You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.26 AVERAGE
3.26 AVERAGE
Had to read for a class. Would rather slice out my eyeballs vs listening to this egotistical man make up a fake story.
informative
lighthearted
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
yayy proto-communism :33 also slavery and colonialism and eugenics and war are soso cool and epic when they r done by the right people >_<
i think. yeah no i definitely need to read plato’s republic to understand this better. but this whole thread of democratic societies not surviving without slavery is. intruiging hahaha i love modern day usa
i also think. like obviously the names of places r satire. obviously. but also was timmy boy saying that the places didnt exist (bc like. he didnt have faith that his readers understood irony and therefore would have wanted to make it obvious that utopia was fictional) or that they. couldnt exist. cause im thinking the first one but idk. i need to learn more abt him i only got snippets from hilary mantel
i only read this to find out the etymology of the word utopia. and now i’ve fallen down a rabbit hole kind of sort of. do u guys know abt heterotopias bc im abt to get so insufferable up in here.
anwyays. reading list
- republic
- foucault. yeah just the guy.
ok byeee <3
i think. yeah no i definitely need to read plato’s republic to understand this better. but this whole thread of democratic societies not surviving without slavery is. intruiging hahaha i love modern day usa
i also think. like obviously the names of places r satire. obviously. but also was timmy boy saying that the places didnt exist (bc like. he didnt have faith that his readers understood irony and therefore would have wanted to make it obvious that utopia was fictional) or that they. couldnt exist. cause im thinking the first one but idk. i need to learn more abt him i only got snippets from hilary mantel
i only read this to find out the etymology of the word utopia. and now i’ve fallen down a rabbit hole kind of sort of. do u guys know abt heterotopias bc im abt to get so insufferable up in here.
anwyays. reading list
- republic
- foucault. yeah just the guy.
ok byeee <3
An interesting novel, but incredibly dry and frankly tedious.
It was absolutely great to see where Utopia originated, and its genetics are visible in such a wide range of other stories.
The current edition has an introduction by China Miéville and essays by Ursula K. Le Guin, both of which I thoroughly enjoyed, significantly more than the main body of work.
That said, for 500 years old it's not held up badly at all.
It was absolutely great to see where Utopia originated, and its genetics are visible in such a wide range of other stories.
The current edition has an introduction by China Miéville and essays by Ursula K. Le Guin, both of which I thoroughly enjoyed, significantly more than the main body of work.
That said, for 500 years old it's not held up badly at all.
Turns out I really don’t care to know what this man from the 1500s idea of what a “Utopia” would entail. What a dull colourless bore, not even a slither of queer transvestite fuckery even mentioned. Not even a gay sex. Not even women.
Written by Thomas More in 1516, this book explores a fictional island society and presents an idealised communal living concept (Utopia). More's work is structured as a dialogue between himself and the traveller Raphael Hythloday, who describes the customs, laws, and structures of the utopian society.
The island, as described by Hythloday, exhibits communal ownership of property, where citizens share resources and wealth. The society values education, intellectual pursuits, and communal living over material wealth and status. Hythloday presents a society where social hierarchies are minimised, and labour is shared among citizens, aiming for equality and peaceful coexistence.
Apparently.
More's depiction of the ideal solely focuses on the roles of white men in governance, employment, and public life, noticeably leaving women and people of colour absent from political discourse and societal decision-making. There's no mention of women's representation in government or their autonomy over their lives and choices- and this book also doesn't explicitly delve into discussions regarding race or (the absence of) racial oppression within its utopian society. It's pure Eurocentric perspective disregards the existence and experiences of diverse racial or ethnic groups, and treats women as, what I have to call, the second sex.
The essay's silence on racial dynamics and oppression perpetuates an idealised notion of a homogeneous society without addressing the complexities of race-related disparities or acknowledging the existence of diverse cultural backgrounds. This absence of discourse on race and racial oppression instils in me a significant concern with Utopia's portrayal of an “ideal” society.
More's work fails to address women and people of colour's roles, rights, and agency, not only reflecting the societal norms prevalent during the time this was written, but as women and POC are basically not mentioned, I have to assume that this utopia does not apply to them.
I'm sorry if that sounds tight, but that was just how I interpreted it as I read it. Throughout this book, while constantly emphasising "equality" and "shared wealth" (wealth shouldn't be viewed as purely economic by the way, because That is How They Get You), this utopia seemingly excludes individuals who do not adhere to societal “norms” or who might not find their roles fitting into the communal structure. Great. Utopia for Who?
We all know.
What’s new?
I don't care when this was written.
This book is famous for a reason and I think I know the demographic that's been enjoying this book for so many centuries. You just love fantasising about a world where we are not talking, or not even existing.
Written by Thomas More in 1516, this book explores a fictional island society and presents an idealised communal living concept (Utopia). More's work is structured as a dialogue between himself and the traveller Raphael Hythloday, who describes the customs, laws, and structures of the utopian society.
The island, as described by Hythloday, exhibits communal ownership of property, where citizens share resources and wealth. The society values education, intellectual pursuits, and communal living over material wealth and status. Hythloday presents a society where social hierarchies are minimised, and labour is shared among citizens, aiming for equality and peaceful coexistence.
Apparently.
More's depiction of the ideal solely focuses on the roles of white men in governance, employment, and public life, noticeably leaving women and people of colour absent from political discourse and societal decision-making. There's no mention of women's representation in government or their autonomy over their lives and choices- and this book also doesn't explicitly delve into discussions regarding race or (the absence of) racial oppression within its utopian society. It's pure Eurocentric perspective disregards the existence and experiences of diverse racial or ethnic groups, and treats women as, what I have to call, the second sex.
The essay's silence on racial dynamics and oppression perpetuates an idealised notion of a homogeneous society without addressing the complexities of race-related disparities or acknowledging the existence of diverse cultural backgrounds. This absence of discourse on race and racial oppression instils in me a significant concern with Utopia's portrayal of an “ideal” society.
More's work fails to address women and people of colour's roles, rights, and agency, not only reflecting the societal norms prevalent during the time this was written, but as women and POC are basically not mentioned, I have to assume that this utopia does not apply to them.
I'm sorry if that sounds tight, but that was just how I interpreted it as I read it. Throughout this book, while constantly emphasising "equality" and "shared wealth" (wealth shouldn't be viewed as purely economic by the way, because That is How They Get You), this utopia seemingly excludes individuals who do not adhere to societal “norms” or who might not find their roles fitting into the communal structure. Great. Utopia for Who?
We all know.
What’s new?
I don't care when this was written.
This book is famous for a reason and I think I know the demographic that's been enjoying this book for so many centuries. You just love fantasising about a world where we are not talking, or not even existing.
This was boring.
I try to consider books within the time they were written while I'm reading them but, aside from making this a two-star instead of a one-star, that didn't do much to change my opinion here. It was just one long, drawn-out description of a commonwealth. The description of Utopia and the ideas behind it are really all the book has going for it.
Like I said, I like to try and judge books within the time they were written but, seeing as this is supposed to be about a perfect world, I can't help but get turned off by the fact that slavery is considered a-okay and the women's place in society is inferior to men. In other books that include this because of the time they were written, there's usually at least a plot or story driving the book. This doesn't have that. We're just supposed to think, "oh yeah! Look how great that place is!" But it's not great, so yeah, nope. Maybe I should have tried harder to understand it within the context of the time but, honestly, I can't be bothered.
I get the political points, I do. But they just don't save it for me. Not even close. There are plenty of other books that critique governments in a way that I actually enjoy or at the very least don't put me to sleep.
I try to consider books within the time they were written while I'm reading them but, aside from making this a two-star instead of a one-star, that didn't do much to change my opinion here. It was just one long, drawn-out description of a commonwealth. The description of Utopia and the ideas behind it are really all the book has going for it.
Like I said, I like to try and judge books within the time they were written but, seeing as this is supposed to be about a perfect world, I can't help but get turned off by the fact that slavery is considered a-okay and the women's place in society is inferior to men. In other books that include this because of the time they were written, there's usually at least a plot or story driving the book. This doesn't have that. We're just supposed to think, "oh yeah! Look how great that place is!" But it's not great, so yeah, nope. Maybe I should have tried harder to understand it within the context of the time but, honestly, I can't be bothered.
I get the political points, I do. But they just don't save it for me. Not even close. There are plenty of other books that critique governments in a way that I actually enjoy or at the very least don't put me to sleep.
informative
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I loved it. This wasn't the first time I've read it, but this is the first time I had to read it for a class paper. So that was fun. I think everyone should read this book at least once in their life because it speaks a lot about humanity and society and how it all should or could work. I personally don't think Utopia is that "utopian" (that's what I'm writing my paper on), but it does raise some interesting and realistic points that we should consider about our life.
"I cannot perfectly agree to everything he has related. However, there are
many things in the commonwealth of Utopia that I rather wish, than hope, to see
followed in our governments."
The concluding words of this book summarize in a way my feelings about it. I have wanted to read this book for some time now, just to see what the deal was and because I am a big fan of dystopian novels. This book, written in the 16th century as (presumably) political satire has so many topics still relevant and debated today, but mainly the political arrangement of countries, nature of possession and money and social freedoms. The "perfect state" the narrator describes (going in detail about its governing and social structure and rules) does have some benefits we only strive for even today (respect for all trades, religious tolerance, free accessible healthcare), but intermixed are some extreme ideas and quite a bit of misogyny, slavery and individual restriction. I can see why this book keeps resonating even today as most of the criticism of politics in then modern world seems fresh and relevant and (unfortunately) applicable to our times as well. I'm glad I've finally read it and it was written mostly clearly for laypeople (such as myself) who don't have much background knowledge of politics and sociology, but it is quite easy to follow most of the time and I could get a good sense of the society the narrator was describing. Utopia or Dystopia? A little bit of both.
many things in the commonwealth of Utopia that I rather wish, than hope, to see
followed in our governments."
The concluding words of this book summarize in a way my feelings about it. I have wanted to read this book for some time now, just to see what the deal was and because I am a big fan of dystopian novels. This book, written in the 16th century as (presumably) political satire has so many topics still relevant and debated today, but mainly the political arrangement of countries, nature of possession and money and social freedoms. The "perfect state" the narrator describes (going in detail about its governing and social structure and rules) does have some benefits we only strive for even today (respect for all trades, religious tolerance, free accessible healthcare), but intermixed are some extreme ideas and quite a bit of misogyny, slavery and individual restriction. I can see why this book keeps resonating even today as most of the criticism of politics in then modern world seems fresh and relevant and (unfortunately) applicable to our times as well. I'm glad I've finally read it and it was written mostly clearly for laypeople (such as myself) who don't have much background knowledge of politics and sociology, but it is quite easy to follow most of the time and I could get a good sense of the society the narrator was describing. Utopia or Dystopia? A little bit of both.
Did I buy and read this purely because it's a prominent book in Ever After? Yes I did. This was a very interesting read - there's basically no plot in the traditional sense, and it's very political, which is not something I'd normally go for. However, the ideas and concepts in this book are very thought-provoking, and no doubt I'll be mulling it all over in the back of my mind for a while.