Talk:Gulliver's Travels
|
|
I pulled the sections from the book that still make me howl out loud laughing, and which strike me as being close to quite universal truth. Feel free to cut it back.
I also can't write about Swift without being sarcastic myself, although I do most certainly agree with him about almost everything the man ever wrote.
This book is the beginnings of modern culture, probably uniquely so, with its free written satire and blunt critique of every concept of human "justice"... very few books of the time, with the exception of More's Utopia, would hold up to a reading today as well as this.
I don't think it can possibly be overestimated as an influence on the English language and culture.
But that's just my opinion.
I put "British" to describe Swift, but this doesn't do justice to his Englishness; yet merely to say "English" omits his strong connection with Ireland. Can anyone find a brief yet informative expression? (The aristocrats were joining together as one group of more than just the English ones at that point, though it was well short of complete as the Camerons among others were yet to show.) PML.
"Anglo-Irish" would be a better term to use for him, after all he was born in Ireland and spent most of his life here. -Dubhthach
It is widely supposed that Laputa was a strict satire of the Royal Society, which Isaac Newton also despised
Is there a typo in that sentence somewhere ?
Newton was President of the Royal Society so it seems unlikely that he would despise it. --Imran 20:50 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The article says:
- They also rely on showing each other visible objects rather than speech in words wherever possible, considering it "purer". It is not recorded whether any of them ever spelled out "Welcome to Macintosh", but it seems likely. Again, Swift's satire stands to this day.
That's funny, but it seems to me that it's editorializing. -- Dominus 19:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't like the current situation, where there's separate articles for each section of the book and also much detail about each section in this article. Somebody should either move the details to the sub-articles or fold the sub-articles into this one. (But which? That's the question...) --Paul A 06:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree. There should be a page dedicated to the discussion of Endianness. That would create a great discussion!! --DannyM 17:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Brobdingnag on Votes for Deletion
There is a proposal on Votes for deletion currently to delete Brobdingnag and redirect it to the main article. In my view, this section of Gulliver's travels is of such importance that it warrants its own page. I have cast my vote on the Vfd page and I would encourage people with an interest in Gulliver's Travels to have their say. Capitalistroadster 00:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why deletion?
Why did the last edit delete some information about adaptations? If they cannot justify this I may revert?
By the way, what is the procedure for removing the "cleanup" categorisation? PatGallacher 11:43, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
- The deletion appeared to be simply vandalism; I have fixed it. As for removing the cleanup tag, I think it requires someone rewriting the rather verbose article and cleaning up the tone. I'll try it if I get some free time, but anyone else is more than welcome to do so as well. --b. Touch 14:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm wondering how/why the page needs "cleaned up"? As GT is, in my opinion, one of the ifinest books ever written in English I'd be happy to have a go but I'd be interested to know what's wanted : a complete new article, a root canal of the existing one or just a buff and shine?
I'll have a go, whatever, but I don't want to raise any hackles as I'm new to this wiki thing.
Rewritten in toto
I rewrote the entire article. It still needs extensive polishing, spellchecking and better attribution of sources (I need to get to a library to consult the collected correspondence for instance) but I reckon it's better than what was there. The article I rewrote contained some useful information but also felt like a Lit Crit piece rather than an encyclopedia article and I distinctly doubted its NPOV.
I'd welcome all improvements with open arms (or the wiki equivalent) AxS 21:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Book 1
I removed a comment saying that only the first part is well known, what evidence is there for this. I think a case could be made for this being the most popular, although we cannot mention that in this article, but I would not say that it is any better knwon than anything else in the book. Also it seems odd making comments about the undeniable popularity of this work then saying that the first book is very well known and the rest is not, it seems bizarre that people would stop reading such a popular book after the first section. Rje 15:06, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Comment on the first book was mine -- the first voyage is extensively bowdlerised as a work for children and many people read this in their childhood and never bother with it again. Vide Samuel Johnson's comment on GT : "Once you have thought of the big people and the little people the rest is simple" (or words to that effect). Most people think of solely the first voyage or maybe the first two but the third and fourth will only be known by people who've read the book proper.
Having said all that I accept that the comment may have been inappropriate to the article. AxS 12:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have checked this myself occasionally and children's editions invariably consist of the first 2 books, except that very recently somebody has produced a version for children, I assume made "child-friendly" but based on all 4 books. PatGallacher 16:19, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)