"The Handmaid's Tale" short paper

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood is a novel that really made me realize how lucky we are to live in the United States today. We are entitled to so many freedoms that we take for granted. Walking down the street is a right we are allowed that other societies do not permit, especially the one depicted in this book. The Handmaid’s Tale is set in the Republic of Gilead, formerly the United States. While 1984 by George Orwell is set back thirty years from now, this novel is set a lot closer to our time. Atwood makes many references to styles and trends that are similar to those we agree with today, such as the use of cellphones, cars, and televisions.  It is hard to believe that a society so similar to ours could be so quickly transformed into a metropolis ruled by threats and isolation, as is depicted in The Handmaid’s Tale.

As I read The Handmaid’s Tale, I was especially interested in the differences between Orwell’s novel and Atwood’s. While both novels made it clear that certain people were supposed to be isolated and only have business relationships, the handmaids were forced to travel in pairs for their own protection. Although they were only supposed to say things like, “Blessed be the fruit,” minor communication turned into much more as the handmaids became closer with their partners (19). Offred and Ofglen quickly formed a relationship that, had Ofglen not been relocated, could have made both handmaids rebel from their positions and have put them both in a dangerous position in society. Although it seems that partnerships of women could not have gathered together and rebelled, I think their potential power cannot be underestimated, especially if other women were feeling the same about their positions as handmaids.

Throughout the text, Offred constantly refers to the fact that she is not using her real name, yet never shares it with the audience. I understand that the handmaids must have their names changed because then it is much more difficult for them to find anyone from their past life, but I think this is cruel. They separated from their friends, families, and now, the only thing left is their identity. The women are taken from their homes and are forced to have sex with strangers. Even the back cover of The Handmaid’s Tale makes note of this by describing the sole task of the handmaids as, “[lying] on her back once and month and pray[ing] that the Commander makes her pregnant, because in an age of declining births, Offred and the other Handmaids are valued only if their ovaries are viable.” They are seen as less than human, as incubators, in fact. This dehumanization is just a part of society that no one else seems to have a problem with. I find it shocking how everyone else thinks that this is an okay situation, when just a few years earlier, all of these females were entitled to hold jobs, raise families, and live the life they were intended to.

The Handmaid’s Tale is an example of what would happen if women lost power in society. This novel was very similar to Orwell’s, 1984, but shows a clear discrimination towards women, rather than a society that was unfair to all. Atwood uses Offred as the books narrator and keeps the reader aware of her flashbacks and thoughts on her situation. This novel makes the reader feel sorry for Offred and the other handmaids, and makes me take a step back and enjoy the various freedoms that I am entitled to that many of the characters of this book had taken away from them.

Ambassadorship Presentation

For my ambassadorship presentation, I discussed how our society has lost sight of the important people and now consider politicians (especially the President and the First Lady) celebrities. I found a video that shows this in which Obama Discusses Bieber. Our society has become centered around celebrities and even makes our President out to be one. Although I did compare Obama and his wife to JFK and Jackie O, I think technology has increased their prominence. I found a website, Michelle Obama: Fashion Icon, that perfectly displays this. I saw a big connection with True Enough because with a quote form Manjoo in which he remarks, "You can go so far as to say we're now fighting over competing versions of reality."

I also found an article that goes into further depth of the "True Enough" Connection.

I was really interested in the presentations that my classmates made. I thought Rob's was especially interesting because he was not discussing the subject of his video, but rather who was sharing the information. I think as viewers, we just accept TV reporters to be who they say they are, which most of the time is described as an "expert on the subject." Rob has made me really pay attention to who is telling me information, rather than just assuming they're credible and listening to their info. 

I also really enjoyed Kiely's presentation on Hollywood's portrayal of CEO's and other business executives as villains. Especially with The Social Network, it is easy to see how the media has made them out to be the bad guys. I think it will be interesting to see the movie The Margin Call and see how they could be portrayed as good.

"True Enough" and the Conspiracy Belief of 9/11

True Enough by Farhad Manjoo is an incredibly appealing book that discusses technology, politics, and many other ideas that are present in the public sphere. While some of my peers find this text to be biased and uninteresting, I think Manjoo encompasses a wide range of topics, while keeping a point of view that is not largely one-sided. I was enthralled when Manjoo brought up the 9/11 conspiracy theory specifically outlined in Dylan Avery’s documentary, Loose Change. I have always been interested in the views of September 11^th that discuss the idea that the American government was actually behind the attacks, and True Enough gave a great deal of information surrounding my queries.

While I do not believe that the United States government would ever create an event as catastrophic as 9/11, Avery’s documentary is successful because he provides so much evidence, and delivers it with such a confidence, that he pleads a strong case. Manjoo points out that there are definitely flaws in Avery’s film, but Avery is successful in hiding them from the reader. Manjoo remarks, “What’s interesting, in fact, is what [Loose Change’s] flaws mask: a certain devious calculation in the way Avery handles documentary evidence” (88). By acknowledging that Avery’s argument is not perfect, Manjoo makes it easier for someone, who does not believe that 9/11 was an inside project, to feel that their beliefs have been reassured.

Manjoo leaves our heads spinning when he ask, “why should anyone take the government’s evidence as proof?” (94). Automatically, most Americans assume that the government has the most accurate information, and we should take their word as fact. However, Avery’s documentary proves that we cannot always trust our politicians to tell us the truth. Manjoo asks many questions of the reader that make me rethink my beliefs. I think this was the ultimate goal of his novel, it is always important to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and try to understand how they see it.  Manjoo is very successful in stretching our minds and placing ourselves on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Manjoo discusses some controversial topics in his book, True Enough, but I think that his inclusion of the conspiracy theory regarding September 11^th being an “inside job,” proves the most about media and our culture. Regardless of our beliefs, Avery makes an incredible case and makes it difficult for the reader to ignore the voice in our heads saying, “Maybe he’s right.” The use of this theory also shows the success of selective exposure and the major roles that media and technology play in our lives. 

What's Real and What's Not? Photoshopping as Discussed in "True Enough"

We live in an age where almost any question we may have can be answered with a quick Google search. Even though we know that some websites, like Wikipedia, may not be completely reliable, we generally accept Google’s first response as fact and carry on with our lives. I was really interested in the section of True Enough in which a photo shopped picture of an American soldier with two Iraqi boys ended up on the internet (page 78). While Manjoo talks about how many different versions of the picture surfaced on the internet and the soldier himself explained what was happening in the original image, it is still difficult for me to decide which story I believe. Society today tells us to believe what we see, what is right in front of us, but with the technology we have, how can we decipher what is real and what is not? True Enough is really making me think about what we should and should not trust in the media and I am looking forward to taking a closer look at what I see and read about online.

Social Identity Through Food in "True Enough"

Manjoo brings up a very interesting point when discussing a survey that the Committee on Food Habits conducted. The results showed that, “people’s feelings about food were tied up with their social identities—with what they thought was appropriate for “us” to eat” (50). I was not surprised at all with this outcome! As someone who has always eaten what my mom has put in front of me, college was a total eye opener. Manjoo even points out that families are used to eating what their mother’s and wives put in front of them.  I have no shame in going into Mather and diving into the sautéed summer squash because I know that although it looks strange, I like squash! While I may have no problem doing this, I have seen plenty of students who are embarrassed to get what they really want to eat because they think people will judge them for taking too much food, or will make fun of them for getting something that looks weird. People are always nervous to be looked down upon if what they really want isn’t “socially acceptable.” Manjoo continues on and points out that, “what we understand to be acceptable for us—and in a sense what we understand to be the “truth” around us—is defined through our interactions with other people” (52). I completely agree with this statement and can see how social beliefs on what is or is not “socially acceptable” to eat can have a major impact on what ends up on your dinner plate.

Selective Exposure in "True Enough"

I was really interested in the discussion of “selective exposure” that Manjoo first brought up on page 29 of True Enough. This phenomenon is so accurate! While reflecting on my own life, I can think of numerous times that I have used selective exposure when I hear something that goes against my beliefs. Although I am not usually enthralled with politics, I really like the way that Manjoo has written, True Enough. He begins to introduce political ideas with examples that draw the reader in and make them want to understand how it is used in a political sense, such as selective exposure. By explaining the way selective exposure was proven with the radio experiment, Manjoo made me want to know how the Swift Boat Veterans used this tactic to rally the general public against John Kerry. On page 42, I found the use of propaganda to be very interesting. By using the example of a mailing with an absurd statement claiming that, “Johnson [was] secretly in bed with the communists," I almost laughed out loud. This statement is so ridiculous that it is almost laughable. However, I could see a Johnson reporter receiving that card and actually sending a response back, just so they could have evidence that their beliefs were correct. I was not initially a fan of True Enough, but this book is really warming up to me! I think it is a humorous and intellectual way of looking at politics that I really am enjoying.

"To Vaporize or Not to Vaporize? That is the Question." Evaluating the Process of Vaporization in George Orwell's Novel, "1984"

As I read George Orwell’s novel, 1984, I was constantly consumed with questions surrounding the text. It seemed that no matter how much reading and analyzing I did, I would never come up with an answer as to how the type of world depicted in 1984 could possibly exist. One of the main questions that followed me throughout the book had to do with the process of “vaporization.” How could Winston and Julia not have been vaporized after everything they did against The Party? Winston constantly discussed how vaporization meant that, “[people] were considered never to exist” however Julia and Winston both re-entered society after going to Room 101 (43).  1984 left me filled with questions, yet the underlying query that followed me throughout the novel surrounded the idea of vaporization, and how in a society in which fear of being vaporized kept many citizens from acting out, two captured enemies of the party were ultimately freed from vaporization.

One of the first mentions of the process of vaporization in 1984 occurred when Winston was discussing his job at the Ministry and the specific career of one of his co-workers. Her job, “day in, day out, [was] simply tracking down and deleting from the press the names of people who had been vaporized and were therefore considered never to have existed” (43). Winston described her job position and pointed out that the woman’s own husband had been vaporized a few years prior. This concept really confused me because at the time, I was unaware of the intricate measures in which The Party took to maintain complete power over citizens of Oceania. How could it be possible to just eliminate someone from society, to make it seem like they never lived? However, as the text went on, I realized just how brainwashed members of The Party had become. It became apparent that it was easy for them to believe anything they were told, because they were not allowed to use their minds to comprehend how dysfunctional a society it actually was. People could be “eliminated from society” because other citizens were not allowed to question the government. It didn’t matter who was gone, or how they vanished, once they were gone, they were gone.

As 1984 continued, it was clear to me that the idea of vaporization was constantly in the back of Winston’s mind. One afternoon while eating lunch with his friend Syme, Winston thinks, “One of these days, Syme will be vaporized. He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party does not like such people. One day he will disappear. It is written in his face” (55). While it appeared that Syme was just a passionately loyal party member, Winston saw how he could be a potential threat to The Party because he was capable of so many emotions and thoughts. It did not come as a surprise when Winston accurately predicted the future vaporization of his friend.

After Syme had disappeared for a few days, Winston pointed out that his name had been eliminated from everything he was previously associated with. There were no records that Syme was ever a living being. As Winston and Julia began their relationship, it was clear that everything they were doing was against the guidelines of Oceania. They engaged in a sexual relationship, met in secret, spoke of rebelling from The Party, and broke even more of The Party’s unwritten laws. These unrecorded rules were known to all citizens of Oceania, and prevented members of society from living free lives because they were constantly being watched. To a reader, it seemed that Julia and Winston’s rebellion from The Party was much worse than Syme’s passion for The Party, yet eventually, Julia and Winston’s lives did not end by vaporization. The inconsistency in The Party’s behavior leads to confusion for the reader, and almost certainly would have been confusing to The Party’s followers, had they been able to use their brains and form their own opinions like Julia and Winston did.

It was shocking that in a society such as the one depicted in 1984, people could be punished not only for being against The Party, but also for being so faithful to it.  One might ask, “How could being too invested in the party be a bad thing?” I thought this at first as well, but after finishing the novel, it was clear to see that The Party just wanted complete control. Control of everything was the ultimate goal of The Party, and Syme’s passion could have be seen as a loss of power to The Party. Unless one is right in the middle of extreme loyalty and rebellion, they were always at risk of vaporization.

To me, the most interesting part of 1984 was the conclusion of the novel, in which Winston and Julia are both back in society as if nothing has changed. Of course, they do not have the same rebellious beliefs, and are definitely not still sneaking around together behind The Party’s back. The first question that I had when it was revealed that Winston was not alive, was about what other citizens would think of his disappearance and then his sudden re-emergence back to society? Although Party members were not allowed to question anything The Party did, Winston had never described a scenario in which party members disappeared and then came back to their old lives. It was clear that although Winston had been forced to visit Room 101, in which his worst fear came true, he still had a bit of rebelliousness to him. While watching the telescreen and waiting to hear information about the war that Oceania was involved in at the time, Winston let his mind wander and, “a violent emotion but a sort of undifferentiated excitement, flared up in him” (298). It seemed that Winston was imagining what would happen if Oceania actually lost the war it was currently in, with Eurasia. A loyal Party member should never have thought these kinds of things, because it was against The Party, yet Winston was momentarily back to his old ways. Although he quickly snapped out of it, I was still left with confusion as to why The Party had let him come back to civilization, and if not vaporize him, why they hadn’t sent him to a forced labor camp. I thought that the entire point of capturing rebels of The Party was to get rid of them so they would have no possible way of spreading their rebellious ideas with others. While he was detained, Winston was unaware of how much time he spent away from his life, and as a result, so were the readers. However, it seemed like he was missing for a decent amount of time.

After much back-and-forth in my mind, I realized that The Party had made an exception for Julia and Winston. Such enemies of The Party who were willing to risk their lives to destroy The Party went through such a transformation in Room 101. The one thing in life that Winston cared about was Julia, and the horrors of facing his worst fear forced Winston to betray her in order to save himself. I think The Party realized that once they got Winston to betray Julia and vice versa, there was no more reason for him, or her to be rebellious. Winston’s disobedience really came out when he was with Julia. To Winston, knowing that there was at least one other person who thought the way he did was enough to betray The Party. Once he realized that there was absolutely nothing left that he could do to save himself or his loved one, he put all of his love back to Big Brother.

The idea of vaporization plays a large role in 1984 because the threat of extinction was enough to deter many rebels from promoting their negative ideas about The Party. However, two incredibly disobedient Party members were spared from vaporization. While at first, the reasoning behind this perplexed me, through analyzing; I came to the realization that there was no need to vaporize Julia and Winston because once they betrayed each other, there was no more need to betray The Party. They were spared from vaporization because O’Brien and other members of the Inner Party knew that once they broke Julia and Winston’s alliance, neither of them had any more need to rebel from Big Brother; and The Party was right.