Scan barcode
A review by bobisimo
The Testaments by Margaret Atwood
4.0
The first thing I thought as I neared the end of this book is a comment I saw before I started reading that asked "Is this book necessary" before answering "no." Now that I've finished, I can't argue that the Testaments is "necessary" but I would say that I don't think necessity matters when the story, the setting, and the characters are enjoyable -- even if it's only expanding on what's already been told. I'll talk more on that in a moment.
But there's two other comments I want to make first.
One, Aunt Lydia is a major character in this book -- one of three main characters (I don't want to mention the other two characters, even if it becomes obvious, because it does spoil things). As someone who loves the show, and especially Ann Dowd, this makes me incredibly happy (and even a little eager for the TV version of this book). Aunt Lydia's sections in the book give us a lot of insight, into her and the world of Gilead, and her strategic, survivalist mind, and I'm glad I don't have to live in a world that has nothing of Aunt Lydia from the Testaments.
And that brings me to my second thought: that while the Testaments may not be necessary, the TV show the Handmaid's Tale exists, and it comforts me to know that Atwood's two books create a foundation for that "cinematic universe." Instead of waiting to see how the show would resolve the story, we get it straight from the creator. Maybe some Game of Thrones fans out there get this point.
As for the Testaments, as I said I don't want to spoil things, but I will repeat what Atwood said in publicizing the book, that it covers the "beginning of the end" of Gilead.
Unlike the Handmaid's Tale, which largely, and to great effect, follows one story for one character in one location, the Testaments explores from the point of view of the aforementioned three characters, a wider range of territory (creating more context)-- Gilead and Canada predominantly, but also hints at story lines in the "Republic of Texas" and other areas -- and a more broad view of Gilead's actions and place in history. In that way, as someone who had a lot of questions about the world of Gilead, I found it satisfying to get some resolution to those questions.
And that kind of takes things back to the start: is it necessary? A book that inspires a lot of questions can be very interesting because it lets you explore the possibilities, especially one like the Handmaid's Tale where the story was so jolting, the ideas both new/exciting and ancient/horrifying, that the questions raised were more pronounced and intense.
Often, getting answers to those questions can take the shine off things, but here, while I'd definitely not call this book as exciting and eye-opening, or even as literary (i.e., this is more of a companion piece and I don't think it could stand on its own), as the Handmaid's Tale, I will stick with my comment that it's a satisfying and enjoyable read. Maybe there are too many caveats to make this a book for everyone, but as someone who fits the target audience, I can only say that I really enjoyed it.
But there's two other comments I want to make first.
One, Aunt Lydia is a major character in this book -- one of three main characters (I don't want to mention the other two characters, even if it becomes obvious, because it does spoil things). As someone who loves the show, and especially Ann Dowd, this makes me incredibly happy (and even a little eager for the TV version of this book). Aunt Lydia's sections in the book give us a lot of insight, into her and the world of Gilead, and her strategic, survivalist mind, and I'm glad I don't have to live in a world that has nothing of Aunt Lydia from the Testaments.
And that brings me to my second thought: that while the Testaments may not be necessary, the TV show the Handmaid's Tale exists, and it comforts me to know that Atwood's two books create a foundation for that "cinematic universe." Instead of waiting to see how the show would resolve the story, we get it straight from the creator. Maybe some Game of Thrones fans out there get this point.
As for the Testaments, as I said I don't want to spoil things, but I will repeat what Atwood said in publicizing the book, that it covers the "beginning of the end" of Gilead.
Unlike the Handmaid's Tale, which largely, and to great effect, follows one story for one character in one location, the Testaments explores from the point of view of the aforementioned three characters, a wider range of territory (creating more context)-- Gilead and Canada predominantly, but also hints at story lines in the "Republic of Texas" and other areas -- and a more broad view of Gilead's actions and place in history. In that way, as someone who had a lot of questions about the world of Gilead, I found it satisfying to get some resolution to those questions.
And that kind of takes things back to the start: is it necessary? A book that inspires a lot of questions can be very interesting because it lets you explore the possibilities, especially one like the Handmaid's Tale where the story was so jolting, the ideas both new/exciting and ancient/horrifying, that the questions raised were more pronounced and intense.
Often, getting answers to those questions can take the shine off things, but here, while I'd definitely not call this book as exciting and eye-opening, or even as literary (i.e., this is more of a companion piece and I don't think it could stand on its own), as the Handmaid's Tale, I will stick with my comment that it's a satisfying and enjoyable read. Maybe there are too many caveats to make this a book for everyone, but as someone who fits the target audience, I can only say that I really enjoyed it.