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.
Almost anything by Orson Scott Card.
You're like my husband!
And yet, Atwood herself did say repeatedly it was a slam on the Christian Right back when it came out, so I think maybe some revisionism is in the air, trying to make the book more relevent to the current situation.
Oh it's unquestionably a feminist novel and there are elements which are aimed at the Christian Right. The same could be said of The Scarlet Letter. I'm just there is more to it.
'just saying there is more too it'
So, some (unnamed) Christians take offense at this novel, and you take that as evidence that some other (unnamed) persons are concerned about the convergence of all religions at their extreme poles (whatever that means).
Could it be that those who object to the novel do so because it is simply not a very good book -- and because it is taking the place of other, more worthy works?
Then why is Atwood trying to pretend otherwise?
The idea that if some elements are offensive to a some memebers of a particular group then the book has to go is really playing havoc on our education system. There is a lot more to the book then the 'Christian' elements if you will. Atwood doesn't want her book pigeonholed as a simple minded political screed.
All fear of "extreme" Christianity springs from a dearth of understanding of Christianity, and the fear that actual implementation will not actualize the scriptural model. So, it isn't really an extreme Christianity that evokes the fear, it is the probability of a corruption of Christianity being implemented in an extreme degree. "Extreme" biblical Christianity would be no more detrimental to a society than extreme excellence of character of all of that society's members. Hardly a thing to be feared, unless you're presently cashing in on corruption.
Teehee.
I remember the first King book I read was "The Shining." I was riveted. Couldn't put it down, all through the night. Stood in line at the theater, ecstatic that Kubrick was doing it.
So I thought. I think it should've been much, much better. More into the 'connection' in the father's and son's minds. How The Shining 'failed' the dad and morphed into 'bad' vs. 'good' in the son.
[/ramble]
I hafta say, a good honest decent man is like a rare jewel.
Women are the ones who have gone to kwap.
Canadian ping.
SA ping.
Wonder why nobody in the literary community ever objects?
Unless I skipped a post or two, the above makes no sense. She wrote the novel in 1985. The Taliban didn't come to power until 1996.
What was she admitting to?
You are absolutely right. The message, pounded over and over again, is that all men are misogynists who oppress women.
If a man wrote a similar book about women and mommyism he'd be run out of town on a rail.
Agreed. But this has happened in large part because the old standards of what constituted great literature -- even the notion that there is such a thing -- have been swept away and replaced by politics. This was not done by Christians but by the Leftists -- including the feminists. Now the Leftists complain that their tactics are being used against them.
There is a lot more to the book then the 'Christian' elements if you will.
Perhaps so. But to deny that anti-Chrisitan elements figure prominently in the book, as Atwood attempts to do in her letter, is dishonest.
Atwood doesn't want her book pigeonholed as a simple minded political screed.
A cynic might think she doesn't want sales of her book to suffer.
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.