“Alma. Janine. Dolores. Moira June.” These are the words that end the first chapter of The Handmaid’s Tale. Just a series of simple names, but they have so much power. The society of Gilead is an oppressive one that actively and systematically tries to strip away agency from the women it controls. Our protagonist, Offred’s name is, let’s be frank, a slave name. All of the handmaid’s new names are slave names. And, although all slave names all horrible horrible, the ones given in Gilead literally say in the name that they belong to an owner. Offred is “Of Fred. ” The speaking of their names in intimate privacy before bed is a tiny act of rebellion and self-affirmation that they are people, not just breeding stock to be controlled.  It brings to mind the classic BBC drama The Prisoner and its famous line, “I am not a number, I am a free man!” or Kunta Kinte refusing to be called Toby.

What’s interesting is that all of the names of the handmaids are accounted for except for June. Both the film adaptation and the Hulu series directly state that Offred’s real name is June. The assumption is a reasonable one, simply by process of elimination, and narratively the last item on a list tends to have more impact than any other. Associating it with the protagonist is logical. However, I do have to wonder if directly giving us the protaganist’s real name doesn’t take something away. True, by giving Offred’s name her agency is reclaimed to an extent, but she also becomes slightly less of an everywoman in my opinion. While she’s certainly her own character, she’s also our viewpoint into the world, the pov character. By solidifying just exactly who Offred was before capture it perhaps becomes a tiny bit harder to imagine ourselves in her place. Ultimately though, I feel like both choices have their advantages and disadvantages, and for the book itself it’s ultimately up to the reader.