexual, professional and vocational autonomy. But secondly, made me realise that I should never stop being thankful for it and we as women should never apologise for it, or stop fighting for it. There are still women who are forced to hide their bodies and are under the subjugation of men and societies warped reality of the feminine position within humanity.
Furthermore, the novel forced me to think about extremism. Whilst I don't think the book was an attack on religion in any way, I think it serves more as a warning. I feel that it conveyed the message that anything taken too literally and too far can be a very dangerous thing. In light of the current political climate, particularly in the Middle East, I felt this added another incredibly relevant and interesting dimension to the book, particularly as it was written in 1985. 

In regard to the storyline and writing of the novel, I couldn't put the book down. Putting all of the above issues aside and taking the book at face value, it is a fantastic read in its own right, but I feel like if you come away not feeling or picking up on any of the points I have made you haven't understood the point or the significance of the novel. The character development and the way the novel sucks you into the world from the first page is fantastic. The emotions that ran through me, complete and utter fear, to abhorrence to sometimes humour, are the mark of a true masterpiece. Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale will definitely be up on my favourite books list!

As a final note, I wanted to quote one of my favourite quotes from the novel;
"Nolite te bastardes carborundorum"
"Dont let the bastards grind you down"

Theatre - Breakfast at Tiffanys

Performance: Breakfast at Tiffanys

Date: August 25th 2016
Location: Haymarket Theatre, London
Seat: C19 Upper Circle
Rating: 8/10

Being a massive fan of Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's, I was so super excited when I found out that Truman Capote's novel was being transferred to the stage! I read the novel while sat in an airport in Italy, and it took me about an hour, and subsequently got passed around the whole group of friends I was with.

Breakfast at Tiffany's tells the story through the narration of the neighbour upstairs, of the eccentric Holly Golightly and her New York Life, pursuing the richest men and surviving off of trips to the powder room (Quel Rats!). Holly is trying to find her way through life, waiting to find somewhere she belongs so she can buy some furniture and give the cat a name. Anyone who has read the novel will know that the 1960's film starring Audrey Hepburn is quite a bit different from Capote's novel. The stage production did market itself as an adaption of Capote's novel, however, it did merge elements from the film into it. It would be a hard feat to not be influenced by the film as a theatre director due to its enormous popularity and indeed hard to set the Holly Golightly Hepburn plays away from the Holly Golightly Capote portrayed.
The hollywood Breakfast at Tiffanys romanticised Golightly as a character. Hepburn was an anglicised, endearing, romantic character and Fred (Paul) was entirely in love with her, and indeed at the end of the film they are iconically kissing in the rain seemingly in love. Capote's version is entirely different. Aside from the fact that at the end of the novel, Holly does not return to the arms of Fred as she flees the country to Buenos Aires after her indictment and Fred is insinuated to be homosexual.
The play then, followed more closely to the novel than the film, and indeed Pixie Lott portrayed the Capote Golightly as opposed to the Hepburn one. And she was absolutley incredible. Unfortunately, I didnt' think much of her rendition of Puccini's Moon River. This may have had something to do with the fact that in 2015, boyfriend took me to see a live music performance play along of the film at the Royal Albert Hall and we actually got to see Puccini's daughter sing Moon River and it was really amazing. Lott has a very nice voice, I just didn't think the way she sung Moon River was particularly good. That said, everything else about her performance was amazing. She was an absolutely amazing Holly Golightly and she portrayed Capote's character the way she is envisioned in the novel. Capote's Golightly is more unattainable, more mysterious and quite frankly more fickle.
In conclusion, I really really enjoyed Breakfast at Tiffanys. Unfortunately it has now left London, but is going on tour around the UK. I urge all that love the film/book to go and see it!