In each report, include the source, where and when you used it, how long it took you,

a summary, your opinion, and notes on why this is

relevant to a discussion of your book.

The Handmaid's Tale wikipedia starter: who wrote it, what it's about etc. 10:47-12:10
The Handmaid's Tale is a futuristic dystopian novel[6] by Canadian author Margaret Atwood published in 1985.[7] It is set in a
near-future New England in a patriarchal, totalitarian theonomic state known as the Republic of Gilead, which has overthrown the
United States government.[8] Offred is the central character and narrator and one of the "Handmaids": women who are forcibly assigned
to produce children for the "Commanders", who are the ruling class in Gilead.

The novel explores themes of powerless women in a patriarchal society, loss of female agency and individuality, suppression of
women's reproductive rights, and the various means by which women resist and try to gain individuality and independence. The title
echoes the component parts of Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, which is a series of connected stories (such as "The
Merchant's Tale" and "The Parson's Tale").[9] It also alludes to the tradition of fairy tales where the central character tells her story.[10]

The Handmaid's Tale won a few prizes:

1985 Governor General's Award.

the first Arthur C. Clarke Award in 1987.

nominated for the 1986 Nebula Award,

the 1986 Booker Prize,

and the 1987 Prometheus Award.

In 2022, The Handmaid's Tale was included on the "Big Jubilee Read" list of 70 books by Commonwealth authors, selected to
celebrate the Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II.[11]

The book has been adapted into a 1990 film, a 2000 opera, a 2017 television series, and other media.

A sequel novel, The Testaments, was published in 2019.

short summary of some backgroundchecks done by wikipedia.

.Margaret Atwood's *The Handmaid's Tale* is categorized as speculative fiction rather than science fiction, using satire to critique
social, political, and religious trends in 1980s America, particularly concerning women's rights. Atwood was motivated by discussions
among the religious right about the treatment of women, including movements like the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition. She
explores the consequences of casually held societal attitudes toward women, suggesting that many of the situations depicted in the
novel have real-life parallels.

Atwood explains that her scenarios are based on actual historical precedents and trends, arguing that the oppressive structures seen in
the novel are plausible extensions of existing societal behaviors. The regime of Gilead was partially inspired by the Islamic revolution in
Iran, which restricted women's rights, and by her observations of political hypocrisy in Canada.

The novel also draws from Atwood's observations of women's roles post-World War II and the backlash against women's independence
in the 1950s. This connection is illustrated through the narrator's transition into an unhappy housewife after losing her job.

Additionally, Atwood researched early American Puritanism and the nature of totalitarian regimes for her portrayal of Gilead. She
emphasizes that the leaders of Gilead misrepresent Christianity for their gain, while also recognizing the positive potential of faith when
applied to vulnerable communities. Atwood’s reflections on real-world examples of religious and governmental oppression, along with
environmental issues, underscore the relevance of her work to contemporary society.

Atwood connects the plight of the Handmaids to historical injustices faced by women and notes the ongoing struggles with issues like
infertility, which parallels real-world problems caused by environmental degradation. The narrative reflects her strong stance on
environmental concerns, influenced by her upbringing in a scientific background.

The Handmaid's Tale review van new york times

summary: 18;08 - 19;00

In this review, Mary McCarthy reflects on Margaret Atwood’s *The Handmaid’s Tale*, critiquing its effectiveness as a cautionary tale.
McCarthy argues that while Atwood presents a dystopian future in which a theocratic, right-wing regime enforces strict gender roles and
controls women’s reproductive rights, the novel fails to elicit the kind of recognition or shock seen in other dystopian works like
*Nineteen Eighty-Four* or *Brave New World*. McCarthy feels that the book’s portrayal of a future society based on current trends is
too predictable and lacks the satirical bite that makes such tales compelling.

She highlights the novel's depiction of a rigidly divided female population, where women are categorized as Wives, Handmaids,
Marthas (household workers), and others, all controlled by a patriarchal, religious regime. However, McCarthy critiques the lack of
depth in character development and the absence of an imaginative, new language, which diminishes the novel's power to frighten or
provoke. Despite these shortcomings, she acknowledges the book's exploration of infertility, toxic environmental conditions, and
societal control, suggesting that Atwood's novel is more a reflection on the dangers of current social trends rather than a true warning of
an imminent dystopia.

McCarthy also notes that Atwood resists framing the novel as a political message or direct warning, instead focusing on how power
structures can manipulate desires and fears, particularly concerning women’s roles in society. Atwood’s historical influences, including
early American Puritanism and religious intolerance, are mentioned as foundational to the novel’s themes, particularly the idea that
such repression could happen anywhere, not just in the past. Ultimately, McCarthy concludes that while the novel is engaging and
thought-provoking, it lacks the imaginative and emotional depth of the best works in the genre.
mijn mening hierover is dat het een goed stuk is.Nyt is volgens mij een betrouwbare bron.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/00/03/26/specials/mccarthy-atwood.html?module=inline

documentaire over totalitaire staat op Netflix: how to become a tirant. twee afleveringen van 35 minuten. aflevering zes en zeven.
over mohammar khadaffi en kim jong un. die hun macht pakten door een nieuwe samenleving te creëren of zichzelf goddelijk te
verklaren.

1 moammar khadaffi: dictator van Libië, heeft zo’n veertig jaar geheerst. Een van de langste dictators, hij manipuleerde de informatie in
het land heel erg. Zo was het enige boek dat de kinderen mochten lezen een boek dat door hem was geschreven. Ook was hij een
‘moderne’ dictator. Hij zette vrouwen neer op posities en liet ze werken. Zo waren zijn eigen bodyguards allemaal vrouwen, maar vergis
je niet. De vrouwen waren ver van vrij. Sommige experts vergelijken de bodyguards zelfs met een harem. Want tegelijkertijd werd het
recht om te trouwen met meisjes verlaagd tot vanaf zeven. En was scheiden verboden. En nog veel meer.
Maar hij heeft ook een rivier gebouwd die door de woestijn loopt en die Libië vruchtbaarheid gaf.
Ik moest bij deze aan de hand maids tale denken door dat de vrouw in handsmaids tale de tweede vrouw was van een man. Maar daar
werd het recht om te scheiden ook ingetrokken. Ook is het verboden voor vrouwen om te lezen, omdat ze dat toch niet nodig hebben.

2 Kim jong un:

Noord-Korea heeft een dictator die voortdrijft uit geloof. Door zichzelf af te beelden als goden is de Kim-dynastie al drie generaties aan
de macht. Langer dan elke andere dictator, dit hebben ze deels voor elkaar gekregen door hun isolatie, maar ook echt door het feit dat
elke film elk verhaal, elk toneelstuk is gemaakt ter ere van hun heersers.
De dictatuur in de handmaid's tale is ook verweven in een geloof, zo heten sommige bodyguard 'angels'. En er wordt gebeden bijna
elke dag. De bijbel wordt gebruikt om allemaal regels door te voeren die absurd klinken.
Ik vind deze series leuk en ik zou ze ook kijken zonder de handmaid's tale denk ik.
in totaal van 16;15-17;06 voor de eerste
en voor de andere van 10;40 -11;10.

gesprek met mijn moeder over het handmaid's tale, zij heeft hem in het nederlands gelezen. Mijn moeder is een feminist en vindt het
een schokkend verhaal en kwam er de eerste keer nauwelijks doorheen. maar deze keer heeft ze hem in een keer uitgelezen. ze is ook
al verder dan ik. We hebben het veel OVER GELOOF GEHAD EN HOE JE NIKS OP GROTE SCHAAL KAN DOEN ZONDER IEMAND
UIT TE BUITEN, het was leuk en een goeie intro over het boel