General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsListen to Margaret Atwood (in 2017) talk about the three major influences on The Handmaid's Tale
&feature=youtu.behttps://www.cbc.ca/books/the-3-things-that-inspired-margaret-atwood-to-write-the-handmaid-s-tale-1.4203159
"America was not initially founded as an 18th-century enlightenment republic. It was initially a 17th-century theocracy. That tendency keeps bubbling up in America from time to time."
2. Utopias and dystopias
"I always wanted to write one, just to see if I could. The ones that I had been reading pretty much always had male narrators. I wondered how it would look if you switched that around.
3. The political climate of the early 1980s
"People, even back then, were saying what they would like to do, should they ever have a chance to take power. Now that faction is in power in the United States."
In the video, Margaret Atwood mentions clipping articles about various things in the news as she was planning/writing the book. She now can't verify that she knew about the specific right wing group of which Amy Coney Barrett is a member--People of Praise-- because she doesn't have access to her clippings which are archived for preservation at the University of Toronto which is closed for access due to the pandemic.
Whether it's that specific group or another really isn't the point. Attempt to establish a theocracy has been with us in the USA from the beginning, and ever since the 1980's, those who have wanted that have been doggedly working to that end.
And here we are.
progressive nobody
(816 posts)Handmaid's tale in fact some woman are refer to as Handmaids.
mnhtnbb
(31,391 posts)Barrett is said to be a member of the People of Praise group, which is similar to a patriarchal church organization that was one of the inspirations for The Handmaids Tale.
Atwood emphasized that it was not, in fact, the People of Praise who inspired her book.
It wasnt them. It was a different one but the same idea, she said.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2020/09/atwood-feature-story-2030.html
progressive nobody
(816 posts)alfredo
(60,074 posts)It is the first of a Trilogy. Oryx and Crake, Year of the flood, and MaddAddam. Well worth reading.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)alfredo
(60,074 posts)That book is Hag Seed. A down and out director produces a production of The Tempest at a local prison. It is so good. Her The Robber Bride was excellent and the characters have stayed with me.
DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)Your's is much more civilized!
I was in the line of fire for a long time, but the links in this thread helped make the limited point I was making as to the origins of "The Handmaid's Tale": https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214137400 . I don't know why it went in that direction, but the more important point you're making is the point to make.
I would avoid talking religion with Barrett if I were on the SJC and just slam her with her own words from opinions, speeches, law review articles, and testimony. Hopefully, Kamala Harris will get the bulk of the Ds time during the hearing to raise these points.
alfredo
(60,074 posts)DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)...The problem is that if the Ds make this about religion, it plays right into their hands. Senator Feinstein did this in Barrett's 2017 appellate court nomination process and the Rs twisted it to say she was attacking Barrett's religion.
This is from an NY Times video that appeared on September 5, 2020 entitled "The 'Dogma' Question that Made Amy Coney Barrett a Conservative Hero": https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000007357319/amy-barrett-supreme-court.html
The point I've tried to make here and in several other posts is that we do not want to give the depressed Trump base something to get enraged about. Just use this person's own words against her. Others outside of politics can make the cult/Handmaid Tale comments, but not the Senate and CERTAINLY not Senator Harris.
mnhtnbb
(31,391 posts)and don't realize that she wrote "The Handmaid's Tale" almost 40 years ago. I read it when it first came out.
This is an interesting review of why the Puritans left England.
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Why-Did-the-Puritans-Really-Leave-England-For-The-New-World
The author summarizes:
The Puritans in England and Europe certainly came into conflict with the established Church of England, which was deeply intolerant of their practices.
The Church of England pushed back against these proposed reforms, which they regarded as attacks, and there was a continual fight for supremacy of belief and practice where neither party was prepared to back down or compromise.
When the Puritans migrated to America and formed their own communities, despite the persecution they felt they were fleeing from, they did not extend religious tolerance to others, but instead insisted their new land was one of total unity of thought and practice.
Hekate
(90,705 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 26, 2020, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)
As for the archived clippings in Toronto, I hope that when things reopen, those become digitized quickly, if they haven't been already, and the digital copies dispersed.
Bookmarking to watch the vid later.