It definitely had repercussions for Swift as to how people responded to his book. According to Donoghue, in a way, Swift brainwashed Lemuel Gulliver the character itself. Typically authors give the main character some sort of background or story, give them character and personalities as to how they will handle situations that occur (Donoghue). Although, Swift didn’t do this at all. There is nothing there in Gulliver. He gave Gulliver no depth, no character or personality (Donoghue). He turned out to be basically “a man without qualities” (Donoghue). In return, Swift became known to many in the long run, but not what he hoped for. Swift has a book that gives people a memory of nothing (Donoghue). While Swift is criticized for having no depth and seemingly put no effort into creating a story for Gulliver, he is also criticized for being not thorough in his writing itself. Whether it was sentence structure, or the message he was trying to convey with his words, it didn’t always come off properly (Orwell). There was at times when he tried to use his satire he is so famously known for with this book that it came off forced, therefore ineffective (Orwell). In addition to these critiques, Considine shed light on other topics Swift was to be criticized for. Many easily understood what Swift was underlying writing about after it was read; the people of England, English society, politics, and government. While much satire was used in the book to describe England in a negative light, it only got a “cheap laugh” (Considine). Gulliver’s Travels appears to be a book that has examples of public choice themes, and it does (Considine). Although, it was received in the best way
It definitely had repercussions for Swift as to how people responded to his book. According to Donoghue, in a way, Swift brainwashed Lemuel Gulliver the character itself. Typically authors give the main character some sort of background or story, give them character and personalities as to how they will handle situations that occur (Donoghue). Although, Swift didn’t do this at all. There is nothing there in Gulliver. He gave Gulliver no depth, no character or personality (Donoghue). He turned out to be basically “a man without qualities” (Donoghue). In return, Swift became known to many in the long run, but not what he hoped for. Swift has a book that gives people a memory of nothing (Donoghue). While Swift is criticized for having no depth and seemingly put no effort into creating a story for Gulliver, he is also criticized for being not thorough in his writing itself. Whether it was sentence structure, or the message he was trying to convey with his words, it didn’t always come off properly (Orwell). There was at times when he tried to use his satire he is so famously known for with this book that it came off forced, therefore ineffective (Orwell). In addition to these critiques, Considine shed light on other topics Swift was to be criticized for. Many easily understood what Swift was underlying writing about after it was read; the people of England, English society, politics, and government. While much satire was used in the book to describe England in a negative light, it only got a “cheap laugh” (Considine). Gulliver’s Travels appears to be a book that has examples of public choice themes, and it does (Considine). Although, it was received in the best way