Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.29 AVERAGE
3.29 AVERAGE
The first two stories are delightfully imaginative and fun to read. After that, Swift's social commentary gets out of hand. He gets very long-winded and his criticism of English society gets in the way of his storytelling. Gulliver's epilogue is commentary enough and pulls nicely at the reader's emotions but I couldn't appreciate it because, by the time I got to it, I only wanted the book to end as soon as possible.
This book helped me realize I'm not wild about satire in anything but small doses. It's one of the great elders of the style after all.
There's something in satire as opposed to parody that's almost always pessimistic. In a small dose like a comic strip or a television show it's tolerable, but an entire book becomes an absolute endurance test.
I hate to be hard on a book that Orwell of all people raved about, but I don't think "Gulliver's Travels" has aged well as anything other than an adventure tale.
People always decry the bowdlerization of Swift's famous work, but the source material is bleak and juvenile enough to nearly warrant it. It's chocked full of some fairly lame scatalogical humor and most of the political commentary is so tucked away in allegory that it's not even observable to anyone but a fan of European history or someone with footnotes. Most of the praised social commentary boils down to, "people are depraved, greedy, and foolish."
My consistent response was, "And?" Most of these are criticisms an angry teenager could work out.
That's how I feel about the nature of most satire. It's a mean-spirited criticism made for a superiority-rich laugh. While there are a few artists who suggest how things could be rendered better, most just say everything sucks and call it a day. Is that valuable in an age where anyone can jump on a computer and say that everything sucks? Is it wrong to expect more, to ask, "Well, how do you suggest we fix this?"
This book was apparently one of the inspirations for Voltaire's Candide, and across the board the later work is the better read, since Voltaire had an innately more compassionate attitude towards humanity even as he criticized it. The lack of stupid feces humor is also a plus.
The extra star is primarily an acknowledgement of how timeless and imaginative the adventure storyline is. The fact that the core plot has become timeless while the book itself has been cast off is deeply ironic considering Swift partly wrote the book as a parody of the optimistic adventure tales of the time. I can't help but feel that he had it coming.
There's something in satire as opposed to parody that's almost always pessimistic. In a small dose like a comic strip or a television show it's tolerable, but an entire book becomes an absolute endurance test.
I hate to be hard on a book that Orwell of all people raved about, but I don't think "Gulliver's Travels" has aged well as anything other than an adventure tale.
People always decry the bowdlerization of Swift's famous work, but the source material is bleak and juvenile enough to nearly warrant it. It's chocked full of some fairly lame scatalogical humor and most of the political commentary is so tucked away in allegory that it's not even observable to anyone but a fan of European history or someone with footnotes. Most of the praised social commentary boils down to, "people are depraved, greedy, and foolish."
My consistent response was, "And?" Most of these are criticisms an angry teenager could work out.
That's how I feel about the nature of most satire. It's a mean-spirited criticism made for a superiority-rich laugh. While there are a few artists who suggest how things could be rendered better, most just say everything sucks and call it a day. Is that valuable in an age where anyone can jump on a computer and say that everything sucks? Is it wrong to expect more, to ask, "Well, how do you suggest we fix this?"
This book was apparently one of the inspirations for Voltaire's Candide, and across the board the later work is the better read, since Voltaire had an innately more compassionate attitude towards humanity even as he criticized it. The lack of stupid feces humor is also a plus.
The extra star is primarily an acknowledgement of how timeless and imaginative the adventure storyline is. The fact that the core plot has become timeless while the book itself has been cast off is deeply ironic considering Swift partly wrote the book as a parody of the optimistic adventure tales of the time. I can't help but feel that he had it coming.
adventurous
challenging
lighthearted
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Gulliver is a ship’s surgeon, whom on two different accounts got stuck at mysterious lands due to a storm. These unexpected travels include Lilliput and Brobdingnag. The land of Lilliput has everything in miniature, with Gulliver being a giant in respect to the people and everything there. The land of Brobdingnag has everything enlarged, with Gulliver being tiny in respect to the people and everything there. In both lands, Gulliver needs to learn the language to communicate with the people. Gulliver uses political finesse and guile to gain freedom and understanding. With his unique perspective and abilities, Gulliver is able to shape each lands geopolitics. Although prone to adventure, Gulliver seeks escape back home.
The book is fairly well written, but many parts have poor flow due to antediluvian syntax. Interesting tales that can facilitate an understanding on how to treat others and the respective consequences.
The book is fairly well written, but many parts have poor flow due to antediluvian syntax. Interesting tales that can facilitate an understanding on how to treat others and the respective consequences.
adventurous
funny
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
adventurous
reflective
slow-paced
Good Lord Almighty! This book took me forever to read. Just over 300 pages, this should have taken me three days max but instead took me five. A very slow read and difficult to get through. I hate the way the book is written. It lacks a flow that I feel is incredibly important to novel writing, which is what contributed to my massive difficulty in getting through this book. Even a four-page chapter felt like a marathon.
It's unfortunate that the style of writing affected me so negatively because I can see where I would find the plot interesting. This is the only reason I've rated Gulliver's Travels 2 stars instead of 1 star - the potential. But there was so much left to be desired due to the writing. Such a bummer and disappointment.
I will say that I don't think I'm into satire as a genre either, which isn't the book's fault. But this book did kinda solidify that feeling. Firstly, I think authors of satire just seem arrogant and pompous, which is ironic because those qualities are typically what they're criticizing. I also feel that in order to appreciate satire, you have to know a great deal about what was going on in the world during that time. And I just don't. I know the basics of what was happening but really knowing it... that's what it takes to appreciate satire, and I just don't have the desire to know that extensively.
It's unfortunate that the style of writing affected me so negatively because I can see where I would find the plot interesting. This is the only reason I've rated Gulliver's Travels 2 stars instead of 1 star - the potential. But there was so much left to be desired due to the writing. Such a bummer and disappointment.
I will say that I don't think I'm into satire as a genre either, which isn't the book's fault. But this book did kinda solidify that feeling. Firstly, I think authors of satire just seem arrogant and pompous, which is ironic because those qualities are typically what they're criticizing. I also feel that in order to appreciate satire, you have to know a great deal about what was going on in the world during that time. And I just don't. I know the basics of what was happening but really knowing it... that's what it takes to appreciate satire, and I just don't have the desire to know that extensively.
adventurous
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
The book was great. I just struggled through the first few chapters, but soon adapted to the variation in language.
adventurous
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
Very repetitive and the narration of Gulliver was annoying. The adventures and different characters met along the way were interesting in that they represented different aspects of personality of people in the time period. However, despite that, there really isn't that much to Gulliver's that makes it particularly entertaining to read.