It's also one of the main precursors to science-fiction. Remember, when Swift was writing, large portions of the world were still unknown, and he set the story in those places.
Yes, as I noted in my review. He actually gives the locations of the lands he writes about -- he sets Lilliput off the coast of Tasmania, the lands of Lagado and Glubbdubdrib are between California and Japan (Gulliver suggests they are attached to the west coast of North America), and Houyhnhnmland is (I think) off the southern tip of Africa.
I found this journal through a fanficrants post and clicked because of your icon (W. A. S. T. E. FTW!).
I had to read Book Four for a class last year, and I loved it. I need to read the rest, but I'm usually overloaded with books since I'm an English major. I saw this as a precursor to both modern sci-fi and fantasy (like the parodic tone of Discworld), but I remember thinking that the Vulcans from Star Trek owe a lot to the Houyhnhms.
I've heard and seen several favorable analyses of Gulliver's travels, yet they are all over-shadowed by the at best mediocre movie/television adaptions. When my schedule frees up, I will definitely be reading it for myself to find ascertain its quality. As for the childlike style of the films versions, from what I understand that is really just Swift's style. It may have been done more tactfully or subtly, but its surface is still fairly simply written. I think he did it very purposefully not only to widen the range of his audience, but also to advance his motif regarding the limits of human understanding. If this is a completely inaccurate, rambling breakdown, let me know; as I said, I've not yet read Gulliver's Travels.
Re: Off-puttinginverarityMay 17 2011, 02:49:26 UTC
I'd say Swift's language is fairly simple (the archaic language making it only less accessible to a 21st century reader), but it's not really "childlike." As I mentioned in my review, I read it when I was a child and followed the basic story easily enough, but I missed most of the satire.
"Childlike" probably was the wrong word, "simple" does fit much better. As far as the archaic language, I think, as a more mature reader, that is half the fun. Unraveling the slightly different connotations that words had just a century or two ago and applying them to present day circumstances provides a refreshing angle from present-day, cookie-cutter stories.
Comments 8
Reply
Reply
I had to read Book Four for a class last year, and I loved it. I need to read the rest, but I'm usually overloaded with books since I'm an English major. I saw this as a precursor to both modern sci-fi and fantasy (like the parodic tone of Discworld), but I remember thinking that the Vulcans from Star Trek owe a lot to the Houyhnhms.
Reply
If this is a completely inaccurate, rambling breakdown, let me know; as I said, I've not yet read Gulliver's Travels.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I did deduce quickly enough that he was using one of these:
( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment