Post-Modernism Kori.Sirrs

I will be analyzing this passage in a Post-Modernistic lens. A Post-Modernist rejects structuralism, is very skeptical,and looks for rules that are broken by the author like broken up dialogue.
This passage is told like the rest of the novel, by Offred, it is implied that what we are reading is what Offred remembers from the incident, (or what she chooses not to remember). It is apparent that the Handmaids have been brainwashed into believing they want to cause harm towards this Guardian who betrayed them. This is a scenario in the passage where Offred may be seen as an untrustworthy narrator, when Aunt Lydia tells the Handmaids what the Guardian has been convicted for. “This man, has been convicted of rape….He was once a Guardian. He disgraced his uniform. He has abused his position of trust.” p261 (W.E) We as the reader have to believe what Offred says Aunt Lydia said is true. However, Offred could have twisted the way she remembered Aunt Lydia’s speech, so as to cope with what the Handmaids did to the Guardian right after Aunt Lydia’s speech, to make it seem like the beating that the Guardian endured was the right thing to do.
Dialogue between characters is a very important base for the reader to understand what is going on in the characters minds. Even the slightest change in dialogue, how it is said, or a break in the text can change the readers aspect on the dialogue. In this passage it could be possible that the true dialogue between Ofglen and Offred at the end of the particicution could have been different, but it is written the way it is based on how Offred wants the reader to perceive this scene between the two of them. “Don’t be stupid. He wasn’t a rapist at all, he was a political. He was one of ours.” p263 (W.E) For all we know Offred could have made up what Ofglen said for the reader to interpret the scenario the way she wanted and because there is not proof against her account of the scenario we must believe her.
It is also apparent in the beginning of the passage that as the reader, we have no idea what a “particicution is”. We are left in the dark about what occurs during a particicution until it occurs. Whereas all the Handmaids in the room are familiar with this ordeal. “You know the rules for a Particicution, you will wait until I blow the whistle. After that, what you do is up to you, until I blow the whistle again.” This leaves it up to Offred to explain to the reader what a particicution is, and what happens before, during and after. How are we to know that Offred is not hiding the truth on the incident and not just twisting what actually occurred, so she is perceived in a different light? With no argument against her account of the scene we as the reader just have to believe that what Offred says is true.
Evidently in this passage there are multiple incidents that can be analyzed in a Post-Modernistic lens.

More pages