Scan barcode
kayleejanes's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child death, Torture, Murder, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, Adult/minor relationship, Blood, Cursing, Pedophilia, Suicide attempt, Death of parent, Emotional abuse, Misogyny, Sexual harassment, Child abuse, Rape, Suicidal thoughts, Pregnancy, and Suicide
galerieanna25's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death of parent, Domestic abuse, Suicide, Suicide attempt, Religious bigotry, Sexual harassment, Death, Misogyny, Self harm, Sexual assault, Slavery, Adult/minor relationship, Child abuse, Child death, Miscarriage, Emotional abuse, Rape, Pregnancy, and Suicidal thoughts
avocadotoastbee's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
hopeful
tense
medium-paced
3.5
The Testaments is not really what I was hoping for.
In the acknowledgements, Atwood says that The Testaments answers questions left by The Handmaid's Tale and shows what happened after the novel. In my opinion, however, it doesn't do that at all.
Don't get me wrong, there was definitely more information about Gilead and what led to its downfall, although it is never really said how Gilead collapsed.
Another thing that really bothered me was that it basically stuck to the extended storyline and characters from the Hulu series The Handmaid's Tale. I would have liked the book much more if it had been narrated by other characters and abandoned the plot of The Handmaid's Tale's nameless narrator (June) completely, or at least partially.
All in all, I think Margaret Atwood did a great job of building this dystopian world (some of which, unfortunately, isn't that far from the reality we're living in right now), but The Testaments didn't meet my expectations and was predictable, and kind of unnecessary.
In the acknowledgements, Atwood says that The Testaments answers questions left by The Handmaid's Tale and shows what happened after the novel. In my opinion, however, it doesn't do that at all.
Don't get me wrong, there was definitely more information about Gilead and what led to its downfall, although it is never really said how Gilead collapsed.
Another thing that really bothered me was that it basically stuck to the extended storyline and characters from the Hulu series The Handmaid's Tale. I would have liked the book much more if it had been narrated by other characters and abandoned the plot of The Handmaid's Tale's nameless narrator (June) completely, or at least partially.
All in all, I think Margaret Atwood did a great job of building this dystopian world (some of which, unfortunately, isn't that far from the reality we're living in right now), but The Testaments didn't meet my expectations and was predictable, and kind of unnecessary.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child abuse, Sexual assault, Torture, Emotional abuse, Injury/Injury detail, Rape, Sexual harassment, Adult/minor relationship, Death, Pedophilia, Suicide attempt, and Domestic abuse
Moderate: Incest, Classism, Physical abuse, Pregnancy, Infertility, and Infidelity
Minor: Murder
elenayasmin's review
dark
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-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
3.75
Atwood wrote this book to answer questions asked by readers of The Handmaid's Tale. However, many questions still remain unanswered, for example, how exactly did the microdot in Nicole's arm lead to the downfall of Gilead . It was certainly a very gripping read, however I am feeling somewhat dissatisfied after having finished reading it. Atwood builds a lot of suspense throughout the book, but the resolution seems somewhat unrefined. I think she could have afforded to reveal more in The Thirteenth Symposium chapter.
This book differs greatly from the first book due to the fact that The Handmaid's Tale follows only one character, and we get a very immersive experience of her life. The Testaments however follows the perspectives of three characters, which detatches us more from the characters and gives this book a closer feeling of a historical document. Atwood did very well in delivering the different personalities through their testaments, with each character having a unique voice.
This book differs greatly from the first book due to the fact that The Handmaid's Tale follows only one character, and we get a very immersive experience of her life. The Testaments however follows the perspectives of three characters, which detatches us more from the characters and gives this book a closer feeling of a historical document. Atwood did very well in delivering the different personalities through their testaments, with each character having a unique voice.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Forced institutionalization
Moderate: Violence, Sexual harassment, Pedophilia, and Trafficking
Minor: Suicide
james1star's review
challenging
dark
hopeful
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.25
Did The Handmaid’s Tale (THT) need a sequel? No
Was this my vision / the best sequel? No
Was it a satisfactory sequel? Yes
Is it a good book? Yes
Margaret Atwood once agains transports us back to Gilead, and Canada, via her incredible use of descriptive and psychological writing. This was an encapsulating novel and entertaining read with great world-building, character studies with a good plot.
Thankfully we don’t have Offred as a character which really wouldn’t have bode well with me - we left her entering the darkness… or perhaps the light, this ambiguity is one of my favourite parts of THT and picked up on in the historical notes with the icon line of ‘are there any questions?’ Yes we have many! Instead the testaments follows the stories of three women: aunt Lydia, Agnes (this we believe to be Offred’s first child Hannah who was taken from her when captured trying to escape) and Nicole/Daisy (this ‘is’ Offred and Nick’s child who was smuggled to Canada as a baby) and how they each played a role in the downfall of Gilead. The plots and storylines are well written, entertaining and makes you want to read on but they do lack the psychological pull THT had. Additionally, some of the plot twists are kind of telegraphed and the stories all fit together a bit too well and cleanly… made for a tv adaptation? Maybe? I missed the messiness and uncertainty and inner fear that Offred experiences in THT.
Another difference is how the Testaments is more action-focused and hopeful than the original - it’s the suffragettes to THT’s suffragists if you get what I mean. I liked this for sure and it’s entertaining but I did miss the inner pull and heartache, this separation of mind and body with Offred taking ownership of her mental body is her rebellion in a society where all that matters is her body and this is her power. Whereas information and smuggling is the power here, among other things. This actionness also makes the events and characters less realistic to THT but still ‘speculative’ in ways.
Of the three perspectives, aunt Lydia’s is by far the best and most encapsulating. That’s not to say Agnes and Nicole’s aren’t - they are and Atwood writes teenaged so well and lifelike for someone in their 80s. I wanted, I needed, I should have hated aunt Lydia. She is horrible and vindictive and did so many immoral things in THT and the Testaments but I couldn’t. I loved her. She’s so cunning, so knowledgeable, so focused, so powerful. She’s a badass. I don’t only like her for her crucial role in Gilead’s downfall but also her demeanour and personality despite being a villain in a sense. But also we got to see her story, how she was forced into this position - this or death and she chose to live, to thrive in fact, to hold power behind the scenes in a country where women lost all the power they had.
Overall, I definitely enjoyed this book and would totally recommend it. It’s a good book for sure and an adequate sequel to such an amazing literary classic but doesn’t compare in impact - how could it?
Was this my vision / the best sequel? No
Was it a satisfactory sequel? Yes
Is it a good book? Yes
Margaret Atwood once agains transports us back to Gilead, and Canada, via her incredible use of descriptive and psychological writing. This was an encapsulating novel and entertaining read with great world-building, character studies with a good plot.
Thankfully we don’t have Offred as a character which really wouldn’t have bode well with me - we left her entering the darkness… or perhaps the light, this ambiguity is one of my favourite parts of THT and picked up on in the historical notes with the icon line of ‘are there any questions?’ Yes we have many! Instead the testaments follows the stories of three women: aunt Lydia, Agnes (this we believe to be Offred’s first child Hannah who was taken from her when captured trying to escape) and Nicole/Daisy (this ‘is’ Offred and Nick’s child who was smuggled to Canada as a baby) and how they each played a role in the downfall of Gilead. The plots and storylines are well written, entertaining and makes you want to read on but they do lack the psychological pull THT had. Additionally, some of the plot twists are kind of telegraphed and the stories all fit together a bit too well and cleanly… made for a tv adaptation? Maybe? I missed the messiness and uncertainty and inner fear that Offred experiences in THT.
Another difference is how the Testaments is more action-focused and hopeful than the original - it’s the suffragettes to THT’s suffragists if you get what I mean. I liked this for sure and it’s entertaining but I did miss the inner pull and heartache, this separation of mind and body with Offred taking ownership of her mental body is her rebellion in a society where all that matters is her body and this is her power. Whereas information and smuggling is the power here, among other things. This actionness also makes the events and characters less realistic to THT but still ‘speculative’ in ways.
Of the three perspectives, aunt Lydia’s is by far the best and most encapsulating. That’s not to say Agnes and Nicole’s aren’t - they are and Atwood writes teenaged so well and lifelike for someone in their 80s. I wanted, I needed, I should have hated aunt Lydia. She is horrible and vindictive and did so many immoral things in THT and the Testaments but I couldn’t. I loved her. She’s so cunning, so knowledgeable, so focused, so powerful. She’s a badass. I don’t only like her for her crucial role in Gilead’s downfall but also her demeanour and personality despite being a villain in a sense. But also we got to see her story, how she was forced into this position - this or death and she chose to live, to thrive in fact, to hold power behind the scenes in a country where women lost all the power they had.
Overall, I definitely enjoyed this book and would totally recommend it. It’s a good book for sure and an adequate sequel to such an amazing literary classic but doesn’t compare in impact - how could it?
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death, Pedophilia, Violence, Grief, Misogyny, Physical abuse, Religious bigotry, Abortion, Death of parent, Rape, Sexual violence, Sexism, Infertility, Infidelity, and Sexual harassment
anka_not_anchor's review
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
Not as good as the first book, but still an emotive and spine chilling read - reproductive rights remain in limbo and this book is relevant as ever.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Rape, Sexual assault, Sexism, and Sexual harassment
sakusha's review
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
Sequel to The Handmaid’s Tale. Summary: The story of three women in Gilead times, but not seeming to relate to Offred of the previous novel. One woman is Aunt Lydia, one is Agnes who is of marriageable age, and the other is Daisy, a teen from Canada.
The book was entertaining. More exciting than the first book, but the first book was more literary and mature. This one seemed more like a young adult novel. Not a bad thing, for me at least.
All quotes below are from the wide print edition.
Some things didn’t make sense:
Daisy’s narration was often just the same as the others, with some “shits” and “fucks” inserted to make her sound modern, but it seemed forced to me (514). I think the author could’ve done better at making Daisy’s voice sound distinct and natural.
The first book made it seem like there were rations and shortages because the whole world was suffering through them. But in this book, Canada is living life like normal. There is no mention of Canada having an infertility problem, a pollution problem, or a food shortage problem. It was either a mistake or an oversight by the author not to have Canada suffering the same things as Gilead. Canada could’ve had violent rioting, babies being kidnapped, etc. There should’ve been more grayness to Canada, instead of Canada being pure good and Gilead being pure evil.
Early in the book, it sounds like Agnes is a teenager like Nicole is, since Agnes is to be married, and girls in Gilead get married young. But later in the book, they say Nicole is 8 or 9 years younger than Agnes (551)! Nicole is supposed to be 16, so that would make Agnes 24 or 25!
If Nicole was in Canada, and so was her biological mother, why wasn’t Nicole being raised by her as a kid once they both got to Canada?
It seemed odd to me that characters would recommend Nicole infiltrate Gilead. The people of Gilead *wanted* her back. Sending her in was risky and giving them what they wanted. She’d be safer staying in Canada. Also, it seemed unrealistic how Nicole didnt protest much about going into Gilead. Also unrealistic that Judd allowed Lydia to keep Nicole’s return a secret.
Why was it necessary to use Nicole to send back information to Canada? They were using the pamphlets before and could’ve used them previously to expose Gilead’s corruption.
It also doesn’t make sense that when they have two girls go from Gilead to Canada as Pearl Girls, they send Nicole and Agnes; Becka has to hide. It’d make more sense to send Nicole and Becka. Agnes and Nicole are supposed to look alike, so people wouldn’t suspect something is wrong if those two were the Pearl Girls. I suppose the reason for Nicole and Agnes being the ones to go to Canada is because their mother is in Canada. Still, if their mission is successful, then wouldn’t the girl who stays behind eventually be freed too?
Other comments:
Gilead has the girls under five wear skirts down to the knee, and no more than two inches above the ankle after that, “because the urges of men were terrible things and those urges needed to be curbed” (10). It’s funny that this is the excuse used for covering up women in many cultures, but I can think of a simpler solution: have the women dress like men!
“There were swings in one of the parks, but because of our skirts, which might be blown up by the wind and then looked into, we were not to think of taking such a liberty as a swing” (18). Wouldn’t be a problem if girls wore only pants!
“Girls of all kinds . . . Were to be married early, before any chance encounter with an unsuitable man might occur that would lead to what used to be called falling in love or, worse, to loss of virginity” (209). Never realized before that that could be a reason for why girls of many cultures were married young, but it makes sense.
Jade speculated that “kick the bucket” comes from “when they used to hang people from trees. They’d make them stand on a bucket and then hang them, and their feet would kick, and naturally they would kick the bucket” (437). Interesting, never realized that either.
Quotes I liked:
“You don’t believe the sky is falling until a chunk of it falls on you” (89). Remember that when it comes to vaccine injuries.
“I wanted to believe; indeed I longed to; and, in the end, how much of belief comes from longing?” (413) True, people believe what they want to believe.
The book was entertaining. More exciting than the first book, but the first book was more literary and mature. This one seemed more like a young adult novel. Not a bad thing, for me at least.
All quotes below are from the wide print edition.
Some things didn’t make sense:
Daisy’s narration was often just the same as the others, with some “shits” and “fucks” inserted to make her sound modern, but it seemed forced to me (514). I think the author could’ve done better at making Daisy’s voice sound distinct and natural.
The first book made it seem like there were rations and shortages because the whole world was suffering through them. But in this book, Canada is living life like normal. There is no mention of Canada having an infertility problem, a pollution problem, or a food shortage problem. It was either a mistake or an oversight by the author not to have Canada suffering the same things as Gilead. Canada could’ve had violent rioting, babies being kidnapped, etc. There should’ve been more grayness to Canada, instead of Canada being pure good and Gilead being pure evil.
Other comments:
Gilead has the girls under five wear skirts down to the knee, and no more than two inches above the ankle after that, “because the urges of men were terrible things and those urges needed to be curbed” (10). It’s funny that this is the excuse used for covering up women in many cultures, but I can think of a simpler solution: have the women dress like men!
“There were swings in one of the parks, but because of our skirts, which might be blown up by the wind and then looked into, we were not to think of taking such a liberty as a swing” (18). Wouldn’t be a problem if girls wore only pants!
“Girls of all kinds . . . Were to be married early, before any chance encounter with an unsuitable man might occur that would lead to what used to be called falling in love or, worse, to loss of virginity” (209). Never realized before that that could be a reason for why girls of many cultures were married young, but it makes sense.
Jade speculated that “kick the bucket” comes from “when they used to hang people from trees. They’d make them stand on a bucket and then hang them, and their feet would kick, and naturally they would kick the bucket” (437). Interesting, never realized that either.
Quotes I liked:
“You don’t believe the sky is falling until a chunk of it falls on you” (89). Remember that when it comes to vaccine injuries.
“I wanted to believe; indeed I longed to; and, in the end, how much of belief comes from longing?” (413) True, people believe what they want to believe.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Pedophilia, Sexual assault, Sexual harassment, and Suicide
uhm_kai's review
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
Profound but horribly real.
Content Warnings
Minor: Trafficking, Suicide attempt, Grief, Incest, Pedophilia, Sexual violence, Torture, Infidelity, Kidnapping, Sexual content, Sexual assault, Sexual harassment, Adult/minor relationship, Infertility, Miscarriage, Misogyny, Murder, Self harm, Rape, and Pregnancy
yona260's review
adventurous
dark
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexual harassment, Death, and Religious bigotry
Minor: Pedophilia, Pregnancy, Rape, Violence, and War
tessa_specchio's review
dark
emotional
hopeful
mysterious
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
crazy story, really fun to get through and try to solve everything
only things are at some points to so hard to read because of some pretty violent situations as well as a lot of triggering content
if the content won’t trigger you absolutely read it
only things are at some points to so hard to read because of some pretty violent situations as well as a lot of triggering content
if the content won’t trigger you absolutely read it
Content Warnings
Graphic: Rape, Religious bigotry, Sexual assault, and Gore
Moderate: Adult/minor relationship, Blood, Death, Death of parent, Gaslighting, Grief, Gun violence, Misogyny, Pregnancy, Sexism, Sexual harassment, Suicide attempt, Self harm, and Violence
Minor: Body shaming, Car accident, Death of parent, Domestic abuse, Murder, and Vomit