While both texts explore the shock of losing freedoms, they differ through their presentation of characters and themes. Written in the wake of the Reagan administration, Atwood demonstrates a more focused critique on the lack of rights women faced within the 1980s. However, Bradbury presents a more nuanced critique of the conformity of the 1950s, perhaps due to McCarthyism and the red scare. Overall, both writers use lack of speech and surveillance to explore the of losing freedoms taken for granted, Through lack of speech, Both Atwood and Bradbury explore the loss of freedoms. This is seen in Fahrenheit 451, through the character of Mildred, who is the product of an anti-intellectual society. Mildred’s lack of speech is seen when reading, exclaiming “books aren’t people”’ suggesting an inability for free thinking and imagination. Furthermore, the use of the metaphor “my family is people”, further shows the lack of speech within the society, as people have been indoctrinated into believing TV characters are their family, suggesting a further lack of free thinking. Bradbury may have chosen to present Mildred in the manner to critique the conformity of the 1950s, because of the red scare. Due to senator McCarthy believing communist spies had invaded the government, widespread anxiety spread across America, leading to many people losing their jobs due to suspected Communist affiliation, increasing conformity, to protect livelihoods. Mildred’s conformity to the technocracy in F451 mirrors the conformity due to the red scare, Bradbury may have used Mildred as a symbol for how widespread conformity can create an anti-intellectual society with no free speech. Atwood in HMT uses the character of Aunt Lydia, who similarly to Mildred is indoctrinated by her regime, however, unlike Mildred, her power within Gilead allows her to actively enforces lack of speech. The critic Khafaga suggests that the aunts use “didactic indoctrination” within the red centre to prepare Handmaids for the oppressed position in Gilead. This is seen with the quote “Modesty is invisibility”, an attempt to supress the voices of Women, suggesting a lack of speech for women within Gilead. However, this view can be challenged, as Aunt Lydia can be interpreted as a victim of Gilead’s indoctrination, this is seen as she refers to the past as “days of anarchy”, suggesting she was also indoctrinated into believing times with equality was seen as negative and abnormal. The fragmented syntax in the line “Gilead is within you”, further shows the lack of free speech, as it connotes the Handmaids are under constant surveillance from Gilead. A 1980s reader may view Aunt Lydia as symbol of indoctrination, specifically by the Nazi’s. The Nazi’s would often teach children about eugenics, which suggests that the Aryan race was superior to all other races, in a means to Zionistic views into children. Lydia similarly indoctrinates the Handmaid’s into believing that they are inferior to everyone else. This supports Khafagas belief that the Handmaid’s are “didactically indoctrinated” by the aunts. However, it lacks relevance to Mildred in F451, who is a victim of indoctrination not an enforcer. Overall, both writers use lack of speech to discuss the loss of freedoms, by exploring victims and enforcers and indoctrination and their impact on society. On top of lack of speech, both Bradbury an Atwood explore the shock of losing freedoms through the theme of surveillance. This is seen in HMT through “the eyes” secret police within Gilead. This is shown through the repetition of “under his eye” throughout the novel, suggesting the eyes are ubiquitous in Gilead, constantly monitoring the Handmaids, limiting their freedom. Furthermore, the religious metaphor “the eyes of God run all over earth”, reveals the omnipotence the eyes possess within Gilead, further limiting the Handmaid’s freedoms through fear of harm. Atwood, living in West Germany at the time of writing, would have been influenced by the Stasi in East Germany, who would compile extensive files on individuals and threaten those who besmirched East Germany with jail time or extortion. Similarly to the Stasi, The Eyes blur the line between informant and civilian, creating control through freedom and removing freedom for the people. Atwood may have done this to critique East Germany and the speed in which freedoms can be lost with secret police. In F451, Bradbury uses the Mechanical Hound as a method of surveying the population, however, unlike The Eyes who operate in the shadows, the Mechanical Hound is infamous within the society. The critic Joodaki suggests that the Hound functions as a disciplinary mechanism which normalises self-surveillance. This is seen throughout the novel, where the Hound is described as “slept but did not sleep”, suggesting an eternal surveillance on the people. However, it can be argued that the Mechanical Hound is only a tool used by the technocracy to further indoctrinate people. This is shown when Beatty says, “it doesn’t do anything we don’t want it to think”, suggesting it is a tool for the regime, rather than a living entity. The surveillance of the hound is seen in Montag’s declarative “it doesn’t like me”, this characterises the Mechanical Hound as omniscient, and able to identify those who don’t follow the rules of the regime, limiting individual freedom. The 1950s reader may view the Mechanical Hound as a symbol of the Arms Race happening between America and Russia, where both countries raced to create the deadliest nuclear bomb, resulting in WMD’s such as the Hydrogen and Tsar Bomb. The Mechanical Hound may be a representation of the government’s perversion of technology, from something meant to help humanity, to something that tries to destroy it. This challenges Joodaki’s view as it suggests the Hound is a mechanism for violence, however, it has relevance to the Handmaids Tale, as the eyes can be seen as enforcing self-surveillance within the society. Both writers speak about how surveillance can limit personal freedoms within their novels, by exploring violent and non-violent methods of control, and its impact on the loss of freedoms. Both Authors use the endings of their novels to emphasises the themes of surveillance and lack of speech, exploring the shock of losing freedoms. This is seen in the final line of HMT, “I step up into the darkness within, or else the light”. The ambiguous ending doesn’t clarify whether Offred is caught by the eyes, further showing the constant surveillance of Gilead, limiting her freedom to leave. Furthermore, in the historical notes, Offred’s story is trivialised, the professor says, “we must be cautious about passing moral judgment on the Gildeans”, suggesting Offred’s struggle within the novel is suppressed, excusing the behaviour of Gilead, suggesting a lack of speech for the Handmaids even after Gilead has fallen. Atwood, influenced by the backlash of second wave feminism, particularly by the republicans, may have chosen to imagine an extreme world where oppression towards women is excused. Professor Peixoto can be likened to Phyllis Schlafly, through their similar attitudes to gender rights. Schlafly opposed the Equal Rights Act and advocated for women in homes, Peixoto similarly dismisses gender equality, and attempts to pardon a suppression of the female voice in Gilead. In F451, Bradbury however, challeges the themes of surveillance and lack of speech in the ending of F451. The critic Reid suggests that F451 ends optimistic through Montag’s use of preserving books and moral awakening. This view can be seen through the metaphor of the “phoenix”, suggesting that society has been reborn, with personal freedoms. However, this view can be challenged as the ending can be seen as bleak, after the nuclear bomb, which destroys humanity. Bradbury uses the book men, as an example of countersurveillance, and a method of preserving their personal rights. This is seen when Granger says, “we are all bits and pieces of history and literature.”. This challenges the forced silence the regime imposed upon the society, through burning books, suggesting a change in society with personal freedoms in mind. Furthermore, the line “we have been watching you”, is another example of countersurveillance, as it shows that the rebellious book men were watching over the regime, further emphasising the paradigm shift that is implied towards the end of the novel. The 1960’s reader may have interpreted the ending as a prediction for the rebellious hippy movement of the 1960s. The characteristics of the hippies can be seen in the book men, through their shared views on pacifism on topics such as the Vietnam war and want to be well educated in philosophy. This agrees with the Reid’s view of a rebirth within the society of F451, with Montag as a pioneer, however, this lacks relevance in HMT, which creates an ending which instils the chauvinistic attitudes at the beginning of the novel, with no hint of a change. Both Atwood and Bradbury use the ending to enforce prior themes, however, whilst Atwood creates a negative tone, Bradbury has a more optimistic tone, and the hint of a societal revolution. To conclude, Whilst Atwood writes a primarily scientific fiction novel, with dystopian elements, Atwood writes a post-modern dystopia, in line with her roots as a literary novelist. Both Atwood and Bradbury suggest a lack of freedom comes from centralised governmental indoctrination. Despite their literary differences, both present the danger governmental power poses to society, and urges readers to speak out in. support of oppression of any form.