Clearly Margaret Atwood it has become a mass icon of the most vindictive feminism. Mainly because of his dystopia from The Handmaid's Tale. And it is that several decades after the novel was written, its introduction to television achieved that unexpected effect of the delayed echo.
Of course, the opportunity paints her bald to consider a second part. And surely also the inalienable suggestions for a continuation of the handwriting of the great maker of history.
The point is to get it right and save that hackneyed criticism that the second parts are never good. Something more typical of nostalgic people clinging to the original work with a vocation for summary criticism of every sequel.
The purely narrative part leads us more than a decade after the original story. The Republic of Gilead continues to dictate norms, behaviors, beliefs, duties, obligations and very few rights for subjugated citizens and, above all, female citizens.
Under fear, abuse is still allowed, although insurgency attempts, especially from women, much more affected by the sinister government, are growing in growing foci towards an announced decline of Gilead.
Wherever there are women capable of discerning, amid the lattice of fear, their strongest will can harbor hope.
Of course, the three women that make up the singular triangle, coming from very different social strata; from the most favored, privileged and compromised with the regime, to the most insurgent and even bellicose, they will rally to end up facing all kinds of conflicts, including with themselves.
Among the three, Lydia mainly stands out with her dichotomous role between the prevailing morality and the more humanistic ethics that serves to draw that mystery about what may finally happen before Gilead is only a vague memory of the worst, something that can always to become, the final moral of all dystopia with sediment.
You can now buy the novel The Testaments, the new book by Margaret Atwood, here:
