The Testaments is the Booker prize-winning sequel to The Handmaid’s Tale, which is one of my favorite books of all time. When The Testaments first came out, I was tempted to jump all over it, but the mixed reviews gave me pause.
Also, I was very satisfied with the ambiguous ending of The Handmaid’s Tale. I wanted to retain that memory without soiling it, reading a dissatisfying sequel (I don’t know if that makes sense).
About the Book
More than fifteen years after the events of The Handmaid’s Tale, the theocratic regime of the Republic of Gilead maintains its grip on power, but there are signs it is beginning to rot from within. At this crucial moment, the lives of three radically different women converge, with potentially explosive results.
Two have grown up as part of the first generation to come of age in the new order. The testimonies of these two young women are joined by a third voice: a woman who wields power through the ruthless accumulation and deployment of secrets.
My Review
When I first read The Handmaid’s Tale, I found it improbable that a dystopia like this could suddenly happen in America.
It seemed too unbelievable that women would lose the rights they had won and go back to living a cocooned life.
Sadly, in 2021, it does not seem that unbelievable anymore 😟. The loss of abortion rights in Texas, the triumph of the Taliban in Afghanistan – it seems so tiring to think that we need to continue fighting to make sure our rights are not eroded.
On to the review of The Testaments. I started this book, and halfway through, I needed to put it down and reflect.
I liked the book – it’s incredibly fast-paced and plot-driven, and I was racing through it in record time. But I was also puzzled by the writing style.
It didn’t have that literary quality that I associate with Atwood at all.
The book’s first half is brilliant – it set up all three protagonists, and I loved all their voices. Unfortunately, the second half read like a generic YA dystopia (and not a very good one at that).
For example, see this quote. Does it feel like it comes from the brain of Margaret Atwood?
I was sitting cross-legged on the sidewalk with Garth, wearing black tights with a rip in them – Ada had supplied them, but I had made the rip myself – and magenta shorts over them, and worn-out silver gel shoes that looked as if they’d been made from the digestive system of a raccoon. I had a dingy pink top – it was sleeveless because Ada said I should display my new tattoo.
The amount of detail thrown in doesn’t seem to vibe with her generally minimal writing style.
The plot to overthrow Gilead is also a joke. Despite all the action in the book, we don’t see the downfall of Gilead or get the satisfaction of seeing these women bringing down the Government. All we get is a rather unsatisfying jump into the future where an academic speculates on the causes of the fall of Gilead.
So, yes, I am a bit conflicted about this book. The positives are it’s easy, fast-paced, and plot-driven, and the negatives are a very weak second half.
Honestly, I am pretty surprised this book was even short-listed for the Booker prize, let alone winning it.
Still, if I ignore my high expectations, this book was objectively good. It’s just that I expected more from Atwood and more from a Booker-winning novel. What did you think of the book? I see a lot of conflicting reviews just like mine.
I’m with you on the YA dystopia in the second half – in fact the entire character of Daisy felt to me like she was plucked from an average YA novel. Aunt Lydia made the book, for me. I also agree that it hardly deserves the Booker prize – the win seems to be the combination of timing, hype and the cultural impact of The Handmaid’s Tale TV series, rather than quality.