Scan barcode
poisonenvy's review against another edition
2.0
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.
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.
aisling1998's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
qofdnz's review against another edition
3.0
This book came before Herland but, typically, I read things out of order and it doesn't matter in this case as far as I can see. It is book one of a utopian trilogy. Interestingbut even more preachy than Herland it's less of a story and more a reeling off of facts about life in this utopian world. Preferred Herland.
ansate's review
2.0
started off well, but then got to sterilizing undesirables, shaming people into socially desired activities, flat out killing people, and whooooo racism.
bodagirl's review against another edition
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
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 whoends 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.
The one real problem I had with this book is that its feminist message is undercut when the male narrator who
Content Warnings
Minor: Racial slurs
octavia_cade's review
3.0
Not quite as good as Herland, but I do appreciate future-world narratives where life is better rather than worse - though the self-satisfied destruction of big, "useless" animals such as tigers is where Gilman and I differ severely. Valuable primarily on the product-of-its-time level - it's interesting to see an early feminist utopia, but one can't overlook some of the more unsavoury elements (euthanasia of undesirables, for instance).
As in Herland, the breadth of thought given to the elements of the new society is impressive and refreshing - Gilman is always very concerned with educational reform, and the focus on schools is an interesting one. Where it stops being convincing for me is where is stops being convincing for the narrator - isolated from his former society by decades lost in Tibet, he returns to a new world and can't comprehend the relatively small time frame in which this massive social/political/economic change has taken place.
Frankly, I cant fathom it either.
As in Herland, the breadth of thought given to the elements of the new society is impressive and refreshing - Gilman is always very concerned with educational reform, and the focus on schools is an interesting one. Where it stops being convincing for me is where is stops being convincing for the narrator - isolated from his former society by decades lost in Tibet, he returns to a new world and can't comprehend the relatively small time frame in which this massive social/political/economic change has taken place.
Frankly, I cant fathom it either.
bitinglime's review against another edition
3.0
I was leading a book club group, choosing Herland for the main book for discussion, but figured it wouldn't hurt to read the Herland trilogy in order to bring some more themes to the table for the discussion. I read all three in audiobook form, which can be found easily as they are all in the public domain.
The story starts off with a man who got lost in his travels and, 30 years later, is found and brought home by his sister. After 30 years of being away, a lot has changed and the main character simply can't or won't believe it because he was brought up in a very patriarchal society. While this is set up as a story, the rest of it is just his sister or other people telling him about what changed since he got lost. Really, it is Gilman telling us about what could be if we had an equalist society. The end is a little bittersweet, with the main character not able to feel as though he would fit in such a society, but upon meeting family who stuck to their ways since he had been gone, he feels that he can't fit in with them after seeing how much society has progressed for the better.
It is important to note the time in which this was written. Moving the mountain was written in 1911, well before WWI and the passing of the 19th Amendment. There are a lot of racist and ableist undertones, and yes, even sexism against women. While I would never want to enable such viewpoints, I still think much of this book is pretty progressive for its era, and it's interesting to see how radical something like that was back then. Some ideas do pull through, like some socialist matters and religious matters, even suggesting green solutions, but ultimately, I wouldn't consider this a blueprint for a utopian society if it were written today. It's historically interesting, but other than that, it's not much of a story and its ideals are very outdated.
I can't say I would recommend this book unless you are more interested in very early utopian and feminist ideas.
The story starts off with a man who got lost in his travels and, 30 years later, is found and brought home by his sister. After 30 years of being away, a lot has changed and the main character simply can't or won't believe it because he was brought up in a very patriarchal society. While this is set up as a story, the rest of it is just his sister or other people telling him about what changed since he got lost. Really, it is Gilman telling us about what could be if we had an equalist society. The end is a little bittersweet, with the main character not able to feel as though he would fit in such a society, but upon meeting family who stuck to their ways since he had been gone, he feels that he can't fit in with them after seeing how much society has progressed for the better.
It is important to note the time in which this was written. Moving the mountain was written in 1911, well before WWI and the passing of the 19th Amendment. There are a lot of racist and ableist undertones, and yes, even sexism against women. While I would never want to enable such viewpoints, I still think much of this book is pretty progressive for its era, and it's interesting to see how radical something like that was back then. Some ideas do pull through, like some socialist matters and religious matters, even suggesting green solutions, but ultimately, I wouldn't consider this a blueprint for a utopian society if it were written today. It's historically interesting, but other than that, it's not much of a story and its ideals are very outdated.
I can't say I would recommend this book unless you are more interested in very early utopian and feminist ideas.
alyse's review against another edition
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
3.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism
Moderate: Racism