Scan barcode
fr4nkie_99's review against another edition
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.75
michaellortz's review against another edition
3.0
Suggested by my local library. Very European. Not bad, not great. Not sure how people call it satire or how one reviewer compared it Orwell and Huxley. While the concept of an Islamic takeover of France makes for a good novel, the very selfish perspective it was written in is interesting.
cueva's review against another edition
dark
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
4.0
The people believing in a religion, any religion, have different degrees of faith. There are for example fundamentalists who not only take their own religion seriously, following their holy books with strict literalism and who often also want to force their beliefs on others using different methods.
Then there are traditionalists who stick to their religious traditions but respects people of other religions. They are the ones always seeking shelter in freedom of beliefs and to carry on their traditions – which they deserve as well; as long as it is a question of personal religion but their idea of religious freedom often paradoxically includes a patriarchal control over their women (who are expected to act in a set, more or less submissive ways) and children (who are forced to go through religious education as per their parents’ wishes).
The third category may be called reductionists to whom religion is reduced to mere matters of God and prayers. Religious books are read selectively and as poems. In other places like life-style, education of children, medicine etc –religion doesn’t play a role.
The last category is of mere identifiers –who aren’t exactly religious but it forms a part of their identity, an identity that connects them with people with whom they have long associated with. The religion, scriptures etc are mere symbols for them but symbols they have come to respect.
Now this categorization is just a little less stupid when compared to general statements made about a whole community – there can be no absolute classification but there are some benefits of using it as a temporary construct to help thinking laterally. For example, the outside critics of a religion and its most fundamentalist and sometimes also traditionalist believers are alike in at least one sense – they both read scriptures literally. Also, they both put very high premium as to impact that word of scriptures should have upon life of people. The two groups argue with each-other and other categories try hard not to get painted black-or-white. As to which interpretation is correct, I will say that even human laws are thought to be bad if they allow for so many interpretations.
If while talking about a religion, you make a general statement regarding its followers than you are probably talking about a behavior common to first of first two categories (Or a behaviour that wasn't there at all) And if behavior you commented upon was controversial, it might offend the innocent people from latter categories.
The come-back of religion
MH makes some kind of distinction too – the head of the party that comes to power is a traditionalist Muslim but not fundamentalist. He despises terrorists. They win power through peaceful means. The party actually supports Zionist movement, and they are friendly to Church too. There are no hate-crimes or forced conversations in their regimes as you might expect to see in a more paranoid novel. You can see they are more tolerant of other people's religions.
However, the problem is they are still traditionalists – and traditions return. Special educational institutions providing Islamic education with only Muslim teachers where education moves around Quran. Co-ed is removed from scene, education for women is to be limited. Women suddenly started wearing veils and polygamy is back.
Another tradition that returns is that of patriarchal family. Women are not supposed to work. And then there is polygamy and teenage girls being married. As is the case with any Patriarchal society, by the end, women have become currency.
You could see why many men like François, the protagonist, would love it with all advantages it offers to men. That explains aceeptance of change for at least some of the men. But why did women let go of their liberty so easily? The conditions in Handsmaid’s Tale were far tougher and yet there was resistance – here despite all the democratic rights, there are no protests. What François says about increasing distance between government and people might have explained why protests might have failed, but no protests? From homosexuals either? I wouldn't have minded author saying that prostests failed or that there were few protests but author claims that government actually remained popular, from when did people started accepting changes so easily? The author seems to put very little faith with French love for their values.
Why return?
Let us just say religion creates an order or an illusion of order (depending upon your faith) – saving people from burden of liberty by choosing for them. Without God, there is only chaos and François believes that people are incapable of choosing for themselves when faced with chaos, they would rather submit to laws given to them by someone else. Atheists are sadder, have fewer children, feel spiritual vacuum, blah blah blah. Religion serves you everything on plate - François, single as long as atheist, was offered two wives as he became Muslim. There is the whole evolutionary advantage that religion has. Actually, I don’t think religion might have given any survival advantage and even if it did, it doesn’t do any longer. Its been a while we have stopped living in jungles. Some people might be scared of chaos after once they lifted away the veil of God and want to return to religion but I don’t think it will be the general trend. I believe most people are willing to pay price of uncertainty for their freedom - we aren't like the horse from campus parable, and while we are on subject, evolutionary defense of polygamy is another thing which might have given Darwin restless legs in his grave.
Islamophobia?
MH’s central argument is more of a contest between rationalism vs modern culture, patriarchy vs liberalism, religion vs atheism , but definitely not Islam vs West. New government was actually trying to enhance power of European Union and was friendly to church and Jews but had atheism as it biggest enemy.
However the problem is that he failed to see that tradationalism exists in all religions – he could have made his argument by letting church gain power rather than Islam. It would have been more convincing as Christianity is majority religion in country rather than make a hard to digest case in convincing us that peaceful takeover of France by Islam is possible. He spends a lot of time doing so taking sheltar in petrodollars that an Islamic state might attract – for about a quarter of book, another two quarters go to poking fun at academics and François discussing his sexual life (another professor who sleeps with his students, I might as well start a shelf). All ideas are contained in about one-fourth of the book. If it wasn't for one or two of its ideas that made me think, it would have been a one-star book.
Unlike MH, I don’t think that French Muslim comprise of large percentages of traditionalists, most of them probably belong to later two categories and so their religion play a far lesser role in their lives, Still it is dislike-able that whenever non-Christians win some political power in one of Christian or secular countries of West, it is assumed that their religion will play an important role in their decision making. How many non-Christian presidents secular countries of West have ever seen (compare: India has had people of four major religions act as their president or prime-minister as heads of government or country)? You can bet there won’t ever be atheist presidents in USA. Charle Hebdo felt called upon to ridicule Islam because Muslims won some political power in France – although they used the same democratic process. I guess it is high time the world realise that it is not immigrants that there democracy need fear but native Trumps.
Then there are traditionalists who stick to their religious traditions but respects people of other religions. They are the ones always seeking shelter in freedom of beliefs and to carry on their traditions – which they deserve as well; as long as it is a question of personal religion but their idea of religious freedom often paradoxically includes a patriarchal control over their women (who are expected to act in a set, more or less submissive ways) and children (who are forced to go through religious education as per their parents’ wishes).
The third category may be called reductionists to whom religion is reduced to mere matters of God and prayers. Religious books are read selectively and as poems. In other places like life-style, education of children, medicine etc –religion doesn’t play a role.
The last category is of mere identifiers –who aren’t exactly religious but it forms a part of their identity, an identity that connects them with people with whom they have long associated with. The religion, scriptures etc are mere symbols for them but symbols they have come to respect.
Now this categorization is just a little less stupid when compared to general statements made about a whole community – there can be no absolute classification but there are some benefits of using it as a temporary construct to help thinking laterally. For example, the outside critics of a religion and its most fundamentalist and sometimes also traditionalist believers are alike in at least one sense – they both read scriptures literally. Also, they both put very high premium as to impact that word of scriptures should have upon life of people. The two groups argue with each-other and other categories try hard not to get painted black-or-white. As to which interpretation is correct, I will say that even human laws are thought to be bad if they allow for so many interpretations.
If while talking about a religion, you make a general statement regarding its followers than you are probably talking about a behavior common to first of first two categories (Or a behaviour that wasn't there at all) And if behavior you commented upon was controversial, it might offend the innocent people from latter categories.
The come-back of religion
MH makes some kind of distinction too – the head of the party that comes to power is a traditionalist Muslim but not fundamentalist. He despises terrorists. They win power through peaceful means. The party actually supports Zionist movement, and they are friendly to Church too. There are no hate-crimes or forced conversations in their regimes as you might expect to see in a more paranoid novel. You can see they are more tolerant of other people's religions.
However, the problem is they are still traditionalists – and traditions return. Special educational institutions providing Islamic education with only Muslim teachers where education moves around Quran. Co-ed is removed from scene, education for women is to be limited. Women suddenly started wearing veils and polygamy is back.
Another tradition that returns is that of patriarchal family. Women are not supposed to work. And then there is polygamy and teenage girls being married. As is the case with any Patriarchal society, by the end, women have become currency.
You could see why many men like François, the protagonist, would love it with all advantages it offers to men. That explains aceeptance of change for at least some of the men. But why did women let go of their liberty so easily? The conditions in Handsmaid’s Tale were far tougher and yet there was resistance – here despite all the democratic rights, there are no protests. What François says about increasing distance between government and people might have explained why protests might have failed, but no protests? From homosexuals either? I wouldn't have minded author saying that prostests failed or that there were few protests but author claims that government actually remained popular, from when did people started accepting changes so easily? The author seems to put very little faith with French love for their values.
Why return?
Let us just say religion creates an order or an illusion of order (depending upon your faith) – saving people from burden of liberty by choosing for them. Without God, there is only chaos and François believes that people are incapable of choosing for themselves when faced with chaos, they would rather submit to laws given to them by someone else. Atheists are sadder, have fewer children, feel spiritual vacuum, blah blah blah. Religion serves you everything on plate - François, single as long as atheist, was offered two wives as he became Muslim. There is the whole evolutionary advantage that religion has. Actually, I don’t think religion might have given any survival advantage and even if it did, it doesn’t do any longer. Its been a while we have stopped living in jungles. Some people might be scared of chaos after once they lifted away the veil of God and want to return to religion but I don’t think it will be the general trend. I believe most people are willing to pay price of uncertainty for their freedom - we aren't like the horse from campus parable, and while we are on subject, evolutionary defense of polygamy is another thing which might have given Darwin restless legs in his grave.
Islamophobia?
MH’s central argument is more of a contest between rationalism vs modern culture, patriarchy vs liberalism, religion vs atheism , but definitely not Islam vs West. New government was actually trying to enhance power of European Union and was friendly to church and Jews but had atheism as it biggest enemy.
However the problem is that he failed to see that tradationalism exists in all religions – he could have made his argument by letting church gain power rather than Islam. It would have been more convincing as Christianity is majority religion in country rather than make a hard to digest case in convincing us that peaceful takeover of France by Islam is possible. He spends a lot of time doing so taking sheltar in petrodollars that an Islamic state might attract – for about a quarter of book, another two quarters go to poking fun at academics and François discussing his sexual life (another professor who sleeps with his students, I might as well start a shelf). All ideas are contained in about one-fourth of the book. If it wasn't for one or two of its ideas that made me think, it would have been a one-star book.
Unlike MH, I don’t think that French Muslim comprise of large percentages of traditionalists, most of them probably belong to later two categories and so their religion play a far lesser role in their lives, Still it is dislike-able that whenever non-Christians win some political power in one of Christian or secular countries of West, it is assumed that their religion will play an important role in their decision making. How many non-Christian presidents secular countries of West have ever seen (compare: India has had people of four major religions act as their president or prime-minister as heads of government or country)? You can bet there won’t ever be atheist presidents in USA. Charle Hebdo felt called upon to ridicule Islam because Muslims won some political power in France – although they used the same democratic process. I guess it is high time the world realise that it is not immigrants that there democracy need fear but native Trumps.
anders_holbaek's review against another edition
5.0
En genlæsning til at hype mig op til Houellebecqs nyeste udgivelse. Denne her bog var simpelthen endnu bedre, end jeg huskede den. Der er sket nok siden udgivelse af denne, som denne misantropiske mand, kan være gal over, og jeg kan ikke vente til at læse om det.
jana_banana_'s review against another edition
1.0
the narrator a is man that Colleen hoover would love and some people adore that… but I don’t so if you want to read a book that’s full of two dimensional characters and paragraphs of objectifying woman this one is for you… however if you are expecting any depth or political commentary or even a little bit of realism don’t even bother. I want to burn this book and then delete it from my memory
reneeronny's review against another edition
informative
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
angus_mckeogh's review against another edition
3.0
I'm torn on this one. Ultimately if you're into plot twists and occurrences then this book isn't for you. Very little seems to happen. But the overall direction of the book was extremely cogent considering recent events in Paris. I found it very readable and the topic was compelling but at the end I guess just not enough occurred for it to warrant more than just an above average rating.
caputon's review against another edition
How to be bourgeois-boheme when history has restarted?
olya_hakob's review against another edition
Although the underlying idea was interesting, the way it was delivered did not appeal to me. I would've liked it better if it focused less on the main character, who seemed rather blunt and spineless to me. Instead, I would be more interested in a clearer and more detailed description of the new political order: how it came to be and what implications it had. The book scratched the surface of these but they were overshadowed by the personal life of the main character, which could be okay if the character was a little more interesting. Furthermore, I didn't like the overly detailed scenes of his sexual experiences. I understand, the author probably wanted to create a contrast between the conservative Islam and western 'decadence' but the overuse of erotic scenes is a cheap and distasteful means, in my opinion.
The contrast between Islamic and secular societies was interesting at times. I also liked the depiction of how easily the attitudes in the society are manipulated, especially in response to material upgrades. Another point that I liked (although it wasn't developed as much as I would've liked) was the allusion that too much of individualism can lead to loneliness, inflation of meaning in life and fuel the religious 'instinct' of the people if you wish.
I would probably find the book more interesting if I knew more about the French culture and literature, but I don't feel particularly motivated to re-read it anytime later.
The contrast between Islamic and secular societies was interesting at times. I also liked the depiction of how easily the attitudes in the society are manipulated, especially in response to material upgrades. Another point that I liked (although it wasn't developed as much as I would've liked) was the allusion that too much of individualism can lead to loneliness, inflation of meaning in life and fuel the religious 'instinct' of the people if you wish.
I would probably find the book more interesting if I knew more about the French culture and literature, but I don't feel particularly motivated to re-read it anytime later.