Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.29 AVERAGE
3.29 AVERAGE
adventurous
funny
reflective
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:
Complicated
Average, voir nul.
adventurous
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
non pensavo che " I viaggi di Gulliver" nascondesse dietro la facciata da romanzo di viaggio una tale e feroce critica sulla civiltà europea. Inventarsi popoli e terre per poter criticare liberamente gli uomini senza offendere la patria inglese è puro genio, ma alla fine, nel confronto con i cavalli tutti ne escono perdenti. Mi sono chiesta solo se yahoo prende il nome dagli yahoo di cui parla Swift, ma probabilmente è un riferimento culturale troppo elevato
adventurous
challenging
funny
inspiring
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
If not for the multiple comments of misogyny and hints of racism, Swift’s story takes us on a fun journey of the reflection of humanity (though, ironically, that reflection does not include the narrator’s…).
I haven’t read this since High School. I’m kinda shocked at how many poop jokes are in the story:
1. In Lilliput, he extinguished a fire in the Royal palace by peeing on it. This is a MAJOR plot point.
2. In one land, scientists try to reconstitute food by disassembling poop. The end up manually separating the feces, resulting in terrible odor and waste everywhere.
It was a pretty good book, full of sly satire. The audiobook I listened to was read by David Hyde-Pierce and he did an excellent job.
So close to five stars.
1. In Lilliput, he extinguished a fire in the Royal palace by peeing on it. This is a MAJOR plot point.
2. In one land, scientists try to reconstitute food by disassembling poop. The end up manually separating the feces, resulting in terrible odor and waste everywhere.
It was a pretty good book, full of sly satire. The audiobook I listened to was read by David Hyde-Pierce and he did an excellent job.
So close to five stars.
adventurous
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
This book is fun. I especially liked it after Gulliver left the lilliputans. That is the most famous section of the book, but it isn't the most interesting.
I remember reading half of Gulliver’s Travels when I was a kid. I read part one and part two and thought, well that was pretty ok, and then I was done. I don’t know why I never finished the book, but I do know I did the exact same thing with a Tom Robbin’s book called, “Even Cowgirls Get the Blues.”
Those are the only two books I can ever remember reading half of and then just closing the book and thinking, “Well, that’s over.”
To this day I don’t know what motivated me to quit the books without finishing them.
Because I never read the whole thing, I never could mark Gulliver’s Travels off as a book that I’d read. So, when I was at the library the other day and I saw a copy of the Swift classic, I snatched it up. I took it home and I read the book from cover to cover, and what can I say? I was on to something when I was a kid: part one and two of Gulliver’s Travels are pretty ok, but parts three and four are a drag and worth skipping.
Gulliver’s Travels is a satire and I guess the people from the 1700s thought it was a scream. It was so funny back in the day because it made fun of the politics of the time.
I listened to a lecture about Gulliver’s Travels given by a professor I found on Youtube named Michael Moir, and basically, Swift was a Tory, a political group that was for the monarch and the “high church,” advocates for a more rigid and formal religious experience. Swift didn’t like the Whigs, a political group that was for Parliament and the working man and “low church,” or a religious experience that was less formal and more laid back.
Anyway, Swift lived in Ireland, but his family was from England and back in his day everyone hated France.
During “The Glorious Revolution,” the Catholic King James II of England was replaced with his Protestant daughter Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. King James II fled to France and the English were always a little paranoid that he’d try to come back and reclaim the throne.
Then, when the King of Spain died, the Tories wrote up the treaty of Utretcht and the treaty favored France and put a French King on the Spanish throne. Later, the Tories were tried for treason because of the blatant favoritism they showed to France in the treaty.
So that’s the background of the first part of the book where Gulliver goes to Lilliput and meets these tiny little people who live there. Lilliput represents England, and it has beef with a place called Blefuscu, which is supposed to represent France. At first Gulliver is a hero in Lilliput because he saves the place from an attack by the Blefuscu army. The two places have a dispute based on whether or not an egg should be cracked on the big end or the little end. Which is supposed to represent the high church vs low church debate that was happening in the real world at the time.
Gulliver is highly regarded after he saves Lilliput from its enemy.
Later though, Gulliver falls from grace when he pees on the Lilliput castle. He only peed on the castle because it was on fire, and it was simply the fastest way to put the fire out, but it was a serious crime and a bad idea. Plus, Gulliver literally pissed on the government.
Then, when he refused to attack Blefuscu, and just destroy the entire country, that made him a traitor. He was also just too big to keep feeding, and so the Lilliput folks decided to blind him. Gulliver learns of the plan and gets out of town before it happens. This is all great satire about how much everyone hates France (I guess) but as far as a story goes it was ok. Not great but tolerable.
I enjoyed “A Voyage to Brobdingnag,” a lot more, personally, although I couldn’t find a lecture to explain why it was supposed to be funny. I enjoyed the story because I liked imagining how tiny Gulliver was in a place with giants.
The voyage to the various islands was kind of boring, in my opinion. I guess the floating island was a satire about how over enthusiastic people are for math and science, but math and science are literally what makes humans great, so I think Swift missed the mark with that argument.
The final chapter was about the Houyhnhnms, a city of horses, and how people are actually icky gross Yahoos. Yahoos are a real animal that lives in this city with these great horses and the yahoos are dirty and vile and Gulliver is ashamed to learn he is one of them.
This part of the book was too lecture-y for me, and it was boring. It sucks to be a human, I guess, and its way better to be a horse. Whatever, Swift.
To be frank, if this was the 1700s, I don’t think I’d agree with Swift about anything. I am anti monarch–first of all. I know for an absolute fact I would not be a Tory. I would be a Whig for sure.
I am also not religious, so I don't care about high church or low church or Protestants or Catholics either. I probably would have been burnt at the stake, come to think of it. The Spanish Inquisition would have got my ass, for sure.
Even so, I don’t think I’d have agreed with Swift about anything back in his day. I don’t even think I would have been anti France.
Do I recommend this book? No, I don’t. If anyone does elect to read it, I think the first half is much better than the second half, so I suggest you just read part one and part two and then move on to something more fun to read. I give this book three stars. I’m removing one star for parts of the book being so damn boring and another star because if I was alive in the 1700s I would not agree with Swift's politics.
Those are the only two books I can ever remember reading half of and then just closing the book and thinking, “Well, that’s over.”
To this day I don’t know what motivated me to quit the books without finishing them.
Because I never read the whole thing, I never could mark Gulliver’s Travels off as a book that I’d read. So, when I was at the library the other day and I saw a copy of the Swift classic, I snatched it up. I took it home and I read the book from cover to cover, and what can I say? I was on to something when I was a kid: part one and two of Gulliver’s Travels are pretty ok, but parts three and four are a drag and worth skipping.
Gulliver’s Travels is a satire and I guess the people from the 1700s thought it was a scream. It was so funny back in the day because it made fun of the politics of the time.
I listened to a lecture about Gulliver’s Travels given by a professor I found on Youtube named Michael Moir, and basically, Swift was a Tory, a political group that was for the monarch and the “high church,” advocates for a more rigid and formal religious experience. Swift didn’t like the Whigs, a political group that was for Parliament and the working man and “low church,” or a religious experience that was less formal and more laid back.
Anyway, Swift lived in Ireland, but his family was from England and back in his day everyone hated France.
During “The Glorious Revolution,” the Catholic King James II of England was replaced with his Protestant daughter Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. King James II fled to France and the English were always a little paranoid that he’d try to come back and reclaim the throne.
Then, when the King of Spain died, the Tories wrote up the treaty of Utretcht and the treaty favored France and put a French King on the Spanish throne. Later, the Tories were tried for treason because of the blatant favoritism they showed to France in the treaty.
So that’s the background of the first part of the book where Gulliver goes to Lilliput and meets these tiny little people who live there. Lilliput represents England, and it has beef with a place called Blefuscu, which is supposed to represent France. At first Gulliver is a hero in Lilliput because he saves the place from an attack by the Blefuscu army. The two places have a dispute based on whether or not an egg should be cracked on the big end or the little end. Which is supposed to represent the high church vs low church debate that was happening in the real world at the time.
Gulliver is highly regarded after he saves Lilliput from its enemy.
Later though, Gulliver falls from grace when he pees on the Lilliput castle. He only peed on the castle because it was on fire, and it was simply the fastest way to put the fire out, but it was a serious crime and a bad idea. Plus, Gulliver literally pissed on the government.
Then, when he refused to attack Blefuscu, and just destroy the entire country, that made him a traitor. He was also just too big to keep feeding, and so the Lilliput folks decided to blind him. Gulliver learns of the plan and gets out of town before it happens. This is all great satire about how much everyone hates France (I guess) but as far as a story goes it was ok. Not great but tolerable.
I enjoyed “A Voyage to Brobdingnag,” a lot more, personally, although I couldn’t find a lecture to explain why it was supposed to be funny. I enjoyed the story because I liked imagining how tiny Gulliver was in a place with giants.
The voyage to the various islands was kind of boring, in my opinion. I guess the floating island was a satire about how over enthusiastic people are for math and science, but math and science are literally what makes humans great, so I think Swift missed the mark with that argument.
The final chapter was about the Houyhnhnms, a city of horses, and how people are actually icky gross Yahoos. Yahoos are a real animal that lives in this city with these great horses and the yahoos are dirty and vile and Gulliver is ashamed to learn he is one of them.
This part of the book was too lecture-y for me, and it was boring. It sucks to be a human, I guess, and its way better to be a horse. Whatever, Swift.
To be frank, if this was the 1700s, I don’t think I’d agree with Swift about anything. I am anti monarch–first of all. I know for an absolute fact I would not be a Tory. I would be a Whig for sure.
I am also not religious, so I don't care about high church or low church or Protestants or Catholics either. I probably would have been burnt at the stake, come to think of it. The Spanish Inquisition would have got my ass, for sure.
Even so, I don’t think I’d have agreed with Swift about anything back in his day. I don’t even think I would have been anti France.
Do I recommend this book? No, I don’t. If anyone does elect to read it, I think the first half is much better than the second half, so I suggest you just read part one and part two and then move on to something more fun to read. I give this book three stars. I’m removing one star for parts of the book being so damn boring and another star because if I was alive in the 1700s I would not agree with Swift's politics.
Die Geschichte folgt dem Protagonisten Lemuel Gulliver, der auf einer Reihe von Reisen in verschiedene fantastische Welten gerät.
Die Abenteuer, die Gulliver auf diesen Reisen erlebt, sind vielseitig und interessant, von den kleinen Menschen auf Lilliput bis hin zu den sprechenden Pferden auf der Insel der Houyhnhnms. Jede dieser Welten hat ihre eigenen Regeln und ihre eigenen Herausforderungen, die Gulliver meistern muss.
Das Buch ist zweifellos alt, und das merkt man auch in der Sprache und einigen diskriminierenden Aussagen. Trotzdem sind die Geschichten sehr erinnerungswürdig und lesenswert. Swift hat eine scharfsinnige Satire auf die Gesellschaft seiner Zeit geschaffen, die auch heute noch relevant ist.
Insgesamt kann ich "Gullivers Reisen" jedem empfehlen, der sich für klassische Literatur und faszinierende Abenteuergeschichten interessiert. Obwohl es einige diskriminierende Aussagen gibt, ist das Buch ein wichtiger Teil der Literaturgeschichte und ein lesenswertes Werk.
Die Abenteuer, die Gulliver auf diesen Reisen erlebt, sind vielseitig und interessant, von den kleinen Menschen auf Lilliput bis hin zu den sprechenden Pferden auf der Insel der Houyhnhnms. Jede dieser Welten hat ihre eigenen Regeln und ihre eigenen Herausforderungen, die Gulliver meistern muss.
Das Buch ist zweifellos alt, und das merkt man auch in der Sprache und einigen diskriminierenden Aussagen. Trotzdem sind die Geschichten sehr erinnerungswürdig und lesenswert. Swift hat eine scharfsinnige Satire auf die Gesellschaft seiner Zeit geschaffen, die auch heute noch relevant ist.
Insgesamt kann ich "Gullivers Reisen" jedem empfehlen, der sich für klassische Literatur und faszinierende Abenteuergeschichten interessiert. Obwohl es einige diskriminierende Aussagen gibt, ist das Buch ein wichtiger Teil der Literaturgeschichte und ein lesenswertes Werk.