The Handmaid's Tale: story or history?
If you read the definition of history in the box (inset left), you'd almost think that the word history means "an account of real events, of things that actually happened presented in the way that they happened, and you'd be partially correct.
Consider this: when you look up definitions in a dictionary, there is often more than one defintion given; for history, for example, there are several. The definitions are listed in the order of their acceptance; in other words, the first definition is the most-accepted definition; definition 2 is the secondary (less-used) definition, and so on.
The defintion in the box is definition 2.
Here's definition 1:
history - "A narrative of events; a story."
history - " ... a story."
Discuss one of the following:
One of the central concerns of the novel is the nature of communication, both oral and written. This is apparent at the very beginning when the women in the gymnasium whisper their true names from cot to cot.
Discuss what the book suggests about the nature of communication, also the power of communication and the power of denying it.
What are some of the limitations of communication, of history, of storytelling? Consider Offred's constant referrals to her "reconstructions" and to the historians' unwillingness to wholly accept the handmaid's account.
You might want to explore the chapter where Offred remembers seeing the television show about the mistress of the commander of the WWII concentration camp; also Offred's comments about television propaganda fit nicely into this topic.
As always, the best discussions will show the relevance of the topic by relating it to concrete real-world examples (for example, slaves in parts of the U.S. were not allowed to read, and slave-holders who were caught teaching reading to their slaves could be hanged; also, even in the current engagement in Bosnia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, the press is not allowed to tell the U.S. public everything that is happening).
This is really just another way of looking at question 1 above. Compare/contrast history and fiction.
Atwood examines the nature of each in her book (which is a pseudo-historical work, a fiction disguised as history).
Fiction can be as believable as history (I've had a number of students over the years ask me about the book--when it really happened and why it wasn't in their history books). History can be as fanciful as a folk tale (one popular history book, now pulled from the school system, stated that the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Korea in WWII; of course, two atomic bombs were actually dropped on Japan, not Korea). Not only are there errors in history books (remember learning that nonsense about Washington and the cherry tree?), our perceptions about history (remember Christopher Colombus?) change with time, and all histories are told from particular points of view; we never get the whole story.
Explore the differences between histories and works of fiction. What are the actual differences? the supposed differences? How are histories limited in the truth that they (can) tell? In what way are works of fiction (which don't pretend to be real) able to express real truths that histories can't and really don't attempt to?
Again, the discussion questions are not "I think," "I feel," "I believe," "in my opinion" questions. To get many points, you must support your posting and responses with actual examples from The Handmaid's Tale (which you quote and document; don't just use my examples) and with actual real-world examples (I recommend doing a bit of research and including Works Cited references or links in your posting).
As always, postings should be about 300 words, responses 150 words; both must contain concrete examples, thoughtful and thought-provoking ideas, etc.