13th SYMPOSIUM COLLOQUIUM
Colloquium on the new find, presumably to be added to the Moss/Miller folios. If found to be 'canon', that would make it the 5th entry into the Moss/Miller folios. Professor Pieixoto speaking.
Okay, welcome and good morning. We've blocked off the whole morning, leaving extended time before lunch for questions. This colloquium has been hastily organized, and I wish to thank Professor Maryann Crescent Moon for canceling the lecture scheduled for this time. The news of the 'find' is still fresh, and details are murky.
Obviously, we were not prepared for this. Eventually, some latest 'find' will, indeed, be the last. I thought we might be done with the Ardua Hall Holograph. Not so. Previously, with the discovery in Passamaquoddy (Bangor) of the Handmaid's tapes, both myself as well as Professor Knotley Wade had had time to put together presentations. Again, not so for this morning's purposes.
Indeed, this 13th Symposium was dedicated to the finds of the Ardua Hall Holograph, as well as the Witness Statements (identified as Witness Testimonies 369A and 369B), and how those shook up the world of historical Gilead studies. Now, the coming Moss/Miller folio will eclipse even that.
To review, there is no serious question as to the identity of the author of the Ardua Hall Holograph. It was found in situ within Aunt Lydia's (Clements) unquestioned work, Apologia Pro Vita Sua. Linguistic and materials analysis confirm the identity of the Holograph.
As such, Professor Wade and myself came to this, the 13th Symposium having made the case that the Holograph, combined with the two Witness Statements, form a faithful trilogy, showcasing that period in Gilead's history known at the time as 'The Great Purge', when the leadership of the Founder Aunts finally came to a close. The Testaments (as the trilogy is popularly known), is actually a long, long introduction as to why the descendants of the Handmaid's Tapes handmaid, Offred, gathered to honour a statue in Boston dedicated to Becky.
5TH MOSS/MILLER FOLIO
Ok, seeing the looks on your faces, I'd better not let this get away from me.
Use of the phrase 'the great find' in Gilead Studies becomes a bit tiresome, don't you agree? That phrase first became worn, with the discovery of the 2nd Moss/Miller folio, the one recounting the events of Offred's eventual pregnancy within the Waterford home.
Details of that saga - drawn out over Folio #3 and #4 - will not delay me this morning. People at this Symposium know details of those folios well, some can quote details off by heart.
However, speaking of letting things, 'get away from me', even prior to the 5th Moss/Miller's folio, old criticisms within mainstream Gilead research have reared their ugly heads.
I may as well deal with some of them now. I guarantee that once the 5th folio's details are made public, scholars will have immersed themselves in its minutiae - meaning that any serious review of Gilead Studies outside of it will be put on hold.
Probably even by me and Professor Wade. At least until minutiae is exhausted.
THE REED MORANO FACTION
The nub of nagging criticisms is the relationship between the 1st Moss/Miller folio, to the original find in Passamaquoddy (Bangor) of the Handmaid's Tapes. In broad brushstrokes, the admittedly artificial chronology of the original Handmaid's Tale, was kept to by that 1st folio.
Why do I concede that the chronology of the compiled tapes might be 'artificial'? Because it had been me and Professor Wade who'd assembled the narrative. The difficulties of that assembly were what took most of the time in our 2195 Symposium. Meaning, that either Professor Wade and myself stumbled upon the true chronology of life which Offred faced, or else Moss/Miller were somehow dependent upon what Wade and I had assembled.
There is, so far, no way to tell - no historical evidence from the Moss/Miller time-period as to a connection. But I should move on.
As you know, because of the finds of three more, subsequent Moss/Miller folios, and now a possible fourth - a serious counter-study has emerged. This counter-historical critique of mainstream Gilead research can no longer be ignored - which says something given that it is me saying it.
THE FIRST MILLER/MOSS COLLABORATOR
I disagree with the claims of this Reed Morano faction on numerous grounds, but also have to concede that they put forth their views in legitimate fashion. Reed Morano is unquestionably the first collaborator influencing Moss/Miller's work.
Indeed, I recognize some of you here in the colloquium. The sour looks on your faces, give you away!
In brief, why 'Reed Morano'? Remember that the Moss/Miller, 1st folio came in 13 installments. From a literary point of view, that first folio was very much consistent with the tapes, as assembled by myself and Professor Wade. Details differed, but that is to be expected. Indeed, given that The Handmaids Tale as compiled for the 2195 Symposium, matches in broad brushstrokes the 1st folio, but has important differences - actually points to the integrity of the folio.
It has been recently discovered that as a collaborator in the early installments, a formerly unknown editor/redactor known only as Reed Morano, was the one responsible for 'setting the tone' of the whole 1st folio. A tone which continued into the remaining ten installments.
So, the big question - why, then, is there a Reed Morano faction? Why has legitimate Gilead studies spawned a divergence like that?
It is an interesting question, which forms the reason for this morning's colloquium, and I apologize for taking so long to set it up like this.
You see, no one seriously rejects Reed Morano's impact on that 1st folio, nor seriously rejects his/her impact on communicating the import of Gilead studies to the popular mind, here in the 23rd Century. Not me, not Knotley Wade, not Maryann Crescent Moon. Dr. Crescent Moon is here this morning, please acknowledge her. (She's the one who graciously canceled her morning presentation, 'Unanswered questions in the June-Nick-Luke triangle.' Something like that does not get canceled lightly!)
Ok, the divergence. Forgive me for speaking for the faction, I'm sure there are enough folk here this morning who can correct me - correct my most egregious criticisms. All I ask is that you wait for the open discussion, coming up in about 30 minutes.
FOLIOS #2 THROUGH #4
First, a definition of 'canon'. No, not the pirate ship variety. That has too many n's.
'Canon' is the collection of works considered authoritative. Note the passive tense in that definition. The definition does not specify, 'considered by who?'.
Well, let me say that both myself and other mainstream Gilead Scholars regard the Moss/Miller folios #2 through #4 as 'canon'. For simplicity's sake, #2 might be called the 'Offred pregnancy' folio. #3 might be called the 'baby Nichole' folio, and #4 might be called the 'June in full Mayday mode' folio.
There simply is no information at this time to characterize the coming 5th Folio.
In short, the Reed Morano faction does not accept the 2nd through 4th folios, as canon. They say that #2 through #4 diverge too much from the original tapes, citing literary analysis.
It's as if, they say, there was a differing author describing a differing Gileaden reality. So much so that legitimate doubt is cast in anything historical, the historicity of any one item within them.
Of course they can speak better for themselves, I have the scars! They say that the particulars of those folios have deviated so much from the original outline of Offred's life - pre-pregnancy - with the Waterfords, as to be simply, their words, be 'fanfiction'.
Ouch.
THE 5TH FOLIO
So, here we are. In an interregnum of sorts. While we wait for the transcript of folio #5, it's perhaps best to speak of the elephant in the room - especially now, here in the 23rd Century when actual elephants have been restored to savannas in Africa and forested areas of India.
How will this 5th folio be judged? How will we know that it is canon? One presumes that the Reed Morano folks have already prejudged. But I should perhaps not prejudge the prejudging!
Still Gilead scholars need to keep their interpretive tools sharp. Will this 5th folio be recognizable? Asking that question assumes the unstated, 'by whom'? Established Gilead scholarship, that's the 'whom'.
The limitations of Symposiums like this one - is in the conceit we have for ourselves. The conceit? That those inside our tent are the ones who authoritatively judge, we are the ones who through consensus deem something as 'canon' or not.
Imagine my surprise, if the Reed Morano people deem #5 as canonical, while rejecting #2 through #4!
But I have been advised to not be argumentative or snarky.
In any event, I am going to close this colloquium by going through the main 'plot-points', if you will, of what I regard as canon up until this point. Those 'plot-points' which need addressing, or else I myself might throw my lot in with the Reed Morano bunch.
What's at stake is demonstrable and provable history, instead of narrative for narrative's sake.
MOSS/MILLER 5TH FOLIO AS CANON - DEALBREAKERS
First and foremost, do not forget The Testaments. Unlike those who might reject the canonicity of some of the Moss/Miller folios, there is no serious group within Gilead studies who similarly rejects either the Ardua Hall Holograph, or the accompanying witness statements.
Simply put, to reject The Testaments is to reject all source material in Gilead studies. I hope I don't have to argue this point.
So, focussing on #5. It has a dual task for itself. It must build from where the first four ended. More broadly, it cannot speak of people who had died previously, as if they are now alive and well. Ok, that's obvious.
Me, I'd like you to list off your own deal breakers. What things would happen in the 5th folio, that would make even you 'abandon ship', as it were? As the Reed Morano bunch did long ago. There was an old saying, what would 'jumping the shark' be for you?
This is perhaps why mainstream Gilead studies need to take the minority views of the Reed Morano people seriously, because they have answered those questions for themselves. For them, the shark got jumped when 'Offred' emerged as 'June Osborne' and she survived the mutiny surrounding Janine's stoning.
So, I conclude with my own list. You may have others.
ONE - June must choose, and it must stick. The most basic choice is that she needs to either accommodate to Luke Bankole, or 'get out'. Please this is not June accepting Luke in some patriarchal manner, please remember. She has just killed a man - the 4th folio was clear, June either chooses her family or she goes for further revenge. The 4th folio answered that question. #5 needs to be consistent with it.
TWO - whither Commander Blaine? Who is he really? In Reed Morano's world, Nick Blaine is an Eye of God, sent to spy on the Waterford home. By the 4th folio, he's a Commander in New Gilead, directing troops as far away as Chicago. He's also Mayday. He's passing classified documents to June Osborne, about June's first daughter - all the while, concealing a marriage he's entered into, presumably a second one now that Eden is dead. Just who is Nick Blaine?
THREE - Serena and her baby. How much of a tug of war between the ICC and Gilead will Serena be? And will June go after her? Will Gilead silence her, esp. if she cooperates with Americans, ICC and Canadian officials?
FOUR - conceding that Folios #2 through #4 are the only source of events like the Rachel and Leah bombing, Angel's Flight, etc., will Folio #5 be historically consistent with previous particulars?
FIVE - Will Folio #5 be historically consistent with the many future plot points, as found in The Testaments, the Ardua Hall Holograph, as well as the Witness Statements 369A & 369B?
DISCUSSION
Ok, my list is far from exhaustive. We've arrived at the time for discussion. We have a fair bit of time, as lunch has been delayed.
Please identify what you're looking for in Folio #5, so as to establish its place 'in canon'. What would have to happen for you to dismiss Folio #5 as outside of canon.
Ok, the first speaker. Yes, what are your thoughts… please type in the box below.