Margaret Atwood has become a household name, widely recognisable and revered, increasingly so after the production of a TV adaptation of perhaps her most famous novel, The Handmaid’s Tale. In September of this year, Atwood finally released the widely anticipated and requested sequel, entitled The Testaments. Written 34 years after the first, the novel similarly takes place some years after the events of the previous, specifically 17 years later. Moreover, prior to its release to the public, the novel was longlisted for the Booker Prize.
The novel returns us to the patriarchal nation of Gilead, a state born out of coup in the area of the United States, dedicated to returning to the glory of past centuries. It is explained in The Handmaid’s Tale that a rapid increase in infant mortality rates and the inability for many women to conceive convinced some in society that the modern lifestyle was risking the population, namely, working women of ‘loose morals’. The response was to create a new state which would ensure women remained strictly in the domestic sphere, their only responsibility being the house and raising children, if they could have any.
Handmaids were the solution to the decreased conception rate, where women who had proven their ability to conceive previously (those who have had healthy children before) but had to atone for their past sins (women with children out of wedlock or homosexual), would be assigned to high ranking married couples who could not conceive themselves. This arrangement, equal in many ways to indentured servitude, would require the handmaids to be inseminated directly and, if successful, carry the baby to term, birth the child before giving it to the couple and moving on to another family to repeat the process.
Much like The Handmaid’s Tale, the sequel is told through a series of transcripts, interviews and diary like entries by three characters: Aunt Lydia who we encountered in the first novel, Daisy, a young girl living in Canada and Agnes, a young woman brought up in Gilead. What makes this different, however, is the multiple narrators. Where the first followed a single handmaid, Offred, who escapes from Gilead with the help of some inside and outside of the state. Importantly, she escapes with her daughter, born from position as a handmaid.
The Testaments answers the question of what happened to Gilead following Offred’s escape. Indeed, in the afterword Atwood dedicates the writing of the book to her fans who have been questioning her for three decades about what follows the events of the novel. Indeed, Atwood unsurprisingly has gone above and beyond, where she not only revealed what brings about the fall of Gilead, but also how its creation began. The inclusion of Aunt Lydia similarly gives an insight into the inner workings of Gilead and those in power. It becomes apparent that The Testaments functions as a more explicit look at what happens when the corruption of government tests the will of the people for too long.
Brilliantly written, Atwood devises a method of engaging with her readers, answering the burning questions plaguing many. However, without delving into spoilers, I am more intrigued about Atwood delivering on the need to have the history of Gilead. After over three decades, it seems clear that it was not a need Atwood herself felt, but one that was dictated by her readers. In some way, we can argue that the readers influenced the author to write the book, which leads me to wonder if the audience had an influence in the storyline as well.
These are questions that we may well never know the answer to, a sentiment previously thought of the remaining questions from the original story. But instead, an answer was given, multiple ones in fact. Without debating the obvious talent Atwood demonstrates in any of her writing, I wonder if The Handmaid’s Tale was in fact more powerful without all the answers being given. In having a single narrator, Atwood kept the field of knowledge limited, very much providing only that which could be known through the handmaid. In this way, there is a parallel to actual testimonies and witness reports from many who suffer crimes against humanity.
Though fiction it may be, the implication and the position of the handmaid was nonetheless relevant to so many victims in war zones and refugees. Many of whom never have their stories told or revealed. By writing The Testaments, does Atwood minimise the loneliness and confusion that was so present in The Handmaid’s Tale to tie off the story with a pretty bow? One that would normally never be afforded to survivors of horrors.
Whatever the opinion, there is no doubt that Atwood has once again been able to capture the attention and hearts of her readers, dragging them back into the world of Gilead. But in this instance, she is able to give them the satisfaction they felt they lacked previously. I just wonder if it was to the detriment of Offred’s tale.
