Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by raesengele
The Testaments by Margaret Atwood
5.0
Since everyone and their Martha has most likely reviewed this book before me, I feel like I'd be more suited addressing some of what I've seen other reviewers commenting on because I feel they may have missed some of the point that Atwood has presented.
Having said that, I will add, leave your expectations at the door before opening this book. Though it is in the world of The Handmaid's Tale, I would argue that it is less a sequel and more a continuation. We get three new perspectives in a new era of Gilead plus a new setting (Canada). We are not in the Gilead of Offred's time and we are not hearing her voice.
Remember that.
I think a lot of the reviewers have forgotten the format of the book: it is an epistolary novel in the form of two transcripts and what is part journal, part letter to the reader. Also remember that The Handmaid's Tale was intended to be a transcript from a series of cassette tapes (this is stated in the symposium section of both books).
These different narratives aren't just from the point of view of four characters, they are the literal voices of these characters. It's therefore not unintentional that this book reads different from its predecessor because none of these characters are Offred.
The thing that has bothered me the most to see is other reviewers complaining that Testaments is "too YA." I would argue that this is intentional seeing as one of the view points is from a teen and the other a young adult recounting her life from preteen to early/mid twenties. These are narratives in the voices of young adults, Atwood would have done herself a disservice to make them talk and view the world as adults.
Another comment I've seen repeated is that Atwood is just selling out and marketing off the show. Please give this woman more credit than that. It's not like she's a has been who's desperate for cash. Her last book before Testaments was published in 2016 and was a New York Times best seller. I'd say she's doing pretty good without the success of the Handmaid's Tale adaptation.
That being said, does Testaments follow some of the show's plot? Yes, but you have to keep in mind she's also been working closely with the show runner and was even sharing with him plot points of Testaments as she was writing it. Not only is it in her best interest to maintain that relationship and allow the show to be canon with the books, it's also a smart move on her part. Atwood has now established both the beginning and the end of this story. The show must now stitch those two together if they want to remain loyal to her and the established fan base. This is, in a way, her locking in where SHE wants these characters to end up.
That is her right as the creator of this world.
If you go into this book expecting a Handmaid's Tale 2.0, you'll be disappointed.
If you go into it trusting that Atwood will continue the story of Gilead in a way that is entertaining and loyal to the already established world and characters, then you won't be.
Having said that, I will add, leave your expectations at the door before opening this book. Though it is in the world of The Handmaid's Tale, I would argue that it is less a sequel and more a continuation. We get three new perspectives in a new era of Gilead plus a new setting (Canada). We are not in the Gilead of Offred's time and we are not hearing her voice.
Remember that.
I think a lot of the reviewers have forgotten the format of the book: it is an epistolary novel in the form of two transcripts and what is part journal, part letter to the reader. Also remember that The Handmaid's Tale was intended to be a transcript from a series of cassette tapes (this is stated in the symposium section of both books).
These different narratives aren't just from the point of view of four characters, they are the literal voices of these characters. It's therefore not unintentional that this book reads different from its predecessor because none of these characters are Offred.
The thing that has bothered me the most to see is other reviewers complaining that Testaments is "too YA." I would argue that this is intentional seeing as one of the view points is from a teen and the other a young adult recounting her life from preteen to early/mid twenties. These are narratives in the voices of young adults, Atwood would have done herself a disservice to make them talk and view the world as adults.
Another comment I've seen repeated is that Atwood is just selling out and marketing off the show. Please give this woman more credit than that. It's not like she's a has been who's desperate for cash. Her last book before Testaments was published in 2016 and was a New York Times best seller. I'd say she's doing pretty good without the success of the Handmaid's Tale adaptation.
That being said, does Testaments follow some of the show's plot? Yes, but you have to keep in mind she's also been working closely with the show runner and was even sharing with him plot points of Testaments as she was writing it. Not only is it in her best interest to maintain that relationship and allow the show to be canon with the books, it's also a smart move on her part. Atwood has now established both the beginning and the end of this story. The show must now stitch those two together if they want to remain loyal to her and the established fan base. This is, in a way, her locking in where SHE wants these characters to end up.
That is her right as the creator of this world.
If you go into this book expecting a Handmaid's Tale 2.0, you'll be disappointed.
If you go into it trusting that Atwood will continue the story of Gilead in a way that is entertaining and loyal to the already established world and characters, then you won't be.