Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.13 AVERAGE
4.13 AVERAGE
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I enjoyed the first 1/3 to 1/2 of this book. I saw another review on a different site say it felt like a ‘fan fiction’ of the TV series, which I agree on. It makes a lot of assumptions based on the show, and is hugely rushed at the end. There are so many unanswered questions and things that seem to happen for no reason! It would have been interesting to have each character have their own book to properly develop their character and feelings about the world they live in.
Not quite the sequel Margaret Atwood’s talent should have delivered
adventurous
hopeful
tense
medium-paced
dark
emotional
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
A satisfying conclusion for the wonderful Handmaids tale. Such an interesting dystopian country. The similarities with so many countries and the ongoing battles to keep the controllers - usually men - at bay are profound. Interesting characters and Aunt Lydia in particular is given a solid persona.
I am reminded again that we must always be vigilant.
I am reminded again that we must always be vigilant.
adventurous
hopeful
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
A delve into the overthrowing of gilead and releasing all the deceptive, degrading and devious acts they have masked as holiness. Lost Baby Nicole is the key to the rebellion and she is able to reunite with her sister. Aunt Lydia is a mastermind but it is selfless Becka who really is the unsung hero in this tale. “Love is as strong as death.”
This is outstanding fan fiction. And I don't mean that to be derogatory. While it's technically the sequel to the novel The Handmaid's Tale, we wouldn't have the story in the The Testaments without the tv show. In fact, I think those who have read the book but haven't watched the tv show could be disappointed. On the other hand, if you've only watched the show you'll have all the information that you need to understand and enjoy this book.
This story takes place about 15+ years after the events in book and the tv show. It's told from the perspective of three characters - the infamous Aunt Lydia and two young women navigating this political landscape of this universe as the cracks in the foundation of Gilead begin to show.
Of course the book is dark. However the book is a fast read and is thrilling as the action rises. That energy fizzles by the close of the book and you're left wanting. I can't help but feel like another season or two of the show will help answer some lingering questions.
This story takes place about 15+ years after the events in book and the tv show. It's told from the perspective of three characters - the infamous Aunt Lydia and two young women navigating this political landscape of this universe as the cracks in the foundation of Gilead begin to show.
Of course the book is dark. However the book is a fast read and is thrilling as the action rises. That energy fizzles by the close of the book and you're left wanting. I can't help but feel like another season or two of the show will help answer some lingering questions.
Los Testamentos consiste en tres testimonios de tres mujeres cuyas vidas están ligadas a Gilead de una u otra forma y narra hechos ocurridos 15 años después de los de El Cuento de la Criada.
En primer lugar, tenemos la perspectiva de una mujer que vivió en el seno de una familia de prestigio en Gilead. Es hija de un comandante y nos deja conocer el amargo camino de una niña nacida y criada bajo el régimen.
Después, tenemos a una mujer que se crió en Canadá, a la par de Gilead, viendo noticias sobre el régimen y hasta protestando en contra de esta oscura sociedad.
La última de las tres es una de las fundadoras de Gilead y el personaje más interesante a mi parecer. Nos plantea la pregunta de qué hubiéramos hecho nosotras en su lugar.
Esta historia me gustó igual 0 incluso más que su predecesora. Aunque turbia y chocante, no podía dejar de pasar las páginas. Antes de leerlo, le tenía mucho recelo por las reseñas mixtas que vi, sin embargo, no me arrepiento de haberle dado una oportunidad.
En primer lugar, tenemos la perspectiva de una mujer que vivió en el seno de una familia de prestigio en Gilead. Es hija de un comandante y nos deja conocer el amargo camino de una niña nacida y criada bajo el régimen.
Después, tenemos a una mujer que se crió en Canadá, a la par de Gilead, viendo noticias sobre el régimen y hasta protestando en contra de esta oscura sociedad.
La última de las tres es una de las fundadoras de Gilead y el personaje más interesante a mi parecer. Nos plantea la pregunta de qué hubiéramos hecho nosotras en su lugar.
Esta historia me gustó igual 0 incluso más que su predecesora. Aunque turbia y chocante, no podía dejar de pasar las páginas. Antes de leerlo, le tenía mucho recelo por las reseñas mixtas que vi, sin embargo, no me arrepiento de haberle dado una oportunidad.
adventurous
dark
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
dark
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I was concerned, going into this novel after having just read (for the first time) the Handmaid's Tale, that the quiet, adult dread of that book would be lost upon the inclusion of younger characters in this one. To some degree I was correct - so many aspects of Gilead and the repressive life that were revealed but never explicitly outlined in the Handmaid's Tale are told to us directly in the form of the witness testimonies and the personal accounts, and from the perspective of two children (of the three main perspectives). On some occasions I thought this added a lot to the overall story of this society and the women that live in it, and on other occasions I mourned the former book's restraint and glimpses of horror in what passed as ordinary to the adult Handmaid who had remembered the time before. I don't want to dwell too much on what I feel is lost in this book (the banality of the evil of the society from the perspective of its most repressed, as well as some of the trust in the general reader to understand without it being specifically said that pieces of that life were so horrific as to be almost unstated) because there are certainly very interesting parts added with the inclusion of children narrators - in particular at the end, when there are several short meditations on the differences in cultural perspective of the two main girl characters.
I was skeptical in more ways than the above in regards to this novel, especially for it having been written so recently. In regards to the very ambitious inclusion of Aunt Lydia as the other main perspective, I was even more wary of possibly being led forcefully to an empathetic understanding of the woman who repeatedly described how she was an active, participating architect of a nightmare regime. And I must say, full accolades to Atwood again, because more than halfway through the book I caught myself once again shimmering with rage at this character and the audacity she had to be so cold and callous, so utterly lacking of heart, even as she described being ripped away from her life and tortured into survival at all cost, and I was brought up short in a moment of reflection of not her but myself. Why did I have such a difficult time feeling anything of sympathy for this character? Why was I waiting with preemptive disgust for the moment (and there are some of these moments, though not very many of them) when she reflects upon her life and feels sorry for herself and her situation? What about this extremely complex character induces such a closed-off state of mind in regard to her innocence (she has none, and this is never refuted) and her worthiness of the same empathy I can so easily feel towards her co-stars of the book? If the two girls' ignorance, and abhorrent perspectives, and actions are understood through their childhoods and the society in which they grew up in, and informed by their own trauma, why could I not extend the same character analysis framework to Aunt Lydia? The fact that these questions are brought up at all is the hallmark, to me, of not just excellent writing, but of what the book is meant to do for me as a reader. In the end, I was foolish in my assumption that I would walk into this book already convinced of what Atwood wanted to show me and convince me of, and what would largely happen. It's not hard to guess who is who and what is likely to happen, and I am certainly aligned with the political messages about patriarchy, totalitarianism, and societal censorship and repression. But this book left me questioning the bounds of my own empathy and (especially religious) prejudice, and the degree to which I can engage with a character who is complicit in this way - and this is interesting, because while we do not have Gilead in real life (yet... haha.... hahaha...) we do have plenty of examples of people who are benefiting within systems that harm them, and who engage in power struggles within their absolute upper limits to the detriment of their own communities, and people who are very hurt themselves who replicate, expand, and wield that terror on others afterwards, and who despite themselves are still people who sometimes do good even if their good choices certainly cannot outweigh the harm they've inflicted, and whose beliefs can be both severely harmful and a source of their moral courage, and I could go on, and on, and on. I hate Aunt Lydia with something very vivid within me and I still have to sit with and really think on that.
I can't wait for the bookclub discussion.
I was skeptical in more ways than the above in regards to this novel, especially for it having been written so recently. In regards to the very ambitious inclusion of Aunt Lydia as the other main perspective, I was even more wary of possibly being led forcefully to an empathetic understanding of the woman who repeatedly described how she was an active, participating architect of a nightmare regime. And I must say, full accolades to Atwood again, because more than halfway through the book I caught myself once again shimmering with rage at this character and the audacity she had to be so cold and callous, so utterly lacking of heart, even as she described being ripped away from her life and tortured into survival at all cost, and I was brought up short in a moment of reflection of not her but myself. Why did I have such a difficult time feeling anything of sympathy for this character? Why was I waiting with preemptive disgust for the moment (and there are some of these moments, though not very many of them) when she reflects upon her life and feels sorry for herself and her situation? What about this extremely complex character induces such a closed-off state of mind in regard to her innocence (she has none, and this is never refuted) and her worthiness of the same empathy I can so easily feel towards her co-stars of the book? If the two girls' ignorance, and abhorrent perspectives, and actions are understood through their childhoods and the society in which they grew up in, and informed by their own trauma, why could I not extend the same character analysis framework to Aunt Lydia? The fact that these questions are brought up at all is the hallmark, to me, of not just excellent writing, but of what the book is meant to do for me as a reader. In the end, I was foolish in my assumption that I would walk into this book already convinced of what Atwood wanted to show me and convince me of, and what would largely happen. It's not hard to guess who is who and what is likely to happen, and I am certainly aligned with the political messages about patriarchy, totalitarianism, and societal censorship and repression. But this book left me questioning the bounds of my own empathy and (especially religious) prejudice, and the degree to which I can engage with a character who is complicit in this way - and this is interesting, because while we do not have Gilead in real life (yet... haha.... hahaha...) we do have plenty of examples of people who are benefiting within systems that harm them, and who engage in power struggles within their absolute upper limits to the detriment of their own communities, and people who are very hurt themselves who replicate, expand, and wield that terror on others afterwards, and who despite themselves are still people who sometimes do good even if their good choices certainly cannot outweigh the harm they've inflicted, and whose beliefs can be both severely harmful and a source of their moral courage, and I could go on, and on, and on. I hate Aunt Lydia with something very vivid within me and I still have to sit with and really think on that.
I can't wait for the bookclub discussion.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child abuse, Child death, Incest, Misogyny, Pedophilia, Rape, Sexism, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, Suicide, Torture, Religious bigotry, Medical trauma