The Handmaid’s Tale (it’s kinda funny how both you and a commenter replying to you misspell the name in two different ways) is going for a “The Lady or the Tiger” ending. Do you believe that Nick is actually part of the Resistance, or is he part of the state secret police? The narrative tricked us a little with the “relationship” between Offred and the Commander - can we trust anyone at all?
The epilogue also gives the narrative some verisimilitude. It’s pretending to be a historical document - how would the world post-Gilead react to accounts of what happened to women during Gilead? How would you interact with the Diary of Anne Frank if you didn’t know that she was killed in the camps?
I fail to see how it’s similar to “The Mist” here.
If I remember correctly “The Mist” also ends by pretending it was a “historical document”. That’s the similarity I was referring to. In my opinion it’s a bit silly. Are we really to believe someone had time to write entire book while running for their lives? With dialogs and detailed description of all events? It’s also totally unnecessary. You can have an open ending without pretending it’s a historic document. It’s also crazy old. Don Quijote does he same thing, pretending it’s actually a real story being translated from old, Arabic sources. It doesn’t mean the books are bad. It just a trope ending.
The Handmaid’s Tale (it’s kinda funny how both you and a commenter replying to you misspell the name in two different ways) is going for a “The Lady or the Tiger” ending. Do you believe that Nick is actually part of the Resistance, or is he part of the state secret police? The narrative tricked us a little with the “relationship” between Offred and the Commander - can we trust anyone at all?
The epilogue also gives the narrative some verisimilitude. It’s pretending to be a historical document - how would the world post-Gilead react to accounts of what happened to women during Gilead? How would you interact with the Diary of Anne Frank if you didn’t know that she was killed in the camps?
I fail to see how it’s similar to “The Mist” here.
If I remember correctly “The Mist” also ends by pretending it was a “historical document”. That’s the similarity I was referring to. In my opinion it’s a bit silly. Are we really to believe someone had time to write entire book while running for their lives? With dialogs and detailed description of all events? It’s also totally unnecessary. You can have an open ending without pretending it’s a historic document. It’s also crazy old. Don Quijote does he same thing, pretending it’s actually a real story being translated from old, Arabic sources. It doesn’t mean the books are bad. It just a trope ending.