Honestly, writing a sequel to one of the most iconic dystopian novels in history is a massive gamble. Margaret Atwood took thirty-four years to do it. Think about that for a second. When The Handmaid’s Tale dropped in 1985, the world looked completely different. By the time The Testaments by Margaret Atwood arrived in 2019, Gilead wasn't just a literary concept anymore; it had become a visual shorthand for political protest worldwide. People were worried it would just be a cash-in on the success of the Hulu show.
It wasn't.
Instead of re-treading Offred’s claustrophobic journey, Atwood cracked the world wide open. She gave us three different perspectives, shifted the timeline forward fifteen years, and basically wrote a political thriller about how empires rot from the inside out. It’s gritty. It’s surprisingly funny in a dark, "I’m laughing so I don’t cry" kind of way. Most importantly, it answers the one question every reader had since the 80s: How does a place as terrifying as Gilead actually fall?
Aunt Lydia is the Villain We Deserve
If you’ve seen the show, you probably have a visceral reaction to Aunt Lydia. Ann Dowd’s portrayal is chilling. But in The Testaments by Margaret Atwood, Lydia is the star of the show. She’s the narrator of the "Ardua Hall Holograph," a secret manuscript she’s writing while she plots the downfall of the very system she helped build.
It’s a masterclass in moral ambiguity.
Is she a hero? Not really. She’s done horrific things to survive. She’s overseen the torture of women, the theft of babies, and the indoctrination of a generation. But Atwood forces us to sit with her logic. Lydia realized early on that in Gilead, you are either a victim or a victimizer. She chose to be the one holding the cattle prod so she could eventually use it to poke holes in the regime.
💡 You might also like: How to Watch The Wolf and the Lion Without Getting Lost in the Wild
One of the most jarring things about her chapters is the tone. She’s snarky. She’s observant. She treats the Commanders like the bumbling, insecure idiots they are. While the other two narrators—Agnes and Daisy—provide the emotional stakes, Lydia provides the structural rot. She knows where the bodies are buried because, quite literally, she helped bury them. This isn't a story about a rebellion from the outside; it's a story about a woman who realizes that the only way to destroy a cage is to be the one who controls the lock.
The Two Sisters and the Myth of the "Innocent"
Then you have the girls. Agnes is a "privileged" daughter of Gilead, raised with silk ribbons and the terrifying prospect of being married off to an old Commander. Daisy is a teenager in Canada, wearing Doc Martens and attending rallies against Gilead, totally unaware that her life is a lie.
Their paths are meant to collide.
- Agnes’s perspective is fascinating because it shows how "normal" Gilead feels when you’re born into it. She doesn't think the system is evil at first; she just thinks it's strict. It’s only when she sees the corruption of the marriages and the hypocrisy of the Aunts that the scales fall away.
- Daisy (who becomes Jade) is the reader's surrogate. She’s reckless, loud, and completely out of her depth. Her journey into the heart of Gilead as a mole is where the book turns into a high-stakes spy novel.
The dynamic between them works because they represent the two ways people react to oppression: the slow realization that your home is a prison, and the sudden shock of realizing you have a responsibility to tear that prison down.
It’s Actually a Book About Paperwork
This sounds boring. It’s not.
📖 Related: Is Lincoln Lawyer Coming Back? Mickey Haller's Next Move Explained
Atwood has always been obsessed with the "official" record. In the first book, the story was a series of cassette tapes found years later. In The Testaments by Margaret Atwood, the plot hinges on microdots, smuggled files, and the "Bloodlines" records. It posits that Gilead won't fall because of a grand military invasion. It will fall because of a leak.
Information is the only currency that matters in Ardua Hall. Lydia collects dirt on everyone. She knows which Commander is visiting "Jezebel’s" and which one is skimming money. She understands that a regime built on "purity" cannot survive the exposure of its own filth. It feels incredibly modern. We live in an era of leaks, whistleblowers, and data breaches. Atwood just applied that logic to a theocratic dictatorship.
Why Some Fans Hated the Ending (And Why They’re Wrong)
There was a lot of chatter when the book won the Booker Prize (sharing it with Bernardine Evaristo, which was a whole other controversy). Some critics felt the ending was too "neat." They felt it lacked the ambiguous, haunting quality of the original.
In The Handmaid’s Tale, Offred steps into the dark and we don't know if it’s a van or a rescue. In The Testaments by Margaret Atwood, we get answers. We see the reunion. We see the statues falling.
Is it "fan service"? Maybe a little. But honestly? After decades of watching rights erode in real-time, there is something profoundly cathartic about watching a fictional version of that horror actually crumble. Atwood isn't writing a tragedy here; she's writing a blueprint for collapse. She’s showing that no matter how total a government's control seems, it is always made of people. And people are greedy, scared, and prone to betrayal.
👉 See also: Tim Dillon: I'm Your Mother Explained (Simply)
The Historical Notes: A Reality Check
Don't skip the "Thirteenth Symposium on Gilead Studies" at the end.
Just like the first book, the story concludes with historians from the future talking about these events as ancient history. It’s a gut punch. It reminds you that the suffering of Agnes, Daisy, and Lydia eventually becomes a footnote in an academic lecture. The historians argue about whether Lydia was "really" a rebel or just a self-serving opportunist. They nitpick the details.
It’s Atwood’s way of saying that history doesn't belong to the people who lived it; it belongs to the people who survive to write the textbooks. It adds a layer of intellectual distance that makes the preceding 400 pages feel even more urgent.
What You Should Do Next
If you’ve finished the book, or even if you’re just circling it, don't just stop at the last page. To really "get" what Atwood is doing, you have to look at the historical precedents she used. She famously says she never puts anything in her books that hasn't happened somewhere, at some point, in real history.
- Read about the "Lebensborn" program in Nazi Germany. It’s the direct inspiration for how Gilead handles children and "pure" bloodlines.
- Watch the 2019 Booker Prize speech. Seeing Atwood talk about the "urgency" of this sequel gives a lot of context to why she changed the tone from the first book.
- Compare the Aunts to the "Stasi" informants in East Germany. Aunt Lydia’s network of "Pearl Girls" and informants isn't fiction; it's a mirror of how secret police forces have operated for a century.
- Listen to the audiobook. The casting is incredible—Ann Dowd actually voices Aunt Lydia, and it makes the "Ardua Hall Holograph" sections feel like a confession whispered directly into your ear.
The real power of The Testaments by Margaret Atwood isn't that it tells us what happened to Offred. It's that it tells us how systems of power eventually eat themselves. It’s a hopeful book, but it’s a jagged kind of hope. It reminds us that while the "eyes" are always watching, there’s usually someone behind the camera who is ready to sell the footage.