Feminist Dystopia?

Laura Cude is a British writer I read regularly at HerCircle Ezine, to which I subscribe. Her latest piece is a reflection on whether Atwood's, The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopian novel, albeit a feminist one in the almost all-male genre, and if so, why is it not included in lists of "must-reads" or when dystopian novels are brought up in articles or discussions? I have never read the novel myself to date, even while I've re-read Orwell and Huxley. That can be quickly rectified by grabbing my nook and having the book instantly in my hands. (Ah, the convenience of modern technology, dystopian novel be damned!)

As an instant reaction to Cude's article, I considered Fight Club and its male author yet its feminist (in my opinion) theme with the male character finding wholeness and growth through his relationship with the female character, which is representative of feminist relational development theory. Below I quote my comment at the HerCircle website:

I, too, have somehow never read this book. However, I will now read it. With my handy nook, I can go online (hopefully) and find it in e-book format for immediate reading. That aside, I wonder whether you've read Fight Club? (or whether you've seen the movie) I realize it was written by a man, however, I also think this man is particularly interesting in the dystopian novel genre for his perspectives. 


On the surface, Fight Club seems all-male, and testosterone-fueled. I, myself, resisted seeing it as it was advertised. When it went to video (yes, that dinosaur VHS), I resisted it each time my husband and I went to the store to rent a film. I kept telling him I didn't want to watch men beat each other up for two hours. When I finally saw the film, after it was continually recommended by people I respected, I was blown away, and not just by the story itself with the plot twist ending. 


I went and read the book, which has a different ending. Both endings are terrific. However, the book is far more chilling in the end. It's Shelley's warning in Frankenstein about being careful what you create man (and by that I mean specifically the male as creator in the world). 


I had already read Susan Faludi's, Stiffed, and could not help but compare what I saw in Fight Club to Faludi's thesis. You see, in the end, it is the character's love for the woman that saves him from himself. He is able to overcome a very serious psychosis due to the power of love and the relationship in which he finds himself. (Yes, yes, can of worms that all is aside.)


Rather than Winston ultimately betraying Julia in 1984, the Fight Club character redeems himself in light of his care, love and personal growth that comes from his relationship with Marla. This is an exact example of feminist theories of growth such as relational development. Thus, the fact that Fight Club was written by a male author is even more interesting as we examine literary history and the dystopian novel's development. The female character, as flawed as she seems in Fight Club as an "ideal" feminist woman, is, at her heart, at least still sane despite the society in which she lives. She has issues, for sure, yet not nearly the extent of issues of the male character. In the end, she advocates for herself, and even when she is detained by the main male character's minions, he is thereby "cured" and brought to a kind of wholeness as the result of his care for her. What could be more feminist than someone finding growth, redemption and a sense of caring for the entire world, community and society through relationship?


If you have a chance to dialog about this, I'd be very interested in your thoughts. I will also go and read Atwood's book to see what that has to say. As your comments hint toward, I wonder if the fact that Atwood's text is not science fiction is what makes it hard for people to read. I am not sure, however, since when I re-read 1984 or Brave New World, as I do now and again, I find them less science fiction than prophecy or self-fulfilling prophecy. We can't go anywhere in the United States without television. While it might not be "two-way" t.v. (yet), it is ubiquitous and inescapable. The nature of what is presented is merely self-policed, with no need for "Big Brother" as people pressure one another into viewing or view those as suspect who do not watch. It is far worse than Orwell could even imagine it. A glance at birthing practices, again, especially in the U.S., will also show what has come true from Brave New World.