Okay so, firstly, I enjoyed reading this book; it’s a page turner. However, I don’t think it was necessary for Atwood to write a sequel to the masterpiece that is The Handmaid’s Tale. Part of what makes that book so shocking and powerful is its ambiguity. The Testaments answered 35 year old questions that were left unanswered for a reason. The characters had no way near the depth that the first novel had, and by nicely tying everything together and giving the book a happy ending (sorry if this is cynical) it diminished its power.

Don’t get me wrong the action style that Atwood has used and more active rebellion shows an urgency for resistance, I just didn’t feel that the style was as effective as the more symbolic style of The Handmaid’s Tale. Also, the plot twists weren’t really plot twists, they just confirmed everything I was suspecting and was obvious from the beginning.

The messages of the novel are still so relevant and important, I’m not saying they’re not, I’m just saying the execution of this - compared to The Handmaid’s Tale - weren’t as effectively explored in depth. Consequently, I don’t think it deserved to share the Man Booker prize with Girl, Woman, Other.