Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.29 AVERAGE
3.29 AVERAGE
adventurous
funny
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I was in error in giving this two stars back when I read this in high school, but not by much. Back then I was bored out of my gourd, here and now I'm done with "I will instinctively know the truth due to my super white able male powers." Regardless of whether 'tis beneficial to give Swift the full benefit of the fictional doubt as is popular in circles of academic aspiration, ugh.
This is the perfect definition of a "classic": male, European, old, punches down on everything in the names of "satire" and "truth" at the expense of ideological stratification, and has enough political statistics melded with workable reality to make an engaging narrative out of a list of opinions. I'm not going to muddle myself with the whole "separation of author and story" rigmarole and indict Swift with anything, but the fictional Gulliver is fair game. His whole "If anyone is offended at my truth they are wrong because look how prettily I write," at the end of it is begging for a "lol nice try."
I will admit that Gulliver develops some nice sentiments at the behest of his multiple hosts. He frowns on colonialism, indicts manipulation of the legal system in the interests of financial engorgement, and views war as an inexcusable horror conducted for the most insipid of reasons. The problem is his whole issue with thinking in general, or leastwise with thinking that he is unable to instantly understand and appreciate for the full measure of its worth, ironic when considering his upholding of Socrates. His is a very "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach, albeit with some inconsistencies that make his position a typical one in regards to goodwill towards humanity: so long as humanity fits in its proper places of my complex determination without complaint, all's well that ends well. This makes the call for equal education of women alongside a general disparagement of their "typical" (hint: patriarchally indoctrinated) qualities, in addition to a holistic condemnation of humanity as modeled on those with non-European features and especial disparagement of redheads, of little paradigmal worth.
Outside of that, I learned a great deal about Swift's time in terms of England's social, political, economic, religious, and international relations in regards to various other countries. I also understand why the first bits of being Gulliver being tied to the ground are the most popular, for here is where Gulliver sticks to what he knows without aspiring to a hierarchical strata of human relations that smacks of the "Jewish Question" more than anything else (which officially started around 24 years after this publication, rather than my previous assumption of 200. The more you know). In light of that, Gulliver (Swift if you're not squeamish) to me is much like how Tolkien is: knowledgeable in the things knowledge is usually defined by, xenophobic as shown by their respective Houyhnhnms and Elves, and as feudalistic as is permissible by polite society and his own personal characteristics. Tolkien, however, surpasses Swift (I give up) in both quality of story and treatment of women, so while I'm fairly certain a conversation with the former would be a chilly one on account of ideological difference, the latter would probably throw a hissy fit if I made an attempt to disagree.
The best thing I got out of this reread was the discovery of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, whose critically brilliant response to Swift's misogyny was published anonymously and genius socioeconomic indictment entitled "Epistle from Mrs. Yonge to Her Husband" had to wait nearly 250 years until publication. I'm all for truth and goodwill towards humanity, but paying attention to who is writing, whom is being passed over, and other such demographical matters that go into the determination of "truth" and "goodwill" is essential if one wants to say anything at all. Forbearing ownership of a fundamental and unchanging "truthdar" is also a good way to go.
This is the perfect definition of a "classic": male, European, old, punches down on everything in the names of "satire" and "truth" at the expense of ideological stratification, and has enough political statistics melded with workable reality to make an engaging narrative out of a list of opinions. I'm not going to muddle myself with the whole "separation of author and story" rigmarole and indict Swift with anything, but the fictional Gulliver is fair game. His whole "If anyone is offended at my truth they are wrong because look how prettily I write," at the end of it is begging for a "lol nice try."
I will admit that Gulliver develops some nice sentiments at the behest of his multiple hosts. He frowns on colonialism, indicts manipulation of the legal system in the interests of financial engorgement, and views war as an inexcusable horror conducted for the most insipid of reasons. The problem is his whole issue with thinking in general, or leastwise with thinking that he is unable to instantly understand and appreciate for the full measure of its worth, ironic when considering his upholding of Socrates. His is a very "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach, albeit with some inconsistencies that make his position a typical one in regards to goodwill towards humanity: so long as humanity fits in its proper places of my complex determination without complaint, all's well that ends well. This makes the call for equal education of women alongside a general disparagement of their "typical" (hint: patriarchally indoctrinated) qualities, in addition to a holistic condemnation of humanity as modeled on those with non-European features and especial disparagement of redheads, of little paradigmal worth.
Outside of that, I learned a great deal about Swift's time in terms of England's social, political, economic, religious, and international relations in regards to various other countries. I also understand why the first bits of being Gulliver being tied to the ground are the most popular, for here is where Gulliver sticks to what he knows without aspiring to a hierarchical strata of human relations that smacks of the "Jewish Question" more than anything else (which officially started around 24 years after this publication, rather than my previous assumption of 200. The more you know). In light of that, Gulliver (Swift if you're not squeamish) to me is much like how Tolkien is: knowledgeable in the things knowledge is usually defined by, xenophobic as shown by their respective Houyhnhnms and Elves, and as feudalistic as is permissible by polite society and his own personal characteristics. Tolkien, however, surpasses Swift (I give up) in both quality of story and treatment of women, so while I'm fairly certain a conversation with the former would be a chilly one on account of ideological difference, the latter would probably throw a hissy fit if I made an attempt to disagree.
The best thing I got out of this reread was the discovery of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, whose critically brilliant response to Swift's misogyny was published anonymously and genius socioeconomic indictment entitled "Epistle from Mrs. Yonge to Her Husband" had to wait nearly 250 years until publication. I'm all for truth and goodwill towards humanity, but paying attention to who is writing, whom is being passed over, and other such demographical matters that go into the determination of "truth" and "goodwill" is essential if one wants to say anything at all. Forbearing ownership of a fundamental and unchanging "truthdar" is also a good way to go.
[…] a crew of pyrates are driven by a storm they know not whither; at length a boy discovers land from the top-mast; they go on shore to rob and plunder; they see an harmless people, are entertained with kindness, they give the country a new name, they take formal possession of it for the king, they set up a rotten plank or a stone for a memorial, they murder two or three dozen of the natives, bring away a couple more by force for a sample, return home, and get their pardon.Sinds de publicatie van Gulliver’s travels in 1726 zijn bijna drie eeuwen verstreken. Ik kende slechts de kinderversie van het eerste van de vier verhalen, waarin Lemuel Gulliver na een schipbreuk aanspoelt op het eiland van de Lilliputters. Ook de andere delen zijn het best te karakteriseren als zeemansverhalen, maar dan wel met een sterke nadruk op de staatsinrichting en beleefdheidsvormen in de landen waar Gulliver terechtkomt en op het belang van een degelijk kostuum.
Op zich vond ik de gebeurtenissen in het land van de reuzen, op het vliegende eiland, in de landen van wetenschap en magie en in het land van de Houyhnhnms aardig, maar niet overweldigend en soms zelfs wat oeverloos. Gelukkig schreef Jonathan Swift met veel humor. Zijn protagonist Gulliver is het grootste deel van de roman niet meer dan een vlak personage, tot hij in het laatste hoofdstuk een afkeer krijgt jegens de Yahoo en met een bezwaard gevoel huiswaarts keert. Zo maakt Swift van diens logboek een roman, waarin hij eigentijdse Europese ideeën over goddelijke rechten op nieuwe koloniën scherpzinnig aanvecht. Overigens sprak het wel tot de verbeelding om een boek te lezen waarin Nieuw Holland en Van Diemens Land nog op de kaart staan.
In speaking, [the Houyhnhnms] pronounce through the nose and throat, and their language approacheth nearest to the High-Dutch or German, of any I know in Europe; but is much more graceful and significant. The Emperor Charles V. made almost the same observation, when he said, that if he were to speak to his horse, it should be in High-Dutch.
Really can’t believe I have never read this before. I had kind of half-heard that it was actually less a travelogue and more a political satire but was unprepared for how funny it still is, 300 years later.
If there is one thing I will give Jonathan Swift, it's that he thinks things through and commits.
Interesting satire I had to read for school.
Very weird.
Not a fan of Gulliver, he’s a conceited, arrogant ass. Interesting commentary on English society in the 1700s and on imperialism and perspective.
Necessary and relevant.
Very weird.
Not a fan of Gulliver, he’s a conceited, arrogant ass. Interesting commentary on English society in the 1700s and on imperialism and perspective.
Necessary and relevant.
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
He raises some imteresting critiques of society, many of which are still valid today.
The presentation is often lacking. He shifts abruptly between exposition and narration.
His point in the last section is well made but there are inconsistencies throughout on his description of the other races.
The presentation is often lacking. He shifts abruptly between exposition and narration.
His point in the last section is well made but there are inconsistencies throughout on his description of the other races.
Al di là dello stile lineare, e della linearità dei viaggi, in ogni paese in cui Gulliver va a finire è possibile trovare piacevoli guizzi inaspettati.
Da una parte Swift è riuscito a creare scene che fanno tuttora parte dell'immaginario collettivo, dall'altra è riuscito a fare un'analisi molto acuta del suo tempo e della natura stessa dell'uomo.
In particolare fa riflettere che l'unica civiltà che rasenta l'utopia è quella dominata dagli animali.
Da una parte Swift è riuscito a creare scene che fanno tuttora parte dell'immaginario collettivo, dall'altra è riuscito a fare un'analisi molto acuta del suo tempo e della natura stessa dell'uomo.
In particolare fa riflettere che l'unica civiltà che rasenta l'utopia è quella dominata dagli animali.
The first time I read Gulliver’s Travels, I was ten. My father and I were up in Michigan visiting my paternal grandmother, aunts, uncles, and cousins. I remember it was the holidays, and we spent Christmas morning hopping around between family members’ homes.
My Great Uncle John, owner of a grand library, gave me a copy. Said it was his favorite when he was a boy (which I imaged had to be long, long ago since at 50, he seemed ancient).
I tackled this bad-boy like it was the best Christmas present in the world. While parts of it went right over my head at the time, I loved the idea of traveling to these bizarre worlds. It opened my brain up to the idea of fantasy novels.
As an adult, I can see the satire for what it is, which only makes me love it more.
Read the full review here: www.ravenoak.net
My Great Uncle John, owner of a grand library, gave me a copy. Said it was his favorite when he was a boy (which I imaged had to be long, long ago since at 50, he seemed ancient).
I tackled this bad-boy like it was the best Christmas present in the world. While parts of it went right over my head at the time, I loved the idea of traveling to these bizarre worlds. It opened my brain up to the idea of fantasy novels.
As an adult, I can see the satire for what it is, which only makes me love it more.
Read the full review here: www.ravenoak.net
Imaginative, and despite all it's protestations, entertaining. I favored the third chapter as the most relevant. By the fourth part it varied between too-direct criticism the complete ridiculousness.