Dağı Yerinden Oynatmak

The Herland Trilogy #1

by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Melda Olcaytu (Translator)

Charlotte Perkins Gilman 19. yüzyıl sonları 20. yüzyıl başlarında yaşamış, feminist edebiyata önemli katkılarda bulunmuş Amerikalı bir sosyolog ve yazardır. Aynı zamanda döneminin önde gelen hümanistlerinden ve kadın hakları savunucularındandır. Dağı Yerinden Oynatmak adlı eserinde, feminist bakış açısıyla ve ironilerle bezeli üslubuyla bambaşka bir dünya yaratmıştır okurlarına.

John Robertson, Himalayalara yaptığı bir keşif gezisi sırasında kayalıklardan düşer ve hafızasını yitirir. Otuz yıl sonra kız kardeşi tarafından bulunduğunda artık bambaşka bir adamdır. Ancak bu süre zarfında dünya da bambaşka bir yer olmuştur. Uzun eve dönüş yolculukları boyunca bu farklı dünyayı tanımaya çalışan John, ülkesine döndüğünde yeniliklere ayak uydurmakta zorlanacaktır. Neden sonra anlayacaktır ki bütün bu değişimin temelinde aslında tek bir şey yatmaktadır: Zihniyet değişimi. “Kadınların uyanışları” diye dile getirir bunu Perkins kurduğu ütopyada, nihayetinde bu dünyayı değiştiren insanların bakış açısıdır ve bunu sağlayan da kadınlardır.

Kadınlar Ülkesi Üçlemesi’nin ilk kitabı Dağı Yerinden Oynatmak, Türkçeye ilk defa Cem Yayınevi tarafından çevrilmiştir.

Genres: Classics, Feminism, Fiction, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Dystopia, Utopia

176 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1911

About the author

Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935), also known as Charlotte Perkins Stetson, was a prominent American sociologist, novelist, writer of short stories, poetry, and nonfiction, and a lecturer for social reform. She was a utopian feminist during a time when her accomplishments were exceptional for women, and she served as a role model for future generations of feminists because of her unorthodox concepts and lifestyle. Her best remembered work today is her semi-autobiographical short story, "The Yellow Wallpaper", which she wrote after a severe bout of post-partum depression.

She was the daughter of Frederic B. Perkins.

Reviews

[Melissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

First published serially and then as a book in 1911, this early feminist utopian novel was an interesting and fun glimpse into what women thought a world of true equality could look like, and at the same time sadly a bit disheartening for me considering all the years that have past since (over 100) and how little has really changed beneath the surface, or even on the surface.

[Ronnie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Moving the Mountain is some early feminist literature, where Charlotte Perkins Gilman imagines a utopia, not far from her present day, one where the world changes in thirty years: "Moving the Mountain is a short distance Utopia, a baby Utopia, a little one that can grow. It involves the mere awakening if people, especially the women, to existing possibilities. It indicates what people might do, real people, now living, in thirty years -- if they would. One man, truly aroused and redirecting his energies, can change his whole life in thirty years. So can the world."

Thirty years ago, John, then twenty-five, walked off a mountainside and fell into a remote Tibetian village with no memory of his life, but when his sister Nellie finds him, he's reawakened to his old life with no memory at all of the last twenty years.


What follows is Nellie and her family trying to get John acquainted with the new world, a Utopia, where people only work 2 - 4 hours a day, where there's very little crime and no poverty, where fruit trees grow along the road. In the tradition of utopic novels, it's less a narrative and more a lecture: this is the world now, this is how we changed it, this is how the old world didn't work.

It is, overall, pretty idyllic. Except for some excruciatingly jarring moments that set my teeth in edge. I try very hard not to judge old novels (this one written in 1911) by modern standards.

For instance, I know a lot of left-leaning socialists back in the day believed in eugenics, right up until WWII when they saw it in action, and then most decent thinking people were like "oh wait, nevermind, that's horrible." Even still, it was jarring go see it so happily touted as a solution to some of the world's problems, as if there was nothing whatsoever wrong with it, or with killing anyone who was considered a hopeless degenerate.

The racism and white supremacy of the novella was the insidious kind that you almost can't see, except that it makes you feel like your skin is crawling, and the discussing of people as though they're cattle made me cringe.

The discussion of just wiping out dangerous predators so everywhere in the world can be safe for people to live, and the deliberate extinction of several "pest" insects, as if humans are above basic ecology, didn't sit right either.


There are a lot of good ideas in this book. Unfortunately, they're overshadowed by the bad ones.

[Laura · Rating 2 out of 5]

Free download available at Project Gutenberg

I made the proofing of this book and Dagny will make an SR and Project Gutenberg will publish it.

[Mommalibrarian · Rating 3 out of 5]

A man is isolated from civilization for thirty years. He comes back to find that women, who did not have any power including the vote when he left are now running a Utopian society in the United States. Lots of ideas which were probably were quite advanced or amazing at the time (1911). Many are ideas which will probably never happen but some very good. A bit of a dry read.

[Gigi · Rating 1 out of 5]

A few years ago I researched a list from the American Librarians Association of the top 200 Best American Novels.
Since then I have made that list one of my challenges, to read several titles from it each year.
Most of the titles on the list are written by the 'usual suspects'- famous titles written by famous American authors. But one of the titles caught my eye- a book that was heralded as a landmark book in the feminist movement- Herland a utopian novel from 1915, written by feminist Charlotte Perkins Gilman.
I wondered how it was that I had never read this obviously important title and this summer I set out to read it.
After downloading the title, I saw that it was Book #2 of a trilogy. I have this little 'thing' about reading a book out of sequence so I set out to read Book #1 of the set, which is this title- Moving the Mountain.
I hate to write negative reviews about historic books but, if I am honest, I must admit that it was actually painful reading this title. There is no plot of any substance and virtually no character development- it is simply dry dialogue describing the author's dreams of a utopian society. Most of the book consists of the main character, John Robertson, who was living in an obscure region of Tibet for over 30 years and unaware of the massive changes in the world, being instructed by his family members and others, in the new, rational, well-organized social order.
Now the theory behind this new world order is quite interesting albeit simplistic in the way it has come about (the women of the world simply 'woke up') and the part about killing off all animals that are too dangerous like tigers repulsed me to no end. But the thought of a society where women have equal value, the education of children is the most important work and there is no poverty was lovely- there was so much potential in this book but it was all reduced to dry descriptive dialogue.
It is only 146 pages long but I found myself looking down at the page numbers frequently, much like a bored and anxious child on a family outing ("Are we there yet?")
My hope is that this initial title is dull because the author intended it to be simply the 'set-up' for the central title.
I shall move on to Herland with hopes that there is actually a plot, characters and a storyline. Wish me luck!

[Michelle (driftingsong) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Given that this is my third Charlotte Perkins Gilman book, and I've never given one of her books above three stars, I think that she's just not for me.

Never-the-less this is a short and interesting exploration into what one feminist in 1910 thought a feminist utopia would look like.

As many have previously stated the writing is a bit dry, given that everything about their society is being told to John, so there's zero plot. Logically many aspects of this world would not work such as killing off several animals of different species and most importantly the speed with which everyone "woke up" and changed their mind. Never-the-less this speculative fiction perspective was certainly an interesting ride and gave some food for thought.

It also struck me at how well versed CPG must be in the various topics/aspects of society she explores. Given that I am a teacher myself, I had to say that I was impressed by the very play based/inquiry based learning that she presented.

[Kaitlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love a good utopian novel, and Moving the Mountain is no exception. The world Gilman has created as a post socialist utopia is beautiful and inspiring. I especially like the description of agriculture and the caretaking of children, as well as the important role women play in the transition to this brave new world. That's all great. But wouldn't it be nice if we could have a utopia without eugenics? Here is where Gilman lost me, and I found myself often downright uncomfortable with the dismissive description of disposing of "idiots and perverts." The notes on immigrants (only let the clean ones in? WTF does that mean Gilman?) and black people are downright cringe. Still, I think it's worth the read, especially as a standout piece of utopian fiction, a field very dominated by male voices.

[Tamta Tavberidze · Rating 5 out of 5]

ძალიან საინტერესო და ღრმა ტექსტია ,,ყვითელი შპალერი". აქ ჩანს პროტაგონისტის გარდასხვა სახლის მშვიდი დიასახლისიდან ამბოხებულ, იატაკზე მფორთხავ ქალამდე. ეს ტექსტი ააშკარავებს იმდროინდელ კულტურაში გაბატონებულ მასკულინური წესების სისასტიკესა და უსამართლობას. მეორე მხრივ კი აჩვენებს ქალის ამბოხს და პროტესტს, რომელიც ბოლოს ოთახის შპალერიდან ამოხეთქავს და იქიდან ფორთხვით გადმოდის.

[Riathulhu · Rating 3 out of 5]

A feminist utopia from 1911, and it's really interesting and fun to see how women imagined a truly equal society back then.
But even though it's called the “herland trilogy”, it's not a prequel, but more or less the same story again, only this time the whole world has changed and our protagonist has missed 30 years with amnesia in Tibet. Again, there is no real plot, but the changes and social principles are gradually explained to us. This is sometimes very drawn out.
And what makes the book really hard to read are the racist (the protagonist had a wife and children in Tibet, but who cares about them?) and eugenic passages. Therefore only a very limited reading recommendation, even if the other ideas are exciting (women are real people and not just objects of reference for men?? 🤯).

[Ellie · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Brains do not cease to function at fifty, just beacuse a woman is no longer an object to fall in love with, it does not follow that life has no charms for her"

[Ana · Rating 2 out of 5]

A man previously lost to the world is found by his sister and tries to re-enters society. He had amnesia so he is not 55 in body, but 25 in mind. The book explores how the man accommodates to advances in industry and society, finding the change in the position and independent attitudes of women, hardest to wrap his head around.

It was ok and I recommend it if you want something a little dry, but there are some ideas that are a little outdated and offensive. Pro-America sentiment, socialism, improving religion and generalization are strong in this book. It's interesting, but at times heavy handed and repetitive. There is a sprinkling of racism, forced assimilation, selective euthanasia etc. The book is a thinly veiled vision of Feminist Socialist America built on 1910's ideals. It made me really grateful that feminism has changed since then.

For the most part I found John's reactions a little funny and realistic, but I would have preferred more plot and less blind optimism about how quickly people can change. Still, I recommend the audiobook from Librivox: https://librivox.org/moving-the-mount...

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

A for effort, B for context, D for execution. Coming up with a society based on socialist & cooperative principles, feminism and a holistic framework for the economy and education is something I find exciting and I appreciated the thoroughness the author takes in explaining the functioning and reasoning behind each aspect of the utopian society and how they got there. Unfortunately the lack of actual story and story telling makes the reading boring and dated. The last few chapters seem tacked on and don’t give the perspective and understanding that the author was likely going for, and just exposed how dated the book actually is in terms of ‘imagining new possibilities of being’.
Overall quick and interesting read. I appreciate that it helps me deepen my understanding of historical feminist/socialist speculative fiction and utopian lit. It was refreshing to read a utopian story rather than a dystopia, which seems to be abundant storytelling nowadays...

[ekin · Rating 4 out of 5]

charlotte perkins gilman ile tanışmamı sağlayan kitap oldu. hayatı da çok zorlu geçmiş, hem evliliğiyle hem sinir hastalıklarıyla boğuşurken kanser olduğunu öğrenip intihar etmiş. kadınlar ülkesi serisinin ilk kitabı olarak geçtiği için okudum, bundan 111 sene önce yazılan feminist bir ütopya okumak çok iyi geldi.

[Jan Priddy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a thought experiment, a treatise on building a better America, and not so much a novel. The story is that a man has been struck in the head, spent 30 years in Tibet unaware of his past, is struck again and remembers everything. His family brings him to a much-changed United States, a utopia by most any reconning. This man is the skeptical narrator who questions and visits, travels and doubts what he sees. The revelation that shifts the United States into Gilman's utopia is the acceptance of the notion that women are people.

I find it interesting how little comment I find in reviews about what Gilman was up against. First, women could not vote, could not serve on a jury or testify in court or register a patent or sign a contract. The assumptions about their weakness of mind—the ugliness of the Patriarchy at that time was overwhelming. I've seen enough in my lifetime to know that that masculine superiority is not new and it's far from gone. But I had not connected some dots that Gilman does for me here.

In 1910, there was no FDA or other consumer watchdog. "Wool" was not necessarily wool, food was not necessarily safe to eat, mascara could blind, the cities and urban waterways were a toxic mess, and there was no cure for STDs. It was illegal, literally illegal for women to perform many jobs. However, there were 200 thousand prostitutes in New York City (!) and the opinion of many [men] was that those women were permanently ruined but served a necessary function. Most men did not support education for women, and though wealthy families might indulge their daughters that far, the assumption was that marriage was women's only hope for a secure future.

The bulk of the story is how that returned man comes to accept that a better social is not impossible, not an erosion of rights, and not even any sort of loss, but a matter of following what nature allows us to be—happy. The primary contention is that human beings are not naturally evil, that evil is the result of poverty and a striving for wealth by selfish and powerful men.

All of that is gone in the new America alone with nearly all smoking and drinking and drug use. No one is overworked or underpaid or forced into a caste system where society assumes they belong and men cling to power because they think that is their pathway to success.

Instead, America offers a fair opportunity to every man and woman, good wages, short work hours, private homes but collective food preparation. People should love their work, and do work that suits their skills and preferences. Clean and beautiful clothing, parks, fruit-and-nut-lined highways, and quiet streets. Gilman envisioned abandonment of fossil fuels and reliance on other power sources such as tidal and solar. Essential to all this is a primary goal, which is to bring up children kindly and generously.

There are elements that will offend, such s the rare and long past execution (introduced late in the book) of those morally, mentally, and criminally incapable of change. So, there's that repulsive element. The use of the term "breeding" children is also certain to disturb readers.

To counter this: A significant character is a reformed addict and criminal now serving as the head of an academic department on ethics. As to "breeding," children are born only to parents who want them and who have been trained and proven themselves capable of loving and caring for children, and who may entrust the daycare of their children to trained care-givers. We already know how to prevent the birth of hurt babies—abstinence, testing in utero, etc.—and many parents already do this. There is an irony, perhaps, that we demand training and a license, background tests and oversight to teach in a public school, but not to father or birth and then raise a child. This child-centered care is noted as the most important obligation of this imagined society. And this society makes no bones about being socialist. Somehow, thanks to wealthy and entitled people, that word has become a pejorative. In Gilman's imagined world it is all about justice and joy.

I will also note that the final event in what passes for plot is the narrator convincing his cousin to marry him in order to save her. [see above] I was disappointed that Gilman fell back on that cliché.

This book is mostly dialogue, overuse of the expression "you see" grates, and presents details both ahead of its time and dated, but is well worth reading for how Gilman forces the readers to reconsider what they know is true about humanity. I should have read this decades ago. Perhaps I was not capable of of reading past my objections when I was young? I recall not loving Herland when I read it so long ago, but not why. I am rereading it next.

[Liz · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was an odd one, in the way that a lot of utopian books are: unendingly didactic explaining how society perfected itself, full of the prejudices of the time in which it was published (talk of eugenics and the little mention of race was derogatory), fantastically unrealistic that everyone would just agree to live together in a society that is "beyond socialism," and horrifyingly soul-crushing as it deals with many of the same issues we face today. That being said it was thought provoking and I'm inclined to try reading the second book in the trilogy just to see if there is more of a narrative

The one real problem I had with this book is that its feminist message is undercut when the male narrator who ends up saving his female cousin from her ultra conservative and reactionary father by marrying her and taking her away from that place, even though he had been lost in Tibet for 30 years and ignorant of the changes to his America -- ugh.

[David]

A true utopian fiction full of very pleasant ideas almost all of which seem to make some sort of sense. Yet the 1940 it posited in 1910 couldn't have been less real in contrast to the historical 1940, World War II underway, etc. The ideas concerning revitalizing human existence and curing social ills by adherence to a more social (socialist) societal foundation all seem desirable, but the human flaws which "John" continually asks his family and friends of 1940 about--"how did you fix X, change Y?"-- were obviously stronger than the cures the utopian fiction proposed could be. Over 100 years later, many of the "old ways" rejected by the 1940 New York in which John finds himself, sort of Rip van Winkle style, remain sadly, strongly presented, the mountain not moved at all, merely (and joy for that at least--something to celebrate) a little easier to climb these days.

[Manya Saxena · Rating 5 out of 5]

Moving the Mountain by Charlotte Perkins Gilman feels like stepping into a utopia that might have existed if humanity had simply chosen reason over chaos. Written before Herland, it’s astonishingly modern—a sharp, almost prophetic critique of gender, capitalism, and progress. Gilman doesn’t just imagine a reformed world; she architects one, brick by brick, with moral clarity and biting wit. It’s less a novel and more a manifesto for the possible, where feminism meets social engineering. A century later, it still reads like a dare: what if we actually learned from our mistakes?

[anayunes7 · Rating 2 out of 5]

es una utopía? sí. está bien hecha? no.
no fue una lectura placentera. ni siquiera es q fue "difícil" de leer como tal, sino que la forma de escribir de la autora es tan insulsa y plana que termina siendo un aburrimiento leer el libro.
encima lo leí sólo porq me interesaba Herland, pero este es el primero de la trilogía; ahora se me fueron todas las ganas de seguirla.

[Mayke ☕️ · Rating 3 out of 5]

The topic of this book is super interesting, an utopia with aspects that we do see now in our modern world, though also many we don't see. For the time it was written it's revolutionary, a vision many wouldn't even slightly think of happening.

This book is one long explanation of this utopia. It's an endless conversation with people explaining to the main character what is going on and how it works. After a while it became a struggle to get through.

Being the first book in a trilogy, I do feel this is an introduction to lay the foundation for the other books. Looking at the book on its own I would've loved to know more about the main character, because I really wanted to know more about him. I also wished that it wasn't one stream of information to take in.

[Oto Bakradze · Rating 3 out of 5]

ტექსტები დიდი ვერაფერი.

ეს ვარსკვლავები ფემინისტური ლიტერატურის საწყისებს.

“ყვითელი შპალერი” ნორმალურია. მეტაფორული ტექსტი მასკულინური სამყაროს ჩარჩოებიდან გათავისუფლებაზე.

“მთის გადადგმა” - ძალიან გულუბრყვილო რომანი, ემანსიპირებული ქალების მიერ შექმნილ სოციალისტურ უტოპიაზე.

[Spencer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the first book in a trilogy of feminist, utopian, fantasies. As were the others, it is a first person narrative, written from a male point of view—by a woman. John Robertson grows up in rural South Carolina. His mother dies shortly after his sister Ellen(Nellie) is born when he is just 7 years old. John is intelligent and a good student. He attends college, where he learns he has a talent for ancient languages. At the age of 25 in 1910 he travels to Tibet for further study. While there he has an unfortunate accident that causes him to forget who he is. Just as we are about to find out what happened to him, there is an editor's note—"Next two pages missing". As this was a Guttenberg Project e-book, I thought there had been a mistake while scanning. After thinking about it for a while, I came to the conclusion that Gilman was having trouble coming up with a plausible explanation for thirty years of amnesia that follows. It is now 1940, and sister Nellie is a tourist in Tibet. She spots a hooded, disheveled old man, who is wearing a belt with the initials "JR" engraved on the buckle. She asks, through an interpreter, "Where did you get that belt?" The man removes his hood, looks at the woman, and cries "Nellie!", falling backward and knocking himself unconscious. The blow causes him to regain his memory and his identity. Reunited after a thirty year absence, John and Nellie set out on their return trip to America. Nellie warns him that that America has changed a lot in the past thirty years. She is now a University president, which amazes him. Women have waked up and stepped forward, instigating many changes in American society, commerce and government. They have not only gained the vote, but they have become leaders. She recommends that John take a year off to study the New America. The novel is basically the fruit of his research. Though he hasn't known who he was for three decades, we find that he is misogynistic, chauvinistic, conservative. He has quite a few old fashioned ideas about what is right and wrong, and especially about the proper role of women in society.
Nellie tells John that women are different now, and so are men. He imagines masculine women and subdued men. Few people smoke now in 1940, and no one has chewed tobacco for more than 10 years. Wages are higher, everyone does only work that they enjoy, everyone has "enough" money, and the work day is only 2 hours long, though most work 4 because they enjoy it so much. There is no poverty, no prostitution, very little alcohol consumption, and there are no saloons anymore. All drinking is done in government run Social Clubs that double as theaters, lecture halls, and civic centers. Food is much better, as it is all meticulously inspected by the government. Kitchens have been removed from homes and apartments, and food is now prepared by trained professionals in central kitchens. Meals are delivered 3 times a day via dumb waiters, as are between meal snacks. Dirty dishes and linens are returned via thee same dumb waiters. The world is quieter as irritating noises have been prohibited, as have foul odors, and ugly colors. There is no racism, few accidents, few fires, little crime, no labor problems, no graft, no shoddy merchandise and few crying babies. Immigration is openly encouraged and there is world wide demand for new immigrants. Everyone has come to the conclusion that immigrants are an excellent source of new labor and new citizens. This is facilitated by the fact that with their new freedoms women are having fewer babies. John discovers that most established businesses are now government run, as are the schools, farms, utilities, newspapers and transportation. Sterilization for "defectives", criminals and perverts is legal. The only women that John can find that still fit the image he had from 30 years ago are the type he didn't like back then.
John is concerned about what he considers lost freedom, and longs to meet someone that is more like him. He feels like he is from an extinct race. He travels back to rural South Carolina, where he was born. He visits his Uncle Jake, Aunt Dorcas, and Cousin Drusilla. Jake no longer reads a newspaper because they are too "liberal". The family hasn't left the farm in several years, and Drusilla is now considered an old maid at 45. She never had a youth, and is now considered an old woman. John comes up with a solution for all, which I will not mention.

[Ashley · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5

[Filipa · Rating 2 out of 5]

The beginning looked really, really interesting and I was very excited to continue reading. But somewhere along the way I got somewhat bored with it (V was right!). I'm sure the next book of the trilogy will be more interesting - I certainly hope it will be!

[Afifah Luqman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would be lying if I said I wasn't really absorbed in this at the beginning. It sounded really good. Also considering this book was written 110 years ago, this was really good utopia. We have some of this now - women who vote, women who run businesses, women who marry at later ages and choose when or if they want children. Some of it we don't have. Some things were problematic, but i doubt we'd ever reach there.

It did get a little rushed and a little dry towards the end. Else I'd rate it 4 stars. Will read Herland too. I intend to read the books in order. Discovered Gilman when I read 'The Yellow Wallpaper' and now I'm determined to read more of her writings.

[Catriona Casali · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oh boy. I loved Herland, and was surprised to find out that it was the middle of a trilogy. So I got Moving the Mountain, had pretty high hopes, and found that after giving it a 50 page effort I could not go on. A thinly veiled lecture, but interesting from the view of someone who wonders what a feminist visionary may have hoped for in the early 1900's. This book would be a great addition to a course about social movements/feminist theory/etc.. but it's outdatedness is surpassed only by it's weakness in story line.

[Gaia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ho letto questo libro per un gruppo lettura nel quale stiamo analizzando e discutendo la storia e lo sviluppo dei femminismi. È senza dubbio estremamente interessante se letto in quest'ottica, presenta ovviamente delle riflessioni che fortunatamente non condiviamo più nel femminismo intersezionale. Fondamentale quindi risulta la nota in prefazione che spiega proprio ciò e ci rende consapevoli di che tipo di testo abbiamo di fronte.

[Renee M · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting. Glad I read it. But it was tough going. Gilman envisions a Feminist Socialist America where there is equality and uniformity. A lecture with the barest bones of a narrative.

[Nicolas Lontel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Que je regrette avoir lu ce livre, ou que son auteure l'ai même écrit. Après avoir lu Herland et With Her in Ourland qui sont respectivement les deuxième et troisième de la trilogie, mais le premier tome n'a absolument rien en commun avec ces deux derniers (ce n'est même pas le même univers! ni les mêmes personnages!!).

Rapidement, on suit un homme qui est devenu amnésique au Tibet durant une trentaine d'année et retourne en Amérique avec sa sœur et sa mémoire retrouvée pour tomber sur une société qui aurait fait des bonds de géants en termes sociaux et économiques (les femmes ont le droit de vote, la pauvreté est aboli, on est dans une Amérique socialiste, les routes sont impeccables, etc.) alors que le protagoniste a beaucoup de mal à se faire à la nouvelle société et y cherche des poux qu'il n'est pas capable de trouver. Il finit par s'accoutumer très bien de cette société après avoir interrogé et mené sa propre enquête sur les changements sociaux et ce qui les a causé.

Où est le problème? Charlotte Perkins Gilman a écrit une utopie (positive) où une Amérique est meilleure et où les vieilles idées conservatrices sont choses du passé? C'est un récit profondément eugéniste et il s'en cache à peine (et ce n'est pas pour dénoncer l'eugénisme pour permettre un changement social qu'il a été écrit). Oui, les gens sont élevés différemment et rééduquer, jusque là, c'est à peu près correct, mais les plus réticents aux changements, de l'aveux d'un des protagonistes ont été tués. Et on ne parle pas juste de criminels récidivistes, on parle de gens accusant des retards psychologiques, d'importantes problèmes physiques, etc. tout cela pour avoir une société très uniforme qui apparaît beau. Outre ça, les autres civilisations que l'Amérique (sauf probablement les pays Européens) sont tous "retardés", sauvages et j'en passe des vertes et des pas mûres.

Oui, on voit une partie du programme utopique qui apparaîtra dans Herland et sa suite ainsi que des idées vraiment fascinantes notamment sur le végétarisme, la fin de l'exploitation des animaux, la prise en charge collective de l'éducation et de la nourriture!, la réforme des écoles, des familles, des logements, etc. Mais tout ces progrès ont vraiment été accompli par un grand changement de mentalité, mais aussi un eugénisme forcé (certaines femmes avec certaines maladies ou déformations se retiennent d'avoir des enfants, on se débarrasse des personnes indésirables qu'elles soit natives ou immigrantes, etc.). Même les dialogues où le protagoniste évoque l'idée de l'eugénisme sont coupés par sa sœur qui change de sujet pour montrer tous les avantages de la nouvelle société!!!! C'est définitivement le genre de société "utopique" que des conservateurs brandissent pour "dénoncer" un socialisme uniforme et qui s'oppose à toutes les opinions qui ne sont pas les siennes.

C'est donc avec une immense tristesse que j'ai fini ce livre dont je ne recommande pas la lecture sinon que pour approfondir (en fait même pas) la réflexion dans Herland et montrer qu'elle n'est certainement pas aussi parfaite qu'on pourrait le croire et se base sur des idées complètement dépassées et cruelles.

Une note sur l'édition critiquée: si vous voulez absolument vous le procurez, n'acheter pas cette édition, non seulement il y a plein d'erreur de tiret de retour à la ligne qui apparaissent sans raison (ou qui ne sont pas présents), plein de fautes (!), plein d'erreur de frappes (!!), mais il y a carrément des mots qui ne font aucun sens (!!!) ou même des caractères typographiques qui apparaissent au milieu d'un mot sans compter de nombreux mots qui semblent n'être qu'un agencement de lettre sans raison (!!!!). C'est vraiment inadmissible comme édition de texte et je me le signale définitivement que les éditions Wilder Publications ne valent absolument rien et ruine le texte (encore plus qu'au niveau de ses idées; tsé, quand tu n'es même pas capable de comprendre une phrase à cause d'une mauvaise transcription qui touche plusieurs lettres...)

[Lucas Smith · Rating 1 out of 5]

It is no fault of Gilman's, but I find it impossible to read about a Utopia without wondering when the switch will flip and all of the systemic evil will be revealed. I've been conditioned through literary tropes to be cautious of paradise. Even knowing this about myself, it is difficult to read Moving the Mountain without wondering if the idealized socialist society Gilman describes is truly paradise for everyone. Gilman frames her narrative around a man, having lived with amnesia in a Tibetan community for thirty years, suddenly regaining his 1910 consciousness and returning to the United States in shock at the incredible progress of the author's imagined 1940.
There is much to appreciate in the novel: Gilman's understanding of society's influence on gender roles is truly progressive. She highlights the evil of poverty and poor working conditions and expresses my long-held belief that a lot of the world's troubles would be solved if everyone ate a good breakfast. Yet still throughout the book an insidious idea lurks behind all of the optimism.
When Robertson, the reawakened man, asks how such social evolution could take place in thirty years' time, his new friends and family respond that the masses were simply convinced of the logic and reason behind all the new changes to society. Although we are meant to scoff at Robertson's doubt, he does ask the questions that sprung to my mind.

"But surely there were thousands, hundreds of thousands, of hoboes and paupers; wretched, degenerate creatures."
Nellie grew sober. "Yes, there were. One of our inherited handicaps was that great mass of wreckage left over from the foolishness and ignorance of the years behind us. But we dealt very thoroughly with them. As I told you before, hopeless degenerates were promptly and mercifully removed. A large class of perverts were incapacitated for parentage and placed where they could do no harm, and could still have some usefulness and some pleasure. Many proved curable, and were cured.

Who exactly are the hopeless degenerates? Who are the perverts? It sounds good in the abstract to "deal with them" and "remove them," but a utopia quickly becomes a holocaust depending on who you believe to be a pervert or a degenerate. Writing from 1910, Gilman did not know how her ideas of social evolution would be adopted by facists and communists who sought to build their own utopias with as much efficiency, safety, and "cleanliness" that Nellie boasts of.
Another example of Gilman's flawed paradise comes when Robertson asks about hunting. At first, Nellie's response seems environmentally conscious and very progressive for the era. There is no hunting anymore. Very few people even eat meat. Zoos, also are a thing of the past.

"My dear brother, can you mention one single piece of valuable information for humanity to be found in the study of imprisoned tigers? As a matter of fact, I don't think there are any left by this time; I hope not."
"Do you mean to tell me that your new humanitarianism has exterminated whole species?"
"Why not? Would England be pleasant if the gray wolf still ran at large? We are now trying, as rapidly as possible, to make this world safe and habitable everywhere."
"And how about the hunting? Where's the big game?"
"Another relic of barbarism. There is very little big game left, and very little hunting."

The paradise of Moving the Mountain is built upon extermination of any undesirables. To Nellie, the idea of hunting tigers is barbaric but a mass extermination is humane. Gilman had the misfortune of writing before the contemporary trend of dystopian novels, but her story certainly sounds like the beginning of one. Even if we ignore the chaos that removing a predator does to an ecosystem, the reasoning behind exterminating an entire species is still chilling. Why were wolves and tigers killed? For our comfort. It's easy to read this passage and wonder if the "perverts and degenerates" were dealt with in similar manner.

[Kaitlyn Crozier · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gilman tells the reader what a perfect dystopian world looks like, rather than shows the reader. I now know why this book has such low ratings, and readers; but I bought the series before I started it(something I have not done before for good reason). I had to finish and I’m so happy I now have!

Insufferable narration from a chauvinistic male view, that is obviously a woman’s biased opinion.
Women are the brains, men the bodily strength.
I cringed at the excess explanations that women are no longer objectified through this feminist narration told through a male perspective. I understand the idea, but the writing is awful and she doesn’t have the skill to write in a male voice, so I really wish she hadn’t.

No one is poor. Life is perfect, including society and business.

Some of these ideas seem far back in the past. This world creates better children because of the ‘department of child culture- government” but they wouldn’t allow any mother to raise a child unless she was trained and indoctrinated with how to properly do so. Doesn’t that sound like control rather than freedom? How awful a law(but in this book there are no laws.. they’ve just removed the label) requiring mothers and fathers to be approved to raise a child.

There are no dogs or cats allowed, or any animals but humans. What kind of utopia doesn’t allow our best friends?
And oh my goodness… don’t even get me started on the brilliance of this utopian society killing entire species to better the world. Gilman obviously didn’t understand biomes and the importance of natural life supporting these environments.

It made me laugh how this brother would question ideas, some more preposterous than others, and his sister would just smile like he’s ridiculous while she explains a ridiculous notion that no one is drunk or high because everyone is just so perfectly happy now, why would they.

Because of surrounding peace and contentment, no one practices religion anymore. No one is religious because who needs religion when everyone is so content.

The idea of death. Teach the children death with silk worms. So progressive. Also, brother is horrified to have learned the way to have such a perfect society is because they killed off the ‘bad’ people.
“We killed many hopeless degenerates, insane, idiots, and real perverts, after trying our very best powers of cure.”

So in conclusion, its not a Utopia, it’s a cult!


One of the strangest ending- don’t read a head if you don’t want a spoiler…..

“‘O Drusilla’ I begged! ‘Do- do! Don’t you see, if you won’t have me nobody ever will? I am all alone in the world, Drusilla; the world has all gone away from me! You are the only woman alive who would understand. Dear cousin- dear little girl- you’ll have to marry me- out of pity!’
And she did.

Nobody would know Drusilla now. She grew young at a rate that seemed a heavenly miracle. To her the world was heaven, and, being an angel was natural to her anyway.
I grew to find the world like heaven, too- if only for what it did to Drusilla.”

THE END.