It’s obviously not done. The texture couldn’t be any less detailed if I tried and even the basic mesh needs more work. But there it is as it is at the moment anyways.

The main problem though as I see it is the headgear. I’m not really sure what it should look like. Maybe I somehow skipped over it or forgot about it but the book isn’t especially descriptive of the appearance of it. Its function is the focus of much attention but not its appearance. It may presumably me somewhat based on or inspired by real world nun’s habit but that’s really just an assumption and not something mentioned at any point in the book. There isn’t much of a helpful consistency to be found in its exact appearance in other visual depictions of it either. The film adaption is no help because it (likely due to budget constraints as the dresses for example where bought from sears rather then custom made for the film) differs rather significantly from the handmaids uniform as described in the book and rather then any form of white head peace they wore (rather inconsistently) a red veil. The ones used in the opera version where rather large and don’t seem to much resemble any of the other interpretations. Even the many book covers (which I think should be the most accurate source for an image of the uniform) seem to vary fairly significantly from one to another.

So I ended up going with a simple kind of hood. It’s not accurate but it was easy to make and I feel confident that anything I did could potentially been called out for inaccuracy. What’s important though is that it does serve the intended purpose. It both restricts other people view of the wearers face and also restricts the wearers own vision. I’ve decided that the game will be played from a first person perspective and the headdress will be visible and because of it your peripheral vision will be even more limited then it would usually be in a first person game.

I hate people who watch films and then read the novel that inspired it or in any other way only take interest in a novel because a film producer took interest first. For example I hated people who jumped on the Lord of the Rings reading bandwagon after the films trilogy began. Unfortunately it seems I am essentially one of those people. But for what it counts I read The Watchmen and V for Vendetta before any of you ever heard of them. I was a comic nerd before it was cool.

I’m assuming you all know about the book 1984. If you don’t your an ignorant fool. Anyways I saw the film (the one that was made and released in 1984 not the one from the 50s) and was blown away by it. It’s simply amazing. Well written and acted and beautifully made with great camera work, lighting, music and editing. It’s also aged incredibly well. You can usually tell when a video was made by the look of it. There is nothing wrong with that but it’s just the reality of things. Rosemary’s Baby for example is a great movie but it screams 60s. Even if you disregard the hair styles and clothing and that type of thing its still dated by its picture quality and editing. But I could fully believe that 1984 was made yesterday. Anyways it is an amazing movie and I highly recommend it. So I decided to read the book. Everyone always says that films have a tendency to ruin or at least lessen the greatness of there source material and after seeing the bastardization know as the V for Vendetta movie (it’s not really too terrible of a movie if it had gone by any other name but it is a complete insult to what the comic was about) I was fully willing to believe that. I couldn’t imagine it being better then the film though and it actually really wasn’t. Not just in the way that things tend to seem worse in secondary (in order of your viewing them not creation) variations because you grow attached to the original and have trouble accepting the changes. Instead it was disappointing because there where no changes. It had a few very small things that where left out and in general perhaps imposed the feeling of claustrophobia better with the surveillance seeming somehow more complete. But it was effectively the same. It didn’t do anything better and didn’t have anything that wasn’t included in the movie. It didn’t in any way benefit from its use of the literary medium which couldn’t have been or wasn’t reproduced on film. The movie was a perfect adaption. Absolutely Perfect. So anyways I guess what I’m saying is fuck the book. Just watch the movie.

For those unfamiliar with it, The Handmaid’s Tale was a dystopian novel written by Margaret Atwood and published in 1985. In it infertility has become widespread and a military coup has occurred in the United States putting in control a group of religious extremists (presumably belonging to some possibly new sect of Christianity). The country (then known as the Republic of Gilead) is governed by strict Old Testament based religious dogma. Well all the usual dystopian tropes show up (censorship and draconian punishments for example) the main focus of the Republic of Gilead is the complete rejection of feminism and the instatement of a harsh patriarchy. Every woman in the country is promptly unemployed and there savings transferred to there husband or nearest male relative. Women are no longer allowed to read. They are deprived of all freedom to (to choose and to live unrestrict) and in its place are granted the illusion of freedom from (from rape and harassment). The main protagonist (known only by her slave name Offred as her real name is never revealed) is arrested attempting to leave the country and is made a handmaid (essentially a surrogate mother only in a more Gilead style fashion complete with its usual oppression) when it is discovered that she is still fertile.

It also had a film adaption which was released in 1990. I saw the film before reading the book. The book is better. Like 1984’s film adaption The Handmaid’s Tale stays fairly close to its source material in terms of plot. Obviously there are minor things lost due to time restrictions and there are a few changes but at its core story and ideas are intact. But unlike 1984 the reason for the books greatness isn’t simply the premise of it or the plot line. I love 1984 for the ideas it conveys and the story it tells but it is in my opinion rather dully written. For the Handmaid’s Tale though the medium is almost as important as the message. Margaret Attwood is truly a literary genius. The premise of the book may be the reason to take interest in it but the writing style is the reason to praise it. It’s brilliantly presented as a non linear inner monologue of a quality I’ve never read before. The film captures the external events in a completely adequate way. But along with anything that occurred in the pre Gilead age it disregards the internal stream of consciousness thoughts, narrative and emotions of Offred. Aside from the use of heavy narration (which I have seen done right in some movies though in general I dislike film narration outside of documentaries) to the point of making it effectively making it an audio book I don’t see how they could have captured it correctly. The Handmaid’s Tale is an inherently text based creation.

Anyways now that I have explained (perhaps somewhat poorly) why The Handmaid’s Tale can not exist in any competent way in any other form of media outside of being a pure text novel I’m going to tell you that I’m working on a Handmaid’s Tale game. I’m working on a Handmaid’s Tale game. I’m not adapting the entire novel but rather more likely just a brief scene. Something short and compact. I’ll talk about it more at a future point in time.