A Handmaid's Tale By Margaret Atwood

Formalism disregards the influence of authorship and contexts – to me, the antithesis of the study of English and History in conjunction. How can a text be completely devoid of a writer’s influence, undoubtedly shaped by specific historical contexts? For example, female representation in literature and history often mirrors the cultural attitudes of the time. Exploring these relationships is an element I enjoy and a key reason why I’d like to study these two complementary subjects at university.

Looking at feminist criticism was a feature of the Debate Chamber English Literature masterclass I attended that was of particular interest to me because I find the construction of gender and the roles applied to each, as well as people trying to break down the walls between them fascinating. It led me to explore the extent to which ‘A Handmaid’s Tale’ by Margaret Atwood can be branded as feminist literature. Despite Atwood's claims that it is not, as she did not write it explicitly intending it to be used as a political message, she certainly uses its conventions in her work. She constructed a dystopian world rife with the aggressive misogyny of a domineering patriarchy. As is characteristic of feminist texts, she provides the alienated with a voice, using the personal female

While it can be argued that she was sexist, Queen Elizabeth I did defy expectations. Why she never married is an aspect of my A-Level course that particularly stood out. The blatant challenge to an established norm, one in which women were expected to wed, is intriguing because of the implications on her rule - issues surrounding the succession and the consequent threat of Mary, Queen of Scots could have been solved by espousing. This is underlined in ‘Elizabeth I’ by Christopher Haigh who outlines the necessity of marriage not for the sake of having a male ruler, but for the sake of producing an