The Handmaid's Tale Redux

As promised, I read Margaret Atwood's, The Handmaid's Tale and so I now report back about its consideration as a dystopian novel. I conjectured that it was possible that inconsistent Library of Congress information might contribute to this novel's lack of presence in "lists" of dystopian literature. A cursory review of online information at the Library of Congress website doesn't show matching information for 1984 or Brave New World, so that can't be the reason for Atwood's novel not finding a place in the canon, as it is generally called.

I wonder whether Atwood's character viewpoint, that of a woman, is, in fact, what keeps The Handmaid's Tale from inclusion. Another cursory Internet search yielded interesting results. On Wikipedia, there are five women authors of dystopian literature listed in a timeline of publications. Various blogs include Atwood among the male authors, in addition to Lowry and others. However, a glance at Yale's consideration of the American Utopian dream, wherein there is a listing of utopian literature as well as dystopian and a list of utopian communities, of the seven authors listed for dystopian literature, none are female.

I'd love to have access to a college library website like I had as an undergraduate and graduate student so that I might search dissertations to explore scholarly consideration of dystopian literature to see the incidence of inclusion or exploration of female authored dystopian novels. The issue might come to the fact that more men have written, (and/or have had published), dystopian novels than women. That already slants the odds toward men being featured predominantly on lists of dystopian literature. Not only that, but it seems that more men write dystopian literature than women (or, again, are published possibly).

Nonetheless, I read The Handmaid's Tale to determine for myself whether the novel would make my own "dystopian literature list." Right from the start, I felt a resounding "YES!" come forth. As I read, I considered the story of its own merit, of course, but could not help compare various aspects to the dystopian literature I've read already. There were so many similarities that it was obvious to me that Atwood's book is a natural for any list of dystopian literature. As Laura Cude pondered this question, so do I: is Atwood's book "too feminine" for inclusion by some academics? Is the viewpoint less "universal" because it describes the behavior and inner life of a female main character and her direct bodily experiences?

If I consider Zamyatin's We, Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984, I find the viewpoint more universal as the main male characters do not necessarily speak of being in a male body. Their physical experiences are not so different from what any woman would experience in similar circumstances. Thus, are they more universally appreciated for their seemingly gender-free viewpoint? And yet, when we consider acts of war such as rape, and the use of rape as a tactic in defeating an enemy, the very femaleness of victims is what demoralizes a group, thereby allowing it to be conquered. There is no way to escape the unique female experience of this, no way to deny the difference of women and their reproductive organs as internal, hidden, and very personal to themselves as individuals. Yes, there is male rape, but it is also no different from the female experience of that mode of rape. There is no male equivalent of vaginal rape. I realize this may be seen as "splitting hairs" over a rape experience, or may be seen as me belittling anal rape and making more of vaginal rape. However, the main difference I see is that in the most general of terms, outside of sexuality as a consideration, is that the norm for female sex is vaginal in nature.

I digress.

If we add Louis Lowry's, The Giver, to the list, we still find a male main character whose experience is that of a human being outside of his being male, essentially. The difference with Atwood is that she speaks from the female body, not merely a female character in a dystopian society. Like Laura Cude, I do wonder if this is what accounts for lists not including Atwood's novel. Further, I wonder why this is so.

If you are male and have read Orwell, Huxley or Zamyatin as well as Atwood, would you kindly weigh in? What was your experience reading The Handmaid's Tale versus your experience reading any of the other authors listed? Were you are able to relate to the main character's experiences? Please share this blog with men you know who have read books like this so they may weigh in, as well. A private email is just as appreciated as a public comment, as I realize people may not want to put themselves in a public forum as they consider, comment and think-while-writing about this topic. I'd like to hear from women, as well! I only ask about men as I wonder if their perspective would be different.