You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.29 AVERAGE
3.29 AVERAGE
adventurous
informative
reflective
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:
Complicated
Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels," often lauded as a satirical masterpiece, may simply not have been for me. While it undeniably offers a rich tapestry of political and social commentary, the novel suffers from several flaws that render it, at best, mediocre in my opinion.
Firstly, the book's episodic structure, which takes the reader through four distinct voyages, lacks cohesion. Each part — Lilliput, Brobdingnag, Laputa, and the land of the Houyhnhnms — functions almost as a standalone narrative with little to tie them together beyond the protagonist's presence. This fragmented storytelling can make the novel feel disjointed and uneven, diminishing the overall impact.
I think that character development is another weak point. Gulliver, the protagonist, is less a fully fleshed-out character and more a vessel for Swift's satirical observations. His personality and motivations are underdeveloped, making it difficult for readers to form a meaningful connection with him. This lack of depth in the central character reduces the emotional engagement and investment in the story.
Additionally, the book's pacing is inconsistent. Certain sections, such as the detailed descriptions of the Houyhnhnms' society, drag on excessively and disrupt the narrative flow. These slow segments can test the reader's patience and diminish the overall reading experience.
Finally, the language and style, while reflective of Swift's time, can be cumbersome for modern readers. The archaic prose and dense passages may pose a barrier to accessibility and enjoyment, particularly for those not accustomed to 18th-century literature.
I usually really enjoy if an author‘s writing style is very descriptive and includes lots of details. Swift definitely has a way of writing very detailed, maybe though to a fault. To some extent, I sometimes really wished that Swift would have decided to include some less details in certain sections of the book since the reading experience could have been really improved at times.
In conclusion, while "Gulliver's Travels" has its merits as a work of satire and social critiques which in my opinion especially came through in the fourth and, in m opinion, most interesting part of this book, its structural flaws, underdeveloped characters, inconsistent pacing and dated language collectively contribute to its mediocrity. Nevertheless, it remains a significant historical work which I am happy to finally have read.
I am certain that during Swift‘s lifetime this book was ground-breaking and can definitely see the appeal it might have head for people at that time. In total, I cannot say that this book was bad in any way, but I definitely felt more exhausted than with many other books I have read so far. If you have got time to spare and are in for a challenging reading experience, „Gulliver‘s Travels“ might just be the boo for you!
Content Warnings
Moderate: Misogyny, Sexism, Slavery, Excrement
Minor: Animal cruelty, Animal death, Death, Genocide, Incest, Violence, Blood, Vomit, Colonisation, War, Classism
adventurous
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
slow-paced
I read this book for English class in my senior year of high school, over the Christmas holidays, while on a family vacation to New York City. What makes the backdrop notable to me was that, despite all the skyscrapers, food, sights, and walking we did, I was equally excited to come home at the end of the day and read more of this book. The copy I had was heavily annotated with context for all the snide references and satirical targets, which I found just as engaging as the original material. It also had some of Swift's poems at the back, which I found hilarious. I remember being leery of having to read a classic that old, but what a joyful surprise to find it so interesting.
I cannot comprehend how this is supposed to be a children’s book. It is so bogged down by political satire, heavy allegory and verbose prose. What child outside of the decade this was published could have understood this let alone enjoyed it?
Gulliver, an explorer, dictates his unbelievable experiences in foreign lands. Separated into four parts, Gulliver travels to these different places by happenstance and this book reads like a series of journal entries detailing his observations of the culture. Think Dracula - only less fun.
I was fine in the first location. I became exhausted by the monotony somewhere in part 2. It’s a very rote, very dry account. Especially when I lacked so much historical context. When I wasn’t bored, I was confused.
I was so confounded by this book I wouldn’t find it fair to judge it hence me abstaining from rating it. I don’t think it would be fair in this case when my lack of knowledge is what hindered me. Typically I can still judge a book even if I don’t have expert competency on the topic since there are other factors to examine. I can’t do that here since I literally have almost nothing to go off of. I was that lost.
Maybe someday I’ll get an annotated version and return to it. For now I’ll settle for don’t read this unless you or someone you know has an English degree.
Gulliver, an explorer, dictates his unbelievable experiences in foreign lands. Separated into four parts, Gulliver travels to these different places by happenstance and this book reads like a series of journal entries detailing his observations of the culture. Think Dracula - only less fun.
I was fine in the first location. I became exhausted by the monotony somewhere in part 2. It’s a very rote, very dry account. Especially when I lacked so much historical context. When I wasn’t bored, I was confused.
I was so confounded by this book I wouldn’t find it fair to judge it hence me abstaining from rating it. I don’t think it would be fair in this case when my lack of knowledge is what hindered me. Typically I can still judge a book even if I don’t have expert competency on the topic since there are other factors to examine. I can’t do that here since I literally have almost nothing to go off of. I was that lost.
Maybe someday I’ll get an annotated version and return to it. For now I’ll settle for don’t read this unless you or someone you know has an English degree.
You have to take this for what it is in order to appreciate what it does so well!
Maybe this book wound up on my reading list because I feel kinship with anyone who is going to suggest that horses are more interesting than humans.
And so I was so sad to see the Houyhnhnms have been 'purified' of all animal qualities. These horses are the worst. They find no pleasure in anything but the use of pure reason. Come on Houyhnhnms! Roll in the grass, whinny over some oats, gallop in the sunshine (and not just to win an organized race).
But they're in line with Swift's worldview, which is mostly filled with disgust. He hates bodies, especially women's bodies. He hates their smells, their sensations, their desires. So even though there is so much in this book that's wild and whimsical, even though he's pretty funny sometimes -- all-in-all Swift's a major killjoy.
And so I was so sad to see the Houyhnhnms have been 'purified' of all animal qualities. These horses are the worst. They find no pleasure in anything but the use of pure reason. Come on Houyhnhnms! Roll in the grass, whinny over some oats, gallop in the sunshine (and not just to win an organized race).
But they're in line with Swift's worldview, which is mostly filled with disgust. He hates bodies, especially women's bodies. He hates their smells, their sensations, their desires. So even though there is so much in this book that's wild and whimsical, even though he's pretty funny sometimes -- all-in-all Swift's a major killjoy.
Debating between giving this a 2/3 star. The book started out interesting and the adventure aspect was fun but then it began to drag and was just boring… also very weird. My eyes started to glaze over at certain points because it was boring me. I will keep on my shelves cause it’s a classic but I honestly wouldn’t recommend it.
Unfortunately I do not have the historical knowledge to understand the satire and comedy of this novel. Despite this, I appreciate the narrative, social critiques and some of the irony and satire. Still can’t believe that people only focus on the first part (ie all the movies)
3.5
good book honestly
half the time i was thinking :“what was this man smoking when he wrote this”
and the other half i was like: “damn….this is interesting”
were some parts slow? yes
was this book extremely dense? yes
but i enjoyed all the little islands in the end
good book honestly
half the time i was thinking :“what was this man smoking when he wrote this”
and the other half i was like: “damn….this is interesting”
were some parts slow? yes
was this book extremely dense? yes
but i enjoyed all the little islands in the end