@briaboda - Tumblr Blog

Why I won't be watching The Testaments. And why the show lost the right to that story.

I've been quiet on THT since my 6x10 post. Intentionally. Because after watching that finale and going through the full rewatch I didn't have anything left to say that wasn't just grief dressed up as criticism.

But The Testaments is coming. And I keep seeing the trailers. And I keep seeing people getting excited. And I need to say something before THT fans convince themselves that a new season means a fresh start.

It doesn't.

Atwood's source material is extraordinary. The premise of what this story could be, told honestly, is one of the most compelling things television could do right now. I believe that. I have always believed that. That belief is exactly why what this production did with it is so unforgivable.

Because they had everything. The text. The thesis. The most radical love story in contemporary literary fiction handed to them in plain language. And across six seasons they made the same choice, quietly and consistently and with increasing confidence: to sand down every dangerous edge until what remained was palatable. Until desire became guilt. Until love became a phase. Until a woman's freedom could only be justified if it was immediately redirected into service.

I watched all six seasons. I documented them obsessively on this blog. I defended this show longer than I should have because the early seasons understood something true about what Atwood was doing, and I kept hoping that understanding would hold.

It didn't. And The Testaments won't fix it. You cannot course correct on a foundation this compromised.

So before it drops and this fandom fractures along the same predictable lines, I want to put on record exactly what they got wrong, why it matters, and why I'm not giving them another season of my attention.

Atwood wrote about a woman who survives captivity by refusing to go numb. Who wants, even when wanting is dangerous. Who loves, even when love is criminal. Who holds onto her interior life as the last thing Gilead cannot legislate. Desire, in her world, is not a flaw to be managed. It is the engine of selfhood. The proof that you are still alive inside a system designed to convince you otherwise.

The show decided that engine needed to be turned off.

reason one: they used Nick to do it, and they never understood who he was to begin with

Let's start with what the fandom gets wrong before we get to what the writers got wrong, because they are related.

Nick Blaine is not the brooding love interest. He is not the morally compromised foil. He is not the man June chose instead of Luke or in spite of Luke or because trauma rewired her attachment. He is not a coping mechanism or a complication or a gray area the show introduced to create tension. He is the argument. He is what Atwood was building toward when she wrote about particular love inside total systems. He is the character who proves, structurally and emotionally, that resistance does not require purity to be real.

The fandom never fully gave him that. The writers never gave him that. And it cost the entire story its spine.

Because Nick is not difficult to read. He is only difficult to accept. He stays in Gilead not because he is weak or complicit or seduced by power but because proximity is the only leverage available to him. He cannot blow up the system from the outside. He can only stay close enough to move pieces. To intervene before the worst outcomes land. To protect June, Nichole, and Hannah from inside the machine that is trying to destroy them. Every position he holds, every alliance he maintains, every compromise he makes is in service of keeping the particular people he loves alive long enough to matter.

That is not ambiguity. That is devotion under siege.

And the show spent years documenting it with extraordinary precision before deciding, somewhere in the back half, that it was easier to let him be misread than to defend him. Before deciding that June's future looked cleaner without the weight of what he actually was to her. Before deciding that a woman moving forward was more narratively useful than a woman reckoning honestly with what she lost.

So they made his choices murkier than the text supported. They let the audience's discomfort with his compromises stand in for moral judgment. They allowed the framing that he chose power over June to go unchallenged even though the show itself had spent seasons proving the opposite. And then they killed him in a way that denied both of them the reckoning they had earned.

June does not grieve Nick in the finale. She manages him. She is handed language designed to hold the truth at arm's length rather than name it. She performs composure where the story demanded collapse. And the show frames that performance as healing, as forward motion, as the mark of a woman who has grown past the fire into something steadier and more useful.

But grief does not work that way. And love as strong as death does not just quietly metabolize into mission.

What the finale actually shows, underneath the talking points and the forward momentum, is a woman in acute denial. Still tethered. Still organizing her entire existence around movement so she never has to stop long enough to feel the full weight of what she lost and what she failed to say out loud when it mattered.

Nick deserved to be understood. By the writers. By the fandom. By the story that spent six seasons using his devotion as fuel and then discarded him like he was incidental.

He was never incidental. He was the point.

And erasing him didn't clean up the story. It just left the wound open with nothing to name it.

reason two: they turned Nichole into a motivational prop, and now they've erased her entirely

In Atwood's canon, Nichole is not a reason to keep suffering. She is proof that something escaped. She grows up outside Gilead. She is raised beyond its language and its logic. She is the living evidence that forbidden love built something tyranny could not touch. The Testaments is explicit: it is not Hannah's prolonged captivity that brings Gilead down. It is Nichole's freedom. Her existence outside the system. The fact that desire, real and dangerous and unsanctioned, produced a future the regime could not control.

That is the architecture Atwood built. A child born not of doctrine but of choice under pressure. Of want that refused to be legislated. Nichole is not incidental to the story's thesis. She is its proof of concept. The bridge out of Gilead was built by two people who loved each other inside a system designed to make that love impossible, and it held.

The show dismantles that architecture quietly and completely.

By the finale, Nichole is no longer the evidence that the fight worked. She is the justification for why it can never end. She becomes the reason June must keep leaving, keep sacrificing, keep folding her own life into an abstract future that never fully arrives. The child born of love is reframed as the reason love must be renounced. And in order for that logic to hold, the show has to minimize, then erase, her father. Because if Nick remains central, if his devotion remains legible, then Nichole's existence keeps pointing back to what the show is trying to move away from: that desire, real and dangerous and specific, built something that outlasted the regime.

So they bury it. They fold Nichole into obligation. They turn the bridge into a burden. And they ask us to read that as growth rather than loss. It isn't growth. It is the story cannibalizing its own most radical idea and hoping we won't notice because the language of sacrifice sounds so much like the language of love.

And now, with The Testaments, they have completed the erasure.

Nichole will not appear in the series. Let that land for a moment. The child who is, in Atwood's own text, the living proof that Gilead failed. The character whose entire existence is the argument. The one person whose freedom is not metaphorical or symbolic or aspirational but actual and embodied and specific. Gone. Written out before the story even begins.

This is not a casting logistics issue. This is not a narrative restructuring. This is a choice that tells you everything about what this production believes the story is actually about. If Nichole is present, her father has to be reckoned with. Her origins have to be honored. The particular love that created her has to remain legible. And this production has spent years making clear it has no interest in doing any of that.

So they remove her.

They remove the proof. They remove the bridge. They remove the one character whose existence cannot be separated from the thesis Atwood was actually writing. And they move forward with a version of The Testaments that can center legacy, resistance, and sisterhood without ever having to answer the question Nichole's presence would force them to face: what did it mean that love built the future Gilead could not?

Atwood answered that question. Clearly. In the text.

This production is not interested in the answer. And removing Nichole is the most honest thing they have done in years, because it finally stops pretending otherwise.

reason three: they replaced Atwood's feminism with the thing Atwood was warning us about

Offred is not a hero.

She is not brave in the way stories reward. She is not selfless. She is not oriented toward the greater good. She is a woman trying to stay herself inside a system designed to hollow her out, and she does it the only way available to her: by continuing to want. By noticing the tulips. By remembering her name. By taking the particular man beside her seriously enough to let him matter. Atwood built her protagonist out of hunger and irony and moral impurity and the refusal to go numb. Offred survives not because she is righteous but because she remains specific. Because she keeps insisting, quietly and stubbornly, on the texture of her own interior life.

That is the feminism of The Handmaid's Tale. Not sacrifice. Not sisterhood as slogan. Not the performance of endurance. The insistence that a woman's inner life is worth preserving even when, especially when, no one is granting her permission to have one.

The show spent its final seasons building a different woman entirely.

A June who has learned the right lessons. Who has metabolized her grief into purpose. Who has graduated from wanting into leading. Who measures her own value in what she protects rather than what she feels. The show presents this as an arc. As earned wisdom. As the natural shape of a woman who has been through enough to finally understand what matters.

But Atwood never wrote that woman. She wrote against her.

Because that woman, the one who has disciplined her hunger into duty and her desire into legacy, is exactly what Gilead was trying to produce all along. Not through force, in the end, but through meaning. Through the slow reframing of a woman's worth as something that flows outward, toward children, toward nation, toward future generations, rather than inward toward the self. Gilead did not only want compliance. It wanted women who had internalized the logic so completely they no longer experienced it as constraint.

The finale gives us that woman and calls her free.

It is the most honest thing the show ever did, and the most damning. Because it reveals what the writers actually believe underneath all the iconography and the resistance rhetoric: that a good woman knows when to stop wanting for herself. That the highest expression of survival is service. That desire, uncontained and unrepentant, is something you grow out of rather than something you fight to keep.

Atwood knew. She wrote the warning. The adaptation became it.

reason four: him. not the idea of him. him.

There is a line in the novel that I have come back to more times than I can count. More than any scene, any image, any piece of iconography the show borrowed and flattened into aesthetic. It is the line that contains the entire thesis. The one the adaptation never understood and never tried to. And the shameful part is that it was right there. In the source material they claimed to revere. Available to them from day one. They had six seasons and every resource imaginable and they never once reached for it. Never built toward it.

"The more difficult it was to love the particular man beside us, the more we believed in Love, abstract and total."

Read that again.

Atwood is not writing about romance. She is not writing about longing as decoration or desire as subplot. She is writing about the political function of specificity. About what it means, inside a system designed to erase women's interiority, to love a particular person. Not love as ideology. Not love as duty or legacy or moral framework. Love as the irreducible, ungovernable fact of one specific man, beside you, real and complicated and present.

That is what Nick is.

Not a symbol. Not a coping mechanism. Not a trauma response or a phase or a chapter to be outgrown. He is the particular man. The one whose existence beside June proves she is still a person and not a vessel. The one whose love is difficult precisely because it is real, because it operates inside complicity and compromise and impossible conditions, and persists anyway. That difficulty is not a flaw in their story. It is the entire point of it.

Gilead runs on abstraction. On Love with a capital L, on Duty and God and Nation and Future Generations. On the erasure of the particular in favor of the total. It does not fear romance. It fears specificity. It fears a woman who looks at one man and says: him. Not the idea of him. Not what he represents. Him. Because that act of choosing, particular and stubborn and refusing to be redirected, is the one thing the system cannot absorb.

June and Nick are Atwood's thesis made flesh.

Every time June chooses Nick under impossible conditions, she is committing the most radical act the novel imagines. Not blowing up a building. Not leading a resistance. Looking at the particular man beside her and refusing to let Gilead turn that into something abstract. Refusing to let it become allegory. Refusing to let it be rewritten as weakness or distraction or moral failure.

And Nichole is what happens when that refusal holds.

She is not abstract. She is not a symbol of the resistance or a reason to keep fighting or a vessel for June's purpose. She is the particular child of a particular love that Gilead tried to make impossible and failed. That is her meaning. That is what the show erases when it turns her into a motivational prop. It strips her of her specificity. It makes her total instead of particular. It does exactly what Gilead does.

The show spent six seasons circling this truth and never quite landing on it. It kept reaching for the abstract: the resistance, the cause, the future, the children, the legacy. It kept pulling June toward Love with a capital L and away from the particular man beside her. And it called that maturity. It called that growth. It called that feminism.

Atwood called it Gilead.

And this is why The Testaments, this version of it, was always going to fail before a single frame was shot.

Because the ending Atwood wrote is not about resistance triumphing over tyranny. It is not about Hannah. It is not about legacy or sisterhood or the cause outlasting the regime. It is about love outlasting it.

Particular, difficult, ungovernable love. Nick underground. June disappeared into life. The two of them finding each other again not as symbols but as people. As the particular man and the particular woman who chose each other inside the worst possible conditions and kept choosing even after the system tried to make that choice meaningless.

That is the ending. That is the thesis. That is what Atwood spent the entire series building toward.

The Song of Solomon puts it plainly, and Atwood knew exactly what she was invoking when she structured her story around it.

LOVE IS AS STRONG AS DEATH.

Not stronger than death in the triumphant, cinematic sense. As strong. Equivalently powerful. Immovable in the same way. The thing that cannot be reasoned with or redirected or disciplined into something more useful.

That is what Nick and June are. That is what Nichole proves. That is the argument the show spent six seasons dismantling and that The Testaments, by removing Nichole entirely, finishes burying.

You cannot tell the ending of this story without her. You cannot tell it without him. You cannot tell it without the particular love that built the particular child that grew up outside the walls of the particular hell her parents survived together.

Remove any piece of that and you are not telling Atwood's story.

You are telling Gilead's version of it. The one where love is a phase. Where desire is a detour. Where what endures is not the particular but the total. Not the man beside you but the cause above you. Not the child of your body but the children of the future. Not love as strong as death but love as useful as policy.

The Testaments had one job. Tell the story of what survived.

They've shown us exactly who they are. I'm taking them at their word.

BOYCOTT THE TESTAMENTS.

otp-after-dark

Max Minghella just told you everything you need to know

Max Minghella breaks down Season 4, Episode 7 of 'Industry' and playing con man Whitney Halberstram on the HBO finance drama

So Max did a Variety interview about Industry, and there’s a section where he talks about the difference between playing Nick Blaine and playing Whit. And I need everyone to read it slowly, because this is as close to a public indictment of the Handmaid’s Tale writing room as we are ever going to get from this man.

He describes Nick as an “archetypal character.” He says he viewed Nick’s narrative purpose as providing “a sense of relief and melodrama and break from the more intellectual aspects of the show.” He says he embedded the performance in “a Brontë-esque literary history, something larger than life.” He says, and I need you to hear this, that he approached Nick as “almost like a soap opera.”

He never approached Nick with naturalism.

Let that land.

Because what Max is telling you, with the careful diplomacy of a man who is not going to trash a show he spent eight years on, is that Nick Blaine was never built to be a political player. Nick was never constructed as a power figure. Nick was a romantic archetype. Max understood that from the jump. He played him that way deliberately, consistently, for the entire run of the series. Brontë-esque. Melodramatic. Relief from the heaviness. A love story living inside a dystopia.

And then compare that to how he describes playing Whit on Industry: “hyper-real.” No method. No plan. Blacking out on set. Letting each take happen. Wanting the character to feel “dynamic and unconstrained.” Not deciding when to sit or when to pick up a mug. Just being in the scene with full spontaneity and full freedom.

Do you see the gap?

Nick was deliberately heightened, deliberately literary, deliberately romantic. Max made those choices because that’s what he understood the character to be. A figure out of gothic romance. A Heathcliff behind enemy lines. A man whose entire narrative function was emotional, not political.

And God, what a performance it was. I need to say that clearly, because this post could read as a critique of what Nick became, and I don’t want that to eclipse how extraordinary what Max built actually was. Especially in those early seasons.

He took Atwood’s Nick, a character who lives almost entirely in negative space on the page, a man defined by what he doesn’t say, what he withholds, what he lets you feel without ever confirming it, and he embodied that. He understood the assignment on a molecular level.

The way he played desire as something dangerous and quiet. The way every look carried weight because it had to, because in Gilead, a look is the only language left. The way he could make standing in a doorway feel like a declaration. That was Max reading the novel and understanding that Nick Blaine is not a man of action. He is a man of presence. And presence is what Max gave us, in spades, every single time he was on screen.

He brought everything I loved about the book to life. The stillness. The ache. The way love in that world isn’t tender, it’s terrifying, because tenderness is the thing most likely to get you killed.

Max played that tension so beautifully it hurt to watch. He made Nick feel like someone who had already accepted he wasn’t going to survive this, and was loving June anyway, not in spite of the cost but fully aware of it. That is Atwood’s Nick. That is the literary Nick. And Max gave him to us with a precision and a vulnerability that the show, frankly, never deserved by the end.

And then the show, in its final stretch, tried to insist that this same character, this man who was performed as a romantic archetype for six seasons, was actually a politically compromised antagonist we should be suspicious of. That the love story was naivety. That the melodrama was a red flag.

The performance was never doing that. Max just confirmed it wasn’t trying to do that. He was playing relief. He was playing romance. He was playing something deliberately larger than life and embedded in literary tradition.

The show tried to rewrite its own text and the actor is sitting in Variety gently, graciously, telling you: that’s not what I was building.

I’ve said this before and I’ll keep saying it: you cannot retrofit an antagonist arc onto a performance that was never constructed to support one. You can’t spend six seasons letting an actor build a Brontë hero and then announce in the final act that he was actually a villain all along. The body doesn’t lie. The stillness doesn’t lie. The performance doesn’t lie. And now the performer himself is telling you, in the most diplomatic, professional, generous way possible, that the version of Nick he was playing and the version the writers tried to sell at the end were never the same character.

The fact that he contrasts it so explicitly with Industry, where he describes total creative freedom, total spontaneity, a performance built on instinct rather than archetype, only makes the distinction sharper. He knows the difference between playing a constructed literary figure and playing a living, breathing human being. He was doing the former with Nick. On purpose. Because that’s what the material asked for.

Until it didn’t. Until the show decided it needed Nick to be something else. And by then it was too late, because Max had already built the house, and you can’t change the foundation in the final season and pretend the structure holds.

This interview is a gift. Not because it’s explosive. Max is far too thoughtful and too classy for that. But because it quietly confirms everything the performance already told us.

Nick Blaine was a love story. Max always knew that. The show forgot.

And in the meantime, Max is out here doing career-best work as Whit on a show that actually deserves him.

A show with writers who understand that character is built through accumulation, not announcement. Who know how to seed an arc and then trust their actor to carry it. Who aren’t scrambling in the final hour to explain what they never bothered to construct.

Industry knows how to write. It knows how to let a performance breathe. And Max is running with it in a way that is genuinely thrilling to watch. Every episode he’s making Whit more layered, more dangerous, more alive. This is what happens when brilliant acting meets writing that’s actually doing its job.