Handmaid's Tale

This is definitely my favorite book that we have read so far! I like the way it is told, the way it is written, and the overall story is very interesting. The thing that disturbs me the most about the new society they live in is the fact no one has any freedom whatsoever. To walk 5 blocks and not know if you could be shot, beaten, killed, or kidnapped is a terrifying thought. Also the colonies freak me out. Personally, I’m not sure if I’d rather be at the colonies or be a surrogate mother. I don’t know if going through what they go through is worth living. So far I don’t feel that any of this is accurate enough to sound like the “future.” I mean obviously we don’t live in a world like that. I feel like Atwood was extremely pessimistic when writing this book. I mean thank god we don’t live in that society. It seems as though no one is happy. Everyone just lives their lives faking who they are and scared to be themselves. No one is unique in such a society. The specific scenes that stuck in my head are definitely the ones with the Commander in his “office.” I like that they play Scrabble. To us it is so harmless, something we take advantage of, but to them it’s an escape. No reading or writing, ok let’s play Scrabble. I also like that he give her magazines and hand lotion. It shows us that the main character is not the only one who hates how she’s living. They use each other, in a sense, to escape from their shitty lives. Luckily so far I have not been too confused on what’s going on in the novel. I would like to know more about the society crashing and more about Luke and a few other things but hopefully I will obtain that information as I read on. At this point I feel so sorry for the main character that I REALLY want a happy ending. After all she’s been through I want her to find Luke and her baby and go back to how it was. I seriously doubt that will happen but I’m hoping it turns out good for her in the end. I have a lot of respect for her.

Scenes

Scenes-
The scenes that have stuck out the most to me so far was the two ceremony scenes. The first time we read about the scene Offred is wondering who is this worse for, her or the commanders wife. We read that the commander treats this like any other job. We read about Serena Joy's response to this, with her digging her ring into Offreds hand, is this a sign of jealousy? We read about Offred's reaction, she does whatever she can to focus on something other than the present. Then the next time when we revisit the ceremony, theres a level of awkwardness to it because of the secret meetings between Offred and the Commander. Then the Commander attempts to touch offreds face something that is strictly against the rules. Offred worries about her meetings of scrabble with the Commander will be found out. With the first ceremony scene it stuck out to me simply because of how weird it is. You have the Commander having sex with Offred while Offred is lying on top of Serena Joy all so the Commander and Serena Joy can have a child. Why wouldn't you allow the Commander to sleep with Offred without Serena Joy's presence? You would think that it would make the whole issue less awkward for the three parties involved. I don't understand as to why you would want all three people to be involved in this process. Another scene that stuck out to me was the Birthing scene, when Janine has her baby. All of the handmaids get picked up by the "birthmobile" and get taken to the house where Janine is. But you also see that a bunch of Wives are there too. Upstairs in the room where Janine is all the handmaids are gathered and sitting on the floor. All of them are chanting in unison to show support for Janine. And yet even with the Aunts in the room, the handmaids are trying to exchange gossip and information while the Aunts are distracted. When the juice is brought to them they quickly find out that it has been spiked. Then once the baby is starting to come the wife of the Commander that slept with Janine rushes into the room in a white cotton nightgown and the two are sat on the "birthing stool". Once the baby is born the wife is tucked into her bed like she had just done all the work, the baby is placed in her arms, and all the wives rush upstairs to see the baby as all the handmaids are taken home. But why does the Wife get all the glory? I realize that the handmaids are just there for birthing purposes but the wife acts like she did all the work. Not once is Janine able to touch HER child. I know that in Gileads eyes its the Wife and Commanders child but that is absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe that someone could create a world like this where the fertile women are second rate and in a sense unimportant besides their ovaries.

THis One's Actually from Emma WS

What I find to be the scariest thing about all terrible regimes and great injustices is not the new laws and obvious problems with the system, but the fact that no matter how awful the new ways of life are, everyone becomes used to it. If people live a reality for long enough that becomes the only reality. “Whatever is going on is usual.” Offred realizes. “Even this is as usual, now.” The worst part about the bad becoming normal is that it means no one will resist it. If women are used to being lesser people, no one will out up a fight when it is decided that all fertile women are to become possessions of the powerful men, and from there, things would only continue downward. “in a gradually heating bathtub you’d be boiled to death before you knew it.” As Aunt Lydia puts it, “Normal is whatever you are used to. Even this will become normal to you.” (Or something like that, I couldn’t find the quote.) She is, unfortunately, right. Offred is astonished when seeing what used to be normal to her, the skirts of the Japanese tourists, even being greeted with the ‘old’ greeting, “hello”. That is how the Republic can win, by making its people forget that there ever was anything else.

The difficulties associated with making a film out of this book.

I'm not sure that i would encourage someone to make a movie out of this book. Mainly because I could see them just butchering the entire piece. This book is an amazing book with a sense of utter solitude, degradation, and so much more. If it is hard enough to get these feelings across in writing I would hate to imagine what an actor or actress would have to undergo to portray such emotions. I think that certain scenes would be very difficult to film as well. Take for example the rape scenes. Even though it is a huge part of the book it would be very difficult to put such in a movie and expect to keep it PG 13. But more because I don't think that the intense emotions that are created within you when you read this book would be as strong if you were to watch it instead of read it. Whats more is with what end will this movie have? How could one come to the complete understanding of the characters in this book? Surly one who has read it is more likely to have a better understanding but never the less lacks the insight in to the author, or narrator.

I truly enjoyed this book. Even though it is not the happiest books we have read it interested me to no end. I wonder what it would be like to undergo the drastic shift that the narrator had to. From being an independent woman to one who must subservient would just suck beyond belief. How can you go from believing one thing your entire life and then just allowing the biggest change of your existence happen without a second thought? I would hope that in today's society we would rebel before allowing everything that we know and love to be gone like a snap. But who knows now a days anyway. We allow many things to go unnoticed and yet we insist on complaining.

Let's Make a Movie

"The Handmaid's Tale" would be a difficult plot to try to film. Many of the scenes would be very well depicted in a visual matter but during the more quiet moments when Offred is laying in bed thinking and when she is having a conversation with someone it would be hard to capture the true feelings of the character.
When she is walking down the street in her pair not much has happened outwardly. She walks past the guards swinging her hips and later feels a little guilty about it; film wouldn't be able to depict the second thoughts about her actions or the response she thought the men would have. Small moments like that help the reader understand how strict the rules are and the amount of sexual tension most men of the Republic have because of their lack of sexual interaction.
And when Offred is walking in her pair she thinks to herself maybe the woman she is walking with is a believer in the Republic and would turn her in if she disagreed. But almost simultaneously she asks herself, perhaps this woman isn't a believer but thinks that I am. This turmoil wouldn't be able to be captured in a film like the written word can.
If these small details are left out of the movie it would distort the traits of the Republic of Gilead and the true characteristics of the characters. So the completion of a film based on this would be a triumph if it was able to portray all of these tiny instances.

Friday the 13---Good Day :)

There is too much to write about I don't know where to begin, so I will start kinda in the middle. One of the main scenes that stuck in my mind was Offwaren's delivery scene. This is such an awkward scene, if I had to give birth in such conditions (god forbid) I would be petrified to say the least. I mean seriously how much more awkward can you get. You are sweating like a pig and trying to push out a life form and you have an audience of people staring at you. That would be horrendous. Yet, being a handmaid and practically being raped by a number of men as you are passed around from house to house like a peace pipe, it might not be so horrible to be idolized in such a way. I hope that reality never comes to this. This particular scene also aroused many questions. One being, one of the passage states that unbabies are rushed away and never seen again, but what about the mothers of those unbabies? Are they punished for not producing a healthy/worthy child? Questions questions..
Next, the scrabble match and these secret meetings. What is going on here, and why isn't the commander questioning why Offred knows so many words? I mean if I were to be playing scrabble with a handmaid of whom is not allowed literature of any source why would she know so many more "elegant" words. I know that it was not long ago that she was living a free life, but still wouldn't you forget certain words after that amount of time being separated from literary sources? In addition, why are these meetings being held? Does the commander seek something more then what he has in Serena Joy? Well this is obvious because he says so, but what is this leading to? Will Offred come to enjoy the commander in a loving way farther then just respect? She finds the ceremonies more enjoyable, but is there more to come of her enjoyment? This also leads me to Nick. That one night in the sitting room, was so strange. I feel like it was kind of thrown out there by the author, will we see more of this as we read on? These questions don't need answers at this moment, as I am sure that they will be answered in further reading. Just throwing them out into the void.
Moreover, I have overall enjoyed this book. I like the fact that there is a darker side to things, not everything has a silver lining. Not everything needs to go the way that the perfect fairytale would like it to. Life doesn't happen this way. Therefore, it is enjoyable to find a piece of literature that doesn't offer a bright side. The gore of the wall, and the hanging people. Staring into their crooked heads under the white sheet, it adds an interesting factor. Its gory and interesting. It adds a different aspect to the book that makes you want to keep reading. The torture, the rape, the killings..Its horrible but its reality. I'm excited to see if the books ending leads to another siver lining or more simply an end short and sweet.

Handmaid's Tale

Ok this is far and away one of the best books I have ever read, seriously. I went into it a little skeptical about the topic, but the beginning scene was interesting and it has developed into a really amazing novel. What has made this so amazing is the control of the narrative which Atwood wields. She has led me into this novel with nothing but enticements. The foreshadowing is everywhere, but so subtle that you would never pick up on it unless you look like you want to find it. But enough raving, let me actually talk about a topic here.

I know we will be watching the film version of this next week, and I have to say that while I always enjoy watching movies, I am not expecting this to be a good representation of the novel in any form. As I stated earlier, the most amazing feature of this book is the controlled narrative which reveals little of what's actually going on, but at the same time reveals huge plot points in ways you pass over. The fact that as you read you see the word "shredder" used to describe deformed babies and then see a sudden connection as Offred remembers her old job as a "discer" who shredded books is one of the most satisfying moments as a reader. You picked up on something! A film version loses this attention to the word with a fixation on the visual qualities. You are watching a story being played out rather than reading it. You become an omniscient third party to the all, rather than being forced into one perspective from which you attempt to piece together what is really happening.

That is the challenge of film. There is no real proper way that you can portray something written in the first person. Some films (both crappy and well-made) have toyed with first person portrayal. There is one particularly bad horror movie based on a videogame, Doom, that did the most with this by actually portraying a long action sequence entirely in the first person, and while it was intriguing and probably the closest any film has ever gotten to putting each individual audience member into the character's shoes, it would never suffice to portray this novel. It is intensely psychological and very limited while still being incredibly interesting.

The way that Atwood was able to take such a limited point of view and engage the reader is by creating a world that is both impossible to belive, but all too probable. Her description of the fall of America has been drawn on by authors such as Orson Scott Card in his novel Empire (which I recommend to anyone who is interested in politics or war-type novels). But the scariest fact is that Empire was published two decades after Handmaid's Tale. This begs the question, how pertinent is Atwood's novel to the future? We have already seen the suspension of the Constitution following a terrorist attack blamed on Islamic militants. Does this not scare anyone? Have we not recently been seeing a rise in the radical christians of America? Have we not seen a rising concern with sterility? It is just scary to think about a book written 20 years ago having such present imagery.

Well I think I've reiterated Lavender enough, but I am just so excited to finish the book this weekend. The film, while destined to be a poor imitation of it's model, is going to be fun.

Handmaids Tale

I find this book very intriguing and very scary. This sort of dictatorship could easily form under the right circumstances if we let our guard down. Just to see how the government slowly evolves from a democracy to a theocratic dictatorship was very interesting. If this sort of thing happened, I can tell you the majority of people would go along with it. That's where this theocracy gains power. If the majority would fight against it, it would not be able to last. I still don't have a clear understanding of how this group was able to take over the government so easily. They suspend the constitution and take away womens rights to own property. At this point John Locke would say that we have the right to replace our government.
I really like how the book is structured. It takes you back and forth between the past and the present, and you slowly see the two merge until the two time periods meet. You get little bits and pieces of information about the collapse and you get to see parts of the same story pieced together throughout the book. At what point in this evolution of government would you say "this has gone too far." At first you would figure things would eventually go back to normal, but at what point would you try to do something about it. Before you know it, it would be too late. I feel that this book is showing an extreme outcome of what happens when people conform to a group. You start to sacrifice your own needs for the good of group, and do whats best for the group, as opposed to whats best for yourself. One thing leads to another, and eventually you end up with the republic of gilead. It all started when the army conformed to the ideas of a few individuals. Once the leader had control over the army, it was a little harder to stop them. Once the power is in the hands of the group, it takes an equally powerful group to stop them.

Handmaid's Tale

Everything about the Republic of Gilead disturbs me. The freedom and power that every citizen once had has been thrown away as if it were useless. The people are controlled by the angels and the guardians and are forced, through fear, to foll the rules. This society seems so primitive in some aspects. Like if a women is pregnant and she breaks the rules the higher ups won't even hesitate to chop off an arm or a foot because she won't need that to give birth. Moira, to me, is a perfect example of normality. She is one of the few that attempts to escape in some way. Most of the women or people that can no longer, handle living in the Republic of gilead, find a way to kill themselves. But Moira takes action and attempts to escape. To me this is normal. When someone is encaged or trapped their first instinct is to escape. It is reasonable to stay because living in the Republic of Gilead is better than being killed for breaking the rules, but Moira seems more human than the others. Some of the others actually beleive what happening is right, and they follow every order and demand. They will rat out some for screwing up in the littlest way. Others will just follow along with it such as Offred, but what frightens me the most about this is that she doesn't feel hatred towards the people putting her through this terrible way of life. At one point in the book Offred says that she should hate the commander and the people in control but she doesn't. I haven't finished the book yet and I am hoping that Luke and Moira in some way will come back to help Offred. I also hope that she finds her daughter and somehow escapes. Even though this is what I hope, I can almost guarantee that this is not going to happen. As we saw in the Scarlet Letter things dont end happily. In childrens books things end happily and leave the reader with the satisfaction that everything worked out. In the real world and in most books things do not end this way. I believe that something horrible will happen and I will finish reading angry about the way that Margaret Atwood chose to end this novel.

Best Puzzle Ever

"The Handmaid's Tale" is not a title that would hook me if I saw if on a Barnes and Noble shelf. All I can say is that I'm glad it was assigned to me, not chosen by my own free will. What I love about this book is the style. I feel as if it is one big jigsaw puzzle that I am building, but I am only given a few pieces at a time. every piece I recieve makes me want to complete the puzzle even more, and I becomes more and more fun. Atwood has done such an excellent job unfolding the mysteries in the book that every time a new revelation is afforded the reader I feel truly blessed, and am very thankful. I do not yet know what the puzzle will end up being of, but the process of building it has been very enjoyable for me. I like how in this book a question that pops into your head is usually not the result of your own poor reading, for it is planted purposely and will be answered later on. Alcott has found the wonderful balance between ignoring her reader and giving them her undivided attention to make the book as fun as possible, and the result is a terrific book.

The Handmaid's Tale blog

I have a love/hate relationship with this book. On one hand, it's a great book! It's so exciting and interesting; it really draws you in and makes you want to read more. However, the feminist in me hates this book. Everytime I open this book to read I am just baffled at how women are treated in this society. After a short while of reading the book, it began to remind me of WWII. These handmaids are so unappreciated and, in a way, tortured for nothing, much like the Jews were during the Holocaust. While studying the Holocaust back in sophomore year, I was infuriated by what I heard and what I read, thinking of how those innocent people were treated; it inspired a violent reaction in me. I just wanted to yell to all of the people in the concentration camps "STAND UP! you don't have to let them treat you like this!" but after really thinking about it, I could see how the Jews reacted the way they did, and I understand why there was never some kind of uprising. but I just don't understand how the handmaids can let themselves be put into a similar situation. I mean, obviously they're not in concentration camps being killed at random and starved and tortured, but they are certainly being abused. They have no rights. For the Jews' situaiton, I can understand; I mean, they were the scapegoats of the world, and the people imprisoning them thought they had no reason to keep them around. But the handmaids have the gift of life! They support and create what the Republic of Gilead will become! The entire world is depending on them! so why shouldn't they have more respect, or stand up and DEMAND more respect? I know, I know, they'll be tortured if they try and stand up. but that's when part of me is like "who cares?!? deal with the pain. it's worth it, if your pain can help the other women get more respect and you can eventually, in your own way, win." if i were a handmaid, i would see winning as not having a child. the whole society wants you to have a kid SOOO bad, and they'll do anything to get to that; they make you seem like you're nothing but a walking womb. so, my way of having power over them would be to not reproduce. i don't know, it just seems so strange to me that these women are so mistreated when pretty much the whole world is depending on them - it just makes no sense!!

Restricted Women

Who is worse off, the wives or the handmaids? As Serena Joy and Offred's connection "grows" (if that's what you want to say it is doing) I feel as though both of their struggles become more visible, and they seem to be struggling with some of the same things. Both are obviously craving some sort of companion, in whatever form. I mean, who wouldn't be. Serena simply has her knitting, gardening, and her status of being a "wife." What is so special about that anymore? You can't even have babies! Offred, in her loneliness could do well for some company (other than the strange company of the commander). Called to Serena's side in the garden, Offred is shocked, but to have a conversation such as her conversations with Ofglen is refreshing in whatever form (though the nerves of fear are prickling her comfort of conversation). Serena is desperate. Desperate to have a baby. Parts of me ask why. Company? To say she has a child? To fit in among a new status of wives? Although, she doesn't seem like the very motherly type. Maybe in the end this doesn't matter, maybe she can have the right to be a mother just as any other woman, or wife. Because obviously, it is not among the right of every woman to have a child (not to mention the capability). In ways I was shocked that Serena suggested Offred get pregnant by someone else, by Nick. But then again, my ideas would go loopy if I were in her situation as well. Although a believer in the beginning (or so I have gathered) it appears that Serena may be falling from her pedestal of belief and into a place where all that matters is having that child. To get Offred out of the house? This could very well be. Her jealousy, though ironic, must be raging. Even though Offred claims her jealousy of the wives multiple times through out the book, I would find it easy for the wives to claim a similar jealousy. They have lost the fruit of life. No longer are they "precious natural resources", which might serve a negative connotation in some cases, but it also makes them simply not precious. Serena is no longer precious to the commander, offred has fallen into that ranks of connection and spirited gaiety, another reason for her to be jealous. The novel would be so shifted if it were from the point of view of a wife. Their raging existence that seems almost pointless. (I would say raging hormones, but without the ability to produce do these hormonal feelings still exist?) So I think I've come to the conclusion that the wives have are off worse. Even though Offred's life is none the best, she has routine, she has freedom in ways unlike the wives. They can do "whatever they want" but she has the freedom of excitement. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong because I guess Offred's life is on the line every month. So I say they both have it hard, both challneged by these new expectations of women, but restricted in this new society.

Lobo and The Handsmaid's Tale

First off, The Handsmaid's tale is one of the best books I have ever read for school, and certainly one of the best I have read for anything else. Really good, weird, but good.

I gotta say that the Repulic of Gilead is probably the most terrifying future that i could possibly imagine. The severe oppression and extreme limiting of rights just seems like the worst possible outcome. The fact that they must live in constant terror that they will be discovered for having the slightest fault, or that if they attempt to take even the slightest pleasure they could be taken by the Eyes is horrific. Personally i would do almost anything for my freedoms and life, so to me the Republic of Gilead just seems so horriblefor the limits on freedoms. I mean technecally thats an amazing way to keep the populace under control, but it still would be a fate worse than death. i think that Atwood wrote this book to advise against religeous fanatacism. I think that her creation of such a powerful government and implementation of such harse regulations upon the citizens of her novel are her way of exaggerating (and thus protesting) the strict rules that the bible would have one follow.
What confuses me the most however is where did the "army" that caused the coup come from? Maybe I just need to read farther, but it hasn't said anything so far. I think that they must be some sort of extremist Christian cult, but i don't see how they the leaders of said army would manage to arm and organize that large of a movement, especially because so violent a movement would require huge amounts of recruits. There is another issue: where did all the recruits for that army come from? Also who were the leaders and organizers of the coup? I think that they are the people who became Commanders, or maybe top Eyes, but who were they back when the US was still kicking? Another question i had was where is the real US army while the coup was occuring. It seems that there would certainitly be a few defectors, but there is no way that the entirety of the army would defect. Maybe the trained soldiers were defeated by the zealous mob? Not particularly feasible, but possible i suppose.
*BEGINNING OF SPOILERISH BIT*
Moira is a difficult character to figure out. For a while she was my favorite character. I loved her from the period of her escape, which was awesome, right up until she was in the Commander's secret club. Now i find it hard to enjoy her character. She seems so broken and tamed compared to what she used to be like. I really didn't expect to see her again in that context. It was bizzare, and it felt like she was a really different character.
*END OF SPOILERISH BIT*
Here's anothe rquestion i had, even though everyone has tried to make everything suicide proof. No knives really, nothing to hang yourselves from, etc. If people really wanted to kill themselves why don't they just bite their tounges and drown in blood? Atwood keeps hinting at Offred wanting to kill herself, but if she really wanted to it would be so easy to off herself. Suicide is still always an option. Or maybe she hangs on for the hope of meeting Luke and her daughter again?
Ya this aught to be a good fun essay to write. Should be good. Good choice of book Lavender! Thanks! we should maybe read Brave New World to see kind of the opposite world. Maybe a good thing to consider.

There are many factors in the republic of Gilead that I find disturbing. Pretty much every aspect of this future society is a nightmare to anyone who can imagine it. It is a society in which almost all human rights have been obliterated and people are now viewed and treated as objects; mainly women. It is a terrifying idea for most of us having our freedom confiscated and having to abide by a society that is so corrupt yet more or less is accepted, because there are no options. A society where women are basically subject to mandatory sex and it isn’t illegal is pretty bad… The frieghtening part is, if this catrastrophy were to happen, who knows how we would react. The idea is scary because when we are subject to chaos and major global tragedies, the majority is left with a decisions made by the government. When fear is embedded in everyone’s thoughts it is easy to control a defensless population that are in need of living necessities. That’s what frieghtens me about this book.

GILEAd

Gilead started off as a mysterious place in the beginning of the book, but it really took a turn for the worse in my eyes. At first, this place just kept me thinking about what it looks like and how every day life is, then I realized how much of a hell it must be for all of those who live there. I don't understand why all the handmaids would be trying to escape. It seems like they are just getting used to and letting every one walk all over them. The Handmaids are told that they are lucky to be in this place and that they are safe. I cant believe that the Handmaids would even listen to all of that propaganda, they are living one of the worst lives ever. Gilead is simply just a huge concentration camp and every one is living a dull and horrible life. It is extremely disturbing how the Handmaids are really only useful for their uterus. They must feel like they are pretty much worth nothing when these commanders just come and knock them up and then peace. If I were living in Gilead I would be continuously trying to escape and if that didn't work out I would probably resort to just killing my self. Not only would it suck for all the handmaids in this so called Utopia, but for every one else who lives there. Life for the guards would suck probably just as much as the handmaids. They just have to do exactly what they are told and there is no time for any fun activities, or even any sexual activities, that sucks.

The Wall

The Republic of Gilead a place were only a few know the real truth and the rest of the people just listen to what they are told. The people of Gilead are completely brainwashed and for the most part do what they are told to in their every day life's. The most disturbing part of the Republic of Gilead is the unknown factor of the city. Offred has no idea of what is going to happen to next. She may be sent to the colonies, she has no identity except her commander. Also the fact that she doesn't know where luke is he may be killed,or maybe he is behind the wall that Offred walks past all the time. The fact that Offred doesn't know were her past or future is going, is the part that disgusts me the most. Hopefully as I read on hopefully we will figure out what is behind that wall, and also figure out where Offred's family is.

How would you feel...?

Honestly, I feel like the most disturbing fact about the Republic of Gilead is the lack of women’s rights. It astonishes me and makes me feel sick reading of women who are practically treated like nothing more than property. The Handmaid’s do not have a voice in, or let alone any rights in their lives. I remember the author describing one of the Handmaid’s feelings towards her commander. The Handmaid’s commander came into her room (she being unaware) and wrongfully snooped around. It was the Handmaid’s room, not the commander’s and perhaps the only tiny amount of privacy or “right” the Handmaid had at all. It also disgusts me that society accepts this sect as a holy practice of the Bible and morals in general. I can’t imagine living as the women do in the book. I would go insane. Like many of the Handmaid’s, the thought and attempt of escape would be on my mind always. As well, I can understand why so many of the Handmaid’s have tried to commit suicide. Can you image not being able to be your own person, or express your self?

The handmaid's Tale

I just found out that there was a Offred before the main character and she had hung herself by the light fixture. Why did she kill herself? Did it have something to do with meeting with the commander secretly? Is it foreshadowing what the main character is going to do later in the book? I think she his too strong to kill herself and she has too many unanswered questions about her family. I think this going to change her relationship with the commander though. She might stop seeing him secretly and work on planning her escape. Also what is up between her and Nick? Has forgotten about Luke and going to start something with Nick? I think it's too dangerous and if she does this, she is going to get caught. I am looking forward to see what is going to happend next.

I don’t think that something like the Republic of Gilead could ever exist in this world because people would never accept to be subdued like that.
In the Republic, people there are not living their lives at all, they’re being told what to do all day long, non-stop.
They can’t read, they can’t write, they’re not even allowed to love a man… All this is crazy and it could never happen because I think that most of the people would kill themselves before ending up like that. I mean, I would kill myself.
Women are used for reproduction: they’re not human beings anymore; they don’t have feelings anymore or better, they do have feelings but it doesn’t matter.
Some people gave up and accepted to live like that; others like the main character try to find a way out, a way to get back to the life they used to have.
I didn't know what to think when I was reading about the Commander and his office full of books, magazines, with pens and paper to write... and I felt sorry for Offren reading the description of her feelings as she was holding a pen to write down that famous latin sentence. I mean, I can write every single day, whenever I want and I think I could never live without it...
In the Republic of Gilead what we have in our everyday life is no longer existing. There's no individual freedom, no more rights... there's no life anymore.

The Ceremony

The most disturbing part of the book so far is definitely the ceremony. Not because of the detail, but because of the process they descrbe. The Republic of Gilead has completely stripped society of any form of intimacy or a sacred bond between two people. Sex is no longer a way to love one another, it has been transformed into a mandated process involving not the necessary two, but three people! How do the children in the Republic feel, knowing they were created by force not want or love. I guess you could argue that they have no knowledge of society previous to the Republic of Gilead, but wouldn't they still wonder why they don't resemble their "mother". I find it hard to accept the ceremony as appropriate because I believe sex it a basic human need. If you take the pleasure or recreation out of sex, will it still satisfy our desire? I think the Handmaids and the Commanders would increase their chances of pregnacy if they were to have sex in private, on their own account, instead of participating in the ceremony. I feel sympathy for the other members of the Republic who aren't even allowed to have sex, because it should be saved for the more important people. For example, Nick finds pleasure in something as trivial as touching Offred's foot. This desperation could lead to a revolt. I hope that in the end the Republic of Gilead is overthrown and society returns to its former ways. By restoring the institution of love and marriage to its original state, I think there would be a rise in birth rates, because people would actually want to have sex with their spouse. I guess it is true: you'll never know how much you appreciate something or someone till it is or they are gone.

Handy Maid

I believe that Atwood is mostly anti-authoritarian in her writing of this novel. She warns of the endless horrific possibilities that such a totalitarian regime can bring. The author also predicted the plummeting birth rates of our society. We will soon dip below the 2.1 birthrate that keeps the world population steady. But I think that this could be a good thing. Our world is already overpopulated and if it gets past a certain point the earth will not able to support everyone: either some will die, or everyone will die as a result of making our planet inhospitable. I like how Atwood also made it so clear that any crazy person can justify their actions by using the bible. Any tyrant can say that he is the hand of god, but most of the time when this happens, the tyrant in question far from godly.

$The Republic of Gilead$

The most disturbing part of TRoG is the treatment of there women. The fertile women are there last chance for survival and there most valued resource that we have left. There is no point in protecting anything eles if there is no. one to enjoy it in the future. I feel like this prison like holding i can understand for protection but it is not the way that they should be treated since they are the last hope for children.
If the hand maids were allowed more privileges they would not be less depresses, wouldn't try and escape or commit suicide. They are put in a bad situation too start but i feel the republic make this situation 10 times worse.....

Disturbing Mindsets

The whole concept of this society in the Republic of Gilead is all around very odd. Many of the mindsets that people have discovered and conformed to simply seem inhumane. It is disturbing how a group that has set themselves higher in society are so easily able to control the lives of others. From living in a world where people have the freedom to live their lives to a world where different groups are forced to live different ways just seems like a awful way of life. The way that the handmaids are made to sleep with the commanders is disgusting. People in this fictional society have become so obsessed with living along with what they perceive to be God's word they have become almost insane. The bible does state that children are needed but the way in which these people see that is most likely not the way it was meant to be intended. I guess what really bothers me about their ways is the ignorance that all have such as being forbidden to take a shower after sex and concepts like that. Also, to me, I don't feel that a child born from another woman and told to have their mother be another, is wrong. There are proven studies in psychology that show that an infant and their mother create a bond when it is first born and they are inborn with certain senses to find comfort in their mother from scent and sight more than any other woman or man. Another part of this lifestyle I find very disturbing is that way that the handmaids have to have sex. First of all, they are aloud to have sex for no other reason than to make children. Humans have sexual organs because it is a part of life and so to give a woman no choice in who she sleeps with is not the way that the system is supposed to go. Secondly, when it does come time to be with the commander, all the handmaid is allowed to do is lay there. Some say that that is their choice out of the slim amount of choices given but essentially it is rape. The only reason that these women give concent for these actions is because the other options are not any better if not worse. In conclusion, the whole system in the Republic of Gilead seems very corrupt and unnatural. Babies should be born to their true mothers and those women who are no longer able to conceive should not be cared for by the woman who are still blessed with that gift. They had their chance and they lost it.

Handmaids

The Republic of Gilead is insane. I mean, I can understand about the declining birth rate but do they have to have handmaids? Can't fertile women be able to at least choose who they have to have sex with? Also, it doesn't make any sense to assign the handmaids to old geezers who might not be able to fertilize a garden, let alone a woman's egg. It bothers me that whoever is in charge refuses to see that it would be smarter for the handmaids to have sex with someone who is younger. Then, if the handmaid does become pregnant, the child can go to the Commanders and their Wives. If the handmaids are with a guy who is single, then maybe the sex wouldn't be so awkward, because you know that it would be mighty awkward to have sex with the person's spouse right behind you. I just don't like how the handmaids are just passed around like a Christmas present that nobody wants, or like a fruit cake. Hee, hee. That was funny. Anywho, another thing that they handmaids have to go through that is unfair is how they will get sent to the Colonies if they don't become pregnant with three consecutive Commanders. Their ability to become pregnant isn't their fault, women can't just will themselves into becoming pregnant. Well, kind of, but they can't will the actual baby into existence. I don't believe that people should be punished for something that they can't control. I can see the rational side to it (it would be a waste to have a woman who can't reproduce and who can't be a wife in this particular society), but that doesn't mean that I agree with it.

GILEAD

Gilead started off as a mysterious place in the beginning of the book, but it really took a turn for the worse in my eyes. At first, this place just kept me thinking about what it looks like and how every day life is, then I realized how much of a hell it must be for all of those who live there. I don't understand why all the handmaids would be trying to escape. It seems like they are just getting used to and letting every one walk all over them. The Handmaids are told that they are lucky to be in this place and that they are safe. I cant believe that the Handmaids would even listen to all of that propaganda, they are living one of the worst lives ever. Gilead is simply just a huge concentration camp and every one is living a dull and horrible life. It is extremely disturbing how the Handmaids are really only useful for their uterus. They must feel like they are pretty much worth nothing when these commanders just come and knock them up and then peace. If I were living in Gilead I would be continuously trying to escape and if that didn't work out I would probably resort to just killing my self. Not only would it suck for all the handmaids in this so called Utopia, but for every one else who lives there. Life for the guards would suck probably just as much as the handmaids. They just have to do exactly what they are told and there is no time for any fun activities, or even any sexual activities, that sucks.

Republic of Gilead

There are many things that i find disturbing about the Republic Of Gilead. First off, the fact that the majority of society isn't allowed to express their selves in any way. Whether it's through reading, writing, sex, or even through their clothing, none of it is allowed in this society. This is what is most terrifying to me.
To me a good ending would be to have Offred or whatever her real name is to find her daughter and live happily ever after, it would also be cool if she got a big gun and went Rambo on all of the bad guys. but that wont happen I'm sure it will be more along the lines of her getting pregnant and falling in love with the commander or something lame like that.
what is confusing me is how this society has become so corrupt and mysterious in such a short period of time... what happened? Is it really only because of falling birth rates or is there something more to it?

The Handmaid's Tale (WARNING: possible spoiler alert)

The Handmaid's Tale was an awesome book. Even so, it was an upsetting book to read. The whole idea that women were basically like breeding sows was repulsive. I hated the idea that they had no choice. They were supposedly protected, but protected from what? All the men were so whipped it would have been hard for them to do anything. (Then again, with the way things were, the men might have gotten even more dangerous. At least the women were protected in some ways from the desperate needs of men; they weren't sex toys. ) Expecting them all to be baby mamas and then punishing them if they weren't was preposterous. And what was the point of having a wife? They were a religious "republic"; wouldn't it seem more reasonable to have a Handmaid as a wife and punish the Wives for being barren? Wasn't having a Handmaid just another form of adultery? And the need to hide the women's bodies, their faces - like when Offred went in for her doctor's appointment and during the Ceremony - it was like they weren't real people. You should look someone in the eye when you plan on taking their liberty away. Otherwise you're a coward. The whole idea behind it was cowardly - hiding their faces behind those white wings they had to wear. It was a cowardly society, a desperate society based on the need to reproduce. They became barbaric, animal -like almost.
The writing was powerful. The images were vivid. The story was beautifully sad. I really did like it, but sometimes I had to put it down just because it made me angry to keep reading it. But that's the mark of a good writer: to be able to invoke emotion into one's readers. And she definitely did that.

Cornucopia of questions

If you were to make a film of this novel, what specific challenges would you face in translating it from word to screen?

Actors would have to understand the attitudes and feelings present. They would need to read the book, not just the script. It's hard to get into character without knowing the real character, and having a director tell you does not work either.

What do you suppose motivated Atwood to write this book?

Atwood is rebelling. Just like Hester in Scarlet Letter, she is rebelling to the conformities of society. Atwood takes it to the extreme by bringing to life the future society.

Given that this book was written in 1986, which parts seem especially 'prescient?'

Definitely the environmental aspect. The pollutants released and destruction caused is as accurate as it gets. The eventual outcome of infertility and 'shredders' are something that is slightly showing up (in terms of heightened rate of birth defects) but that has not proven true yet. Also, the compucard is the closest thing to our debit cards. Not called the same thing and no one universal bank (that would be unconstitutional), but performs the same task.

What's left you confused about the reading thus far?

I don't understand why women have a specific time frame for being handmaids (aren't you fertile until around 40?). Then are these girls (children) being raised also as handmaids and what happens to the boys' childhood? When will they stop doing that (what population level are they trying to reach)? Who's idea was this? Who came up with the plan - is it a dictatorship?

What ending are you anticipating?

I think that the Commander will start explaining the system to Offred. This will answer my most pressing question. Also, I don't think she is going to have a baby, ever. The ending will be a cliff hanger, maybe the historical notes will help, but generally it will be up to the reader to decide. And I hate those endings, it ruins the book for me.

SPOILERS

The thing that disturbed me the most of the Republic of Gilead is, the future of it. It seemed everyone was living their day to simply be living it, to continue their species. There was no pleasure, no fun, no recreation, just living your life to do the duty that was assigned to you. Offred has to live her life as a handmaid, but what about after. What if she had a baby, but then couldn't produce any more? She would not be sent to the colonies, but where would she go? Would she be free to live her life as she chose? Could she find a new love, maybe live with Nick and start a new family? In my opinion this government would not allow her, they would force to be some sort of ecnowife or some other form of slavery. I guess my point is, what is the point? It seems no character in the novel does anything for themselves. There is a slight mention of the upper class going golfing, but even then its government approved fun. Towards the end of the novel as we begin to discover Offred really is pregnant with Nick, you wonder what next? These two have found some sort of happiness in this world devoid of it and after Offred gives birth, will she just be shipped off to continue to bear children for old men? Will she again be forced to abandoned the ones she loves for the sake of this new government which has given her nothing in return? In the end there is of course hope for Offred, but what about the countless of other people in her situation. How can a government run with so many under its power so depressed? The answer to that it to install fear in them, but its only a matter of time, as we learn in the Historical notes, before this government falls. I like to imagine it falls due to an uprising, some people standing against what is happening. But alas, we will never know.

Lies, secrets, deceit

Secrecy. When is it acceptable to keep secrets? Is it really in the best interest of others? What if what you think is best for them isn't right? It is hard to answer these broad questions without bringing in my judgment and personal experiences. In Scarlet Letter, there are a few quotes I am thinking about using: page 70 (couple parts), page 72 (bottom paragraph), page 78 (last 3 lines).

I would like to start my essay with Hester and her secrecy, but then travel away from the book and look at the truth in a world view. Do people really tell the truth? Why do we lie? They say to protect others but I suspect actually to protect themselves. When lying, do we even realize what we are doing? Furthermore, there is an interesting psychological component to lying. Some people feel guilty and show obvious signs of it, while others feel nothing. Some people hate it when they are deceived and feel like their trust has been broken. What shapes how people view lying? Past deceits? Insecurity? That is a neat area to go deeper into.

Next, comes the invention of lying. Who thought that it would be ok to not tell the truth? Not say what they saw/heard/felt. Were they one of the people that feel not guilt when lying? That don't feel violated when they are lied to? I think they were one the insecure people that wanted to improve upon their life. They knew if they fibbed a tad bit, no one would know, and the outcome would be beneficial to them. But the didn't realize the consequences and aftermath. The Salem Witch trials are a perfect example. The girls didn't mean any harm, but to get out of something they did wrong, they lied and blamed others, which in turn cost them their lives. Normally outcomes are not that serious, but this was to the extreme and if everyone knew about that, maybe they would change their habits. Then, there are the people that mock those girls but more so the ministers that believed them. Nowadays we have a bs monitor constantly on. We like to call people out of it. The creation of bluffing in poker illustrates that.

Essay...

A dance with fear; as fear is associated with shame. I will begin my essay by addressing Hester's negligence to cover the scarlet A in order to rise above the publics diminishing eye and show pride in her newfound identity; thus banishing the factor of shame which the public desires her to express. However, does this truly free her of the fear and shame of which she wishes to be emancipated from through conducting such an action? No, fear manifests itself in Pearl, and although Hester wishes to be rid such fear, it follows her. I will then delve deeper as to why Pearl is a symbol of fear; being a constant reminder of the sin, through her obsession with the letter, never being able to escape from criticism [I will probably use the river scene to further address this] ect. Then, for the majority of my essay, I will discuss how fear is a binding and limiting asset to life. Fear is the door to our self-created prison, it is a gate-keeper that only exists in our mind. While other who are free of sin can walk in and out of the gates (reality) at will, those engrossed with fear are limited of such a freedom. 

essay

Have you ever wondered why certain laws exsist. Sometimes you try to find a moral code behind these laws and you can't find anything. In the Scarlet letter Hester is shunned for loving someone other than her old creepy husband. This should be a private matter solved between the three of these individuals, not between Hester and all of society. Society has nothing to do with this matter and they should take no part in butting in. Rather than a sin, adultery is an individuals choice which should be respected. I find that within our legal system there are many random crimes that are looked down upon similar to the one portrayed in this book. The punishment given in return is more of a crime than the actual crime. People should have the freedom to choose for themselves and live the way they want to live. This doesn't go to say that hard crimes which harm others should be legal, they very well should not.
In the case with Hester, she is made to follow a certain path in life that she isn't allowed to break out of. She is forced into marriage at the young age of 13 because her family doesn't have the money to support her. From here she is made to be with Chillingworth for the rest of her life. Before she even reaches her peak of womanhood her life is over. She tries to break out of this path when she meets Dimmsdale and is punished for it. She never once has the option to choose for herself. Society suffocates her with it's rigid nosiness.

hypocrisy essay

Ironically, when Mr. Lavender was talking about "what Meghan would write her essay about" in class, he was kind of correct in his assumption. I do want to write aobut hypocrisy. When we were first assigned this essay, I thought I was going to write about feminism, or the lack thereof, in The Scarlet Letter. Hawthorne's passages about feminism really inspired me, and I was convinced that I would be able to write an interesting and insightful essay about the subject. However, after letting the idea percolate for a while, I was at a loss. I couldn't think of something on the subject of feminism that I wanted to say. So I started to think about other "key themes" within the novel, and the idea of hypocrisy really stuck with me. One of my pet peeves has always been hypcrites (even though I, myself, am very hypocritical at times). The passage in The Scarlet Letter where Dimmesdale is looking down on Hester, encouraging her to call forth her lover as to convict him, too, even though he WAS the lover was really intense. Just the irony was fascinating. It then lead me to think of other exmaples of hypocrisy in my life. I first thought of Telluride. Telluride prides itself on being an outstandingly openminded and welcoming town. That is, if you agree with them. As a slightly conservative minded Texas chick, I am regularly at odds with the common opinion of Telluride. And while Telluride claims to be so openminded, I found myself regularly persecuted for having different opinions than those of most Telluride residents.
Another example that came to mind was the blatant hypocrisy of many organized religions. I am a follower of the Christian faith, and I've never been shy about that. However, I quick to recognize the multitude of wrongdoings and acts of hypocrisy within the sphere of modern Christianity. As our country continues to struggle for the rights of gay and lesbian couples, many "Christians" protest this with signs saying things along the lines of "God hates fags" and "homos will burn in hell." Things like this literally nauseate me. A passage in the book of 1 Corinthians in the Bible states "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing....these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." I am baffled as to how these "Christian" people can read this passage, and yet say that God, who is, in His very essence, love, would hate someone on any occasion.
Yet another exmaple I find within myself. I often say that I am INFURIATED by my mother's inability to remember things and that she cannot stay focused on any one thing at any given time. She is the epitome of an A.D.D. sufferer. And yet, while those traits in her drive me mad, I can often be exactly like her. I have issues focusing on thigns for long periods of time, and I'm often too distracted by my surroundings to remember anything, important or otherwise.
Hypocrisy is all around us. We see examples of on a daily basis. It's the complacency with hypocrisy in our society that I want to write about.

The love hate relationship

What is love without hate? What is happiness without sadness? Can one truly exist without the other? In our society we see on a daily basis the balance of love and hate and how they are very much the yin and yang of our emotional world. Roger Chillingworth for example has a love hate relationship with Hester Prynn, he still loves her for she was his wife, but on the other hand he resents her because of her not being faithful to him. The same thing applies to Hester and her relationship with Pearl. There is no doubt that Hester loves Pearl but there is a question of whether or not Pearl is the result of sin and what that may or may not entail. This also applies to my grade.
I have a love, hate relationship with the boys in my grade. Individually they are awesome but as a whole they are obnoxious. But it is my choice on whether or not I allow them to make me mad or laugh. We have a choice when it comes to our emotions, it is completely up to the individual on how they are going to react It is true that our humanistic instincts cause us to want to react in a specific way but whether or not you give in to that instinct is up to them. It is also true that as humans we tend to focus on the negatives rather than the positives because it is more acceptable to think that you look ugly then pretty in our society. On the other hand if you are walking down the hallway and you see someone glare at you most likely you would turn away. But if you walk down the hallway and someone smiles at you, you begin to smile to and so on and so forth.

The Great Level of an Ant

In my essay I will be addressing the idea of Feminism and the existence (or nonexistence) of it in society and nature. I will base my idea of the Scarlet Letter through the use of three different scenes (Forest, Scaffold at Night, Scaffold at Day-last scene). Then use my idea to incorporate ants (which may sounds weird) as a way of proving that feminism does not naturally exist in nature. This will tie back to humans because it is true that women have a certain conneciton with nature through their cycles and such, therefore they attain a certain strength. Men feel as though society is theirs which is in ways true because they define things such as "adultry." Women may conform to the ideals of this society but really they never fit in because of their eternal conneciton with nature and a strength that is simply too strong for society. Just as men will never truly fit in with nature (as Dimmesdale doesn't in the forest, or male ants don't in their colonies). They may feel a certain comfort within but, truly men depend on women to interact with nature for them (ie, Dimmesdale craving for Hester's strength, which in the end she gives him and the female ant's ability to collect food and care for the colony while the men must depend on them to continue their work).

In a way, humans have messed up this natural system of feminist order (where everything is equal, even though the women may have more power, so it is more balanced) by placing men "in charge." All of a sudden they are the only ones who can do anything or be successful. In Puritan New England this aspect of society is very important, submitting the women into a way of tortured silence. They may only clean, care, and cook while the men are out being triumphant. Really, the women should be because they have a connection with all that is natural in this world. In Hester's case, she has escaped this hold of society and using some sort of strength (even though it portrayed itself in a bad way) she has pulled away and found her connection once again with nature (especially seen in the forest). Yes, she is tortured from her sin but she remains in Boston to develop on inner strength that changes her appearance in the eyes of the people.

She has built herself up to the level of ant (almost taking society with her), ironic yes because ants are so little, but they embody the ideal characteristics of a balanced world of gender roles. Everyone respects where they are to be and does what they know how to do instinctively, just as women do in society but they are pushed behind bars and told HOW to do what they already know and then kept from doing more of what they really could do. But these ants, living in perfect harmony respecting the superiority of the females. Hester has once again found this ability to be her own person and to lead (even through a sin). I mentioned that she is bringing society with her and in ways this is true because as she transforms, not only learning from her mistake but building an inner strength she suddenly becomes "our Hester," transforming the ideal of a strong women in the eyes of society.

Dimmesdale has fallen apart, any strength or self wisdom he once retained deteriorating and wiped away by the realities of society. Hester IS so much stronger in him in coming forward to admit her sin and he cant even do that. He begs for her strength which she so willingly hands over because she loves him, but also because her femininity naturally reach out to help others and love. Her strength is so great that after seven years of suffering(?) she throws away her letter and begs him to go away with her. Betraying her (in the public eye), which is in ways a power trip by men, Dimmesdale still begs for her mercy and her ability to share her strength. She shares with him. She hands over her heart, submitting to this man, but still holding strong to her own strength. Forever, she will be above all because she has admitted to this sin she committed and lived with it for years, attached to her side and her breast. She will always have a certain strength because in her connection with nature (sex) she stepped above and took control, just as the ants would do. She continues to care for others, "collecting food" and "running her own society."

Just throwing in one more thing. In my psych book it said that autistic minds are like a sever case of a male brain. They can't communicate, they have issues being social, and their empathetic level is low or nonexistent. Sad, but true, this is seen greatly by Dimmesdale's ignorance of his sin and the way it deteriorates him. But maybe it's true, maybe he can't step out of the way men naturally are. And maybe that is why women are so powerful because they can step out of how they are and hold back on themselves. Pushed back by the norms of society, they have to control their own strengths and this takes strengths. They are strong by unwillingy controlling their natural actions while men couldn't even naturally consider doing this.

Morals

For my paper I am going to go off the basis of peoples morals and how they have changed. This is a very broad subject though so from that I am going to go more specifically into morals using the concept of nurture vs nature and if society breeds evil. When we look back today the actions that occurred in the Puritan times seem not even fathomable but in those days, it was the norm. Also, in Puritan times, if you were to go against an idea you would most likely be condemned. With this, I think that I'll be able to see how when people grow up in a society with fear, they may act differently and not discuss their true views openly, but in societies that are open to new ideas people are much more likely to also show their own views. Now the question from that asks which is which? Is is NATURAL for a human to have certain views if they are born into it or is it the nurture that once they are born, shapes them? How big of a role does fear play? Religion? What are all the factors that can change someones values? In this essay I will narrow down and discover what seems to be the most plausible cause to how people shape their views and what that has done in our world today to shape how the whole world and single communities adapt to change. Over the years, we have all become more capable of change, but why? Who started the idea of change and what caused that to begin...

Playa's and Sluts

My essay issay is going to be about the unequal treatment of women vs. men. I will start my argument by going over some of the cruel things that happened in The Scarlett Letter. For example, when any women sleepes with another man besides her husband she is commiting adultry. On the other hand, when the man cheats on his wife the communtiy does not look at him as commitng adultry, but rather commiting lechery. In society back in the 17th century the persception of adultry was a lot worse of a crime than lechery. This makes no sense conssiderding that they are commiting the exact same crime. The woman, who is Hester in this case, gets tourmented for a whole 7 years about the crime, while the name of her accomplice doesn't even come about. The man that she cheats with doesn't even give his name up for 7 years and then he kills himself because he thinks he has been tortured for all of those years. Hester was the real person who had been tortured for all of those years. After explaining how the two genders were treated differently for the same crime, I am goin to talk about how the same thing happens in this day and age. Although the legal system these days treats men and woman the same, the eyes of the public has a completely different perseption. These day's when a girl sleeps with a large number of men she is immidiatly considered a slut. Not only is she considered a slut by the men, she is also considered a slut by her fellow girlfriends. On the other hand, when a guy gets his mac on and sleeps with a bunch of girls, he is immidiatly considered a player. This will all just add to my argument that the treatment of the two genders has been the same since the 17th century.

How should people deal with shame?

How should people deal with shame? Is there a right way to deal with shame? Should you hide your shame like Dimmesdale or ignore it like Chillingworth. Or should you embrace it like Hester. I think you have to embrace it and not hide it. If you keep your shame to yourself, you can never get over it. You will always be unhappy. If you can stare shame in the face, you might have deal with the consequences of being judged by everyone else, but you can "scare it away" and get on with your life.

$HAME AND THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN NATURE AND $OCIETY

revenge

For my paper i will be writing about revenge. What it is, why people seek it, what it leads to. the main question i will be asking is "Does revenge ultimately lead to resolution or corruption?" I'll use examples like Chillingsworth and his change throughout the book for an example of the effects of revenge. In the beginning, Chillingsworth has an air of “oh, I’m finally going to boston, I’ll see my wife…” but what he sees is his wife on the scaffold with a young child of her own. After seeing this he decides he’ll do whatever it takes to find the man that tempted his wife, and won. Throughout the book Chillingsworth starts looking more deformed and takes on a darker and darker role. The revenge he seeks is corrupting him. But are there instances where revenge doesn’t corrupt the seeker? I’ll be exploring different contemporary novels to find the answer.

Theocracy

In this essay, I'm going to talk about religion. My intention is to explain how powerful it has been in the centuries and how powerful it still is.
When Hester Prynne lived, the Church was the strongest institution able to influence an entire society. Pearl was called the "demon child" and one of the descriptions Hawthorne gives her says "There was a fire in her and through her; she seemed the unpremeditated offshot of a passionate moment".
Now, the Church seems not so important as it used to be, but I know that in the 21st century, many people couldn't live without it. They need a guide to tell them what to do and apparently that guide is God. Some pray many times a day, they go to church every Sunday and sometimes even during the week. They have the same belief that people had three centuries ago and they strongly critize those like me, who believe neither in God nor in Church.
I come from Italy, the State of the Catholic Church, and I can tell you that the Pope has an immense power and an unbelievable leverage on the government. This is important to say just to make you understand that the Church still IS powerful; only, people don't talk about it as much as they used to do.
Some of the questions I'll try to answer are: Is there a difference between God and Church? What brings people to be religious? Is religion useful?.
As a conclusion, I will write about some of my personal experiences that brought me not to believe either in Church or in God.

Essay....

For my essay i want to focus on the role of a persons actions in shaping one's character. The ultimate question i will hopefully answer is, "Should we judge someone based on what they appear to do?" I will start my essay by exploring both Hester and Mr. Dimmesdale's contributions or services to society and contrast those with their internal thoughts. Although this will kind of tie into hypocrisy, i want to delve deeper into how the townspeople view these two characters and how they view each other. Is intimacy the only way to truly know someone? I hope to transition into assessing the actions of contemporary people, such as the students at THS. I will provide stereotypical examples to reveal that a persons actions do not accurately reflect their internal selves. Such as the student body president who seeks to rebel, or the loner who wants to be a part of the in crowd, or even the teachers who desperately wish they could find more excitement in their everyday lives. I think the contrast between what someone does with who they are will provide me with a strong foundation for my essay. For the conclusion i would like tie this topic in with how we judge people, and if judgement is rational or necessary because we will never truly know other people's internal selves. Should we completely eliminate judgement and criticism since the things we judge and criticize are not accurate representations of a person's true character. Throughout life we all find some sort of self identity, but sometimes the identity we choose to project may not be the true identity of our inner being. I think my essay will argue that outward appearance is insignificant, and society should focus less on how we perceive other people and more on how we perceive ourselves. If we truly know ourselves we have the power to reveal our genuine identity to others, thus eliminating the hypocrisy of external appearance. Hopefully i can use the characters in the Scarlet Letter as a starting point and expand on contemporary characters to bring home my arguement. It seems i have already answered my central question, but my essay will serve as a rationale for my answer.

Respect vs. Fear

I'm not quite sure exactly how to start this, but I'm thinking of writing my essay on the themes of respect, shame and fear through parenting. Comparing and Contrasting today's society to Hester's will be a main focal point as well, and asking questions regarding if society is better today. Through the parenting of Pearl, I feel that I can show these aspects clearly. In the Scarlet letter Hester at times treats pearl with what we would feel today unacceptable "Do not tease me, ; else I shall shut you in a dark closet!" It was custom in Hester's age to treat children harshly in order to obey their parents, or the law (even if this meant beating them for no reason) "The discipline of the family, in those days, was of a far more rigid kind than now. The frown, the harsh rebuke, the requent application of the rod, enjoined by scriptural authority, were used, not merely in the way of punishment for actual offences, but as a wholesome regimen for the growth and promotion of childish virtues. Hester Prynne, nevertheless, the only mother of this one child, ran little risk of erring on the side of undue severity". Actions were immediately followed by consequences out of a fearful respect. As well, during Hester's time there were not as many statistics of teenage pregnancy, rape, or other horrible acts. Is this a result of the harsh consequences that were immediately gien after actions? Today's society it seems is haunted by high statistics of the previous listed. As well, consequences don't seem to reach the finality and harshness as they did in earlier times as they do today. I'm not saying that we should beat our children in order for factors in society (such as rape) to be lessened, but only that a much higher no tolerance level was found in Hester's time.
These are just my beginning thoughts, but this is an idea of what I'm going to write about...

Hypocrisy, the ultimate conformity?

well i guess i am going to start with describing Hester's form of hypocrisy, how she conforms to how the society wants her to be but on the inside she feels completely different. then I might go on to discuss Dimmsdale and how it might be fear of shame that will have people conform and surrender to hypocrisy. after this i will apply this to more recent events, like Ted Haggardy's [DELETED]
I really think that that hypocrisy is the ultimate version of conformity and I'd like to compare these thoughts to some of what Emerson had to say and ponder over what he would have to say about all of this. And I'll probably try to fit in some stuff about how shame will make us do some pretty shallow things, for example; Dimmsdale's [DELETED] Finally I might end this amazing essay with some examples of people who are celebrated for being freethinking individuals and how our modern day vision of the world is not as blinded by religion and other people's thoughts making for a less hypocritical world.

Banished

Is it ok for society to exclude people from communities? Well, in The Scarlet Letter Hester is looked down upon by the Boston Community for her adulterous actions. She is frowned upon because she broke the laws that society created. In reality who is to say what is right or wrong, in a perfect world people would be doing the same actions, but there would not be laws holding you back. Therefore people would not be excluded from their communities, from stupid laws. I am going to base my essay of the quote when Dimmesdale is speaking about pearl and how she can do what ever she wants, "save the freedom of a broken law." This means that she is free to do whatever she wants because she has already broken the law. I am going to connect the events in The Scarlet Letter to the community of Telluride. For example if you duck a rope in the ski area you are banished for two years. In a utopia community, people would be responsible for there own actions, and pay the consequence for their own actions. Another example would be for possession of drugs, if they get caught they get thrown in jail, when really people should make their own decisions instead of society making them up. Overall people should be smart for their own actions, and society should not be telling people what they can and cannot do.

Topical

I am going to write about theocracies. I may connect the nature of theocracies to their roots in hypocrisy and their general overall anti-feminism. Many religions that rule the nations they occupy generally have many rules that either do not apply to everyone (such as make exceptions for the rich) or have laws that severely discriminate against one certain group of people (women are generally targeted in modern day theocracies in such places as the Middle-East). I may compare a modern day theoretical nation, such as Iran, to that of the one in which Hester Prynne habituated and functioned in. I could also talk about why such countries seem to be so far "behind" western civilizations in human and empathetic terms. And also why the USA seems to lag behind nations around the world (especially Europe) in these same areas of human compassion.

Essay

I've been intrigued by the notions of hypocrisy and shame. How do the two ideas connect? Does hypocrisy lead to shame, does shame lead to hypocrisy? Is there even a connection to explore? I want to focus on Arthur Dimmesdale, on the hypocrisy of preaching against sin, but committing the darkest of sins himself, and how he feels such an intense level of shame at what he did that it leaves a mark on his chest, similar to Hester's scarlet "A." I can take my own experience to round the essay out a bit. Mine would be more like saying one thing and holding the opposite view, as opposed to Dimmesdale's, where he has to act and talk a certain way in the view of others, but acts a different way, at least once, when the public eye isn't on him. Any suggestions are welcome and appreciated.

In my Scarlet Letter essay i will compare and contrast the similarities in Puritan life with our current society and the world we live in today. One of the main themes in the book is the power of shame and how people react under pressure. Rules and regulations are a part of life that people must learn to except and abide by, or else are punished and/or subject to outcast. People, when being accused of breaking rules, more often than not, have no choice than to except the punishment. I think it is because they have no room to think for themselves while being so entangled and involved with this society that cracks down on them for a mistake they have made or a crime they commited. The fact is, people dont want to be singled out, people feel safe as a whole, it is easier to conform than be true to what you think, and as far as i can see, that has how it has always been with human kind. People in general, are scared to think for themselves and do what they want, because there are always boundries and unacceptance. Hester Prine knows that she has commited adultery, with the entire community against her, she bravely stands up and is quite frank about what she has done. Yet she has become an adultress, yet an outcast. She cannot live her life without people treating her differently. The fact is, weather people think its right or not, they know its not accepted and is considered a sin. The rest of the people wont give any simpathy. Even ol Dimmsdale wont even man up and admit hes the father of the child, with a fear of what the rest will think. When people live by a set of rules, especially those set around a form of worship to the 'almighty one' feel that its the only way to be, and eventually forget how to feel or act how they normally would. Take an example of homosexual child that is abondoned by his family solely for his sexuality. What would these parents think if noone ever told them it was wrong or 'unholy' to be interested in the same sex?? people are affraid to think forthemselves, in fear of being denied all the necessities a society offers, but in order to get these benifits. you are forced to conform.

Exceptionalism

For my paper I will explore the idea of exceptionalism, using the theocracy of Boston as a starting point and moving into history as I progress. The idea will be built on the portraits Hawthorne paints of several characters, that among them the Governor, Mistress Hibbins, and even Dimmsdale himself. Though a dramatic theme of the book throughout is the intensive "modesty" and "dark" nature of the Puritans, the Governor lives in a fine house complimented by a host of other "comforts." His sister, Mistress Hibbins, though being a well know witch, is left uncharged and uncontested by dint of her gubernatorial relation. And Dimmsdale, hero to the people, took a young, and believed to be widowed girl to his own at least once-a clear violation of his position, but one that he granted himself nonetheless. Using these contextual examples I will wind my way into exploring the hypocrisy of various "pious" groups, but most importantly the story of those who sustain them. Why did the serfs of Europe support their Lords for thousands of years. Why have citizens generally been so happy to commit their own resources to a clergy, monastery, or even government. Is this for the best? I think that the answer will not be black and white, and will generally follow the current of "a ruling body should only have the blessing of the people on whom they depend if it makes both their ends clear, makes their means clear, and stick religiously to those means."

Zero Draft

For my paper I'm going to write about outcasts using Pearl as my tie to The Scarlet Letter. What makes an outcast? Is it a personal choice or is it predetermined by the environment? How do outcasts behave, around each other, around others, and by themselves? I'm going to use my own personal experience and then a summary of Pearl to create a profile of an outcast. It's kind of rough around the edges right now and will definetly need some editing, but I think I'll be able to smooth it out. Any suggestions will be welcomed.

Hypocrit Prospectus

If I was to create a religion, thou shalt not lie would not be one of the commandments. Though shalt not lie means no softening of reality (you couldn’t tell your 4 year old that the dog ‘just went off to camp’), no sparing your grandmother a heart attack while recounting your whitewater rafting trip, no Santa Claus. Lying is not necessarily incorrect. And hypocrisy is not necessarily a bad thing either. In most cases, honesty is really the best policy. But is it wrong for the high-school dropout working at Wal-Mart to encourage his/her children to work hard in school? Or is it immoral for the sinful minister to preach righteousness to his people, in the hopes that his holy appearance may inspire goodness in them? Mr. Dimmesdale’s hypocrisy is not out of selfishness or cowardice. In fact, it is to Dimmesdale’s “unutterable torment” to “cover [his crime] in his heart”. So is a martyred hypocrite truly iniquitous?

"Two or three individuals hinted, that the man of skill, during his Indian captivity, ... their skill of black art."

I highlighted this section of my book because it intrigued me. It points out the fact that society is starting to wonder about Chillingworth. During the Puritan time period any form of witchcraft was much looked down upon. In the margin or my book this made me ask some questions. The questions were is Chillingworth the devil or possessed by him in any way? And does he use black art or is it just how he is, that makes people assume thats what he does. In addition to that inquiry, is black art always a bad thing? As of in Puritan society, it was not accepted at all but in those times they also trusted a man as a doctor who just said he had knowledge of medicine. Now we ignore people who participate in black magic more so and pay mush more attention to people's justifications for jobs. I guess the main reason I marked and found this interesting in the book is because of one, the differences in that society and society today and also just the fact that people thought of Chillingworth as almost a "savior" and now they are questioning their conclusions.

"But the first object of which Pearl...the scarlet letter on Hester's bosom!" pg 86

I found this quote to be intriguing because the worst critic that would possibly rest their eyes on the scarlet letter is Pearl. Hester being forced to live with the demon child, of whom has come to become drawn to the letter, poses no escape from the ridicule. The last place that Hester would want to have to hide her true self or be ridiculed was within her own home. The child being drawn to the letter signifies that evil dwells within the child. Because she is a result of a sin, she has no need to act upon a life of reform, or to follow the rules. Uhh.. my brain has shut off... 

generosity of a woman's heart

"I will not speak"..."Wonderous strength and generosity of a woman's heart!" state Hester Prynne and Mr. Dimmesdale, respectively, on page 63. I was thoroughly impressed by Hester's refusal to reveal the identity of her lover. Although she was mercilessly punished for her "sins," she declined to allow the father of her child and the object of affections to be subjected to the same chastisement as she. Wow, what a love that must be! She is so steadfast. That's very admireable. However, it makes me hate Dimmesdale a little. What a douche! He refuses to get down off his highhorse and accept the consequences for what he's done. That's pretty lame. He does appreciate what Hester has done for him, though. He gets it right when he says "Wondrous strength and generosity of a woman's heart! She will not speak!" he's not just talking about any woman, or women in general; he's talking about his woman. At least he appreciates the dedication she has to him. I just wish he would man up and get down on the pillory with Hester!

Crazy Old Man

"After a brief pause, the physician turned away... ecstasy from Satan's was the trait of wonder in it."(Pg. 121)

I chose this scene because it truly shows the insanity of Chillingworth. After such a long time of attempting to uncover Hester's secret he has finally succeeded. His physical appearance shows how his psyche has transformed his body through the pure evil from his want for revenge. We have seen the affect of this secret on his physical appearance, but this is the first time we have seen an outburst from Chillingworth. He has succumbed himself to this secret, and it has driven him to madness. Earlier in the book Pearl refers to Chillingworth as the "Black Man" (the devil), she seems to have an instinct for who is good and who is bad. Even this child can tell that Chillingworth is evil. Chillingworth has completely given himself to this secret. His entire meaning in life is to reveal who Hester's lover is, and this is the first time he has found actual evidence. His reaction to this proves how he has succumbed himself to this secret.

page 101-2. Beginning "'O, not so! -not so!' continued Mr. Dimmesdale... let us leave them as Providence hath seen fit to place them!'"

I find this quote to be extremely peculiar in that it is very different from the rest of the novel. While in the majority of the novel, Hester is shunned and condemned, in this passage Dimmesdale provides for a method in which Hester's soul can be saved. In addition he places the burden of raising the child to have a clean soul upon Hester, her form of repentance. He also seems to be telling Hester that she is fortunate to be able to save Pearl, and thus herself. Dimmesdale on the other hand is sentenced to Hell irregardless. Dimmesdlae claims that God has sent Pearl as a way of saving Hester, and that it would be cruel to separate Pearl and Hester. So I find that this quote is extremely odd. It shows a bit of kindness by someone to Hester (albeit her lover and the father of her child, so he probably has an ulterior motive to ensure his daughter is raised properly)

Overall, not a bad book. It is certainly more enjoyable than the majority of what the transcendentalists wrote.

Hester and her needlework

"It is probable that there was an idea of penance in this mode of occupation...Like all other joys, she rejected it as a sin." (75-76) In this passage it talks about the essence of Hester Prynne being her needlework. She, being a simplistic woman she allows pleasure through her handiwork but, at the same time rejects it as being a sin. Now why i wonder when you have such a great gift to give would you think of it as a sin? This makes no sense to me. I think that before she was seen as only an adulteress she very much enjoyed her craft and the pleasure she obtained while creating it. However after being subjected to what her passions could actually create she sees it as another way for her to be known as a sinner.

The Letter comes to life

In the paragraph at the bottom of page 90, "It was the scarlet letter in another form; the scarlet letter endowed with life!" I like the idea that the scarlet letter shows it's presence whether or not Hester hides it. Pearl is the reincarnation of the scarlet letter in the form of a human. Adultery in the form of life. I don't think Pearl is neccessarily bad but she represents a broken law, which could represent the free spirit. This notion goes back to a different passage on pg 117 where Dimmsdale talks about how a broken law grants you the freedom to do anything. I think Hester is purposely surrounding herself with the scarlet letter in every form she can because she rightfully feels she should be punished. I for one don't see why she feels so guilty, in our day in age, people cheat on eachother all the time.

Mirrors and Masks

I chose the passage on page 94 that starts with "Hester looked..." and ending with "...hidden behind it."

This was passage that I was really hoping to discuss in class because the symbolism is so interesting. In it, Hester looks at a suit of armor in Governor Bellingham's home and is caught off-guard by the distored image that appears in the covex mirror that is the breastplate. The scarlet letter which is the symbol of her sin (as much as Pearl is) has been blown so out of proportion as to make it so it now dominates the image of her, almost as if she is "behind it."

This distortion is a representation of what has become Boston's view of Hester. They see her first as the scarlet letter, as an adulteress, rather than as a person. All of the views have been skewed so that the letter no longer lies as a punishment, but is the person!

Another interesting thing to note is that it is Pearl, who continually seems to show an uncanny sense of the truth of things, that points out the suit of armor. When Hester is taken aback by the distortion, Pearl acknowledges that a similar image is seen in the helmet of the suit. This repetition of the image acknowledges how that the letter is really all anyone sees of Hester and discredits Hester's own justification (though it really is why the image is the way it is) that the "convex mirror," the breastplate, is what is causing the image.

Pearl's ability to sense the truth always seems to be an advantage to her mother in some way, shape, or form. When the governor, ministers, and Reverend Dimmesdale walk in, this same sense that pointed out the "mask" of adultery that Hester wears makes it so she shys away from Mr. Wilson (one of Hester's persecuters) but is comforted by Dimmesdale (Hester's lover). There are MANY more instances that we've discussed, but it would get a little repetitive to list them. I just find this particular instance of Pearl pointing out to Hester that nobody actually looks at Hester any more, only the letter, particularly interesting.

Burrs on a Letter

The passage on page 117 begins with "she now skipped irrelevantly from one grave to another" and ends with "Hester did not pluck them off."

This passage to me resembles so much. First it shows the developing and sacred relationship not only between mother and daughter but between daughter and sin. Hester and Pearl have a unique relationship, not only forming from sin but simply as mother and daughter. The two are almost best friends, seeing as the other one is the only one the other has. Hester depends on Pearl as a savior (though she may not know it totally) and Pearl not only depends on Hester as a mother, but also a guardian from the sin that she is. (that doesn't really make sense). Hester, though curious about her daughter excepts her strange aptitudes of understanding almost everything. Pearl seems to respect her mother for this, simply going on as what she knows as being an "ordinary" child. In everyone's eyes (especially Hester's) Pearl is a strange child, dressed in scarlet, a replica of the letter, a production of sin.
Secondly, the passage addresses all that relate to Hester: her daughter and her letter (that are both her sin). As Pearl skips merrily around the graveyard (ironic, happy in such a dark place) Hester can only demand she stop. Although, before her complete termination of joy, Pearl plucks burrs from a thistle and places them delicately along the edges of the scarlet letter. This image represents the comfort Pearl has with the letter, maybe knowing that it is indeed a part of her. As her mother would adorn a pair of gloves (or the letter itself) Pearl takes on in decorating the sin in thorns that sear into Hester's bosom.

The freedom of a broken law.

On page 117, in the passage that begins with "There is no law, nor reverence for authority," and ending with "None-save the freedom of a broken law." A true revelation occurs. This final line, spoken by Dimmsdale is possibly the most important thus far uttered. It refers to the sin of Hester (and of Dimmsdale himself), in such a light as has not been exposed until this point in the novel. The idea that a broken law could be a form of liberation as opposed to enslavement is one that is quite novel in what seems (at least on the surface) to be an extremely morally righteous and strict society. It is, however, hardly that simple. There can be little doubt that Pearl feels very unconstrained, and this results in her various labels; "elf", "demon seed", etc. Yet the sin surrounds more than just her ironically innocent world. It also swirls between Hester, Dimmsdale, and Roger Chillingworth. Does the sin bring freedom to any of them? It could hardy be said so. Hester is ostracized, outcast, and humiliated. Dimmsdale is tormented by his own heart and mind. Chillingworth is mutated and demonized by his consuming quest for revenge. Sounds far from freedom to me. This idea raises another question; Why then does Pearl receive emancipation while the others do not? I believe that is can only be because she was a product of sin, and not the cause of it. She is destined to serve eternally as a reminder of the "terrors" of adultery, but to herself being born on the outside of a very intolerant society releases her from the pressure of being tolerated by it. Hester must still have intercourse in the city for her livelihood, Dimmsdale is an eminent pastor, and Chillingworth must interact with Boston both for his living and for his quest of revenge. Little Pearl has no such constraints, and thus no such torments. It is for this reason that her state can be described as freedom. It truly is "The freedom of a broken law."

pg 107 "i need no medicine" said he (Chillingsworth) - But how could the young minister say so, when , with every succesive sabbath, his cheek was paler and thinner, and his voice more tremulous than before.
This passage, to me, expresses one of the main happenings in the novel so far and explains a lot about the psychological state of the main characters. Chillingsworth is infested with hate and seeks revenge, he refuses treatment and each day is growing more haggard. He is beating himself up from the inside out, for his hipocracy, and the big knock-down to his ego, he is hurt and regretful. On the other hand, Dimmsdale is in almost the exact situation, rotting inside with guilt. The both of them are keeping secrets and the trapped feelings go haywire without being released and it starts to take its tole not only mentally, but phisically. Chillingsworth refuses medicine because he too feels as he has commited a sin, therefore only making things worst. Both of them are unstable, and the hostility of the puritan environment makes it next to impossible to come through and speak the truth. Its something that could be made a little easier if people werent so judgemental and they could work it out, but in puritan times that is unheard of. they must make a huge deal of it all and involve the whole community and interegate the sinner. Luckily, Hester is such a strong woman and thinks a little outside the bun, while her lovers are crouching up in a ball and weeping like little bitches. If they could just come through and be honest none of this would happen. They cant make decisions on their own they find god as an excuse for acting like cowards.
"youthful men, not having taken a deep root, give up their hold of life so easily!"