What conceptual links can you identify between The Handmaid’s Tale and Human Acts?

The two concepts that stand out to me with the texts Human Acts and The Handmaid’s Tale are the concepts of culture and identity. Fundamentally, both Human Acts and The Handmaid’s Tale are explorations into a particular culture at a particular time (one fictional and one non-fictional), and how these cultures enable and suppress the identities of the characters involved in each story. Human Acts is as much an exploration into the 1980 Gwangju Massacre, a cultural event, as it is an exploration into the fractured and shattered identities of those affected by the massacre. In the same way, The Handmaid’s Tale appears to be a dystopia focusing on the theology and hierarchies of Gilead, when it is perhaps more apt to describe it as a character study focusing on Offred’s fragile identity as she navigates the oppressive forces of Gileadean society. Both texts also make the distinction that culture and cultural events, although greatly pervasive, is often decided by very few. Gilead was the product of a handful of people who staged a successful coup against the United States government, while the Gwangju Massacre was carried out by soldiers under orders from the President, against a group far greater in numbers.

What conceptual understandings, established through our exploration of literary texts, relate to your understanding and interpretation of non-literary texts?

Representation is what immediately stands out as a key consideration both authors of literary texts and authors of non-literary texts need to take into account, because fundamentally, the texts that authors produce contain representations of people and representations of culture. It is impossible to be 100% accurate when representing anyone or anything, because an author is limited in their knowledge, their experiences, and also bound by the message they wish to communicate through their work. This is where perspective comes in, as any text, no matter how vast in its scope or ‘objective’ in its content, is ultimately the manifestation of one perspective, and doesn’t consider the perspectives of the other 7 and-a-bit billion of us on Planet Earth. This is why objectivity is virtually impossible to achieve in any form of media, let alone literature. To combat this, the impossible nature of objectivity in media, we employ stereotypes to easily communicate messages to a wide range of people, and though it’s easy to criticize and condemn stereotypes as being constricting and crass, I don’t see them going away anytime soon. One must ask the question: How else can I easily and successfully convey a message to the greatest amount of people without using the lowest common denominator, the stereotype? The answer, at least for the time-being is, there is no other way to do so. The real discussion should instead be on acknowledging that stereotypes are greatly limited and inherently flawed, and that we shouldn’t hold them as being objective truths. I believe that from this recognition will stem a greater ray of understanding and depth in both literary texts and non-literary texts.