Criticisms of the Works of Margaret Atwood

---

Margaret Atwood has unique ways of communicating a message to her readers. She commonly exposes the reader to different cultures, traditions, and religions by way of the plot, characters, narrator, and/or setting. She often uses a backstory to the characters and plot to deepen this idea. It enables her to connect the reader to ideas, people, and things that exist outside of their realm of existence. Atwood writes of such unconventional things like “faithlessness and amnesia that bred alienation, violence, and injustice”  that enables her to play this role for the reader through her writing (Larson). This role allows her to convey a message to her reader through many aspects of a piece that one’s best self is not evoked by one thing; it comes from many aspects of life because there is more to the world than what exists in one's immediate environment. 

In addition to communicating a message of identity through complex storytelling, Atwood also exposes her readers to new experiences in order to advocate. She often places the reader in situations, through different components of the story, that she wishes to advocate for. The readers consume the stories of characters and speakers in Atwood's works that often experience suffering, survival, confusion, and guilt. In fact, some of “what Atwood’s earliest work of literary criticism anatomised is the victim psychology of the colonized” (Larson). She writes on the behalf of others that are silenced instead of for herself. Ultimately, this leads to themes of terrorism and violation of human rights. Because human rights and storytelling coexist in Atwood's works, she can effectively advocate to her readers while maintaining their attention with her storytelling. 

(Developed from Janet Larson's literary criticism "Margaret Atwood and the Future of Prophecy") 

It is arguable that Margaret Atwood’s writing is unique because it is known to go against the grain of classic Canadian literature. Classic Canadian literature is written in a way that “presents the national sensibility” of the Canadian landscape “in a negative and somber light” (White).This style of writing is often considered dreary. However, contrary to this idea, Atwood’s writing adds color to where classic Canadian literature lacks with “novels that are filled with color, wit, delightfully sardonic narrative voices, and vivid transformations” (White). These two styles of writing do, however, have one similarity. They both maintain the theme of survival against the odds. The extremeness of nature within the Canadian landscape enables the use of drowning experiences as literary devices to convey the dramatic view main characters have on their lives. The reader gains this sense of survival against the odds through the dramatic internal dialogue that is exposed through the voice of the speaker in Atwood’s writing which is made possible by the power of the setting. 

Moreover, the metaphor of drowning, in Atwood’s writing, is used to progress the characters. The protagonists in her writing are often problematic and struggle with relationships. They “are nearly always isolated figures, distanced from others by their most admirable assets” (White). They are challenged by their desire for autonomy, self-expression, and honesty which ultimately reveals to the reader the psychological struggles they face. Similar to how one must rise above the water to avoid drowning, the character must rise above their psychological struggles in order to survive which reveals the theme of self-discovery. This takes the reader through the entire progression of a character all because Atwood’s writing takes place in Canada. 

It's arguable that Margaret Atwood’s writing style is different from classic Canadian literature because it is more colorful, vivid, and witty; however, the same setting the is essential to classic Canadian literature, is essential to Atwood’s writing because it allows her to progress the characters in her writing with natural metaphors. 

(Developed from Roberta White's literary criticism "Northern Light: Margaret Atwood's Cat's Eye") 

The female protagonists of Margaret Atwood’s writings begin with trust in their marriage, family and friendship. They eventually find that they are unhappy which leads them to “find their own values, take control of their lives, and explore their own talents”  in order to find who they are as an individual rather than the woman society believes they should be. There is significant focus on how each individual woman finds themself through the process of interaction, success, and stagnation in Atwood’s writing. 

This process of the reconstruction of a woman reveals a sense of feminism. Women in Atwood’s writings convey to the reader a women’s need to become self-reliant and brave to survive because they are “burdened by the rules and inequities of their societies” (Goldblatt). These women “dwell on their childhood”(Goldblatt). Some are comfortable in the uninhabited nature. Others experience some form of suffering in their youth. All of these women hope to be relieved from any suffering they have experienced in the past. Thus, they seek comfort in a relationship outside of their upbringing. Atwood places these women in the presence of the societal expectation of marriage, so this is the relationship in which they seek relief. Additionally, Atwood places them in the context of society that tells them to fulfill the desires of men. Ultimately, through the use of heroes, predators and the coping mechanisms of women, Atwood’s work reveals to the reader a feminist story in which the female protagonist finds their true identity after differing from the societal expectations of a woman. 

(Developed from Patricia F. Goldblatt's literary criticism "Reconstructing Margaret Atwood's Protagonist") 

Sherrill Grace defines duality in Margaret Atwood’s poems as the “doubleness of intention or purpose in order to deceive” which is different from opposition or polarity (Grace). In Atwood’s work, duality is a positive literary element that reveals two things at the same time such as a character being a “healer/killer” or a “rescuer/pervert” (Grace). Atwood’s use of duality in her poems can be interpreted as a positive element because she intends that her readers interpret from the duality that while two people may be opposite or one person may be complex in that they are two people at once, we need to stop emphasizing the difference. Atwood suggests through this that people find an in between amongst opposition and allow everything to coexist. While some may view this negatively, the repetitive use of duality shows her attempt to “strive for constructive reconciliation of various polarities”(Grace).

In addition to using her characters to reveal the duality, Atwood uses other literary elements as well. Atwood places her characters in a realm of myths that brings a sense of duality because it “unites the individual and the universe” (Grace). She also reveals duality by using the words “and” and “but” to “indicate a change in perspective” (Grace). Atwood uses two senses in her poetry by writing and illustrating her poems. You can often find images around her poems. Because they can be “seen as well as heard,” there is duality there (Grace). In a grammatical sense, the use of parentheses simultaneously with regular writing also reveals duality because it shows the difference between surface level ideas and depth. 

Ultimately, Atwood reveals duality with character traits, realms, diction, illustration, and grammar which Sherrill Grace claims is intentional in that it expresses a positive message about coexistence. 

(Developed from Sherrill E. Grace's literary criticism "Margaret Atwood and the Poetics of Duplicity")