It's pretty clear that a load of people have been using it as a blueprint. I guess they missed the last chapter, which is an historical retrospective set much later that describes how the regime fell. Or all of the bits about how the patriarchy is not even good for the people in power.

I expected to find it harder to read than I did. I have a copy of the complete works of George Orwell, which took me years to get through because each one was so depressing I couldn't face another for a good part of a year.

Looking back, I suspect the reason is that Orwell was very good at false hope. Atwood is just relentlessly depressing, which you quickly become used to. The main character's life is consistently bad. In all of the Orwell books, there are periods of hope followed by that hope being crushed absolutely.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is the closest parallel (though not the most depressing of his works!) and the worst thing about it is that the society that it depicts is stable (as is the society in Brave New World). The book isn't set in 1984, that's just a date that Winston finds on a calendar. It could easily be set in 2984: you've no idea how long the forever war with Eurasia (sorry, Eastasia) has been going on. The three superpowers have found a stable state that avoids any excess resources that might increase the wellbeing of the majority of their populations and have just enough that they can skim off for the inner party to enjoy without the kind of quality-of-life improvements for the majority that can lead to social change.

In contrast, Gilead is an obviously unstable structure for a state. For all the talk of future generations being used to it, the society is obviously destined for collapse (and does, eventually).