/lit/ - Literature

>>23458831
Never read it, should I?

>>23458831
She shouldn't have pussied out and keep it about the iranian revolution.

>>23458831
Dystopia doesn't work as well if it's criticizing tradition, since history hasn't really been "dystopian" in anyone's eyes. Still might be worth a read if it has other interesting points, but I don't think it would be very convincing that family values bad, female liberation good.

atwood is a zionist

>>23458831
Something all women should go through. I haven’t had sex in seven years and it would be nice to be able to fuck without the police getting in my way.

>>23458831
Required reading for any ESL such as myself

>>23458831
Frankly, terrifying. As I was reading this book during Trump's presidency, I couldn't help but worry about how closely our society was beginning to resemble Gilead. Even under Biden's presidency, the judges appointed by Trump have still done irreversible damage to human rights. This book should serve as a warning to America.

>>23458831
I remember thinking it was decent, if it wasn't for the current zeitgeist it would be quickly forgotten. Was also weirdly horny at certain points, didn't expect that

>>23458831
Sexual fantasy disguised as a dystopia novel.

"Oh no, Mr and Mrs Powerful, don't hold me down and knock me up with your genetically superior offspring, that would be AWFUL"

>>23458831
Haven't read it but conservatism = good /women's "rights" = bad

>>23458854
>might be worth a read if it has other interesting points, but I don't think it would be very convincing
>>23459032
>Haven't read it but
Can any /lit/erati explain this to me? Personally, as a midwit I can only hold opinions on books that I've actually read. How can you tell if a book is good or bad before reading it?

>>23458831

>>23458831
I'm tired of people using this book in reference to western countries. The country most likely to do this shit now is china because of the low birth rates.

its good

>>23459071
>How can you tell if a book is good or bad before reading it?

By having its plot spoiled and realising which side of propaganda it caters to. No one's reading this shit for its storytelling or prose

>>23459079
What’s funny is I see women post this shit when countries like Hungary, or one lawmaker in Texas, want to create a bill to incentivize birth rates and family growth. Yeah, the plot of Handmaid’s Tale is definitely about the government giving loans to married couples who want to have kids. That’s totally what it’s about

>>23458871
Extremely cringe

>>23459071
If the author's objective is not beauty in some way, then it's anti-human and therefore not worth a read.

>>23459504
Based, I'm going to toss out all of my old philosophy books since they're antihuman

>>23459518
name the authors and I'll tell you why you're trolling

>>23459504
elon musk called

>>23459537
???

>>23459528
>name the authors
Kant, hume, about 20% of the pali canon, schopenhauer, etc
>why you're trolling
I am? That's news to me

>>23458854
>since history hasn't really been "dystopian" in anyone's eyes.

>>23459562
oh yeah toss all that shit

this is my first time on this board, but its actually much better than i was expecting
you have posts like
>23458867 and >23458871 to make me chuckle a bit, and you have posts like
>23459071 and >23459375 to make me laugh

>>23459324
This, honestly. I never hear anyone referencing the plot or chracters, or any particular scene. Just the general idea of the society it depicts. Even with 1984 people remember its characters and some of its most harrowing sequenes. With this one all conversations, or the majority of them, seem to boild down to "wouldn't it be scary if it were real?" and "we are heading to the society described here".

>>23458831
Its literal torture porn for childless and desperate 40+ year old women

>>23458831
smut making a week pretense at being political commentary.

>>23458831
One of my favourite depictions of an authoritarian state in fiction because of the little sidenote about the protagonist seeing a busload of Japanese tourists taking photographs of everything. It's essentially the world's North Korea, complete with the dark tourism.

Taliban reversed feminism in a week
and I have yet to see any kickass females rise up.

It wasn’t meant to be a guidebook! yet here we are, totally living in its dystopic vision. Wait, I mean, we will be if Trump is re-elected. Nothing bad can happen while a democrat is in charge, though.

>>23458831
>goyslop
>female stephen king

>>23458831
theres a scene where the protagonist describes herself as butter melting on toast and i thought that it was pretty lame

all in all the book was boring.

My absolute favourite thing about it is that it's obviously about the iranian revolution but Atwood was too cowardly to criticize islam or show brown people in a negative light. So she created this fake christian fundamentalist dystopia in her head, all in order so that she could still write about the iranian revolution without having to compromise her liberalism, plus bashing christians is always a people-pleaser move for libs anyway. It's peak shitlibbery when muslims do something you don't like but you decide to slap christians in their stead, for something they didn't do, because you're a fucking coward.

>>23461783
that doesn't contradict the book in the least. maybe in the sequel there's some badass grrlpower shit, i haven't read it and i'm not going to, but the first is quite realistic about how helpless women are as a group. whatever else you can say about this book it must be admitted that it isn't an example of the ridiculous female heroine shit we often see these days. since you bring up islam it's worth mentioning that atwood has directly stated that the book is meant to depict an american version of the iranian revolution. it seems you thought you were making some kind of counterpoint to atwood but in fact what you say is perfectly in line with her intended meaning.

>>23463218
Not that anon, but isn't it implied that the system exists more for infertile elite women than it exists for the men?

>>23463250
i can't say i got that impression. i think it does benefit them but not to the degree that it does the men. i'd be interested to hear what gave you that impression, though. if you just mean the way they are able to appropriate the children of the lower class women i don't think that's a greater benefit than having a harem of hot young sisterwives all your own.

>>23458831
It's incredibly bad. All she does is sit there and note that the cartoonishly evil society is cartoonishly evil, and then the book ends with a copout ending where some professor infodumps about Gilead because Margaret Atwood was too incompetent to naturally develop the lore throughout the book.

>>23460671
>Even with 1984 people remember its characters and some of its most harrowing sequenes.
the people that talk about 1984 on social media also do not mention characters, plot or scenes. stop lying

I don't know but it sounds like smut

>women