Margaret Atwood to write Handmaid’s Tale sequel inspired by modern America

This content has been archived. It may no longer be accurate or relevant.

From the BBC:

Margaret Atwood is writing a sequel to her novel The Handmaid’s Tale, inspired by the state of the modern world.

The landmark 1985 book, about life under a totalitarian regime in the US, became a hit TV drama in 2017.

In a message, Atwood wrote: “Dear Readers, everything you’ve ever asked me about Gilead and its inner workings is the inspiration for this book.

“Well, almost everything! The other inspiration is the world we’ve been living in.”

The sequel, to be titled The Testaments, will be published on 10 September 2019.

The Canadian author said it would be set 15 years after the end of the original book, which has become a feminist classic, and would be narrated by three female characters.

She didn’t mention President Trump, but the press release noted that The Handmaid’s Tale had become “a symbol of the movement against him, standing for female empowerment and resistance in the face of misogyny and the rolling back of women’s rights around the world”.

Link to the rest at BBC

PG wonders if reporters, editors and/or authors have any moral qualms about making money from stories arising from the various phenomena associated with President Trump and his many critics.

If the United States ever has another boring president – Gerald Ford comes to mind – will that signal the final financial collapse of traditional media?

47 thoughts on “Margaret Atwood to write Handmaid’s Tale sequel inspired by modern America”

  1. Well there certainly seem to be a lot of people who would buy it especially after the TV show, and for the author its easy money so I suppose it’s a good gig if you can get it.
    I suspect they’ll stop once it becomes less profitable.

  2. PG,
    What does this mean?
    ‘…authors have any moral qualms about making money from stories arising from the various phenomena associated with President Trump and his many critics.”

    Aren’t books like 1984, Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451 and Handmaids Tale important to have?
    Even a book like To Kill A Mockingbird in some way fits in to this group. In that case, it’s not so much about a possible dark future but instead shining a light on something that happened (a culture and time that existed)

    But setting that aside, shouldn’t the author make money for their time and efforts? I don’t see why anyone should feel bad or guilty for it.

    • But setting that aside, shouldn’t the author make money for their time and efforts?

      Time and effort? Of course not. Nobody cares about time and effort. Any money would flow from consumers buying a product, regardless of how much time and effort were expended. Doesn’t matter if it’s written by a human in ten years or a computer in a minute. It’s a product on a shelf.
      Like a widget.

      • Somebody threw money at her thinking people will buy it.
        Maybe they will, maybe they won’t.
        She’s getting paid no matter what.

      • “Time and effort? Of course not. Nobody cares about time and effort….Doesn’t matter if it’s written by a human in ten years or a computer in a minute. It’s a product on a shelf.
        Like a widget.”

        …In other words, it’s a product and you should get paid for the product that you produced, regardless of whether it’s political, etc.

        It feels like we are saying the same thing.

        • As in… it IS a widget and the author should get paid for it. Regardless of whether it is political.
          I don’t see why an author should feel guilty for asking to be paid for their time and effort (setting a price on the commodity produced by their time and effort)

        • The author shouldn’t get paid for anything other than a sale. He should get paid nothing if nobody buys the product. His time and effort mean nothing in the market.

          Two authors may devote identical time and effort in producing a widget. One becomes a best seller, and one sells nothing. One hets lots of money. The other gets nothing.

          An author can feel whatever he wants about asking people to pay for his time and effort. Who cares what he feels? Nobody cares about either, and nobody is going to pay for either. That’s what employers do, not consumers. The author has no right to anything because of his time and effort. All consumers care about is a product sitting on a shelf.

          And settig a price is very different from getting paid.

          • @anonymous- You set a price and get paid for it. I feel like you are trying to create an argument between us where we don’t actually have one.

            I just don’t get why anyone should feel guilty for writing about a timely topic, setting a price and getting paid for it.
            If nobody buys it, nobody buys it.

            For me, the tv show ran out of legs after the first season so it’s good she’s at least taking the story forward 15 years.

            • My point is that authors cannot expect to get paid for time and effort. Setting a price is placing a unit price for a product on a shelf. If anyone has data showing a correlation between earnings and time and effort, I’d love to see it.

              And guilt? They shouldn’t feel guilty about writing fiction. Nor should they care if people laugh at the notion that their fiction reflects reality. It’s all in pursuit of a buck. Good for them.

              God bless the free market, for some mistake fiction for reality.

            • @Terrence OBrien
              You can certainly set price however you want; it’s all about whether the reader will buy it and balancing either low price/large number of sales, or high price with less sales. etc, etc.

              Re: guilt- I was referring to what PG commented: ‘…authors have any moral qualms about making money from stories arising from the various phenomena associated with President Trump and his many critics.”

              I hope no author will feel guilty for writing, the press won’t feel concerned about shining a light on a topic…. etc.

    • Why cynicism ?

      Consider that the Handmaids Tale was written in 1985. Atwood could have written this sequel anytime over the next 23 years, but did not – until now. So are we to think that this just wasn’t “important to have” during that time? And now, it is? Because of what – Trump? – or because the TV show sent sales through the roof?

      Yeah, I’m cynical.

      • ~Cashing in on the popularity
        ~Having more to say because some crazy has been happening in the world and handmaid’s tale seems a little less far fetched than it did 20 years ago?

        who knows.

        But why should guilt come in?

  3. I suspect she has as many moral qualms as does Amazon when they fire one of their workers and replace the job with automation.
    For both, it’s ultimately about the bottom line, and since she already has a fan base built in, it makes sense for her to target them in this way.
    I don’t particularly like it but I can see why she is doing it, she’s capitalising on her TV show.

    • Since 1980, according to her.
      Gilead is supposed to be here already.
      So what?
      People will buy whatever they want to buy.

  4. I’m looking forward to it.

    It’s a classic, like 1984 or Clockwork Orange, Catch 22 or To Kill a Mockingbird.

    Every time I see women in Handmaid’s garb – I think it’s an eloquent protest. And I love how something so simple really gets certain people twisted up in knots.

  5. The reasoning behind writing this book is simply false. Women’s rights aren’t being rolled back worldwide; just the opposite. No one lost any rights when President Trump took office, simply because the government in power has zero control over rights, nor is it the impetus behind individuals or a population having rights. Those exist separately and apart from government. Elsewhere, women are seizing those rights and defying government and societal restrictions on them by learning to drive and attending traditionally all-male sporting events. Atwood lives in an echo chamber of her own creation. She, as so many others like her, has the inability to see beyond her self-imposed myopia to the advances women continue to make around the world.

    • And?
      There’s money in writing for that audience.
      John Norman seems to have made some money off GOR and Laurel K. Hamilton has a solid fanbase.
      There’s room for niches.
      Just because somebody goes gaga for something doesn’t make it wrong. Or right.
      Most people live in their own “reality” anyway.

      Writers just happen to invite others in.

    • You just beat me to it, Mr. Watson. “The rolling back of women’s rights around the world” is one of those slogans much beloved by so-called activists that is utterly devoid of any substance at all. Great slogans apparently matter. The truth… not so much.

    • There’s lots of money catering to folks who want to be victims. I wish her luck.

      God Bless the free market, for it has something for everyone.

      • I’m not a victim, but I’m still aware enough of some changes in the world to be concerned about where this is headed.

        It may not be your politics.

        It doesn’t mean the book doesn’t have an audience or shouldn’t be written – or the author should feel guilty for writing it – just because it doesn’t match your political viewpoint.

        • I’m content for this book or any book to have an audience or to be ignored. Fine with me. Doesn’t matter if it is about politics or horticulture. It’s OK if people like the book. It’s OK if they point and laugh at it. That’s the risk anyone takes when they bring a book to the market.

          Nor am I aware of any reason the author should feel guilty about writing it. I’d write it if I could make a buck off it. If I could convince people who want to be victims that I’m their champion, I’d even write another sequel and make more money.

          So, what is one of the changes in the world that we should be concerned about?

          God Bless the free market, for it lets anyone be a hero.

        • I’d be a lot more concered about Musli culture, which you know ACTUALLY enslaves women and sells them like cattle, than anyone in America. For every me too scandal, there ten-thousand men who treat women with respect. For every guy who slaps his wife around, there are thirty thousand men who don’t.

          For every person who would like to see America destroyed (like this Attwood lady), there are a thousand of us with guns willing to fight back if it comes to violence.

          The media lies and deals in fear. People who are afraid make bad decisions. Don’t be a puppet who cowers every time the media points at someone and says “Be afraid of them.” I promise you, they aren’t doing it for your benefit.

          • Easy, man. Pretty sure Atwood doesn’t want to see America destroyed.
            She’s not actively malicious, just sort of clueless.

    • “The reasoning behind writing this book is simply false. Women’s rights aren’t being rolled back worldwide; just the opposite. No one lost any rights when President Trump took office…”

      It’s more that Trump seems to make lots of power grabs.
      Simultaneously, he makes many comments about his lack of respect for women. He says some pretty horrid things (not just about women). It’s not hard to picture a world where Trump refused to go, enough people stood by and let it happen, and we’re all in a terrible future with no rights.

      I think there are enough checks and balances in place so it can’t happen, but still… Handmaid’s Tale and 1984 seem much more relevant/possible to me now. Whereas before I’d dismiss it out of hand as not possible, now I’m much more aware of the possibility.

      • Might one ask your location?

        One of the criticisms about Handmaid, when it first came out, is that as an urban Canadian, Atwood’s view of US culture is informed solely by the media, with no first hand experience of the behavior of actual Americans.

        Real world day to day behavior of people is very different than portrayed by the media and it varies dramatically by location.

        Assuming a continent-wide civilization of 320M can be reduced to media clips is not a safe assumption. Especially when it takes time for changes to ripple out and play out. What today seems a certainty will tomorrow be a quaint naive misread of actual trends.

      • It’s not hard to picture a world where Trump refused to go, enough people stood by and let it happen, and we’re all in a terrible future with no rights.

        Many people imagine they are victims.

        What’s one of the power grabs Trump has made?

        God Bless the free market, for imagination makes fiction, and fiction makes a buck.

        • @terrence Obrien
          as a tiny example, taking the press pass away from someone who asked Trump a question he didn’t want to answer.
          It’s a scary time when a president goes to such lengths to silence the press, ‘fake news’ being the rallying cry …. etc. He doesn’t even hide it. He’s proud of it.

          • Every president back to John Adams has punished the press for one reason or another. I didn’t see Obama on Fox news all that much, but Trump sure has done the talk shows the way the last pres did.

            As for the idea that Trump could stay in office if he wasn’t re-elected or after his second term is up, is so completely ridiculous. Clearly, you know NOTHING of the people you oppose. Most conservatives (you know, the people who own guns because of TYRANNY) would turn on him in a hot second, him or ANY OTHER president who tried to do what you suggest.

            It is the entire reason we fight so hard to keep our second amendment rights, while the left is hellbent on handing all of them away.

            The truth is, all presidents are bad presidents. The only thing we can hope for is the economy to get better than the last guy left it. This was true for Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

            The last good (and I mean morally) president we had was likely George Washington.

            I think a big problem with the left (or whatever you want to call them) is a fundamental difference in the purpose of government. If we had a small government, no one would care what the president does. But since we keep getting a bigger and bigger one, it lets the president do things like drone strike American children while everyone turns a blind eye because he’s the right color for the job.

          • If you’re referring to Jim Acosta, he was not removed for asking a question Trump didn’t want to answer. He was removed for refusing to accept that Trump didn’t want to answer the question.

            • vI thought it was for not letting any of the other reporters get a word in edgewise. Even Geraldo Rivera and Sam Donaldson knew when to yield the mike.

            • I was referring to Acosta. It wasn’t so much that he would get shut down during the conference, if he was being too pushy, but that his press pass was taken away. If you set that precedent, eventually you are left with 3 Yes Men nodding their heads during the press conference. It’s a scary thought. A judge had to force the white house to give it back…

              The other example would be that Trump keeps firing people investigating him. Not good.
              I realize we have checks and balances so the likelihood of Trump just not leaving is about nil, but he definitely has been giving everything a good test… 🙁

              (for the record, I’m a libertarian so I don’t like big government and am more close to republican… but I’m still afraid of the things that Trump has done that I’ve never seen before. …Course Nixon was before my time…)

              • The other example would be that Trump keeps firing people investigating him. Not good

                That’s not a power grab. All presidents have that power under Article II of the Constitution.

                Trump did fire Comey. Note legions of democrats demanded his firing for his awful conduct in the 2016 election. Who else did Trump fire who was investigating him? Who did he keep firing? Did he fire Mueller? Weinstein? Rosenstein?

          • as a tiny example, taking the press pass away from someone who asked Trump a question he didn’t want to answer.

            That’s not a power grab. Not even close. Each one of those press passes is assigned by the White House. Of the zillions of reporters in the nation, only a sliver get the coveted pass. Thousands want one. They don’t get it because the White House says No. It involves no right.

            Congress and the Supreme Court do the same thing. They assign passes to a limited pool of reporters on their premises. Note how the Supreme Court refuses to allow cameras? Power grab?

            There must be some real power grab example to justify entertaining the idea that Trump will not leave office as constitutionally mandated. No need to bother with tiny examples when we are talking about seizing power. Lets see something real.

          • It’s a scary time when a president goes to such lengths to silence the press, ‘fake news’ being the rallying cry …. etc. He doesn’t even hide it. He’s proud of it.

            Trump did not silence the press. The press published all kinds of things about the incident. In no way did Trump prevent the press from publishing anything. CNN was not prohibited from broadcasting anything. All the rest of the CNN crew retained their passes.

            While freedom of press is indeed in the First Amendment, there is no obligation on any government official or citizen to speak to the press. None. There is no obligation to have press conferences, maintain a press room, issues press releases, or grant interviews. None.

            So, there is no power to grab, no one to grab it from, and no right to violate. Note how some presidents go for months without giving a press conference.

  6. I have a feeling the comments are going to get shutdown on this post pretty soon, so I’ll just make one final observation.
    If Atwood had self published, she could probably have had the book out in a few months, but as it is, she has to wait until 2019 before it’s released and who is to say the momentum built-up won’t fade by then.

    • Most likely.
      The third season will be over by sept 2019 and even if she presold the book to Hulu for a fourth season that wouldn’t likely come out before late 2020. If at all.

      The world is going to be worried about other things by then.

  7. Current political climate?

    I wasn’t aware of any sweeping legislation, or any legislation, or any rumors of legislation, that removed any rights from anyone. Where the hell do they get this drivel from? Bill Clinton is a rapist, he would be more likely to create this kind of nightmare scenario (which frankly, is impossible. Things like this are the whole reason we have the second amendment) than Trump. I’m sure the book is well written, and the plite of women in history is well documented. But why do they insist on attacking the current administration in such a way that it just UNDERMINES women everywhere? The BOY WHO CRIED WOLF is an enduring tale for a reason. For Pete’s sake, read a book people.

    • The NRA claims over 3M female members.
      Or just look at the recent election and the increased number of women in Congress.
      Somehow, there’s this idea that women can’t protect themselves and that only progressives have daughters they love.

      • Gun makers seem to be doing everything they can to make their products easier for women to use. There are also many women shooting instructors addressing problems women have operating guns that most men don’t.

        For those unfamiliar with semi-automatic handguns, it takes finger and hand strength to pull back a component of the gun necessary to initially chamber a round, cock it, and put it in a state ready to fire. If this isn’t done, you can pull the trigger all day and nothing happens. It’s a mechanical engineering problem.

        • Not an easy problem because if the trigger is too light bad things can happen. But women have money to spend so it’s a market worth pursuing.
          Likewise, people who enjoy stories about other people having bad lives is a market worth pursuing. If it’s your inclination.

  8. It’s a scary time when a president goes to such lengths to silence the press, ‘fake news’ being the rallying cry …. etc. He doesn’t even hide it. He’s proud of it.

    Trump did not silence the press. The press published all kinds of things about the incident. In no way did Trump prevent the press from publishing anything. CNN was not prohibited from broadcasting anything. All the rest of the CNN crew retained their passes.

    While freedom of press is indeed in the First Amendment, there is no obligation on any government official or citizen to speak to the press. None. There is no obligation to have press conferences, maintain a press room, issues press releases, or grant interviews. None.

    So, there is no power to grab, no one to grab it from, and no right to violate. Note how some presidents go for months without giving a press conference.

Comments are closed.