When A 1985 Book Becomes A 2017 Warning Label
Here’s the phenomenon: a dystopian novel from 1985 that sat on shelves for three decades as “important feminist literature,” then suddenly in 2016-2017 became required reading, protest costume inspiration, and the phrase everyone used when discussing politics. When a 30-year-old book becomes more relevant than when it was published, I need to understand what shifted.
The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood dropped during the Reagan era as speculative fiction about fundamentalist Christians taking over America and enslaving women as reproductive vessels. It won awards, appeared on syllabi, got adapted (badly) in 1990. Then it became a Hulu Emmy-winning phenomenon in 2017, and suddenly everyone was reading it, quoting it, and wearing red robes to protests.
The timing matters. The resurgence coincided with the 2016 election, reproductive rights debates, and a general sense among many that dystopia was no longer fiction.
Time to track down what readers actually think about the book versus the cultural moment.
THE INTEL
Here’s what we’re working with:
- Book: The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
- Published: 1985 (first edition)
- Series: Originally standalone (sequel The Testaments published 2019)
- Goodreads Rating: 4.14 stars with 2.1 million+ ratings and 92,000+ reviews
- Amazon: Available in multiple editions, audiobook
- Genre: Dystopian fiction, speculative fiction, feminist literature
- Setting: Near-future Massachusetts (Republic of Gilead), theocratic totalitarian regime
- Hulu Adaptation: 2017-present, 6 seasons (ongoing), multiple Emmys
- Core premise: Women reduced to reproductive roles after fundamentalist Christian coup
WHAT I FOUND (THE LEGWORK)
I surveyed reader reactions across Goodreads and Amazon.goodreads.com/book/show/38447.The_Handmaid_s_Tale”>92,000+ Goodreads reviews, Amazon ratings, and tracking the 2016-2020 review surge. The split is fascinating: passionate defense of its prescience versus detailed arguments that it makes no logical sense.
The “This Is Happening Right Now” Majority
Post-2016, reviews overwhelmingly frame this as prophetic. Goodreads reviewer Sean Barrs gave it 5 stars: “This book was horrifying and strangely perceptive…The best, and most haunting, thing about this novel is its scary plausibility.”
The Hulu show launched in April 2017, four months after the inauguration. Sales of the book skyrocketed. Multiple sources document Atwood herself discussing the book as “even more prescient today” and “a rallying cry in the time of Trump.”
The red robe and white bonnet costume from the book/show became protest uniform at reproductive rights rallies. The phrase “Under His Eye” entered political discourse. For millions, this stopped being fiction and became warning.
The “This Makes No Logical Sense” Opposition
Then there’s top Goodreads reviewer Kate, whose detailed critical review asks fundamental questions: “How did this happen so quickly? How did we go from ‘burning bras’ to having every part of our lives regulated? Why did it take Massachusetts decades, centuries, to reject puritanism, but only a few years(?) to reject liberalism?”
Her core argument: societies don’t change overnight. She cites historical examples—Germany before Hitler, China before Mao, Afghanistan before the Taliban—showing that regime changes don’t “sneak up on you.” They’re gradual, visible processes.
“The explanations for the sudden changes are fantastical, at best, dependent on evil, digitized money…and misogynistic, conservative conspiracies that readers are to believe could bring millions of people to a stupefied halt.”
She adds: “Why was modern American society so willing to enslave women?” The book never adequately answers this.
The Massachusetts Problem
Multiple critical reviews flag the setting choice. Massachusetts—one of the most progressive states, with constitutional abortion protections since 1981, one of the least religious states—becoming the center of a Christian theocracy requires massive suspension of disbelief.
Atwood chose it for Puritan history, which makes thematic sense but geographic/cultural nonsense. Why would fundamentalist Christians first conquer the most liberal state rather than building from the Bible Belt?
The “It’s Heavy-Handed” Critique
Several reviewers note that while Orwell and Huxley left readers contemplating the human condition, Atwood delivers blunt messaging. One review summarized: “Atwood gives too much time to an undisguised attack on religion at a surface level and fails to dig deeper…As ‘great literature’ then, ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ fails.”
Kate’s review goes further: “By the end…I feel the book is less an exploration of religious extremism and feminism than it is a narrative written for shock value. It’s an irrational feminist’s fears exposed, that the world is out to get you at every turn—especially the men.”
She notes the gender portrayal: “Almost anyone with a penis is mostly unfeeling and evil, deep down…He will betray you at the first opportunity.”
The 2016-2020 Resurgence Pattern
Review dates tell the story. Pre-2016: steady trickle of reviews, mix of positive/critical. 2017-2020: explosion of reviews, overwhelmingly five-star, framed as urgent and relevant. Many explicitly reference Trump, Kavanaugh hearings, abortion restrictions.
Goodreads reviews from 2022 reference Roe v. Wade being overturned, with readers saying “Stephen King tweeted: Welcome to The Handmaid’s Tale.”
Platform-Specific Buzz
Protest Culture: The red robe costume became iconic visual shorthand at reproductive rights protests worldwide. This visual association drove book sales even among people who never read it.
Hulu’s Success: The show introduced the story to millions who’d never picked up the book. Many watched first, then read. The show expanded beyond the book, running 6+ seasons from one novel’s worth of material.
Book Club Essential: Post-2016, this became mandatory book club reading. The “let’s discuss current events through dystopian fiction” phenomenon centered on this book.
MY ANALYSIS (BASED ON THE EVIDENCE)
The timing created the relevance, not the other way around. The book didn’t change. The political climate did. Readers in 2017 brought their fears to the text and found validation, even where the logic was shaky.
It works better as metaphor than worldbuilding. The critics are right that the mechanics don’t hold up. But most post-2016 readers aren’t analyzing how the coup happened—they’re seeing parallels to reproductive rights erosion and responding emotionally.
The Hulu adaptation saved it from academic obscurity. Without the show, this would have remained an important-but-dated feminist text taught in college. The adaptation made it visceral and immediate for a new generation.
The Massachusetts setting actually helps. While critics note the geographic illogic, Atwood’s choice signals “if it can happen HERE (liberal bastion), it can happen anywhere.” That’s more powerful messaging than starting in the Bible Belt.
The gender politics are dated. 1985 second-wave feminism painted men as oppressors and women as victims in ways that feel simplistic now. But in the 2016-2020 political climate, many readers found that framework newly relevant.
THE QUESTION NOBODY’S ASKING
Would anyone be calling this “prescient” if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016?
Honest answer: probably not. The book would have remained an important feminist classic, but the surge in sales and cultural relevance was directly tied to specific political outcomes. The text didn’t predict the future—readers projected their present onto 30-year-old fiction.
THE VERDICT
Read if: You want to understand what everyone’s been referencing since 2017, you’re studying how literature becomes politically weaponized, or you want powerful emotional exploration of reproductive oppression (even if the logic is shaky).
Skip if: You need airtight worldbuilding, you’re tired of heavy-handed political messaging, or you’ve already watched the show (which honestly expands the story better).
Watch the Hulu show instead if: You want the story without the run-on sentences and abandoned quotation marks that reviewers complain about.
Fair warning: Your reaction will largely depend on your political views and when you read it. Pre-2016 readers had very different experiences than post-2016 readers.
THE COCKTAIL
The Republic of Gilead
(Looks pure, hides something darker)
- 2 oz vodka (clear, neutral, repressed)
- 1 oz white cranberry juice (appears innocent)
- Splash of pomegranate juice (the blood underneath)
- Garnish with rosemary sprig (herb of remembrance – Offred’s secret rebellion)
Serve in a white coupe glass. Looks pure and virginal. The red swirls beneath tell a different story. Drink it while wearing a red robe for full effect.
Tasting notes: Deceptively strong. Appears harmless until it hits you. Leaves a bitter aftertaste that lingers.
THE BOTTOM LINE
The Handmaid’s Tale is a 1985 dystopian novel with 4.14 stars on Goodreads from 2.1 million+ ratings that exploded post-2016. Critical reviews note logical problems with how quickly society changes and Massachusetts setting. Hulu adaptation (2017-present) drove massive resurgence. Became protest symbol and political shorthand.
Got a book that became suddenly relevant decades after publication due to political events? Drop links showing the sales/review surge timeline and what triggered it. Vague “it’s always been relevant” claims get ignored. Bring dated receipts.