The Testaments - Atwood Reveals Gilead's Future

I know you haven't asked, but it is my opinion that some iconic novels should never have sequels. Just a few examples are The Great Gatsby, 1984, Gone with the Wind, The Grapes of Wrath, and To Kill a Mockingbird  (the attempted sequel proves my point).

Thus it was with a great deal of skepticism that I began reading Margaret Atwood's sequel to The Handmaid's Tale.

From  the TV Series

As with the dystopian original, the sequel, The Testaments, is set in Gilead,  a totalitarian theocracy that has replaced the United States of America. Although fifteen years have passed, the Republic of Gilead has survived, only more corrupt than ever. Women are still treated as "two-legged wombs," a distorted form of Christian fundamentalism is used to justify discrimination and the elimination of human rights. The abusive, totalitarian Republic of Gilead demonstrates the dangers of not maintaining a wall of separation between religion and government. For example, Gilead uses religion and a redacted bible to eliminate nonwhites and so-called unbelievers (Jews, Catholics, and anyone who does not adhere to their extreme dogmas).

The Testaments, unlike the original, tends to be a spy thriller, which in the hands of a storyteller like Margaret Atwood captures the reader's attention and does not let go. The "testaments" in the sequel are those of Agnes Jemima, a Commander's adopted daughter; Nicole, a sixteen-year-old in Canada under a different name; and Aunt Lydia, the most powerful woman in Gilead. The three characters tell their stories from their own particular point of view with the result that the reader slowly becomes aware of the total story.

Agnes grew up in Gilead and wants and prays to be a true believer, but the abusive behavior of the leaders force her to question her faith. At one point she writes: "Still I wanted to believe; indeed, I longed to; and, in the end, how much of belief comes from longing."

Nicole, a sixteen-year-old refugee from Gilead and living in Canada under a different name slowly becomes aware of her true identity; and, after the murders of her step-parents agrees to infiltrate Gilead and bring back damning evidence of Gilead's corruption.

Aunt Lydia, recognized as a "founder" of Gilead leads a double life as an enforcer of the extreme doctrine and a resistance fighter hoping to bring about the collapse of Gilead.

Although Atwood does not dwell on the inhumane, abusive crimes of Gilead or make predictions, the attitudes and temperament of that society have a frightening resemblance to the post-2016 cultural changes taking place in this country. And, perhaps, that accounts for the success of Hulu's TV version of "The Handmaid's Tale," now in season three.

Unlike some other dystopian novels, Atwood makes a point of not including anything "that had not already happened" at some time in history. One can readily recall theocracies engaging the same inhumane techniques as we find in Gilead. And to her credit, she does not create new technologies. She uses nothing that is "not already available."

In short, Atwood has created a solid stand-alone sequel that recounts the story of three women whose "testaments" challenge a cruel regime that tries to silence and denigrate women.

Tennis Has a Problem - Medical Time-outs

Now that the US Open tennis tournament is in full swing and "Coco Mania" is a thing,  many casual observers are watching some or many televised matches, and I suspect some are wondering about the so-called "medical time-out."

Maria Sharapova in a medical time-out

As far as I can determine, this phenomenon is unique to tennis. The usual scenario is that a player indicates to the umpire that a trainer/doctor is needed. When the trainer/doctor arrives he attempts to evaluate the player's physical problem. Many times, I suspect, the problem is mental or emotional. This evaluation process can take as long as the trainer/doctor chooses. It is only after the evaluation is declared complete that the umpire starts to time the treatment--presumably three minutes. And eventually, the match resumes.

This process, I am convinced is absurd and unfair.*

In what other sport, individual or team, is an injured player allowed to stop the action, receive medical treatment and then return? When Tiger Woods broke a bone in his leg, he had to continue to play in a debilitating condition or withdraw from the tournament. A boxer cannot delay a bout because of shoulder pain. A triathlete cannot request a time-out to receive treatment for the blisters on her feet.

In team sports, an injured athlete has to continue to play or be immediately replaced by a substitute. Of course, in the case of baseball, the pace of play is so slow that fans would not even notice a medical time-out.

The most obvious problem with tennis' medical break is that it can be used by a player to break an opponent's momentum. Without mentioning names, there are some players who are notorious for this. When their opponent starts to make a run and turn the match around, the player calls for a trainer/doctor, and complains of a vague injury or is simply seeking a massage with lidocaine. The result is a five to fifteen-minute break which interrupts the match while the opponent who had the momentum has to sit and wait. Gamesmanship such as this should not be allowed.

If a player can't continue to play in the allotted time, that player should forfeit gracefully. If the so-called injury does not preclude playing, the player should be back on the court in the allotted time.

On the other hand, since some matches, especially men's matches, can last four or more hours, players should be allowed to take a bathroom break between sets.

* Although my qualifications to suggest this may be challenged, I am a fan, a player, and a former USTA official, referee, and tournament director.