George Orwell, 1984, 1949.

Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale,

1985. Bibliographies
Orwell :
Hannah Arendt, Les Origines du totalitarisme, 1972.François Brune,
Sous le soleil de Big Brother : Précis sur « 1984 » à l'usage des années
2000, Éditions L'Harmattan, 2000 (ISBN 978-2738496119) Frédéric
Regard commente 1984, Folio, Paris, 1994.
Atwood :
Lectures d’une œuvre, The Handmaid’s Tale, ouvrage collectif, éditions
du Temps, Paris, 1998.The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood,
Ellipses, Paris, 1998.Margaret Atwood, Women Writers, Barbara Hill
Rigney, Macmillan, Basingstokes, 1987.
Ce cours s’intéresse aux dystopies littéraires, qui font l’objet des deux
oeuvres au programme. Nous verrons donc d’abord ce qu’est une
dystopie, avant d’entrer en détail dans les textes. Outre la lecture des
deux œuvres, je vous conseille d’écouter sur France Culture une série
d’émissions consacrées à Orwell et à son œuvre (sur 1-la Compagie des
Auteurs, 2- Eloge de l’Inégalité). Il existe aussi plusieurs films (sortis en
1956,1984...)
Pour Atwood, il existe un film tiré du roman (1990), ainsi qu’une série
en 3 saisons (2017).
Utopia/dystopia : general and particular
Dystopia can only be defined as regards to utopia. The relation between
the two is a dialectic relation : you cannot speak of one without speaking
of the other. They are not only concepts but also narrative discourses
telling two conflicting stories. Utopia comes from the Greek topos : a
place with the prefix U-, expressing the notion of denial and negation :
Utopia is a place that does not exist, that can be found nowhere. In the
popular meaning it is a lie, a mirage, daydreaming. Other scholars hold
the view that the real prefix is that is En = good ; that is a happy place. It
may make sense to combine the two meanings and to describe a utopia
as a place were life is so good, so perfect, that it can be found nowhere
and where we recognize similarities with Eden, Heaven, Paradise. On the
contrary dystopia means
1
something bad, wrong, a world of unhappiness that must be condemned.
A dystopia is the other side of a utopia, a reversed utopia.
Utopias/dystopias are based on the mapping out of a place that is unique
and does not exist anywhere. This place is circumscribed and organised
as the locus of a community supposed to live according to entirely new
regulations and laws. Both are a deliberate rupture with an existing
society.
I-Origins
Such narratives that have solidified into literary genres did not appear
out of the blue and their origin can be traced back to 2 major texts :
Plato’s Republic and Thomas More’s Utopia that was published in 1516
and gave rise to such utopias as Rabelais’ Abbaye de Telem (1535) and
Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1721) or dystopias like Huxley’s Brave New
World (1932), 1984, or Golding’s Lord of the flies (1954). The
Handmaid’s Tale belongs to such traditions and illustrates quite aptly the
ambiguous relation between the two. It is both U/ and dys/topia
depending on who looks at it and from which standpoint.
I-Major characteristics
Utopian narrative roughly obeys the following pattern : a (imaginary)
traveller visits an unknown country whose social, economic and political
organisation solves (or is supposed to) all the problems raised by life in
his original country. In short, a utopia claims to organise that relation
between the individual and the community in the most satisfactory way.
Thus a utopia describes a society in which reign universal happiness,
harmony, abundance, transparence, perfection whereas a dystopia is
characterised by sorrow, sadness, disharmony, lies, failure, lack,
dissatisfaction. In this perspective, it is clear that all utopias, either
philosophical, spiritual or profane, are based on the premise that a form
of perfection can be reached (that is what the authorities of Gilead
believe or « make believe »). If this is the case, then the evolution of
society has reached its end (all its goals are fulfilled) and it settles into a
fixed and unchangeable order, a kind of stasis since there’s no need for
change or improvement. As a result all utopian discourses are necessarily
didactic. They propose solutions and are prone to proselytising, wishing
everyone to follow in their footsteps. Such a discourse is based on
assertiveness, self-righteousness and certainty. Conversely, a dystopian
narrative highlights the fact that happinesses is reserved to a limited elite
(the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm) which ensures that there is a rigid
class system that cannot be transgressed. The dream of Utopia turns into
a nightmare where the traveller serves as a revealer and through his sense
of alienation denounces a totalitarian system that exerts a complete
control over minds and bodies. It depicts an imaginary world that is
noxious for the individual. The
2
collective destroys the individual instead of helping him develop
harmoniously : the self is erased.A critical look at the two notions :
They form a genre based on the notion of alterity : how to deal with the
other. But even Utopia is not a symbol of alterity. It is not so much a
means of allowing the subject to relate to a form of alterity as the
fantasy of doing so. It reveals the fantasy of an ideal ego, perfect, not
split, that escapes all uncertainties and confrontations by finding shelter
in a sort of cocoon. All utopias function as an imaginary mirror which
can only reflect the image of a totalitarian ego = a narcissistic enterprise.
Similarly a dystopia aims at denying any form of alterity to enforce total
conformity and submission to an imposed ideal that is not freely chosen
by the subject.
The world of perfection that we call utopia is of necessity a-temporal and
denies man’s finite status, the division of the subject and eventually all
utopias lead to a form of regression, the ultimate logic of utopia is bound
to death. The utopia wish is a death wish. Symbolically then the utlimate
goal of utopia is dystopia. It disintegrates into dystopia the moment it
ceases to be a wish, to be an-historical. Similarly the ultimate
consequence of dystopias is to generate new utopias that will again
challenge the existing order with a view to improving a damaging
situation which in turn will develop into a dystopian situation, in an
endless succession of ups and downs. This applies to Gilead : the
fundamentalists deplore a loss of landmarks and identity and conceive an
ideal world that is the model of Gilead and when this world is
implemented it turns into a dystopia. We know that Gilead, after its
heyday will deteriorate to be replaced by a new utopia. The Handmaid’s
Tale illustrates the dialectical relationship between utopia and dystopia.
Utopia and failure
There are not only structural causes for the failure, but also contingent
reasons why Gilead’s utopia should fail : there is an absence of a clearly
identified charismatic leadership that could be identified as such by the
Gileadeans (as opposed to Big Brother, whose regime wins in the end).
Power is diffuse, nowhere to be seen and everywhere at the same time.
There is no father figure, no single figure of authority that could sum up
the global message disseminated through the various texts, discursive
practices and ideological mottoes which are supposed to hold the regime
together. The fragmentation and multiplicity of ideological references do
not favour the cohesion of the community. Everyone cheats in Gilead :
the Commanders fornicate
3
at Jezebel, the Doctors take advantage of their positions, Serena Joy
smokes and orders Offred to fuck with Nick, etc. This generates a feeling
of dereliction (lack of food, lack of ideals), loss of confidence in the
system and a feeling of abandonment. In Gilead, although we’re
confronted with a religious and spiritual utopia which incidentally
highlights the closeness of utopia and prophecies, the utopia is doomed
to fail because it fails to achieve the attempts at indoctrination : « Gilead
is within you ».
The second element accounting for the failure in Gilead is the sexual
dimension that is grossly misunderstood. The purpose of all utopias is to
promote a free sexual life which cannot be regulated by laws. Utopias
fail to recognize that love consists in giving what you don’t own in order
to achieve the completion of the other. Utopias miss the point and can
only lead to alienation and frustration which the rebellion and resistance
in Gilead exemplify. In Gilead, by separating love and sex, love and
procreation, the state generates the dismemberment of the female subject
: « what we need is your ovaries ». This is the death of love.
It precludes harmony which should be the aim of utopia. The truth of
pleasure lies in lies and deception. The failure comes from the inability
to deal with the question of love. The rigid new class system can only
generate frustration and discontent, all forces that work against dystopian
desire and turn it into a resitance to dystopia. The ideology upheld by the
aunts is a fake biblical statement that is in fact a Marxist one : « to each
according to his needs ». The refusal of all forms of prodigality and
excess denies the idea of refinement and enjoyment which goes hand-in-
hand with the idea of profusion, the denial of what Bataille calls the «
part maudite ».
Utopia and History
If the world of utopia is elsewhere, a world without conflicts, upheavals,
without possibilities of regression, then a utopia can be defined as a an-
historical world. Things repeat themselves endlessly without any
possibility of change in an endless stasis : autarcic organization.
Circularity prevails, no hope is left. Failure to allow for the possibility of
failure. Most utopias are told in the present. Utopias are timeless because
a utopia that could be anchored within a given period would generate a
feeling of nostalgia. In The Handmaid’s Tale, the pre- Gileadean times
eventually appear to be a form of lost utopia where everything was
possible and for which most of the characters long. The past is elevated
to the status of an idyllic utopia.
Utopia and desires
4
Another contradiction of utopia is that it precludes the expression of the
desire of the subject because his individual desire is subsumed to the
collective one : what was meant to be a wish to liberate oneself from the
constraints of a social, economic or legal system that alienates one,
becomes counter-productive and generates a situation in which the
individual is alienated. This is based on a misconstruction of the notion
of desire which is confused with the notions of want and need.
Psychologists have shown that man’s desire is the desire of the other, the
other being what all utopias try to keep at bay : traitors, Mayday, etc.
Utopias fail because the ideal subject that they require is a subject
without conscious or unconscious desires. Everything is done to prevent
the surfacing of the desires and their very existence is a kind of
resistance to the tyranny of Gilead. That is why the Night sections are so
important as they are the privileged places/times of the return of the
repressed. Utopias fail because they try to keep desire under control.
From History to (her)story
At the thematic level, utopias deal with ideal societies, perfect societies.
Consequences of this ideal/ idea at the narrative level : the closer a
society gets to ideal perception, the less possibility of change of
progression it allows (every deviation from perfection is a degradation).
It has repercussions on the narrative level because it is not possible to
write about perfection : « perfection is the death of the plot ». The
Handmaid’s Tale is a utopia shown in the process of turning into
dystopia. It is movement that is the essense of the narrative stuff. The
novel thrives on this conflict which doesn’t only operate at the diegetic
level : Moïra, Offred and Ofglen versus the establishment but most of it
operates at the textual level, showing that form can’t be separated from
content. The study Utopia/dystopia however shows that such narratives
follow strict rules of composition.
Narrative structure
3 main stages are discernible : Separation, Transition, Inclusion-
ExclusionThe traveller in utopia is separated or seeks separation from his
original milieu out of an original frustration with the existing order of
things. Separation is remarkable on two accounts : it is not part of the
diegesis as it is mainy referred to by means of analepses. Offred
remembers (or tries to) what actually took place : is Luke dead ?
Separation was unwanted but imposed by the authorities.Frustration due
to separation is not Offred’s own but her mother’s who, through her
feminist stance, brought about or did not fight against - a patriarchal state
: « mother can you hear me ? » (137). The narrative operates a
displacement of the main features of the first stage (separation).
Separation is literal in Offred’s case because she’s made to part with her
5
husband and daughter. It is one of the characteristics of dystopia that the
traveller does not wish to be where he finds himself.
The separation stage is condensed into a very short scene, that of the
arrestation of Offred : duration collapses into a punctual event that
emphasises the brutality and unexpectedness of the action.The
transition phase or journeying phase
The journey to and through utopia is dealt with in an original though
recognizable form by Atwood. Hers is not a formulaic sort of writing.
The journey is ironically reversed : it is because she and Luke tried to
flee from Gilead that she ended up in the heart of the system as a
prisoner. The journey thus ends at the Rachel and Leah Centre. The
length and duration of the journey is replaced by the suddenness and
magnitude of the changes operated by the entry in Gilead. Usually the
land of Utopia is removed in space and time and is reached after a long
journey and its access is usually dangerous and hazardous. The dangers
of the venture are here illustrated by the brutality of her arrest which
emblematizes the violence which the inmates of Gilead have to undergo.
The heart of Gilead into which Offred is admitted is not removed in time
and space but symbolically miles away from her former experience. The
defamiliarizing aspect of its rules and aims is the equivalent of a long
journey. Moreover because Offred is not really dislocated in space but
kept prisoner in a space that she knows quite well, with which she is
rather familiar, cannot but create an uncanny effect, because it becomes
at the same time familiar and disturbingly unfamiliar because the rules
have changed so much. One of the traditional features of this journey is
that the traveller is given the help of a mentor introducing him/her to the
different customs and rules of the new country : cf the Aunts, in
particular Aunt Lydia who keeps providing the girls with aphorisms,
proverbs, mottos, slogans as a form of efficient brainwashing. Instead
these slogans being presented as the new doxa in Gilead do not bear
examination and even less contradiction. The stay at the Red Centre is a
way of presenting what the authorities in Gilead think is an ideal utopia.
However, The Handmaid’s Tale is a dystopia and if Offred functions as
the outsider in the new mode of life, it is the way to highlight its evil
aspect up to a point because she stages herself as a naive character ; as a
narrator she is in a better position to denounce and debunk the hypocrisy
of the regime.
It is clear that the regime induces intentions to rebel, encourages
subversion on the part of the inmates whose alienation is not completed.
The bulk of the novel could be considered as a journey through dystopia
in the sense that Offred is given opportunity to explore and sample all
the contradictions and shortcomings of the system. As a traveller through
utopia, Offred
6
feels more and more alienated and thus the desire grows in her to look
for a better world which would correspond to the past. Dystopian/utopian
narratives are quest narratives and Offred plays the part of the quester.
What is remarkable is that her quest is to be seen not so much in terms of
yearning for an ideal system but as an individual quest for an autonomus
subject within a group but not entirely submitted to it. At the end of this
transition, the subject is either included or decides to leave the utopian
world.
Inclusion/Exclusion
Offred’s inability to conform to the role of handmaid plus her
stubborness in hoping for a better life according to her own standards
lead her to leave Gilead. Here again Atwood plays with standard
conventions, because the traveller, if he becomes disruptive, is thrown
out of the utopian world. Here Offred is taken out of Gilead, which
answers her deepest wish, and this eviction is necessary from a narrarive
angle because the traveller must come back to his original place if he/she
wants to tell his/her story. There is however some ambiguity as to her
future and Pieixoto explores some of the possibilities open to her. She
however survived long enough to be able to record the 30 tapes. Her
reintegration in the « real world » is the condition for the survival of her
narrative.
Thus the return from U/Dys/topia is a necessity because the dreamland
promised by the leaders of Gilead turned into a nightmare, because the
Aunts’ indoctrination has failed, because Gilead is not within her, Offred
is excluded, but willingly. The Handmaid’s Tale functions as the journey
back to our world, the text has survived until our time and the gap of 200
years allows for a long journey that guarantees our perception of Gilead
as wildly exotic and unimaginable. The journey back there necessitates a
critical distance even if we aren’t meant to endorse Pieixoto’s
judgements.
Orwell 1984, 1949, Penguin Modern ClassicsOrwell was born Eric
Arthur Blair in 1903, in Bengal. His father worked for the British Opium
Department and his son didn’t see much of him. India and Birma were to
be important places in his life and inspiration. In 1904, Orwell went back
to GB with his mother and sister (he lived among women) and returned
in 1922 as a junior officer of the Indian Imperial Police, in Burma. But
what he really wanted to do was to write. He had always thought of
himself as a writer and had started writing poetry at a very early age
(taking his inspiration from Blake in a poem about a tiger). His mother
evolved in leftist circles which deeply influenced Eric. He first went to
an expensive public school (privée) where he met with rich pupils
whereas he had a grant), before going to Eton. He read The Island of Dr
Moreau
7
(1896) by HG Wells and Jack London, which were very influential. He
was also taught by Huxley whose Brave New World (1931) was a real
epiphany for him.He published his first book in 1933 – Down and Out in
Paris and London - under the Pseudonym of George Orwell (the name of
a river). 1984 was his last book. He had already published his famous
Animal Farm (1945). There are many influences at work in 1984. Orwell
drew his inspiration from existing models : Staline in Russia (Big
Brother is certainly reminiscent of Staline and Goldstein of Trotsky) but
also Nazi Germany and the Korean conflict (1950-53). Orwell was a
staunch leftist (he even found analogies between the GB Labour party
and the Communist Party under Staline). He had gone to Spain in 1937
to fight against Franco : « Every line of serious work that I have written
since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism
and for democratic socialism, as I know it ». He denounced the use that
the parties in power made of the working classes (the proles), as he
thought that they were only interested in power. And he thought that the
oppressed were always right. What is at stake in the State he stages in
1984 is the sort of schizophrenic manner of thinking, or doublethink as
he puts it. The party in power works on contradictory slogans such as : «
War is Peace », « Freedom is Slavery » and « Ignorance is Strengh ».
The main character embodying doublethink is O’Brien who both seduces
and betrays Winston. Doublethink also lies behind the names of the
different Ministries : the Minisry of Truth tells lies, the Ministry of Love
tortures (which is not that far from « Department of Defence = of war
and « Department of Justice » which often abuses human rights). History
is endlessly rewritten. The prefix Re- is used abundantly (47).
Orwell didn’t feel at ease about the world division into zones of
influence that took place after WWII, and this is one major sub-text in
1984, where there is a tripartite balance of power : Eastasia (Japan),
Eurasia (Russia) and Oceania (anglo-american alliance). Inside Oceania
the hierarchy is as follows : The Inner Party, the Outer Party (Winston
belongs to it) and the Proles (an echo to Brave New World ? Huxley was
Orwell’s teacher at Eaton) with no contact between the first two and the
proles. Contact is an issue as far as sexual relations go. The Party aims at
controlling desire. And if the Winston-Julia story can happen, it cannot
last and is bound to be defeated. There is no happy ending. They have
been crushed.
The end of the novel is not quite the end since it is followed by a kind of
critical essay called « The Principles of Newspeak ». Orwell had been
asked to cut it together with Goldstein’s book (a book within the book),
but Orwell had refused. This essay might be read as some kind of later
piece of history, and as if the (anonymous) writer of that piece had now
become free
8
to discuss the system. A system that doesn’t seem to have worked that
long, despite the predictions. Is this appendix a way to brighen up the
otherwise very grim pessimistic ending ?

George Orwell: Nineteen Eighty-Four

Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is, with the same author’s Animal
Farm, one of the most widely read pieces of political writing of the
twentieth century. Its vision is of a world in which three rival
superpowers – Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia – are locked in an endless
but, in fact, symbiotic war (there are alternating periods of peace
between two of the powers, which remain at war with the third, with
alliances changing depending on who is at war with whom). The war is a
stalemate (or, rather, an ideological fiction in which all three sides
collaborate) whose continuance ensures that the citizens of Oceania,
Eurasia and Eastasia remain in a constant state of submission to the
forces of hatred, artificial collective feeling, and propaganda. The
supreme head of Oceania, Big Brother, is the leader of the Party, which
controls everything. There are four Ministries,
[...] between which the entire apparatus of government was divided. The
Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment,
education and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace which concerned itself
with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And
the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs.
The names of the Ministries are in direct opposition to their actual
functions, a sign early on in the novel of the essential chasm in this
society between language and truth. The Ministry of Peace is named in
direct contradiction to its real purpose, as is also the Ministry of Love
(specifically drawing attention to the central importance of Hate in this
social economy). The Ministry of Plenty presides over a shortage
economy in which everything is rationed, and where everyday
necessities such as razor-blades and soap are in short supply. The gloss
on the Ministry of Truth makes an additional, subtler, satirical point
about “news, entertainment, education and the fine arts” in the present –
all of these “ideological state apparatuses”, to use Althusser’s term,
conceal rather than reveal truth. In Oceania (and in the other two world
states by analogy) the state is wholly devoted to controlling every aspect
of its citizens’ lives, through an array of material and ideological means.
The Ministry of Truth plays a central role in this, particularly through the
use of the “telescreen”, Orwell’s dark version of what the effects of
newly resumed television broadcasting might be. Giving
9
television a slight twist (though not so much of a twist, given the more
recent spread of CCTV systems), all citizens in Oceania [except the
'Proles', which is the collective name given to the working classes of
Oceania, i.e. the proletariat] are not only passively subject to the
“telescreen” but are actively controlled by it, since it is a two way
transmissions system: “6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower please”. It
is mandatory to have the telescreen on at all times. Most of the people of
Oceania do not seem to realise that they are subject to, and reproducers
of, a system of total social control – or cannot admit to such an idea,
since the Party has progressively eliminated any space or place where
such “thoughtcrime” could be expressed. But from time to time
individuals do notice that the reality they know about and live in does
not match the reality the party presents: vaporisation is reputed to be the
usual fate of these “criminals” (Orwell found his inspiration in the war in
Spain). Such a citizen is Winston Smith. Winston works in the Ministry
of Truth, revising past news stories to ensure that they match the current
version of reality. This is a continuous task, since reality needs constant
adjustment to match the Party’s reality, as the Party is openly asserting in
its slogan: “Who controls the past, controls the future; who controls the
present controls the past”. However, despite his job of altering narratives
to suit the present (a job which he enjoys because of the pleasure he feels
in playing with language), he feels no inner conviction or loyalty to the
Party’s vision of truth. Indeed, he knows that it is a truth which is
produced, rather than one that exists in its own right. He knows that three
party members executed for treason were innocent because he
remembers seeing “unmistakable documentary evidence that their
confessions were false”. He also knows that sometimes Oceania has been
at war with Eastasia and sometimes with Eurasia, but there is no
documentary proof of that, since all documents are rewritten to make the
Party line invariable and always infallible (according to current alliances
and wars). Winston cannot accept the current reality as the only reality:
he knows that it bears a secondary (at best) relationship to what actually
happened.
One day, Winston begins a diary which records the truth as he knows it:
unconsciously he finds himself writing “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER,
DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER”. Knowing that his inner knowledge of
truth differs from the Party line, Winston is tempted into dissent in two
connected forms. Firstly, he and Julia (ostensibly a pillar of the Anti-Sex
league, a Party apparatus designed to dampen the individualist loyalties
inspired by sex and love) have an illicit affair. Julia might have been
inspired by Orwell’s second wife Sonia (he had first married Eileen who
died in an operation). Secondly, he begins to read the forbidden critique
of the Party by the banished Goldstein (a figure based on Trotsky,
though the book is
10
also modelled partly on Marx’s Capital). Both activities take place in
their secret hideout – a room above an antique shop in the proles’
quarters, a space he thinks beyond the surveillance of the Party. In fact,
however, the owner of the antique shop is an agent of the Party: even
rebellion has been scripted by the Party, and though Goldstein seems to
be an opposition figure, he has actually been invented by the Party as a
channel to control opposition. Winston and Julia are taken separately to
Room 101, where everyone’s worst fear meets them. None can resist,
and their traditional romance plot puts up little resistance to state power:
both Winston and Julia confess to their imaginary ‘crimes’. Their
interrogation is conducted by O’Brien, the nearest they get to the perhaps
fictional Big Brother: he only requires them to admit that 2+2=5. At the
end of the novel, the broken Julia and Winston meet, indifferent to each
other, knowing that nothing personal can survive the power of the Party:
“Under the spreading chestnut tree / I sold you and you sold me” plays a
popular song on the radio. “Nothing was your own”, thinks Winston
early on in his rebellion, “except the few cubic centimetres inside your
skull”. But even that small ownership is denied by the end of the novel:
there is no possible resistance to the state, which has co-opted dissidence
into its routine domination of everything and anything which can be said.
The novel offers a comprehensive dystopian vision of the absolute power
of ideology under totalitarianism and even perhaps the impossibility of
“truth” in any state. It includes an appendix about the language being
introduced into Oceania: “Newspeak” (traduit par “Néo- parler”) – a
language in which it would be impossible to think, let alone utter,
“thoughtcrime": “the purpose of Newspeak was [...] to make all other
modes of thought impossible”. Newspeak is based partly on the
contemporary idea of Basic English, and partly on contemporary idioms
and practices, including political euphemisms, which Orwell thought
reduced the clarity of English and hence its capacity to distinguish truth
from falsehood. Newspeak is intended to achieve the suppression of any
non-conformist possibilities in language by reducing the vocabulary of
English to the point where synonyms, and hence the nuances,
ambiguities and different implications of different selections of words,
would virtually disappear.
The novel was an immediate success with critics and readers, building on
the reputation of Animal Farm, and, like it, was seen as highly readable,
intelligent and immediately relevant. Orwell’s publisher Frederic
Warburg, anticipating the impact of the novel, made an initially large
printing of 265 575 copies, which sold out within six months of
publication. There was
11
also a separate US edition by Harcourt Brace, of 20 000 copies, and then
a US Book of the Month edition of 190 000. The figures show how much
impact Orwell’s writing was now having – especially when compared
with his earlier estimate of success: sales of 3 000 copies. Part of the
success of Nineteen Eighty-Four came from the combination of Orwell’s
already developed realist techniques and the mainstays of the dystopian
genre (as in the opening chapter: “It was a bright cold day in April, and
the clocks were striking thirteen . . . The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage
and old rag mats”). Together, these made it a more distinctive and more
sharply constructed novel than some of those he had written in the
thirties. Additionally, the relationship between recent past, present and
future gave some of the representations of the future a satiric edge, as
shown earlier in the discussion of the Ministry of Truth.
However, part of its success also arose because it was published as the
post-war settlement was edging into the Cold War, with a permanent-
seeming state of hostility between the Soviet bloc, communist China and
the US / Western European spheres of influence. This echoed the
political partition of the world in the novel, but also led many to see the
novel as anti- communist. Indeed, even Frederic Warburg initially saw
the novel as anti-socialist, saying in his publisher’s report on the
typescript that “Ingsoc = English Socialism. This I take to be a deliberate
and sadistic attack on socialism”, and observing that the novel might
gain “a cool million votes for the conservative party”. Orwell was
displeased by this reading and took some pains to deny that the novel
was anti-socialist and to identify more correctly the intended meaning of
this kind of dystopia. Even before publication, Orwell prepared a
statement, dictated to Warburg, to make clear that he was not attacking
the current British Labour government in any simple sense: “Members of
the present British government . . . will never willingly sell the pass to
the enemy”. Both Warburg and Orwell did their best after publication to
contradict anti-socialist readings. Thus, when the Daily News in New
York made precisely the interpretation Orwell feared in 1949, Warburg
sent a corrective statement (which was not published), while Orwell
wrote a letter to the US Union leader Francis A.Hanson (which was
published in part) explaining that: “My recent novel is NOT intended as
an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a
supporter), but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralised
economy is liable and which have already been partly realised in
Communism and Fascism.”
12
The novel certainly does draw widely on aspects of Soviet communism
and Nazism for its imagination of totalitarian power, but those are not its
only sources. Equally it derives some of its atmosphere and detail from
life in war-time Britain, such as rationing, the official encouragement of
community-spirit and optimism, the newsreels and the forms of
censorship practised by the BBC during the war. It also draws on and
carefully critiques a number of other visions of the future, including both
optimistic and pessimistic narratives by H.G. Wells (When the Sleeper
Wakes of 1899 and In the Days of the Comet of 1906 have both been
suggested as part models), as well as Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We (1923)
and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932). The novel’s exploration
of rebellion and conformity, i.e. the question of whether it is possible to
maintain any relevant individual difference in the modern world, also
picks up strong interests from Orwell’s pre-war novels. His Keep the
Aspidistra Flying (1936) has a protagonist, Gordon Comstock, who tries
to defy the expectation of the modern, money-centred world, by being a
poet, but eventually learns that there is no escape from conformity. A
good deal of the imagery of political violence and hatred in Nineteen-
Eighty-Four is foreshadowed in his 1939 novel, Coming Up For Air,
which again has a hero who tries to be different, but finds there is no
possibility of not conforming. Thus there is a rehearsal for Hate Week, as
the central character George Bowling reflects on how a political speaker
at a Left Book Club meeting seems to him to be promoting hate: “The
same thing over and over again. Hate, hate, hate. Let’s all get together
and have a good hate”.
Though the novel was, as discussed, widely interpreted as being about
the Soviet state, it suggested – and continues to suggest – a deeper
pessimism about the possibility of any objective truth outside the
interests of particular social orders. In this way it anticipated the
scepticism about truth that became a mainstay of postmodernism. The
novel was Orwell’s last work before his premature death from TB in
1950.
The novel develops along 4 stagesI-Winston (presentation)II- The
meeting(s) between Winston and Julia III- The arrestIV- Winston’s
failure and the victory of the Party
13
Pour une E.T, il faut d’abord re-situer le passage (dans le roman) en
quelques lignes, voir le mouvement, la façon dont le passage fonctionne,
progresse, vers quoi il tend, en quoi il “annonce” ce qui va suivre.
Voici quelques conseils pour une explication de texte/commentaire
I advise you to read or consult the following book : L’explication de
textes en anglais, Ophrys, 1979, by R. Dénier, R Blattès, A. Nicolson
and D. Decotterd.
I will read to you the first page of this bookYour first step would be to
read the text a number of times, as many times in fact as maybe
necessary for you to get a clear mental picture of the passage : be sure to
see clearly what it is about, what according to you, it purports to say and
how it is said, what its impact is on the reader and its essential interest.
Do not allow yourself to be disconcerted by particular words you do not
know. Try to form an overall impression then get down to the detail.
Make sure you have fully understood the literal meaning and followed
the development of the writer’s thought, and that you have grasped the
underlying idea. It may be helpful to ask yourself about the writer’s
intention. Does he just mean to convey information (give factual
information), express his personal feelings or elicit an emotional
response from the reader, trying to convince him, challenge or win over
his sympathy, stir up his indignation, disturb him or stimulate his
imagination. In other words you must ask yourself what the function of
the passage is, what kind of passage it is : a dramatic scene, a meditation,
a description or the development of a thesis ?
As you will be examining the fundamental purpose of the passage, such
indications as the title, the period when it was written, the sources (if
given) may prove extremely useful and rewarding. Make a note of the
various devices the rider has used to achieve his particular aim ; the
literary and stylistic devices, that go to create and justify the overall
impression - images, metaphors, comparisons, degree of technicality of
the text, register, tone. You must in fact pay close attention to the kind of
language used and distinguish between formal and informal English,
polite and familiar language, literary, elevated oratorical, or rethorical
language. You must also pay attention to the setting and general
atmosphere. It is advisable to make a list of key words, synonyms,
repetitions, oppositions, technical terms, foreign words and phrases as
the case may be.
14
Once you have made clear what you think the writer’s general purpose is
and what impact he seeks to make on the reader, as well as what devices
are used in order to achieve this impact, then you may safely let yourself
be guided by the general plan suggested below, adapting to your
particular needs both the various elements to build up a commentary, and
the different terms belonging to the vocabulary of appreciation. The
greatest flexibility of method is to be preserved as there is no one
formula which can be applied automatically to widely differing passages.
Since there is no set plan, choose from among the possibilities offered,
select two or three items most appropriate to the passage, and develop
them methodically in short, simple sentences, in correct English,
constantly referring to the text to support your views, thus you will avoid
the main dangers of improvisation, impressionism, diffuseness and
paraphrase. Always bear in mind that your approach depends on the
nature of the text, its particular contents, its characteristic aspects and its
resources. From the first reading, you must be on the look out, ready to
seize the clues it offers, and to follow the slightest hints. The value and
interest of your commentary greatly depend on your own resources, on
the echoes the text is liable to arouse in you. Your cultural background,
your knowledge of literature will help you. In the end it is a matter of
your response, your own culture.
En français :
Quelques conseils méthodologiques pour une explication de texte: lire le
texte très attentivement, en soulignant au besoin ce qui vous paraît
important. Essayer d’en saisir le mouvement, : chrono/logique,
thématique, stylistique.L’introduction : doit – en quelques lignes -
situer le passage dans l’ensemble du texte (amont et aval) avant
d’annoncer le plan, en deux, trois ou plus – de parties. Ce plan doit
suivre un ordre logique, qui montre que vous savez « où vous allez », ce
que vous voulez montrer, d’une manière claire et structurée. Evitez
d’alourdir votre propos par des annonces du style : « in my first part, I
will deal with ». Allez droit au but en disant directement ce dont vous
allez parler.
Développement : celui-ci doit suivre l’ordre annoncé dans
l’introduction, selon une logique dont vous devez montrer qu’elle est
convaincante (en être convaincu/e pour être convaincant- e). Les
différentes parties ne sont pas des « blocs étanches » mais doivent
montrer une progression de la pensée. Pour passer d’une partie à une
autre, et selon cette logique, il suffit de trouver une « phrase d’accroche
», une transition, à la fin de chaque partie, qui annonce ce qui va suivre
et montre que chaque partie découle logiquement de la précédente.
15
La conclusion : reprend brièvrement ce qui a été dit dans le
développement et peut « ouvrir vers un ailleurs » (ce qui aurait pu être
abordé, mais ne l’a pas été, faute de temps). Inutile de dire : « As a
conclusion » ou « To conclude ». Votre lecteur saura que vous en êtes
arrivés à la conclusion sans qu’il soit besoin de le lui rappeler
lourdement.
L’incipit d’un roman est toujours important: il donne le ton, introduit un
ou des personnages.
Ce début donne un aperçu d’un monde autre, hostile, froid, peu familier.
L’extérieur est aussi peu engageant que l’intérieur. Le point commun
entre les deux est le personnage de Big Brother, omniprésent et
omnipotent, même en affiche. C’est ce lien qu’il faut metre en relief,
pour montrer comment l’auteur nous plonge dans une société très
différente de ce dont on a l’habitude, une société où l’on prépare la “Hate
Week”, où les pendules sonnent 13 heures, où tout semble manquer ou
être en piteux état (rasoirs et savon), une société dystopique, où chaque
acte est surveillé (par le telescreen), où toute liberté est abolie au profit
d’une uniformité (the uniform of the Party) désolante.
Le plan s’élaborera donc en trois parties: I-Le monde extérieur, II-
l’intérieur du bâtiment et III- la nouvelle société. Et ces parties
s’articulent sur la présence envahissante de Big Brother, qui constitue le
lien entre les trois.
E.T, Début, pp.3-5: “It was a bright cold day in April... every
movement scrutinised”
Introduction of the outside and the inside from the point of view of the
main character: Winston Smith, a very banal name who, we are told, has
a varicose ulcer and is not very fit, (though only 39) and who finds it
difficult to climb up the stairs. He is also described as “smallish, frail,
meagre”. Is this a hint at his being easily crushed by the society in which
he lives? His blue overalls indicate that he is wearing a kind of uniform,
the uniform of the party, which hints at global standardization, at an
erasing of individuality, at a subsuming of individuality into the
totalitarian system.
I-The outside
We are given details about the weather: bright, harsh blue, the sun was
shining (pleasant connotations) quickly counterbalanced by cold, windy
(vile wind, cold, eddies of wind, no colour). The dust follows him inside.
The world outside is as hostile to Winston as the inside. The outside is in
osmosis with the inside: just as bleak, sad, gloomy. The most significant
16
thing is that there seems to be no colour, which tallies with Winston
wearing a uniform: everything and everyone is the same. One of the 1st
strange signs is that the clock “struck thirteen”. Usually it strikes 12
(noon or midnight). This may be meant to destabilize the reader, who
doesn’t find himself in a familiar world, where clocks are noticed when
they strike 12 (midnight or noon).
II-The inside
The hallway is as unpleasant as the outside, stinking of boiled cabbage
and old rag mats. INGSOC (cf Appendix). Capital letters as for Big
Brother.
The place is derelict: the lift rarely works and the electricity has been cut
off “in preparation for Hate Week” (surprising, even incomprehensible to
a “normal” reader: what is Hate Week?). The tone is given: the
atmostphere, the place, are gloomy, grim, sad, unpleasant, frightening.
What is the most striking in these drab surroundings is the poster of “the
face of a man” (a man: indefinite) Big Brother, first described
anonymously as “the face of a man” (reminding one of Stalin with his
mustache and ruggedly handsome features). “Big Brother is watching
you”, which plunges the reader in the atmosphere of the book: wherever
you go, Big Brother can and will follow you. Nothing/no one can escape
him. Cf: snooping into, plugged in. Big Brother is inside you. Even if the
name may sound comforting – a big brother is supposed to watch over
you, to take care of you – the picture is rather frightening.
Not only is there a poster of Big Brother, but also a (indefinite) voice
“reading out a list of figures...” And as for the name (Big Brother), the
voice - described as “fruity” (pleasant connotations) - only lists figures
related to pig-iron (fonte brute : industrial society?). The indefinite
article (a), resumed (repris) by the definite article (the), doesn’t give any
indication as to whose voice it is. It is so to speak dematerialized. Even
the spot from where it speaks looks like a mirror, but a “dulled” (terne)
mirror, which is in keeping with the whole place: everything seems to be
derelict, faded, out of order, old...
III- A new society
The whole introductory description is destabilising for the reader. The
hero is introduced but he doesn’t have the usual features of a hero: he is
tired, he suffers form an ulcer, he is meagre, he finds it hard to climb the
steps. He is rather an anti-hero, but he is the narrator. We have a
17
glimpse of his miserable life (a world of lack and scarcity, where razor
blades are blunt the soap coarse and the food awful) but also of the
society he lives in at large, a society governed by the Thought Police,
which might refer to French Philosopher Foucault’s book: “Discipline
and Punish” (Surveiller et punir). The verbs and the postpositions are
eloquent: “looking deep”, “snooping into” and “plugged in”. Or
Bentham. The instruments used to enforce the law are the telescreen and
the language dominated by Ingsoc (The ideology of English socialism
based on Nazism or Stalinism) and its language, Newspeak (cf
Appendix). Freedom is abolished and the individual is subsumed into the
collective.
So the beginning plunges the reader into an unpleasant, frightening
society, which doesn’t correspond to what he has been used to. He can
expect a strange story where Big Brother rules unchallenged, where one
is getting ready for Hate Week and where it will be difficult for a
character like Winston to react or rebel.
E.T., pp.28-29:
‘Why can’t we go and see the hanging?’ roared the boy in his huge
voice. [...] ‘had overheard some compromising remark and denounced
his parents to the thought police.’ Orwell makes use of small, sometimes
insignificant, everyday life events and details to proceed thematically
(especially towards the beginning where the overall picture is suggested
to the reader in a jigsaw puzzle-like way). The reader is introduced to the
fact that all human relationships are perverted by paranoid
totalitarianism: co-workers, strangers, whatever. In this case, neighbours
(touched upon) and, more relevantly in the case of this passage, filial
relationships. Winston being single, Orwell uses a cliché situation —
getting help from a neighbour — to introduce the reader to the workings
of a 1984 family and deal with the corruption of filial relationships.
I- The new man (one of the Stalinist myths) starts with the eternal
child
A) The spies:Cue taken from both totalitarian models NAZI/Fascist and
USSR, Hitler’s Jügend, Mussolini’s “Children of the She Wolf” from the
age of 6, then Balillas, and Stalin’s Communist Youth. Not a speculative
exaggeration but the transposition of existing historical models (‘The
songs, the banners, ... a glorious game to them’, techniques used by the 3
models cited above). Insistence on the fact that Parsons’ kids are
representative (hops from
18
specific situation to sweeping statements/clichés: ‘that wretched woman
must lead a life of terror’/’Nearly all children nowadays were horrible.’)
B) The sweet innocence of childhoodNo illusions regarding ‘innocence
of childhood’, in fact, denunciation of a myth according to which
children are sweet loving creatures: they don’t want to go to watch
Bambi, they want to go to watch a hanging (‘children always clamoured
to be taken to see it’). Question: redefining ‘human nature’ through
propaganda or taking advantage of it to further propaganda? In this case
of the violence and cruelty of innocent children. Answer: necessarily
both.II- The family and the state
A) The family is the drive belt of the stateNecessity to inculcate
principles of the Party (cf Parson’s pride at having been denounced by
his daughter in part III). Poignantly self-destructive educational mission.
Winston’s prophecy (‘Another year or two’ ... ‘for symptoms of
unorthodoxy’) both true and erroneous: it doesn’t take a year or two but
a few months and the kid doesn’t ‘watch for symptoms’, she finds them
and denounces her dad. (By the way, Winston’s limited acumen
constantly put to use by Orwell, always teetering on the edge of true and
false)
B) But is also a competitor that the state must controlSee Goldstein’s
analysis of the rapport between family and state as well as Obrien’s
when in the Ministry of Love. In a doublethink way, family both exalted
and turned against itself: the ultimate family figure is, after all Big
Brother. ‘All their ferocity’ ... ‘saboteurs, thought criminals’ beautiful
illustration of René Girard’s concept of unanimous violence.III- Love is
hateFilial love of BB turned into potential hatred of the actual holders of
authority, i.e. mom and dad. They rebel against their parents (the tragi-
comical representation of Mrs Parsons ‘dragging her son back into the
doorway while the boy pocketed a catapult’) but ‘this produced in them
no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the party. (again,
from the particular — Mrs Parsons’ obvious terror — to the general ‘It
was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own
children.’ Another tragicomic moment in the rephrasing of ‘some
eavesdropping little sneak’ as a ‘child-hero’.Much closer to us and more
worrying, a child who denounced her mother for using drugs was
publically praised by Nancy Reagan, then First Lady, who 1984ishly
said, ‘this girl must love her mother very much.’ All the more 1984ishly
as she, herself was described by her own daughter as addicted to pills.
19
E.T pp.138-140 (part II, Chapter 2): “I’m thirty-nine years
old...troubling”
This is the first time Winston and “the girl” meet outside and away from
their usual surroundings.The beginning of the chapter is devoted to the
description of the setting (light, gold, bluebells), which pleasantly
contrasts with their usual surroundings. It is in this setting that the girl
appears, as if by magic: “It was the girl” (136). They are hidden from
view by “tall saplings” (137) as if they were in a bower of bliss
(reference to Emund Spencer (1552- 1599)’s poem of the same name), “a
splendid hide-out”. It is as if they were alone in the world and free to do
what they want. Winston’s feelings are a mixture of incredulity and
pride: incredulity at finding himself with a young pretty girl and pride at
being in such a situation. He starts the conversation in a humorous way,
before they kiss and before he explains to her what his feelings were on
first meeting her.
I-An act of transgression (“a political act”, 145)
What Winston and Julia (whose name he didn’t know up to now) do in
their bower of bliss is something that is forbidden in their usual world.
His incredulity finds vent in the following humorous introduction :“I am
thirty-nine years old...”. Not a gift...On the contrary, Julia is described as
young (youthful), with a “strong slender body”, thick dark hair, a wide
red mouth (sign of sensuality), an object of desire. However, Winston’s
main feeling/sensation is not desire (“no physical desire”) but incredulity
and pride (at having seduced such a pretty girl?). But his being used to
living alone prevents him from feeling desire. The whole passage is
related from his point of view, as he is the (3rd person) narrator. Julia’s
attitude is different: she calls him “precious one, darlng, loved one” as if
she were impatient of falling in love because she has been deprived of it
for so long. After their embrace, they start talking, trying to get to know
each other.
II-Dialogue
Winston decides to be honest with her. Not having to tell lies might be a
relief. Winston declares his initial hatred of her (even longing to murder
her), based on the assumption that she belonged to the Thought Police.
Her delight at having fooled him meets with his embarrassment: his
answer is full of dashes (interrupted speech), as if he could not finish his
sentences.Winston’s speech and answers to her incredulous questions are
fraught with clichés and generalizations: young pretty women must
belong to the Party, “a great many young girls are like that”. But he
should know that you “don’t judge a book by its cover” (Il ne faut pas
juger les gens sur la mine).
20
Her throwing off the scarlet (note the colour) sash (Junior Anti-Sex
League) that stigmatizes her (like the scarlet letter in Hawthorne’s
eponymous novel or Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, translated by La
Servante Ecarlate) means her rejection of the Party and its emblems. The
sash is also a kind of uniform (a chastity belt?) for young women (who
should not have sex). It is as if she were throwing her hat over the mills
(jeter son bonnet par-dessus les moulins = s’en moquer, ne pas s’en
soucier). Her finding a slab of chocolate in her pocket and offering half
of it to Winston reminds one of the original sin initiated by Eve. Eating
the chocolate is a bit like tasting the forbidden fruit. The chocolate is also
a powerful reminder, a sort of Proustian “madeleine”, that makes the past
resurface (“It had stirred up some memory”). The past may not be as
dead as the authorities want everybody to believe. It resurfaces thanks to
involuntary memory, triggered by a taste, a smell, a sight (later on,
Winston recognizes the field). Not only is the chocolate evocative of the
past, but it is also far tastier than what they are used to: the crumbly dull-
brown Party chocolate is no better than the coarse soap and blunt razor
blades: just as bland and cheap.
The whole meeting is under the aegis of pleasure, sensuality,
transgression (all the more pleasurable as it is transgressive). The two
protagonists find themselves in a world of their own, away from the
drabness of the city, in a bucolic setting where they are temporarily free:
free to do what they want, to eat some forbidden “treasure”, to (briefly)
remember the past (un passé qui ne passe pas). This is the first of a
number of meetings in other, more dangerous settings...
Rebellion
Pour traiter de ce thème, il faut d’abord voir quelles formes prend la
rébellion et chez qui : la réponse est, de toute évidence, Winston et Julia
(les deux héros), puis si cette rébellion aboutit ou pas et comment : il
semble que Winston se rebelle sur deux fronts : le « diary » d’une part,
qui est une rébellion solitaire, mais lui permet de s’exprimer, de laisser
parler un moi étouffé, contraint sans cesse d’obéir au parti, puis la
relation avec Julia, « péché » encore plus grave, puisque toute forme de
communication est bannie ou punie. Cette seconde forme de rébellion est
une «transgression à deux » (elle va donc encore plus loin que la
première), qui permet au corps et au désir de s’exprimer, d’abord dans un
cadre bucolique, loin de la surveillance de Big Brother, puis dans une
petite chambre louée à cet effet. Le troisième et dernier aspect est la
rencontre avec O’Brien, dont Winston pense (espère) depuis le 1er
chapitre, qu’il est « de son côté » = contre le parti et membre de la
société secrète (the Brotherhood). Mais Winston a pris ses désirs pour
des réalités et O’Brien n’est autre qu’une éminente figure du parti en
place
21
qui va trahir Winston, l’arrêter et le torturer pour enfin le réintégrer,
réduit à l’état d’épave décérébrée que le parti a détruit et qui se retrouve
à nouveau seul après avoir trahi Julia (et réciproquement) et qui n’a pour
seule consolation que l’alcool dans laquelle il a sombré. Le parti a gagné.
I-Seeds of rebellion
In the very first chapter, Winston opens a diary he bought some time
before, without knowing what purpose it would serve (9).
One evening, he starts writing almost mechanically, as if he were
obeying a force stronger than himself, as if he could not help it. The
writing of the diary is made possible thanks to the shape of his flat (8) :
he can escape the telescreen : no eye permits to say I, to express oneself
« freely ». Not only is the diary representative of a form of rebellion, but
the very paper (which is beautiful and creamy) reminds Winston of the
past (as the rented room will do), confirming him in the hope that the
past is not dead. The diary also enables him to use an instrument of the
past : the pen « was an archaic instrument » (9). The writing of the diary
is a solitary form of rebellion. Winston begins to write in his diary,
although he realizes that this constitutes an act of rebellion against the
Party, his first effort to resist, to vent his discontent, to have the feeling
that he does exist as an individual. He describes the films he watched the
night before, Winston looks down and realizes that he has written
“DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER” (21) over and over again in his diary.
He has committed thoughtcrime—the most unpardonable crime—and he
knows that the Thought Police will seize him sooner or later. Writing is a
way to remember, to try and not forget that there was a past and that it
was different. Writing about the past, to give it a sort of fixity (as
opposed to the ever changing present). Writing is also a form of
catharsis, of therapy (scriptotheraphy), a way to avoid falling into
depression or madness (cf Jonathan Harker in Dracula or Offred in The
Handmaid’s Tale). The second step is the relationship with Julia.
Double Transgression
The first time Winston sees Julia, he hates her, as he is convinced she is
a staunch partisan of the Pary, with her scarlet sash (anti-sex Junior
league). He even feels like killing her.It is she who actually takes the
first step by handing him a piece of paper where she has written : « I love
you ». She is the initiator, the one leading the « game » as the meeting in
nature also proves.
Sex (desire, love, bodies) is transgression as it is forbidden. The first
meeting takes place in Nature, in a bucolic setting, away from the
telescreen and any form of surveillance. (cf E.T.).
22
The second and ensuing meetings take place in « the room » : ss soon as
he had seen the room above Mr Charrington’s junk shop (where he had
bought the magic paperweight, another relic of the past), Winston had
felt the desire to rent it, to have a private spot, away from the telescreen
(Part II, chapter IV). The room contains an old bed, an old-fashioned
clock, an oilstove, a glass paperweight and the painting of a pastoral on
the wall (The Golden Country), all reminders of the past, of the pre-war
era. Julia and Winston create a « world of their own » in « a room of
their own » (to parody Virginia Woolf’s famous phrase : « a room of her
own »). Julia brings real coffee, that has nothing to do with the coffee
provided by the Party, jam and tea. In a word, this room is a sort of
sanctuary, a cocoon, protected from the outside world where they can
live their love affair in (relative) freedom. Once, Julia even uses make up
to look like a « real » woman, more feminine, like a woman of the past.
Winston keeps thinking about (he is even fascinated by) an important
Inner Party member named O’Brien (whom he meets as early as chapter
1)—a man he is sure is an enemy of the Party. (13). Winston remembers
the moment before that day’s Two Minutes Hate, an assembly during
which Party orators whip the populace into a frenzy of hatred against the
enemies of Oceania. Just before the Hate began, Winston knew he hated
Big Brother, and saw (or thought he saw) the same loathing in O’Brien’s
eyes. Trying to make contact with members of the Party (Emmanuel
Goldstein) who, Winston naively thinks, cannot but feel like
transgressing and have the means to. He believes in a clandestine
brotherhood. Prend ses rêves pour des réalités.
Julia and Winston are invited at O’Brien’s place (II, chapter 8), which is
luxurious and has all the facilities of a past era.O’Brien gives him
Goldstein’s book (a book within the book, Part II, chapter IX) : about the
theory of revolutions and the strategies deployed to counter them. It is
after the reading of the book (or parts of) in the secret room that Winston
and Julia are arrested (chapter X). Charrington is altered beyond
recognition (256) and Winston understands he has betrayed them : he is a
member of the Thought Police.
O’Brien has managed to lure them, to deceive them. He is an agent of the
Thought Police and tells Winston that he had always been the object of
suspicions.III-DefeatPart III (from chapter I to V) is devoted to
numerous episodes of torture (all orchestrated by O’Brien who exerts the
kind of fascination he has always exerted upon Winston who sees him as
a teacher, a protector, another Big Brother) which aim at reshaping
Winston : not only should he say the right things but he must think them,
believe in them. He must love Big
23
Brother, he must believe that 2+2 = 5 if the Party says so. As O’Brien
puts it, Winston is a recalcitrant pupil. The climax in torture reaches its
aim in room 101 (end of chapter IV), which is the room where every
prisoner is confronted to his own worst fears. In Winston’s case it is rats
(remember his reaction when Julia kicked a rat in the room, 166). The
horror of the rats whose proximity is terrifying brings Winston to betray,
deny Julia, in anticipation of what she says to him later on when they
meet again : « Do it to Julia » (329). This saves him. The end shows that
his reintegration has worked
Big Brother is not only watching you, he is inside you and has managed
to make Winston believe what He wants him to believe : 2 + 2 = 5. This
is the triumph of indoctrination. Any form of rebellion is futile and ends
up being crushed (305). Even his rebellion had been scripted. He has
taken to drinking, has become a solitary wreck who looks as if he had
been lobotomized. He has betrayed Julia (and vice versa). There is
nothing left, just maybe waiting for the bullet that will finish him off
(342)
24
Introduction to Atwood
Atwood was born in 1939. She published 13 collections of poetry, four
of short stories, nine novels, three critical works and children’s books.
Her first publication was a collection of poems in 1961 called Double
Persephone. Since then her publications have being varied and
diversified. She’s altogether a novelist, a literary critic, a journalist and
painter as if she refused to be labelled one or the other. « Caméléon des
lettres canadiennes ». Her books have been translated into 20 languages
so she can be said to be a very successful writer : « Margaret the
monster, Margaret the magician, Margaret the mother ». There is a kind
of worship which she calls her stellification. She denounces the
prejudices and clichés that go with the figure of the artist especially the
woman artist : she wants to debunk the cliché of the female artist as
neurotic, and depressed. Her distance also applies to any form of social
and political government. She supports feminist causes but also criticises
them. The multiplicity of genres which fill her fiction, language and
style, induce some very diversified critical approaches. Thematic studies
followed by feminist and narratological (transposition of myths and
fairy-tales), intertextuality : for example the Bible in The Handmaid’s
Tale. Atwood feeds on some popular culture, childhood reading and the
canonical texts she had to go through when an Arts student at Toronto
and Harvard. She also situates herself in a tradition of Canadian writers,
though one is to be careful when speaking of tradition.
Twenty five years ago, Atwood said it was difficult to speak of a
tradition because the Canadian tradition in novels is not old enough. The
themes at stake are : nature, either wild, indifferent or purifying, « the
vast silent unstructured spaces » of North Canada which puzzle the
explorer or even turn him mad. Atwood identifies and comments upon
the topoï of Canadian writing in her work entitled Survival – A thematic
guide to Canadian literature published in 1972 (in a period of growing
nationalism) to show that the Canadians also had « A Literature of Their
Own »
Some of her most famous works are :
The Edible Woman (1969), Lady Oracle (1976), Bodily Harm (1981),
Cat’s Eye (1988), Alias Grace (1996), The Testaments (2019) (suite de
The Handmaid’s Tale)
The Handmaid’s Tale stages a totalitarian theocracy called Gilead,
polarizing men and women in a binary differenciation carried to
extremes, and implying pressure upon the individual. In the transgressive
clandestine act of writing her story, Offred finds a device to
25
ward off suicide or madness (writing as theraphy). Deprived of her
identity, of her self, she resorts to narration, which enables her to
preserve a form of identity and self. Offred’s meta- tale and the ironical
epilogue give the novel a doubly reflexive character : the book belongs
to the dystopian tradition starting with Swift, Huxley, Orwell, Burgess
and Ray Bradbury : hell- on earth visions which draw on the perversion
of science and technology as major determinants of society’s function
and control. In the staging of a repressive universe, with paroxysms of
violence, the novel should be read as a warning (hence the recurring
return to the problem of history, to the value and legitimacy of truth as
historical document).
Chapter one
The first chapter is destabilizing and the reader wonders who we are and
where we are. The reader finds himself plunged in the story as if he
knew about it. The preterit, reinforced by « once been » hints at a past
that no longer exists and that stands in sharp contrast with an unbearable
present : the place has been turned into a prison or a concentration camp
where the prisoners are being constantly watched to preclude any attempt
at escaping or even at communicating. The prisoners are all women as
the list closing the chapter indicates. They’ve been deprived of all their
possessions apart from their bodies, their only remaining treasures, kept
only for functional purposes. In the darkness of the dormitory, the
narrator, as the spokeswoman for all the others gives herself up to
reverie, be it a retrospective or prospective one, however imprecise that
may be. The future has some powerful attraction as it is unknown and
could only be better than the present. Both past and future are magnified
as places of pleasure - whether known or unknown - when compared to
the reality of a gloomy and terrifying present synonymous with
oppression and silence where the only comfort lies in the exchange of
names, in the breaking of silence and isolation in the belief in a « we ».
I- Past
The very first sentence plunges us back into the past as the narrator is
taking advantage of the night as a time for reflection and confessions and
starts reminiscing or recapturing the past through her senses : sight first
and then smell. The past hasn’t been completely annihilated, as there are
still some remaining objects testifying to its having been : the past is not
an illusion but a sacred relic : games and dances took place in the
gymnasium. The narrator recreates the past as on a screen, evoking the
succession of musical fashions through the meaningful word palimpsest.
The bus was a time of pleasures, light and colours (Green streaked hair
26
referring to the punk period of the 80ies and miniskirts). The presence of
the past is hard to catch back though : « I thought I could smell », «
faintly » as if it were disappearing or being engulfed in the almighty
present, a treasured object of the past is the mirror, now a forbidden
accessory, as women are reduced to a mere function. The past looks
unreal, antiquated, as far away as the future they are all yearning for.
II- Future
The future is a utopia, an unknown world, a creation (as opposed to the
re-creation of the past). The future has no definite shape, it is «
something without a shape or a name », as unidentified as the narrator
herself, whose real name we will never learn (hence the questions about
the authenticity of the tale). The future is a time of desire as it seems as
unreachable as the past. The relationship between the past and the future
is remembered in sensual romantic terms as yearning, expectation and
desire tie these times together. Night plunges the place into possibility,
into relative freedom, the freedom to invent and create in a world where
it has become impossible or forbidden. Past and future as utopias are
illuminating the darkness of present dystopia as loci of escape. If the
present state can impose its laws on the body, its power on thought is
more limited, especially at night.
III-Present
If the present is narrated in the past tense, it is through reconstruction,
the telling of a past story as we weill learn in the historical notes. The
narrator tells us about what she has been through.The first chapter is a
description of the dormitory where the female sleep or try to. The place
has been turned into a boarding school or a prison. The words cots and
children hint at their state of dependence and submission. Like obedient
dutiful children who have been told to do so, « they fold their clothes
neatly and lay them on stools » in a place where order is the rule, a place
governed by men as adepts of order as opposed to chaotic women, a
patriarchal system. Like children whose parents turn the lights down,
they are not allowed any activities such as reading or speaking. The very
names of the guardians who act as agents for men bring parody to a
climax : Aunt. The dystopian present is an anamorphic reproduction of
the past. The noun « cattle prods » insists on the status of women as
breeding cows. The aunts’ power is however limited : they are not
entrusted with guns as they are only women after all and there is no
doubt where the power belongs. The guns belong to the angels, another
parodic naming for instruments of death. The angels are men. Any
exchange, every form of communication between the different
populations is forbidden, especially between the sexes : the guards aren’t
allowed in and the women aren’t allowed out: that would mean
27
transgression. Looking would mean the beginning of a relationship.The
angels can and must watch, but without looking (their backs are turned
on the women). The scene is an ironical reversal of the football games of
the past when the watching girls used to look at the men. The Angels are
objects of fear and also desire, because they are forbidden, unreachable
objects. The whole place evokes a concentration camp, with its barbed
wire preventing any escape. Like prisoners, the women are allowed to
have a walk twice a day, for hygienic purposes only, to preserve their
bodies, their possession. In this world, like disobedient children, the
women try to transgress the law of silence, by exchanging names : « Cet
échange de prénoms est vécu comme une transgression des lois du
nouveau pouvoir en place, et donc comme dangereux. Si la narratrice
reste anonyme pour le lecteur, c’est peut-être parce que dévoiler son nom
est un acte risqué qui exige une grande confiance en l’autre » . The
desire to exchange is to avoid total annihilation. This form of
communication performed in the secret of the night, suggests that some
names may be given, some may have been lost. The state removes names
as it removes faces : « the shifting of names conveys the impossibility of
tracing any originary, referential name ». Even when they try to
communicate, the women must not betray themselves : « We learned to
whisper almost without sound » ; « when the Aunts weren’t looking ».
Trying to recapture a disappearing I, away from the aunts’ prying eye.
Touch replaces words and sounds. The very uttering of women’s names
is kind of magic because it is forbidden, a resurrection of the past the
state wants to erase (as in 1984). Everything normal and familiar has
become illegal and strange.
Past and future are fused and confused in the narrator’s mind
(télescopage). In re-membering the past (in its different aspects : clothes,
games, dances), the narrator also « remembers » the future : « There was
old sex... Flesh ». She dims or suppresses physical space from view in
order to evoke a play of time and memory. The reality of the present
transpires through the atmosphere of the place, a former gymnasium, a
place for the body to express itself, turned into a prison-like school,
where women are reduced to the status of animals or children, whose
every gesture or utterance is watched, controlled and may lead to
punishment. The only manifestation of rebellion is the exchange of
names, a forbidden activity, that anticipates the idea that power comes
from words and language. Offred’s rebellion is the nightmarish tale she
offers the future readers and historians.
E.T. pp.291-292
The port-manteau word « Particicution » contains the notions of party,
execution and participation. It is a structuring signifier betraying the
closeness to primary processes : the word has been remodelled according
to the dictators’ desires : a man has been condemned for
28
raping a woman, who was pregnant : a double transgression that explains
the punishment. The lynching of the man by unleashed women is the
reverse of a « usual » sacrifice : the roles are reversed : it is the women
who are the torturers and the man the victim. There is also an inversion
between the public and the private spheres : « ici le noyau obscène de la
loi s’extériorise alors que son visage civilisé se retire dans la sphère du
privé ». Offred, as a spectator, « on the edges », is just looking at the
spectacle without taking part in it, trying once again to find a reassuring
resemblance between this scene and sports or musical events of the past :
rock concerts or volleyball matches, a well-known, civilized world.
Offred and Ofglen are the two figures standing apart in this outburst of
violence, Offred because she sees the spectacle as if she were at a
distance, analysing it, looking for difference and essence in the already
disfigured figure of the man (who could be any one, as interchangeable
as the handmaids themselves). It is however Ofglen who has the superior
power of the one who knows : if Offred can see, Ofglen knows (voir et
savoir), thus using the enemy’s own weapons better to defeat him or
prevent the worst from happening. By accelerating the death of the man
who belongs to the network, Ofglen spares him the supreme indignity of
a still more atrocious death, thus resorting to dissimulation and pretence,
silencing an outraged/enraged Offred, who only believes in what she
actually sees and sets herself as judge of this act of barbarism she
thought Ofglen was incapable of.
I-The women
As at the time of the volleyball matches, Aunt Lydia announces the
beginning of the « game » with her whistle (cf the alliterations in S),
working on suspense: «wait a moment», postponing the pleasure of the
reward : the women will be given this man who has offended them by
raping one of the most precious among them, since the victim was
pregnant. Even Offred feels outraged and inclined to retaliation on
hearing the nature of his crime : « I want to tear, to gouge, rend ». The
man, alone against the « madding crowd » still desperately tries to
defend himself with words, but words can’t come out because of his
bruised tongue and throat. Offred hardly makes out some « thick »
words, denying his crime. He is faced with an inhuman wave (the
metaphor of the tide runs throughout the passage), ready for the quarry,
even if he is reduced to a mere half-dead rat which it will be easy to
finish off. From a rat, the man becomes an « it » (reification). The
women do need a scapegoat : « le scénario de persécution varie peu
d’une victime expiatoire à l’autre » (chasse aux sorcières, massacres
anti-sémites). Qu’il s’appelle Nick, Luke ou Jésus, il est toujours soumis
à la torture et la foule rassemblée autour de lui ne sait pas ce qu’elle fait
» (Ventura). The women « see red » (« red spreads everywhere »), thirsty
for blood that only Nemesis could quench. They become
29
the instruments of divine vengeance to punish the culprit. The metaphor
of the tide evokes the Apocalypse where water turns into blood. It also
evokes the pagan ritual in Euripides’ Les Bacchantes. King Penthée is
torn to pieces by his mother and aunts. The ritual here is euphemized by
Offred as if she wanted to reduce the horror by conjuring up volley ball
matches or rock concerts. Among this tide of infuriated women, Ofglen
seems to be the worst (or the best, depending on whose point of view)
and Offred, utterly shocked, judges her, almost ready to give vent to her
hardly contained anger.
II- Offred : vision and analysis
Offred’s vision is obscured by the scramble of arms and legs (only the
Wives have the privilege of a superior position) ; she however manages
to see, claiming what Bachelard calls «vision monarchique». Offred first
observes the sacrificial victim, relieved when she discovers it it neither
Luke nor Nick. It is by spotting the difference that Offred gives the man
back his collapsing identity. She also tries to go beyond or behind
appearances : « I try to look inside him, under the disfigured, mutilated
face that could have been Luke’s or Nick’s » : « Sa reconnaissance de
l’humain réinsère la différence, la limite » (Ventura). Offred remains on
the edges, doesn’t touch the man. It is actually quite ironical that the
women should be allowed to touch a man only in these circumstances : «
What you do is up to you ». Offred, by refusing to touch him, recognizes
the sacredness of the victim and shows it in the look she gives him,
which preserves his humanity. Among the madding crowd, Offred spots
Ofglen who overdoes it and she openly blames her for it : « I saw what
you did », almost about to denounce Ofglen to the authorities, hardly
able to control her voice. As mistress of the narration, Offred does
believe she is also mistress of the truth and wonders why Ofglen, among
all women, should behave in this way. If Offred is able to see the
difference, she can’t see behind Ofglen’s presence, her use of the
enemy’s own weapons to save one of them.
III- Ofglen : vision and knowledge
Under Offred’s accusation, Ofglen clears herself : « He was one of ours
». This revelation points to the tragedy of inversion : Ofglen has
overdone it to deceive the authorities and keep the victim from an even
worse lot – « Don’t you know what they are doing to him ? » - Ofglen
knows who the man is and what will happen to him. Her mute face is the
expression of her self-control and she urges Offred to do the same : « Get
control of yourself ». Ofglen resorts to a strategy of similarity by
opposing to the Aunts’ control her own one, for her body not to betray
her. Ofglen both sees and foresees. Her acute consciousness, linked to
knowing how to see (savoir et savoir voir) is reinforeced by her faith in
the group, whereas Offred remains skeptical : « It seems impossible ».
Ofglen’s commitment to the group is complete,
30
even if it means the death of one of the members, of her own, since she
will commit suicide very shortly after. She kills the man as she will kill
herself to avoid torture and spare those who go on with the network.
Ofglen « est prête au pire pour sauver le meilleur » which is in what she
believes, whereas Offred has not yet reached this « superior » stage.
The trance (dazed) which takes hold of the women in this episode is a
thirst for revenge, a bursting out of rage against a patriarchal regime for
whose sins the unfortunate « rapist » is paying. They have at last «
quelque chose à se mettre sous la dent », and they keep at it (« They
don’t stop at once »). Only two women stand out among this madness :
on the one hand reason, on the other madness. Seeing is opposed to total
blindness. This group of women has been compared to the « ménades »,
Dyonysos’ followers who chased the unfaithful. Dyonysos is not,
however, a mad God : « Il joue de tous les claviers du savoir, de la
sagesse et de la réflexion. Nous avons peut-être ici affaire à une
illustration des deux régimes Dyonysiaques : égarement/discernement,
Mania/sophia » (Ventura)
E.T., pp.306-307
This is the last scene of the book. The van has come to pick up Offred
who doesn’t know if she can trust Nick, but as there is no other
alternative, does trust him : « It’s all I am left with ». The scene is an
echo to the finale in a play : all the inhabitants of the house are gathered
to see Offred off. It takes place, as it were, out of time : « It’s no time in
particular », a sort of u-chronia, an unreal atmosphere where nobody can
really believe (Serena Joy is incredulous) what is happening. What is at
stake is a reversal of roles, as Serena vents out her anger against Offred,
appearing as the traditionally jealous wife of a Commander who seems
crushed by the unexpected blow. Offred’s calm gives her a feeling of
superiority, emblematized by her physical position. Even if she doesn’t
know what fate has in store for her, life or death, a world of possibilities
seems to open up before her, as opposed to the limited choices she has
had up to now.
I-Finale
Everybody is gathered as for the end of a play : Serena Joy, the
Commander, Rita, Cora. Only Nick is absent, wanting to avoid detection
or already far away. Despite its realistic ordinary aspect, conveyed
through the precise details (descriptions of the different characters),
reality seems to be obliterated. Though Offred can « see the clock », «
It’s no time in particular ». Offred stresses the ordinariness of an extra-
ordinary situation. She is also detached from herself as if she were
describing what is happening to somebody else ; also, her story is a
reconstruction, which means that she can’t have recorded it
simultaneously. She is however
31
the Eye recording what it sees : isotopy of vision (look, see). Internal
focalization, but overwhelmed by emotions. The descriptions of the
characters are filtered by her own eye = uniformization (as opposed to
individualization). The same pronouns are used for the two men and the
Commander = indifferenciation : everybody is exposed, has no
immunity. The end of the regime is being announced, whereas there is
still hope for Offred. From his former priviledged position, the
Commander has now become exposed. He no longer embodies the law
of the Father : « Possibly... ». The uncertainty is belied by the use of the
future : « there will be no more ». Cora will always be childless. The
future is blocked. Reversal of order is taking/has taken place. The scene
is seen through Offred’s eyes whose I seems to be reconstructing itself in
this last scene.
II- Victors and victims
Offred is in a superior position : on top of the stairs, a symbolic position
hinting at the reversal of the hierarchy : « I am above him », a revenge
over the ceremony. Her calm is her best ally : « leisurely » or « I feel
serene, at peace » (303). It is almost a literal reversal : she has become
what Serena has never been, with her mystifying name. Offred enjoys
her power : « a disaster », as a centre of interest for the couple. She is
responsible for the present situation, aware of her newly acquired
power : cf the anaphoric « I could » (contemplating the different options
she has). She even thinks she could « stop them », but it is only a
possibility without any actualization. Offred seems to have
reappropriated her self and the alternative would be to confront Serena’s
vengeance.
Serena appears as an opposite figure, letting out her anger and
powerlessness: « incredulous », next to her husband, but « she’s been
giving him hell ». She is as far away from him as Offred already is.
Jealousy bursts out : « bitch » and she goes white. She is unable to
contain herself. She reacts as a deceived wife, all serenity and joy having
gone. As for the Commander, he is standing behind her, « his hair is very
grey ». He looks worried and helpless, diminished, « shrinking ». His
attempts at authority are rebuffed. There is no doubt who has power now.
He is puzzled, like Serena, putting « his hand to his head ». Offred can
see him wondering. He looks so weak and vulnerable, which is so
unusual that Offred still pities him. She has ambiguous feelings for him :
« l’ambivalence du déni témoigne de la force incontextable d’attraction
exercée par la figure paternelle, puissante et terrible ». Offred looks like
a mother figure in her turn. She is said to have violated state secrets =
superior form of transgression : « Elle aurait donc vu ce qui doit
demeurer invisible. Au lieu de rester dans la sphère du visible et du
proche, dévolue aux servantes, elle a pénétré dans la sphère de
32
l’invisible et du lointain ». The hierarchy is being subverted. The
Commander is trapped as opposed to Offred who is left with an
alternative.III- Darkness (death) or light (life)This final scene can be
read as a metaphor of love, since, from an imposed relationship, Offred
and Nick have established a relation of trust based on the ignorance of
the Other’s desire. Offred doesn’t know if she should believe in Nick, if
he is an Eye or a Mayday member, but she accepts to go in the van
towards an unknown future, which may be death ; but love is founded on
renouncement since the greatest proof of love is to be able to renounce
its object. Offred steps out into the unknown where she might meet Nick
again, whereas she has just been listing all the ways and means to
commit suicide. For Nick and Offred, love is life even if the issue may
be death. Offred’s fate is uncertain : whether/or/or else. If the men who
are arresting her belong to the state police, Offred will die. Otherwise,
she will be free. There is a radical opposition between the two
possibilities : « my end » or a new beginning. : « L’équilibrage entre le
négatif et l’espoir est savamment rendu ». Atwood multiplies the
negative forms : « no time, no longer, if not », as if to reinforce the
dysphoric climate. But the last word is « light ». The end is inconclusive,
the refusal of a « dead end » : « Refuser la clôture, c’est peut-être
littéralement refuser l’enfermement dans la tyrannie ».
Offred’s uncertainty is seen as preferable to the Commander’s fate,
which is most certainly death. She has at least hope for a better world
even if the other possibility is not denied. The very inconclusiveness of
her tale expresses the hypothetic mode, resumed by Pieixoto himself : «
may have been kept hidden ». If there is no certainty about her fate, we
are at least left with her tale, the affirmation of an I that hasn’t been
engulfed by the tyrannical regime. Language and Power
To set up the new regime, the authorities have resorted to a new
language (cf 1984), a new lexis based on a familiar linguistic
environment borrowed from the past : the neologisms are mere
deviations of meaning. The authorities, and especially the Commanders
« have the word», whereas the handmaids or the Marthas are reduced to
either a disembodied meaningless language functioning on the repetition
of the legal language or absolute silence : communication is strictly
forbidden and can only take place at night or in private places such as the
toilets and are synonymous with subversion. Moira’s crude vocabulary
defying the regime or Offred’s outbursts of hilarity are so many
examples of transgression like the harmless exchanging of names in
chapter 1. Language means power : this is actually the medium Offred
chooses to carry out an apparently passive rebellion. Her tale is the
blatant revenge over an imposed silence, the affirmation of an identity
that so strict a regime has
33
however been unable to stifle completely : « Whatever is silenced will
clamour to be heard though silently » (161). Offred’s tale is evocative of
the flowers of Serena Joy’s garden : « there is something subversive
about this garden, a sense of buried things bursting upwards, wordlessly
into the light, as if to point, to say I » (161). Offred’s tale will be heard,
read and listened to.The regime has not managed to silence her
completely. It has even achieved the reverse of what it had aimed at : the
glorification of language that is also desire in someone for whom words
are jewels to be tasted and transmitted to the posterity. The tale is a
homage paid to the power of words that have saved the handmaid from
death. The word has re-opened the world for her.
I-Legal language : inversion and deviation
The new language is but another version of the Newspeak of 1984. New
signifiers are used to define a new reality, a new world (Brave New
World) : soul scrolls, salvaging, particicution, shredder. Resemantization
of signifiers to serve the totalitarian regime : relationships between
language, law and desire. What hides behind the law is violence : « le
noyau obscène de la loi s’extériorise, alors que son visage civilisé,
humain, se retire et s’installe dans le domaine du privé, du domestique,
du familial ». Reality is remodelled by the authorities. The language is
both familiar and unfamiliar. Any coup d’état goes hand in hand with a
profusion of signifiers, slogans and mottos : desire to cover the past with
a new verbal layer and need to assert one’s power through language.
Reality is a linguistic artefact. In a strictly codified society, the didactic
performative strength of the signifier serves the power for its
propaganda. New socio-political structures within a familiar reassuring
linguistic environment to avoid the traumas = simple deviation of
meaning. World made of Commanders, Guardians, Angels, Eyes, Wives
and Handmaids. Compound nouns too : Econowives, Birth mobile,
Unbaby. Linguistic familiarity acts as an anesthetic, preventing
resistance and rebellion. The individual is supposed to coïncide with his
social function. The combination of lexical and grammatical morphemes
is borrowed from everyday language and is but the reflection of the
integrist manichean mental structures of the Power which condemns
sterile women to death. The power belongs to the men (146) : « There is
no doubt about who holds the real power » or : « He has the word » (99),
« He has something we don’t have ». The only language the women have
is a sterile repetition of Biblical phrases : « Blessed be the fruit » which
lose their meaning in endless repetitions. Cf also: «Praise be» (29) or
absurd anaphoric repetitions of « blessed » (99-100) played on a disc
with a man’s voice. This empty language is also a screen protecting the
handmaids who know that any other form of more personal expression is
bound to be punished as transgression (cf p.29 as an example of non-
34
conversation). Offred even says that she would prefer silence to this
parodic exchange (29), as opposed to Rita who prefers « small talk ».II-
Silence and subversionThe handmaids are only allowed to shut up. In
the very first chapter, the exchange of names whispered at night is
perceived as transgressive : « We learned to whisper almost without
sound ». Even Serena Joy, though allied to the power, has become
speechless (56), though her former job was to speak on TV
(televangelist). Her speechlessness is but an echo to her sterility. During
the wedding ceremony, the Commander, presiding it, declares : « Let the
women learn in silence with all subjection » (233), faithfully and literally
applying the Biblical lesson : « I suffer not a woman to teach nor to
usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence » (233). The breaches
from authority are either whispers or what Offred calls « amputated
speech » (211), once again a deformation of authentic language, but also
a reflection of an « amputated mind » under constant watching and brain-
washing. Only in a few instances do words emerge freely. In the songs
(64), Offred sings to herself, sad songs of the past, while Rita « hums
wordlessly ». The songs, like her talk, « happen only in her head » ,
mutely. Moïra’s crude language is more transgressive : « That shit you
are with » (255), be it verbal or written. « Aunt Lydia sucks » (234). She
has retained the power to laugh and make others laugh. Laughter opens a
breach in the repressive system. Laughter means freedom, it liberates the
slaves that the women have become. After having played scrabble with
the Commander, Offred bursts out laughing in a kind of seism that
shakes her body (or the system ?) : « Oh to die of laughter » (156). This
laughter is to be contrasted with Pieixoto’s derision, the expression of a
hypertrophied culture. Offred’s laugh remains clandestine and « silent » :
« I stifle it in the folds of the hanging cloak » (156). Atwood sides with
Offred’s laugh as opposed to P’s fossilized expression. It is after a game
with words (scrabble) that Offred bursts out. As a lover of words, Offred
delights in the game (a cover for sexual intercourse ?) which gives her «
a voluptuous feeling » (149). Most of the words she finds are related to
the instrument of speech : larynx, gorge. If the scrabble was the
Commander’s wish, it does meet with her own desire, too. The
polysemic pleasures of communication and exchange replace silent
monologic discourse.
The hegemony of the Biblical word is displaced, opening cracks in the
state control. I over Eye. The Commander’s room becomes a place of
transgression where Offred recovers words where she can find them : « a
crossing of demarcation lines from official silencing to the world of
communication ». In this place, Offred asks the Commander the meaning
of the sentence she has discovered in her cupboard : Nolite te bastardes
carborumdonum, left by
35
her predecessor (who has committed suicide), as a trace of the past, a
minimal transgression that has not saved her (237) : « Fat lot of good it
did to her ».III- Power of silence. Language as salvationOffred resorts
to an oral tale : « Tell rather than write because I have nothing to write
with, and writing is in any case forbidden » (49). Like the flowers in
Serena Joy’s garden, that express themselves silently, Offred clamours «
to be heard » (161) and will be. Her strategy of survival is her tale
registered on 30 tapes discovered by Pieixoto. Her text may be
imperfect, uncertain, hesitant, but what matters is that it should have
been told. Powerlessness has become the power of the survivor. She tells
her tale in the language she knows, her personal one, away from the
rigidity of the state idiom. Offred’s aim is authenticity, the restoration of
a meaningful language, that is adequation between thought and
expression, unlike the petrified idiom of a regime whose failure is
ascertained in the Notes. No more than desire can be stifled, can
language be imprisoned or deprived of its freedom of expression.
Offred’s tale is both a testimony and a revenge, that may be far more
efficient than open resistance which would have cost her her life. It has
helped her to survive, to be listened to and read. If P’s reading is not
what she may have expected, as he discredits her tale on account of its
partiality, he also discredits himself in the reader’s eye because of his
pompousness and the ultimate vacuity of his language, which is fraught
with clichés and debunked by Atwood. Power is on the side of
clandestinity, a subterranean force which in spite of the efforts made to
silence it, expresses itself in various, devious ways. The voice of silence,
be it that of flowers or of the handmaids has a militant uniting value
against tyranny. Far from the masks imposed by Gilead, Offred’s voice
is that of the truth, of authenticity.
The Handmaid’s Tale as a feminist novel ?At first sight it can be read
as a feminist novel, because women are the victims and prisoners of a
patriarchal regime to which they cannot but submit if they want to avoid
death, the sure punishment for any form of rebellion. These women have
been deprived of their names, their properties, to become men’s
possessions, dependents, following a process of disidentification that had
started even in the pre-Gileadean time, with the suppression of their bank
accounts and their jobs.The historical notes again present men in an
unfavourable light, since Pieixoto is not far from adopting the
mysogynist sexist views of the heads of the totalitarian regime. The fact
that the story is told by a woman emphasizes its feminine dimension :
story telling is the reserved territory of women, and Offred’s story
relegates history to the margins : it occupies the centre of the book, and
as readers, we do identify with her rather than with any
36
male figure : she becomes the most important historian in the novel.
However female figures aren’t all as positive as Offred : Aunt Lydia, to
take the worst, is one of the most sadistic characters, who incites just as
sadistic impulses in other women at the lynching ceremony. Atwood
goes beyond gender classification to the point that she even denounces
the militant feminism of Offred’s mother through the autodafé of porn
magazines Offred had to take part in as a child. The book evades any
rigid classification : what matters is not whether people are male or
female, but if, as individuals, they have the courage to undermine a
dictatorship. What is at stake is a form of political socialist feminism,
more akin to Elaine Showalter’s definition of female writing. GIVE IT
I-HT as a feminist novel
In a world dominated by men, women have been reduced to their bodily
functions. They have no right to speak or write, no right to challenge
those in power. The process started in the pre- Gileadean time, when
Offred was dispossessed of her bank account and made redundant, thus
becoming a dependent on Luke. « I’ll always take care of you » (188),
which Offred resents in a way, because these words sound paternalistic.
Luke exerts a mild form of tyranny that can’t compete with the
Commander’s, who appears as a dictator whom she goes as far as to
compare with Hitler. The Commander « has the word » and imposes
silence on women (233), except in the privacy of his office where they
play scrabble, a cover for erotic exchange. The last male figure who
appears in the novel is Pieixoto, whose speech is fraught with machist,
sexist allusions and a derogatory tone : « The Goddess of History »
(322). He is far more concerned with the identity of the Commander’s
than with Offred’s, her story being less significant for him than History.
Women are perceived as threats to male domination : their subterranean
power is best illustrated in the grapevine, which points to a possible «
sororizing », a female solidarity undermining the regime : « Offred’s
story presents a mosaic of female worlds which undermine Gilead’s
patriarchal myth of women’s submissiveness and silence » (Howells,
134).The female world she describes is not uniform and all women aren’t
angels : « As for Woman, capital W, we got stuck with that for centuries.
Eternal woman. But really, Woman is the sum total of women. It doesn’t
exist apart from that, except as an abstracted idea » (Howells, 131).
Atwood rejects strict binary oppositions that would lead to a manichean
appreciation of the world.
II- Feminism denounced
If some women belong to a network in the novel, others do « act as
agents for men ». Aunt Lydia is an extreme example of sadistic
behaviour. She is the regime’s spokeswoman (all the justifications for
enforced procreation are given by her). She appears as the handmaids’
arch
37
enemy, though she claims she helps to their protection and survival. The
particicution scene is the epitome of her sadism where she urges the
other women to put the man to an atrocious death (291-92) : if men are
capable of violence, so are women, who turn so many torturers at the
sight of a « rapist ». Serena Joy is not given a very favourable treatment
either. Offred sees her as « an ageing parody of the Virgin Mary,
childless, arthtitic and snipping vengefully at her flowers » (Howells,
134). She transgresses the laws of the regime whenever it suits her,
smoking and ordering Offred to have sex with Nick when she fears her
husband may be sterile. Offred laughs at her, who is now condemned to
stay at home, which was her motto for other women in the days of old.
Serena Joy is condemned as an anti-feminist, but so is Offred’s mother,
to some extent, for her excessive militant feminism. She is satirized on
pp.129-132. She used to think that « A man is just a woman’s strategy
for making other women ». Offred also remembers the scene when, as a
child, she attended a kind of autodafé in a park, performed by « ecstatic
women », burning magazines as they would burn a living being : « It had
a pretty woman on it, with no clothes on, hanging from the ceiling by a
chain wound round her hands » (48). Offred’s mother is depicted as a
rather depressive woman who took to drinking for comfort. Her own
situation as the mistress of a married man, was not totally satisfactory
either and anticipated her situation as the Commander’s mistress : « Men
at the top have always had mistresses, why should things be any different
now ? » ( 172). Her position is that of a critical observer. She remembers
the past in the light of the present and observes the present in the light of
the past. The flashbacks make the reader understand how the flaws in the
previous society led to the establishment of the Gileadean regime :
pollution, diseases, declining birthrate, inequalities between races and
genders, conflicting women’s movements. A solution to the gender
problem is not to be found in the return to traditional values (17, 55) , in
the feminists’ rebellion or in lesbian feminism, and still less, in reactions
among anti-abortionists or in the reduction of women to the status of
two-legged wombs. The book shows how extreme positions always lead
to a backlash but doesn’t bring any solution just as it refuses any
closure : « Roman à hypothèse plutôt que roman à thèse » (Linda
Hutcheon)
III-What kind of writing is HT ?
What strikes the reader first is that the narrator is a woman, a common
characteristic in Atwood’s novels. The private sphere is given pride of
place over the public one. What is described is a female space, creating a
female form of discourse though this discourse takes place within a very
strict male space. Story telling is Offred’s rebellion : she becomes the
most important historian through her story. Story telling is the best way
to reappropriate her
38
self : there is no self without self-expression. What Offred tries to do is –
true to feminist fashion – to seize language, as one seizes power, to make
it her weapon. In one of her articles, Gubar, a prominent American
feminist theoretician, writes : « The model of the pen-penis writing on
the virgin page participates in a long tradition identifying the author as a
male who is primary and the female as his passive creation ». Subverting
Freud’s idea that little girls envy the male penis, Offred expresses her
envy of the Commander’s pen, a pen which is the tool with which you
materialize language on paper. She facetiously declares on p.196 : « Pen/
is Envy » (pun). The hidden utopia at the core of Atwood’s book is
perhaps that of an « écriture féminine » that resists conventional culture
and discourse and is rooted in the female body. And here we feel the
influence of feminist literature and particularly of the French feminists of
the 70ies : Julia Kristeva, Luce Irigaray and Hélène Cixous. Kristeva
says : « If women have a role to play, it is only in assuming a negative
function : reject everything finite, definite, structured, loaded with
meaning, in the existing state of society ». We know how much Atwood
questions the values of our 20th/21st century society and the language of
oppression even when it finds its inspiration in the Bible, refusing to
replace them by « something definite or structured » or any other
ideology. Here are short passages from Cixous’ « Le Rire de la Méduse »
: « Though masculine sexuality gravitates around the penis, engendering
that centralized body under the dictatorship of its parts, woman doesn’t
bring about the same regionalization which serves the couple
head/genitals and which is inscribed only within boundaries. Her libido
is cosmic, just as her unconscious is world wide ». In Cixous’ fiction,
there is something very similar to Atwood’s : a confessional sort of
writing which is a means of being and rehabilitates the female body as
the origin of an alternative type of discourse (many feminist works have
the form of autobiographies or diairies). It is useless to insist on the
dehumanized almost impersonal linguistic conventions in Gilead. People
use ready-made formulas in a mechanical way. To this dehumanized
form of expression, Offred opposes a profoundly human and personal
type of discourse with its hesitations, its repetitions, its doubts, its self-
reflexivity, its disconnectedness. Offred’s speech consists in a series of
sensuous notations. In her tale, there is no clear boundary between the
real and her fantasies (162). But her tale is not meant to be reliable, as
she repeatedly puts it. Accepting to talk about the whole body as the
basis of the self is one of the features of an « écriture féminine ».
HT is not another feminist manifesto : it only invites us to decipher the
world from a woman’s point of view. And Offred is after all a rather
traditional female character, constantly referring to her mother, thinking
of her lost daughter and ready to have another child in a context of
39
love. In one of her Paris lectures, Atwood said that a true feminist
dystopia would be one in which « all men fare better than women »,
which is obviously not the case here (181). It is political in the
Atwoodian sense of the term : « how people relate to a power structure
and vice versa » (Howells, 127). As a postmodernist work, it offers
decentered perspectives, stressing the marginal, the ex-centric in the face
of a mass-culture still dominated by bourgeois humanism and patriarchal
values, even if, as the historical notes show, we can wonder about the
feasibility of such an enterprise.
40