Well, I'm an idiot. I read books, a lot, I don't interpret them or put mean behind them(Unless I know that they should be – 1984). I couldn't tell a satirical from an Ann Coulter book. Maybe because I'm an idiot or maybe because I'm a moron (I haven't a clue - I'm an idiot/moron, remember?). When someone told me that The Handmaid's Tale (Atwood) was actually an anti-Christian book, I said “What,” and promptly asked an astounding number of questions that weren’t answered.

I thought of Handmaid’s Tale as a simple scifi novel about a woman living in the future; silly me.

Anyone here care to explain this to me? Because I ain't got a clue.

-- The Grand Dragon Gizzard

(I just read Oryx and Crake by Atwood)

Anti christian?
Thats a little harsh IMHO but you know christians, if you ain't for 'em they think your agin 'em.

Quick question.
Who controls reproduction in Gilead?

I'll let you work the rest out for yourself.
Dee Cee

DeeCee,
Who controls reproduction in Gilead?

Well, conservative Christians control everything, more precisely; conservative Christian males control everything. So it's actually a pro-abortion book that's anti-Christian because most Christians disfavor abortion.

Sex is forbidden and is only used for reproduction purposes, and the choice for women to have children or not is taken away from the women. So I would have to assume that this is a pro-choice book.

-- The Grand Dragon Gizzard

There meere concepts in the book are anti christian. I have read the book and seen the movie. If you have a hard time interpreting the anti-christianism in the book, I suggest the movie because it kind of puts some stuff in perspective and it focuses on the more important points of the book. I love it how Atwood kind of leaves it hanging in the end, and you want to know what eventually happens... I hate that in most books, but it works in this one. The book also shows how the government can take control of a superpower, and how people can move to extremes (like how a normal woman is too pure to have a baby, so they get Offred to do that). I wouldn't necessarily say that the book is anti-christian, it depends on Atwood's intent when writing the book.

ILikeSalt:
The commander's wife (and the other women) are sterile, it's not that they are "too pure".
They're simply sterile. I think it has something to do with pollution, but it's been years since I read the book.

Xev, you'd be right about the pollution thing. Only certain women can reproduce. The women are known as handmaids, and are normally disliked by normal women that are married.

Right, but I forget *why* it happened. There were also certain zones it was dangerous to go into because of pollution or fallout or something.

It's not really "anti-Christian" so much as a satire on what the Christians *want* - arguably on what men want. Remember the part where Offred fucks her boyfriend after finding out that her bank accounts have been frozen?
Creeeeppy.
I can't sleep.
I just finished American Psycho - that's a good book.

American Psycho was a book? Is it any good?

Anywho, I'm awake because I'm drunk, yet again. Where are my Irish indentured slaves to entertain me?

Offred was afraid to be sent too the waste lands, or something to that matter; it was an area where radiation was high.

I thought it was better than the movie, but I didn't like it the first time.
Your Irish indentured slaves are off getting drunk on the rest of your cough medicine.

Xev:
Your Irish indentured slaves are off getting drunk on the rest of your cough medicine.

They can have it; I've got beer.

Who was American Psycho written by? I never saw the movie, nor have I read the book. Normally, if I see the movie before reading the book; I won't read the book. Such is the case with Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk.

Brent Easton Ellis. I haven't read anything else by him.
Writes stuff like:
"my pain is constant and sharp and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape." This pain may be both psychic pain he personally feels as well as physical pain he inflicts upon his victims. One possibility is that he intends upon dragging as many people as he possibly can with him into his private Hell. If he has to suffer, everyone should have to suffer. He continues: "But even after admitting this -- and I have, countess times, in just about every act I've committed -- and coming face-to-face with these truths, there is no catharsis. I gain no deeper knowledge about myself, no new understanding can be extracted from my telling. There has been no reason for me to tell you any of this. This confession has meant nothing."

or...
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/Ellis2.html

It's not all "sadism and gore" though - it's really funny and rather Sartrean.

It sounds interesting. I have to admit though, gore can make me nauseous. He sounds a bit like a nihilist, though.

WHY WOULD OUR SOCIETY TOLERATE SUCH A BOOK???

They've tolerated much more.

Coffee:
I have to admit though, gore can make me nauseous. He sounds a bit like a nihilist, though.

Yeah he is.
Bateman is a soulless body, no essence or "soul" - just action. Even his self-reflection is empty.

You can skip the icky parts. But a lot of people find it boring.

I'm going to bed.

Xev:
Bateman is a soulless body, no essence or "soul" - just action. Even his self-reflection is empty.
Sounds like my type of man.

You can skip the icky parts. But a lot of people find it boring.
Nah, I've always found it difficult to skip parts of books.

Good night.

-- The Grand Dragon Gizzard

Even thought the women were sterile, didn't they say the wives were "too pure" for their husbands to have sex with them? Maybe my memory of this book is fading.