Most people would be familiar with Margaret Atwood's novel The Handmaid's Tale; a Christian totalitarian theocracy has overthrown the US government and are controlling reproduction. Set in the not so distant future, this dystopian society serves as a platform for Margaret Atwood to explore some real issues. Written in 1985, it is surprising to think that these themes and issues are still relevant thirty years later. 
 When I read this novel about four years ago, I think I missed the point, saying "I felt like Margaret Atwood spent too much time trying to explain the dystopian world in which The Handmaid's Tale is set rather than the story itself." I obviously was reading this book for its plot rather than trying to understand what Atwood wanted to say. To be fair I recognised this, citing "I understand she was trying to create a world that was a metaphor of a totalitarian society and explore the issue of women's right" but even that makes me sound naive or stupid. One reason I like rereading books is for the fact that it shows me how much I have improved as a reader. I gave The Handmaid's Tale three stars when I read it in 2011, but it is now clear to me that this is a brilliant novel and needs a much higher rating. 
 Looking at this dystopian society; the government wants control over reproduction. To do this, women become a political tool, rather than humans. This government was created due to a dramatic decrease in birth rates. Women become the property of their husband or the state. Women are not allowed to vote, have jobs, read or anything else that might make them have individual thoughts. 
 "There is no such thing as a sterile man anymore, not officially. There are only women who are fruitful and women who are barren, that's the law." 
 This one quote really summed up this novel for me; the whole idea that women are only useful for one thing. Women are considered subhuman and their only use involves their ovaries and womb. Even the main character, Offred reflects in one scene that her body was an instrument of passion and desire but now she has only one purpose; reproduction. She does not consider it rape, because she signed up to be a Handmaid; but what other choice did she have? In fact rape is severely punished and the government believes the women are protected. Yet would it not be considered rape if we take away the women's rights, including their right to give consent? 
 There are many layers that could be explored within The Handmaid's Tale, I would like to explore the novel deeper. I think looking at this book from a religious angle would be interesting as well, and I think I will need to give it a reread before considering that. I am glad to give this book another go; rereading this was eye opening and really highlighted just how much I have grown. One thing I found humorous was that Margaret Atwood set this book in the United States of America and references escaping to safety in Canada. This is an iconic novel and Atwood is an author well worth exploring; having said that, I have only read The Handmaid's Tale and the MaddAddam trilogy. Lucky for me, I have so many more Margaret Atwood novels to explore. 
 This review originally appeared on my blog; http://www.knowledgelost.org/book-rev...