Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.29 AVERAGE
3.29 AVERAGE
I really tried...and failed
to like this book. This book is so difficult to read it is like chewing a tough piece of meat with no flavor. The concept is whimsical, but the execution of Gulliver's Travels is pedantic. Because the author wanted everyone to believe his expedition was real, he assumed the voice of a great explorer journaling every small, unamusing detail. Ever the scientist, his notes are dry and detailed, with very little being said for how he felt or what he experienced emotionally.
to like this book. This book is so difficult to read it is like chewing a tough piece of meat with no flavor. The concept is whimsical, but the execution of Gulliver's Travels is pedantic. Because the author wanted everyone to believe his expedition was real, he assumed the voice of a great explorer journaling every small, unamusing detail. Ever the scientist, his notes are dry and detailed, with very little being said for how he felt or what he experienced emotionally.
It's not me, it's you, Gulliver's Travels.
It smells like a Fantasy genre, but in reality, it's a mocking Swift narrative on the stupidity of humanity as displayed through religion, politics, social structure etc etc etc. Characters war over which end of an egg to crack at breakfast, despite the holy book citing "the end which is convenient". Political parties are differentiated only by the size of shoe heels (high or low - with a McCain dude who wears one of each : ) Intellectuals are so caught up in their thinking that they're forced to use pebble-filled balloon talking sticks to be present in actual conversation.
I could list all of the inane human actions in the book, but why would I do that when you can easily read the daily news and get it over within 15 minutes? I tried to read GT and then, in desperation, looked to David Hyde Pierce (Niles on Frazier) to read it to me, in which he succeeded, but now I want a time refund. The clever parts were strikingly clever, but there were so so so so many words in between the clever parts. So. Many. Words. Let me make this easy for you. Humans were jackasses in 1726. They are still jackasses 300 years later. That's Gulliver's Travels. The end.
It smells like a Fantasy genre, but in reality, it's a mocking Swift narrative on the stupidity of humanity as displayed through religion, politics, social structure etc etc etc. Characters war over which end of an egg to crack at breakfast, despite the holy book citing "the end which is convenient". Political parties are differentiated only by the size of shoe heels (high or low - with a McCain dude who wears one of each : ) Intellectuals are so caught up in their thinking that they're forced to use pebble-filled balloon talking sticks to be present in actual conversation.
I could list all of the inane human actions in the book, but why would I do that when you can easily read the daily news and get it over within 15 minutes? I tried to read GT and then, in desperation, looked to David Hyde Pierce (Niles on Frazier) to read it to me, in which he succeeded, but now I want a time refund. The clever parts were strikingly clever, but there were so so so so many words in between the clever parts. So. Many. Words. Let me make this easy for you. Humans were jackasses in 1726. They are still jackasses 300 years later. That's Gulliver's Travels. The end.
The saddest part about me giving this book only 2 stars, is that I think it could have been soooo much more. I do understand that it is a satire written about the times in which Swift lived, and I also recognise that he wanted it to be satirical. However, and I don't presume to judge, I am just saying, if he stuck more to telling a story, and eased up on his satirical ranting, I think this book could have been FANTASTIC. There is so much potential there for some really good story telling. But in the end Swift decided to make it a rant about the times He lived in. It is a bit frustrating when you see what something could have been, but have to deal with what it became.
Sure, this book has a lot of quirky and fun scenarios which puts our character in various and sometimes pretty interesting scenarios, but a lot of the time you simply read about a critique of 1700-century British politics. It's a very old satire and therefore it's very hard to understand the critique which sadly makes for a pretty boring read at times.
adventurous
challenging
funny
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
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.