In chapter five we begin to notice the narrator’s use of medical terminology and images of bodily mutilation to depict certain aspects of the body. On page 36 the narrator declares “A divorce is like an amputation”.
This simile presents the emotional pain and suffering she went through with her ‘husband’. The noun “amputation” suggests that the divorce took away a significant part of her. On page 42 the narrator says “A section of my own life, sliced off from me like a Siamese twin, my own flesh cancelled”. The use of the verb phrase “sliced off” are words that associate with the narrator’s abortion along with “my own flesh cancelled”, again suggesting a part of her has gone. This links in with chapter nine (page 74) where the narrators says “they take the baby out with a fork like a pickle out of a jar”. This simile suggests some sort of medical treatment the narrator undertook as she describes the procedure with such intense language. The narrator seems to have no humanity with the abortion. This links in with the simile on page 26 “I believe that an unborn child has its eyes open and looks out through the walls of the mother stomach, like a frog in a jar". The two similes stated suggest that the narrator believes that the ‘’unborn child’’ was placed in a jar, we see this through the repetition of the noun “jar”. In chapter seven the protagonist says “I feel a little sick, it’s because I’ve killed something, made it dead”. The negative impact of the abortion takes its toll on the narrator here. The unnecessary murder of the ‘heron’ presents a direct parallel to the narrator’s traumatising experience. The declarative above suggests she feels some sort of remorse for killing, revealing a sense of emotion. The indefinite pronoun “something” reveals a broader picture in her subconscious which we could apply to her ‘child’ – ‘abortion’.
The narrator and Joe’s relationship is a key factor in the novel. Atwood suggests that their relationship is predominantly sexual. This is evident as the narrator says “cool he called it, was the way I took off my clothes and put them on again later very smoothly as if I were feeling no emotion”. This reiterates the narrator’s lack of emotion. In this aspect the reader seems to be sharing Joe’s position as we are not being told much as is Joe. The narrator is not giving Joe her inner self; she is denying him of it. In chapter ten she conceals “facts” about her past, like the ‘child’. When Joe proposes to the narrator and questions her feelings towards him she responds with “I do give a shit about you”. This verb phrase reveals a euphemism for love. What’s strange about the proposal is that untypical laconic Joe is actually speaking. The narrator later says “can’t tell the difference between your own pleasure and pain” and “you’re an addict”. This revels that when she is with Joe the paradox seems blurred to her, she does not understand objectively what the relationship is.
David and Anna’s relationship is one of the key issues in the novel. The destruction of power surfaces in an ambiguous way, through David and Anna's relationship. The narrator provides us with a first hand account of the tension and discrepancy in their relationship. David acts as the all-powerful and dominating male figure and because of him, Anna learns to control her appearance and feel the emotional pain for both of them and follow a constantly changing set of rules as Anna states, "He's got this little set of rules. If I break one of them I get punished, except that he keeps changing them so I'm never sure”. Whenever David has an audience he takes it upon himself to use language to tease and disrespect Anna and at any given chance flirt with the narrator, as David says “I like it round and firm and fully packed. Anna you eating too much”. The interaction between David and Anna in their nine year marriage seems to be of convenience more so for David when he says “”somebody break me out a beer” Anna responds, David replies “that’s what I like service”. The use of the noun “service” suggests that their relationship is one that consists of the dominant male and the traditional ‘housewife’. The use of the indefinite pronoun “somebody” also reveals David’s submissive and disrespectful attitude towards Anna along with the possessive pronoun “I” reiterating David’s dominance in their relationship as the ‘man’.
In chapter seven we see Atwood using imagery of surfacing as the narrator says “The canoes reflection floats with us, the paddles twin in the lake. It’s like moving on air, nothing beneath us holding us up; suspended we drift home”. There is a significant image of doubling which reiterates Anna’s comment on page 2 when Anna asks the narrator “Do you have a twin”. The noun “twin” suggests that another part of the narrator is being concealed, suggesting that there is another narrator waiting to surface. The use of the verb “floats” suggests that the “lake” offers a sense of tranquillity to the narrator, revealing her visual appreciation for things around her, ‘nature’. One key issue above is the way it ends the chapter with “we drift home”. The use of the noun “home” as opposed to the earlier used noun “house” suggests the narrator is beginning to feel at home in the wilderness, ironically this could also mean her city home.
Atwood’s use of imagery to describe the brother drowning has significance as the narrator was not even born to witness this so called ‘drowning’. The narrator uses such clear language to describe the event as she says “My brother was under the water, face upturned, eyes open and unconscious, sinking gently: air was coming out of his mouth”. The use of these consistent adjectives suggest that the narrator witnessed the ‘drowning’. At this point the reader is taking in what the narrator is saying but later realise that this is untrue as the brother is still very much alive. When the reality of the brother’s ‘drowning’ is revealed we the reader start to question the narrator’s state of mind and whether there is any truth in anything she says.
As the novel progresses the audience begin to doubt the narrator’s memories more. This is evident in chapter ten whist the narrator is view the scrapbooks, she says “I couldn’t remember ever having drawn these pictures” and “I was disappointed in myself, I must of been a hedonistic child”. The verbs clustered together suggest the narrator really struggles to recall her memories. Another key suggestion to the narrator’s fault memory is the way she intertwines the past and present, making the reader at times unaware of which is which, also the way in which the narrator continually contradicts herself. This is evident on page twenty when she is placed in a paradoxical position when she thinks “if you live in a place you should speak the language. But this isn’t where I lived”. We see the clear contradiction as earlier she stated “I can’t believe I’m on this road again” notifying the reader that she does belong there.
