Most Helpful Customer Reviews
51 of 55 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Not just a feminist utopia--a humanist utopia, February 2, 1997
By A Customer
The title of Gilman's novel may be a bit misleading. The novel is described as a feminist novel. Yet, this is not exactly acurate. The absence of men in the utopian society may seem extreme to some, and it is. This is how Gilman makes her point. She does not create a world without men because men are terrible creatures who have corrupted the world. The utopia which lacks men is a clean peaceful place, excelling in every way American society fails. But, it is neither the absence of men nor the presence of women that faciliates this. Gender, in this novel, is symbolic for the most part. Gilman does separate the two genders to destroy steroetypes, but also to establish a concrete difference between the two worlds. The male world is not bad, and the female good. The world in which people are defined by others and limited to these defined roles is bad, while the world in which people are free to grow without being defined or compared to others, and are able to see the oneness of all people is good. Comparing Herland to the reader's own world, Gilman begins destroying gender based stereotypes. Because there are no distinctions of gender in Herland, nor any superficial characteristics which accompany gender, Herland women take on the roles of all people without considering any limitations. These women are strong, agile, nurturing, intelligent, cooperative, and able to rely on themselves. They are not "typical" females. As Gilman explains through the male character Van, "Those 'feminie charms' we are so fond of are not feminine at all, but mere reflected masculinity--developed to please us because they had to please us, and in no way essential to the real fulfillment of their great process" (59). In the same way, stereotypes about men can be discredited. Such ideas have been made up to help people deal with the differences between men and women. Gilman shows the reader that if people stop basing their identities on what others want, they will no longer be slaves to limitations. They will be free to discover their true selves and will allow others to do the same. Gilman shows readers that men and women are distinct people, but reminds us that they are people first. This can be seen when Somel, a woman of Herland, innocently questions a male visitor, "But surely there are characteristics enough which belong to People, aren't there?" (89). Focusing more on these characteristics, those belonging to "People," allows humans to fulfill their personal potential without fear of jealousy. The women of Herland are able to live in "such universal peace and good will and mutual affection" (99) because "they lacked the sex motive and, with it, jealousy" (99). The women of Herland are free and equal because they are secure enough in themselves to offer and accept help for a joint cause, the betterment of their world. All readers, men and women alike, can learn a great deal from this humanist utopian novel.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
27 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Gilman's biting 1915 social satire on an all-female utopia, October 20, 2003
Charlotte Perkins Gilman was arguably the most important American author of the women's movement in the early 20th-century. In addition to editing a newspaper, "The Forerunner," she wrote "Women and Economics," one of the first studies of the role of women in the economic system. Gilman also wrote a number of utopias: "Moving the Mountain" in 1911, "With Her in Ourland" (1916), and her best-known, "Herstory" in 1915. In "Herstory" Gilman creates a homosocial (one-sex) utopian society made up entirely of women in which the culture, political system, and families are the result of having women as the basis (instead of merely stemming from the absence of men). However, while other American utopian novels, most notably Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward 2000-1888," were standard reading for decades, Gilman's "Herland" was pretty much forgotten until it was rediscovered in the 1970s. Even after four decades Gilman's satire was seen as still speaking to the conditions faced by American women. Following the conceit first used by Sir Thomas More in writing his "Utopia," Gilman's "Herstory" tells of three American explorers (male, of course), stumbling upon an all-female society in an isolated mountain valley in a land far away on the even of the first World War. Since they find this strange land to be civilized the explorers are convinced there must be some men hiding someplace, and set out to find them. As they search high and low for the male of the species they learn about the history of the country, the religion of motherhood, and the other unique customs, while trying to seduce its inhabitants. Many generations earlier the women had found themselves separated from the human race, with the men dying off. The society evolved, organizing itself around raising children and living in harmony with their surroundings. In the end, the three mail visitors end up falling in love with three of the women and are essentially converted as naturalized aliens. "Herstory" is less science fiction than many of the utopian novels written during this period, and clearly its primary value is in terms of its provocative commentary on gender roles in the United States in the early 20th-century. Not surprisingly, Gilman questions the roles assumed by men and women in the "bi-sexual" society by showing the relative perfection achieved in Herland with its uni-sexual society. What Gilman sidesteps, of course, are the issues of sexuality: the women of "Herstory" are asexual beings, although they are capable of parthenogenesis (asexual reproduction). Also, by talking about these women as being descended from good Aryan stock she raises the specter of racism as well. But clearly Gilman's purpose is to provide a critique of the social order of the day, using humor as a way to mask her telling barbs and to provide her unorthodox views of gender roles, motherhood, individuality, privacy, and other issues. Then there are the parts where the inhabitants of "Herstory" are amused and horrified to learn about the conventional aspects of courtship, marriage, families, warfare, labor relations and even animal husbandry in the "real" world. Because "Herland" is essentially a novella, running only 124 pages in this unabridged Dover Thrift Edition, it is fairly easy to work it into a class looking at 20th century American utopian literature or the women's movement. In many ways, although it is not as well written, "Herland" is a much more provocative critique of women in American society than Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" or Marge Piercy's "Woman on the Edge of Time." "Herstory" also stands out because it is a true utopian novel, written at a time when the dystopian emphasis was about to redefine the genre of utopian literature.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
17 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Misunderstood, April 15, 2006
Obviously, many people who read this book -- including most of the reviewers here -- clearly misunderstood Gilman's tone and objective in writing "Herland." The purpose of the book is NOT to say that women are better than men in every aspect of life, or that women can survive without men. Indeed, the inhabitants of Herland realize that without males, their society is incomplete, which is why the three young women are encouraged to court the three male visitors. Gilman portrays two of her three male characters sympathetically and intelligently, and even the chauvinistic one is portrayed as intelligent, just misguided. Gilman has two purposes, neither of which is to show the 'inferiority' of men. One, she wishes to show what a society would be like if everyone were treated equally. Two, and related, she wishes to show what society were like if people put the greater good above their individual goals. In that sense, Gilman's society is not socialism but more like anarchism -- there IS no central government; Herland operates like a large utopian family, in which everyone's role is equal and everyone has a very important role in society. No one's role is more important than any others, be they male or female. The reason for the Herlandians' physical besting of the men is to show that women are only 'weak' because they are sheltered, and in turn are sheltered because they are weak; also, while the Herlandians were natural women living in the natural world, the men are essentially 'sheltered' by technology (all of them being specialists in an area) and thus are not physically trained as the women are. It's like a female Olympic runner beating a male who runs for his college in his spare time. Of course, the book has flaws -- the utopian society of course, is without chink or problem, and Gilman ironically venerates traditional aspects of women, casting them into the stereotype of communal, compassionate, sacrificial mothers. The veneration of 'motherhood' almost religiously is hypocritical, as if every woman desires to be a mother. Predictably, no woman in the history of Herland seems to have a problem with denying self for the greater good, or the lack of tradition, or the taking away of her own children for communal rearing. For that, I have to say that Gilman -- while trying to deconstruct the typical notion of a woman -- inadvertently BUILDS it by assuming that all women have these characteristics naturally.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
