The Handmaid’s Tale is a fascinating story that highlights the importance of self-esteem, individual thought, and personal choice through a stylized and engaging narrative.
I read the book and felt there was a lack of information about how their world transformed so drastically in just five years. Additionally, I found it disappointing that Atwood used Christianity as the model for the oppressive regime, when another religion—known for systematically removing women's rights—might have been a more fitting choice.
She gives some of the transition info in her 2019 spinoff, The Testaments. But I think part of the point is that the MC didn't see it coming until the movement had already gained a lot of traction, and wasn't super worried even when the Constitution was suspended. The idea is that things like that can sneak up on you when you're just living your life.
And she explains why she chose Christianity as the dominant inspiration for the religion in her intro to the 2017 edition—because it would seem implausible that any other religion could gain so much sway over the US. That said, she borrows elements from various religions. I would have liked those elements to have been a bit more prominent though.
It would have been fairer to create a fictional religion rather than vilifying a dominant real-world faith. Many authors take this approach with fictional countries and cultures, which allows for critique without targeting a specific group.
Thanks for explaining that Atwood chose Christianity for her dystopian regime because it seemed 'implausible that any other religion' could gain traction in the USA. However, I disagree.
In today’s world, the USA is a melting pot where any religion can take root, especially one that actively encourages its followers to migrate, reproduce, and dominate—by any means necessary. The fact that this cannot be openly acknowledged only reinforces how accurate this concern might be.
Furthermore, while Atwood chose to vilify Christianity—a religion that has not historically implemented the systemic oppression depicted in The Handmaid’s Tale—she avoided addressing a religion that enforces similar practices in reality. This omission is striking, particularly as it mirrors much of her dystopia: restrictions on women working, holding bank accounts, walking unaccompanied, or revealing their faces. Yet, this religion must remain unnamed—out of fear of backlash—even though it seems a much closer parallel to Atwood's imagined world.
The more we perpetuate the narrative that Christianity is the problem while ignoring the reality of another religion enforcing such practices, the more we do ourselves a disservice. By staying silent and using Christianity as a stand-in for the evil depicted in Atwood’s dystopia, we risk enabling the very dynamics that could bring about the warnings in her book. In our attempt to be 'civilized' and self-critical, we may unwittingly pave the way for the erosion of our freedoms and the dystopia we fear.
Your point about the oppression of modern Islam is well-taken. I have many issues with that religion, and am genuinely concerned about its influence on the world, especially given many of its followers' willingness to use force to install it.
However, I think most of Atwood's criticisms here apply to religion more broadly—hence my whole section dedicated to religion as such. Though the religion is in name Christian, it uses few elements that are unique to it; even some of the slogans that come from the Gileadean Bible do not in reality.
Finally, just a quick note about Atwood's "plausability" reason - it's worth remembering that she wrote the book in the 80s, when Christianity was not only the quantitative majority in the US but a major cultural force. For me, anyway, I find it much easier to believe that a regime taking over and claiming a moral high ground at that time would naturally have chosen Christianity as that front than I would today in the 2020s, when Christianity is less dominant.
I read the book and felt there was a lack of information about how their world transformed so drastically in just five years. Additionally, I found it disappointing that Atwood used Christianity as the model for the oppressive regime, when another religion—known for systematically removing women's rights—might have been a more fitting choice.
She gives some of the transition info in her 2019 spinoff, The Testaments. But I think part of the point is that the MC didn't see it coming until the movement had already gained a lot of traction, and wasn't super worried even when the Constitution was suspended. The idea is that things like that can sneak up on you when you're just living your life.
And she explains why she chose Christianity as the dominant inspiration for the religion in her intro to the 2017 edition—because it would seem implausible that any other religion could gain so much sway over the US. That said, she borrows elements from various religions. I would have liked those elements to have been a bit more prominent though.
It would have been fairer to create a fictional religion rather than vilifying a dominant real-world faith. Many authors take this approach with fictional countries and cultures, which allows for critique without targeting a specific group.
Thanks for explaining that Atwood chose Christianity for her dystopian regime because it seemed 'implausible that any other religion' could gain traction in the USA. However, I disagree.
In today’s world, the USA is a melting pot where any religion can take root, especially one that actively encourages its followers to migrate, reproduce, and dominate—by any means necessary. The fact that this cannot be openly acknowledged only reinforces how accurate this concern might be.
Furthermore, while Atwood chose to vilify Christianity—a religion that has not historically implemented the systemic oppression depicted in The Handmaid’s Tale—she avoided addressing a religion that enforces similar practices in reality. This omission is striking, particularly as it mirrors much of her dystopia: restrictions on women working, holding bank accounts, walking unaccompanied, or revealing their faces. Yet, this religion must remain unnamed—out of fear of backlash—even though it seems a much closer parallel to Atwood's imagined world.
The more we perpetuate the narrative that Christianity is the problem while ignoring the reality of another religion enforcing such practices, the more we do ourselves a disservice. By staying silent and using Christianity as a stand-in for the evil depicted in Atwood’s dystopia, we risk enabling the very dynamics that could bring about the warnings in her book. In our attempt to be 'civilized' and self-critical, we may unwittingly pave the way for the erosion of our freedoms and the dystopia we fear.
Your point about the oppression of modern Islam is well-taken. I have many issues with that religion, and am genuinely concerned about its influence on the world, especially given many of its followers' willingness to use force to install it.
However, I think most of Atwood's criticisms here apply to religion more broadly—hence my whole section dedicated to religion as such. Though the religion is in name Christian, it uses few elements that are unique to it; even some of the slogans that come from the Gileadean Bible do not in reality.
Finally, just a quick note about Atwood's "plausability" reason - it's worth remembering that she wrote the book in the 80s, when Christianity was not only the quantitative majority in the US but a major cultural force. For me, anyway, I find it much easier to believe that a regime taking over and claiming a moral high ground at that time would naturally have chosen Christianity as that front than I would today in the 2020s, when Christianity is less dominant.
Thank you for letting me know. In the 80s, we were not as aware as today about other religions. Now I understand.