The last section of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, "Historical Notes", comes as a surprise after reading the novel. To some readers it may even be a disappointment, given the scientific and academic tone of the section. I will argue that this section is crucial to an understanding of the novel. Furthermore, I will show that it serves at least two different functions, one of which I feel is the most important.

The first and most obvious function is that of expanding the historical background of the novel. The seminar is held in 2195, at least two hundred years after the events of the novel take place. We learn that the Gilead society is regarded as only a passing phase in American history, somewhat like the way we in our society regard the post-revolutionary government of France after 1785. There are also indications that the United States has been dissolved, since one of the speakers comes from "the University of San Antonio, Republic of Texas"(Atwood, 312). This seems to have been a result of the Gilead regime. Throughout Professor Pieixoto’s speech, we get more information on the structure of the Gilead regime, which in some ways can be seen as a critique of our society.

However, if the section is viewed as merely expounding the background of the novel, it seems rather superfluous. The story could stand well alone without these notes, since we do receive a lot of information through Offred herself. It therefore seems that Atwood has a further purpose with the section, a thematic one.

In the "Historical Notes", Atwood presents two seemingly contradictory, though in fact tied-in themes, which are central to the novel. These are what I call the Revisionist-theme and the Reliable Narrator-theme. I shall now explain what I mean with these terms.

The first impulse when reading a novel or short story, is to assume that the narrator tells the truth. The Handmaid’s Tale, however, makes us aware of the fact that this may not be the case. Atwood wants us to question our presuppositions about narratorial reliability. This theme actually runs subtly throughout the novel, as when Offred tells of her and Nick’s nightly rendez-vous:

"I made that up. It didn’t happen that way. Here is what happened."(Atwood, 273)

"It didn’t happen that way either. I’m not sure how it happened; not exactly.
All I can hope for is a reconstruction…"(Atwood, 275)

As Offred states, she can never show the truth about the events she is portraying. All that she can do is tell her version of the events, and as is shown, she is not even sure of that. This indicates that Offred's narrative is a recollection of events that happened a long time before she was able to record them.

In the "Historical Notes", however, the theme is presented in a more obvious manner. The title of Professor Pieixoto’s paper, "Problems of Authentication in Reference to The Handmaid’s Tale"(Atwood, 312), clearly states the purpose of the last section. The larger part of the section is devoted to this matter. What he concludes is that it is next to impossible to know anything about Offred, apart from that which she tells us herself. And while the authenticity of the tapes seems to be proven, there is no way of telling whether she speaks the truth. Pieixoto states that the tapes "could not have been recorded during the period of time it recounts, since, if the author is telling the truth, no machine or tapes would have been available to her…". He continues: "there is a certain reflective quality about the narrative … a whiff of emotion recollected…" (Atwood, 315). The recordings seem to have been made much later than the events, which also causes us to question Offred’s reliability. Her narrative is therefore put into question from within the novel.

However, if we know next to nothing about the source for the novel, we know a lot more about the seminar transcript. This is described in an almost exaggerated style. We learn the date when the seminar is held, almost down to the very hour. Also, the audience reactions are noted in the text, suggesting that this was actually transcripted verbatim from the seminar tape. Why the sudden change in detail? It seems that Atwood would want to highlight the exact and extremely scientific nature of the society of 2195. This leads to the second theme, what I have called the Revisionist-theme.

The scholars of 2195 look at the Gilead regime in an idealized fashion. They see it not as a dark period in human history, but as an important one. Professor Crescent Moon speaks of the period that it "well repays further study, responsible as it ultimately was for redrawing the map of the world …" (Atwood, 311). The scholars seem to take no notice of the repression that Offred describes, other than being impressed by the efficiency of the regime. In fact, professor Pieixoto uses an almost admiring tone when discussing its structure: "there was little that was truly original with or indigenous to Gilead: its genius was its synthesis" (Atwood, 319: my emphasis). What Pieixoto praises is the borrowing of practises such as the colour of the Handmaid’s dresses, derived from prison camps during World War II and the collective hanging, derived from a seventeenth century English village ceremony.Later on, when discussing the naming of the Aunts, Pieixoto praises the "ingenuity" of Commander Waterford, and considers it a "brilliant stroke" to use names from commercial products (Atwood, 321). However, he also makes a point of not passing any judgements upon the Gilead regime, since "such judgements are of necessity culture-specific" (Atwood, 314). I see a parallel here between Pieixoto’s reasoning and the revisionists of our day, who claim that Nazi Germany did not use concentration camps, for instance. History is always written by the survivors and the ruling class, and Atwood illustrates this in a grim fashion.

What is noticeably lacking from the seminar transcript is any kind of emotion for Offred’s fate. Professor Pieixoto simply is not interested in Offred’s story, but he is very concerned with finding out if it is a reliable source. He actually makes fun of her at one point: "She appears to have been an educated woman, insofar as a graduate of any North American college of the time may be said to have been educated" (Atwood, 318). Later, he reproaches her for not having "the instincts of a reporter or a spy. What would we not give, now, for even twenty pages or so of printout from Waterford’s private computer!" (Atwood, 322) Clearly, he makes a judgemental distinction between different types of historical evidence. The story of a woman is not as interesting as the private notes from a man in power. Pieixoto seems more fascinated with the music tapes that Offred used to record her narratives on, than with the actual narrative itself. He lists the titles, and also names his favorite: "'Twisted Sister at Carnegie Hall' is one of which I am particularly fond." (Atwood, 314)

It is interesting to note that Atwood does not give any direct clues to whether she thinks that Offred’s or Pieixoto’s version is the correct one. This illustrates what I feel to be one of Atwood’s points: every story is coloured by the person telling it. Both Offred and Pieixoto are correct, from their point of view. However, to avoid falling into the trap of extreme subjectivism, it is clearly more valuable with a first-hand account, be it biased or not, than with an interpretation of the same story two hundred years later. To use Pieixoto’s own opinion, his statements must be judged with his cultural values and not, for example, the values of Western civilization in the 1990’s. They are not more correct simply because of their academic status.

What I have shown is that The Handmaid’s Tale causes us to question both the nature of historical truth, and of the reliability of narrators. This is most obvious in the "Historical Notes", which then, though somewhat presented as an appendix, take on an extremely important role in understanding the novel as whole. Finally, I think that Atwood does take a position, even if she tries to remain objective. What she has done, in a way, is to highlight the dangers of revisionist history, by letting her own novel suffer that fate.

Bibliography

Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid’s Tale, London: Vintage, 1996.