Scan barcode
great_wide_library's review against another edition
3.0
A little dry, but very well thought out idealistic view of the way More life thought should be. Biting criticism on English society, but lacked the consideration of common human variability.
lmbuesking's review against another edition
2.0
Did I have this on my "to read" list because of Ever After? 100%
Am I embarrassed by that? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
2.5? 3?
I really didn't know how to rate this one. I value it as something to start conversations on what a "Utopian" society would look like. This book has some compelling ideas and some detestable ones (which is why I get uncomfortable with the stars). My rating is more about how it could spark discussion rather than rating the ideas presented. So my review is just the parts that stood out and got me thinking. Not always positively. Book quotations below.
The parts about poverty were fascinating as it describes a perspective that honestly I thought was a much more modern a take. "...no penalty is great enough to keep people from stealing if they have no other way to make a living." More tackles the broken systems that push people into poverty, give no opportunity for them to escape it, and then punish them (to the point of death) for resorting to stealing in order to survive.
I know there were some radical ideas presented here for the time, but it's hard to ignore the inconsistencies in "the structure of the commonwealth is primarily designed to relieve all the citizens from as much bodily labor as possible, so that they can devote their time to the freedom and cultivation of the mind. For that, they think, constitutes a happy life." And by "all" they do not mean all. Book II hits you hard with racism and colonialism ("The natives are easily assimilated, and that to the advantage of both groups." "The natives who refuse to live under their laws are driven out of the territory the Utopians have marked off for their use; if they resist, the Utopians make war against them." ) and more. I get it was written in the 1500s. Was racism and enslavement and sexism wrong then, too? Yes.
The criticism of the rich was brutal and could be just as easily said today.
More is critical of how the rich use the poor, but simultaneously seems completely comfortable with the enslavement of others he deems "fit" for it.
There were some interesting parts. There were some parts that made me cringe. But yes it's pretty dry. Not one I'll read again. Ever After curiosity sated.
Am I embarrassed by that? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
2.5? 3?
I really didn't know how to rate this one. I value it as something to start conversations on what a "Utopian" society would look like. This book has some compelling ideas and some detestable ones (which is why I get uncomfortable with the stars). My rating is more about how it could spark discussion rather than rating the ideas presented. So my review is just the parts that stood out and got me thinking. Not always positively. Book quotations below.
The parts about poverty were fascinating as it describes a perspective that honestly I thought was a much more modern a take. "...no penalty is great enough to keep people from stealing if they have no other way to make a living." More tackles the broken systems that push people into poverty, give no opportunity for them to escape it, and then punish them (to the point of death) for resorting to stealing in order to survive.
I know there were some radical ideas presented here for the time, but it's hard to ignore the inconsistencies in "the structure of the commonwealth is primarily designed to relieve all the citizens from as much bodily labor as possible, so that they can devote their time to the freedom and cultivation of the mind. For that, they think, constitutes a happy life." And by "all" they do not mean all. Book II hits you hard with racism and colonialism ("The natives are easily assimilated, and that to the advantage of both groups." "The natives who refuse to live under their laws are driven out of the territory the Utopians have marked off for their use; if they resist, the Utopians make war against them." ) and more. I get it was written in the 1500s. Was racism and enslavement and sexism wrong then, too? Yes.
The criticism of the rich was brutal and could be just as easily said today.
"They think up and devise all ways and means, first of keeping (and having no fear of losing) what they have heaped up through underhanded deals, and then of taking advantage of the poor by buying their labor and toil as cheaply as possible. Once the rich have decreed in the name of the public (including the poor) that these schemes must be observed, then they become laws."
More is critical of how the rich use the poor, but simultaneously seems completely comfortable with the enslavement of others he deems "fit" for it.
"I maintain it is clear that at the end of this famine, if you examined the barns of the rich, you would find so much grain that if it had been divided among those swept away by starvation and disease, no one would have noticed any effect at all of the failure of the weather and soil. It would have been easy to provide food if that blessed money, that invention very clearly designed to open the way to what we need to live, were not the only barrier to keep us from it. I have no doubt that the rich also understand this and are not unaware how much better it would be to lack no necessities than to abound in so many superfluities, to be relieved of so many troubles than to be hemmed in by such great wealth."
There were some interesting parts. There were some parts that made me cringe. But yes it's pretty dry. Not one I'll read again. Ever After curiosity sated.
teagan821's review against another edition
4.0
I ended up reading this book as I had downloaded it for free on my phone probably... years ago. As a Literature major in college, I knew the cultural impact of this book and had read excerpts but felt I should actually read it, especially considering it was free. I didn't even realize I still had the "Books" app on my phone until I was working an information desk and bored out of my mind. It was a quick read, and I'm glad I did it. Perhaps the most notable thing to me was that in Utopia, they still have slaves and an underclass. Even Utopia "requires" slaves for a healthy economy. That no doubt left a mark on society in "good people" being able to justify slavery and low wages for hundreds of years.
dennisfischman's review against another edition
3.0
How difficult it is to tell a serious proposal from a satire. Some day, I wonder, will Stephen Colbert be hailed as a great conservative thinker?
obsidian_blue's review against another edition
3.0
Utopia was written by Sir Thomas More in 1516. For those of you that know your history or at least watched the tv show The Tudors, know that he opposed Henry VIII's separation from the Catholic church and refused to acknowledge him as Supreme Head of the Church of England. Because of this and some say not attending the wedding of Anne Boleyn to Henry VIII he was tried for treason and beheaded in 1535. More was a fascinating person and I loved studying European history in college and reading up about the Tudors and the insanity that went on with Henry VIII. That said I really didn't like this book that much.
I know that 1516 was several centuries ago but reading about slavery and how women were treated in the fictional Utopia had me realizing that this was not the best book for me. The first part of the book that has More having a conversation with Raphael Hythloday who begins talking about how best it is to counsel a prince. I thought this part was very well done and it does explore some very interesting thoughts and ideas about how due to "yes men" and those who want to grow rich those who often counsel a prince are not thinking of the good of society as a whole.
Part two I didn't care for that much at all. We have More providing detailed information about the fictional country of Utopia. One thing that I did like was that women worked just like men and farmed. However, we have More discussing that every household has slaves and that many neighboring countries have people who are quite happy to be enslaved in Utopia. That part made me laugh out loud a bit. More also discusses how every religion is tolerated in Utopia and how priests can marry (and priests can be either men or women).
Pretty much Utopia sounds like a fool's paradise that I would visit but would quickly take my leave after a day.
Many people to this day argue about why More wrote Utopia and what was he trying to say. I for one can say I am surprised he wrote this when you see how committed he was to the Catholic church. Having priests marry would have been a radical notion back in the day along with women being allowed to be priests too. I guess I shouldn't be too shocked about priests marrying since there were many Popes that had children and mistresses. For example, Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had multiple children while a priest (also subject to a television show called the Borgias) and openly acknowledged them as his children. So I wonder if More saw the previous history of the Popes and thought that marrying and having children while a priest wasn't such a bad thing. Or possibly More wrote this in order to show that a perfect society in the England of the time and place he lived was not possible.
I do want to say that since I read this book for the most part on my Amazon Cloud Reader that the text ran together and I didn't have paragraphs to break up the flow which made it harder for me to get through. Once I read it on my Kindle though it was easier to read the paragraphs were there.
I know that 1516 was several centuries ago but reading about slavery and how women were treated in the fictional Utopia had me realizing that this was not the best book for me. The first part of the book that has More having a conversation with Raphael Hythloday who begins talking about how best it is to counsel a prince. I thought this part was very well done and it does explore some very interesting thoughts and ideas about how due to "yes men" and those who want to grow rich those who often counsel a prince are not thinking of the good of society as a whole.
Part two I didn't care for that much at all. We have More providing detailed information about the fictional country of Utopia. One thing that I did like was that women worked just like men and farmed. However, we have More discussing that every household has slaves and that many neighboring countries have people who are quite happy to be enslaved in Utopia. That part made me laugh out loud a bit. More also discusses how every religion is tolerated in Utopia and how priests can marry (and priests can be either men or women).
Pretty much Utopia sounds like a fool's paradise that I would visit but would quickly take my leave after a day.
Many people to this day argue about why More wrote Utopia and what was he trying to say. I for one can say I am surprised he wrote this when you see how committed he was to the Catholic church. Having priests marry would have been a radical notion back in the day along with women being allowed to be priests too. I guess I shouldn't be too shocked about priests marrying since there were many Popes that had children and mistresses. For example, Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had multiple children while a priest (also subject to a television show called the Borgias) and openly acknowledged them as his children. So I wonder if More saw the previous history of the Popes and thought that marrying and having children while a priest wasn't such a bad thing. Or possibly More wrote this in order to show that a perfect society in the England of the time and place he lived was not possible.
I do want to say that since I read this book for the most part on my Amazon Cloud Reader that the text ran together and I didn't have paragraphs to break up the flow which made it harder for me to get through. Once I read it on my Kindle though it was easier to read the paragraphs were there.
amon_ette's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
3.0
laraoswald's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
lomeraniel's review against another edition
4.0
Review originally published at: http://www.lomeraniel.com/audiobookreviews/book-review-utopia-thomas/
Thomas More is traveling in the Low Countries, where he meets Raphael Hythloday, who will tell him tales of a country where they have achieved perfection in many senses. Written in latin in 1516, 'Utopia' is a compendium of what More thinks should be an ideal society.
Even though it is slightly old fashioned (it is 500 years old!) I think it is a must read for anyone with a bit of interest in politics and sociology. This word was taken later on to describe a perfect society, even though the society described by More was far from perfect.
The book covers diverse aspects like: government, work, relationships, spare time, and war. Many of the items are very well thought, even though I do not know how realistic it would be in the end. This is a society where money does not exist, where people just need to work six hours per day, and where all is shared among everybody.
It is a kind of communism where religion is permitted, and what is more, everybody is free to chose which religion they want to practice. There is no mention of people being able to chose not to follow a religion, but I guess the options are limited, as it happens with all the rest.
Underneath all this fairness and beauty there is a dark truth: there is slavery in Utopia, and slaves, apart from being kept in chains, are the ones in charge of ugly jobs like animal slaughter, because this kind of jobs could perturb the happiness of a citizen of Utopia. Slaves were usually people who committed crimes or poor people from other countries who wished to move to Utopia. Funny how this Utopians treated their immigrants, but I guess their main goal was to protect their own interests and screw anybody who was lucky enough to be born somewhere else. I think being an immigrant can be bad enough sometimes without being categorized as a slave.
Some people find ridiculous how people chose a spouse but I do not think it is so different from what we do nowadays.
Thomas More described a perfect balanced society, perfect for the lucky ones, but also without any freedom. The idea was a good one, but I think everyone deserves the right to make mistakes and learn from them, and to be different.
Douglas McDonald did a decent job with this audiobook. I think it is not an easy book to narrate, and he did well in trying to make it enjoyable. In some occasions I could hear him breathing, I think due to being to close to the microphone, and in a couple of places there are volume variations, but for the rest the audio production was fine.
I received a copy of this book in audio format for free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Thomas More is traveling in the Low Countries, where he meets Raphael Hythloday, who will tell him tales of a country where they have achieved perfection in many senses. Written in latin in 1516, 'Utopia' is a compendium of what More thinks should be an ideal society.
Even though it is slightly old fashioned (it is 500 years old!) I think it is a must read for anyone with a bit of interest in politics and sociology. This word was taken later on to describe a perfect society, even though the society described by More was far from perfect.
The book covers diverse aspects like: government, work, relationships, spare time, and war. Many of the items are very well thought, even though I do not know how realistic it would be in the end. This is a society where money does not exist, where people just need to work six hours per day, and where all is shared among everybody.
It is a kind of communism where religion is permitted, and what is more, everybody is free to chose which religion they want to practice. There is no mention of people being able to chose not to follow a religion, but I guess the options are limited, as it happens with all the rest.
Underneath all this fairness and beauty there is a dark truth: there is slavery in Utopia, and slaves, apart from being kept in chains, are the ones in charge of ugly jobs like animal slaughter, because this kind of jobs could perturb the happiness of a citizen of Utopia. Slaves were usually people who committed crimes or poor people from other countries who wished to move to Utopia. Funny how this Utopians treated their immigrants, but I guess their main goal was to protect their own interests and screw anybody who was lucky enough to be born somewhere else. I think being an immigrant can be bad enough sometimes without being categorized as a slave.
Some people find ridiculous how people chose a spouse but I do not think it is so different from what we do nowadays.
Thomas More described a perfect balanced society, perfect for the lucky ones, but also without any freedom. The idea was a good one, but I think everyone deserves the right to make mistakes and learn from them, and to be different.
Douglas McDonald did a decent job with this audiobook. I think it is not an easy book to narrate, and he did well in trying to make it enjoyable. In some occasions I could hear him breathing, I think due to being to close to the microphone, and in a couple of places there are volume variations, but for the rest the audio production was fine.
I received a copy of this book in audio format for free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.