I haven't read the book either, but I am really enjoying the series so far. I think I have seen the first four episodes on Hulu.

I read the book when it was first published and didn't like it. The TV series isn't here yet, but I don't think I will watch it.

I saw the 1990 movie version of the book and was more than just a little upset by it ("traumatized" is only slightly too strong and dramatic a word to describe my reaction to the movie -- if that makes me a snowflake, so be it :) Let's just say I still think about this story and it's been 27 years. I've heard good things about the TV adaptation, but I will not watch it.

I too am watching it on Hulu and am about to watch episode 5. I am finding it quite interesting and look forward to seeing the remainder of the series. I will say that in the beginning I had my doubts but by the end of episode 2 I was hooked.

I watched the first episode and thought it was excellent. But I'm male - though the situation shocks and appals me, it doesn't resonate with me as it does for women.

Vee - if you don't like upsetting/unpleasant stuff, then you probably shouldn't watch it.

i read the book years ago, and still find it unsettling. I think I will pass on this one.

Snowflakes unite!

I also saw the 1990 movie, and I thought it was excellent, so I will be passing on this adaptation. I did find the subject matter unsettling, and as at the time I was in the age range where I could image myself in their situation, also somewhat disturbing, but it did make me think. I did choose not to read the book after that, which is unlike me. That said, I am glad I saw the movie.

I have now partly watched the first three episodes of this. The 'plot' does jump backwards and forwards and have just seen the episode dealing with riots on the streets and what appeared to be a public hanging of a lesbian. I don't want to go all LGBT here but was being a 'gay' female in the US ever a crime? Never so over here because apparently when these 'matters' relating to homosexuals came before Parliament in the 18??'s and the Bill was presented to Queen Victoria for her signature she refused to sign saying she had never heard of anything so unbelievable/preposterous, thereby excluding females from the Act.

On the question of subjugation of women, which is really the theme of the book may I ask a question?

Recently on TV we had a English-made fly-on-the-wall programme about a Mormon community right out in the middle of nowhere with three 'families' living in separate dwellings but with one man as husband/father/overlord.

The children appear happy and well-fed, the 'wives' are quite glamorous considering the number of babies they have produced and two of them hold down regular jobs in the nearest town. The newest woman seems less content for, beside being about nine and a half months pregnant she has to care for the very many younger kids of the other working women and seems rather jealous of the time her shared husband spends with his other 'wives'.

The head of the family doesn't appear to have a paying job but spends his time building additions to their homes, organising the crop-growing, leading prayers and, dare I say it . . . procreating. He is also considering whether to 'marry' his recently deceased brother's wife/ves.

To these old English eyes these seems like scenes from the Old Testament. Is this still considered an acceptable, let alone legal way of life in the US?

Vee, there are a couple of TV shows in the US with similar themes. Polygamy is illegal in the US but I suppose it still happens.

Donna

Vee, to try to answer your question: I recommend that you try to read Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven." The author is an excellent writer, who wrote this to expose the Mormon way of life in certain parts of the American West. Yes, polygamy is supposed to be illegal, but evidently there are pockets of the rural West where it still exists. These types tend to be religious in the extreme and follow strictly the teachings of the Mormon faith, which many Christians in American tend to think of as a "cult", not the "true" faith. Intermittently, TV progs will have Mormon families interviewed, wearing their uniquely plain and modest dress, talking of their simple, rural lives.... I would not call the wives "glamourous" by any stretch of the imagination. The children tend to be home-schooled. Hope I have not offended anyone here.

Vee, as Woodnymph and Donna said, polygamy is definitely illegal in the US. I haven't seen the "Sister Wives" TV show, but I can't even begin to imagine sharing a husband ... definitely an "ick" factor there in my mind. I have a couple of Mormon friends who have assured me that polygamy is completely against their present-day religious teachings.

I've wanted to read Under the Banner of Heaven ... another book for the TBR pile.

There is a Mormon Temple in Louisville that was built not so many years ago. People were invited to go see it before it was officially dedicated, but non-Mormons cannot enter it since. There is a Mormon church about three miles up my street, and there seems to be quite a number of cars in the parking lot when they have services.

The only person I've ever known who had a relative who became a Mormon, along with his family, said they wouldn't drink anything with caffeine in it--except Coke because the church bigwigs in Salt Lake City have heavy investments in the company.

I toured a newly built Mormon temple in Farmington, CT just last year. The building and grounds were lovely and the interior was unexpected. I was raised Catholic and was expecting something along the lines of a large and open cathedral with a grand worship space. Instead, the building had dozens of smaller rooms, each with a specific use. Everything was white and gold and marble and crystal -- really beautiful. Once the temple was consecrated, only Mormons in good standing could enter the building. I had been curious, so I was glad to be able to tour it before it was closed to non-Mormons.

Carolyn, I'm surprised about the Coke. The Mormons I know will not touch anything with caffeine (or alcohol) in it. I could never be a Mormon, I'd never make it a full day with coffee, though I might last a week or so without wine ;)

Thank you for all the information. Our library system doesn't have a copy of 'Under the Banner of Heaven' but I might find a cheap copy online somewhere.

Mary, the 'wives' shown on TV were not at all plainly dressed as you described, in fact if you had met them on the street they would seem no different from other young women, plus they were quite giggly (except the rather jealous one) I wonder what she expected coming in to such an unusual arrangement?

Sheri, I don't think I would be willing to 'share' my husband unless the 'new one' was very handy around the house etc and I know my husband would never feel the need for two wives as he thinks one is quite enough of a challenge . . .

Carolyn, a very wise and practical lady.

There actually have been a few cultures where women have multiple husbands rather than men have multiple wives. It is called polyandry. The custom is found mostly in the Himalayas, and the husbands are likely to be brothers. The practice is believed to be useful in limiting population growth where resources are scarce.

It's amazing what I learned in all those anthropology classes years ago. Never did me much good in my work life, but they have come in very handy in my personal life. I also know the difference between second cousins and first cousins once removed, something most people these days find very confusing as exact relationships become less important to society.

This TV series has at last ended . . . though 'stopped' might be a better word as nothing has been resolved. It is still deep Winter in what I think is Boston, the religious maniacs continue to do nasty things both to their opponents and to their own kind when they have sinned. Ofred (sp) the Handmaid, spends very little time on housework, just sits about in the kitchen, mopes in the bedroom and goes shopping. Surprisingly the whole thing is very slowly paced, each footstep is clearly heard, the coldness and menace are always present.

I wonder if the original book has quite so much sex in it . . . not just the organised monthly ordeal suffered by the Handmaids as ordered by their new masters and mistresses, but the extra extra-marital variety?

My DD has an old copy of the book somewhere; perhaps I'll check it out.

I've started watching this- I feel sure I read the book years ago but maybe not as little has remained in my memory.

Vee- regarding hanging the lesbian- while being a gay woman isn't a crime now, to a Christian based religious oligarchy obsessed with female fertility, lesbianism would be a major affront to God and man I would think.

Vee-The polygamists in this country are modern, hold jobs and dress in the current styles as you described. Polygamy is outlawed here but it does happen. The polygamists that are 'cult' affiliated are the ones who dress in prairie dresses, piled up hair and sensible shoes.

Rose, I, too, know what a second cousin, once removed is! Genealogy is fascinating!

Linda

I read this novel when it was first published and found it mind-blowing in its depcition of the roles women were expected to play. I also taught it in Women's Studies in the university where I taught and it blew my students' minds as well. Margaret Atwood totally rocks.

I saw the first film version of the novel and did not like it, and I would love to see the new series but I don't have HULU.

Having finished a 'difficult' Booker contender I'm ready to start on my daughter's yellowing copy of The Handmaid's Tale. After this TV series many pundits claim that rather than looking at 'goings-on' in the US we are seeing similarities between the story and the Middle East. There's a thought to start the week.

Vee - you may remember that we had a discussion about The Handmaid's Tale here on RP back in 2004. Don't know if you want to read the book, then re-read the discussion or vice versa, but here it is in any case.

Martin, many thanks for putting up the old 'discussion'. I had forgotten all about it partly I expect, because I hadn't read the book. I've done a quick overview but will work my way through it as I get into THT.

What has happened to so many of the 'old faces' from back then? I doubt there are enough RP'ers here to start a similar thread these days.

I can speak more to the recent television adaptation than to the book - I thought the series was excellent. Very proud to see that it was mainly filmed in Toronto (easy to tell the backdrop of the city with the Red Rocket streetcars!) and also my hometown of Hamilton was used for much of the filming too, including the basement of a church.Great for Margaret to produce a novel that still resonates. An interesting side note is that one of my good friends who works in wardrobe helped make the signature bonnets and headgear - there were several different styles...

LaLennoxa, thanks for the photos and information about filming. I have an old friend living in Toronto who says she almost falls over the many camera crews that use the city as a 'stand-in' for almost anywhere in the Western World.

Just finished the book and enjoyed reading all the old comments that Martin kindly saved and put up.

In many ways I was helped by having watched the TV series before I read the book. There were some differences . . . The Commander's wife is not an old-ish 'cripple' but a smart almost Teutonic female, showing very little emotion. The book seems to be set during the hot Summer time, but in the series it is everlasting Winter which does add to the feeling of desolation. Offred's husband Luke and her friend Moira are played by black actors. This may be because TV casting has moved on from the mid-80's 'though I presume Atwood had them as white (it made no difference to the story-line). There is far more sex in the series than in the book . . . probably no surprise there as apparently audiences need the titillation. The character of Janine had been built up and, in fact, unwittingly plays quite a significant part in the series denouement.
Finally I was glad to read that Gilead didn't seem to take over the whole world or even the USA, possibly just New England. I wonder if there was any connection in this with the early settlement of the 'Pilgrim Father's' in that part of the US?