The Handmaid's Tale

Symbolism is used rampantly throughout Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, and tulips are one of the less discussed symbols. The tulips, quite simply, represent a Handmaid's menstruation cycle. Every time tulips appear in the novel, Atwood is describing what stage of life they are in. These quotes are ordered from the beginning stage of the cycle to the end:
"The tulips are red, a darker crimson towards the stem, as if they have been cut and are beginning to heal there" (Atwood 12).
"The tulips along the border are redder than ever, opening, no longer wine cups but chalices; thrusting themselves up, to what end?" (45).
"The tulips have had their moment and are now done, shedding their petals one by one, like teeth" (153).
"When they are old they turn themselves inside out, then explode slowly, the petals thrown out like shards" (45).
The red color of the tulips represents blood. A tulip itself is given today as a declaration of love. This is ironic because the Handmaid's interactions with the Commanders have absolutely no connection to love. There is one relationship where love is permitted to exist, however, and that is between the Commander and his Wife. Although love is allowed, sexual intercourse, an intimate display of love, is not allowed between the Commander and his Wife. Offred mentions this through, ironically, the use of tulips. "The red of the smile is the same as the red of the tulips in Serena Joy's garden, towards the base of the flowers where they are beginning to heal. The red is the same but there is no connection. The tulips are not tulips of blood..." (33). Although the tulips tend to remain in the background, they are a significant symbol throughout The Handmaid's Tale.

"Ordinary, said Aunt Lydia, is what you are used to. This may not seem ordinary to you now, but after a time it will. It will become ordinary" (Atwood 33).
This quote justifies the entire book. It justifies all revolutions, rebellions, all change.
There is no exact definition of ordinary. Merriam Webster says ordinary is "the regular or customary condition or course of things." Regular, what is regular? Merriam Webster says regular is "constituted, conducted, scheduled, or done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline." But who is to establish these rules? Who is to judge what ordinary, weird, pretty, ugly, good, bad, scary - what anything is?
After time, the citizens of Gilead will be young enough that they will never have known the former system of government. They will have no previous experience to base their opinion of the current government on, so it will simply fall into the category of "ordinary." Any change thereafter will be unusual.
Everything, yet nothing, is ordinary.

I am a huge fan of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. For one, I am fascinated by anything to do with religion, and this book had everything to do with religion. The biblical allusions were wonderful! I also enjoyed the depth of the novel. There was so much detail hidden behind the text through Atwood's use of symbolism and allusions; at times reading the book was like decoding a foreign message. Of course some subjects were rather awkward to discuss during class, but it was refreshing to read a novel so intimate.

We

In Zamyatin's We, the government of OneState is based on control, precision, equality, and organization. The power of the collective group is praised and the progress of the individual looked down upon. Poetry is often used by the citizens to express their loyalty and love for OneState. Ironically, poetry is a means of expressing oneself, the individual author's emotions. It is raw and intimate and leaves the author completely vulnerable. The fact that individuals express these personal thoughts to support collectivism suggests the fault in the idea.



"A knife is the most permanent, the most immortal, the most ingenious of all of man's creations. The knife was a guillotine, the knife is a universal means of resolving all knots, and the path of paradox lies along the blade of a knife -- the only path worthy of the mind without fear." (Zamyatin 113)

This passage is so wonderfully written, it cannot be passed up. A knife is described in a positive light as an ingenious, universal solvent. It is a quick and simple solution; eliminates any struggle, anguish, and effort. On the other hand, the words permanent, immortal, and guillotine are negative and allude to death and the end of an existence. There is no taking it back, no second guessing. It's over. Those who are cowardly see only these two sides - positive|negative, white|black, good|evil. They fear the zero, the gray, self-contradiction. The weak do not control their own unique stand, perhaps in between the two sides - right down the blade, fluctuating and molding to their mood and opinion. Instead, they allow one of the two permanent decisions to control them, and they mold to that one standard. The fearless minds, however, will contradict themselves and take the chance to dance along the thin blade, twirling to one side or the other, depending simply on their mood. They posses the courage to cut only halfway through.



I enjoyed reading Zamyatin's We. All throughout the novel I found myself anticipating D-503's triumphant rebellion and his happy marriage to I-330 out of sincere love for one another. I should have known better. Although the completely opposite ending did disappoint me, it did not ruin the entire book. I was simply amazed by the government Zamyatin created in OneState. It is all unimaginable to me - the time table, synchronized schedules, pink tickets. This novel is sure to make the extreme promoters of equality stop and take a second to figure out how far they are going to pursue the idealistic equal status among everyone. It is impossible. Humans have flaws and we value certain characteristics and abilities over others. Only God views all humans on an equal level. Reading these dystopian novels makes me appreciate the inequalities among humans. These differences are what make the world go 'round.

Anthem

I found Anthem to be rather bland and shallow. Ayn Rand's style, or perhaps you can say Equality 7-2521's style, was too curt and dry for my liking. I can just imagine Equality reading this diary, if you will, aloud in a low, monotone voice. I prefer details and descriptions and a little bit of fluff here and there. I believe the setting also added to why I did not enjoy Anthem. It is depressing to read about oppressed people and not be able to walk right in there and help 'em out! I can only sit on the edge of my chair and become frustrated with the character for not rebelling! Another factor that contributed to my view of the novel was the use of the word "we" in the beginning of Anthem. I was unsure as to whether or not Equality 7-2521 was one man or a group of men. It took until later on in the novel for me to realize that he was referring to only one man, himself. This confusion put somewhat of a damper on my enjoyment of the novel.

As I have previously mentioned, I did not like the style of Anthem, however, I do believe the style tells a good deal about Equality 7-2521's character. This is a diary/manuscript that is forbidden by the Council of Vocations. Because of this, Equality has to write it in private, which is not very often. Therefore, he has to balance his time and simply write down the basic facts, and has no time for details. Not only does this affect the style of writing, but at this time, Equality 7-2521 is also going through a major transitional stage, a metamorphosis. Under this oppressive government's rule, Equality is not taught to have individual thoughts and emotions, which is why his diary is lacking them. "We do not know if we drank that water. We only knew suddenly that their hands were empty, but we were still holding our lips to their hands...We raised our head and stepped back. For we did not understand what had made us do this..." This is Equality's first experience with love, physical attraction, or perhaps love at first sight.
Even though this transition from the collective body to the individual is causing Equality to experience some emotion, it is foreign to him and he cannot comprehend nor express it. He therefore interprets all forms of emotion as confusion.
At the end of the novel when Equality 7-2521 and The Golden One are living together in the woods, Equality's writing becomes more detailed and emotions are present, "We awoke when a ray of sunlight fell across our face. We wanted to leap to our feet...The leaves had edges of silver that trembled and rippled like a river of green and fire flowing high above us." Finally Equality fully understands and embraces his individuality.


"My dearest one, it is not proper for men to be without names. There was a time when each man had a name of his own to distinguish him from all other men. So let us choose our names" (Rand).
This is what Equality 7-2521 says to The Golden One once they have discovered the sacred word "I." By granting Equality to chose his own name and the name of his wife, Rand is alluding to Adam in the book of Genesis. Adam is granted the power from God to name all of the living creatures on earth, "... whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof" (Genesis 2:19). Power from God is immeasurable. By alluding to Adam and the power he possessed from God, Rand is displaying the comparable power granted to Equality simply by the word "I."

Fahrenheit 451

The society's method of destroying books in Fahrenheit 451 is somewhat contradictory to the society's ethics. In a world that is so technologically advanced (Mechanical Hound, Electric-Eyed Snake, television walls, etc.), why hasn't a new method for destroying the books been developed? Fire is messy, it leaves behind soot and ash and sends tons of smoke into the air. It is wild and can become completely uncontrollable by a simple gust of wind. Perhaps collecting the books from the owner's home and sending them to a processing/destroying center, or to be recycled into products the society uses, would be more efficient than fire.

Not only is fire messy and dangerous, but should burning the books be the most important goal? Rather than burning the books and demolishing the entire house, would it not be, perhaps, more important to remove the individual from the society? They have already read these books and learned their concepts. In other words, the damage has already been done. Burning their books will not remove their effects on the reader's mind. They can now go out into society and spread their knowledge, put what they have learned into action, and create more damage than the idle books.

Yes, these fires are entertainment for the neighbors, and perhaps that is why the practice is used. However, it is also possible that the flaws in the system reflect the flaws in the concept. Cencorship inhibits free speech, and as the Afterword mentions, Bradbury truly values free speech. By creating this inefficient system in his novel, he is expressing this.



Considering science fiction, futuristic novels are not my favorite genre, Fahrenheit was a decent book. It promotes deeper thoughts on topics such as what it takes to be a true hero, how to live one's life to the fullest, and what a significant contribution to the world is. The main theme, censorship, is unfathomable to me. I practice free speech every single day of my life and I love to soak in the thoughts and opinions of others. The most distressing part of the novel to me, however, was Clarisse's attempt at suicide. Suicide is the number one act I could never ever do. (Yes, murder is a close second, however there is that one exception of self defense, because allowing someone to kill me would otherwise be committing the never-can-do act #1!) I do not feel that there is any situation horrible enough where I would resort to suicide. Life is the most precious gift we will ever be given. Sure, Clarisse's life is pretty awful, but she has the ability to make it better, just as Beatty does, and he takes advantage of it.
Although Fahrenheit is a little heavy for a summer read, and looking beyond the science fiction aspect of it, I did enjoy pondering over the deeper questions the novel stimulated.