Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Conversations

Week 1

I believe that Tessie Hutchinson just didn't understand how real the threat of death was. It appears to me that the population of the village, including Tessie, doesn't quite understand what is at stake until they near the time when the lottery "choosing" happens, and when that time comes near, they are extremely eager to find someone to kill that isn't them. In fact, that is exactly what happens nearing the end of the story, it's what causes everyone to turn on the victim so fast. Tessie is just putting some sort of facade of not caring until the time for her to die comes dangerously close, when she begins to feel how real this killing is.

Week 2

I believe that "Bloodchild" was just as thought provoking as "The Lottery", in somewhat different ways. In Lottery, the killings seemed completely senseless to us, as there was no real, tangible results arising from it. It freaked us out how no one stepped up to try to end the process that was going on because it was so ridiculous. In Bloodchild, however, the "killing" (it's not really a killing, it's pain, terror and, well, giving birth to aliens from your gut with the chance of death - the element can be compared to Lottery's killing) cannot simply be dismissed as immoral and senseless. The Tlic aliens are more helpless than the Lottery villagers to end this cycle of "killing", since they rely on human incubation to produce young; it also seems that they are fully aware of the pain they are causing. However, I say "more helpless" because they aren't completely helpless. It is suggested that they can and did at some point prior to humanity's arrival use some sort of animal to host their children, albeit with more difficulty.

Bloodchild in general was far more lively than Lottery. Even though we are reading about an alien world, the emotions involved make it feel more relatable than the Lottery.

Week 3

When I began reading the story, it felt.. strange. That's probably the best way to put it. With every line, the anticipation of first-person dialogue became more and more intense, until the section labeled "4" came about, and I realized that the moment would never come. Nevertheless, the style of writing grew on me. In fact, I'd say it's even more immersive than standard first-person narration, for a reason I can't really put my finger on. Perhaps, it's because the agent always refers to "you" rather than herself. Furthermore, when I read about the dissociation tactic that she uses to leave her body, it reminded me of my dad explaining how to do something of the sort during dental procedures, so I could - in some way - relate.

At the point where the the thought recorder was brought up, I immediately expected the agent to die by the end and for the story to be the recovered guide. This expectation grew even more once I read about the data transfer device, and was solidified once she was shot and explained that the data in her brain could be recovered even after she died. While this doesn't seem like the case when the helicopter brought her up, it's quite possible that she ended up dying the very moment the story ended. Why else would it end right there? Convenience of storytelling? Maybe. The ending is ambigious enough to allow the reader to decide for themselves whether or not the agent died or not, however.

Week 4

Saunders' use of the voice is essential to the telling of the story.

The story is a direct allusion to the illegal immigrants and 3rd world factory staff who work in deplorable conditions, who we try not to think about. The way the SGs are referred to in the story is, in a way, the way we refer to those people. Whenever "dad" refers to them, he only does so in a manner that focuses on something else more important to him, such as the garden he wants to buy, someone's financial state, and the fact that they ran away which puts his family in a very bad condition. When he does refer to the SGs, he tries to justify it with what looks to us as terrible excuses.

The sort-of-first person perspective is what allows us, the readers, to see what is going on in dad's head. It's easy to relate to the character. When you think about it, we think the same way. We mainly care about the things that affect us most directly, and weakly try to care about things outside of that scope. With dad, who has so many problems at hand, his plight is almost understandable, despite the immoral thing that is going on everywhere in this world.

Week 6

The worldbuilding Atwood presents to us is somewhat subtle, but when I noticed it, my point of view was greatly impacted. The story begins by describing the life of someone that seems to live in some sort of weird prison, but after some time, it begins to become more and more understandable that Offred - the person who's telling the story - lives in a harsh, dystopian world.
As far as I see it, Offred lives in a nation called the Republic of Gilead, which monitors it's citizen's behavior extremely closely. This government allows the women to do nothing - disciplining them to be the perfect baby-carrying material for the men. The world Atwood constructs feels like some sort of post-apocalyptic future, in which some event caused our world to change entirely (the girls still use blankets labeled US, which is a nod towards the notion that it isn't that distant.)
In fact, Offred lived in a society that wasn't so terrifying not that long ago, from the looks of it. Women had their own names rather than ones derived from those of men, and people had far more freedom to do whatever they want. However, with the advent of the new, strict order of Gilead, the women could at least enjoy a life without harassment.
Week 7

The two types of flashbacks that I saw were those that occured before Gilead's formation and those that occured during the transition period between the United States and Gilead.

These flashbacks give us not only insight into the person Offred was, but also the person Offred is now. Her history shaped who she is now, and tells us why she thinks what she thinks throughout the story. Personally, I believe they allow us to relate more to the character. Offred was not always a subject to this incredibly authoritarian regime, as at some point, she was a person we can imagine in our society and even someone we can see in ourselves. She was tranformed over time, and by seeing her past - both the one from before and the one during the transition - we no longer see her as simply a product of the society she lives in, but as someone like ourselves going through an arduous process and turning into the subject with some radical thoughts she is now.

Week 8

The pseudo-commentary at the end of the book, found in the epilogue, provided a sort of meta-discussion about the story, drawing back to themes the author wanted us to leave with. It looked at the text much in the way a historical document we'd find today would be - examined heartlessly. As such, it gave us some insights into the overarching civilization that was the Republic of Gilead, and showed what Offred was as a mere individual in this society.

I believe that this ending was specifically designed to invoke certain ideas and feelings for us to leave the book with. The last thing we read is usually very memorable, so sending the reader off with this type of epilogue would make sure they remember them when they think about the book. One of these was the fact that this could very well happen to us. It's no coincidence that the author chose a place so close to home - America (actually the place we live in) as the setting for the story. On top of this, the author channels - through the professor - to not simply disconnect yourself from and judge these people you read about, but rather understand what circumstances brought them to do what they did. After all, it's easy to put yourself on a pedestal above these people.

No comments:

Post a Comment