That perhaps Lemuel Gulliver is Gull-ible.
That Swift is entirely willing to poke fun at his earnest and adventurous hero.
That things may not be what they appear in this slippery novel.
And now: what would you like to know?
- What questions do you have about Gulliver's encounter with the Houhynhms?
- What issues would you like to hear discussed in class?
- What puzzles you or interests you particularly about this book?
20 comments:
I would like to know why Gulliver is attracted to horses. It appears that he talks to them at one point and believes that they are magicians. We should discuss in class Gulliver’s misconceptions of the Houyhnhnms and their relationship with Gulliver as part four progresses.
Also, what does his pregnant wife do while Gulliver is away exploring?
In chapter three, Gulliver is referred to as a Yahoo by Houyhnhnms but perceived to be one of great importance. Gulliver is not pleased with being referred to as a Yahoo. Why does this name offend him?
I wonder that when Gulliver tells the Houhynhms he has tales of his homeland to amaze and divert them, he only tells of the negative things. Instead of focusing on great art, sculptures or philosophical movements (like the Enlightenment Era) he tells them of their abusive treatment of horses, reasons for causing and methods of war and the immoral practice of lying lawyer. Eventually master Houhynhm tells Gulliver to stop, and he notes “my discourse had increased his abhorrence of the whole species” (365). Instead of creating admiration or respect for the yahoo-like humans, Gulliver’s accounts cause the Houhynhms to disdain humans. To settle his befuddled mind, master Houhynhm decides “that instead of reason, we [humans] were only possessed of some quality fitted to increase our natural vices” (365). The master can’t compare his rationality to that of humans because humans are too cruel to be rational. Instead, he assumes their intelligence is some after-effect of Darwinian evolution – when certain traits are increased that necessitate survival. In this case, cruelty keeps humans alive and so is exemplified and passed down through generations.
I also think it's interesting how offended Gulliver is to be referred to as a Yahoo. He admits on page 355 that he recognizes that they're basically the same, except for the Yahoos' "length of the nails, the coarsness and brownness of the palms, and the hairiness on the backs" and the fact that he wears clothing. The horses are confused as to see any differences between them, though. It's interesting to me that the horses, who represent rationality, don't seem to notice that Gulliver is wearing clothes and is following human's social customs in grooming whereas these things are clearly very significant to Gulliver himself. Even though the Yahoos look like humans, they don't follow the social norms that Gulliver does, so he sees them as completely different. The horses, being from a different kind of society, don't care about Gulliver's clothes either.
We talked about stacks and stacks of these popular adventure stories. In our time, what distinguishes this story over others?
One of the things I would like to discuss in class is what people think about Swift's portrayal of the Houyhnhnms. Do they represent a virtuous society that humans should emulate, or is he satirizing them for being unemotional and naive? Gulliver praises the Houyhnhnms and wishes "they were in a capacity or disposition to send a sufficient number of their inhabitants for civilizing Europe" (392-3). Yet we also get a sense that they are somewhat naive, for the Houyhnhnms have no word for falseness and refer to it as "the thing which is not" (360). Also, Houyhnhnm family structure makes an impression on Gulliver, for they show "no fondness for their colts or foals" (377). Is their lack of emotion something that Swift presents as a contributing factor to a just society, or is he lampooning their naive outlook and lack of emotion?
One thing that really strikes me while reading "Gulliver's Travels" is his take on justice in European society and war. While going into this knowing the book is a satire, I was surprised at how Gulliver decided to portray the idea of a lawyer to the Houhynums. On page 368, Gulliver gives a long list of adjectives that continually insult the European justice system and the idea of judges and government court cases. Why he would bother to explain all of this to a society of beings that doesn't even know what lying is is beyond me, but this passage does serve to show us Swift's take on government proceedings and the court system.
I saw that someone posted a question concerning the Houhynums attitude towards their own society, and decided to throw my reasoning behind this question. For me, the Houhynums were simply a foil supplied to highlight the pros and cons of Enlightenment era society, first by showing their reaction to warfare (highlighting our poor relations with one another), then by showing how close a family can actually be compared to houhynum society.
I wonder why Gulliver spends more effort and time to analyze the Houhynms and not the Yahoos. Gulliver spends a great deal of time contemplating about the horses' personalities, using words such as 'orderly, rational, acute, and judicious' and also calls them 'magicians' (352). He also spends a lot of time trying to understand their gestures
With the Yahoo's, Gulliver only spends time to describe and understand their physical appearances, using words such as "deformed, disagreeable, ugly monster, beast" (351). He also talks about his "antipathy, contempt, and aversion" for the creatuers (351). Most of the physical description he names talks a lot about their anuses and buttocks. Pretty much everything unpleasant is discovered about them.
Is this Swift's way of saying that humans are only nice about things they encounter that which they are familiar (horses) with? Familiarity seems to come with logic in Gulliver's mind because he automatically asumes that the Houhynhms are magicians in disguise. But with the Yahoos, he just smacks one with his sword and runs away in disgust.
Could it be that Gulliver is, in a way, making fun of the human race by placing an animal that was commonly referred to as beasts in a status above those who resembled humans? Gulliver spend a lot of time trying to appease the Houhynhms and creates a lot of praise for their society but creates a lot of disgust for those who are closest to him biologically.
I thought that the conclusion to Gulliver's Travels had a lot in common with the end of Voltaire's Candide, but with a more misanthropic tone.
There are a few points that interest me, such as
- The way Swift responds to Plato's Republic and Thomas More's Utopia. There are several ideas lifted from these texts in the structure of Houhynhm society - such as eugenics or the care of children.
- The cynicism and misanthropy of Gulliver - is it justified? Are humans really as bad as the Yahoo's? Is civilisation simply a more sophisticated expression of a barbaric nature?
I'm particularly amused by the underlying comparisons being made between the barbaric Yahoos whom Gulliver detests and the horrific "civilized" society Gulliver claims as his own in his conversations with his Master. I think that it is highly ironic that Gulliver describes his own people as the more rational and civilized species even though in his world there are no "wars so furious and bloody, or of so long continuance, as those occasioned by difference in opinion, especially if it be in things indifferent" (Swift, 364). This hardly seems more civilized or rational than the Yahoos climbing a tree and raining excrement down upon Gulliver's head. I think it would be interesting as a point of comparison to have read some of the earlier portions of the novel because a footnote on page 362 notes that at one point Gulliver claimed to voyage purely for the sake of traveling, but that in the sections we are reading "he now reads all human motivation in the worst possible light" (Footnote 4, pg 363). I would like to know from what this change in motivation derived and if there is any significance to it that can be found from the portion of the story we have in the anthology.
I have one specific question about the story. Gulliver highlighted the way that they treated animals and their nature throughout the story. He mentioned the way that he learned and interacted with the Houhynhms also. He never really told his purpose to them in a sense. I want to know that while making him a slave, what was he really able to offer? From the sections that I read, I really couldn't grasp a sense of what a completely positive and helpful sense he offered to the people.
What is interesting about this novel is the way that the master seems to take a liking and allows Gulliver to make suggestions and question things.
I'm really wondering what Gulliver's obsession with horses is all about. As we talked about in class, we realize that it is very possible most of his stories are full of it, but why is him talking to horses something he would make up? People have seen and been around horses. We all know they do not speak any human languages. It just seems like an odd obsession.
I also think the Yahoo comparison is worthy of talking about. It seems that some similarities d to the interest of the comparison.
I agree with the previous post that we should discuss the significance that the obsession of horses serves. However, I would also like to discuss how my classmates felt about the genre of "Gulliver's Travels". We have already discussed in class Friday that it has a satire genre but what language or style has Swift used throughout the story to convey this? And does it change as the story develops. I ask this question because while reading I found myself reading and gaining a different understanding of what was being stated after I read the footnotes. His use of language was different from my initial thoughts of the word. For example, in Chapter 1 he uses jargon such as: hanger, strand, and lading to just name a few. I believe that as Gulliver travels on this voyage his use of language (jargon) changes as well. I wonder did anyone else notice this or find it to be confusing.
I think the Houyhnhnms are important for what they don’t recognize or understand. We’ve talked about how clothing and lying are beyond their experience, but I believe there is one more quality they don’t recognize which is also a major theme in the reading: pride.
In her blog, ladybug5 states the following: “To settle his befuddled mind, master [Houyhnhnm] decides ‘that instead of reason, we [humans] were only possessed of some quality fitted to increase our natural vices’” (365). I love katiebug5’s choice of quote but I draw a different conclusion about what the unnamed vice might be. Rather than cruelty, I believe the vice is pride.
In support of my belief, I offer a quote from earlier on the same page. The master Houyhnhnm is described as saying “…. he hated the Yahoos of this country, yet he no more blamed them for their odious qualities, than he did a gnnayh (a bird of prey) for its cruelty…” The master Houyhnhnm seems to accept the natural vices of a being; it is the unnamed vice that he puzzles over. Interestingly, Swift coyly avoids clarifying this vice by immediately changing the subject and having the master Houyhnhnm say he “has heard too much on the subject” (365).
I believe pride, though not identified, is embedded in other places, too. For instance, in the author’s description of lawyers, he states he has known “several of them refuse a large bribe from the side where justice lay, rather than … doing anything unbecoming their nature or office” (366). To me, this is prideful behavior peppered with dishonesty.
Using my Kindle version—which I use because of poor eyesight and not because I’m a rebel—I searched for the word “pride” and found it used just one time in part 4. That occurrence happens in the second to last paragraph where the author finally identifies pride as a vice. His final paragraph has only two sentences. In the first, the author mentions the Houyhnhnms absence of pride. In the last, the author “entreats those who have any tincture of this absurd vice, that they will not presume to come in my sight”. I believe the end of this piece is a strong indicator of how important the theme of pride is to our reading.
I am curious as to why he choose horses out of all animals to be the ones he talks to. He could have choosen any animal or even made one up to spark more curiosity from the readers. It puzzles me why he choose such a common animal. I also want to know why he talked to horses instead of more humans. He probably could have recieved better food. I am enjoying this book so far and am excitted to read more.
I find it interesting that the Houhynhms believe Yahoos to be below them and to be savage creatures. As oppose to in the rest of the world where horses are considered to be the inferior creatures that must do what the master commands. Also why would they choose horses anyway? Horses were originally wild animals that were domesticated to be able to allow humans to ride them. Is this story kind of saying that the yahoos can also be domesticated to learn and speak rational language, in this case the language of the houhynhms. Is Gulliver suppose to be an example of a yahoo that can learn. I would like to hear people's opinions on what they think it was a horse instead of some other animal, or human beings. If it had been other humans, even if they had not understood Gulliver, they still might have been able to connect because they might know a bit more about how each others bodies work and what they must do to stay alive.
Somone said earlier abut Gulliver spending more time interested with the Horses then he did with the yahoos. I was curious about the same thing. Not to say intelligent horses that seem to have a definite language is not interesting, but the way Gulliver described these other animals, I feel as if they were the more intriguing species. Was it because he was afraid of them when they approached him? I would be interested to see if Swift just wrote those in to add to the foreign nature of the place Gulliver was in or if he just didn't think they would be an interest to the reader.
I found it interesting that Gulliver continually leaves the safety of his family and home to explore lands in which he is held captive or put in dangers way (in the greater book). What exactly is he looking to accomplish? The entire book is premised on a lack of responsibility and the main characters gullible nature.
I think this has been mentioned before a few times, but I don't understand why Gulliver is so obsessed with the Houyhnhnms and how he is not very concerned with the Yahoos.
Someone previously said that it could be because the Yahoos moreso resemble humans and human life, with all the flaws of human life that drive Gulliver crazy. Reminding him of these irritants probably produces a bias against them.
Post a Comment