Talk:Gulliver's Travels/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notice

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

That Jonathan Swift is an Anglo-Irish writer, and it is both ignorant and socially historically wrong to describe him as English, Irish or British. Second, the book was published in the UK by a UK publisher so the country of origin is not Ireland. [1] I don't have to expect to make edits like this again. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The use of Anglo-Irish is unacceptable in this instance. Anglo-Irish is not, never has been, and never will be a nationality. Please see the main Jonathan Swift article for further information.

If Swift is Anglo-Irish, then Wayne Rooney is Irish-English, and every article on an American must be updated to include their ancestors country of origin in their nationality. Please respect estalished opinion on this matter, as Swift is considered a textbook example of when Irish is to be used. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.82.219.202 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I made that comment a while ago. I've since got a better understanding of it - still, the books country of origin is still "Kingdom of Great Britain" btw. --Nutthida (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not change the country of origin - it was published in England and is a British book, I merely corrected an inaccuracy in Swifts nationality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.76.88.157 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I was talking about my original line when someone kept changing the books country of origin to Ireland, which has nothing to do with Swifts nationality - but that of the publisher. I know you haven't touched it, I just thought I would mention that's the only part of my original comment that still stands. --Nutthida (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Lewdness

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As someone with a dirty mind, reading a 200-year old edition of the Travels that had no been bowdlerised, I was struck by just how much grubby humour is in the book. Ribaldry runs through it. It's not my imagination - take look here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OfWdt-CzuqsC&lpg=PA291&ots=BXBRuJ6HKv&dq=gulliver%20master%20bates&pg=PA291#v=onepage&q=gulliver%20master%20bates&f=false

I do feel the article ought to be a bit more honest about this as it doesn't challenge the modern, sanitised retellings with which most people will be familar by refrence to the spicy character (and delectably measured delivery - Swift may have been an Irishmanm, but he was master of English) of the original work. The Yowser (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing citation

At the end of the first paragraph in "Part III: A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Glubbdubdrib, Luggnagg, and Japan", it claims that Jonathan Swift knew that laputa meant whore and did this to attack reason and deism (which I feel needs a bit of further explanation). I have found a source for it, but I think it needs a bit of revision. According to the source, Laputa is the name of the Whore of Babylon, which makes much more sense than simply "the whore" when it comes to attacks on deism.

Here is the source: http://books.google.com/books?id=J-Tgd49ng_8C&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=laputa+whore+of+babylon&source=bl&ots=KRP5XryScg&sig=v8E3saxz5qyDiOIbGqTr4VVPIsk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=w9wvT6GUB-umsQLiyaC9Dg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=laputa%20whore%20of%20babylon&f=false

Old copy I have.

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have an 1873 copy of this book. Would a picture for the article be useful? It's a nice copy after all... --85.210.100.111 (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 451 has a pretty famous reference to the novel (end of chapter 1)Jakreiser (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Archive.org has the Max Fleischer animated film

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The animated film is available at https://archive.org/details/gullivers_travels1939 but I'm not sure how best to add this to the article. Is it an appropriate link to add? RossO (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Scatology

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

in the See also, but there is no ref in the article to the book being scatological. i understand it is. pls add something, if i dont.50.193.19.66 (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Portugese language

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am curious if anyone has commented about the names of places and different languages. As I understand "puta" in Portugese means "whore". Is there any connection with Laputa.? (188.146.99.168 (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Gulliver's Travels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am a college student planning to add to this article for a class in partnership with Gdalrymp (talk · contribs).

For our plan of action we would want to contribute a section about critical reception and public/general reception as well as a section under themes about misanthropy.

Any advice is welcome.

Thank you. -AshMillette (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary Bibliography

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Brady, Frank. Twentieth Century Interpretations of Gulliver’s Travels: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1968.

Colombo, Alice. “Reworkings in the Textual History of Gulliver’s Travels: A Translational Approach.” University of Portsmouth, 2013.

Eddy, William A. Gulliver’s Travels: A Critical Study. Russell & Russell, 1963.

Foster, Milton P., editor. A Casebook on Gulliver Among the Houyhnhnms. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1961.

Fox, Christopher, editor. Gulliver’s Travels: Complete, Authoritative Text with Biographical and Historical Contexts, Critical History, and Essays from Five Contemporary Critical Perspectives. Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

Fung, Julian. “Early Condensations of Gulliver’s Travels: Images of Swift as Satirist in the 1720s.” Studies in Philology, vol. 114, no. 2, Spring 2017, pp. 395–425.

Gerace, Mary. “The Reputation of ‘Gulliver’s Travels’ in the Eighteenth Century.” University of Windsor, 1967.

Greenberg, Robert A., editor. Gulliver’s Travels : An Annotated Text with Critical Essays. W. W. Norton & Company, 1961.

Guskin, Phyllis J. “A Very Remarkable Book”: Abel Boyer’s View of Gulliver’s Travels (Book Review). Vol. 72, Fall75.

Lund, Roger D. Johnathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels: A Routledge Study Guide. Routledge, 2006.

Real, Hermann J. The Reception of Jonathan Swift in Europe. Thoemmes Continuum, 2005.

Wiener, Gary. Readings on Gulliver’s Travels (The Greenhaven Press Literary Companion to British Literature). Greenhaven Press, 2000.

-AshMillette (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible improvements

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Comic Misanthropy: The comic misanthropy section that we added involves scholars that see the misanthropy as comic, as I AshMillette only came across this view in the references that I used. However, if other users are able to find scholars that think the misanthropy was not comic, but rather cynical, then adding this view would balance the section.

Reception: I did my best to write the reception section with a balance between praise and criticism; however, I would appreciate if someone could confirm that this section indeed sounds neutral and balanced. Moreover, I believe it would be helpful if there were more specific forms of criticism on the novel, such as more criticism dating back to its first release. --Gdalrymp (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The Major themes section has bullet points of three broad themes, but these themes are not explained in depth. The paragraphs before the three broad themes are listed seems a bit disjointed from the purpose of it being a themes section. The section about Gulliver after the listing of the three broad themes might be best moved to a section devoted to the character of Gulliver (ideally before the themes section) rather than under the themes section.--AshMillette (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The second and third paragraphs under "Composition and history" do not contain any sources. Would someone be willing to find sources for all of the claims in this paragraph? --Gdalrymp (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The section on the theme of misogyny is too long (goes into too much detail in contrast with the rest of the article). It is also confusing. It speaks both of Swift's misogyny and his mocking of misogyny, implying that the misogyny is not the author's but something he is opposed to. If there is disagreement on this point then the disagreement should be presented as such with references on both sides. 83.162.131.112 (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"U.K.-style punctuation"

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Someone has changed the punctuation by moving a full stop from inside to outside quotations marks, explaining that this is "U.K.-style punctuation". Note that in the U.K. the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks if it's part of what's being quoted, outside if it isn't. --87.114.176.43 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the recommendation is to use 'logical punctuation': see MOS:LQ. Please amend if you think appropriate. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Why not add read alouds from LibriVox - Gulliver's Travels - A Category from Wikimedia Commons

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This should be useful to blinds. I don't know how to do it(add sounds in an article). Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The photograph of the first edition.

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The photograph of 'the first edition' of Gulliver's Travels' probably shows one of the second edition copies that was issued with a first edition title-page since the portrait is in the 3rd state (Teerinck 2a). It does not, at any rate, show the earliest issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oggle46 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 2 years ago21 comments11 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge Glubbdubdrib and Luggnagg into Gulliver's Travels given the extent of literary criticism; 'imaginary' elements within culturally-significant books to have their own articles. Klbrain (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It is proposed that Glubbdubdrib and Luggnagg be merged to here. Goustien (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment. There is no useful (non-plot) content to merge. It's pure WP:FANCRUFT sourced mostly to the Swift's bookitself. Redirecting is just fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: Jonathan Swift's work has been analyzed by academics for hundreds of years. I added some citations to the article. There are plenty more on Google Scholar and JSTOR. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose.a) per Toughpigs: My copy of Gulliver's Travels lists over two dozen works of literary criticism for further reading; so a lack of sources mentioned for these places doesn’t mean sources don’t exist.

.b) per WP:MERGEREASON: little or no overlap or duplication, and the two candidate articles are (see point a) notable, discrete subjects. Also, as this article is already 44Kb and the proposed articles 4Kb each the result (assuming you plan to actually merge them, not just blank and redirect) would then be a candidate for splitting into main/subsidiary articles. And we already have that. And as Swift’s satire was specific to each place Gulliver visited, the current layout, describing and discussing the satirical aspects of each place separately, is the most logical format.

.c) As FANCRUFT is being used as justification for this, I note that essay 'assumes articles or topics can be improved': Also, as it regards fancruft as an example of 'bias towards pop culture and against "serious" subjects such as the Western canon', and as Gulliver's Travels is unequivocally a classic of the western canon, quoting FANCRUFT to attack it is kind of ironic… Moonraker12 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Support - fictional objects are best discussed in the context of their own fiction. These elements have no significance outside of the stories. This is not a textbook on literary theories on Swift. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This absolutely is a place to write about literary criticism of important authors and works. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but what more can be said about these imaginary islands? They have NO context outside of discussions of Swift's work, because they are... and I know this is a shock...imaginary. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I know this is a shock, but... people write about fiction, including fictional locations. The islands that Gulliver visits are satirical and metaphorical. People write about what these places mean. See, for example, "The Importance of Swift's Glubbdubdrib Episode" from The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, April 1960. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You can write a sensible article about Greenland without ever mentioning Fezzik. You cannot write anything substantial about Glubbdubdrib and Luggnagg without confining yourself to what Swift dreamed up. That's the problem with fancruft. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If it's published in The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, then it's not fancruft; it's literary criticism. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

And do those articles mention Swift much? Mmmm? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Wtshymanski, faux outrage and sarcastic edit comments do not make a persuasive argument. It's perfectly normal for 'imaginary' elements within culturally-significant books to have their own articles (eg Garden of Eden). Significant works deserve more than a single page of description and analysis. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I look forward to articles about Watson's revolver, Shakespere's favorite pillow and Moliere's preferred oatmeal recipe. You do realize that this opens the door to every single throw-away prop in every TV series or video game franchise getting it's *very* *own* *article*. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Watson's revolver is not a fictitious item. Conan Doyle used a real person, one Dr James Watson who served as a doctor in the British Army almost exactly as described in the books for the character Dr John Watson. Dr (James) Watson's revolver was sold to him by Boss Adams & Co. of London. In those days, a British Army Officer was required to provide (and pay for) his own uniforms and revolver, the only requirement for the latter was that it was required to chamber the standard Army issue .455 Webley revolver cartridge (actually still in production today). The last report of the revolver put it in the possession of Watson's grand-daughter residing in California.

As a more curious aside, London's Metropolitan Police have record of a Scotland Yard Police issue revolver (exactly as described in the books) having been issued to one Sherlock Holmes. Though there is no argument that neither Holmes nor the revolver actually existed, the reason for the existence of the record is not known, but it is not believed to record a genuine issue as the Police have never furnished arms to non police personnel let alone non existent personnel. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per Toughpigs and Moonraker12. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose important element in major novel, although there could be a case for merging struldbrugg into Luggnag. PatGallacher (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Merger would be unproductive and add no value, just shuffling material from page to page. As Wikipedia is mostly read on mobile devices with small screens, topics are best kept small and succinct rather than broad and bloated, so that our readers can get what they want without having to scroll through large amounts of other content. See WP:TLDR, KISS principle, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Support - per Piotrus and Wtshymanski - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the opposes have it. Could a non-involved editor close this and remove the templates at the top of the relevant pages please? MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

gullivers travels summary

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Summary Full Book Summary Gulliver’s Travels recounts the story of Lemuel Gulliver, a practical-minded Englishman trained as a surgeon who takes to the seas when his business fails. In a deadpan first-person narrative that rarely shows any signs of self-reflection or deep emotional response, Gulliver narrates the adventures that befall him on these travels.

Gulliver’s adventure in Lilliput begins when he wakes after his shipwreck to find himself bound by innumerable tiny threads and addressed by tiny captors who are in awe of him but fiercely protective of their kingdom. They are not afraid to use violence against Gulliver, though their arrows are little more than pinpricks. But overall, they are hospitable, risking famine in their land by feeding Gulliver, who consumes more food than a thousand Lilliputians combined could. Gulliver is taken into the capital city by a vast wagon the Lilliputians have specially built. He is presented to the emperor, who is entertained by Gulliver, just as Gulliver is flattered by the attention of royalty. Eventually Gulliver becomes a national resource, used by the army in its war against the people of Blefuscu, whom the Lilliputians hate for doctrinal differences concerning the proper way to crack eggs. But things change when Gulliver is convicted of treason for putting out a fire in the royal palace with his urine and is condemned to be shot in the eyes and starved to death. Gulliver escapes to Blefuscu, where he is able to repair a boat he finds and set sail for England.

Featured on Sparknotes Advertisement

Powered By TrackerdslogoFull text: A Doll's House After staying in England with his wife and family for two months, Gulliver undertakes his next sea voyage, which takes him to a land of giants called Brobdingnag. Here, a field worker discovers him. The farmer initially treats him as little more than an animal, keeping him for amusement. The farmer eventually sells Gulliver to the queen, who makes him a courtly diversion and is entertained by his musical talents. Social life is easy for Gulliver after his discovery by the court, but not particularly enjoyable. Gulliver is often repulsed by the physicality of the Brobdingnagians, whose ordinary flaws are many times magnified by their huge size. Thus, when a couple of courtly ladies let him play on their naked bodies, he is not attracted to them but rather disgusted by their enormous skin pores and the sound of their torrential urination. He is generally startled by the ignorance of the people here—even the king knows nothing about politics. More unsettling findings in Brobdingnag come in the form of various animals of the realm that endanger his life. Even Brobdingnagian insects leave slimy trails on his food that make eating difficult. On a trip to the frontier, accompanying the royal couple, Gulliver leaves Brobdingnag when his cage is plucked up by an eagle and dropped into the sea.

Next, Gulliver sets sail again and, after an attack by pirates, ends up in Laputa, where a floating island inhabited by theoreticians and academics oppresses the land below, called Balnibarbi. The scientific research undertaken in Laputa and in Balnibarbi seems totally inane and impractical, and its residents too appear wholly out of touch with reality. Taking a short side trip to Glubbdubdrib, Gulliver is able to witness the conjuring up of figures from history, such as Julius Caesar and other military leaders, whom he finds much less impressive than in books. After visiting the Luggnaggians and the Struldbrugs, the latter of which are senile immortals who prove that age does not bring wisdom, he is able to sail to Japan and from there back to England.

Finally, on his fourth journey, Gulliver sets out as captain of a ship, but after the mutiny of his crew and a long confinement in his cabin, he arrives in an unknown land. This land is populated by Houyhnhnms, rational-thinking horses who rule, and by Yahoos, brutish humanlike creatures who serve the Houyhnhnms. Gulliver sets about learning their language, and when he can speak he narrates his voyages to them and explains the constitution of England. He is treated with great courtesy and kindness by the horses and is enlightened by his many conversations with them and by his exposure to their noble culture. He wants to stay with the Houyhnhnms, but his bared body reveals to the horses that he is very much like a Yahoo, and he is banished. Gulliver is grief-stricken but agrees to leave. He fashions a canoe and makes his way to a nearby island, where he is picked up by a Portuguese ship captain who treats him well, though Gulliver cannot help now seeing the captain—and all humans—as shamefully Yahoolike. Gulliver then concludes his narrative with a claim that the lands he has visited belong by rights to England, as her colonies, even though he questions the whole idea of colonialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:47B0:60E0:9806:8000:53C4:348 (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)