|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:Margaret Atwood is not a political scientist. An explanation for how the Sons of Jacob pulled off their coup d'etat is also missing from the book. But then politics beyond gender politics isn't the focus, so it's not a big deal. Granted, I think one of the interesting things about totalitarian societies be they fictional or historical is how they got there in the first place. In Children of Men you can see how the UK has slowly slide into authoritarianism through its world building. Well it is clear infertility was increasing rapidly along with religiosity in the years leading up to the take over. I assume people started freaking out again much like Children of Men (which seems to really influenced the 3rd episode) and a movement starts to "rectify" the situation gets pull with some of the elite of the country. They do give you some bits and pieces to work with: like the fact that martial law was already declared before it started (after what I assume was a staged terrorist attack to knock out the pre-existing civilian government). The Sons of Jacob (backed up opportunists like Commander Fred) made a sudden move to consolidate power in DC after martial law is declared and then started building their own militia by recruiting from the US military to give themselves a monopoly of force. Most of the military remains bound by their oaths, so they largely stayed loyal until most of the US military was replaced by the "angels." The Sons of Jacob then shock the system by passing a bunch of laws at once (which corporate America readily accepts) and makes a show of force by showing up in major cities to immediately put it into effect. There are protests but they get shut down with force and the country soon after falls into civil war (including Baptist areas of the country). I guess Alaska/Hawaii refuse to go a long with it (or the Pacific fleet openly revolts) and forms more or less what is left of the US. The only weird thing is there didn't see it coming, but I guess that is more for our benefit. I guess they might have known things were getting worse, but not how powerful the Sons of Jacob had gotten or they literally had their own military. (Admitted, those uniforms kind of look a bit thrown together). Granted, the timeline isn't as important as the message that there is both a hard line puritanical/authoritarian streak in American culture that could metastasize in the right situation. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Apr 29, 2017 |
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Skyweir posted:It has alwasy seemed weird to me that people easily by into post-nucelar war dystopias but struggle with post-revolution ones, even though those are the only ones we have ever seen happen in history. If anything the theme of the times is democracy slowly being chipped away by the rise of right-wing (or something far-right) authoritarianism. Yeah, Gilead is maybe still unbelievable in our current times, but it isn't like everything is really going so well at the moment either. I guess post-apocalyptic dystopias if anything feel safer because 1. they are worlds that are so different and 2. they probably aren't going to happen. As you said, political dystopias already happen in our world. That said, I don't think Gilead would actually be that sustainable in the long-term because its economy seems pretty much non-existent, and it seems generally technophobic. Hell, I bet it's birthrate is probably much lower than other countries that actually tried to use science/medicine to address the issue. They only a handful of kids being born already, and the most advanced piece of medical equipment they had during the birthing scene was a stool with a hole in it. (Also, the only educated people that can use their skills at that point are a handful of men connected to the regime.) Hell, even North Korea tries to invest in R&D even if it is mostly for missiles and nukes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:It's not. The book is set only a handful of years after the revolution, and the "middle period" of cyclical purges and internal power struggles begins soon afterwards. The book's epilogue is a historical conference set 200 years in the future, and the implication is that Gilead has long since fallen. Yeah, I don't know if the book is considered a spoiler or not, although it has been out for 30+ years. Either way, I don't see a society like Gilead lasting too long, that much "purity" comes at a cost (especially since you thrown almost all of your human talent down the toilet). quote:Really the biggest trouble with accepting the rise of Gilead isn't "it could happen here" so much as "it could happen this fast and this successfully." We're a nation of hundreds of millions spread across about a third of a continent, our states have independent military forces (National Guard), and the countryside is full of zealous gun nuts who would not all be happy with the Sons of Jacob's creed. There would be a lot more violence and chaos even in New England before things settled into the uncomfortable peace depicted in the book. Granted, is is heavily implied in all three versions that the government's control over the situation is quite fragmentary and if anything the US is still actively at war (if anything Syria is an apt comparison). Life in coastal Syria is still relatively "normal" while most of the rest of country is a war torn battlefield. There are at least active fronts in upper New England and Appalachia. In Boston itself (which is heavily implied to be the location of the story), things are pretty stable but if anything it might be a relative island of stability. The show/movie/book are all slightly different but there is common thread that the war isn't over. Hell, the show mentions that the rebels in the blue hills were just put down which is in the Boston metro area. quote:But like I said before, the point of the book isn't to show how quickly and easily this could happen. It's to show how uncomfortably close we are to it already. That is true.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Snak posted:I mean, part of the premise is that there have been fertility issues for awhile. So a giant civil war with very few children would actually result in a giant drop in population. Also a giant portion of society was straight up liquidated or has fled, basically almost everyone thats left are effectively working for the regime (or forced to work for them). There are still a few civilians around but they seem pretty thin on the ground. I wouldn't be surprised if the population in regime controlled territories was 30-40% of the pre-war amount. In the show they are walking by mostly vacant shops on the way back from food store, and there is very little to no street traffic beyond government vehicles (we know of). At a certain point you are going to end up either just true believers, cynical opportunists and people too fearful to do anything. That said, the absurd rigidity of such a society also makes it brittle (and it is why Gilead doesn't last more than 10-20 years). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:The Children of Men angle really solves all of the plausibility problems for me with regards to how quickly things changed and the like. The amplified pressure on reproduction amplifies the extreme measures this society goes to in controlling it. Which is in no way a justification of them, but a pretty good justification of their dramatic rate of change in such a short time frame. The biggest difference if anything is that British Government in the Children of Men (the only one we know of existing) becomes a police state in attempt to keep order in comparison far-right fundamentalists in the US say saw the fertility issue as a prime opportunity for creating their perfect society. I mean in all honesty we (the West) are already sliding in a more authoritarian direction as it is, what would it take for to push us over the edge?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
INH5 posted:Yeah, the biggest problem that I have with the premise is that it is set in New England of all places. In real life, groups like ISIS and the Taliban tend to form in sparsely populated areas where national governments are weaker, and they also tend to form during times of chaos where to many local people they can actually seem to be an improvement over the alternatives at first. See, for example, Wikipedia's description of the Taliban's rise to power: I think the issue is that the Sons of Jacob were able to get a hold of the traditional power structure of the US and use it against the populace. Most of them were probably from more rural areas, but they got in through essentially a coup and once they got control over the US military that is it. It wouldn't be the first time that local governments just completely buckle under a new regime that has a monopoly of force. Granted, I wouldn't say it is a very realistic scenario, I would say that I could see most our traditional elite buckling under such a scenario especially if they felt they still had a place in the new regime.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:I like that the show hasn't laid all of this out but the pieces are all there. We've seen "ordinary" people reacting to the ongoing fertility issues, how people are already despairing at the time June gives birth to Hannah, mentions of an attack that wiped out Congress, people being caught off guard by how quickly changes are taking place, and then protests being violently broken up. I assume it was a decision to surprise the viewers when it should be clear at that point to June that society was already on the edge. By the time she was jogging the country had already been under martial law for a year. I mean at a certain point a TV show is going to cut a few corners. Yeah, I wonder what they are going to do from here on out? Are we going to get out of Cambridge for a while? Obviously, there has do be something added.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Big Bug Hug posted:The dim lights and little use of technology is more for the whole "return to traditional values" thing I think. In the book they have a tv in the Waterford's house, though it's rarely used. I think the message is that technology exists but it is very selectively used. In a society where there are only a handful of births, a birth should be happening in one of the best facilities under their control...instead it happens in a house. We know they control hospitals that are well equipped but they voluntarily refuse to utilize it. Offred also mentions the Marthas have to hand make bread for aesthetic reasons. In comparison, I am sure only commanders actually have clearance to use the internet. That said, I am sure it is also a society where very little research is done in terms of anything "ify" like biology.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
I assume at least some of the military was demobilized "legally" by government during the months while the country was limbo. Otherwise, I guess the reason Alaska and Hawaii stayed loyal was because there was such a high concentration of military forces in both states versus the local population. Also, I guess the Pacific Fleet also maybe have simply refused to go along with what was happening on the mainland. Also, if the US still has Alaska/Hawaii it (probably) means both sides have nukes, so at this point it is a standoff. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 19:58
|
|