Scan barcode
amysaffer's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
raygersh's review against another edition
3.0
Looking Backward is a quirky little tale of a Bostonian who falls asleep in 1887, only to find himself awoken 113 years later in a futuristic 2000. Having been actually published in 1888, you can imagine how fun it might seem to see what a person from the 19th century's idea of the future might be. In a word, I would call Bellamy's vision precious. It's cute to see the hope he had for America.
The 2000 that Bellamy's lead character, Julian West, arrives in is nothing short of utopia. He describes (ad nauseum) the joys of life in the new socialist society that America has created. Intriguing though it may be, 90% of the book is simply dedicated to describing the ins and outs of the functions of this new America. Bellamy's vision is very intelligent and well thought out, but he spends endless pages pontificating on the perfect socialist utopia created in 113 years. It is quite advanced and ahead of its time. I can only imagine he was a revolutionary thinker in his time. He is also very self aware and has a smart ending and insightful afterword to accompany the utopia he carves out for us.
My favorite novelty of his future is the invention of basically a home music system. The reminder at what life must have been like before recorded music was readily available truly made me grateful to the modern world. Bellamy muses on the joy this brings by saying, "If we could have devised an arrangement for providing everybody with music in their homes, perfect in quality, unlimited in quantity, suited to every mood, and beginning and ceasing at will, we should have considered the limit of human felicity already attained, and ceased to strive for further improvements."
Overall: a quaint little utopian novel to provide you with some perspective on life, where we've come from, and where we're headed.
The 2000 that Bellamy's lead character, Julian West, arrives in is nothing short of utopia. He describes (ad nauseum) the joys of life in the new socialist society that America has created. Intriguing though it may be, 90% of the book is simply dedicated to describing the ins and outs of the functions of this new America. Bellamy's vision is very intelligent and well thought out, but he spends endless pages pontificating on the perfect socialist utopia created in 113 years. It is quite advanced and ahead of its time. I can only imagine he was a revolutionary thinker in his time. He is also very self aware and has a smart ending and insightful afterword to accompany the utopia he carves out for us.
My favorite novelty of his future is the invention of basically a home music system. The reminder at what life must have been like before recorded music was readily available truly made me grateful to the modern world. Bellamy muses on the joy this brings by saying, "If we could have devised an arrangement for providing everybody with music in their homes, perfect in quality, unlimited in quantity, suited to every mood, and beginning and ceasing at will, we should have considered the limit of human felicity already attained, and ceased to strive for further improvements."
Overall: a quaint little utopian novel to provide you with some perspective on life, where we've come from, and where we're headed.
kmthomas06's review against another edition
3.0
A bit preachy and the explanations of how society works are long but there is a cute, albeit predictable, romance to keep a reader interested. I found it interesting to look at what a writer in the 1890s though we'd be living like in the year 2000.
hakkun1's review against another edition
challenging
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
lori85's review against another edition
1.0
The first thing that stands out from Edward Bellamy's 1887 socialist Utopian novella Looking Backward, 2000-1887 is that this is NOT a good book. What it is instead is one of those literary fads that temporarily grip the nation but lack any real staying power beyond some historical significance or maybe as part of a class on the history of popular fiction, American intellectual thought, or progressive politics in the USA. Of course, a lot of great fiction was written in order to make social or political point: The Grapes of Wrath, All Quiet on the Western Front, and Catch-22 all come to mind. But what makes these works succeed is the fact that the message seems secondary to a powerful, moving, or darkly humorous story. Overall, I got the impression that Looking Backward was the result of Bellamy's awareness that most people are not going to read an economic treatise.
Looking Backward is just that: a treatise thinly disguised as science fiction. On the one hand, in the information-driven society of the real twenty-first century it's certainly not unreasonable for any random citizen to be able to offer an adequate explanation on what makes our society tick. Yet Dr. Leete, a physician, rambles on and on about the minute workings of the government and economy for six uninterrupted pages. The "plot" itself is as dry as his lectures. For one, the world of 2000 is never fully realized beyond a platform for Bellamy to espouse his economic theories. (Some of which are astonishing in their hypocrisy. In order to eliminate corruption, for example, he imagines voting restricted to only a few "honorary members" of society.) Bellamy further provides no description of the Boston of the future except that it's apparently very grand, splendid, clean, and orderly. There is simply no feeling of setting: the feelings and images evoked by descriptive prose. The characters, meanwhile, are as flat as the pages, exhibiting no unique personality, no true emotion, no life as anything other than cardboard props to people a plot.
So needless to say, learning of the book's extraordinary popularity was rather surprising. Not only because Bellamy just couldn't write, but the message as well. Quite frankly, I found Bellamy's vision of the future extremely disturbing. A quote at the end of the book sums it up:
In other words, Bellamy's ideal society is essentially one big military organization.
In the Year 2000, the state supplies everything, down to the awnings that automatically come down to cover the sidewalks during rain. In other words, there is no conflict: no reason to exercise emotional strength, no learning experience, no reason to take initiative or be innovative, and absolutely nothing to inspire art or literature. How can you compose a compelling story when everyone is satisfied and happy? Everything is regimented, everything falls into place. "You're just another brick in the wall," so to speak. The superficiality of the Leete family characters was not merely the result of poor writing, I feel, but the lack of room in their society for individuality. (What if you WANTED to walk in the rain?) But even in Bellamy's own time, people expressed unease with his vision. There were several unauthorized dystopic sequels to Looking Backward that were published shortly afterwards. Several deal with revolution and an overblown socialist bureaucracy on the brink of collapse; in another, Julian West's warnings about the threat of Chinese military invasion are ignored by a populace unable to think for itself and dissent from official state opinion.
In the end, Looking Backward is fascinating from anthropological and historical perspective. It was intriguing to see how visions of an ideal world have changed and what is Utopia to one era is Dystopia to another. (Definitely check out the Thomas More story that inspired the entire genre.) But as actual literature, Looking Backward fails.
See also: the original review and my review of Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman.
Looking Backward is just that: a treatise thinly disguised as science fiction. On the one hand, in the information-driven society of the real twenty-first century it's certainly not unreasonable for any random citizen to be able to offer an adequate explanation on what makes our society tick. Yet Dr. Leete, a physician, rambles on and on about the minute workings of the government and economy for six uninterrupted pages. The "plot" itself is as dry as his lectures. For one, the world of 2000 is never fully realized beyond a platform for Bellamy to espouse his economic theories. (Some of which are astonishing in their hypocrisy. In order to eliminate corruption, for example, he imagines voting restricted to only a few "honorary members" of society.) Bellamy further provides no description of the Boston of the future except that it's apparently very grand, splendid, clean, and orderly. There is simply no feeling of setting: the feelings and images evoked by descriptive prose. The characters, meanwhile, are as flat as the pages, exhibiting no unique personality, no true emotion, no life as anything other than cardboard props to people a plot.
So needless to say, learning of the book's extraordinary popularity was rather surprising. Not only because Bellamy just couldn't write, but the message as well. Quite frankly, I found Bellamy's vision of the future extremely disturbing. A quote at the end of the book sums it up:
Some time after this it was that I recall a glimpse of myself standing on the steps of a building on Tremont Street looking at a military parade. A regiment was passing. It was the first sight in that dreary day which had inspired me with any other emotions than wondering pity and amazement. Here at last were order and reason, an exhibition of what intelligent coöperation can accomplish. The people who stood looking on with kindling faces, - could it be that the sight had for them no more than but a spectacular interest? Could they fail to see that it was their perfect concert of action, their organization under one control, which made these men the tremendous engine they were, able to vanquish a mob ten times as numerous? Seeing this so plainly, could they fail to comprehend the scientific manner in which the nation went to war with the unscientific manner in which it went to work?
In other words, Bellamy's ideal society is essentially one big military organization.
In the Year 2000, the state supplies everything, down to the awnings that automatically come down to cover the sidewalks during rain. In other words, there is no conflict: no reason to exercise emotional strength, no learning experience, no reason to take initiative or be innovative, and absolutely nothing to inspire art or literature. How can you compose a compelling story when everyone is satisfied and happy? Everything is regimented, everything falls into place. "You're just another brick in the wall," so to speak. The superficiality of the Leete family characters was not merely the result of poor writing, I feel, but the lack of room in their society for individuality. (What if you WANTED to walk in the rain?) But even in Bellamy's own time, people expressed unease with his vision. There were several unauthorized dystopic sequels to Looking Backward that were published shortly afterwards. Several deal with revolution and an overblown socialist bureaucracy on the brink of collapse; in another, Julian West's warnings about the threat of Chinese military invasion are ignored by a populace unable to think for itself and dissent from official state opinion.
In the end, Looking Backward is fascinating from anthropological and historical perspective. It was intriguing to see how visions of an ideal world have changed and what is Utopia to one era is Dystopia to another. (Definitely check out the Thomas More story that inspired the entire genre.) But as actual literature, Looking Backward fails.
See also: the original review and my review of Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman.
bookinatorus's review against another edition
3.0
As a novel I would not say this is the best book I have ever read.
But as a utopian novel on which we should have a reflexion, I think this book is really great.
In this novel, we follow Julian West a man living in the Boston of 1887. He is preparing his betrothal with Edith, but they cannot live together as workers are striking. One night, he goes to sleep with the help of a mesmerizer. But, he will wake up in 2000.
When he wakes up, he meets the family Leete which took care of him during his long sleep. Julian will see the Boston of 2000, this utopian and socialist (Bellamy was a socialist) society of Boston. As the times go by, Julian sees the downsides of 1887 and the improvement society faced until 2000.
I like the fact that he wakes up and the all his travel to the future was just a dream. It allows Julian to have a smart reflexion of his society and to see what are the problem of his times. Nevertheless, though he wants to tell everyone what he sees, we can see his struggle and drawn the lesson that every revolution, every deep change needs to come on time. This come back to 1887, make this period seem as a dystopia in contrast to Boston of 2000.
Personally, I did not like the love story passage between Edith of the future and Julian, I thought it adds nothing and was even too much.
But as a utopian novel on which we should have a reflexion, I think this book is really great.
In this novel, we follow Julian West a man living in the Boston of 1887. He is preparing his betrothal with Edith, but they cannot live together as workers are striking. One night, he goes to sleep with the help of a mesmerizer. But, he will wake up in 2000.
When he wakes up, he meets the family Leete which took care of him during his long sleep. Julian will see the Boston of 2000, this utopian and socialist (Bellamy was a socialist) society of Boston. As the times go by, Julian sees the downsides of 1887 and the improvement society faced until 2000.
I like the fact that he wakes up and the all his travel to the future was just a dream. It allows Julian to have a smart reflexion of his society and to see what are the problem of his times. Nevertheless, though he wants to tell everyone what he sees, we can see his struggle and drawn the lesson that every revolution, every deep change needs to come on time. This come back to 1887, make this period seem as a dystopia in contrast to Boston of 2000.
Personally, I did not like the love story passage between Edith of the future and Julian, I thought it adds nothing and was even too much.
pedanther's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
Content Warnings
Moderate: Ableism, Mental illness, Racism, Sexism, and Classism
Minor: Child death, Suicide, Islamophobia, Grief, Acephobia/Arophobia, Fire/Fire injury, Colonisation, and War
rnoceros's review against another edition
1.0
I read this for class which automatically adds some sort of dispassion. However this book did not make a very pleasant read. For class we're looking into future in popculture. This book is an example of how the year 2000 was suposed to look like according to 19th century.
I believe Bellamy was aiming this book toward rich folk of the 19th century. He clearly defines his future utopian world by appealing to 19th century logic. Bellamy chose a character from the upper class which I think would appeal to his audience as well as adhere to their point of view while at the same time pointing out the flaws of their society. I am sure that wealthy 19th century people would like to hear all the bad things they have done and why they are destroying society so instead Bellamy gives them a logical, reasonable future that displays their faults as well as what can be done to fix the problems.
This is all very good. No one is poor and everybody is happy (besides me). But I did not enjoy this book since it is almost entirely dialogue and explanatory detail. There was very little action which I enjoy in a book. Altogether I wouldn't recommend this book for people who want an entertaining read. Looking into Bellamy's motivations was a lot more fun.
I believe Bellamy was aiming this book toward rich folk of the 19th century. He clearly defines his future utopian world by appealing to 19th century logic. Bellamy chose a character from the upper class which I think would appeal to his audience as well as adhere to their point of view while at the same time pointing out the flaws of their society. I am sure that wealthy 19th century people would like to hear all the bad things they have done and why they are destroying society so instead Bellamy gives them a logical, reasonable future that displays their faults as well as what can be done to fix the problems.
This is all very good. No one is poor and everybody is happy (besides me). But I did not enjoy this book since it is almost entirely dialogue and explanatory detail. There was very little action which I enjoy in a book. Altogether I wouldn't recommend this book for people who want an entertaining read. Looking into Bellamy's motivations was a lot more fun.
lu2cy_i's review against another edition
challenging
inspiring
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.5