The Handmaid's Tale

I watched the show only because of Yvonne. I didn't care for the rest so I read the book.
I think is trash. First, I do not understand why society find itself even in this situation to begin with.
Second the characters are fucking trash, serena joy had unironically more depth in the tv show, in the fucking book she's literally just a bitch. Nothing more.
Third, it doesn't put anything new on the table.
>Hurrrr women enslaved
It's so fucking impractical just to think of a society like this.
Fourth, the prose is just so fucking banal. I read a dystopia novel I want the prose to be at least evocative. None of that shit here
Fifth, the whole cassette gimmick is just a waste of fucking time.

Is this the bottom of the barrel when it comes to dystopia? Is this the bottom of the barrel when it comes to femminist novels?
I don't even understand what's femminist about showing women suffering. It's just sick, perverted and sensationalist misery porn.
Could I get a recommendation for a book about fertility, pregnancy, rape, sexuality, fear ecc. from a women perspective and possibly written by a women?
Have you read this book btw?

>femminist

I think is trash.
it is.

Don't brake my balls. I'm phone posting while driving and not a native speaker
I expected a lot more desu.

I haven't watched the show nor read the book but

Read some Anais Nin. It is disappointing that this book is bad i really wanted to read it.

I haven't read much by her, but I'm under the impression Sylvia Plath's writings contain similar themes to The Handmaid's Tale.

Dude she's hot as fuck.
The book is trash, don't waste your time. I'm a bug fan of dystopian shit, this one is deep as a puddle. If you are expecting a simple and at trait bland read of only the bad things that would happen to gender dynamics under a christian fundamentalist regime in america read it.
If you want something deeper like an exploration of themes like unwanted pregnancy, rape, sexual domination and degradation, objectification of the women body like I expected, don't even bother. Wait until someone reccomend something good in this thread.
The book barley scalfed the themes in favor of banality and sensationalism. It has a strong anti tradionalism message for the sake of having one. It's an amedican liberal point of view to a dystopia, where the worst thing that happens is going back with social dynamics. Not hauting, not disturbing, just lazy against a easy target.
I'll check out Sylvia plath

>is written by a woman
>is about sex

Every time.

this

new meme!

don't phone post in your pajeet country. wait until after you've had your daily streetshat to shitpost plz

Women are a fucking meme

Atwood is a genre hack to begin with.

That said, the book was written in response to the Iranian revolution where the repressive Ayatollah overthrew the more liberal Shah. Today's feminists who go 'oh we're so close to this in America - look at Trump and Pence!' are idiots and ridiculous.

I hope you crash. Stop using your phone while driving, retard.

I've never read the work itself, but I don't think it's fair to criticise the "unreality" of the situation in the book. Just because the premise is difficult to reconcile with practical reality doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be worked out. The only thing I've ever read by Atwood is the Penelopiad, and that was enough for me.

We were forced to read this by our fat jew english teacher (not making this up she wears a hexagram necklace everyday). Even as a blue pilled kid I thought the book was terrible, I skipped a lot of pages because its basically just sexual fantasy/power play rather than legit dystopian fiction.

The Shah was an uncaring corrupt despot. Khomeini used the massive rural and lower urban population to rile against the puppet regime, it's not like Iran was fucking Western, there was Teheran and that's about it: the rest was a backwater Islamic poverty ridden ruin ruled by a corrupt autarchy. Changes like Handmaid's Tale don't occur in a vacuum or overnight. USA doesn't become Saudi Arabia between 2 elections for fuck's sake. Atwood is kinda dumb.

...

I don't think its the unreality of the story. I was actually entertained by the theocratic backdrop and the idea of a fundamentalist takeover of the US (the 'wall' device was pretty brutal). But the premise of the story just kills it for me, gender subjugation is one of the most boring aspects of theocratic christianity and her extension of it just didn't work.

I hate dystopias that don't explore the world properly, I wanna know what's happening big picture not just a tiny glimpse like in HMT

This is what I was saying.

>it doesn't put anything new on the table
Really? Which works preceding it did the same thing?

Personally I thought it was pretty good. Prose was fine. The Blind Assassin, on the other hand, was not a good time.

>gender subjugation is one of the most boring aspects of theocratic christianity and her extension of it just didn't work
It doesn't have anything to do with Christianity, it's a bizarre take on what Islam does which for whatever silly reason is perfectly fine as long as brown people do it but it's heinous if Whites do it.

The fact that there's still no literature about that period where the Papacy was run by prostitutes who literally ran Europe in between getting railed by Cardinals and the Pope yet this garbage gets its own television show is a fucking travesty.

OP is hanging from a wall with a purple bag over his head

Ignoring the infantile politics of fans, I would say the book has more literary merit than other female trash like Twilight or 50 Shades which is glorified fanfiction and literotica. At least it isn't a manipulative self insert fantasy.

>, I would say the book has more literary merit than other female trash like Twilight or 50 Shades which is glorified fanfiction and literotica
Well, toilet paper has more literary merit than that trash. I mean I was harsh on this book, but I would never compare it those glorified fanfics fictions.

Atwood is a hack.

Her style is extremely conservative and derivative. She never risks being unclear and is basically always visual, 'cinematic. (People call this "poetic.") It's meant to appeal to people who have no interpretive skills. It's the broth of poets like Plath and Sexton. Her stories are more or less just mechanical applications of realism to television tropes. Her "literary" work is drama as much as her "speculative" work is just sci-fi with anything strange taken out of it.

Name something more beautiful than pic related.
Pro tip: you can't

Sounds like George RR Martin’s style. Straightforward, cinematic descriptions with no ambiguity. He was also a screenwriter, after all. Although, to be honest, I’m a total pleb who pretty much only reads fiction for the plot when I’m not reading non-fiction, so it doesn’t bother me too much.

George at least had good world building.

What the fuck

Martin's a better writer on the level of conception because his realism is more than just sensational. Atwood is like a resurgence of those turn of the century idealistic novels but with just a hint of actual realism to class them up. All of her stuff has murder or sex to rachet up the stakes. Martin isn't afraid to write about porridge for three pages or having the runs even if his characters aren't as subtle as they could be and his prose isn't as crisp.

Bump for recs