The Politics of The Handmaid's Tale Précis

Gorman Beauchamp believes Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale to be an exaggeration of a dystopia. Atwood is making too much of something so little, her novel is more of an entertainment than a concern. Beauchamp compares the novel in terms of seriousness and pure fantasy; he concludes that the book belongs to a genre called dystopia, this is a genre that projects an imaginary society that differentiates from the authors own, first, by being considerably worse in important respects and, secondly, by being worse because it attempts to reify some utopian ideal. Just like that of Nineteen Eighty-Four, this novels potency as a possible and fearful future significantly refused with the decline of the old-fashioned jackboot-and-truncheon totalitarianism. Beauchamp states that there is little to fear on the totalitarian theme within these two novels, this is because it is not plausible; maybe in third world countries of today but not American. Take for example how America sells what they have to give to the poor and thus, the creation of a crisis in capital accumulation and economic catastrophe is not a plausible scenario that stirs anxiety. Recollecting in The Handmaid’s Tale, the purpose of a dystopia is not accurate prediction, but effect prophylaxis (the prevention of disease): the Dystopist, the author that is, wants to provide a self-defeating prophecy. It can be assuredly concluded that Atwood contains no desire to prove an oracle (prophecy); assuming, however, that her purpose is purely towards entertainment. Beauchamp renders that the historical analogues prove Atwood’s scenario, not implausible but a more crucial question would become: Could it happen here? Atwood states that she didn’t include anything in her book that hasn’t already happened or that was not underway somewhere: perhaps, somewhere, like Iran or Romania, but the United States? Not very likely. Atwood is sending a very strong message in her novel The Handmaid’s Tale, but is it really a serious enough phenomenon to send the sort of frisson (an almost pleasurable sensation of fright) to reads as dystopia should? This novel sets out to frighten us of the future; much like the Gothic romance of the 8th century or slasher movies, this book serves to scare people silly; “there is a joy in fear”. The excitement of fear is what draws people to watch or read such things. The failure to engage the dynamics of ideological revolution of any stripe; with the exception of the Aunts, not many people in Gilead seem to be true believers of the revolution. Take Serena Joy for instance, she violates many of the the rules in small ways – like smoking black market cigarettes and scheming to get Offred impregnated by a chauffeur. The Commander is also another who does not follow all of the regulations of Gilead, by the conducting of his forbidden liaison with his handmaid, obviously relishing at his “sins”. In conclusion, The Handmaid’s Tale is really nothing more than “a jolly good yarn” that shares all the same nonsense of fate: absolute historical improbability.