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
dark
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
N/A
I did not know what to expect with this book, so I was pleasantly surprised while reading it. I enjoyed Swift's satire and thought it was humorous.
Hmmmmmm. I can’t decide how I feel about this one. On the one hand, it exceeded my expectations. On the other, my expectations were very low.
Good points: the ideas of the stories were good. I liked the premise of each one, and the cultures encountered were worth reading about.
However, I thought the character of Gulliver was two-dimensional. He went constantly back and forth between loving his family and then being happy to leave them and live with his new neighbours forever? Also, he never really did anything more than describing in the most basic terms his encounters. Maybe some dialogue or something would have made it a little more punchy.
Each story was the same: Gulliver gets stranded somehow on an island, the people of the island take him in, he spends a long time per story telling the reader what he told the native cultures of England and his life there again and again, he decides he wants to stay here forever, he falls out of the king’s favour and needs to leave someway or another, he gets conveniently rescued at this point and goes home to his family.
Basically, it was alright. That’s the simplest way I can put it. Read it if you’re interested in classics as I am, but don’t expect it to be your favourite book.
Good points: the ideas of the stories were good. I liked the premise of each one, and the cultures encountered were worth reading about.
However, I thought the character of Gulliver was two-dimensional. He went constantly back and forth between loving his family and then being happy to leave them and live with his new neighbours forever? Also, he never really did anything more than describing in the most basic terms his encounters. Maybe some dialogue or something would have made it a little more punchy.
Each story was the same: Gulliver gets stranded somehow on an island, the people of the island take him in, he spends a long time per story telling the reader what he told the native cultures of England and his life there again and again, he decides he wants to stay here forever, he falls out of the king’s favour and needs to leave someway or another, he gets conveniently rescued at this point and goes home to his family.
Basically, it was alright. That’s the simplest way I can put it. Read it if you’re interested in classics as I am, but don’t expect it to be your favourite book.
adventurous
challenging
dark
funny
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Gulliver's Travels is often considered a literary response to the portrayal of non-European civilizations in Robinson Crusoe and a commentary on the human condition. Perhaps disturbingly, the commentary is still relevant today.
Jonathon Swift uses Gulliver's inadvertent adventures to explore what different civilizations might look like. Swift uses these civilizations to draw parallels to problems he sees in his own country while avoiding the direct criticism of his monarchy, church, or state. In the first few misadventures we see extensive and detailed depictions of civilizations alien but reminiscent of our own before we get a whirlwind tour through several more countries culminating in Gulliver delivering treatises on the current and historical state of Europe to his "master" in what Gulliver believes to be a near perfect country. This structure creates a somewhat unbalanced structure where the first two parts feel drawn out with a quick tour of alternatives in the third part before landing in a land fit for philosophical waxing in the fourth part.
The first country Gulliver visits is a land of tiny people in the grips of conflict over which end you should start breaking your egg from. The big-endians vs the little-endians. Swift is attempting to point out the absurdity of most conflicts which he touches upon again in the fourth part of the novel. Here, Gulliver also begins to understand the fickle nature and absolute power of monarchs. Here, we also see a transparent government where the laws are simple and easy to understand.
Next up, Gulliver visits a land of giants. Here Swift explores how even those of the smallest stature (or significance) believe themselves to be on an equal footing with kings while kings seem them as nothing but an amusement or a pest. The support of simple laws that anyone might understand is emphasized again. Swift clearly has a bone to pick with legislators, judges, and lawyers.
In part three, Gulliver takes a quick trip through a handful of interesting countries. We see a floating city gifted in mathematics and music lacking reason and common sense. A land engrossed in inventing for the future to the detriment of the present. A denunciation of the idolization of earthly immortality.
In the fourth and final part of the novel, Gulliver's misanthropy becomes fully manifest. He lives among a people ruled by ration and reason. They have no government and no concept of falsehoods. They have brute beasts called Yahoos that are fit for little beyond hard labor and constantly squabble among themselves. In the Yahoos, Gulliver sees the rudiments of humanities vices. In taking with his master he draws parallels from the apparent instincts of the Yahoos and human vices which prevent Europe from being governed by ration and reason. Gulliver presents several treatises on the present and historical state of Europe paying particular attention to the squabbles of monarchs, the irrational and unreasonable existence of war, and a convoluted legal system which rarely if ever sides with the person in the right—instead siding with the one with the deepest pockets and taking everything from the loser of the case.
Swift offers a cornucopia (there's that infamous $5 word!) of criticism on the state of Europe. These sections are interesting and concerning for their relevance today. Many of the aspects of the different countries are amusing, comical, and wonderfully satiric. Unfortunately, the pacing of the novel feels off. It's slow to get going and slow to wrap up. Swift also gets bogged down in the details of his invented countries. There's an entire page or two on how exactly a magnet is rotated to move the floating city in specific directions. Unnecessary fluff. It's worth reading for the blatant criticism of an existing system, but it doesn't feel like a quick read.
Jonathon Swift uses Gulliver's inadvertent adventures to explore what different civilizations might look like. Swift uses these civilizations to draw parallels to problems he sees in his own country while avoiding the direct criticism of his monarchy, church, or state. In the first few misadventures we see extensive and detailed depictions of civilizations alien but reminiscent of our own before we get a whirlwind tour through several more countries culminating in Gulliver delivering treatises on the current and historical state of Europe to his "master" in what Gulliver believes to be a near perfect country. This structure creates a somewhat unbalanced structure where the first two parts feel drawn out with a quick tour of alternatives in the third part before landing in a land fit for philosophical waxing in the fourth part.
The first country Gulliver visits is a land of tiny people in the grips of conflict over which end you should start breaking your egg from. The big-endians vs the little-endians. Swift is attempting to point out the absurdity of most conflicts which he touches upon again in the fourth part of the novel. Here, Gulliver also begins to understand the fickle nature and absolute power of monarchs. Here, we also see a transparent government where the laws are simple and easy to understand.
Next up, Gulliver visits a land of giants. Here Swift explores how even those of the smallest stature (or significance) believe themselves to be on an equal footing with kings while kings seem them as nothing but an amusement or a pest. The support of simple laws that anyone might understand is emphasized again. Swift clearly has a bone to pick with legislators, judges, and lawyers.
In part three, Gulliver takes a quick trip through a handful of interesting countries. We see a floating city gifted in mathematics and music lacking reason and common sense. A land engrossed in inventing for the future to the detriment of the present. A denunciation of the idolization of earthly immortality.
In the fourth and final part of the novel, Gulliver's misanthropy becomes fully manifest. He lives among a people ruled by ration and reason. They have no government and no concept of falsehoods. They have brute beasts called Yahoos that are fit for little beyond hard labor and constantly squabble among themselves. In the Yahoos, Gulliver sees the rudiments of humanities vices. In taking with his master he draws parallels from the apparent instincts of the Yahoos and human vices which prevent Europe from being governed by ration and reason. Gulliver presents several treatises on the present and historical state of Europe paying particular attention to the squabbles of monarchs, the irrational and unreasonable existence of war, and a convoluted legal system which rarely if ever sides with the person in the right—instead siding with the one with the deepest pockets and taking everything from the loser of the case.
Swift offers a cornucopia (there's that infamous $5 word!) of criticism on the state of Europe. These sections are interesting and concerning for their relevance today. Many of the aspects of the different countries are amusing, comical, and wonderfully satiric. Unfortunately, the pacing of the novel feels off. It's slow to get going and slow to wrap up. Swift also gets bogged down in the details of his invented countries. There's an entire page or two on how exactly a magnet is rotated to move the floating city in specific directions. Unnecessary fluff. It's worth reading for the blatant criticism of an existing system, but it doesn't feel like a quick read.
adventurous
challenging
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
dark
funny
informative
mysterious
slow-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
FINALLY!!!!!! The last book of this was such a slough 🙃 It reminded me so much of reading Utopia a few months ago which was similarly a very interesting book to study but a pain in the hole to read. Oftentimes very very repetitive, especially when it came to the fourth book when Gulliver was literally saying the same fucking things about the virtue of the horses every few paragraphs. I will say that it is a very interesting satire, and so much more on the nose and obvious about its references then I expected, which has made studying it very interesting even when reading it was either boring or a little bit gross.
Although I recognize the merits of this book and know Jonathan Swift was among the first to experiment with this literary genre, it is my firm belief that any piece of writing should be judged according to what it is at core and not what it wants or claims to be. In other words, I don't think the social context of the 18th century should be used as an excuse so as to pardon a bad book. Of course, the genre had not been approached before. I can understand that. It was an experiment and the purpose of an experiment is to try and see what works and what doesn't. But it still bugs me that several centuries prior to Jonathan Swift's novel there had been stories and epic poems and plays so much better than this piece of writing. Things written by people who were as inexperienced as Jonathan Swift and who still managed to do a better job than this guy. People who pointed flaws out with elegance and grace.
First of all, the book was irritatingly repetitive. There are four books within Gulliver's Travels and each particular journey is nothing but a recycled interpretation of the previous one. They all follow the same pattern: Gulliver's thirst for adventure urges him to leave his loving wife and kids. Something terrible happens (a shipwreck, a storm, pirates) and he gets castaway on a strange land. Each land features distinct people (individuals as small as a your thumb, giants, lunatics who live on a floating island and intelligent horses) but somehow, just somehow-the story is always the same: first he is looked at with suspicion, then the guys decide to give him a chance. He has a hard time learning their language at first but then his genius light bulb flickers and he manages to master it in three months. After he gets accustomed to their culture, there comes the omnipresent episode where he has a fruitful conversation with the leader of the country about how England is the worst country in the world. Everything gets put in balance and somehow, everything going on in the world is bad. Has he ever praised the merits of his country? I just can't remember.
And of course, everything reaches a climax when he gets to the Houyhnhnm country, the land of milk and honey. The pretentious prick just can't shut up about it. About how magnificent it is to live in an ice-cold world where love and affection are alien concepts and any decision whatsoever is based strictly on reason. About how offensive it is to be a human being. About the amount of damage they cause and how leading to their extinction might not be a bad idea after all (I'm talking about the horses' council here).
And let's be clear about one thing. This is Jonathan Swift speaking. Gulliver and Swift are one and the exact same person. This is no writer-unleashes-his-imagination thing, this is hands down Swift and his contemptuous attitude regarding anything. Why can't he just understand that war and politics and money and greed are all faces of same coin? That humankind does not always come benevolence. That sometimes, people are the worst versions of themselves. That they engage in wars for no reason other than proving their dominance and that they would trample over dead bodies for the sake of money.
Some parts of this micro-universe are indeed rotten, but that does not mean that a world devoid of joy and emotion is ever the way to go. I don't know about you, but I just don't like Jonathan Swift. Unlike other authors, his purpose is not a didactic one. He does not point flaws out and come up with solutions. He doesn't even punishes anyone. He just wants to fly out of this world and substantiate what I personally think is a terrible idea of perfection.
First of all, the book was irritatingly repetitive. There are four books within Gulliver's Travels and each particular journey is nothing but a recycled interpretation of the previous one. They all follow the same pattern: Gulliver's thirst for adventure urges him to leave his loving wife and kids. Something terrible happens (a shipwreck, a storm, pirates) and he gets castaway on a strange land. Each land features distinct people (individuals as small as a your thumb, giants, lunatics who live on a floating island and intelligent horses) but somehow, just somehow-the story is always the same: first he is looked at with suspicion, then the guys decide to give him a chance. He has a hard time learning their language at first but then his genius light bulb flickers and he manages to master it in three months. After he gets accustomed to their culture, there comes the omnipresent episode where he has a fruitful conversation with the leader of the country about how England is the worst country in the world. Everything gets put in balance and somehow, everything going on in the world is bad. Has he ever praised the merits of his country? I just can't remember.
And of course, everything reaches a climax when he gets to the Houyhnhnm country, the land of milk and honey. The pretentious prick just can't shut up about it. About how magnificent it is to live in an ice-cold world where love and affection are alien concepts and any decision whatsoever is based strictly on reason. About how offensive it is to be a human being. About the amount of damage they cause and how leading to their extinction might not be a bad idea after all (I'm talking about the horses' council here).
And let's be clear about one thing. This is Jonathan Swift speaking. Gulliver and Swift are one and the exact same person. This is no writer-unleashes-his-imagination thing, this is hands down Swift and his contemptuous attitude regarding anything. Why can't he just understand that war and politics and money and greed are all faces of same coin? That humankind does not always come benevolence. That sometimes, people are the worst versions of themselves. That they engage in wars for no reason other than proving their dominance and that they would trample over dead bodies for the sake of money.
Some parts of this micro-universe are indeed rotten, but that does not mean that a world devoid of joy and emotion is ever the way to go. I don't know about you, but I just don't like Jonathan Swift. Unlike other authors, his purpose is not a didactic one. He does not point flaws out and come up with solutions. He doesn't even punishes anyone. He just wants to fly out of this world and substantiate what I personally think is a terrible idea of perfection.
landmark text, glad to finally read and see it for myself.