Herland: What a Joke

Charlotte Gilman's "Herland" is a book that I did not even care to finish. For me, it was hard to look past all the unreal explanations and happenings of this ridiculously impossible novel long enough to enjoy what I was reading. To start off, a society made of only women is just dumb. It could not happen, as the society would not be able to sustain itself. Now this is not a chauvinistic comment, but let's be realistic; it just wouldn't happen. On top of this, when there is an explanation made about how this male-less society came about, the ridiculously unbelievable claim is accepted by the three adventurous men. Apparently, there was a woman with Virgin Mary-like powers who is able to self reproduce. Yeah, that's how this disgrace to American literature accounts for a civilization of nothing but women. Assuming the woman was not an asexual insect that can reproduce with no male partner, and considering she wasn't Godzilla, the ferocious creature that has haunted Japanese and New York streets for years who can also independently spawn offspring, Gilman has given a random girl the powers that only the Mother of God should possess. Way to go Gilman, now your pissing off your biblically enthusiastic readers. Pretty soon, you'll be down to no fans. And just a quick side note Gilman; How much thought did you actually put into developing the three characters who visit Herland? It seems you drew a blank and resorted to picking three of the most stereotypical male-like personalities out of a hat. The characters just happen to represent the three most typical reactions to a society full of women. Terry possesses the male dominance personality of women as objects and nonsense like that. We get it Gilman, your a feminist. Congratulations, yet I bet you still let your date pay for everything. Hypocrite. And then there was Jeff; this softy represents the type of man who idealizes women and worships the very ground they walk. He is on the complete opposite side of the spectrum as Terry. And then Gilman could not resist bridging these two opposing personalities with a perfect middle man; Van is the one who does not really have a set in stone opinion, but is "willing to entertain new and even radical ideas." On your next go around, I'd recommend you put at least a couple minutes of effort into your characterization. One more thing Gilman, and this one really gets me. In a world where every nook and cranny of land has been mapped out, every attempt of a civilization has nothing short of a textbook written about it, and every living person is intimately known by the government, the idea that this society can exist in secret for over 2000 years is unfathomable. Gilman insults the reader with her explanation of certain aspects of this novel, hoping that we will just accept what ever she spit out onto the page. We as a people who desire good and sensible literature do not appreciate this joke of a novel. If Gilman put any thought into the unrealistic characteristics of this novel, maybe it would be a bearable and enjoyable read.