WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.480 Okay, let's unpack this. We're doing a deep dive 00:00:02.480 --> 00:00:06.179 today into, well, one of the most prolific, profound, 00:00:06.320 --> 00:00:12.080 and I think paradoxical literary figures of the 00:00:12.080 --> 00:00:15.119 last century, Margaret Atwood. Paradoxical is 00:00:15.119 --> 00:00:17.500 the perfect word. She is, of course, the powerhouse 00:00:17.500 --> 00:00:19.660 novelist you know from The Handmaid's Tale. Right. 00:00:20.879 --> 00:00:23.039 barely scratches the surface he's a foundational 00:00:23.039 --> 00:00:25.820 figure in canadian literary theory a relentless 00:00:25.820 --> 00:00:28.960 political commentator an environmental ethicist 00:00:28.960 --> 00:00:31.379 and and this is the twist we absolutely have 00:00:31.379 --> 00:00:34.539 to get into an inventor an inventor yes an inventor 00:00:34.539 --> 00:00:37.100 who holds patents for remote robotic writing 00:00:37.100 --> 00:00:39.520 technology that duality is exactly what we're 00:00:39.520 --> 00:00:41.759 going to explore you know the cassandra who warns 00:00:41.759 --> 00:00:44.439 us about technological dystopia but who also 00:00:44.439 --> 00:00:47.219 builds the technology it's the core tension so 00:00:47.219 --> 00:00:50.090 our mission today is to move beyond the famous 00:00:50.090 --> 00:00:53.450 red cloaks, and explore the whole Atwood universe. 00:00:53.710 --> 00:00:56.929 The poet, the critic, the historian, and yes, 00:00:56.969 --> 00:00:58.530 the entrepreneur. Well, when you just look at 00:00:58.530 --> 00:01:00.869 the sheer volume of her output since her career 00:01:00.869 --> 00:01:03.950 began in 1961, it is genuinely staggering. It's 00:01:03.950 --> 00:01:06.099 unbelievable. We're talking about 18 novels, 00:01:06.400 --> 00:01:09.719 18 poetry books, 11 box of nonfiction, and that's 00:01:09.719 --> 00:01:11.439 not even counting the short story collections, 00:01:11.579 --> 00:01:13.959 the children's books, the graphic novels. It's 00:01:13.959 --> 00:01:16.819 an intellectual output that really very few modern 00:01:16.819 --> 00:01:19.280 writers can match in scope. And the recognition, 00:01:19.519 --> 00:01:22.420 it just matches that relentless volume. She's 00:01:22.420 --> 00:01:25.439 one of the few authors who has been honored across 00:01:25.439 --> 00:01:28.939 basically every major literary genre and boundary. 00:01:29.180 --> 00:01:32.060 Absolutely. I mean, two Booker Prizes. Two. One 00:01:32.060 --> 00:01:34.540 for The Blind Assassin and then... Decades later 00:01:34.540 --> 00:01:36.560 for the Testaments. Right. And multiple Governor 00:01:36.560 --> 00:01:39.299 General's Awards and crucially the Arthur C. 00:01:39.299 --> 00:01:41.959 Clarke Award, which really signals her genre 00:01:41.959 --> 00:01:44.760 defying impact in science and speculative fiction. 00:01:44.799 --> 00:01:47.299 So if you're looking for a comprehensive, deep 00:01:47.299 --> 00:01:50.840 cut understanding of Atwood's life, her big thematic 00:01:50.840 --> 00:01:53.219 anchors, you know, gender, identity, power, climate 00:01:53.219 --> 00:01:57.040 change and her most. niche and intriguing public 00:01:57.040 --> 00:01:59.719 roles like founding the Griffin Poetry Prize 00:01:59.719 --> 00:02:02.400 or inventing the long pen. Yes, you are absolutely 00:02:02.400 --> 00:02:03.840 in the right place. We're going to connect all 00:02:03.840 --> 00:02:06.379 those dots and try to explain why her Canadian 00:02:06.379 --> 00:02:09.099 roots are so key to unlocking her global appeal. 00:02:09.259 --> 00:02:11.560 So let's ground this with the basics. Margaret 00:02:11.560 --> 00:02:14.680 Eleanor Atwood was born on November 18th, 1939 00:02:14.680 --> 00:02:18.539 in Ottawa, Ontario. But the place of her birth 00:02:18.539 --> 00:02:21.439 is actually far less important than the places 00:02:21.439 --> 00:02:23.639 she spent her childhood. That's what really shaped 00:02:23.639 --> 00:02:25.139 her view of the world. Yeah, that's where we 00:02:25.139 --> 00:02:27.800 need to start. When we think of a major literary 00:02:27.800 --> 00:02:32.319 icon, we often imagine them having this rigorous 00:02:32.319 --> 00:02:35.319 traditional education from day one, right? But 00:02:35.319 --> 00:02:37.759 Adwa's beginnings were decidedly unconventional. 00:02:38.199 --> 00:02:41.240 Completely. Rooted not in city life, but in the 00:02:41.240 --> 00:02:43.659 wilderness. Right. Her early life was really 00:02:43.659 --> 00:02:46.759 dictated by forest science. Her father, Carl 00:02:46.759 --> 00:02:49.340 Edmund Atwood, he was a dedicated entomologist, 00:02:49.620 --> 00:02:52.860 a forest insect scientist. So this meant that 00:02:52.860 --> 00:02:55.039 young Margaret spent these huge periods of her 00:02:55.039 --> 00:02:57.719 early childhood just immersed in the backwoods 00:02:57.719 --> 00:03:00.060 of northern Quebec. Constantly traveling, often 00:03:00.060 --> 00:03:01.840 living off the grid in these remote research 00:03:01.840 --> 00:03:03.740 stations. So that meant her formal schooling 00:03:03.740 --> 00:03:06.539 was, what, patchy at best? It's a striking detail, 00:03:06.819 --> 00:03:09.389 yeah. She didn't attend school full time until 00:03:09.389 --> 00:03:11.949 she was 12 years old. So you have this massive 00:03:11.949 --> 00:03:14.909 gap where a child's mind is normally organized 00:03:14.909 --> 00:03:18.189 by institutional schedules. But for her, it was 00:03:18.189 --> 00:03:20.330 a period of intense self -directed immersion 00:03:20.330 --> 00:03:23.189 in nature and literature. And that time was defining. 00:03:23.409 --> 00:03:25.990 Oh, completely. While the environment was rugged, 00:03:26.110 --> 00:03:29.189 her mind was nourished by this incredibly eclectic 00:03:29.189 --> 00:03:31.530 reading diet. So she was reading high literature, 00:03:31.689 --> 00:03:35.500 but also. What else? Oh, all sorts of things. 00:03:35.580 --> 00:03:38.740 Cheap Dell pocketbook mysteries, the dark mythical 00:03:38.740 --> 00:03:41.819 power of Grimm's fairy tales, these visceral 00:03:41.819 --> 00:03:44.500 Canadian animal stories and comic books. It's 00:03:44.500 --> 00:03:47.020 a remarkable fusion, isn't it? Myth, nature. 00:03:47.520 --> 00:03:50.060 And pulp culture. It's really no surprise that 00:03:50.060 --> 00:03:52.620 decades later, her work manages to be both deeply 00:03:52.620 --> 00:03:55.560 literary and also incredibly engaging on a popular 00:03:55.560 --> 00:03:58.740 level. That early exposure to the unforgiving 00:03:58.740 --> 00:04:01.020 nature of the Canadian wilderness where survival 00:04:01.020 --> 00:04:03.639 just isn't a given. It's so clearly laid the 00:04:03.639 --> 00:04:05.979 groundwork for her later thematic obsession with 00:04:05.979 --> 00:04:08.199 struggle. But despite that, you know, the unstructured 00:04:08.199 --> 00:04:11.139 nature of her early years, the ambition was there. 00:04:11.300 --> 00:04:13.780 It was crystal clear very early on. Absolutely. 00:04:13.840 --> 00:04:16.019 She started writing plays and poems when she 00:04:16.019 --> 00:04:18.870 was six years old. And viewed it not as a hobby, 00:04:18.949 --> 00:04:21.810 but as a future vocation. By the time she was 00:04:21.810 --> 00:04:24.230 16, she had made the explicit decision that she 00:04:24.230 --> 00:04:26.769 wanted to pursue writing professionally. She 00:04:26.769 --> 00:04:29.250 set her life's course very, very early. And this 00:04:29.250 --> 00:04:31.829 ambition led her to higher education, which was 00:04:31.829 --> 00:04:35.029 anything but haphazard. She enrolled at Victoria 00:04:35.029 --> 00:04:37.959 College, University of Toronto. graduating in 00:04:37.959 --> 00:04:40.779 1961 with a bachelor of arts in english with 00:04:40.779 --> 00:04:43.939 honors and minors in philosophy and french and 00:04:43.939 --> 00:04:46.399 critically she was taught there by one of the 00:04:46.399 --> 00:04:49.160 20th century's most influential literary critics 00:04:49.160 --> 00:04:52.600 northrop frye Fry's influence on Canadian literature 00:04:52.600 --> 00:04:55.319 and specifically on Atwood. You really can't 00:04:55.319 --> 00:04:57.860 overstate it. No, you can't. After Toronto, she 00:04:57.860 --> 00:05:00.519 moved south on a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship, getting 00:05:00.519 --> 00:05:03.000 her Master of Arts from Radcliffe College. Which 00:05:03.000 --> 00:05:05.720 was the women's coordinate college for Harvard 00:05:05.720 --> 00:05:08.139 University at the time. Exactly. And she continued 00:05:08.139 --> 00:05:11.060 to pursue this deep academic rigor, even starting 00:05:11.060 --> 00:05:13.560 a doctoral dissertation called the English Metaphysical 00:05:13.560 --> 00:05:15.759 Romance, though she never actually completed 00:05:15.759 --> 00:05:17.939 the doctorate. But the seeds of her career were 00:05:17.939 --> 00:05:21.600 already planted. And the 1960s, they quickly 00:05:21.600 --> 00:05:25.139 established her on the literary map, but initially 00:05:25.139 --> 00:05:27.839 as a poet, right? Poetry was her first major 00:05:27.839 --> 00:05:30.939 success. Her first book of poetry, Double Persephone, 00:05:31.079 --> 00:05:33.199 which was published the year she graduated from 00:05:33.199 --> 00:05:36.939 Toronto in 1961, won the prestigious E .J. Pratt 00:05:36.939 --> 00:05:39.579 Medal. And then came The Circle Game. Yes, in 00:05:39.579 --> 00:05:43.519 1966. And that won the Governor General's Award, 00:05:43.720 --> 00:05:46.459 which is Canada's highest national literary honor. 00:05:46.620 --> 00:05:49.139 So she was already established as this major 00:05:49.139 --> 00:05:51.740 national voice before her first novel even appeared. 00:05:51.899 --> 00:05:54.399 And while she was building this foundation, like 00:05:54.399 --> 00:05:57.399 most writers, she was supporting herself through 00:05:57.399 --> 00:06:00.379 various academic positions. She was a lecturer 00:06:00.379 --> 00:06:02.720 at the University of British Columbia, an instructor 00:06:02.720 --> 00:06:04.939 at Sir George Williams University in Montreal, 00:06:05.139 --> 00:06:07.579 and held teaching and writer -in -residence roles 00:06:07.579 --> 00:06:09.779 at York University and the University of Toronto 00:06:09.779 --> 00:06:12.500 in the early 70s. That experience of balancing 00:06:12.500 --> 00:06:14.980 the demanding schedule of academia with the creative 00:06:14.980 --> 00:06:18.439 output of a serious writer is, well, it's crystallized 00:06:18.439 --> 00:06:20.300 in a fantastic quote she gave later. Oh, I know 00:06:20.300 --> 00:06:23.860 the one. meant no longer having to teach at university 00:06:23.860 --> 00:06:27.060 it just speaks to the absolute necessity of uninterrupted 00:06:27.060 --> 00:06:29.079 writing time for a professional author doesn't 00:06:29.079 --> 00:06:31.779 it it really does and the fiction that allowed 00:06:31.779 --> 00:06:33.720 her that independence started coming out toward 00:06:33.720 --> 00:06:36.899 the end of the 60s the edible woman her first 00:06:36.899 --> 00:06:39.920 novel was published in 1969. And this novel was 00:06:39.920 --> 00:06:43.079 an immediate sensation. It's primarily a social 00:06:43.079 --> 00:06:47.220 satire focused on the stifling roles prescribed 00:06:47.220 --> 00:06:49.639 to women in post -war North American consumer 00:06:49.639 --> 00:06:52.639 culture. Right. It uses the protagonist's refusal 00:06:52.639 --> 00:06:56.279 to eat as a metaphor for her refusal to be consumed 00:06:56.279 --> 00:06:58.920 by society. And while many critics immediately 00:06:58.920 --> 00:07:02.300 and accurately cited it as an early example of 00:07:02.300 --> 00:07:05.160 feminist concerns, Atwood herself at the time, 00:07:05.180 --> 00:07:07.439 she often preferred the term social realism for 00:07:07.439 --> 00:07:10.379 her early work. She was keen on documenting the 00:07:10.379 --> 00:07:13.160 world as it was, not necessarily applying a theoretical 00:07:13.160 --> 00:07:15.500 label to it. Yeah, and this resistance to being 00:07:15.500 --> 00:07:17.759 neatly labeled, even by movements she largely 00:07:17.759 --> 00:07:19.899 supports, it's a recurring feature of her career. 00:07:20.120 --> 00:07:23.160 But it set the stage for arguably her most impactful 00:07:23.160 --> 00:07:25.540 nonfiction contribution to the Canadian cultural 00:07:25.540 --> 00:07:30.120 landscape. The 1972 book Survival, a thematic 00:07:30.120 --> 00:07:32.579 guide to Canadian literature. This wasn't just 00:07:32.579 --> 00:07:35.879 a book review. It was a cultural manifesto. Survival 00:07:35.879 --> 00:07:38.519 fundamentally defined an emerging national literary 00:07:38.519 --> 00:07:41.639 identity during a period of intense Canadian 00:07:41.639 --> 00:07:43.720 nationalism. It's still a standard, right? It's 00:07:43.720 --> 00:07:46.300 maybe sometimes controversial. Introduction to 00:07:46.300 --> 00:07:48.620 Canadian literature and academic programs globally. 00:07:48.740 --> 00:07:52.379 It provides this crucial lens to view the country's 00:07:52.379 --> 00:07:54.800 artistic output. Okay, so let's unpack the core 00:07:54.800 --> 00:07:57.160 theory of survival because it's absolutely essential 00:07:57.160 --> 00:07:59.620 to understanding the Canadian psyche she presents. 00:07:59.920 --> 00:08:03.269 She argues that Canadian identity and its literature 00:08:03.269 --> 00:08:07.189 are defined by one overarching sort of non -optimistic 00:08:07.189 --> 00:08:11.029 theme, survival. Exactly. Unlike, say, the American 00:08:11.029 --> 00:08:13.329 narrative that's often centered on heroism or 00:08:13.329 --> 00:08:15.589 frontier conquest, or the European narrative 00:08:15.589 --> 00:08:18.269 centered on cultural history, the Canadian narrative, 00:08:18.350 --> 00:08:20.490 according to Atwood, is just defined by the struggle 00:08:20.490 --> 00:08:23.509 to simply stay alive. And this is expressed through 00:08:23.509 --> 00:08:25.589 what she calls a spectrum of victim positions. 00:08:26.029 --> 00:08:28.310 Right, on a sliding scale of self -consciousness. 00:08:28.449 --> 00:08:31.550 So you have... Position one, which is the outright 00:08:31.550 --> 00:08:33.509 rejection of victimhood, and then you move through 00:08:33.509 --> 00:08:36.309 these positions of recognizing victimhood but 00:08:36.309 --> 00:08:38.570 not knowing what to do about it. All the way 00:08:38.570 --> 00:08:41.730 to position four, which is creative non -victimhood, 00:08:41.830 --> 00:08:44.570 recognizing the struggle and actually starting 00:08:44.570 --> 00:08:48.350 to act. The central conflict is always this victor 00:08:48.350 --> 00:08:50.830 -victim relationship. And crucially, the victor 00:08:50.830 --> 00:08:53.470 isn't always another person. It's often the environment 00:08:53.470 --> 00:08:56.690 itself. the overwhelming vastness and coldness 00:08:56.690 --> 00:08:59.830 of the Canadian wilderness, or it can be internal 00:08:59.830 --> 00:09:03.070 societal factors or cultural dominance from external 00:09:03.070 --> 00:09:05.909 powers. So the United States. Namely the United 00:09:05.909 --> 00:09:08.429 States, yes. And this theory, it just bears the 00:09:08.429 --> 00:09:10.610 massive foundational influence of her former 00:09:10.610 --> 00:09:14.070 professor, Northrop Frye, specifically his concept 00:09:14.070 --> 00:09:16.389 of the garrison mentality. We should probably 00:09:16.389 --> 00:09:19.120 define that. We have to. Fry articulated the 00:09:19.120 --> 00:09:21.379 garrison mentality as the psychological mindset 00:09:21.379 --> 00:09:23.960 created by the early Canadian settlers. Faced 00:09:23.960 --> 00:09:26.620 with immense, chaotic and frankly frightening 00:09:26.620 --> 00:09:29.559 wilderness. Right. So settlers felt compelled 00:09:29.559 --> 00:09:32.200 to wall themselves off in these isolated, defensive 00:09:32.200 --> 00:09:35.840 communities, the garrisons. This created an inward 00:09:35.840 --> 00:09:38.519 looking, fearful and community dependent culture 00:09:38.519 --> 00:09:41.279 defined by adherence to tradition and a fear 00:09:41.279 --> 00:09:43.340 of the outside world, both natural and human. 00:09:43.769 --> 00:09:46.409 So Atwood essentially takes that fearful, inward 00:09:46.409 --> 00:09:49.029 -looking psychology and argues that Canadian 00:09:49.029 --> 00:09:51.529 literature is the direct expression of this identity, 00:09:51.769 --> 00:09:54.950 constantly struggling for survival. It's a heavy, 00:09:55.009 --> 00:09:57.830 maybe even a nihilistic, national self -definition, 00:09:57.830 --> 00:10:00.169 which is why it was so effective and resonated 00:10:00.169 --> 00:10:03.210 so powerfully at the time. It replaced the myth 00:10:03.210 --> 00:10:05.809 of the noble pioneer with the reality of the 00:10:05.809 --> 00:10:08.629 fearful survivor. That combination of award -winning 00:10:08.629 --> 00:10:11.090 poetry, genre -defining criticism, and novels 00:10:11.090 --> 00:10:13.330 like Surfacing, which explored these themes of 00:10:13.330 --> 00:10:16.090 identity and wilderness, it just catapulted her 00:10:16.090 --> 00:10:18.049 into the national spotlight. To the point where 00:10:18.049 --> 00:10:21.149 by 1976, Maclean's magazine declared her to be 00:10:21.149 --> 00:10:24.190 Canada's most gossiped -about writer. She wasn't 00:10:24.190 --> 00:10:25.970 just an academic anymore. She was a literary 00:10:25.970 --> 00:10:28.590 celebrity and a defining cultural figure. So 00:10:28.590 --> 00:10:31.330 as we transition into the 1980s, Atwood starts 00:10:31.330 --> 00:10:34.799 to shift her focus. She produces work that would 00:10:34.799 --> 00:10:37.559 define her on a truly global scale, not just 00:10:37.559 --> 00:10:40.299 a national one. And it starts with a novel that 00:10:40.299 --> 00:10:43.519 is now an absolute cultural, political, and even... 00:10:44.759 --> 00:10:46.639 Fashion touchstone. We have to start with The 00:10:46.639 --> 00:10:49.379 Handmaid's Tale, published in 1985. It's hard 00:10:49.379 --> 00:10:51.679 to overstate its transformation from an acclaimed 00:10:51.679 --> 00:10:54.360 novel. I mean, it won the Arthur C. Clarke Award, 00:10:54.539 --> 00:10:57.320 the Governor General's Award, was a Booker finalist, 00:10:57.320 --> 00:11:00.139 into this universal symbol of female resistance. 00:11:00.659 --> 00:11:02.679 What gives this dystopia such lasting power, 00:11:02.899 --> 00:11:06.039 I think, is Atwood's famous self -imposed rule 00:11:06.039 --> 00:11:08.399 when she was writing it. Oh, yeah. She insisted. 00:11:09.080 --> 00:11:10.840 There's a precedent in real life for everything 00:11:10.840 --> 00:11:12.980 in the book. I decided not to put anything in 00:11:12.980 --> 00:11:14.840 that somebody somewhere hadn't already done. 00:11:14.980 --> 00:11:17.360 That grounded her work not in fantasy, but in 00:11:17.360 --> 00:11:20.059 historical and contemporary realities of oppression. 00:11:20.840 --> 00:11:22.620 When she wrote the book in Berlin and Alabama, 00:11:22.840 --> 00:11:24.799 she was drawing upon these historical examples 00:11:24.799 --> 00:11:27.740 of totalitarian regimes. Like the Soviet Union's 00:11:27.740 --> 00:11:30.159 repressive culture or 17th century puritanical 00:11:30.159 --> 00:11:33.460 societies in the US. Exactly. Regimes that systematically 00:11:33.460 --> 00:11:35.960 stripped women of their bodily autonomy, their 00:11:35.960 --> 00:11:38.799 economic power, even their names. The book is 00:11:38.799 --> 00:11:41.779 terrifying because it feels so plausible. And 00:11:41.779 --> 00:11:43.820 it's crucial to remember the geopolitical setting 00:11:43.820 --> 00:11:46.679 detail here, which links back to her Canadian 00:11:46.679 --> 00:11:50.639 literary criticism. The dystopian events of Gilead, 00:11:50.700 --> 00:11:53.379 this totalitarian regime, they take place near 00:11:53.379 --> 00:11:56.539 Boston in the United States. Precisely. And Canada 00:11:56.539 --> 00:11:58.659 in the world of the novel is portrayed as this 00:11:58.659 --> 00:12:01.840 fragile beacon of democratic sanity. It's the 00:12:01.840 --> 00:12:04.620 only viable hope for escape and refuge for those 00:12:04.620 --> 00:12:06.940 fleeing the brutal regime. It's a fascinating 00:12:06.940 --> 00:12:09.860 reversal of that historical Canadian fear of 00:12:09.860 --> 00:12:12.799 American cultural absorption. It is. The 1980s 00:12:12.799 --> 00:12:14.860 also saw other major works exploring identity 00:12:14.860 --> 00:12:18.139 and memory. Bodily harm in 1981 dealt with political 00:12:18.139 --> 00:12:21.080 violence. And then Cat's Eye in 1988, which was 00:12:21.080 --> 00:12:23.000 also a finalist for the Governor General's Award 00:12:23.000 --> 00:12:25.440 and the Booker, focused so intensely on the lasting 00:12:25.440 --> 00:12:28.019 trauma of toxic female friendships in childhood. 00:12:28.399 --> 00:12:30.519 Cat's Eye generated a lot of critical interest 00:12:30.519 --> 00:12:32.559 in finding autobiographical elements, didn't 00:12:32.559 --> 00:12:34.500 it? Especially dealing with girlhood cruelty 00:12:34.500 --> 00:12:36.960 and the landscape of trauma. It did. But as we 00:12:36.960 --> 00:12:39.600 mentioned, Atwood generally resists critics reading 00:12:39.600 --> 00:12:42.320 her life too closely in her writing. She argues 00:12:42.320 --> 00:12:44.620 that fiction is invention, not documentation. 00:12:45.360 --> 00:12:47.259 And she guards that line between her private 00:12:47.259 --> 00:12:50.080 life and her public fiction fiercely. Yeah. As 00:12:50.080 --> 00:12:52.220 we move into the 1990s, she began to deliberately 00:12:52.220 --> 00:12:55.100 expand the moral landscape of her female characters. 00:12:55.360 --> 00:12:58.840 The Robber Bride in 1993 focused on female characters 00:12:58.840 --> 00:13:02.820 exploring concepts of morality, good, and evil, 00:13:02.960 --> 00:13:06.200 often in surprisingly dark ways. It's a necessary 00:13:06.200 --> 00:13:08.899 refusal of the one -dimensional heroin trope. 00:13:09.629 --> 00:13:11.629 She was explicitly challenging the idea that 00:13:11.629 --> 00:13:13.450 female characters have to be inherently good 00:13:13.450 --> 00:13:15.590 or purely victimized. Right. And she even noted 00:13:15.590 --> 00:13:17.269 her motivation for this, saying, unless you have 00:13:17.269 --> 00:13:19.429 some women characters portrayed as evil characters, 00:13:19.610 --> 00:13:22.110 you're not playing with a full range. Her work 00:13:22.110 --> 00:13:24.970 just demands complexity. This era also produced 00:13:24.970 --> 00:13:26.870 one of her most meticulous works of historical 00:13:26.870 --> 00:13:30.590 fiction, Alias Grace, in 1996, which won the 00:13:30.590 --> 00:13:33.350 Giller Prize. It really demonstrated her incredible 00:13:33.350 --> 00:13:36.490 skill in fusing documented history with psychological 00:13:36.490 --> 00:13:39.799 depth. That novel detailed the infamous real 00:13:39.799 --> 00:13:42.940 -life 1843 murders of Thomas Kinnear and his 00:13:42.940 --> 00:13:46.269 housekeeper, Nancy Montgomery. Two servants, 00:13:46.509 --> 00:13:48.870 James McDermott and Grace Marks, were convicted. 00:13:49.129 --> 00:13:51.889 The case was a huge sensation at the time. And 00:13:51.889 --> 00:13:54.389 it left deep uncertainty about Grace Marks' true 00:13:54.389 --> 00:13:57.049 role and her psychological state. And what's 00:13:57.049 --> 00:13:59.070 fascinating is that this subject matter wasn't 00:13:59.070 --> 00:14:01.509 new for her. It showed this long -term artistic 00:14:01.509 --> 00:14:05.330 engagement. She'd previously written a 1974 CBC 00:14:05.330 --> 00:14:08.269 made -for -TV film called The Servant Girl about 00:14:08.269 --> 00:14:10.850 Grace Marks. To return to the same subject over 00:14:10.850 --> 00:14:12.929 two decades later and explore it with the depth 00:14:12.929 --> 00:14:15.539 of a novel. that shows real dedication to these 00:14:15.539 --> 00:14:17.879 unresolved historical puzzles. And she closed 00:14:17.879 --> 00:14:19.919 out the century and started the new millennium 00:14:19.919 --> 00:14:22.379 with another massive success, The Blind Assassin 00:14:22.379 --> 00:14:25.759 in 2000. It's a complex, multilayered novel that 00:14:25.759 --> 00:14:27.740 won both the prestigious Booker Prize and the 00:14:27.740 --> 00:14:30.240 Hammett Prize for literary excellence in crime 00:14:30.240 --> 00:14:32.580 writing. That just further cemented her reputation 00:14:32.580 --> 00:14:35.840 as a global cross -genre powerhouse. The next 00:14:35.840 --> 00:14:37.799 major phase of her work centers around these 00:14:37.799 --> 00:14:41.000 terrifying near -future scenarios, detailed in 00:14:41.000 --> 00:14:43.580 the Mad Adam trilogy. It started with Oryx and 00:14:43.580 --> 00:14:46.480 Crake in 2003, followed by The Year of the Flood 00:14:46.480 --> 00:14:49.889 and Mad Adam. This series is so crucial. Because 00:14:49.889 --> 00:14:52.450 it tackles themes that have only grown more relevant 00:14:52.450 --> 00:14:55.049 since it was published. Things like unfettered 00:14:55.049 --> 00:14:57.990 genetic modification, global corporate control 00:14:57.990 --> 00:15:00.730 over essential life functions, and these man 00:15:00.730 --> 00:15:03.649 -made disasters leading to a total apocalyptic 00:15:03.649 --> 00:15:05.710 vision. And here we find her making another one 00:15:05.710 --> 00:15:08.309 of her most striking and shilling statements. 00:15:08.750 --> 00:15:11.190 This one is in the acknowledgments to Matt Adam. 00:15:11.289 --> 00:15:13.750 She cautioned that the work, while fictional, 00:15:14.250 --> 00:15:16.610 does not include any technologies or bio -beings 00:15:16.610 --> 00:15:18.970 that do not already exist, are not under construction, 00:15:19.190 --> 00:15:22.590 or are not possible in theory. That insistence 00:15:22.590 --> 00:15:24.710 on realism, even in the most outlandish settings, 00:15:24.870 --> 00:15:27.389 I mean, a world populated by genetically engineered 00:15:27.389 --> 00:15:31.110 Krakers and Pagoons, is the entire point of the 00:15:31.110 --> 00:15:34.450 famous and contentious debate her work spurred. 00:15:34.720 --> 00:15:36.480 The difference between speculative fiction and 00:15:36.480 --> 00:15:38.879 science fiction? Yes, this debate has followed 00:15:38.879 --> 00:15:42.080 her for decades. Atwood has famously resisted 00:15:42.080 --> 00:15:44.039 the label science fiction for books like The 00:15:44.039 --> 00:15:46.860 Handmaid's Tale and Oryx and Crake. Her distinction, 00:15:47.100 --> 00:15:49.759 which is often cited, was that science fiction 00:15:49.759 --> 00:15:53.960 has monsters and spaceships, so elements that 00:15:53.960 --> 00:15:57.360 can't exist now, while speculative fiction could 00:15:57.360 --> 00:16:00.259 really happen. It employs the means already to 00:16:00.259 --> 00:16:03.559 hand, and that takes place on planet Earth. I 00:16:03.559 --> 00:16:05.580 understand the argument from a literary branding 00:16:05.580 --> 00:16:07.860 perspective, trying to aim for grounded realism. 00:16:08.059 --> 00:16:10.820 But, I mean, she won the Arthur C. Clarke Award, 00:16:10.980 --> 00:16:13.639 one of the top honors in science fiction. Wasn't 00:16:13.639 --> 00:16:15.519 her most dismissive quote, the one about science 00:16:15.519 --> 00:16:17.779 fiction being talking squids in outer space, 00:16:18.000 --> 00:16:20.539 a bit disingenuous? It was definitely provocative 00:16:20.539 --> 00:16:23.379 and perhaps intentionally simplified to just 00:16:23.379 --> 00:16:25.759 draw a line in the sand. For Atwood, the label 00:16:25.759 --> 00:16:27.940 is functional. Science fiction lets the reader 00:16:27.940 --> 00:16:29.820 say, well, that's just fiction. Right. It gives 00:16:29.820 --> 00:16:32.240 you some distance. But by insisting on speculative 00:16:32.240 --> 00:16:35.039 fiction, she forces the reader to acknowledge 00:16:35.039 --> 00:16:37.460 this is political reality. This is an ethical 00:16:37.460 --> 00:16:39.600 warning based on technology we have right now. 00:16:39.759 --> 00:16:42.279 And that's why the label stuck, even if it ruffled 00:16:42.279 --> 00:16:45.120 some feathers in the SF community. She did soften 00:16:45.120 --> 00:16:48.259 her stance later, though. She clarified the definitions 00:16:48.259 --> 00:16:51.480 in a major 2011 discussion with the legendary 00:16:51.480 --> 00:16:54.700 science fiction author Ursula K. Le Guin. Right. 00:16:54.759 --> 00:16:56.639 She noted that the definitions were increasingly 00:16:56.639 --> 00:16:59.620 fluid and that maybe all forms of SF could be 00:16:59.620 --> 00:17:02.259 placed under a common umbrella. She even conceded 00:17:02.259 --> 00:17:04.339 that social science fiction might be an accurate 00:17:04.339 --> 00:17:06.619 designation for her work. Which respects both 00:17:06.619 --> 00:17:09.079 the warning and the technological element. And 00:17:09.079 --> 00:17:11.740 outside of these massive trilogies, we see her 00:17:11.740 --> 00:17:15.279 incredible range continue. In 2005, she published 00:17:15.279 --> 00:17:18.319 the novella The Penelopiad. which was a powerful 00:17:18.319 --> 00:17:20.500 retelling of the Odyssey from the perspective 00:17:20.500 --> 00:17:23.380 of Penelope and the chorus of the 12 murdered 00:17:23.380 --> 00:17:26.440 maids. She reclaimed a classical narrative and 00:17:26.440 --> 00:17:28.819 centered the silenced female voices within it. 00:17:29.000 --> 00:17:32.180 And then in 2016, she tackled Shakespeare, publishing 00:17:32.180 --> 00:17:34.720 Hag Seed as part of the Hogarth Shakespeare series. 00:17:34.940 --> 00:17:37.619 It's a modern retelling of The Tempest, set primarily 00:17:37.619 --> 00:17:40.440 within a prison. But the biggest literary event 00:17:40.440 --> 00:17:42.839 of the last decade was, of course, the sequel 00:17:42.839 --> 00:17:46.000 to her most famous work. In 2019, she published 00:17:46.000 --> 00:17:49.680 The Testaments. Set 15 years after Offred's final 00:17:49.680 --> 00:17:52.180 scene in The Handmaid's Tale, featuring three 00:17:52.180 --> 00:17:54.440 female narrators offering different perspectives 00:17:54.440 --> 00:17:57.319 on the collapse of Gilead, it was an instant 00:17:57.319 --> 00:18:00.099 phenomenon. And jointly won the 2019 Booker Prize 00:18:00.099 --> 00:18:03.079 with Bernadine Evaristo's Girl, Woman, Other. 00:18:03.480 --> 00:18:05.920 That kind of sustained critical and commercial 00:18:05.920 --> 00:18:08.740 success across so many genres, from the historical 00:18:08.740 --> 00:18:12.180 fiction of Alias Grace to the mythological retelling 00:18:12.180 --> 00:18:14.460 of the Penelopiad to the continued political 00:18:14.460 --> 00:18:16.960 relevance of the Gilead narrative, it's just 00:18:16.960 --> 00:18:19.400 nearly unparalleled. It really speaks to the 00:18:19.400 --> 00:18:22.500 universal, enduring relevance of her core themes. 00:18:22.720 --> 00:18:25.160 Who holds the power and who gets to tell the 00:18:25.160 --> 00:18:27.339 story? We have to now transition from her work 00:18:27.339 --> 00:18:29.880 on the page to her work in the world, starting 00:18:29.880 --> 00:18:32.420 with the deep irony that defines her public persona. 00:18:32.920 --> 00:18:35.079 Margaret Atwood, the inventor and tech entrepreneur. 00:18:35.420 --> 00:18:37.940 It sounds like a footnote in some wacky sci -fi 00:18:37.940 --> 00:18:40.519 novel. But it's absolutely real, and the product 00:18:40.519 --> 00:18:43.519 is the long pin. The origin story is pure, relatable 00:18:43.519 --> 00:18:46.660 book tour frustration. It happened in early 2004. 00:18:47.340 --> 00:18:50.660 She was on the paperback tour in Denver for Oryx 00:18:50.660 --> 00:18:53.099 and Crake. She was traveling constantly exhausted. 00:18:53.480 --> 00:18:56.240 And yet the only way to satisfy demand and give 00:18:56.240 --> 00:18:58.880 the books value was to physically be present 00:18:58.880 --> 00:19:01.940 to sign them. And she had this aha moment. Aha 00:19:01.940 --> 00:19:05.759 moment where she conceived of a remote robotic 00:19:05.759 --> 00:19:08.680 writing technology. So let's get technical for 00:19:08.680 --> 00:19:10.579 a moment because this is the real nugget here. 00:19:10.880 --> 00:19:14.690 What exactly made the long pen? different from 00:19:14.690 --> 00:19:17.569 say a standard electronic signature we use today. 00:19:18.029 --> 00:19:20.269 It's ingenious. Standard electronic signatures, 00:19:20.529 --> 00:19:22.730 the kind you tap on a screen, they're just digital 00:19:22.730 --> 00:19:24.910 images. They're pixels. They're authenticated 00:19:24.910 --> 00:19:27.250 through software encryption, but they lack the 00:19:27.250 --> 00:19:30.130 physical presence of true ink. Okay. The long 00:19:30.130 --> 00:19:32.150 pen, however, was a system that allowed a person 00:19:32.150 --> 00:19:34.569 to write on a tablet PC anywhere in the world. 00:19:34.650 --> 00:19:37.369 And that input was then translated via the internet 00:19:37.369 --> 00:19:39.970 to a robotic arm at the other end. And that robotic 00:19:39.970 --> 00:19:42.529 arm used an actual pen to render the signature 00:19:42.529 --> 00:19:45.619 in real wet ink on a physical document. Exactly. 00:19:45.779 --> 00:19:47.980 So it maintains the legality and authenticity 00:19:47.980 --> 00:19:51.099 of a true ink signature, even if the signer is 00:19:51.099 --> 00:19:54.079 thousands of miles away. It bridges the physical 00:19:54.079 --> 00:19:56.500 distance while maintaining the tangible quality 00:19:56.500 --> 00:19:59.000 of the signing act. That's a fascinating solution 00:19:59.000 --> 00:20:01.259 to a modern problem. And she didn't just invent 00:20:01.259 --> 00:20:03.299 the concept. She founded a company to support 00:20:03.299 --> 00:20:06.900 it. She established Unnotched Ink, which focused 00:20:06.900 --> 00:20:09.339 initially on author signings and virtual book 00:20:09.339 --> 00:20:12.000 tours. But the technology was too useful to stay 00:20:12.000 --> 00:20:15.559 confined to literature. Way too useful. By 2011, 00:20:15.859 --> 00:20:17.880 the company recognized the broader commercial 00:20:17.880 --> 00:20:20.980 implications and shifted its focus entirely to 00:20:20.980 --> 00:20:24.339 business and legal transactions, eventually rebranding 00:20:24.339 --> 00:20:27.000 as Syngrafie Inc. And here's the crucial point 00:20:27.000 --> 00:20:31.400 for her legacy. As of May 2021, Atwood is still 00:20:31.400 --> 00:20:34.089 a director of Syngrafie Inc. and holds various 00:20:34.089 --> 00:20:36.569 patents related to the long pen technology. The 00:20:36.569 --> 00:20:38.849 dystopian author who warns us about the dangers 00:20:38.849 --> 00:20:41.569 of unchecked technology is literally innovating 00:20:41.569 --> 00:20:43.670 in the tech sphere. Creating tools that make 00:20:43.670 --> 00:20:45.390 the digital world function more efficiently. 00:20:45.549 --> 00:20:48.029 Yeah. Just the irony is incredible. And this 00:20:48.029 --> 00:20:51.190 technological participation perfectly complements 00:20:51.190 --> 00:20:53.450 her commitment to literary preservation in the 00:20:53.450 --> 00:20:56.509 unique future library project. This is a truly 00:20:56.509 --> 00:21:00.240 unique century -spanning concept. Atwood was 00:21:00.240 --> 00:21:02.740 the very first contributor to this art project 00:21:02.740 --> 00:21:06.380 in Norway. Her novel, Scribbler Moon, was completed 00:21:06.380 --> 00:21:09.519 in 2015 and ceremonially handed over. And it 00:21:09.519 --> 00:21:12.319 will remain entirely unseen, unread, and unpublished 00:21:12.319 --> 00:21:16.240 for 100 years until 2114. She called the process 00:21:16.240 --> 00:21:20.200 magical and like sleeping beauty, noting that 00:21:20.200 --> 00:21:21.740 the texts are going to slumber for a century 00:21:21.740 --> 00:21:23.880 before they wake up and come to life again. It 00:21:23.880 --> 00:21:26.000 highlights her long -view approach to literature. 00:21:26.569 --> 00:21:29.269 In an age of instant digital consumption, she 00:21:29.269 --> 00:21:32.009 willingly locks a complete novel away, betting 00:21:32.009 --> 00:21:34.289 on the endurance of the paperback. And she even 00:21:34.289 --> 00:21:36.190 had this humorous note about the distant future 00:21:36.190 --> 00:21:38.869 readers, suggesting that readers in 2114 might 00:21:38.869 --> 00:21:40.930 need a paleoanthropologist to translate some 00:21:40.930 --> 00:21:43.170 parts of her story. Speculating on how rapidly 00:21:43.170 --> 00:21:45.450 language and culture change over a century, it's 00:21:45.450 --> 00:21:48.299 a profound statement about legacy and time. OK, 00:21:48.440 --> 00:21:50.980 let's pivot back to her core themes, starting 00:21:50.980 --> 00:21:53.180 with her relationship with feminism and public 00:21:53.180 --> 00:21:55.980 activism, which has often been highly nuanced 00:21:55.980 --> 00:21:59.700 and sometimes, well, controversial. That nuance 00:21:59.700 --> 00:22:02.460 is key. While her work is foundational to modern 00:22:02.460 --> 00:22:05.400 feminism, she defines the term broadly as simply 00:22:05.400 --> 00:22:08.839 a belief in the rights of women. She has consistently 00:22:08.839 --> 00:22:12.299 resisted the strict theoretical application of 00:22:12.299 --> 00:22:14.400 the label to her work. Especially early on, yeah. 00:22:14.819 --> 00:22:17.450 Insisting that her goal was social realism. rather 00:22:17.450 --> 00:22:19.730 than polemic she's always been cautious about 00:22:19.730 --> 00:22:22.269 the fluidity of the term feminism stating that 00:22:22.269 --> 00:22:23.890 she always wants to know what people mean by 00:22:23.890 --> 00:22:25.890 it because the meanings are highly contextual 00:22:25.890 --> 00:22:28.529 and often shifting she even stressed that her 00:22:28.529 --> 00:22:30.869 loyalty is not to a theoretical party line but 00:22:30.869 --> 00:22:33.890 to human rights she resists any form of ideological 00:22:33.890 --> 00:22:36.730 rigidity And this inherent resistance to theoretical 00:22:36.730 --> 00:22:39.289 labels came to a critical public moment in 2018. 00:22:39.910 --> 00:22:42.890 Following intense social media backlash, she 00:22:42.890 --> 00:22:44.890 penned a widely -read op -ed in the Globe and 00:22:44.890 --> 00:22:47.910 Mail titled, Am I a Bad Feminist? This piece 00:22:47.910 --> 00:22:50.750 was in response to her signing a 2016 petition, 00:22:51.089 --> 00:22:54.049 the highly controversial Letter of 88, supporting 00:22:54.049 --> 00:22:56.910 due process for Stephen Galloway, a former UBC 00:22:56.910 --> 00:22:59.380 professor accused of sexual harassment. And her 00:22:59.380 --> 00:23:01.420 argument was not about the guilt or innocence 00:23:01.420 --> 00:23:04.359 of the individual, but about the integrity of 00:23:04.359 --> 00:23:06.720 the process. She asserted that her signature 00:23:06.720 --> 00:23:08.980 was specifically in support of the established 00:23:08.980 --> 00:23:11.319 principles of due process within the legal system. 00:23:11.599 --> 00:23:14.180 She argued that the hashtag MeToo move in itself, 00:23:14.460 --> 00:23:17.380 while necessary, was a symptom of a broken legal 00:23:17.380 --> 00:23:19.740 system. Right, where institutional accountability 00:23:19.740 --> 00:23:22.460 was failing, forcing people to take to social 00:23:22.460 --> 00:23:25.000 media. It was a fascinating and deeply complex 00:23:25.000 --> 00:23:27.619 argument, forcing a consideration of whether 00:23:27.619 --> 00:23:29.839 the pursuit of justice justice for victims should 00:23:29.839 --> 00:23:31.880 ever sideline traditional rights of the accused. 00:23:32.140 --> 00:23:34.740 And it generated significant controversy and 00:23:34.740 --> 00:23:37.539 debate within activist and academic circles alike. 00:23:37.940 --> 00:23:40.220 It demonstrated her commitment to the rule of 00:23:40.220 --> 00:23:43.539 law over popular outrage. But to balance that, 00:23:43.640 --> 00:23:45.779 we have to emphasize that she remains actively 00:23:45.779 --> 00:23:48.559 aligned with activist goals globally. She was 00:23:48.559 --> 00:23:50.579 honored by and partnered extensively with the 00:23:50.579 --> 00:23:53.559 women's rights organization Equality Now for 00:23:53.559 --> 00:23:55.579 the release of the Testaments. She specifically 00:23:55.579 --> 00:23:58.539 used her platform and the enormous public attention 00:23:58.539 --> 00:24:01.180 surrounding the sequel to encourage people to 00:24:01.180 --> 00:24:04.660 give money to organizations like equality. Now, 00:24:04.759 --> 00:24:08.420 so they could write equal laws, enact equal laws, 00:24:08.519 --> 00:24:11.700 and see that equal laws are implemented. She's 00:24:11.700 --> 00:24:13.700 a political realist who works within the system 00:24:13.700 --> 00:24:17.099 to achieve tangible legal change. Her views on 00:24:17.099 --> 00:24:20.420 conventional politics are equally complex. defying 00:24:20.420 --> 00:24:23.619 easy categorization. She considers herself and 00:24:23.619 --> 00:24:26.799 has long claimed to be a red Tory. This is a 00:24:26.799 --> 00:24:28.960 specifically Canadian political term that really 00:24:28.960 --> 00:24:31.819 needs context for a lot of people. It does. Historically, 00:24:31.859 --> 00:24:34.799 she defines red Toryism as believing that those 00:24:34.799 --> 00:24:37.140 in power had a responsibility to the community, 00:24:37.319 --> 00:24:39.460 that money should not be the measure of all things. 00:24:39.660 --> 00:24:41.720 So it's a philosophy that blends a conservative 00:24:41.720 --> 00:24:44.740 political structure with a social liberal collectivist 00:24:44.740 --> 00:24:47.329 approach to public welfare. a concept that's 00:24:47.329 --> 00:24:49.809 pretty alien to U .S. politics. And in another 00:24:49.809 --> 00:24:52.190 surprising twist, she is also a self -proclaimed 00:24:52.190 --> 00:24:54.529 monarchist. Which again connects back to her 00:24:54.529 --> 00:24:57.529 Canadian identity viewing the monarchy as a stable, 00:24:57.690 --> 00:25:00.589 non -political head of state that separates national 00:25:00.589 --> 00:25:04.109 identity from the often chaotic, partisan political 00:25:04.109 --> 00:25:06.640 processes. And her political commentary often 00:25:06.640 --> 00:25:08.779 focuses on Canadian sovereignty, particularly 00:25:08.779 --> 00:25:11.799 in relation to the U .S. She famously spoke out 00:25:11.799 --> 00:25:14.539 strongly against the 1987 Canada -United States 00:25:14.539 --> 00:25:17.019 Free Trade Agreement. That opposition was driven 00:25:17.019 --> 00:25:19.880 by the fear that economic integration would inevitably 00:25:19.880 --> 00:25:22.380 lead to the loss of Canadian cultural sovereignty, 00:25:22.640 --> 00:25:26.019 a direct echo of the garrison mentality. And 00:25:26.019 --> 00:25:28.140 the sales data for The Handmaid's Tale are a 00:25:28.140 --> 00:25:31.019 stark, measurable indicator of American political 00:25:31.019 --> 00:25:34.119 anxiety. Sales have dramatically increased following 00:25:34.119 --> 00:25:36.750 major... U .S. political shifts. Specifically, 00:25:36.789 --> 00:25:39.910 the 2016 election and the more recent 2024 presidential 00:25:39.910 --> 00:25:43.009 election. The book functions as a cultural barometer 00:25:43.009 --> 00:25:45.549 for political fear. And following the 2024 election, 00:25:45.809 --> 00:25:48.029 she publicly responded to the despair many were 00:25:48.029 --> 00:25:50.950 feeling, writing on X, despair is not an option. 00:25:51.069 --> 00:25:53.349 It helps no one. It's a pragmatic, persistent 00:25:53.349 --> 00:25:56.529 call to action, a refusal to resign oneself to 00:25:56.529 --> 00:25:58.670 inevitability, which is maybe the core message 00:25:58.670 --> 00:26:01.329 of all her dystopian work. Finally, we have to 00:26:01.329 --> 00:26:03.970 connect her activism to the environment, a theme 00:26:03.970 --> 00:26:07.309 that underpins all her speculative fiction, animal 00:26:07.309 --> 00:26:09.930 rights and ethics. She's a pesetarian herself. 00:26:10.210 --> 00:26:12.910 She eats no fur or feathers, and this ethical 00:26:12.910 --> 00:26:15.670 stance is vividly translated into her literature, 00:26:15.849 --> 00:26:18.529 forcing readers to confront human domination. 00:26:19.230 --> 00:26:21.690 The genetic hybrids in the Mad Atom trilogy are 00:26:21.690 --> 00:26:24.569 the most potent example. We have the pagoons, 00:26:24.690 --> 00:26:27.289 pigs genetically modified to grow human organs 00:26:27.289 --> 00:26:30.549 for transplants, and the racunks and woolbogs. 00:26:30.549 --> 00:26:33.309 These creatures aren't just set dressing. They 00:26:33.309 --> 00:26:35.529 forced the reader to confront the ethical limits 00:26:35.529 --> 00:26:37.950 of genetic modification, corporate ownership 00:26:37.950 --> 00:26:40.529 of life, and the commodification of non -human 00:26:40.529 --> 00:26:43.619 species solely for human benefit. And the theme 00:26:43.619 --> 00:26:46.359 appears much earlier, too. In her novel Surfacing, 00:26:46.539 --> 00:26:48.539 a character compares eating animals to being 00:26:48.539 --> 00:26:51.180 eaters of death, dead Christ flesh resurrecting 00:26:51.180 --> 00:26:53.920 inside us, granting us life. The language is 00:26:53.920 --> 00:26:56.619 visceral. It's designed to shock you out of complacency. 00:26:56.700 --> 00:26:58.960 Her work uses these animal metaphors to raise 00:26:58.960 --> 00:27:01.240 profound questions about human domination and 00:27:01.240 --> 00:27:03.559 consumption. The cultural impact of Margaret 00:27:03.559 --> 00:27:05.779 Atwood is just constantly amplified and renewed 00:27:05.779 --> 00:27:08.640 by this constant cycle of adaptations across 00:27:08.640 --> 00:27:11.460 every possible medium. Especially for The Handmaid's 00:27:11.460 --> 00:27:14.400 Tale. The story refuses to stay confined to the 00:27:14.400 --> 00:27:17.059 page. The first major adaptation came relatively 00:27:17.059 --> 00:27:19.839 quickly with the 1990 film, which featured a 00:27:19.839 --> 00:27:22.220 screenplay by the famed playwright Harold Pinter. 00:27:22.400 --> 00:27:25.420 And while it was highly anticipated, it received 00:27:25.420 --> 00:27:28.640 mixed reviews. It was often criticized for struggling 00:27:28.640 --> 00:27:31.500 to capture the inner subjective monologue of 00:27:31.500 --> 00:27:33.880 the protagonist on film. That was followed by 00:27:33.880 --> 00:27:36.539 a 2000 opera by Paul Reuters, which showed the 00:27:36.539 --> 00:27:39.440 story's inherent dramatic power. But the true 00:27:39.440 --> 00:27:41.680 cultural touchstone, the thing that brought the 00:27:41.680 --> 00:27:43.799 story back into public conversation with such 00:27:43.799 --> 00:27:48.440 immense force, is the 2017 Hulu TV series. That 00:27:48.440 --> 00:27:50.740 series was an immediate critical phenomenon. 00:27:51.339 --> 00:27:53.559 It won eight Emmy Awards in its first season 00:27:53.559 --> 00:27:55.960 alone, and it transformed the red cloak and white 00:27:55.960 --> 00:27:58.440 bonnet into a global symbol of political protest. 00:27:58.779 --> 00:28:01.079 And for the dedicated fan, Atwood herself had 00:28:01.079 --> 00:28:03.259 a brilliant cameo in the first episode as one 00:28:03.259 --> 00:28:05.380 of the aunts at the Red Center. A great piece 00:28:05.380 --> 00:28:08.400 of casting. She's the aunt who gives Offred this 00:28:08.400 --> 00:28:12.079 violent, disapproving slap across the face, physically 00:28:12.079 --> 00:28:14.420 inserting herself into the oppressive world she 00:28:14.420 --> 00:28:16.559 created. And the adaptation cycle continued, 00:28:16.759 --> 00:28:19.319 with a beautiful graphic novel version appearing 00:28:19.319 --> 00:28:22.480 in 2019. But Atwood's other works have also made 00:28:22.480 --> 00:28:25.220 the jump to the screen. Alias Grace became a 00:28:25.220 --> 00:28:28.920 celebrated 2017 six -part miniseries. It was 00:28:28.920 --> 00:28:31.680 praised for its meticulous historical detail 00:28:31.680 --> 00:28:34.759 and psychological suspense. And she had a cameo 00:28:34.759 --> 00:28:36.920 there, too, as a disapproving churchgoer passing 00:28:36.920 --> 00:28:39.720 judgment on grace marks. There are limits to 00:28:39.720 --> 00:28:43.000 adaptation, though. The 1981 film version of 00:28:43.000 --> 00:28:45.839 Surfacing was poorly reviewed. Largely for failing 00:28:45.839 --> 00:28:48.420 to capture the novel's highly internal, subjective 00:28:48.420 --> 00:28:51.039 dimensions, the stream of consciousness narrative 00:28:51.039 --> 00:28:52.980 was just difficult to translate cinematically. 00:28:53.279 --> 00:28:55.660 But even her work aimed at children found success 00:28:55.660 --> 00:28:58.720 on screen. Her children's book, Wandering Wenda, 00:28:58.859 --> 00:29:01.299 was adapted into an animated series, showing 00:29:01.299 --> 00:29:03.480 the incredible breadth of her appeal. And for 00:29:03.480 --> 00:29:06.680 a fun detail showing her sustained, deep relevance 00:29:06.680 --> 00:29:09.319 in Canadian culture, she recently had yet another 00:29:09.319 --> 00:29:12.460 cameo in 2024 as an amateur ornithologist on 00:29:12.460 --> 00:29:14.779 Murdoch Mysteries. She's become this cultural 00:29:14.779 --> 00:29:17.779 symbol who can just drop into any corner of Canadian 00:29:17.779 --> 00:29:21.230 media and lend instant intellectual weight. Finally, 00:29:21.289 --> 00:29:23.650 we need to quickly look back over the sheer wealth 00:29:23.650 --> 00:29:26.490 of recognition she has received. It confirms 00:29:26.490 --> 00:29:28.569 her status not just as a commercially successful 00:29:28.569 --> 00:29:32.109 writer, but as a genuinely influential global 00:29:32.109 --> 00:29:35.140 intellectual figure. The list is exhaustive. 00:29:35.160 --> 00:29:37.279 We've mentioned the two Booker Prizes in 2000 00:29:37.279 --> 00:29:40.720 and 2019 and the Arthur C. Clarke Award, but 00:29:40.720 --> 00:29:42.400 she holds multiple Governor General's Awards 00:29:42.400 --> 00:29:45.539 across poetry and fiction. And that genre defiance 00:29:45.539 --> 00:29:47.940 means her work has been recognized by the science 00:29:47.940 --> 00:29:50.400 fiction community with nominations for the Nebula 00:29:50.400 --> 00:29:52.900 Award and the Prometheus Award. What's truly 00:29:52.900 --> 00:29:55.259 fascinating is the depth and breadth of her international 00:29:55.259 --> 00:29:58.259 honors. It shows that her themes resonate far 00:29:58.259 --> 00:30:01.200 beyond the English -speaking world. She won the 00:30:01.200 --> 00:30:03.819 Prince of Asturias Award from Spain, the Franz 00:30:03.819 --> 00:30:05.900 Kafka Prize from the Czech Republic. And the 00:30:05.900 --> 00:30:07.980 prestigious Peace Prize of the German book trade. 00:30:08.220 --> 00:30:10.519 That one is particularly significant because 00:30:10.519 --> 00:30:12.680 it's awarded to individuals whose work has made 00:30:12.680 --> 00:30:15.039 an outstanding contribution to the idea of peace. 00:30:15.440 --> 00:30:18.299 It recognizes the fundamentally moral and ethical 00:30:18.299 --> 00:30:21.259 foundation of her writing. She also received 00:30:21.259 --> 00:30:24.019 the Golden Wreath of Struga Poetry Evenings from 00:30:24.019 --> 00:30:27.200 Macedonia, honoring her lifelong career as a 00:30:27.200 --> 00:30:29.960 poet. And we have to end where we began, with 00:30:29.960 --> 00:30:32.900 her foundational role in Canadian culture. She 00:30:32.900 --> 00:30:34.539 didn't just write Canadian literature, she helped 00:30:34.539 --> 00:30:36.539 build the infrastructure for future generations 00:30:36.539 --> 00:30:39.119 of Canadian writers. She's a founding trustee 00:30:39.119 --> 00:30:41.599 of the Griffin Poetry Prize, which is now one 00:30:41.599 --> 00:30:43.380 of the world's most lucrative and prestigious 00:30:43.380 --> 00:30:46.079 poetry awards, and a founder of the Writers' 00:30:46.140 --> 00:30:48.500 Trust of Canada. two cornerstone organizations 00:30:48.500 --> 00:30:52.079 supporting Canadian writers. She truly has chronicled 00:30:52.079 --> 00:30:54.519 the possible near future, explored the depths 00:30:54.519 --> 00:30:57.039 of Canadian identity, and continues to shape 00:30:57.039 --> 00:31:00.019 contemporary cultural, ethical, and technological 00:31:00.019 --> 00:31:02.779 discourse. She is a writer who doesn't just observe 00:31:02.779 --> 00:31:05.799 the culture. She actively participates in building 00:31:05.799 --> 00:31:08.259 its foundations and challenging its ethical boundaries. 00:31:08.640 --> 00:31:11.119 So to summarize this deep dive, Atwood's influence 00:31:11.119 --> 00:31:14.140 spans postmodern literature, meticulous historical 00:31:14.140 --> 00:31:17.339 research, rigorous cultural criticism, and, of 00:31:17.339 --> 00:31:19.759 course, vital speculative fiction. And she's 00:31:19.759 --> 00:31:21.960 an author who uses her platform, whether it's 00:31:21.960 --> 00:31:24.259 for due process and a complicated ethical debate 00:31:24.259 --> 00:31:27.500 or for climate and environmental activism. But 00:31:27.500 --> 00:31:30.180 the central paradox, the thing that remains the 00:31:30.180 --> 00:31:33.319 most compelling, is her duality concerning technology. 00:31:34.329 --> 00:31:37.009 She insists that her speculative fiction is terrifying 00:31:37.009 --> 00:31:39.569 precisely because it only uses technology that 00:31:39.569 --> 00:31:42.210 already exists or is theoretically possible. 00:31:42.470 --> 00:31:45.069 She warns us against the trajectory of corporate 00:31:45.069 --> 00:31:47.809 and scientific overreach. Yet she is also the 00:31:47.809 --> 00:31:50.890 literal inventor. She saw a practical, frustrating 00:31:50.890 --> 00:31:53.289 problem in the modern book world and created 00:31:53.289 --> 00:31:56.690 the long pin, a remote robotic device. To literally 00:31:56.690 --> 00:31:58.710 bridge the gap between the virtual world of the 00:31:58.710 --> 00:32:01.869 Internet and the tangible legal reality of ink 00:32:01.869 --> 00:32:06.869 on paper, she built a machine. So what does this 00:32:06.869 --> 00:32:09.470 tell you, the listener, about the future? When 00:32:09.470 --> 00:32:11.589 the author who most vividly warns us about technological 00:32:11.589 --> 00:32:14.049 dystopia, the one who refuses to write about 00:32:14.049 --> 00:32:16.690 talking squids, is also the one inventing the 00:32:16.690 --> 00:32:19.049 technology we use. And remains a patent holder 00:32:19.049 --> 00:32:22.009 and director in that tech firm. It raises one 00:32:22.009 --> 00:32:25.450 final provocative thought. Is Atwood simply chronicling 00:32:25.450 --> 00:32:28.490 the inevitable dystopia? Or, by innovating specific 00:32:28.490 --> 00:32:31.049 small -scale technologies designed to preserve 00:32:31.049 --> 00:32:33.470 human connection and the authenticity of a simple 00:32:33.470 --> 00:32:35.930 physical signature, is she demonstrating that 00:32:35.930 --> 00:32:38.029 the only way to retain humanity in the digital 00:32:38.029 --> 00:32:40.450 age is to selectively harness technology against 00:32:40.450 --> 00:32:41.809 the forces of dehumanization?