Whoops.
Seriously though, a person's beauty comes from the inside, and she sure doesn't qualify for that contest.
Posted on 04/12/2006 11:44:39 AM PDT by Racehorse
An open letter to the Judson Independent School District:
First, I would like to thank those who have dedicated themselves so energetically to banning my novel, "The Handmaid's Tale." It's encouraging to know the written word is still taken so seriously.
That thought aside, I would like to congratulate the students, parents and teachers who have supported the use of my book in Advanced Placement courses. They have aligned themselves against the censors, book-banners and book-burners throughout the ages and have stood up for open discussion and a free expression of opinion — which, last time I looked, was still the American way, though that way is under pressure.
I would also like the comment on the objections to the book that have been made. The remark "offensive to Christians" amazes me — why are some Christians so quick to see themselves in this mirror?
Nowhere in the book is the regime identified as Christian. It puts into literal practice some passages from the Bible, but these passages are not from the New Testament. In fact, the regime is busily exterminating nuns, Baptists, Quakers and so forth in the same way the Bolsheviks exterminated the Mensheviks. The only person who says anything Christian is the heroine herself. You will find her own version of the Lord's Prayer at the end of Chapter 30.
As for sexual explicitness, "The Handmaid's Tale" is a good deal less interested in sex than is much of the Bible. Leaving aside the Song of Solomon, there's quite a bit of sex — rape, incest of various kinds, seduction, lust, prostitution, public intercourse on a rooftop with one's father's concubines and more. One of the things that makes the Bible such a necessary book is its refusal to throw a lace tablecloth over this kind of behavior.
The sexual point in my book would seem to be that all totalitarianisms try to control sex and reproduction one way or another. Many have forbidden interracial and interclass unions. Some have tried to limit childbirth; others have tried to enforce it. It was a common practice for slave owners to rape their slaves for the simple purpose of making more slaves. And so on.
The other point would be that the free choice of a loved one — when denied by a regime or a culture — is going to happen anyway, though under such conditions it will be both brave and dangerous. I give you Romeo and Juliet. Also, when marriage itself has been made into a travesty, talk of sex within the bonds of marriage becomes simply fatuous.
Two last thoughts. First, I put nothing into my book that human beings have not already done. It's not a pretty picture, but it's our picture, or part of it. Second, if you see a person heading toward a huge hole in the ground, is it not a friendly act to warn him?
Again, I congratulate you and wish you well. Your thoughtfulness and courage have set an example well worth following.
Blech, blech, and blech.
Canada ping.
Blech!
Maybe that explains why I've not read much about William Faulkner lately. :-)
You forgot to mention, she's ugly, too.
Whoops.
Seriously though, a person's beauty comes from the inside, and she sure doesn't qualify for that contest.
Women are treated worse under Islam right now and that's without a ecological crisis threatening the existence of the human race. Why doesn't the commie bitch say something about that?
I've seen as much of the movie as I could stand and have read a few articles by Ms. Atwood. Enough to conclude that she is a paranoid, leftist skank. Rest assured the West has far more to fear from people like Margaret Atwood than they do from Jerry Falwell. And I'm not religious and not much of a Falwell fan.
Me, I'd be a lot more upset if the book didn't suck.
What do you mean by "the current"? Contemporary society? Contemporary academia? Atwood's "critique" of postmodernity was as trite as the subject of her criticism.
Most high school physics education is pretty much the same as it was a century ago. Newtonian physics, plus a bit of thermodynamics and optics and if you're really lucky quantum physics gets a few hours of classtime.
Most literary education is deficient, to be generous.
Got to agree with you there. I'm not even a fan of his non-fiction.
I saw that movie on HBO sometime ago.. What a waste of time..
Saw it on video. Thought it was good, actually - just really dark & unpleasant, hardly "entertainment" (no wonder it didn't last long in theaters).
What's funny is that the elements Atwood believes (or did back then) are Christian actually have no connection to the faith. The concept of a 'Handmaid' is foreign to any notion of Christianity in theory or in practice.
I honestly preffered it to its models (Brave New World, 1984). Don't you think the 'Historical Notes' section was brilliant?
I mean good contemporary literature (Pynchon, DeLillo...).
I have not read the book and have no wish to. However, it sounds like a book that will serve the radical anti-Americanism of the far left and as such is not worthy of serious study by school students.
People (kids included) want to read books about their own world. Or the books that concern themselves with modern ideas. You cannot always live in the past.
I can't believe Robert Duvall agreed to be in it.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.