You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.67 AVERAGE
3.67 AVERAGE
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Bizarre in a way that you feel like you understand why without being able to express it. The world is dark, insidiously so, and only reveals itself as the book goes on. There is a certain layer of buzzing tension that builds somewhere by the start of the second part that doesn't really go away, even by the end. I'll be thinking about this one for a while.
I thought this was a good book, although I didn't like it more than The Handmaid's Tale. This is a book about male--female relationships.
This book can be read as a feminist work--how marriage (or engagement) can make a woman feel trapped or consumed, and why women agree to enter into marriage. Do they do it because they want to, feel like they have to, or do they do it in order to legitimize illegitamate children? Do they do it for financial security? Do they do it because they think it's the only way they can have children? Are married women happier than single women?
There are so many different types of females in this novel, that as a woman, it is easy to identify with at least one, or parts of several. As I read it, I asked myself: Am I the marrying type? Have I ever been the desperate, boy-crazy girl who corners any single man she can find? Am I baby crazy? Will I be a married baby machine? Or, am I the independent woman, who doesn't need a man to complete me?
As women, don't we ask ourselves the same questions, at least from time to time?
Some interesting biographical notes put this novel into perspective for me:
The first edition of this book came out in 1969, a year after Atwood got married. She later divorced her husband in 1973. Years later, she met another writer and they had a child together. They are not married.
Maybe Atwood was thinking about her own relationship when she wrote this book. Was she trying to work out her own feelings, and do each of the women in this novel reflect a thought she was having at the time?
I don't feel that this is an anti-marriage novel in any way. I think the main point Atwood makes is that as women, we have the right to carve our own paths in life and to establish what is right for us, independent of what society or other women think/do. Through Marian, Atwood is also telling us to trust our gut and go with our instincts. We should be true to ourselves and reject what we don't want. We should also pursue what we do want, and if we don't know what we want, that's okay too. We have plenty of time to figure it out.
This book can be read as a feminist work--how marriage (or engagement) can make a woman feel trapped or consumed, and why women agree to enter into marriage. Do they do it because they want to, feel like they have to, or do they do it in order to legitimize illegitamate children? Do they do it for financial security? Do they do it because they think it's the only way they can have children? Are married women happier than single women?
There are so many different types of females in this novel, that as a woman, it is easy to identify with at least one, or parts of several. As I read it, I asked myself: Am I the marrying type? Have I ever been the desperate, boy-crazy girl who corners any single man she can find? Am I baby crazy? Will I be a married baby machine? Or, am I the independent woman, who doesn't need a man to complete me?
As women, don't we ask ourselves the same questions, at least from time to time?
Some interesting biographical notes put this novel into perspective for me:
The first edition of this book came out in 1969, a year after Atwood got married. She later divorced her husband in 1973. Years later, she met another writer and they had a child together. They are not married.
Maybe Atwood was thinking about her own relationship when she wrote this book. Was she trying to work out her own feelings, and do each of the women in this novel reflect a thought she was having at the time?
I don't feel that this is an anti-marriage novel in any way. I think the main point Atwood makes is that as women, we have the right to carve our own paths in life and to establish what is right for us, independent of what society or other women think/do. Through Marian, Atwood is also telling us to trust our gut and go with our instincts. We should be true to ourselves and reject what we don't want. We should also pursue what we do want, and if we don't know what we want, that's okay too. We have plenty of time to figure it out.
It hit just the right notes. Every character made sense, with the possible exception of Duncan who I thought my be a construct of her mind until the end. Peter, Len, Ainsly-all of them were perfect. And the story was great, the fact that her life was no better than in the beginning, yet she had still made a choice? All good.
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Rereading this book after many years of living in between. Strikes closer to home now. Had forgotten how funny it is and am laughing out loud regularly. Proto-feminism at its best!
Marian is just a girl in the world. I love Marian!
Was a bit nervous bc I didn’t like Handmaid’s Tale but this was surprisingly a really good read!
Was a bit nervous bc I didn’t like Handmaid’s Tale but this was surprisingly a really good read!
Disconcerting. Too relatable. A slog to get through some parts, but I’m glad I made it through.
This is clearly Margaret Atwood’s first novel—fully formed but lacking some of the sophistication of her more acclaimed works.
The narrative shift from first to third person singular was an effective way to denote Marian’s quiet unraveling, as was her increasing aversion to food and her simultaneous detachment from Peter, the aloof fiancé, and attraction to Duncan, the sullen student.
The narrative shift from first to third person singular was an effective way to denote Marian’s quiet unraveling, as was her increasing aversion to food and her simultaneous detachment from Peter, the aloof fiancé, and attraction to Duncan, the sullen student.