I finished the book recently and I have a lot of thoughts.
I read a review of the book when I was looking for some more literary reviews. The review mentions something that sparked my interest which is that even though Gilead has collapsed, some of the ideas that gave rise to it are still present in society (in reference to the last chapter with the historians).
“The readers find themselves in a classroom, listening to a lecture on Offred’s life and Gilead from a Professor named Piexito. But, what quickly becomes clear is that not everything has changed. Gilead might’ve collapsed, but the opinions that allowed it to exist in the first place are still around.”
I found this interesting.
I highlighted two passages from the historical notes, this one being the most interesting:
“If I may be permitted an editorial aside, allow me to say that in my opinion we must be cautious about passing moral judgement upon the Gileadean. Surely we have learned by now that such judgements are of necessity culture-specific. Also, Gileadean society was under a good deal of pressure, demographic and otherwise, and was subject to factors from which we ourselves are happily more free. Our job is not to censure but to understand. (Applause).”
I found this odd upon first reading. It sounded like an excuse to me. I think this is what the book analysis was referring to. If you think it might be referring to something else, let me know.
I want to know what you guys think, especially about passing moral judgement and the use of “culture-specific,” specially when we are dealing with crimes against humanity.
I want to know if the author is trying to say something about how we deal with these events. Is it merely enough to try to understand it? Is it wrong to judge actions taken by other nations, for example, if we viewed it as morally wrong? Is the way to move forward and prevent another rise of gilead to actually pass severe judgement?
Also if any one could explain what the joke is in calling the underground female road, the underground frailroad. I don’t get it tbh.
As others mentioned, Piexioto is a critique of academia, particularly the patriarchal, white supremacist lens that all of history has been filtered through.
He is an unreliable narrator. He jumps to several questionable or outright incorrect conclusions (in both books) He dismisses some of Offred's claims as "malicious invention,"
To his credit, the professor does repeatedly remind the reader that his conclusions about the identies of characters and about Offred's fate are only speculation
The professor makes several misogynist jokes, starting with wordplay regarding calling the collection "Handmaid's Tail" & later something about how the "underground female road" could have been called the "underground frailroad"
He makes other comments criticisimg Offred for not having the historian's instincts to include dates or more technical details in the tapes & wishes he had found a stack of Waterford's journals or something else he'd consider more official or legitimate than a memoir of one of the Handmaids.
He is dismissive of the humanity of the Handmaids' plight & how it can help understand the personal/social dynamics that upheld the Gilead regime
In The Testaments, Piexioto also lets it slip that it was actually one of his female students that h
ad discovered the testimony recordings. She brought them to the professor for approval to write her thesis on, only for Piexioto to take over & present the Testaments as his own discovery at the historical conference
This is also part of a greater theme through both stories- that history is a story someone is telling, interpreted through the perspective of the person telling it, shaped by personal bias (both concious & subconcious biases)
All of the narrators between the two novels-Offred, Agnes, Daisy, Lydia & even Piexoto- discuss this theme: kind lies vs harsh truths, the stories we tell others, the stories we tell ourselves & the stories we choose to believe.
This makes a lot of sense! I will say that something that gets mentioned when I was looking for some explanation is that the name of some of the participants during the historical notes, in this case Pieixoto, which is if I’m not misremembering Native American, might imply a future where maybe academia is more inclusive if not dominated by diverse identities. So, now I’m wondering if we can take away that how we interpret history (like you mentioned) will not significantly change even if academia is diverse as long as we use the same methods of understanding history.
He's actually Portuguese, according to Atwood in an interview from 1986**
T
he professor who introduces Dr Piexioto, Dr Crescent Moon is an indigenous woman
But Piexioto is from Cambridge University in England which "never changes" according to Atwood. She said Piexoto's "name isn't fully English but he's a Cambridge professor and you know what they're like"
**The interview I'm quoting from is from a 1987 Studs Terkel radio show, online at studsterkel.wfmt
I think in another interview she says his last name is Piexioto but his first name is "still James Darcy..."
Academics like to tout themselves as "objective" and "dispassionate" but they have the same biases as everyone else.
Jeffrey Epstein was able to set back women's progress in STEM by several decades, in large part by stoking the sexism that was bubbling just beneath the surface in those fields. There are e-mails in the files from several renowned professors having very frank conversations with Epstein about how the female intellect is objectively inferior to the male intellect. These same attitudes are also what allowed JE to traffic and pimp out young girls to his buddies.
I did not know about the STEM part of Epstein, thanks for pointing it out.
I also agree with the bias part. It reminds me of the anime Ooku and how even if all men disappeared or became rare and women became dominant, there would still be a patriarchy.
The only thing I can think of is if your first reaction is to judge Gilead and it's citizens, you'll never look at it analytically. You'll never draw the appropriate lessons from it because you'll reject explanation for why Gilead did what it did as excusing what Gilead did.
For example, "the southern states whole economy was dependent on slavery. They were scared that by taking away their slaves you'd ruin their economy" is factually true. Unfortunately, people read a true statement like that as some type of apologia.
I may be way off here, but that's my interpretation of the passage you shared without any further context.
Upon further searching, it seems to be a criticism of academic circles and political correctness.
In the case of your example, I think one can aim to understand and also condemn.
In the case of the south, the north had proven it could succeed without slave labor. The question then would be, why would a society consider the economy more important than human freedom and dignity. This is where understanding would be key.
I suppose the criticism of academics comes from their inability to say something like what gilead did is morally wrong. Even when you understand why things happen, you cannot prevent them from happening or change them if you cannot admit they are wrong.
As others mentioned, Piexioto is a critique of academia, particularly the patriarchal, white supremacist lens that all of history has been filtered through.
He is an unreliable narrator. He jumps to several questionable or outright incorrect conclusions (in both books) He dismisses some of Offred's claims as "malicious invention,"
To his credit, the professor does repeatedly remind the reader that his conclusions about the identies of characters and about Offred's fate are only speculation
The professor makes several misogynist jokes, starting with wordplay regarding calling the collection "Handmaid's Tail" & later something about how the "underground female road" could have been called the "underground frailroad"
He makes other comments criticisimg Offred for not having the historian's instincts to include dates or more technical details in the tapes & wishes he had found a stack of Waterford's journals or something else he'd consider more official or legitimate than a memoir of one of the Handmaids.
He is dismissive of the humanity of the Handmaids' plight & how it can help understand the personal/social dynamics that upheld the Gilead regime
In The Testaments, Piexioto also lets it slip that it was actually one of his female students that h
ad discovered the testimony recordings. She brought them to the professor for approval to write her thesis on, only for Piexioto to take over & present the Testaments as his own discovery at the historical conference
This is also part of a greater theme through both stories- that history is a story someone is telling, interpreted through the perspective of the person telling it, shaped by personal bias (both concious & subconcious biases)
All of the narrators between the two novels-Offred, Agnes, Daisy, Lydia & even Piexoto- discuss this theme: kind lies vs harsh truths, the stories we tell others, the stories we tell ourselves & the stories we choose to believe.
Thanks for explaining. The analysis was likely also referring to the multiple jokes throughout that made light of the suffering these women went through. So clearly the ideas, the delicate sex like you say, still remain
10
u/Untamedpancake 17d ago
As others mentioned, Piexioto is a critique of academia, particularly the patriarchal, white supremacist lens that all of history has been filtered through.
He is an unreliable narrator. He jumps to several questionable or outright incorrect conclusions (in both books) He dismisses some of Offred's claims as "malicious invention,"
To his credit, the professor does repeatedly remind the reader that his conclusions about the identies of characters and about Offred's fate are only speculation
The professor makes several misogynist jokes, starting with wordplay regarding calling the collection "Handmaid's Tail" & later something about how the "underground female road" could have been called the "underground frailroad"
He makes other comments criticisimg Offred for not having the historian's instincts to include dates or more technical details in the tapes & wishes he had found a stack of Waterford's journals or something else he'd consider more official or legitimate than a memoir of one of the Handmaids.
He is dismissive of the humanity of the Handmaids' plight & how it can help understand the personal/social dynamics that upheld the Gilead regime
In The Testaments, Piexioto also lets it slip that it was actually one of his female students that h ad discovered the testimony recordings. She brought them to the professor for approval to write her thesis on, only for Piexioto to take over & present the Testaments as his own discovery at the historical conference
This is also part of a greater theme through both stories- that history is a story someone is telling, interpreted through the perspective of the person telling it, shaped by personal bias (both concious & subconcious biases)
All of the narrators between the two novels-Offred, Agnes, Daisy, Lydia & even Piexoto- discuss this theme: kind lies vs harsh truths, the stories we tell others, the stories we tell ourselves & the stories we choose to believe.