These nature walks and fishing expeditions are mentioned briefly but purposefully at the beginning of the notes ‘The fishing expedition will go forward.’ The conditions in which these people live are clearly naturally better and healthier than in Gilead. Atwood makes a point this to show a contrast but also explain why they are so ignorant in understanding Offred’s life, as they could never contemplate what it was like and hence could not sympathise with her suffering.
The historical notes are a device used by Atwood to show the reader that everything she has written had actually happened before in one form or the other. The reference to Iran is probably most significant ‘Iran and Gilead: Two-late-twentieth-century Monotheocraties.’ They were so similar as in Iran the nations conservative Islamic revolution happened. It involved major de-modernizing and drastic restrictions of freedom of women. From this it is clear that Atwood got most of her inspiration from when creating the Handmaids. The Islamic ‘authorities’ insisted that they were just protecting women and giving them a better quality of life. This is reflective of the commander in Offred’s narrative when he says ‘We’ve given them more than we’ve taken away’. The professor says the ‘Romania had anticipated Gilead, in the 1980’s banning all forms of birth control.’ This of course is what happened but it had divesting effects ion the spreading of aids and orphaned babies. Pieixoto also adds ‘ the collective rope ceremony’ was an ‘English village custom in the 17th century’ and is similar to Gilead’s ‘Salvaging’. Moreover, the red colour of the handmaids was ‘borrowed from the uniforms of German prisoners of war I Canada’ in the second word war. Finally Margaret Atwood uses the professor to state her point by making him say ‘that there was little that was truly original or truly indigenous to Gilead; its genius was synthesised. Consequently saying that there is nothing in the novel that hasn’t already happened in the world we live in today.
The professor at the same time as not picking up on Offred’s personal account does realise the clever workings of the regime. For example the aunts had names derived from common commercial product’… ‘ to familiarise and reassure’ the handmaids.
As mentioned Pieixoto is not interested in Offred’s personal story but rather how it can tell him more about the Giliadian regime turning Offred’s story into his own history. He is completely oblivious to Offred’s feminist themes. He says that ‘our job is to censure and understand’. Clearly he doesn’t and completely sidesteps the critical moral issues raised by her account. He seems more interested in establishing the identity of her commander than herself ‘the elusive commander’, ‘the gentlemen in question’. Additionally he spends about two pages talking about him.
The authenticity of the tapes seems to override the importance of their content. The covers of the tape are also significant as they reflect Offred’s subject matter. ‘ Elvis Presley The Golden Years’, he was one of the first male singers in the 60’s to be associated with dirty sexual attraction i.e. the thrusting of the hips. Also there were tapes entitled ‘Boy George Takes Off’, he was an homosexual musical icon and ‘Twisted Sister’ they represented ‘loose’ independent women. Most of all of these names and the suggestions behind the names Gilead would have severally disapproved of. This is just another way of Offred’s small but yet significant rebellion against the regime.
Professor Piexioto is an intriguing invention. Amongst the unusual social order in the historical notes and women appearing to be respected once again, Atwood throws in this completely contradictory character. He seems to by a complete sexist chauvinist pig. This is similar to the commander with whom he even shares a line’ my little chat’ and ‘little excitement’. This suggests that both the professor and the commander think of themselves very highly. It is obvious that Professor Piexioto does not think its a little chat but rather an important speech/lecture. Atwood intentionally merges these two characters together to show that male attitudes and opinions, even though 200 years have passed, have not altered.
The professor proves this in his speech when he talks about ‘tails’ and ‘frailrioads’ rather than female roads as called by Offred. He also whilst making a dig at the North American peoples intelligence also insults both women’s and Offred’s intellect by saying ‘she was an educated woman, insofar as a graduate of any North American college of the time may have said to be educated’. Consequently, the historians discredit her story; she already told us that the commander was ‘in marker research’. Nevertheless he goes along a separate line of investigation and coming to the same conclusion.
Furthermore he seems annoyed with her for not providing him with more information about the Giliadian regime. This can be seen when he exclaims ‘many gaps remain, some of which could have been filled in by our anonymous narrator, had she been in a different turn of mind’. Then he adds ‘ It has a whiff of emotion’ this absolutely should outrage the reader as her whole story is based upon intense emotion and suffering, which he has no regard for. Ironically, the professor does exactly what Offred anticipated ‘from the point of view of history. We’ll be invisible.’ So although Offred does get her story out she is treated the same as she was in the regime. Atwood does this to create a different kind of distopian in the readers mind and as in the narrative unsettle and make the reader outraged through confusion.
The historical notes are supposedly here to answer unanswered questions but all it is extremely long explanations of a research with no concrete answers, which frustrate as new and yet again, unanswered questions start to format. This is a device used by Margaret Atwood to further stimulate the reader into discussion not only abut what happened to Offred but also question the society we live in today.
