Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.26 AVERAGE
3.26 AVERAGE
adventurous
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
challenging
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
adventurous
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
So my second year of University reading if off to a very....heavy start. I decided to start my reading early so I'm a little less pressured when the semester actually starts. If Utopia is any indication then it's going to be an intense year. I didn't enjoy reading Utopia, at all but I can appreciate it. It immediately made me think of both Man in the High Castle by Philip K Dick and Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. It has the same historical quality that the Man in the High Castle had. When reading the amount of philosophers mentioned often made me forget that this is a work of fiction rather than fact. Then the way the narrative works in Utopia felt very similar to Heart of Darkness' framed narrative. The vast majority of Utopia is a man named Raphael recounting his time and experiences on the Island of Utopia to a character named Thomas More. Yes, I know. I agree, the peak of narcissism. Talk about a self insert.
I found the book interesting in the sense of the ideas on Utopia were very progressive, especially when you consider the book is now nearly five hundred years old and was first penned in Latin. However, if I was even a little bit tired and I tried reading this I'd be sent straight to sleep. It became quite handy really!
It's certainly an interesting read...but not a light nor a pleasurable one.
I would also like to reiterate that just because I did a bit of research on what the actual book was about because I was so lost does not constitute cheating, Sam!
www.a-novel-idea.co.uk
I found the book interesting in the sense of the ideas on Utopia were very progressive, especially when you consider the book is now nearly five hundred years old and was first penned in Latin. However, if I was even a little bit tired and I tried reading this I'd be sent straight to sleep. It became quite handy really!
It's certainly an interesting read...but not a light nor a pleasurable one.
I would also like to reiterate that just because I did a bit of research on what the actual book was about because I was so lost does not constitute cheating, Sam!
www.a-novel-idea.co.uk
A surprisingly light and quick read with lots of catty satire. Maybe it's just the distance, but I found myself more amused than offended by various hypocrisies and unreasonable bits. Like "There should be freedom of religion, so that everyone can learn for themselves that Catholicism is the One True Faith" (Paraphrase, obv.)
Even when he goes on about how atheists are not to be trusted because without fear of god, they will break the law willy-nilly - yes, off to commit murder now - I found myself think "Aw, how cute".
I was surprised the Utopians allowed women in their military and at least made lipservice about women in non-traditional roles (though saying that while no craft was barred from them, women by natural weakness and inclination tended to sew and weave, and also you notice that all the elected leaders are men with reference to their wives taking on subsidiary roles.)
No one is poor, all are provided for - yet this communist Utopia has slaves. Good lord, slaves! It's... it's just all too amazing how blinded a thinker is by the form of his own society. Still, like I said, it read quickly and enjoyably. I especially liked the plates of the Utopian Alphabet and Sample Words and the Map of Utopia. It's more science fiction than polemic.
Even when he goes on about how atheists are not to be trusted because without fear of god, they will break the law willy-nilly - yes, off to commit murder now - I found myself think "Aw, how cute".
I was surprised the Utopians allowed women in their military and at least made lipservice about women in non-traditional roles (though saying that while no craft was barred from them, women by natural weakness and inclination tended to sew and weave, and also you notice that all the elected leaders are men with reference to their wives taking on subsidiary roles.)
No one is poor, all are provided for - yet this communist Utopia has slaves. Good lord, slaves! It's... it's just all too amazing how blinded a thinker is by the form of his own society. Still, like I said, it read quickly and enjoyably. I especially liked the plates of the Utopian Alphabet and Sample Words and the Map of Utopia. It's more science fiction than polemic.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
This book has been on my shelves for years (decades?) I've started reading it before and couldn't get through it. But this time, I read it as a companion to Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel, in which Thomas More is a character (fictionalised).
This book is basically an essay in the shape of fiction, which offers the author some wiggle room to experiment. Book I offers a critique of society which is still surprisingly relevant if you consider this was written over 500 years ago. The major critique is that there are too many idle men in society, which basically mooch off the hard labour of the working class. They have no skills and they keep a tyrannical regime to keep people afraid and subdued so they can live their luxury lives. Sounds familiar. Replace noblemen and peace time soldiers with the one percent and endless layers of management, and there you have current day situations. He also has some things to say about laws, punishment and war.
In Book II we encounter Utopia, a country that has it all figured out. It starts of well, by abolishing property and all the laws that come with it in order to free up everyone to do useful labour. If everyone pitches in, only 6 hours of labour is needed to provide everyone with all they need, without monetary trade. Just provide what you have extra and take what you need. Great. The way Utopia is ruled makes sense, provided that in this day and age we would include women please. I was surprised to see that Thomas More, who famously went after heretics in his day, showed a surprisingly tolerant view on religion in this book - provided that people did have a religion with one top deity.
Then the parts were things got icky for me. More does away with hierarchy based on property, but he does replace it with another class system based on knowledge and elected positions of government. Everyone who makes a mistake and gets punished into servitute for life has a problem, because only the elected Prince-for-life can pardon them. The views on women and family are not fleshed out much, but they are basically second rate civilians who are just needed to produce more people and have nothing to say.
In short, it's a nice basis for discussion if you pull it into the 21st century, but this Utopia could not be put into practice if every country in the world did it, because they don't care about anything going on outside of their borders and use other countries to store their surplus people and even promise people land in other countries. They do consider their island their property in a way, so their philosophy is not waterproof. There are other little contradictions as well, like the discription of everyone having only two sets of very simple clothes - but they do wear white for religious activities. Where does the white outfit come from?
This book is basically an essay in the shape of fiction, which offers the author some wiggle room to experiment. Book I offers a critique of society which is still surprisingly relevant if you consider this was written over 500 years ago. The major critique is that there are too many idle men in society, which basically mooch off the hard labour of the working class. They have no skills and they keep a tyrannical regime to keep people afraid and subdued so they can live their luxury lives. Sounds familiar. Replace noblemen and peace time soldiers with the one percent and endless layers of management, and there you have current day situations. He also has some things to say about laws, punishment and war.
In Book II we encounter Utopia, a country that has it all figured out. It starts of well, by abolishing property and all the laws that come with it in order to free up everyone to do useful labour. If everyone pitches in, only 6 hours of labour is needed to provide everyone with all they need, without monetary trade. Just provide what you have extra and take what you need. Great. The way Utopia is ruled makes sense, provided that in this day and age we would include women please. I was surprised to see that Thomas More, who famously went after heretics in his day, showed a surprisingly tolerant view on religion in this book - provided that people did have a religion with one top deity.
Then the parts were things got icky for me. More does away with hierarchy based on property, but he does replace it with another class system based on knowledge and elected positions of government. Everyone who makes a mistake and gets punished into servitute for life has a problem, because only the elected Prince-for-life can pardon them. The views on women and family are not fleshed out much, but they are basically second rate civilians who are just needed to produce more people and have nothing to say.
In short, it's a nice basis for discussion if you pull it into the 21st century, but this Utopia could not be put into practice if every country in the world did it, because they don't care about anything going on outside of their borders and use other countries to store their surplus people and even promise people land in other countries. They do consider their island their property in a way, so their philosophy is not waterproof. There are other little contradictions as well, like the discription of everyone having only two sets of very simple clothes - but they do wear white for religious activities. Where does the white outfit come from?
"You wouldn't abandon ship in a storm just because you couldn't control the winds."
Thomas More is introduced to a traveller named Raphael by his good friend, Peter Giles. Raphael comes from Utopia, a distant and mysterious land that is home to a republic with (especially for that day and age) very progressive ideas at its foundation.
Over the summer of this year, I became familiar with the "claimed-authenticity" in literature by means of using a close relation to vouch for the validity of a story. Although Peter Giles existed, it becomes very clear in the story that Raphael and his paradise-like Utopia did not. Still, the correspondence between Giles and More at the beginning of the book made me chuckle a bit. They very conveniently failed to register where this Utopia was located when Raphael relayed his story to them but also swear that More's account of Utopia is just as good (if not better) than Raphael's.
More presents wonderful, elaborate and well-founded ideas for the basis of a peaceful and productive society through this Raphael character. The ideas are progressive but I can't help but find that there is an underlying (naive) idea that human beings are inherently inclined to good. I am not all that sure that is true. In Utopia there are systems to ensure people are kept in their place, such as the dispense of isolation. Neighbours and friends are required to keep an eye out and report on their loved ones. People will tell on you if you are idle. I find that rather unhealthy and a bit chilling.
The whole concept is, fundamentally, very progressive. Everyone should be seen and treated as equal. People should respect each others religions and not press their beliefs on each other. What made me frown while reading it was the casual way of incorporating slavery in the system. Though 'Raphael' does state that they weren't bought, sold or forced into slavery, it leaves a bit of a bad aftertaste to the whole thing for me. Then again, slavery was still very normal in More's time so perhaps I shouldn't be too hard on that part of it.
I thought the freedom of expressing your own religion was a rather shocking thing to be said by More. He fought against the reformation and the likes of Maarten Luther in his time. Was this something he did out of fear? Or is this a philosophy he wished he could embody but could not?
This is a very thought-provoking and enlightened book. It is easy to read and is still relevant in our modern society.
Thomas More is introduced to a traveller named Raphael by his good friend, Peter Giles. Raphael comes from Utopia, a distant and mysterious land that is home to a republic with (especially for that day and age) very progressive ideas at its foundation.
Over the summer of this year, I became familiar with the "claimed-authenticity" in literature by means of using a close relation to vouch for the validity of a story. Although Peter Giles existed, it becomes very clear in the story that Raphael and his paradise-like Utopia did not. Still, the correspondence between Giles and More at the beginning of the book made me chuckle a bit. They very conveniently failed to register where this Utopia was located when Raphael relayed his story to them but also swear that More's account of Utopia is just as good (if not better) than Raphael's.
More presents wonderful, elaborate and well-founded ideas for the basis of a peaceful and productive society through this Raphael character. The ideas are progressive but I can't help but find that there is an underlying (naive) idea that human beings are inherently inclined to good. I am not all that sure that is true. In Utopia there are systems to ensure people are kept in their place, such as the dispense of isolation. Neighbours and friends are required to keep an eye out and report on their loved ones. People will tell on you if you are idle. I find that rather unhealthy and a bit chilling.
The whole concept is, fundamentally, very progressive. Everyone should be seen and treated as equal. People should respect each others religions and not press their beliefs on each other. What made me frown while reading it was the casual way of incorporating slavery in the system. Though 'Raphael' does state that they weren't bought, sold or forced into slavery, it leaves a bit of a bad aftertaste to the whole thing for me. Then again, slavery was still very normal in More's time so perhaps I shouldn't be too hard on that part of it.
I thought the freedom of expressing your own religion was a rather shocking thing to be said by More. He fought against the reformation and the likes of Maarten Luther in his time. Was this something he did out of fear? Or is this a philosophy he wished he could embody but could not?
This is a very thought-provoking and enlightened book. It is easy to read and is still relevant in our modern society.