The Handmaid's Tale Part 9:
Mar. 4th, 2018 01:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastMy thoughts on Chapter 10 are a bit scattered. I don't know that I can make a singular theme out of this. That's no insult, it's a small chapter and engaging read, so it doesn't need its own theme. It seems like a collection of Offred's thoughts, collected in non-linear manner (perhaps not unlike how the book itself is presented). So, I'll just power through a few thoughts.
The first thing in this chapter is a song you've heard.
Offred sometimes sings in her head to herself. She has to do this in her had because "such songs are not sung anymore in public". One of the reasons is that songs with the word "free" belong to other sects.
Here I have my first disagreement with Atwood. Before, it's been expansion on the ideas presented. But, here I disagree. I know this much about how conservative, Dominionist Christians deal with concepts, such as freedom, that they view as owned by competing ideologies. They don't reject the word. They claim ownership.
"Freedom? You want freedom? Why step right here, my good man. You can have the only real freedom through absolute submission to Jesus Christ. (Oh, it's certainly not submission to me, not at all. I simply know what Jesus wants because I read the plain meaning of the Bible. Anybody who disagrees with me isn't interacting with the Bible honestly.) No, you obey what Jesus infallibly made clear to me (no, I'm not lacking in humility, it's Jesus being infallible. Pay attention.) and you, too, can be free to be you!
"Terms and conditions apply, you are not free to be gay, bi, trans, asexual, gender-fluid, aware of intersectionality as a concept, or an ally to anybody who is so enslaved by Satan as to think they want these things."
And, rejecting music? Particularly that one verse that's all about self-abasement and applauding the concept that submission to the faith frees you... somehow from... something?
I go back and forth on this one, though. This particular verse is perfect for this version of Christianity. It purports to uplift the singer, while being an act of self-insult. The idea is that you are a wretch, incapable of knowing truth or freedom unless you do so by total submission to... something related to this religion. Requiring songs of such a nature to be sung would be a means of keeping people from having simple conversations on walks.
At the same time, there is historical precedent for the use of songs that, technically, fit the requirements laid upon them, but can be used to deliver messages. And, I can only imagine the number of songs referencing Ezekial by chapter and verse.
So, I could go back and forth on the prevalence of music in Gilead. But, the ownership taken over words and values was a strong habit of the religious right, even in the 1980s.
Either way, I can understand that Serena Joy would only listen to her own music with the volume low. That would too easily communicate discontent with her current life, the life that she said she wanted.
There's a bit more memory of the time with the Aunts, who discussed clothing and things that happened before. There'll be more to be said on that later, particularly the bit where said things are said not to happen to nice women. But, I remember there being a better chapter for that later on.
Another part of this chapter is looking back at the every-dayness of every day life before Gilead. Stolen cigarettes, parties where lingerie is sold instead of Tupperware, dropping water balloons on college boys trying to steal panties, etc. All of that is contrasted with a world where the word "Faith" embroidered on a cushion is the rare opportunity to personally read something.
We get just another glimpse of the Commander and a hint that more information about the Commander will come soon. (And, I will finally be able to state some thoughts related to him.)
The first thing in this chapter is a song you've heard.
Amazing grace, how sweet the sound
Could save a wretch like me,
Who once was lost, but now am found,
Was bound, but now am free.
Offred sometimes sings in her head to herself. She has to do this in her had because "such songs are not sung anymore in public". One of the reasons is that songs with the word "free" belong to other sects.
Here I have my first disagreement with Atwood. Before, it's been expansion on the ideas presented. But, here I disagree. I know this much about how conservative, Dominionist Christians deal with concepts, such as freedom, that they view as owned by competing ideologies. They don't reject the word. They claim ownership.
"Freedom? You want freedom? Why step right here, my good man. You can have the only real freedom through absolute submission to Jesus Christ. (Oh, it's certainly not submission to me, not at all. I simply know what Jesus wants because I read the plain meaning of the Bible. Anybody who disagrees with me isn't interacting with the Bible honestly.) No, you obey what Jesus infallibly made clear to me (no, I'm not lacking in humility, it's Jesus being infallible. Pay attention.) and you, too, can be free to be you!
"Terms and conditions apply, you are not free to be gay, bi, trans, asexual, gender-fluid, aware of intersectionality as a concept, or an ally to anybody who is so enslaved by Satan as to think they want these things."
And, rejecting music? Particularly that one verse that's all about self-abasement and applauding the concept that submission to the faith frees you... somehow from... something?
I go back and forth on this one, though. This particular verse is perfect for this version of Christianity. It purports to uplift the singer, while being an act of self-insult. The idea is that you are a wretch, incapable of knowing truth or freedom unless you do so by total submission to... something related to this religion. Requiring songs of such a nature to be sung would be a means of keeping people from having simple conversations on walks.
At the same time, there is historical precedent for the use of songs that, technically, fit the requirements laid upon them, but can be used to deliver messages. And, I can only imagine the number of songs referencing Ezekial by chapter and verse.
So, I could go back and forth on the prevalence of music in Gilead. But, the ownership taken over words and values was a strong habit of the religious right, even in the 1980s.
Either way, I can understand that Serena Joy would only listen to her own music with the volume low. That would too easily communicate discontent with her current life, the life that she said she wanted.
There's a bit more memory of the time with the Aunts, who discussed clothing and things that happened before. There'll be more to be said on that later, particularly the bit where said things are said not to happen to nice women. But, I remember there being a better chapter for that later on.
Another part of this chapter is looking back at the every-dayness of every day life before Gilead. Stolen cigarettes, parties where lingerie is sold instead of Tupperware, dropping water balloons on college boys trying to steal panties, etc. All of that is contrasted with a world where the word "Faith" embroidered on a cushion is the rare opportunity to personally read something.
We get just another glimpse of the Commander and a hint that more information about the Commander will come soon. (And, I will finally be able to state some thoughts related to him.)
no subject
Date: 2018-03-05 11:29 am (UTC)And while I don't know if Atwood was thinking of this specifically, the author of Amazing Grace was one of England's foremost abolitionists and the song's imagery suggests liberation from slavery. So it makes sense that a religious ideology that that has its roots in the rationalization of slavery would be hostile to the song.
no subject
Date: 2018-03-05 12:58 pm (UTC)It's also worthy of note that, early on in the book, one of the aunts expounded upon the value of "freedom to" versus "freedom from".
no subject
Date: 2018-03-05 05:00 pm (UTC)Could save a wretch like me,
Who once was lost, but now am found,
Was bound, but now am free.
That's not how the song actually goes. The first stanza goes like this.
Amazing grace, how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me,
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind but now I see.
I think that Atwood intended the audience to realize that the song has been subtly altered to reflect Gilead's belief that its people are not yet saved and that the people are now freer than they were before, but that June has either forgotten this or has been sufficiently brainwashed to believe that the altered version is the original one. Because there's a difference between "I have been saved" and "I could be saved, maybe", just as there's a big difference between "I was spiritually blind before God saved me" and "my previous life was a prison (in every possible way, including spiritually), and now I'm liberated."
Of course, Gilead is currently fighting a civil war, and I imagine such a song could be used by rebels. Doubtless the people who run the tyranny that's Gilead don't want to hear their own altered music turned against them by revolutionaries who feel (rightly) that life in Gilead is a prison. That's probably why the song was banned, not because of the use of the word "free" by different sects.
It's propaganda that the audience is intended to spot. I think that we're supposed to be chilled that June doesn't see it.
no subject
Date: 2018-03-06 01:16 pm (UTC)