The Testaments, by Margaret Atwood
If you were riveted by The Handmaid's Tale, its sequel also will enthrall you.
I'm not sure I like the word sequel, which carries the inference of being somewhat lesser than the original. So consider this not a sequel, but a continuance of the first novel. Think of it as Part 2, the later years.Because that's a better description of it.
I read The Handmaid's Tale back in the long, long ago, and saw the original movie. I have not watched the TV series for a number of reasons. But I remember the first book, which had a huge impact on me.
The Testaments provides a backstory as to how and why Gilead came into existence. It's setting is years into the Gilead regime, which solidified its control of the country once known as the United States. Opposition to the regime, both from Canada -- its neighbor to the north and the author of these novels -- and among the states that split off from the regime after various civil wars, has intensified.
This is today's story.
It is told in a multitude of voices, from a top aunt in the organization to members of the resistance, both inside and outside the country. Some of the voices are those of children, who only know Gilead after the revolution, as they are taught little about the previous life.
Those voices alternate in the book. Together, they tell a complete tale, but the individual accounts are compelling in their own right. What happens is you get into one person's story; the chapter ends, and you move into another's story. You immediately want to find out more about the story you were reading, but wind up so engrossed in the new one you get upset when that chapter ends, and a third story moves in, or a previous one returns.
So you find yourself staying up late into the evening to learn the next verse of each story, which together tell a complete tale.
Atwood is a wonderful story-teller and a top-notch writer. It's no wonder this book was short-listed for the Booker Prize. We'll know who wins the prize later this month.
My bet is on Atwood. Besides, anyone who quotes a William Blake poem is OK with me.
It is told in a multitude of voices, from a top aunt in the organization to members of the resistance, both inside and outside the country. Some of the voices are those of children, who only know Gilead after the revolution, as they are taught little about the previous life.Those voices alternate in the book. Together, they tell a complete tale, but the individual accounts are compelling in their own right. What happens is you get into one person's story; the chapter ends, and you move into another's story. You immediately want to find out more about the story you were reading, but wind up so engrossed in the new one you get upset when that chapter ends, and a third story moves in, or a previous one returns.
So you find yourself staying up late into the evening to learn the next verse of each story, which together tell a complete tale.
Atwood is a wonderful story-teller and a top-notch writer. It's no wonder this book was short-listed for the Booker Prize. We'll know who wins the prize later this month.
My bet is on Atwood. Besides, anyone who quotes a William Blake poem is OK with me.
No comments:
Post a Comment