One
In The Handmaid's Tale, the Commander says at one point, "The
problem wasn't only with the women. The main problem was with the
men. There was nothing for them anymore." (p. 272). The men
essentially felt emasculated because women had a semi-equal role in the
society of the 1980s, sex was easier to get for the men - they had
nothing left to fight for. Offred, naturally rather upset, says that women's roles have become so constricted, so narrow that it has harmed women, although it may have helped men. The Commander replies that "Better never means better for
everyone. It always means worse for some." (p 274). This exchange is the passage in the book that most terrified and saddened me. The men in this book expect the women to be mirrors: reflections of their own status and position in Gilead. Mirrors, of course, never talk and never have a voice in the system. Better for some doesn't mean better for all. The religious right often seems to expect women to be mirrors to male desires (this is not a bashing of religion - I'm a Catholic myself). It is often religious male voices that are fighting the battles against equality for women. When the abortion clinic was bombed last week, they interviewed leaders of the pro-life forces; all of them were male. Regardless of whether abortion is right or wrong, isn't it odd that something that happens to women, in
their bodies is fought over by men? And yet, women often participate in their own lesser status.
Conservative religious women often urge a return to the home and
family. Promise Keepers wives are often glad that their husbands are
taking the dominant role in their family, as opposed to a more
egalitarian relationship. Women often remain silent when their freedoms
are taken away, ashamed or afraid that men (or other women) will think
that they are being too radical. I think this is the point that
Margaret Atwood was trying to make when she made Offred's mother a
radical feminist and Offred ashamed of her mom's past. Offred's mom was embarrassing to her because of what other's might think.
To base a society on the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is
to definitely make life better for some and worse for others. Attitudes
towards proper familial roles and sexuality in the Bible are vastly
different than what we now think proper (Rachel's story is not the only
sexual mistreatment of women in the Bible; look at the story of Lot). I
think Atwood is very effective in exploring the dangers of religious
fundamentalism. --Jennie Cisna
Two
I personally enjoyed the great sense of style and humor that Jubal
possesses in the first third of the book- even though he arrived later
on. I favor him over the long list of characters already presented
because of his wonderful little comments and sick humor. Enjoy
rereading these little examples!
Jubal- "Surely. Larry, help me- and quit looking green; if you puke,
you'll clean it up."
Larry- "I scan it. Should I rob a bank on the way back?"
Jubal- "Probably the safest thing you can do."
I appreciate Heinlein's great sense of realism concerning human
relations- shown by his portrayal of how humans really communicate and
fuss. Especially all the little playful and dark jokes. --Jason Durbin
Three
After reading the Handmaid's Tale for the second time, I still seem to
find new and hidden scriptural references and symbols that got me lost
the first time I read it. (Which again took me a lot of time to read.)
When I first read it, I was left shocked knowing that a woman was only
valuable, only if she can reproduce. Yes, I understnd that birth is a
wonderful thing but, ???. I also found it shocking that one day, the
population would be so back that "we" would have to use people to
reproduce.
**I admired Atwood's imagination and technique that she used.
I wonder how the movie for this book was like. Does it give it any
justice? --Caroline Pauleon
Four
Dr. Mahmoud is visiting Jubal's house in Stranger and a Strange
Land and at one point the book mentions that it "pleased him that these
women did not chatter, did not intrude into the sober talk of men, but
were quick with food and drink in warm hospitality. He had been shocked
at Miriam's disrespect toward her master - then recognized it: a liberty
permitted cats and favorite children in the privacy of the home" (214).
Now, I realize that Mahmoud is a Muslim, and male/female roles are
very different in Muslim cultures. The book, however, does little to
contradict the poor general impression of women. Jubal's secretaries
apparently have nothing better to do with their lives than swim in a
swimming pool and leap out at his command to take dictation. I don't
want a job where I have to do that. Few women do.
The women in this novel exist to be fantasies for men - we've got
the three gorgeous secretaries, Jill the exhibitionist, Patty the
tattooed lady, and the Dawn the best stripper in Baja. And they all
want to have sex with Michael.
In fact, it is that very issue that took me out of a very
philosophical work and into reality. Michael is a childish
fantasy-figure: he can do anything he wants, make nasty things
disappear, and have tons of female "nest-mates" who don't mind sleeping
with him.
Sex in fiction does not bother me, but I think Heinlein could've
made his points about society and religion more effectively if he either
let Michael remain the relative innocent he was in the first half, or if
he always had the sex be a factor in the novel. The abrupt displacement
(and the treatment of women) ultimately fatally weakened the book for
me. --Jennie Cisna
Five
In the book, Stranger In A Strange Land, Mike Smith, the man from Mars, says to
Jubal, "My logic was right but I misread the data: here, babies do not compete but
adults do; on Mars adults never compete, they've been weeded out as babies. But one
way or another, competing and weeding takes place... or a race goes downhill." What
would our world be like if we weeded out babies instead of adults?
I found this quote particularly interesting being a biology major. One of the first
concepts drilled into my brain as a freshman pre-medical student was "survival of the
fittest", a phrase that Darwin used to explain that only the strongest live to reproduce and
pass their traits and characteristics to their offspring. The competing and weeding that
Mike Smith speaks of is simply the Darwinian theory of "survival of the fittest."
Mike explains that competing and weeding is essential to the survival of a race. I
agree that in every race, success is determined by the reproductive fitness of the
individuals of which it is composed. These individuals are able to pass down the
strongest and best characteristics, thereby creating strong following generations.
Although Mike's comment about competition and weeding only being present in adults
on Earth may not be entirely true, I believe that he is on the right track. Competition and
weeding does occur in children, but adults tend to compete the most. Adults compete
to survive in the buisness world, in school, in their families, etc., and often this
competition results in loss, which is also necessary in a society.
I find it interesting to imagine a society such as Mike's, where competition is only
apparent in nymphs or babies, but adults never compete. Only the strongest and fittest
would be able to become adults, in fact, Mike states that nine out of ten nymphs die. I
believe that at first glance, this sounds intriging, but a closer examination would reveal
dissatisfaction. While it is easy to think that competition is evil and that we would rather
live in a society such as Mike's, I believe that competition is necessary. Competition
drives a person to achieve more and strive to do their best. These characteristics are
then passed down to offspring, which further their ancestor's drive to succeed. I also
think that our lives would be unfulfilled without this drive to succeed, and we would find
that we would be more apt to become lazy. If we were weeded out as babies, wouldn't
we just find a world of adults with little drive or ambition?
Mike's statement that weeding and competiting is necessary for a race seems to have
validity both in our world today and the world that is spoken of in the book. Yet, I grok
that we would be dissatisfied with a world where competition only existed among
babies, even if at first glance it seems to be satisfying. --Misty Dillow
Six
The correlation I'm going to attempt to draw here may be somewhat
of a fishing expedition. Most of the time I tend to shy away from
reading too much into things. This is not one of those times (end of
disclaimer) .
In Stranger in a Strange Land, astrologer Mde. Alexandra Vesant
appears (p.75) as an "spiritual" adviser to the wife of General
Secretary Douglas. Through Mrs. Douglas, Vesant exercises a healthy
sphere of power over affairs of government. In light of the fact that
Heinlein was very familiar with Russia, I somehow got the wild notion of
a correlation between Vesant and Gregory Rasputin, the "holy man" that
had similar power over the wife of Nicholas II, last Czar of Russia.
Vesant is portrayed as bit of a scam artist, but she seems to get
results from her predictions, thus making her valuable to Mrs. Douglas.
Likewise, Rasputin was a well documented drunk, womanizer, extortionist,
and all around creepy guy, yet he repeatedly "healed" the hemophiliac
(Heinlein makes a reference to hemophilia on p.184) heir to the throne,
Alexis, on a number of his near fatal internal bleeding episodes. The
Czar's wife, Alexandra (same first name as Mde. Vesant) wielded much
power over the weak minded Czar and Rasputin wielded much power over
Alexandra. Confused? It gets worse.
In the second half of the book, Valentine Michael Smith becomes a
sort of Rasputin figure himself. Like Smith, Rasputin engaged in
"spiritual" orgies (a-la hippie free love) with many of his followers.
Additionally, like Smith, Rasputin was widely despised and denounced.
Finally, like Smith, they had one hell of a time killing Rasputin. A
plot involving a number of nobles climaxed with Rasputin being first fed
enough poison cakes "to kill several men instantly" (Massie p. 376),
shot several times, bludgeoned, and thrown into an ice covered river.
His body was found clinging to an underwater bridge support. Water in
his lungs revealed that he drowned. Months later, his body was dug up
and, like Smith, burned. (Additional Source = Massie, Robert K. Nicholas and Alexandra. New York: Atheneum, 1967). --Erick Hubbard
Seven
In the novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, Heinlein clearly voices his views on several
different topics from religion to feminism to politics. He does not seem to shy away from
controversial topics, nor does he leave areas of these topics unexplored. From the
background we received in class about Heinlein and the book itself we learned that he
was strongly opposed to communism. This is indirectly referenced in the book in at least
one passage. In the book, a conversation between Ben and Jubal transpires:
"Jubal, are you saying I ought not to criticize the administration?"
"Nope. Gadflies are necessary. But it's well to look at the new rascals
before you turn your present rascals out. Democracy is a poor system; the only
thing that can be said for it is that it's eight times as good as any other method. Its
worst fault is that its leaders reflect their constituents-a low level, but what can
you expect? So look at Douglas and ponder that, in his ignorance, stupidity, and
self -seeking, he resembles his fellow Americans but is a notch or two
above average. Then look at the man who will replace him if his
government topples." (185)
In these paragraphs, Heinlein clues us in on his views of not only democracy
compared to other political systems, but also his views on the people represented by this
democracy and their nature. Heinlein is well known for his strong opposition to
communism, but in this instance he also takes a negative view of democracy, choosing it
as the 'lesser of two evils'. He also reveals a negative tone toward the masses, citing
their ignorance and self-seeking nature.
Although, this passage appears negative in tone toward communism, as we discussed
in class, the 'church' that Michael starts has communist undertones. Also, later in the
book, Heinlein expresses the good things about humans and their ability to love deeply in
a way that the Martians cannot. These ideas conflict throughout the duration of the
book. Is there sense to this contradiction or is it really a contradiction at all? --Deidra Dame
[Index][Week1/5]
[Week6]
[Week7]
