Illustrations of The Handmaid's Tale in The Guardian

There's an article and pictures on FS latest book:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/gallery/2012/jan/23/margaret-atwood-handmaids-ta...

Many thanks - I will have to get!

I have been waiting for a good price before purchasing this book. Those illustrations are what sold me on it. I have never read this author, but I have seen good reviews of this particular title.

There have been a lot of very complimentary reviews of Society books in the Grauniad recently. Does anyone know if there is a connection between the businesses apart from reselling?

I note that in a typical adoring Guardian look at Folio books (The 'poll' from 17 Nov 2011) there is a link to:
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/19257-138158-3387-100
with the text 'Click here to find out how to buy your favourite Folio Society books for Christmas'.
This will reset all those bothersome cookies and show you the benefits available to new members. I prefer my Guardian to produce more disinterested reviews. On the plus side they are certainly taking a more enthusiastic approach to our Society:
'Folio Society' search hits :
Last 30 days (5)
2012 (3)
2011 (29)
2010 (10)
2009 (7)
2008 (4)

> 4 Publishing is a small world. Lord Gavron, chairman of the society since 1982, was chairman of the Guardian Media Group from 1997-2000; Catherine Taylor, with the society since 2002 and recently appointed its Publisher, has been a freelance fiction reviewer for the Guardian (and the Telegraph) for several years.
But that would mean nothing, of course, if both the society's and the paper's marketing people didn't see common factors in the two groups' readerships: intelligence, literacy, sense of humour, appreciation of beautiful objects, sufficient disposable income to indulge that appreciation, and a willingness to overdispose said income in response to well-worn marketing techniques (frequent sales, flattering 'exclusive' offers, little gifts, free credit).... :)

> 6. Thanks, and I think you have hit the nail on the head.

The featured article 'Haunted by The Handmaid's Tale' is very close to the full Introduction written by Margaret Atwood for the FS edition.

Those really are lovely illustrations!

*Here is their website if anyone is interested in looking at more of their works (twins!):

http://www.balbusso.com/

&

http://www.foliosociety.com/book/SOR/song-of-roland

>9 DanMat: I didn't realize they were twins! Interesting interview about how they ended up teaming up together.

>8 drasvola:
That's happened a couple of times recently. The Guardian has run both Banville's introduction to Folio's edition of The Trial and Rupert Thomson's introduction to In Cold Blood as stand-alone articles.

>6 featherwate:
Agreed, I don't see any harm in such a tie-in! If it helps Folio prosper and attracts the business that helps them keep publishing then I'm all for it.

> 11 They did the same last July with Julian Barnes's introduction to the FS Candide LE, but presumably to make it look like an authentic Guardian article inserted a typo. :)

Wow. My copy of the Handmaid's Tale actually arrived today - in perfect condition - and the illustrations are GORGEOUS!

Cindy

Has anyone noticed that the endpapers are of different colours? The front one is red and the back one is black.

Wonderful illustrations.

Shame about the words accompanying them.

>9 DanMat: And the illustrators of The Goblin Market and Fahrenheit 451 are husband and wife.

> I have to disagree with you there....The Handmaid's Tale is one of my favorite books. The words are just fine.

cindy

> 15

I'm with cindy on this one.

Sigh.

Some parents of students in my local high school want it removed from the required reading of an AP English class!

http://democratherald.com/news/local/education/west-albany-text-draws-parent-com...

>18 sdawson:
Shakespeare and Dickens described some pretty graphic scenes, let alone the Bible!
Lady Chatterly's Lover was one of the books that was on my reading list in final year of high school (admittedly quite a few decades ago) and no-one raised an eyebrow.
17 year old boys probably (should?) know more about life and sexuality than is depicted in many books that are banned in schools.

>18 sdawson:, >19 wcarter:

I will never understand the push to bowdlerise in schools. I do agree that there should be reasonable limits set, emphasis upon 'reasonable'. Yet, the idea of banning Atwood, Shakespeare, Lee, and everyone else who doesn't agree with your values is depriving people - not necessarily just children - of learning about other perspectives and learning how to make choices and judgements about what is and isn't appropriate according to their personal and communal value systems.

Even then, I must admit I always laugh to myself whenever I hear people complain about how boring Shakespeare is. Oh, if these poor souls only knew.... ;) If I think they could tolerate the shock, I recommend Shakespeare's Bawdy by Partridge and, for a more popular analysis, Filthy Shakespeare by Kiernan.

Word to the wise: don't look up the table of contents to Filthy Shakespeare on a work computer! Very, very much NSFW.

And it is ludicrous to me to ban books such as this on the one hand (as it may somehow corrupt their students) while on the other hand high schools pretty much require students to use the internet to do their homework (research, typed up papers, etc).

Which is going to expose your teenager to more graphic sex and violence and demeaning of women?

-Shawn

It goes hand in hand with the refusal of some districts to teach evolution, and the insistence on abstinence-only sex education. It's a political decision, not an educational decision. But I fear that this opens yet another thread to politics - apologies are hereby offered.

As a teacher, I occasionally have to deal with this. I've never had a book widely challenged, but occasionally I will be required to assign an alternate text to an individual student. I always assign Fahrenheit 451.

> 23 - Excellent choice! I'd bet that some parents don't figure out the statement made by assigning that book (which I read only last week).

>18 sdawson:
Haha.This reminds of an article I read on buzzfeed.Here is something about Charlotte's Web:

“In 2006, some parents in a Kansas school district decided that talking animals are blasphemous and unnatural; passages about the spider dying were also criticized as being ‘inappropriate subject matter for a children’s book.’

According to the parent group at the heart of the issue, ‘humans are the highest level of God’s creation and are the only creatures that can communicate vocally. Showing lower life forms with human abilities is sacrilegious and disrespectful to God.’”

>26 Kainzow:

Where does that leave talking bushes?

I think a donkey also talks in the Bible.

>27 boldface:

I just spent the last five minutes trying to choke down/cough out the tea that I unfortunately happened to be drinking at the precise moment I read your post.

In other words, excellent riposte!

>27 boldface: bravo

>23 Jason461: anyone ever get the message?

>31 BINDINGSTHATLAST:
I don't know. I never have them long enough to know for sure. I have had students come back to me years later and say something I did mattered even though they didn't know it at the time. So there's always hope, I suppose.

> 33

Haha, one of my English teachers slightly changed my life by sending a short story of mine directly to a writing contest. Only problem was that this was technically cheating (I found this out later), since we technically bypassed the "semi-final" round. Somehow, they interpreted my entry as a semi-finalist winner.

My second place steak dinner (vs first place scholarship) probably gave me enough energy to apply for college so...very significant.

Not sure what Mom’s problem is. The book is not required reading. The students were offered an alternate, which some of them took.

Also the school district rep said, and two students in the comments section confirmed it, that a list of books was given to the students and parents and they had to sign that they had received the list. One of the student commenters even says that they were told which parts of the book were “the most intense”. Mom makes it sound like the teacher handed the book to her son out of the blue and said “Read this or else” when what actually happened (from the other students’ comments) was that he’s known since last fall that at some time in the year he’d have to choose between reading either Handmaid’s Tale or Jane Eyre. And where I would have gone with Jane Eyre if given that choice (sorry Maggie, it’s an all-time personal favourite), I can’t think of any 17-year old boys that wouldn’t have jumped at the chance to read a book full of violence and explicit sex with their schools approval.

I wonder if Mom realizes that this is only going to make the book more popular. A lot of people if told that they shouldn’t read, watch or listen to something end up buying the book, movie or album just to find out what all the fuss is about.

Why on Earth would people prevent their children from reading a book?! Unless if it's overly sexual or violent of course.The funny thing is,in most books that are assigned at schools,the ''sexual'' or ''violent'' part is not even that graphic...

My parents never told me not to do this or that,so I find it weird...

>36 Kainzow:

I've had parents ask me if they should let there kid read a particular book. I always say yes. It's not going to hurt them and they'll read it on the sly anyway.

That's what I really don't understand, not everyone wants their kids to go to college, where they're going to read all this stuff anyway, away from their parents.

It's all just silly.

>36 Kainzow: and yet those same parents have no issues with their kids watching game of thrones or having private unhindered access to the internet...

Edit: referring to the book banning parents not yours:)

>38 BINDINGSTHATLAST: "those same parents have no issues with their kids watching game of thrones"

How do you know? The socially conservative parents I know don't let their kids watch GoT.

>39 cpg: It was a snide remark based solely on my experience dealing from time to time with fringe "christians" who think Harry Potter is going to convert their children to witches and who make their daughters wear "promise rings" because God loves you right up to the point where you have premarital sex - and yet have HBO subscriptions and love watching game of thrones.

I admit my sample size is small. However, I don't think I am far off the mark. I am a conservative...book banning wackos have nothing to do with conservative values, just the right hasn't had the gumption to disown them.

>23 Jason461:

Brilliant.

Lady Chatterly's Lover was one of the books that was on my reading list in final year of high school (admittedly quite a few decades ago) and no-one raised an eyebrow.

We did it at school in the early 70s with little comment - other than how boring we all (a class of 17 year old boys) found it. Tedious in the extreme. Still find it so.

>40 BINDINGSTHATLAST:

Would a parent who didn't want her children to be required to read, say, Mein Kampf or The 120 Days of Sodom or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion also be considered a book banning wacko?

>43 cpg:

"Would a parent who didn't want her children to be required to read, say, Mein Kampf or The 120 Days of Sodom or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion also be considered a book banning wacko?"

YES.

Given the "child" is a senior and so 17 or 18 I'd say those are all suitable, albeit with appropriate trigger warnings so that if there are issues the individual can prepare themselves or has the option of an alternate text if they really do not want to read the books in question.

As for the books in question they'd be some really interesting discussion sessions in the classroom, especially when placed in an historical and geopolitical setting. I would have enjoyed that.

>43 cpg:
Why not? Preventing a child from reading a particular book for fear that he may stumble upon things that are inappropriate for his age is just something stupid to do.
If you want to keep the mind of your child 'pure',then you'll have to switch off the TV and let him use the Internet under supervision.

I'm not sure how it is in UK or US,but the French have a very ''dirty mind'' - I'm not saying this in a bad way.If a talk show host grabs a cucumber,for instance,you're sure he/she will make a somewhat lewd remark.I mean,it's something normal: you just have to watch the French ''Zapping'' (I have no idea how to call this in English) to see how many sexual innuendos there are on TV.What should the parents do in this case? Stop the child from watching TV? I think going stumbling upon these things is a gradual way for the child to learn about sex,etc.

As for Facebook and Youtube,I don't even know where to start.People talk about sex as if it's a banal thing.I won't give you examples,because I reckon this is a very solemn group,but if you're around my age,I'm sure you'll know what I'm talking about.It won't surprise me if people as young as 10 know a lot more than I did about certain things at that age.

Finally,even if you don't let your child read certain books,watch certain movies,or go on the web unsupervised,he is bound to learn things at school.Even if my parents never stopped me from watching anything,I still ignored various things about sex or whatever - this is a realization I came to when I heard my classmates nonchalantly talking about them.

The truth is,if you want your child's mind to be pure,you'll have to keep him/her away from books,movies,friends,and so on.

All in all,my point is,compared with what we see on the net and on TV,the ''graphical content'' in classics (I'm not referring to erotic books or Fifty Shades of Grey) is almost non-existent.

>44 nbCleo: "Given the "child" is a senior and so 17 or 18 I'd say those are all suitable, albeit with appropriate trigger warnings so that if there are issues the individual can prepare themselves or has the option of an alternate text if they really do not want to read the books in question."

I said "required to read". The option of an alternate text, of course, means that the children aren't being required to read the objectionable text.

>45 Kainzow:

So, since perfect isolation from objectionable material is impossible, any attempt to steer your children towards that which is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, or of good report is foolish? Are you familiar with Voltaire's statement about the perfect being the enemy of the good?

It's very instructive to read this thread in parallel with the thread at "https://www.librarything.com/topic/190234#5135434". The very same people who say that it is stupid for parents to be concerned about what books their children are required to read, are very concerned themselves with what books the Folio Society should and should not publish. Ha!

>47 cpg:
No,I'm not saying that.Not at all.
My point is about the books.You have to accept that children are being exposed to things much worse at an early age!
It's a sad reality.What can you do about it then? Stop him from watching TV or surfing the net? Even on Youtube,under videos for kids,you'll see some sick weirdos making some obscene comments! Also,I was once walking with my young cousin when we came upon two very foul-mouthed youngsters.I was deeply embarrassed then.The thing is,my cousin's mother is extremely protective,yet she couldn't prevent her kid from hearing such obscenities.

It is totally right to try to protect your child,but there will come a time when he'll learn things on his own.In our time,this is happening at an even earlier stage.

As I said above,my point is that no books should be banned,especially when things much more graphical are being played or written on the net or on TV.In books - classics - you'll never read an extract describing the human body in a sexual way,for instance.Conversely almost everything on the net (for young adults) revolves around sex.On 9Gag,which is among the most popular pages on FB,the top rated comments when a girl is the subject of the article are often ''I'd bang her'' and ''She wants the D''.If a young kid relatively new goes to 9Gag and sees these comments and number of likes they got,he'll think it is right to judge women like that: his mind is instantly corrupt.So it is indeed extremely unnecessary to ban books when our children are being exposed to far worse elsewhere.

To be clear, I am talking about people who actively want to ban books based on a personal belief, as opposed to directing their children to alternate texts. If a book isn't appropriate for your child fine. It doesn't mean a classic is not appropriate for someone else's child and it is not as if a school board has made their choices of text lightly. It is our job as parents and educators to lend context to what is being experienced by our children. The problem with "bad TV" for instance isn't that it is bad, it is that we don't watch it critically.

I am afraid many people who want to ban a book based on sex and violence wouldn't want to ban the Old Testament from a curriculum, which is full of sex and violence. The Pentateuch anyone?

>50 BINDINGSTHATLAST:

Ezekiel 23. Would you let your children read this filth? (;)

>46 cpg: True, you did, but since I know of no school that would force someone to read a text that was likely to cause them serious emotional stress I can't see its relevance to the discussion. Moreover nor was it compulsory in this instance.

If an abused and control child attended school and was asked to read the Handmaids Tale they would be allowed an alternate text, but it should be up to the child and not the parent to make this decision. When parents make these calls themselves it is usually to prevent the child being made aware of contrasting world views and/or the scientific method. It is essentially a way for the parent to control the child and for them to try and prevent the child from questioning them (authority) in anyway.

On an aside I find the whole topic of "child" in America bizarre. This seemingly perfect innocent being that at 14-17 is still so emotionally immature that they are unable to make decisions for themselves or to comprehend alternate world views. Yet at the same time they are incredibly sexualised and are tried by a criminal justice system which says they can be tried and sentenced to life in prison as an adult.

#40
">39 cpg: cpg: It was a snide remark based solely on my experience dealing from time to time with fringe "christians" who think Harry Potter is going to convert their children to witches . . ."

Bindingsthatlast, the book banning I really get a kick out of is when they want to get rid of C.S. Lewis's The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. I don't see it happening too often nowadays (I guess Warlock Potter scares them more) but it used to come up every few years and the reason for wanting it banned was because there was a witch in the title. They just couldn't seem to understand that the witch was the bad guy and she was defeated in the end. Now how are your kids supposed to learn that good is better than evil if you don't let them read Lewis? That one always left me scratching my head in confusion.

The surest way I know to make a kid want to read a particular book is to tell him that he can't read it.

52> "I know of no school that would force someone to read a text that was likely to cause them serious emotional stress"

A quick Google turned up: "A Pasco Gulf High junior refuses to read the novel The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle for her IB English class, saying the required reading includes too much graphic sex. School officials say there is no alternate assignment."

"it should be up to the child and not the parent"

In the instance that revived this long dormant thread, it was the child who objected.

>49 Kainzow: "In books - classics - you'll never read an extract describing the human body in a sexual way,for instance."

That definitely depends on your definition of the word "classic". Dickens, Eliot, Austen, Dostoevsky: You're right about them, and that's one of the reasons I like reading them. But the book by de Sade that I mentioned in #43 is enough of a "classic" to be included in 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, yet it (apparently) is filled with explicit accounts of sexual abuse and torture. And I don't think your claim is generally true of "modern classics", where "modern" means after 1920 or so.

> 56

Actually, you don't even have to go as far as De Sade. A lot of things from the 18th century or the 17th (Rabelais, Simplicissimus) would have been considered obscene in the 19th and 20th centuries. And then again, the Victorians honored a man like Richard Burton, chronicler of African penis size, translator of the Kama Sutra, and anthropologist of the so-called Sotadic Zone. So even our view of 19th century puritanism is probably too crude. In many ways, we are bigger prudes today.

>54 haniwitch:

An Americans United For Separation of Church and State press release documenting their objections to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in Florida schools in 2005 can be found at:

https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/americans-united-raps-florida-governor-f...

Can you provide a link to contemporaneous accounts of objections to the book by religionists?

I think Kainzow is correct; in the modern world we cannot stop our offspring, should we want to, watching/reading/listening to explicit descriptions of sexual activity. Mind you, I grew up in a state school in Liverpool 35 years ago where all the boys,myself included, had watched Debbie Does Dallas and all knew how to get hold of a copy of Men Only. As a father of 2 girls, all this doesn't make me feel good, but I don't really see how banning books is going to improve things.

#58
cpg, Wow, they actually figured it out. I swear that's the first time I've seen it recommended for banning because of its Christianity. Unfortunately I have no links for the opposite view.

I first read the series back in the early 1980s, having never heard of it before that. The university bookstore had a paperback set on sale and a fellow student thought I'd enjoy it. All I remember is that for a few years after reading it every so often I'd hear about Christians trying to ban it because of the "Witch" in the title and thinking to myself that they obviously hadn't even opened the book. Being pagan I thought it hilarious that they wanted a book by a very famous Christian author banned because of one little word. Unfortunately it was before the days of everything you needed to know being stored on the internet. I think the only reason I even remember it today is because the books were so fresh in my mind and it was such a weird reason for banning it.

>58 cpg: that is a bizarre reference. Never once does the article say AU is trying to ban the book they just wanted alternatives. Still silly though.

>61 BINDINGSTHATLAST:

Never once did I say that AU wanted to ban the book.

As a followup (in roughly chronological order) of what happened at West Albany High School, here are subsequent articles.

A column in defense from a high school student in the local paper:

http://democratherald.com/lifestyles/columnists/in-defense-of-literature/article...

A letter to the editor in defense:

http://democratherald.com/news/opinion/mailbag/mailbag-supports-use-of-book-at-w...

An editorial from the editor on the matter:

http://democratherald.com/news/opinion/editorial/editorial-book-controversy-offe...

The decision from a school committee to keep the book in the AP Class

http://democratherald.com/news/local/education/panel-book-can-stay-in-west-alban...

And lastly, an article noting that the parent who originally complained will not appeal the decision.

http://democratherald.com/news/local/education/parent-won-t-appeal-use-of-contro...

I was searching for an appropriate thread to add this to; this seems to be more-or-less on-topic:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/24/margaret-atwood-handmaids-tale-unb...

>64 Cat_of_Ulthar: I just viewed the video of Margaret Atwood trying to burn the copy with a flamethrower. I find this incredibly awesome. They should make more books like this and the next one should be Fahrenheit 451.

Too bad it's fireproof, it'll keep us warm when 1984 comes true. Those are the only two books that anyone seems to have been able to read in the last ten years.

>65 Eastonorfolio: did you see the Super Terrain edition of Fahrenheit 451? Kind of the opposite idea, but still interesting: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/F9iZ12OB5To

>67 ubiquitousuk: That was interesting. Thanks for sharing.

The Balbusso twins' designs for Atlas Shrugged on http://www.balbusso.com/ are so great. Too bad it's for an Ayn Rand book.

>69 rsmac: thanks for the link. The Beehive version of the Great Gatsby, that they are illustrating, caught my eye.

>69 rsmac: Thanks for the link
That Queen of Spades book is a nice one.
The Onegin I have

>70 Hamwick: Yeah, the designs on Gatsby are very enticing. Reading some reviews, I've seen some fussing over the quality of paper/binding and typography of Beehive books, but haven't seen one IRL yet.

Anyone have a Beehive book and want to give their take?

>72 rsmac:

In the one I have (Crime and Punishment), the text is printed much too small to make for a comfortable read, at least for me. It feels like they really concentrated on the illustrations and the text was secondary.

>72 rsmac: >73 SF-72:
See https://www.librarything.com/topic/340764