Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman was published in 1915. It tells the story of an expedition to a remote, mountainous area that stumbles across a society that is utopian and entirely comprised of women.

The expedition is comprised of three men. Their personalities and initial beliefs concerning gender are important in terms of the book’s themes. Terry O. Nicholson is a womanizer and a sexist who views women as children. Jeff Margrave idolizes women and can be described as chivalrous.  Vandyck "Van" Jennings is the story’s first person narrator. His attitudes on gender are the most enlightened of the group. He sees women as equals.

The expedition uses a biplane to access a plateau inaccessible by land. There they find Herland, a civilization comprised only of women. Thousands of years earlier, Herland was cut off from the other parts of earth by a volcanic eruption. Most of the men were killed in  the eruption and an ensuing civil war. The women found a way to reproduce by Parthenogenesis, or without sexual intercourse. 

Gillman uses the trio’s stay in Herland as a vehicle for all sorts of social commentary. The women of the country have created a utopia. There is no violence. Everyone is mentally healthy and most are physically fit. The women have achieved a high level of intellectual, technical and moral development. Cooperation is paramount and there is almost no competition. The society is socialist.

This book is very funny. Van, Jeff and Terry’s interaction with the woman of Herland are often satirical. The satire is effective.  Terry in particular, is completely out of his element and though he is a popular and confident man in his home country, comes off as pretentious and buffoonish in Herland.

The women of Herland, as observed by their male visitors, exhibit few of the traditional feminine traits. The big exception is in the attitudes toward motherhood. Gilman sees motherhood and a set of behaviors associated with it as the primary difference between men and women when the effects of culture and sexism are removed.  Most of the virtues of Herland derive from the ethos that has formed has around motherhood.

The concept is described by Moadine , one of the teachers assigned to the men,

““The children in this country are the one center and focus of all our thoughts. Every step of our advance is always considered in its effect on them— on the race. You see, we are MOTHERS,” she repeated, as if in that she had said it all.“

Later, Van observes,

“There you have it. You see, they were Mothers, not in our sense of helpless involuntary fecundity, forced to fill and overfill the land, every land, and then see their children suffer, sin, and die, fighting horribly with one another; but in the sense of Conscious Makers of People. Mother-love with them was not a brute passion, a mere “instinct,” a wholly personal feeling; it was— a religion. “

There is a lot more incorporated into the text related to this belief system and religion and how they are ingrained into the society of Herland.

As the months go by, each of the novel’s protagonists falls in love and marries a local woman. This leads to even more social commentary related to gender, psychology, religion, etc. It also leads to what is, in my opinion, Gilman’s most problematic contention. All of the male characters find that when  women are seen as competent, intelligent, confident and serious, sexual attraction to those women decreases.

At one point Van observes.

“I see now clearly enough why a certain kind of man….resents the professional development of women. It gets in the way of the sex ideal; it temporarily covers and excludes femininity. “

The narrative and characters seem to support the contention that the above is a universal fact that relates to sexual attraction. The novel’s protagonists go on to enjoy a more platonic and in eventually their view, a purer form of love without a sexual component.  The philosophical implications of this are further explored in the text.

While the above is likely to be true for some people who are attracted to women, it is clearly not the case for many others. The above characteristics do not exclude or hinder attraction for many, perhaps the majority of people. For some, the opposite is true. Intelligence, assertiveness and competence can be very attractive in both men and women. On this point, Gilman has gotten it wrong. Of course this book was written in 1915 so perhaps such a misunderstanding concerning this aspect of human attraction sexuality was understandable.

Based upon both the text and some biographical information that I read about Gilman, she believed that there were both biological and cultural differences between the ways that men and women usually behave. She was socialist who believed in a social progress. Her views were egalitarian. However, she believed that it was women who would likely lead great social change. The society that Gillman envisions here fits neatly within the author’s views.

I think that Gillman gets it right when she observes that the difference between men and women is a combination of biology and culture. Though I think that she attributes too many aspects to culture, considering the fact that was writing in 1915, I find her views more accurate then many who write and philosophize about gender issues today.

While I do not believe in socialism (I define socialism as a system in which most of an economy is collectivized through government or other means), I do believe that society can improve. Poverty and violence can be lessened. In fact, these ills have been reduced in many nations since Gillman’s time. The author has put a lot of thought into ways to alleviate these ills.

Ultimately I found this book to be very worthwhile. It is an interesting and entertaining story. It is funny. While the characters are not extremely complex they are interesting. As I often write: one does not have to agree with all of the author's views to find her speculations fascinating. Many of her observations on gender, violence, poverty, etc., are still very relevant in our time. I recommend this book to anyone interested in gender issues, as well as anyone who likes stories about fanciful societies.

The Fall by Albert Camus

I read the Justin O’Brien translation of this book.

This post contains spoilers.

The Fall by Albert Camus is the French writer-philosopher’s third novel. Told in the form of a monologue, this is the story of Jean-Baptiste Clamence. The narrative consists of Clamence telling his life story to a companion who is mostly invisible to the reader. The storytelling occurs in Amsterdam, in and around a bar known as Mexico City.

Clamence was a successful Parisian lawyer. His recollections range from his younger days during World War II though his career as a Parisian attorney, through years of “existentialist” crises, his fall from success and finally his coming to terms with life and the universe. The book consists of pages and pages of both personal and philosophical musings. Like Camus’s other novels, a basic understanding of the author’s philosophy will illuminate much of the meaning here. Without such an understanding, I think that I would have been left scratching my head through a good part of this work.

The story of Clarence’s life ties in strongly with the book’s themes. During his early career, Clarence devotes much time and energy to helping others. Professionally, he provides legal defense to the indigent. Personally, he is obsessed with being helpful to people. He also takes pride in the fact that he is unperturbed by wrongs directed against himself.

When he fails to intervene and try to save a young woman who commits suicide, Clarence’s undergoes a “crisis.” He begins to look back at his life and at his personality and realizes that he has done terrible things and harbors disturbing thoughts.  His behavior toward women is abominable. Inwardly, he despises many of the people he has helped. Often, his altruistic acts are a front in order to advance his own interests. Clarence’s wrongs extend back to his days in a World War II prison camp, where he took water from a dying man. In typical Camus fashion, there are also realizations about the meaninglessness and absurdities related to both life and belief systems that people hold dear.

Clarence eventually becomes obsessed with guilt and judgment. Both Clarence’s own guilt, the guilt of others and the judgment of this guilt are examined.

There are a lot of elements to the narrative. There are multiple references to Dante’s Divine Comedy. A Google search reveals that the structure of this work in some ways parallels Dante’s epic poem. There are philosophical musings about Christianity and how it relates to the concepts of guilt and judgment. There is a lot more, Camus goes off into all kinds of philosophical directions.

At one point, Clarence comments on people’s tendency to judge others in order to deny their own guilt,

“People hasten to judge in order not to be judged themselves. What do you expect? The idea that comes most naturally to man, as if from his very nature, is the idea of his innocence. From this point of view, we are all like that little Frenchman at Buchenwald who insisted on registering a complaint with the clerk, himself a prisoner, who was recording his arrival. A complaint? The clerk and his comrades laughed: “Useless, old man. You don’t lodge a complaint here.” “But you see, sir,” said the little Frenchman, “My case is exceptional. I am innocent!” We are all exceptional cases. We all want to appeal against something! Each of us insists on being innocent at all cost, even if he has to  accuse the whole human race and heaven itself. You won’t delight a man by complimenting him on the efforts by which he has become intelligent or generous. On the other hand, he will beam if you admire his natural generosity. Inversely, if you tell a criminal that his crime is not due to his nature or his character but to unfortunate circumstances, he will be extravagantly grateful to you."

In short, this book is an exploration of the wrongs that all people commit. It is a grim indictment on all humanity. No one is innocent. To be human is to be deeply flawed.

I find the philosophical conclusion a little enigmatic.  Ultimately, Clamence comes to terms with his own guilt. He advocates harshly judging others, but only once one realizes that himself or herself is just as bad as those one is judging,

“The more I accuse myself, the more I have a right to judge you. Even better, I provoke you into judging yourself, and this relieves me of that much of the burden.”

In the end, Clamence declares himself happy and satisfied. Camus provides no easy or pat answers, however.

Camus was a great thinker who had profound ideas. I agree with many, but not all, of his beliefs. Humans do tend to overlook their own cruelties and past failings. We tend to be so biased when we look at our own lives and actions. Our judgment of others is so often hypocritical. With that, I think that some of Camus’s ideas may have been underdeveloped here. Thus, he stops short of truth. There is almost nothing about shades of wrong behavior. Surely the actions of a murderer, a rapist, someone who tortures others, etc.  cannot be seen as morally equivalent to more mundane frailties. Some people are so much more moral and ethical than others. Furthermore, noble actions, while not making up for harm done to others, count for so much of a person’s character. Failure to recognize these distinctions seems to me to be a morally myopic. Had Camus delved into these issues in the narrative, even if his conclusions did not match my own, this would be a philosophically and aesthetically balanced work.

Despite my above reservations, this book is a feast of ideas for the philosophical reader. It is often brilliant.  One does not have to agree with all of Camus’s beliefs to find the story and philosophy behind it interesting and worthwhile.  I would recommend that the reader be familiar with the basic outlines of Camus’s philosophy before reading this. Otherwise, this is highly recommended for folks who are inclined to like fiction that is filled with ideas.   

A Storm of Witchcraft by Emerson W. Baker

A Storm of Witchcraft by Emerson W. Baker is a comprehensive account and analysis of the 
Salem Witch Trials. This book is a solid history book that goes beyond a simple chronicle of events. It examines the causes and results of this important historical event. To this end, the author explores the relevant history, religious aspects, psychology, sociology, legal aspects, and other facets of this subject.

Baker devotes one comprehensive chapter to a summery of the actual persecutions. The balance of this work delves deeper into the accusers, the accused, the judges, as well as all of the above - mentioned topics.

If anyone is not familiar with the basic events, in 1692 Massachusetts, several teenaged and adolescent girls began to exhibit bizarre behavior that included seizure like episodes and complaints of strange pains. The girls, prompted and egged on by adults, began to accuse numerous members of the community of witchcraft. As people were arrested and tried, they were often forced or pressured into confessions that implicated others. As the circle of accusations widened, scores of people were implicated.

The usual suspects, eccentric and elderly women were caught in the web of accusations. But what made these events somewhat unusual is that respected people with strong ties to the community were also enmeshed. The accused included both men and women, prominent members of society and clergy.

Twenty people were executed, others died in prison as a result of brutal treatment, many others were convicted or accused but not executed, a few escaped and fled Massachusetts.

Baker tries to be a balanced historian. He is surprisingly non - judgmental. He does not bash Puritanism or the people responsible for the accusations or trials. In fact, he tries to paint a picture of why a citizen of Massachusetts might feel that they society were besieged by forces threatening their families, neighbors and communities.  At the same time, he presents, in detail, the arguments of those who have been highly critical of the key players. On this issue I found that he goes a little too far. Though clearly not his intention, some of his explanations come off as apology  for what in the end, was persecution and murder. 

Baker explores multiple issues in some depth goes and goes off in numerous directions. Thus summarizing his many points is difficult. One of several issues that are of interest to me is  the argument that the aftermath of the trials and executions led to a reckoning and was turning point in history.  From the end of the trials onward, there was a general feeling in the colony that something had gone terribly wrong and that innocent people had been executed. As early as late 1692 books were published excoriating the trials and those responsible for them. Dissent rose up both inside and outside the Puritan movement. Samuel Sewall, one of the judges who sentenced the convicted to hang, came to repent of his role in the matter. He publicly apologized and lived his remaining life in a state of guilt attempting to atone for his role in the trials.

The reaction to these events permanently ended the hysteria surrounding Witchcraft in America. Baker writes,

"No American court would ever again execute a witch after 1692, and witchcraft prosecutions came to an abrupt halt in New England.”

In the months and years following the trials, the government of Massachusetts came under increasingly under criticism. Collectively the concerns raised about the trials changed people’s views of their leadership and helped bring an end to the Puritan theocracy. 

Furthermore the Massachusetts government, led by Governor William Phips, attempted an unsuccessful cover up of events. The ensuring backlash turned out to be an important step in the establishment of basic liberties. Baker ties some of this agitation to trends that would eventually cumulate in the American Revolution. He writes,

“Phips may have ended the witch trials, but in the process he helped to start America down the long road to revolution and independence.”

Though he ended the trials, Phips also was instrumental in starting them. He was eventually pressured out of office for his role in them.

When Thomas Maule, a Massachusetts Quaker, wrote a book attacking the trials on moral, religious and legal grounds, the local government attempted to prosecute him on the same courtroom that the witch trials were held in.

He was eventually found not guilty. Baker writes,

“The case was a landmark victory for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The fact that a jury consisting largely of Puritans would do this in Salem, against the clear wishes of the judges, also shows that the tide of popular opinion had turned against the verdicts in the witch trials.”  

Baker explores many other fascinating aspects of these events. For instance, years of bad weather in the region had led to major crop failures that caused great economic stress. The author argues that similar witch - hunts throughout the world often accompanied by similar economic duress.

Massachusetts was also a society at war. A brutal conflict was raging between the colonists and the French and their Native American allies.  War veterans and war refugees played important roles in this history. Baker argues that fear and societal stress generated by the struggle also played a part.

There are many books on this topic. Some are general such as this work, others look more closely at particular aspects of events. I originally had planned to read Stacy Schiff’s The Witches. However, many sources, both formal and informal who read that book, indicated that there were better accounts of these events, including this book.  This is a big and interesting topic. Thus I might soon read one or two more books on these events.

This work is a wide-ranging analysis and account of this dark time in American history. Baker is an excellent and unbiased historian. His is also a good writer and his analysis of events and motivations is reasoned and insightful. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in this subject.

Mansfield Park by Jane Austen

Jane Austen ‘s Mansfield Park is a novel that still drives a lot of differing opinions. Some love the book. Others find it to be disappointing. I found it to be superb. In some ways, it resembles other Austen books. It other ways, it is very different from the author’s other novels.

 This is the story of Fanny Price. Born to a relatively poor family, the novel’s heroine goes to live with the wealthy Bertram family while in her early teens. Fanny’s social and romantic interactions, as well as those of her adopted family, are the topic of the story. There are several subplots, and many of the novel’s characters are interesting and complex.

Fanny is atypical for an Austen heroine. She is exceedingly shy and unassuming. The word humble may be an understatement to describe her. Other characters sometimes bully, underappreciate and emotionally neglect her.

Early on, it becomes apparent that many of the Bertrams and their friends are narcissistic, unintellectual or seriously flawed in some major way. One exception is Fanny’s cousin, Edmund. It becomes clear that Fanny and he have an affinity for one another, though Edmund does not initially recognize the romantic aspects of it. Complicating matters is Edmund’s attraction for the sometimes kind but opportunistic, cynical and shallow Mary Crawford. Mary’s brother, Henry, though in many ways, narcissistic and manipulative himself, eventually becomes genuinely enamored with Fanny.

I have previously read Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Emma and Persuasion. I found this novel to be funnier than the Austen works that I have read. I also found many of the characters to be darker and less ethical. To be sure, all of the Austen books that I have read contain immoral characters who conduct themselves in questionable ways. However, this book contains a core of characters who consistently engage in extremely selfish, petty and narcissistic behavior. This includes Fanny’s cousins, Julia, Maria and Tom, as well as her Aunt Norris.

So much has been written about this book and about Fanny in particular. A Google search will show that for well over a century, professional critics as well as amateurs have produced a steady stream of essays, articles and books dedicated to this novel. One could spend years just reading books that analyze and dissect this work. Opinions vary on Fanny. Some see her as a paragon of virtue, and others see her a stiff and stifling person. Critic Nina Auerbach famously compared her to Marry Shelly’s monster of Frankenstein fame.  Since so much has already been written, I will, as I often do, just share some thoughts on one particular aspect of this book.

I think that it is clear that Austen intended to make Fanny sympathetic but also complex and flawed. The book’s heroine is, at times, inwardly judgmental in an unpleasant way. However, she is mostly sympathetic, but in an unusual way. There is a lot to her character. As noted above, Fanny is abnormally shy and unassuming. So much so that she is often browbeaten by the other characters. In particular, Mrs. Norris continually subjects her to criticism that comes close to being verbally abusive. On the other hand, her uncle, Sir Thomas Bertram, though a stern man, usually shows Fanny particular kindness. This changes when Fanny refuses Crawford’s marriage proposal.  Bertram is vehement in his desire that the match go forward. He launches a tirade on the subject aimed at Fanny,

“”But you have now shewn me that you can be wilful and perverse; that you can and will decide for yourself, without any consideration or deference for those who have surely some right to guide you, without even asking their advice. You have shewn yourself very, very different from anything that I had imagined. The advantage or disadvantage of your family, of your parents, your brothers and sisters, never seems to have had a moment’s share in your thoughts on this occasion. How they might be benefited, how they must rejoice in such an establishment for you, is nothing to you. You think only of yourself, and because you do not feel for Mr. Crawford exactly what a young heated fancy imagines to be necessary for happiness, you resolve to refuse him at once, without wishing even for a little time consider of it, a little more time for cool consideration, and for really examining your own inclinations; and are, in a wild fit of folly, throwing away from you such an opportunity of being settled in life, eligibly, honourably, nobly settled, as will, probably, never occur to you again. Here is a young man of sense, of character, of temper, of manners, and of fortune, exceedingly attached to you, and seeking your hand in the most handsome and disinterested way; and let me tell you, Fanny, that you may live eighteen years longer in the world without being addressed by a man of half Mr. Crawford’s estate, or a tenth part of his merits…You do not owe me the duty of a child. But, Fanny, if your heart can acquit you of ingratitude””

The above is tyrannical, petty and unfair. The “wild fit of folly” as well as the references to selfishness are particularly unjust given Fanny’s calm temperament, seriousness and selflessness. Yet the best that Fanny can do here is to shrink back, cry and do nothing to defend herself. This is consistent with her behavior throughout the narrative.

However, there is another aspect to Fanny’s character. Despite this timidity, she is unwavering when applying her principles. Despite her shrinking in response to the above diatribe, she never once considers giving in and accepting Crawford’s proposal. She maintains this stance despite enormous pressure from her family, friends and Crawford himself. She does not love the man and has serious questions about his integrity. She not only refuses to give in, but she never even considers accepting his proposal. Fanny is not even tempted.

Fanny shows a similar combination of timidity and unyielding backbone when she refuses to act in a play being put on by her family and friends that she has moral objections to. What adds to the complexity of the book is that at times, as in the case of the play, these moral objections may seem questionable. There is a lot going on with Fanny. This seems to be the source of some readers’ dislike of this book and her character.

Austen has fashioned in Fanny a young woman who is often meek, but who is capable of putting up wall of granite when her morals are challenged. Hence, the paradox that I refer to above. This is only one of several angles that makes Fanny fascinating and multidimensional. In order to explore them all, I would need several blog posts.

The above is also only one of many aspects that also makes this book appealing. The novel has other complex and fascinating characters. The story is interesting. There is a lot going on thematically. As always, Austen’s prose is brilliant and witty. The book is also very funny in a cynical and biting way.   Despite varying opinion among critics and general readers, I thought that this was another complex masterpiece by Austen.