Paul Bryant's Reviews > Gulliver's Travels

Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
416390
's review

really liked it
bookshelves: novels

Okay, I didn't finish this sucker. It was poor. I was kind of shocked. I was thinking why does no one point out that this is a giant rip off of Honey I Shrunk the Kids and Honey I Blew Up the Kid? It's painfully obvious. I don't see why this Danial Defoe mope has not had his ass sued, maybe he avoided that by writing his ripoff in a long ass frankly boring olde-worlde style so that all the lawyers would fall asleep before they got their writ typed up. The other stuff that isn't Lillypoot and Borodbynag or whatever is talking horses and shit and I'm pretty sure they're in Lord of the Rings so more ripoff although I never saw that movie all the way through because it's kind of boring and also kind of gay.


ps - some real geek types have PMed me saying that Daniel Dafoe didn't write thia d it was Jonathon Swift. I mean, get a life. They're all dead right? they're like deader than dead. who cares. lol.
170 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Gulliver's Travels.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Started Reading
January 1, 1984 – Finished Reading
February 13, 2012 – Shelved
February 13, 2012 – Shelved as: novels

Comments Showing 1-50 of 125 (125 new)


Manny Was this review written by Tony Soprano?


Paul Bryant I think Anthony (AJ) Soprano, his annoying teenage son.


Dennis Hill This book is supposed to be a satire on Daniel Defoe's novel. Tell me you were joking about Honey I stunk up the kids and Bored of the rings especially since this book was written in the 1700's.


Paul Bryant yes, Dennis, i was not being completely serious here.


Dennis Hill Yeah, I should've suspected. Some days I'm unfamiliar with sarcasm--it does actually make your comment pretty funny. :-)


message 6: by Paul (last edited Mar 17, 2012 12:19AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paul Bryant I did the same thing with my review of Oliver Twist and one dear lady took me seriously...!

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...


Richard Great review, know what I'm sayin' Paulie?


message 8: by Paul (last edited Mar 17, 2012 04:30AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paul Bryant uh oh, the same reviewer appears to have reviewed frankenstein now... he's turning into a dangerous alter-ego...


Richard Paul wrote: "uh oh, the same reviewer appears to have reviewed frankenstein now... he's turning into a dangerous alter-ego..."

Hmmm... Dr. Bryant and Mr. Hyde. You know, it's been done before...


message 10: by Paul (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paul Bryant yes, but not on goodreads.....arrgh


message 11: by Jim (new) - rated it 4 stars

Jim Yeah, I'm thinkin' Paulie too. He was into that Prince Matchabelli guy too, the fuckin' bookworm!

And the talkin' horses was from TV, of course, of course...


Kaitlyn OK, people- Jonathan Swift wrote this in the 1700's. Honey I Shrunk the Kids didn't come out until over a couple hundred years later.


message 13: by Paul (last edited Jun 28, 2012 02:53PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paul Bryant yeh right Kaitlin - check your imdb - Gullivers travels came out in 2010, Honey i shrunk the kids was 1989! this is the book of the film. total ripoff.


message 14: by Bibliomantic (new)

Bibliomantic Besides, the title is a rip off from Rick Steves' (pronounced Thteveth) Travels. He has had travel gear and other merchandise available for sale for quite a while: here.


Manny Paul wrote: "yeh right Kaitlin - check your imdb - Gullivers travels came out in 2010, Honey i shrunk the kids was 1989! this is the book of the film. total ripoff."

You are so wrong, there was a 1977 version and Honey I Shrunk The Kids ripped it off. They must have settled out of court or something.


Esteban del Mal I thought you Brits wrote "ass" as "arse"?


Richard Esteban wrote: "I thought you Brits wrote "ass" as "arse"?"

But only when they're trying to be cheeky.


Esteban del Mal I much prefer "arse." There's dignity in "arse."


Richard Esteban wrote: "I much prefer "arse." There's dignity in "arse.""

Not always!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3ywa-...


message 20: by Paul (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paul Bryant I am maintaining a dignified silence.


Richard Paul wrote: "I am maintaining a dignified silence."

I'm maintaining an undignified smirk (see my profile pic).


message 22: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington I see that some people are good at maintaining something after all...


Kaitlyn Paul wrote: "yeh right Kaitlin - check your imdb - Gullivers travels came out in 2010, Honey i shrunk the kids was 1989! this is the book of the film. total ripoff."

No, listen to what I'm saying here- the BOOK came out in the 1720;s. The BOOK came first. I'll use several sources to show you-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver...
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/gullive...
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/gulli...

Need I say more??? The MOVIES, on the other hand-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1320261/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115195/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031397/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097523/

IMDB is movies, not books. The book came out in 1726. The Jack Black movie came out after the book came out. The movie, actually, was a poor representation of the book.


Kaitlyn Johnathan Swift wrote this book- says it right in Wiki. Now, I hate wiki, but seeing everyone else seems to like it, I'll use it anyway. Look it up anywhere- Swift wrote this book.


message 25: by Paul (last edited Jun 29, 2012 04:29PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paul Bryant 1726? but i didn't think they had science fiction 300 years ago. I mean that was before there was any science. Anyway if you say so, then the movie was the movie of the book and the book was not the book of the film. it still sucked and anyway the MOVIE of this thing came way after the moVIES of honey I shrunk/blew up the kids so the MOVIE I think ripped off the other MOVIES. anyhow are you an english teacher?


Kaitlyn Yes, they did have science back then. Not as advanced as ours today, of course, but they did have science. The book was really written to make fun of society and the great powers of the day. Yes, I agree with you, the movie did seem to rip off other ones, and it wasn't really accurate to the book. I apologize if I stepped over the boundary- I got carried away, and apologize for being uncouth and officious.


message 27: by Paul (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paul Bryant its ok i kind of do that too in my reviews no probs


message 28: by Jim (new) - rated it 4 stars

Jim But Kaitlyn, how do you KNOW the book was written in 1726? Were you there? Did you meet Jonathan Swift? I mean, like wikipedia has a lot of info and all, but how do we KNOW if it's true? They let just any old fool with a laptop add information to wikipedia. Not very reliable IMHO...

I'm more inclined to believe Paul who's like from my era in the here and now. Much more reliable source...

By the way, if the story of Lilliput is about Catholics and Protestants eating eggs from different ends, could you also apply the story to the Sunni and Shia Muslims and whatever it is they're doing different, Allah-wise?


message 29: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington I'm more inclined to believe it was written in our future and sent back through time. Likely in the future the advanced humans had no concept of originality and were forced to copy our old media for their own entertainment.


message 30: by Jim (new) - rated it 4 stars

Jim Jonathan wrote: "I'm more inclined to believe it was written in our future and sent back through time. Likely in the future the advanced humans had no concept of originality and were forced to copy our old media fo..."

OK, now THAT theory I can completely believe in. Case Closed!


message 31: by Paul (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paul Bryant hey Jonathan it's already happened man watch transformers dark side of the moon ha ha


Kaitlyn I know it's published because I took a history course and had to research the book. I also had to actually read the book in Book Club this year. Come on, it's a known fact that the book was published in 1726. Besides the fact that I know that Johnathan Swift was Irish, and the fact that I research Irish history for fun, I've come across the date everywhere I go. And yeah, I hate Wiki because anyone can go and edit and put in false info. Happens all the time. If you want me to enter some more, let me do so:
http://www.iblist.com/book16126.htm
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/gulli... (this is the copy I have)
http://www.amazon.com/Gullivers-Trave...
http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/exhibns/... (read this one, if you want to read any of these. It's good and has a lot of good info.)

The dispute about the eggs was supposed to be making fun of the Catholics and Protestants and their fights against each other, and the break from Catholicism.

Anyhow, I'm not sure about the Suuni's and Shia's, mainly because I've not done too much research on their beliefs and their fights. I suppose you could, but I wouldn't say yes or no. I don't want to make a complete arse of myself. lol


message 33: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington You know historians are constantly debating modern facts. They argue that Mao's march across China may have been mythical or at least made more heroic. So I'm still inclined to argue that technology may have skewed the records on this one...

Paul wrote: "hey Jonathan it's already happened man watch transformers dark side of the moon ha ha"

Or how about the Terminator films. I'm certain that robot looked like that guy from Predator and Total Recall and they were not in the same time zones. There's just copying all over the place. Look at Star Wars Episode 1 the guy who is the mentor there clearly resembles Zeus. They've got the continuities all out of wack...


message 34: by Jim (new) - rated it 4 stars

Jim Kaitlyn wrote: "I know it's published because I took a history course and had to research the book. I also had to actually read the book in Book Club this year. Come on, it's a known fact that the book was publish..."

This is the point where Rod Serling usually appears and delivers his tagline - "Submitted for your approval. A young coed, eagerly studies her 18th century literature, certain she has a grasp on the past, but not realizing she has entered --- The Twilight Zone!"




Dennis Hill The book was written after the movie came out then taken to the past by a time machine.


message 36: by Paul (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paul Bryant cmon i know for a fact no one ever invents time travel cause if anyone had theyd have gone back in time and strangled justin bieber at birth that would be task numero uno for any time traveler


message 37: by Jim (new) - rated it 4 stars

Jim Paul wrote: "cmon i know for a fact no one ever invents time travel cause if anyone had theyd have gone back in time and strangled justin bieber at birth that would be task numero uno for any time traveler"

one word: michaeljfox


Kaitlyn Jim wrote: "Kaitlyn wrote: "I know it's published because I took a history course and had to research the book. I also had to actually read the book in Book Club this year. Come on, it's a known fact that the ..."

haha, funny.. I know you guys are just joking around.


Kaitlyn Paul wrote: "cmon i know for a fact no one ever invents time travel cause if anyone had theyd have gone back in time and strangled justin bieber at birth that would be task numero uno for any time traveler"

I definitely agree with you there, Paul..


Kaitlyn FYI, the Twilight Zone is one of my favorite TV shows... Along with Star Trek.


message 41: by Jim (new) - rated it 4 stars

Jim Kaitlyn wrote: "haha, funny.. I know you guys are just joking around..."

But do you really KNOW we're just joking around?

Nice to meet you and have some fun Kaitlyn.

I suspect that Lilliput can be applied to the Sunni/Shia conflict. I don't know the specifics of their opposition, but I do know that all paths lead to god no matter which end of the egg you begin with...


message 42: by Anna (new) - rated it 4 stars

Anna Please, please tell me you moonlight on those sites for desperate students looking to crib their essays. Please.


message 43: by Paul (last edited Jul 03, 2012 05:46AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paul Bryant oh no. it's just that I suffer from multiple personality disorder which seems to emerge when I review some of these classics - Frankenstein, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Oliver Twist, etc. It's unpredictable and not within my control.


Kaitlyn One Day was another good book...


message 45: by Paul (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paul Bryant I meant to mention that I reviewed that one too

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...


message 46: by Darrell (new)

Darrell Reece The original book 1726. All movies with similar ideas came from this writing


message 47: by Scribble (new)

Scribble Orca Yes, definitely evil. And gnawty.


message 48: by Chlo (new) - rated it 4 stars

Chlo Johnson I hate to tell ya buddy but this was written way earlier than 'honey I shrunk the kid'.


message 49: by Kyle (new) - added it

Kyle Chlo wrote: "I hate to tell ya buddy but this was written way earlier than 'honey I shrunk the kid'."

Dammit! You just shattered my whole universe! Next you'll be telling me bunnies don't actually lay eggs, or that the dead don't actually rise on Halloween.


Amanda Mcmahon The Original Movie with, Ted Danson is way better and closer to the Book than the new Jack Black version..


« previous 1 3
back to top