Posted March 9, 2016on:
Son was asking me about Margaret Atwood’s latest works, and I told him I have not been up to date lately. We did both agree that her dystopias have gotten worse and worse, I was commenting on how over the years, things have been falling faster and faster into a premodial sort of goo. Compare to “Handmaid’s Tale” back in the 80’s when it was Big Brother sort of state with hedious middle-age system of belief and ruling, the stuffs that came out in the 00’s were getting to Adam and Eve point, with people in the jungle swinging in trees and stuffs. I wouldn’t be surprised if her latest work just has an eye looking around instead of a whole body.
She reminds me of Beckett’s works, where he started out, although it was nonsense, at least you have two-people-talking-to-each-other sort of nonsense. By the 60’s his work just got more and more incomprehensible, incoherent—intentionally so. By the time we approach stuffs like “Happy Days” and “Not I” with just a head buried in the sand talking to godknows what and then simply a mouth… you know it’s the end.
I wonder if it’s a common case, a general direction that people who think a certain way would generally follow such trajectory. Shakespeare and Kurosawa are the other two story tellers who seem like that to me.
This little book is actually available at your public library. I recommend you borrow it and read it. I love the play. I like the movie (Two For The Road, one of my all time favs), but it does have all the flaws that its critics mentioned. The most glaring one being Audrey Hepburn 38 trying to look 20 back in the 60’s. If she’s were born in my days and time, I’m pretty sure the Koreans can help her pass for 20 successfully, but back in the 60’s and with that much ciggarettes she smoked… no. The screenplay is so delicious.