There is a chance that their treatment might not be completely sensitive toward English or other disciplines from among the humanities, such as comparative literature. Yet there may come a time when, pursuant to having read various books, one realizes that most other persons have not done the same. The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court has spawned headlines that mention The Handmaid’s Tale. Varied media users associate that story with “Anti-Catholic bigotry.”
While this reader may have observed Atwood’s skillful use of vocabulary as to make one reconsider a Norman Mailer book, most others would not. Norman Mailer, as some are aware, is known as an important journalist, self-described as “Salient,” who received multiple awards, but also was involved in some controversy, such as his advocacy of Jack Henry Abbott. Middlesex is a big book and it contains far more terms that someone might not have known previously. However, despite smooth wording by Eugenides, there is a chance that the author’s selective use of words, as to pay homage or be caustic toward another writer(s), has been elusive.
Though original in several ways, Middlesex could be seen as formulaic, recalling the Hellenistic origins of some characters, one might liken it specifically to a Greek tragedy set in modern times. The Handmaid’s Tale is usually described as dystopian and occasionally identified as a satire. So while the books’ genres differ, the overlap thus far includes publication within 20 relatively-recent years.
However, each author is someone who grew up in one place, earned a degree, and then went someplace far away to earn another. Each of their messages may not be embraced by substantial populations where their stories are, at least in part, set; even though the authors obtained their their highest pursued educational credentials in those same locales. The authors traveled to pursue English and then wrote books about their whereabouts that were iconoclastic, non-conventional, controversial or wry.
For better or worse, New England and Massachusetts have established histories with religion, institutes of divinity, and entire school systems under the auspices of specific orders. Atwood’s story can be described as taking issue with spiritual roles, or those of religious groups, if not attacking. (Greenblatt’s The Swerve may have similarity, though it is non-fiction; and could be held in higher regard than Mailer’s 1967 multi-award winner).
The state of California, and its Bay Area, are known for several things, among them an exceptional model of public education. It, and several governmental entities, have the same nickname of Eugenides’ lead character. His book’s denouement, or subplot if an appropriate term, may not be affirming to them.
Atwood’s book is probably a better commercial success–there incidentally is a movie based on a different Eugenides title–because of a film, tv series, following of persons actually dressing up in
costume, and a sequel. Eugenides seems to enjoy his resultant job and status–intuition says that evaluating or marking down students is not the same as individual or artistic accomplishment to him and he probably will not produce another book that is held in the same regard as Middlesex, at least while he is a professor.
There are different issues involving migration, apart from the establishment of professional authors. It could have effects that are beneficial or not. Varied stories can be celebrated, whether they are adverse to host regions, or maybe because of it.
There are some who would resent or object to a piece comparing books as has been done here. However, there are persons employed as reviewers or editors who won’t have the same background, if informal. There are also persons who won’t recognize the secondary effects of such works, or who may relish them. Either way, anyone else who would consider grouping or classifying Middlesex and The Handmaid’s Tale as migration songs is unknown–though there could be good reason.
*** the author owns shares of NKLA, not specfically due to an inference that a publicized “shortseller” or most of his media coverage, has never read either author discussed above.