Moving the Mountain - Chapters 1-6

[Deborah, Moderator]

Welcome to our discussion of this book. It should be lively.

This is a utopian novel published in 1911, well before women had the right to vote. Somet thoughts to get us started.

1. Would a society like this be viable?

2. How I did changing ones perception of women from female to human impact this society?

3. What would the author think about our modern world?

4. What does the author mean when she writes "changes too sudden, and too great, are hard to bear for anyone.

5. Is human nature changeable? Why?

I will post my own thoughts later today, but this should get us started.

[Deborah, Moderator]

Well, it looks like you guys are waiting for me. Hmmm. Please don't tell me I'm reading alone.

There's a lot of topics Perkins addresses in this novel: poverty, women's rights, how children are raised, sterilization of people deemed deficient, food safety, and how society lives and works.

Women had been stuck in the home raising children whether they wanted to do this or not. There was limited opportunity for women to be educated; and even fewer work opportunities. Perkins addresses this strongly in her novel. Her belief was if there was economical equate between sexes, there would be equal rights and treatment between sexes; but she also seems to be saying that women are the change makers. Therefore, they should have a high status than men. Roles have been reversed from women being the helpmate to men being the assistant to women.

It's interesting that she uses an almost Rip Van Winkle approach to introduce these changes to us. John has been "asleep" to changes in the U.S. since he's been in a remote area of Tibet. Time and change has marched on while he was gone. He's thinking of how society works and the role of women has become antiquated. He can't seem to wrap his mind around all the changes. I can't even begin to imagine how overwhelming something like this would be.

Homes are now run as a co-op of some sort. There are meeting and gathering places so neighbors can meet and become friends. Also, it allows for support of each other. Food quality is carefully monitored and provided by a food service. No kitchens in individual houses as it's not efficient nor cost effective. (See Wendel's post in background research thread re efficiency).

Her views must have been very scandalous in 1911.

[Helen_in_the_uk]

I've read the first 6 chapters. I found it very difficult to start with, but by chapter 3 it started to capture my interest. I haven't really got my head around it yet, therefore I didn't feel I could comment. I think I may need to re-read chapters 3-6 before moving on.

However, one idea that really struck me was "Humaniculture; that no woman was allowed to care for her children without proof of capacity".

Looking forward to seeing the discussion.

[Deborah, Moderator]

Helen_in_the_uk wrote: "I've read the first 6 chapters. I found it very difficult to start with, but by chapter 3 it started to capture my interest. I haven't really got my head around it yet, therefore I didn't feel I ..."

Helen, there is a lot of material in a seemingly simple novel. So much information, and so much that really is controversial. It definitely can create a "where do I begin" feeling.

[Helen_in_the_uk]

Upon re-reading, I think I've figured out one of the reasons that I've found this book quite difficult to get my head around. The book was published in 1911, describing how advanced a civilisation America had become during John's absence of 30 or so years. So we have to start by thinking what life was like when John disappeared in Tibet (perhaps 1880s or 90s), then think about all the differences described. Whereas my mind is getting confused with how life is now and how different the described world is to modern day life.

Most of the ideas described must have seemed like far-fetched science fiction to readers in 1911!

[Deborah, Moderator]

Helen_in_the_uk wrote: "Upon re-reading, I think I've figured out one of the reasons that I've found this book quite difficult to get my head around. The book was published in 1911, describing how advanced a civilisation..."

I agree it would seem like science fiction in 1911. I think many would still view it like that.

[Emma]

Sandy wrote: "I had expected a "novel". The book (especially because I listened to it) was like a lecture..."

I agree with Sandy on this. I'm finding this book hard going - partly because I'm reading an ebook version full of errors, but mainly because I too expected a novel and the format seems flat and artificial, without plot to add variety. The Utopian society appears rather constricting and even authoritarian in some ways - eg, people aren't even allowed to eat anything that is bad for them (bye bye MacDonalds).

I suspect I'm also falling into the trap of seeing some of the author's descriptions as rather quaint from the lofty perspective of 100 years on. It takes an effort to put modern assumptions about society out of my head; but I think I need to do that in order to do justice to this book's many and carefully thought-out ideas.

[Deborah, Moderator]

Emma, my book (both the e-book and paperback) are also filled with errors which are very distracting. Sandy and you are correct that there is a lecture style to all of this. One question though, how else would you update your brother who has missed out on 30 years when there has been so many changes.

I agree that some of the controversial items smacks of eugenics. Others like great child care and quality of food make sense, at least to me. Here Perkins is writing in 1911, creating a 1940 she hasn't seen, while we read here in a different millennium and still find many of the ideas controversial.

[Deborah, Moderator]

Sandy - I'm glad you found the book interesting. I had previously read Perkins, but not this book. I knew what to expect. With regard to women still being treated as female, IMHO I think that is still the prevalent belief system. While the bra burning feminists brought a lot of good change, there are still many ways women are just viewed as female instead of human.

[Silver]

In reading this book I understand why it is described as being both a Utopia and a Dystopia, two normally contradictory ideas though dystopias are usually made from attempting to create a utopia.

We are presented with a society that seems a vast improvement and certainly seems like it would be an ideal place to live. Many of the changes and improvements I think most people could/would agree with. Equal rights for women, healthier food, less poverty, lower crime right, cleaner environment. But I think it does beg the question of does then ends justify the means?

I found some of the practices done in order to being about these changes to be a bet unsettling, are the things that one might have to give up in order to live in a more perfect world truly worth it in the end?

While I am sure most of us can agree that some people really just shouldn't have kids, and probably know someone or know of someone who really makes you wonder what they where thinking in having kids at the same time it is discomforting to think of society or the government making the determination of who has (or can raise) children and who cannot.

As well with the immigrant program, on the whole it may be beneficial to society and there may be logic in what they are doing but it all feels a bit dehumanizing in a way.

[Pip]

I'm reading the trilogy, but am a long way behind! I've not finished this section yet, so I haven't read the above comments in case of spoilers.

So far though, the society I'm reading about sounds too utopian to be true. Any society which claims "everything is better than in the past" is, for me, open to suspicion of brainwashing and it's making me feel uncomfortable. Nellie has mentioned a New Religion, but I'm still to find out what this entails exactly.

I will keep going and add comments where I can. I hope these threads stay active for a while, because this really is fascinating reading.

[Renee]

I've finally gotten to Moving The Mountain! Just finished this section and, of course, your wonderful, fascinating discussion posts!! I've had/agreed with many of these as I listened (Librivox) along.

1) The style is definitely that of lecture, with the tiniest bit of storyline as the structure. HG Wells, George Orwell, and Ayn Rand have used a similar device to explore their theories about societal "bests/worsts." There's a bit of preachiness in all. (Although, I hope Herland had more story.)

2) So many of Gilman's suppositions have come to fruition. As women, we vote hold good paying jobs, own property, divorce when necessary, hold office, run corporations, have children when we feel ready or choose not to have children without stigma. A vegetarian, even vegan, lifestyle has become a norm. And others I can't think of now, but noted as I went.

Yet other aspects are completely different. In some cases, lacking. In other cases, Gilman's utopia would seem repressive, even cruel. Similar characteristics have been applied to the societies of Dystopian literature!

3) I have often suggested among friends that I should run for office with the proposition of mandatory sterilization at puberty for men. With the option for reversal, once legal documents have been signed asserting the intention to parent responsibly. Penalties for breaking this contract would include losing the right to parent, to further procreate, and extensive jail time, probably doing hard labor. Maybe I'll just write a book. :)

Of course, my other suggestion is the removal of men from society and off to resorts where they can spend their time playing/watching sports, working in cars, watching big screen tv, throwing dirty socks wherever they please, and beating each other up when testosterone levels get pesky. With the opportunity to mate on an as required basis, determined by the women who run society. (Naturally, these opportunities would be based on genetic worthiness and, uh, talent. We wouldn't actually call these resorts "stud farms." That would be demeaning.)

Okay. So maybe these thoughts were generated by alcohol and commiseration. BUT I bet there'd be less war, rape, incest, neglect, famine, poverty, and dumb-headed-ness. Writing that book is looking better and better. ;D

[Renee]

Also, I was struck by how prevalent syphilis must have been in the late 1800s! With apparently no restraint on men from continuing to infect their partners and wives. Yikes!

[Deborah, Moderator]

Renee, I thoroughly enjoyed your comments. I'd vote for you :)

[Renee]

Heheh. Thanks! It gets more appealing when you watch the news. :)

[Renee]

Lol! Just imagining the commercials. X-)