Hot Best Seller

Utopia (Librivox Audiobook)

Availability: Ready to download

This book is all about the fictional country called Utopia. It is a country with an ‘ideal’ form of communism, in which everything really does belong to everybody, everyone does the work they want to, and everyone is alright with that. This country uses gold for chamber pots and prison chains, pearls and diamonds for children’s playthings, and requires that a man and a wom This book is all about the fictional country called Utopia. It is a country with an ‘ideal’ form of communism, in which everything really does belong to everybody, everyone does the work they want to, and everyone is alright with that. This country uses gold for chamber pots and prison chains, pearls and diamonds for children’s playthings, and requires that a man and a woman see each other exactly as they are, naked, before getting married. This book gave the word ‘utopia’ the meaning of a perfect society, while the Greek word actually means ‘no place’. Enjoy listening to this story about a country that really is too good to be true.


Compare

This book is all about the fictional country called Utopia. It is a country with an ‘ideal’ form of communism, in which everything really does belong to everybody, everyone does the work they want to, and everyone is alright with that. This country uses gold for chamber pots and prison chains, pearls and diamonds for children’s playthings, and requires that a man and a wom This book is all about the fictional country called Utopia. It is a country with an ‘ideal’ form of communism, in which everything really does belong to everybody, everyone does the work they want to, and everyone is alright with that. This country uses gold for chamber pots and prison chains, pearls and diamonds for children’s playthings, and requires that a man and a woman see each other exactly as they are, naked, before getting married. This book gave the word ‘utopia’ the meaning of a perfect society, while the Greek word actually means ‘no place’. Enjoy listening to this story about a country that really is too good to be true.

30 review for Utopia (Librivox Audiobook)

  1. 5 out of 5

    Henry Avila

    As the centuries roll by, more and more books are written about Utopian societies that should be established on Earth, but the few actually tried... fail. Sir Thomas or Saint Thomas More, depending on your affiliation, Utopia , ( greatly influenced by Plato's The Republic) is a satire about tumultuous English politics published in 1516. Raphael Hythloday a Portuguese traveler when Portugal ruled the seas with a very unlikely name for a native of that country. He recites the story of his life, ha As the centuries roll by, more and more books are written about Utopian societies that should be established on Earth, but the few actually tried... fail. Sir Thomas or Saint Thomas More, depending on your affiliation, Utopia , ( greatly influenced by Plato's The Republic) is a satire about tumultuous English politics published in 1516. Raphael Hythloday a Portuguese traveler when Portugal ruled the seas with a very unlikely name for a native of that country. He recites the story of his life, has visited many nations in the world but none which effected him so much like his five- year stay on Utopia. The interested listeners are Sir Thomas More and his friend Belgian Peter Giles, both historical figures, a strange tale unfolds, can the two others believe him? The island republic of Utopia is apparently somewhere in the south Atlantic but never fully disclosed its exact location, where people work only six hours a day, choose their own leaders, despise gold and silver, wear the same type of clothes and no private property, however all their needs the state provides, maybe not living lavishly , yet comfortably, Raphael views all this in the capital, Aircastle . Although they have slaves, mostly criminals and some soldiers captured in war, Utopians seldom fight for themselves hiring foreign mercenaries. This was just another barbarous place until a man named Utopus, conquered it during ancient times, he ordered the digging of a large trench and turning a huge peninsula into an island, letting the sea through, which isolated Utopia from the chaos of the mainland. Organizing an unique republic where everyone works, and education continues all their lives in neat, clean, small cities looking admittedly like all the rest on the isle, when the population grows to an unmanageable number, new colonies are formed in foreign territories . Nonetheless a couple of days a month the inhabitants go to farms and help out, nobody is above getting their hands dirty. Healthcare is free and old people are always provided for in this peaceful land of equality...if you are a citizen. Thomas More knew his ideas were impractical but he wanted to give hope to the poor and oppressed , show the world a better way to live, the imbalance of society had to change or hunger, violence and war would follow, 500 years later the planet has not progressed, the foul not gone away. Regardless the future is very long and humans are an adaptable species.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Paul Bryant

    Thomas More's life blah blah feudalism, in which virtually all power resided with enormous white ducks while the peasants had to wear roller skates even in bed. The late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries blah blah Renaissance, a flowering of platform heel shoes and massive shagging blah blah Italy blah blah large glands. Aspects of this blah blah the ducks. Blah blah discovery of smaller ducks, at first denied by Pope Barbary VII. Vasco da Gama proved ducks were American not from Byzantium Thomas More's life blah blah feudalism, in which virtually all power resided with enormous white ducks while the peasants had to wear roller skates even in bed. The late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries blah blah Renaissance, a flowering of platform heel shoes and massive shagging blah blah Italy blah blah large glands. Aspects of this blah blah the ducks. Blah blah discovery of smaller ducks, at first denied by Pope Barbary VII. Vasco da Gama proved ducks were American not from Byzantium. Humanists emphasized the dignity of all reasonably large men, their thought and writings and their halfway-impressive private parts. Blah blah Scots Porridge Oats blah blah Erasmus not a duck, Leonardo partly a duck, John Knox almost entirely duck. They saw feudal society as irrational, consisting of small piles of nondescript rubbish, but adde parvum parvo magnus acervus erit (add a little to a little and you get a great flooking heap – Hovis, “Second Dialogue Concerning the Scrofula”). With the Reformation, the face of Europe was warped by intense mascara and facial tattooing. England was no exception; protestants continuously blah blah until it almost fell off. Then the English King Eider VIII, blah blah Pope blah blah roll me over lay me down and do it again. More (feathered in the right arm and lower back only) wrote Utopia in 1516, just before the outbreak of the second game of Football. Utopia, originally written in Latin and later translated into Latin, depicts what its narrator Sir Dakota Fanning claimed to be an ideal human society. The book was a huge success, so at least the author’s life became a whole lot more ideal, if you know what I mean. He was now able to afford to prove the famous old saying amare et sapere vix deo conceditur (even the wise find shagging essentially ludicrous - Horace, "Third Dialogue Concerning the Proper Disposition of Horses").

  3. 5 out of 5

    Ryan

    The term 'utopia' in the way we use it today, to refer to an ideal but unattainable state, comes from this book, which More wrote in 1516. The form is political critique disguised as fantasy disguised as travelogue. More casts himself as the recorder of Raphael Hythloday's travels to the island of Utopia, where, despite their lack of Christianity, the people are closer to realizing the Christian ideal society through rational government than Europe ever was. Today serious criticism doesn't have The term 'utopia' in the way we use it today, to refer to an ideal but unattainable state, comes from this book, which More wrote in 1516. The form is political critique disguised as fantasy disguised as travelogue. More casts himself as the recorder of Raphael Hythloday's travels to the island of Utopia, where, despite their lack of Christianity, the people are closer to realizing the Christian ideal society through rational government than Europe ever was. Today serious criticism doesn't have to move under such elaborate cover, so our first impulse might be to read it like an escapist fantasy novel. But the book is really a counterpoint to the autocratic statesmanship (waning feudalism) outlined in Machiavelli's The Prince (written a few years earlier) and the new economic relations of enclosure (rising capitalism) emerging in England at the time. Think of it as a sequel to Plato's Republic and an inspiration for Swift's Gulliver's Travels. More asks: what if money and private property were abolished? Almost 500 years later it remains an interesting question. The book is also, though short, full of wit and imaginative scenarios. On every page!

  4. 5 out of 5

    Alex

    The first time I heard of Utopia was in the movie Ever After: A Cinderella Story starring Drew Barrymore. Super cute movie, and I am not a big Cinderella fan. Danielle, or Cinderella, reads this book constantly, because it was the last thing her father gave her before he died. It is her last link to him. I have been sort of curious about this book since then. Utopia is about the perfect nation. It has wealth. The Prince doesn't take much. There is no thievery, everyone (well mostly) is morally g The first time I heard of Utopia was in the movie Ever After: A Cinderella Story starring Drew Barrymore. Super cute movie, and I am not a big Cinderella fan. Danielle, or Cinderella, reads this book constantly, because it was the last thing her father gave her before he died. It is her last link to him. I have been sort of curious about this book since then. Utopia is about the perfect nation. It has wealth. The Prince doesn't take much. There is no thievery, everyone (well mostly) is morally good. Gold and fancy clothes are nothing to the people. There is religious tolerance. All the wants of society are in Utopia! COME ONE, COME ALL, AND LIVE IN UTOPIA. Well it wouldn't work in the States. It isn't the "American way." You can poke some holes in Utopia, too. There isn't equality. Women are still below men in the spectrum. Even though everyone is respected or everything is distributed equally, women do not hold authority. The other thing I noticed it didn't account for other sexual preferences, only heterosexuality. Staying true to real life, there can never be a perfect system. Something is always lost, but we can imagine and work with the perfect system. I did find it as a whole a very interesting topic, and I could agree to some things. For example: If we took out all the meaning behind gold and silver there would be no want for it. Same with all material things. I can get down with religious tolerance, and accepting people by their appearance. The narrator, James Adams, had a nice voice, and appropriate for the time aspect. The audio was only 4 hours long with short chapters, which was another plus. At the end, can this be achievable somewhere, and is it worth living there? What are your thoughts? Happy reading.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Florencia

    This book was published in 1516 and it's divided into two parts. The first one made my eyes feel exhausted, so I can sum up all that just by saying that More found his friend Peter and this one introduced him to a fella named Raphael, a man who visited several countries to satisfy his desire to see the world. He shared some opinions of the political scenario of his time (a bit familiar; whether you are talking about yesterday's kingdoms or today's democratic governments, some things never change This book was published in 1516 and it's divided into two parts. The first one made my eyes feel exhausted, so I can sum up all that just by saying that More found his friend Peter and this one introduced him to a fella named Raphael, a man who visited several countries to satisfy his desire to see the world. He shared some opinions of the political scenario of his time (a bit familiar; whether you are talking about yesterday's kingdoms or today's democratic governments, some things never change) and talked about some general aspects of this awesome island called Utopia. The other two guys couldn't believe that such a land could subsist, since it was a place where, for instance, private property didn't exist. A million words and a couple of eyelashes later, Raphael started to talk specifically about Utopia: all things relating to their soil, their rivers, their towns, their people, their manners, constitution, laws... And here I stop. Laws. This society has few laws. Why? They very much condemn other nations whose laws, together with the commentaries on them, swell up to so many volumes; for they think it an unreasonable thing to oblige men to obey a body of laws that are both of such a bulk and so dark as not to be read and understood by every one of the subjects. That last line seems to have been quite a source of ideas to the great Kafka. And I agree: laws should be simpler, everybody should be able to understand them; and that bureaucracy that sucks life out of people should be eradicated, etc., etc. And so did the Utopians: few laws and, of course, no lawyers. (…) they consider them as a sort of people whose profession it is to disguise matters and to wrest the laws; and therefore they think it is much better that every man should plead his own cause, and trust it to the judge... By this means they both cut off many delays. Ignore this paragraph. I need to vent and I am going to hide it for your own good. (view spoiler)[Well, More, this is a bit irritating. It's not my fault that we have a collapsed legal system, I'm not the one who spends a month signing one freaking paper! [email protected]#$% bastards that after two months they give you one lousy answer while the moron that also had to study tons of books for five [email protected]#$% years (and has to watch those laws being violated just like that) has to answer to the client and try to explain why the freaking process is taking like five years of his/her LIFE, DAMN IT. (hide spoiler)] Breathe. Excellent. Anyway, this is a book about an ideal land, a pagan place. Saint Thomas' perfect society was one that worshiped the sun or the moon or believed in a Supreme Being. A society ruled by reason had to believe in something. People who didn't believe in the afterlife, commonly known as atheists, were considered beasts because they rejected a state of rewards and punishments to the good and bad people after life on earth. So, such a human being who is not afraid of anything but the laws is more likely to break them to satisfy his appetites... Not a warm and fuzzy land for the non-believers. It has to be said, Utopians despised atheists and treated them like animals and forbade them ranks and honors and stuff, however, they did not punish them in order to avoid hypocrisy: so that men are not tempted to lie or disguise their opinions . Not that bad, huh? As I said, this was a perfect place with no private property, with slavery (adulterers, watch out), with few laws and where everyone was happy with no legal problems to solve (yup, More, being a great lawyer himself, apparently wasn't a big fan of lawyers... sly creature!). Suddenly, a disturbing image comes to mind: Jokes aside, this is an interesting book to read with a lot of coffee in your system. A man imagined what a perfect country should be like, and yes, it is not that perfect. This book started a bit slow for me, but then it got better. I would recommend this to people who enjoy history, otherwise you can drink all the coffee Colombia has to offer, but you still won't reach page 5. Dec 24, 13 * Also on my blog. ** Photo credit: Gif from The Simpsons by Matt Groening / via Giphy.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Madeline

    Interesting, mostly just because it's cool to see what people (or at least Thomas More) considered to be an ideal society back then. Because really, it isn't. There's a lot that I thought was really strange about Utopia (Latin for "no place"), but here's what I remember most: when parents are considering marrying their children off, they have the two teenagers stand naked in front of each other (accompanied by dependable chaperones, of course) so they can make sure neither of them has any weird Interesting, mostly just because it's cool to see what people (or at least Thomas More) considered to be an ideal society back then. Because really, it isn't. There's a lot that I thought was really strange about Utopia (Latin for "no place"), but here's what I remember most: when parents are considering marrying their children off, they have the two teenagers stand naked in front of each other (accompanied by dependable chaperones, of course) so they can make sure neither of them has any weird deformities or anything. Logical on paper, I guess, but what I wondered was, what happens if the marriage negotiations fell through? Did these two people occasionally run into each other at the market, make brief eye contact, and then quickly run away, pretending they didn't know what the other looked like naked? I just think that would be all kinds of awkward. Read for: Early British Literature

  7. 4 out of 5

    Luís C.

    From the Greek meaning "happy place," Utopia is an ideal country described by Raphael Hythlodaeus, who observed his organization during his many travels. Based on a collectivist basis, since the property does not exist, life in this company has some advantages: 6 hours of daily work (compared to France in 1840, the legal working week was 78 hours!), Insurance of food to eat, and be properly dressed, no death penalty (at that time in England a simple larceny enough to be hanged), no war (the state From the Greek meaning "happy place," Utopia is an ideal country described by Raphael Hythlodaeus, who observed his organization during his many travels. Based on a collectivist basis, since the property does not exist, life in this company has some advantages: 6 hours of daily work (compared to France in 1840, the legal working week was 78 hours!), Insurance of food to eat, and be properly dressed, no death penalty (at that time in England a simple larceny enough to be hanged), no war (the state uses its wealth to pay mercenaries foreigners in case of attack), freedom of religion. In return, everyday life is reminiscent of a monastic community on the rigidity of hours and without any fancy tonight in meals (collective), schedules and very restrictive leisure (no games, no hunt). pleasure is twofold: the absence of suffering, often resulting from the slumber of a need, or the senses like, provides the music. Little reference to education, apart from the need to format the young minds in the sense of a moral sense in harmony with the precepts of life in society. This work has been considered as the beginning of sociology. He will not have brought happiness to its author as this one, after accessing the burden of Chancellor of the Kingdom, fall into disgrace for his refusal to recognize the marriage of King and Anne Boleyn, and sentenced to death.

  8. 4 out of 5

    El

    (I read this book as part of a reading project I have undertaken with some other nerdy friends in which we read The Novel: A Biography and some of the other texts referenced by Schmidt.) In 1516, some guy called Thomas More put out this little book describing a fictional place called Utopia. What kills me about this little book is that More wrote it in Latin. Latin. I can barely write in English most days. So this island of Utopia shows a completely organized society where everyone seems to be exc (I read this book as part of a reading project I have undertaken with some other nerdy friends in which we read The Novel: A Biography and some of the other texts referenced by Schmidt.) In 1516, some guy called Thomas More put out this little book describing a fictional place called Utopia. What kills me about this little book is that More wrote it in Latin. Latin. I can barely write in English most days. So this island of Utopia shows a completely organized society where everyone seems to be exceptionally happy, and I don't even believe drugs were involved. I mean, I'm not sure what else to say about the "plot" that people don't already know, even if one hasn't read the book. We all have heard of the concept of a "utopia", and a bunch of people after him have written their own versions, and a lot of times they're super boring because when people wax philosophical about the way they wish things were, it usually turns into this emotionless list of pros with very few cons. More somehow avoids this by creating this narrative between himself and some dude named Raphael who describes this place, Utopia, to More. Maybe that's also a cop-out, a pathetic way for More (who was no angel, by the way) to say "I want all this to happen, but I don't have the stones to say it, so I'll pretend like this other guy told me about it, and then I don't have to really do anything." There's that option. Or there's this other option, since we're talking about the evolution of the novel and all, that More wrote a fictional account to build this world that he imagined, and he did it without just telling a traditional story. I've just read Gertrude Stein's The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas and Virginia Woolf's Orlando somewhat recently, two other books that play with style - in the former, a fake autobiography; in the latter, a fake biography. And here, in Utopia, we have a fake... what... travelogue? Sure, why not. Much like Sir Mandeville in The Travels of Sir John Mandeville. I mean, who really thinks today that Mandeville met people in another country whose faces were on their chest between their shoulders? I look at Utopia in a similar light. A friend asked in a thread about this whether or not I thought this was a work of satire. That was a great question, and one I hadn't considered while reading. (Let me preface this by saying I don't read satire well. Somehow satire just sort of falls flat for me, or I don't recognize it all.) I don't think More necessarily meant for this to be a satire. I also don't believe he was saying this is how he hoped society would be one day, or that there would be any real benefit to this. I felt it was just a story he was telling, one that may not have right or wrong answers, but he'd throw it all out there for the reader to decide for themselves. I think we all have a concept of a utopian society in our heads, but if we actually shared those thoughts with others, more likely than not someone else would say "No way, that's ridiculous and I would think x or y would be horrible." My version of utopia may not be your version, and vice versa. (Though my utopia has a lot of puppies and books and burritos; what could possibly be wrong with all of that? Unless you're allergic to puppies... you get my point.) I found this an interesting read, and super quick. I had in my mind this would be a difficult read, or take me a while. But that's probably because I read this right after Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur which took me months to read, and here's another 16th-century book, and guh, what if it takes another couple of months... so I was a bit nervous going into it. I'm happy to say, however, that it read quickly and I found it enjoyable. Even the comments that should be offensive (like the bit about the pregnant women being sick all the time) felt more tongue-in-cheek than More saying pregnant women repulsed him. Or maybe I was just so happy to be done with stupid Malory that nothing More said could be wrong. Next up: The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia, Sir Philip Sidney

  9. 5 out of 5

    Darwin8u

    You wouldn't abandon ship in a storm just because you couldn't control the winds. -- Thomas More, Utopia After reading Hilary Mantel's amazing first two Booker-prizing winning books of her Henry VIII trilogy (Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies), I felt I needed to actually bust into Thomas More's Utopia. How could I consider myself educated and not have at least tasted a bit of More's utopian ideal, his veiled criticisms of European culture and values, and his unobtainable vision of the ideal socie You wouldn't abandon ship in a storm just because you couldn't control the winds. -- Thomas More, Utopia After reading Hilary Mantel's amazing first two Booker-prizing winning books of her Henry VIII trilogy (Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies), I felt I needed to actually bust into Thomas More's Utopia. How could I consider myself educated and not have at least tasted a bit of More's utopian ideal, his veiled criticisms of European culture and values, and his unobtainable vision of the ideal society? At times Utopia seems overdone/overripe, like even More wasn't buying his own brand of guiding, noble principles. Still, Utopia works because it is playful and ironic. I'm not sure I would view it as great (to me it doesn't measure up to either Plato's The Republic or Swift's Gulliver's Travels), but I do believe the interaction between More's brand of political idealism with Cromwell's ruthless pragmatism, ended up creating in England something really GREAT.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Lynne King

    Painful like pulling teeth...An experience not to be repeated.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Mahdy

    Thomas More is traveling in the Low Countries when he sees his friend, Peter Giles. Giles introduces him to a well-traveled friend of his, Raphael Hythloday. Raphael speaks of many countries and their policies and laws, and freely criticizes the laws of their own countries.He then begins speaking of a country, Utopia, which he thinks is ruled very well and is a perfect country. More begs Raphael to speak more of Utopia, and he does. He first tells of their towns, which are all as identical as poss Thomas More is traveling in the Low Countries when he sees his friend, Peter Giles. Giles introduces him to a well-traveled friend of his, Raphael Hythloday. Raphael speaks of many countries and their policies and laws, and freely criticizes the laws of their own countries.He then begins speaking of a country, Utopia, which he thinks is ruled very well and is a perfect country. More begs Raphael to speak more of Utopia, and he does. He first tells of their towns, which are all as identical as possible, and have a maximum of 6,000 families. He then speaks of their magistrates, who are called Philarchs, and are chosen every year by thirty families. An Archphilarch overlooks every ten Philarchs. The Utopians' manner of life is unusual, as gold is of no value, and everything is therefore free. Also, they spend their lives in the city and in the suburbs, living in each place for two years at a time. Laws dictate that they are not to travel without a 'passport', which can only be obtained from the Prince and states where and for how long they are allowed to travel. Slaves and marriages are spoken of next. Prisoners of war are not taken as slaves, unless they fought in the battles; women are not to be married before eighteen, and men before twenty-two. Sexual encounters before marriage are prohibited, as are polygamy and adultery. There are no lawyers in Utopia, as everybody defends himself or herself in court. Their military discipline is such that everyone trains for the army on a daily basis, however, the Utopians prefer to hire armies rather than to let their own people go to war, and as money does not matter much to them they can do this without much discomfort. Women are encouraged to join their husbands at war. Religion is the last topic that is spoken of, and there are many religions in Utopia, as people are free to practice whatever they believe. However, the law states that they must all believe in one Divine Being and that they are forbidden to believe that the human's soul dies with his body. Raphael speaks of the way the country and the people deal with the issues and problems associated with each of these topics, and how we could learn from them and their wisdom.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Jon(athan) Nakapalau

    This is another book that I had to read because the title become a word in English...I liked the fact that Thomas More was looking for solutions; solutions we are still looking for in this age of globalization - when every country has their own utopian vision. Perhaps that is the "utopian paradox" - how can we all live in peace with differing definitions of utopianism?

  13. 4 out of 5

    Dan

    Not a book that I can recommend for enjoyment, masterful prose or good storytelling. Rather I think the value in reading is to see the backwardness of a Utopia envisioned by Thomas More, an ‘enlightened’ man for the times. Of course it is easy to be judgmental about his writings when looking in the rearview mirror at a book nearly 500 years old. More, a high level adviser to King Henry VIII envisions an island nation, ‘Utopia’ where they don’t engage in wars and where there is a great deal of dis Not a book that I can recommend for enjoyment, masterful prose or good storytelling. Rather I think the value in reading is to see the backwardness of a Utopia envisioned by Thomas More, an ‘enlightened’ man for the times. Of course it is easy to be judgmental about his writings when looking in the rearview mirror at a book nearly 500 years old. More, a high level adviser to King Henry VIII envisions an island nation, ‘Utopia’ where they don’t engage in wars and where there is a great deal of discussion on commerce, judges, absence of lawyers, the importance of slaves and how in tough cases a fair prince is the final arbiter. Catholicism is the way forward. Women have no rights. And so on. More’s writing is unimaginative by modern standards, most middle schoolers today could come up with better utopias if given an assignment. To be fair, More applied a more pragmatic lens to his Utopia. But when compared with Shakespeare’s writings that came out half a century later there isn’t much imagination here. 3 stars. A quick read that has some genuine historical value and came from someone who is acknowledged as a supreme intellect for his time.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Mir

    More's fusion of Christianity, socialism, and republicanism reflects his humanist conception of an ideal society, and in so doing constitutes criticism of contemporary English society. More argues that virtue is natural and something for which all humans have an innate desire. He characterizes virtue more concretely than most philosophers of his day, defining it as doing the utmost to increase happiness (found primarily in simple pleasures) for all. The state should remain minimal and intervene More's fusion of Christianity, socialism, and republicanism reflects his humanist conception of an ideal society, and in so doing constitutes criticism of contemporary English society. More argues that virtue is natural and something for which all humans have an innate desire. He characterizes virtue more concretely than most philosophers of his day, defining it as doing the utmost to increase happiness (found primarily in simple pleasures) for all. The state should remain minimal and intervene only when people fail to be virtuous. England, by this rule, is not virtuous because its rulers prevent the people and the state from behaving naturally. Rulers should not seek wealth, possessions, conquest, and power. Human beings are ends, not means, and rulers have no right to sacrifice them in efforts to gain these unnatural desires. Civilization should instead be primitive and harmonious. Because individuals are more important than property, there should be no capital punishment. Instead, criminals should be punished with slavery, and when reformed they should be returned to society. Prisoners of war, taken in self-defense, could also be enslaved. When aggressive nations are defeated, educated citizens should be sent to rule them. Utopia was written specifically as a response to Henry's break with Rome; More had hoped that reform would be initiated by the Church. He had little hope of reform coming from rulers, whom he saw as entirely selfish in their oppression of their subjects for their own ends. Wealth and power are corrupting influences which destroy human reason's natural virtue and ability to know God (More believed that in a state of nature Christian revelation was unnecessary). Here endeth my general explanation. For more in-depth study of More, I recommend Carl Kowsky and Russell Aimes.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Ryan

    This is one of the worst books I have ever read. Poorly written, annoyingly condescending, ridiculously simplistic and more than anything, stupid. No wonder why the commies (Lenin and others) commemorated More in the early days of communist Russia. his ideals are to "get rid of the beggars" by forced labor, allow no private ownership of anything, no specialization of labor, (yet still have a highly artistic/agrarian society, everything totally equal, (except for the "temporary" ruling class) a b This is one of the worst books I have ever read. Poorly written, annoyingly condescending, ridiculously simplistic and more than anything, stupid. No wonder why the commies (Lenin and others) commemorated More in the early days of communist Russia. his ideals are to "get rid of the beggars" by forced labor, allow no private ownership of anything, no specialization of labor, (yet still have a highly artistic/agrarian society, everything totally equal, (except for the "temporary" ruling class) a belief in what Hitler would later term Liebenstruam,(the waging of war against another country for the productive use of the other countries land), and the idea that people would never revert to greed, one-up-manship, or freedom. yes in Utopia your freedom of movement is not alive and well, if you want to go somewhere you need the consent of the government. Good thing Utopia means no-place, and Hythlodaeus means dispenser of nonsense, because that is exactly what this book is, a dispensation of nonsensical Bull-Sh*t.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Bettie

    JAN 2017: Youtube 6mins 54secs utopia vs. dystopia 6mins 18secs ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06y9b6t Description: 2016 is the 500th Anniversary of Thomas More's classic work of speculative fiction, which has entered the culture so deeply that the name of his fictional island is the accepted term for our hopes and dreams of a better society. Poet Michael Symmons Roberts dramatisation brings More's strange and enchanting island to JAN 2017: Youtube 6mins 54secs utopia vs. dystopia 6mins 18secs ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06y9b6t Description: 2016 is the 500th Anniversary of Thomas More's classic work of speculative fiction, which has entered the culture so deeply that the name of his fictional island is the accepted term for our hopes and dreams of a better society. Poet Michael Symmons Roberts dramatisation brings More's strange and enchanting island to life, told through the memoirs of Raphael Hythloday. More goes on a diplomatic trip to Antwerp, to sort out a dispute in the commercial wool trade between Britain and the Netherlands. While he is there he meets an old man who is clearly widely travelled. More complains about the petty politics of the trade dispute, and the old stranger bemoans the state of contemporary society. There is a better way, he says, and I have seen it. The stranger introduces himself as the explorer and adventurer Raphael Hythloday, who at the height of his career of was sent out from Antwerp to explore an unmapped and remote part of the ocean. After months of sailing, he chanced upon an island society unlike any he had seen before. The island was called 'Utopia'. Utopia fleshes out the story of Raphael's visit to the island, giving us vivid descriptions of the place and its society, its laws and social patterns and customs. All the bearings for this new drama are be taken from the rules and descriptions of the island in More's book, and the clues he gives about Raphael's visit. RE-VISIT VIA R4 Raphael Hythloday Raad Rawi Young Raphael Nacho Aldeguer Thomas More Michael Peavoy Achorian Michael Peavoy Peter Giles Cameron Blakeley Abraxa Emily Pithon Barzanes Jonathan Keeble Macaria Fiona Clarke Bettie's Books

  17. 4 out of 5

    Dee Arr

    In a classic what-was-I-thinking moment, I purchased “Utopia,” a 600-year-old book billed on Amazon as a “…fiction and socio-political satire.” I am two-thirds of the way through the book, and I am guessing that satire meant something else in the early 1500s. The book actually reads as a long-winded, mostly one-sided conversation, almost like reading ancient philosophy. As I plowed further and further into the book, I began to create furrows of my own. While I suppose it is unfair to inject today In a classic what-was-I-thinking moment, I purchased “Utopia,” a 600-year-old book billed on Amazon as a “…fiction and socio-political satire.” I am two-thirds of the way through the book, and I am guessing that satire meant something else in the early 1500s. The book actually reads as a long-winded, mostly one-sided conversation, almost like reading ancient philosophy. As I plowed further and further into the book, I began to create furrows of my own. While I suppose it is unfair to inject today’s world into (the not yet Sir) Thomas More’s creation, it was too tempting to ignore the opportunity. Almost. The book talks about Utopia, an island protected from the outside world by natural boundaries that would give the most seasoned sailor pause. All the sins and temptations of the world are ignored or ridiculed here, a world where everyone works (including doing their turn at the farm), plays, studies, and even is given at least eight hours of time to sleep. Anyone who breaks the law becomes a slave, and performs the menial work for the rest of the populace. Today, we might view this combination of socialism/communism/slavery as something abhorrent, or at least an impossibility. There are many parts of this perfect society which would not make sense today, although it was tempting to consider that Utopia had no lawyers…or wouldn’t that make sense, either? Hmm… They also condoned state-sanctioned suicide, meaning as long as you received permission from the powers-that-be, it was okay to poison yourself. Or starve yourself. Or whatever worked. While this book could have been considered controversial by 16th Century standards and brushes up alongside treason (the opening bits of king-praising were probably a life-saving requirement), the presentation in today’s world is a bit quaint at best and best suited primarily for those who are students of history or of Sir Thomas More. As a historical piece of literature, I would give it five stars. Judged against 16th Century readers, it is a fantasy that can only be wished for; for modern readers, a tough slog that causes more questions to emerge than the potential problems it hopes to solve. Three stars. Need to mention, this illustrated version (Kindle edition ASIN: B074WBKDXR) is not worth the price, which also had a bearing on the final decision of three stars.

  18. 5 out of 5

    BAM The Bibliomaniac

    Classics Cleanup Challenge #9 Audio #157 I'm going to be completely honest with y'all because we're all friends here, right? I only read this because I felt like I should have by this point in my life. Good lord I practically slept through it. So dull, but the narrator was good so I think that may have increased my star rating?

  19. 5 out of 5

    David Sarkies

    The perfect society as a critique of Tudor England 30 November 2013 I was going to open this commentary with 'where no man has gone before' until I realised that the opening to Star Trek is actually 'Space, the final frontier' and then rambles on a bit more before saying 'to boldly go where no man has gone before'. You may be wondering why I am connecting a book written by a 16th century clergy man with a very popular science-fiction series from the 1960s, and in some cases I may be asking that q The perfect society as a critique of Tudor England 30 November 2013 I was going to open this commentary with 'where no man has gone before' until I realised that the opening to Star Trek is actually 'Space, the final frontier' and then rambles on a bit more before saying 'to boldly go where no man has gone before'. You may be wondering why I am connecting a book written by a 16th century clergy man with a very popular science-fiction series from the 1960s, and in some cases I may be asking that question myself. Is it because I am simply being off topic? Well, not really, because what we have in Star Trek, or at least in the more modern versions of the series, is an ideal society where humanity has managed to solve all of its problems, and that we are now a superior people who can lead the galaxy as a shining example of morality (though if you have a careful look at the series you will notice that this utopian society ends up collapsing in its own contradictions). I noticed that I have used utopia in the above paragraph, and if there is one thing that this book as contributed to the English language, and that is the word utopia, which basically describes a perfect society. However, as much as I have criticised Star Trek in the past for creating a belief (at least among science-fiction nerds) that there will be some critical event in the future that will turn human society around and make everybody realise that they have basically been pricks to each other and that they suddenly have an epiphany that they will stop being pricks, and actually start being nice to each other and to begin to work for the betterment for each other, they are clearly not the first to have created this ideal (and will certainly not be the last). I don't necessarily think that this is what More is saying in his work though because I suspect that what he is doing to using it as a criticism of current English society and instead of simply writing down a long list of what was wrong with society at that time (such as the example he gives at the beginning with thieves being executed for simply stealing a loaf of bread), he is painting a picture of what a perfect society would look like, and using this as a goal that society at his time should start moving towards. More certainly was not the first person to create such a picture, and anybody who has read Plato will certainly see the influence that Plato has had on More. In a way this book seems to have been substantially influenced by Plato's Republic, as well as Plato's writings on the city of Atlantis (and the suggestion here is that More knew that Atlantis never actually existed, and that it was simply a place that Plato created to demonstrate a template of his perfect society). The interesting thing we notice about his society is that there is a focus on learning, as well as a focus of work, however work does not last so long as to result in the workers having no free time. In fact, everybody in the society has a form of work to do (which is a criticism of the classed English society of the time, where the workers would work pretty much all of their lives, while the privileged classes would live in luxury off of their backs). However, I note that the free time does not involve sitting down in front of a TV watching sport (or at least the sixteenth century equivalent) or going to the pub and gambling while drinking beer. This has been a criticism (as espoused in Aldous Huxley) about giving the working class too much free time, and that is because they will simply waste it. That, in a way, is true, because even though I would love to have free time now, I have noticed (and this was the case with myself as well) that a lot of people do not use their free time effectively. I wonder around the pubs here in suburban Melbourne and see that they are full of people sitting at pokie machines drinking beer and gambling. When I was younger, while I have never been addicted to gambling, I would generally waste my free time doing similar things (namely roleplaying, or preparing roleplaying games). However, the idea of learning, and encouraging a hobby for people to do in their free time is a good thing. The problem is that it simply does not work. Once cannot force people to learn, nor can one force people to have a hobby. People generally gravate towards laziness, in the same way that water flows downhill the easiest way possible. However, I find that making human nature as an excuse as to not to attempt to progress human nature is a pretty poor excuse, and if we had maintained that position then the advancements that have brought us to the position that we are now in would never have occurred. However, what I do believe is that we should be able to tap into every persons potential. There are indeed a lot of people out there that, unless they are given a push, will never desire to reach their potential, however there are others that cannot reach their potential due to being bound in some form of slavery. As such, we need to fight against these enslaving forces to enable humanity to truly reach their potential.

  20. 5 out of 5

    booklady

    From the Intro to the Kindle edition: ‘More’s “Utopia” was written in Latin, and is in two parts, of which the second, describing the place ([Greek text]—or Nusquama, as he called it sometimes in his letters—“Nowhere”), was probably written towards the close of 1515.’ This was a surprise to me as I thought ‘utopia’ meant someplace idyllic. By definition, ‘an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.’ Synonyms are paradise, heaven (on earth), Eden, Garden of Eden, Shangri-L From the Intro to the Kindle edition: ‘More’s “Utopia” was written in Latin, and is in two parts, of which the second, describing the place ([Greek text]—or Nusquama, as he called it sometimes in his letters—“Nowhere”), was probably written towards the close of 1515.’ This was a surprise to me as I thought ‘utopia’ meant someplace idyllic. By definition, ‘an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.’ Synonyms are paradise, heaven (on earth), Eden, Garden of Eden, Shangri-La, Elysium. The name of the book has given an adjective to our language—we call an impracticable scheme ‘Utopian’. So what was Utopia exactly? No place? Or some place too good to be true? The novel was never published in England during More’s lifetime. The first part, called “The Dialogue of Counsel” is More’s correspondence with several people he had met on the continent. Then he engages in dialogue with a traveler Raphael Hythlodaeus, to whom More was introduced in Antwerp. They discuss how best to deal with the social ill of theft and thieves and how to counsel princes. The second part or book is devoted to the description of the island of Utopia, its geography, community life, economy, philosophy and legal system. Here are just a few interesting characteristics of life in this no-where place:Since everyone works, the actual work day is only six hours. Citizens alternate living between cities and country on a two year cycle. Utopians direct education toward learning useful skills. Marriage is highly esteemed and war is to be avoided if at all possible, yet it is recognized the island must always be prepared for the eventuality. There is no private property, but there is slavery; slaves being condemned criminals, captured prisoners, or foreigners brought in for other reasons. Divorce is permissible under certain circumstances and so is euthanasia. There is no single religion but when Christianity is introduced, many were baptized. Listening to the description as I did I couldn’t help liking some of the utopian ideas and finding others reprehensible. I am not convinced More meant to describe his ideal place. Of course it is possible, but I believe he has given us a start, more like a seed, than a final product—something to get us mentally working on our own ‘perfect place’. I have never tried to create my own, but I suspect it is much harder than any of us imagine it to be…

  21. 4 out of 5

    Delirious Disquisitions

    Thomas Moore’s Utopia is a two part thesis outlining the fictional country of Utopia and its people as the measure of what a perfect commonwealth should look like. Book I acts as a prologue to the main story in Book II. Here we are introduced to Moore, his friend Peter Giles, and a fictional character named Raphael who acts as our primary source into the Republic of Utopia. In Book I, Moore takes his time to lay out the current political, geographic, economic, and social scene in England during Thomas Moore’s Utopia is a two part thesis outlining the fictional country of Utopia and its people as the measure of what a perfect commonwealth should look like. Book I acts as a prologue to the main story in Book II. Here we are introduced to Moore, his friend Peter Giles, and a fictional character named Raphael who acts as our primary source into the Republic of Utopia. In Book I, Moore takes his time to lay out the current political, geographic, economic, and social scene in England during this time. Thus when we are ultimately introduced to Utopia in Book II it is immediately recognizable as a foil to England. Moore also spends considerable time constructing a credible background for Utopia in history, geography, and even language. It's finally after setting up the question of why there is a need for Utopia that Moore segues into the details of a perfect Utopia in Book II. Book II outlines the geographical, political, economic, and social landscape of Utopia. But while we are supposed to read Utopia as the ideal version of England during Moore’s time, there are a lot of problematic instances inter-textual instances within the text itself. For one thing the rigid physical and psychological structure of Utopia doesn’t account for arbitrary human emotions or fallacies; something that is reflected in Raphael’s character in Book I. The idea of public property, notion of a homogeneous society and its people, the hive mind mentality, elitist nature of the Utopians is more dystopia in nature than an ideal paradise. The cultish nature of the Utopian society is one of the truly disturbing aspects of the novel. Geographically, Utopia is very much isolated from the outside world their only point of contact being if anyone happens upon the island. Internal movement as well is severely limited with citizens needing permission from the authority to travel even between towns. Everyone produces just the right amount of food or resources to get by. Even the population is carefully monitored. Such restriction is ultimately why Utopia is a futile dream: a society that cannot progress and just recycles itself endlessly would stagnate, and as such is impossible to realize. There are still other problematic issues with the Utopian way of living such as restriction on clothing, appearance, even the spending of leisure time. Moreover, although Utopia is a secular country it holds the Christian model of religion as the most superior. As Utopia is very much a monastic society based on the fundamental idea of reward in the afterlife, atheism as the antithesis of this idea is considered taboo. The Utopians go so far as to enslave such people or cast them out of society. Speaking of which, Moore treats slavery with such casualness as to be insulting. There are many throwaway references to slavery, with it being the most popular replacement for hangings or death penalties. Women likewise are treated with the kind of sexism that was very common at the time. Rather, Moore is progressive in some instances when he shows the women actively participating in everyday market labor. Yet despite its controversial nature, Utopia is still a revolutionary text that is still very much relevant to contemporary times. Issues like enclosures, monopoly of wealth or resources by a few, loss of agricultural land, etc. There is enough inherent contradictions within the text to suggest Moore wrote Utopia as more of a satire coating some fundamental truths about society. Ultimately, whether we think of Utopia as an impossible ideal, a satirical piece, or a manifesto of change it forces us to think critically of the society around us and the question contemplate plausible change. 3.5 stars

  22. 4 out of 5

    Owlseyes inside Notre Dame, it's so strange a 15-hour blaze and...30-minutes wait to call the firemen...and

    Notes collected: "you [Raphael] neither desire wealth nor greatness" More had been assigned by King Henry VIII to get to Flanders. In Brussels he's got a dear friend named Peter, who introduces More to this philosopher/traveller called Raphael Hythloday. His four voyages have been published; he's Portuguese by birth and knows a lot about nations and countries. He's been to Ceylon, India and many other places. But More is puzzled: how such a man is not serving under a monarch....why not to apply h Notes collected: "you [Raphael] neither desire wealth nor greatness" More had been assigned by King Henry VIII to get to Flanders. In Brussels he's got a dear friend named Peter, who introduces More to this philosopher/traveller called Raphael Hythloday. His four voyages have been published; he's Portuguese by birth and knows a lot about nations and countries. He's been to Ceylon, India and many other places. But More is puzzled: how such a man is not serving under a monarch....why not to apply his thoughts to public affairs? Raphael replies he's been under the equator...much further than the deserts ...and further away in a place where men know about astronomy and other subjects. The Philosopher says: "now I live as I will". He knows about the "laws and manners of the Utopians". But he knows also about those "proud" rulers of Britain,...in Church and State. (Utopian alphabet) Who are the Utopians; what's Utopia? To be updated

  23. 5 out of 5

    Amanda

    I very much enjoyed this classic piece of literature. Unlike some other reviewers, I don't think it is meant to be a model for a real society. It is in fact a quixotic idea of what a perfect society might look like, but I am not going to criticize a work of fiction just because it is not necessarily a realistic plan for a real state/country/world. That being said, I do believe the purpose of More's work is to make people seriously consider some of the things that are wrong with our culture and ho I very much enjoyed this classic piece of literature. Unlike some other reviewers, I don't think it is meant to be a model for a real society. It is in fact a quixotic idea of what a perfect society might look like, but I am not going to criticize a work of fiction just because it is not necessarily a realistic plan for a real state/country/world. That being said, I do believe the purpose of More's work is to make people seriously consider some of the things that are wrong with our culture and how to improve upon it. I found myself highlighting scores of passages, particularly those about education. (Full disclosure: I am a teacher, so naturally I have idealistic views about education.) More writes in very long, drawn-out sentences, but the basic idea of one of my favorite passages is, "If we do not properly educate people so they cannot be financially independent and so resort to stealing, what else are we doing but making thieves and then punishing them?" As a teacher for at-risk students, I see this behavior all too often, and I do believe that many of society's ills can be corrected in youth if only schools have the resources. My main issue with this book was More's writing style. As I mentioned before, he writes in extremely long sentences, mostly separated by semi-colons, which can make for tedious reading. Sometimes one sentence takes up a whole page. Other than that, I enjoyed the work.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Mario

    For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them. Well this was quite a surprise. After I read a few pages of this book, I thought that I was going to hate every single minute of reading it, but now I can say that I quite enjoyed it. Utopia is a book about 'a good place For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them. Well this was quite a surprise. After I read a few pages of this book, I thought that I was going to hate every single minute of reading it, but now I can say that I quite enjoyed it. Utopia is a book about 'a good place', where society works perfectly and no one is oppressed. Money does not exist, no one owns anything - so everyone are rich. No one is poor and no one is starving. Too bad Utopia in translation means 'no place', right? But nevertheless, Utopia was quite a smart little book, and it proved an interesting few points. So I definitely do not regret reading it.

  25. 5 out of 5

    A.J.

    If you need a reason to be a pinko communist sissy, I imagine you can do a little better than this. The Greek word for utopia actually means "no-place" or "nonsense". For the two or three of you who still haven't figured out why people use Marx's Manifesto as toilet paper, you might actually appreciate the ideas presented here, but bear in mind that it's likely not even Thomas More himself was taking it seriously. You could call this a work of fiction as much as one of philosophy or political th If you need a reason to be a pinko communist sissy, I imagine you can do a little better than this. The Greek word for utopia actually means "no-place" or "nonsense". For the two or three of you who still haven't figured out why people use Marx's Manifesto as toilet paper, you might actually appreciate the ideas presented here, but bear in mind that it's likely not even Thomas More himself was taking it seriously. You could call this a work of fiction as much as one of philosophy or political theory––in fact it's downright tiresome just trying to figure out what the hell More's argument is. To a dirt-poor farmer digging potatoes for the fifth round of stew this week, Utopia might sound like a grand place to live. Little work, plenty of food, and you get to see your potential wife naked before you marry her. What a life. Yet the same thing always happens. Someone somewhere gets the idea in his head that he isn't going to be any better off whether he works half strength, full strength, or not at all. Then someone else starts to think he's more equal than everyone else. It doesn't take a feat of imagination to see More's little world dying from a million small cuts, because if there's anything I've learned about the human race so far, we can't do anything in groups without an inevitable typhoon of bullsh#t. As a historic piece of literature, I've certainly read worse. But the implementation of this society is downright laughable. Just read Animal Farm and you'll see what I'm talking about.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Robb

    This was a fantastic book. I am really surprised I hadn't heard of this author or this book before. It has been quite a while since a book was able to affect and stimulate me on an intellectual level. Utopia is a great work that touches on so many ideas that were surprisingly well ahead of his time. He developed theories on Communism, capitalism, philosophy, religion, social justice centuries before big names such as Marx, Engles, Smith, Locke, Rawls, etc came onto the scene and told us the best This was a fantastic book. I am really surprised I hadn't heard of this author or this book before. It has been quite a while since a book was able to affect and stimulate me on an intellectual level. Utopia is a great work that touches on so many ideas that were surprisingly well ahead of his time. He developed theories on Communism, capitalism, philosophy, religion, social justice centuries before big names such as Marx, Engles, Smith, Locke, Rawls, etc came onto the scene and told us the best way to operate a society. I read several other reviews from people about this book and they are not very flattering. Of course, people need to realize that this book was written in the early 1500s and these ideas were nothing short of revolutionary when it was written and not as some have put it "pinko propaganda". More wrote Utopia in such away to make these theories less prescriptive and more of a satirical look at how humans structure a society and how they will never actually be able to achieve something as perfect as Utopia. I enjoyed Book I much more then Book II as it was more of a dialogue about what is wrong with society, which surprisingly was just as applicable in today's age. Book II was pretty much a description of how Utopia operates on the many levels required for a society to function. Both were well written however. I recommend this book to everyone as it has something for everyone in it. You cannot read this book and not take something from it.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Deborah

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. I have so much respect for Moore, for what he endured in his life, for the courage to stand by his convictions -- even when facing financial, social, and ultimately his own ruin. His vision of Utopia is beautiful. It certainly set the stage for socialism (I know "humanists"). However, much like many socialist thinkers, he does not take human nature into account at all. His society works, only if everyone in it subscribes to his specific moral code, values, and drive. In that way, it is a stiflin I have so much respect for Moore, for what he endured in his life, for the courage to stand by his convictions -- even when facing financial, social, and ultimately his own ruin. His vision of Utopia is beautiful. It certainly set the stage for socialism (I know "humanists"). However, much like many socialist thinkers, he does not take human nature into account at all. His society works, only if everyone in it subscribes to his specific moral code, values, and drive. In that way, it is a stifling society. What happens to the driven man (overachiever); the mad; the greedy man; the Machiavellian schemer? All these personalities and many more exist within humanity. A society needs room to accommodate and anticipate them.

  28. 4 out of 5

    Matthias

    This book has been close to a revelation for me. It took me completely by surprise, considering these ancient books always seemed rather dry to me, however intelligent their writer. I don't know how much of this is owed to the translator, Paul Turner, but I reckon at least enough for him to merit the explicit mention here. I used to be, I still am in fact, very fond of dystopian novels. Brave New World and 1984 are classic examples which I thoroughly enjoyed. But after reading Utopia, I'm left fa This book has been close to a revelation for me. It took me completely by surprise, considering these ancient books always seemed rather dry to me, however intelligent their writer. I don't know how much of this is owed to the translator, Paul Turner, but I reckon at least enough for him to merit the explicit mention here. I used to be, I still am in fact, very fond of dystopian novels. Brave New World and 1984 are classic examples which I thoroughly enjoyed. But after reading Utopia, I'm left far more impressed. It's infinitely more challenging to try and come up with a society model that works, rather than one that screws things up. Granted, Utopia more than probably wouldn't work, and some of the notions are dated. Thomas More's treatment of women's role in society probably will not make him very popular with our contemporary ladies, not to mention his statements on the "mentally deficient" as well as those on atheists and slavery. Utopia can only work because of the mistakes other countries around it make, and by cashing in on it, either by using their criminals as slaves or their thirst for gold as a weapon against them, ruling out the possibility of a worldwide Utopia, but somehow expecting that those who are left out stand idly by. The reason why I like this book is not because I think an Utopia would work, but because I greatly appreciate the effort of trying to design such a place. I feel some lessons could be distilled from it, despite its shortcomings, and these lessons are brought in such a humble tone that the book never strikes me as condescending in that respect, making it all the more powerful. Aside from the dated notions mentioned before, More's emphasis on Christianity might offend some people as well, but I chose to read it as an afterthought rather than the cherry on the cake (as it was probably intended). Reading it that way allowed me not to forget about some ideas where Thomas More was indeed ahead of his time, apparent in small issues such as female priests or big ones such as euthanasia, international treaties and freedom of religion. Thomas More seemed so much ahead of his time, bringing up all these points still relevant today, but was he really? Or was he so perfectly in tune with human nature that what he wrote down applies as much to what happened 1000 years before he was around as 500 years after it? There is something universal and timeless in this book that can't be ignored I think. I haven't given many books five stars so far, but this one gets them, not only for having me thoroughly enjoy it while reading, but for inspiring me to think about life and society in my own modest way, long after I closed it. I'm definitely going to return to it one day. In closing, and as I couldn't say it better myself, some quotes I particularly liked: On his friend Peter Gilles: "Certainly he is a very fine person, as well as a very fine scholar. He is scrupulously fair to everyone, but towards his friends he shows so much genuine kindness, loyalty and affection, that he must be unique in his all-round capacity for friendship. He is unusually modest, utterly sincere, and has a shrewd simplicity all his own. He is also a delightful talker, who can be witty without hurting anyone's feelings. I was longing to get back to England and see my wife and children, as I had been away for over four months; but my homesickness was to a large extent relieved by the pleasure of his company and the charm of his conversation." (Doesn't this describe the kind of friend we should all aspire to be?) "However, there are also physical pleasures which satisfy no organic need, and relieve no previous discomfort. They merely act, in a mysterious but quite unmistakable way, directly on our senses, and monopolize their reactions. Such is the pleasure of music." "For, if you think that sort of thing will make you happy, you'll have to admit that your idea of perfect felicity would be a life consisting entirely of hunger, thirst, itching, eating, drinking, rubbing, and scratching - which would obviously be most unpleasant as well as quite disgusting." "For they assume that He has the normal reactions of an artist. Having put the marvelous system of the universe on show for human beings to look at - since no other species is capable of taking it in - He must prefer the type of person who examines it carefully and really admires His work, to the type that just ignores it and like the lower animals remains quite unimpressed by the whole astonishing spectacle." "For instance, the Utopians fail to understand why anyone would be so fascinated by the dull gleam of a tiny bit of stone, when he has all the stars in the sky to look at." "The Utopians never make any actual treaties of the kind that are so constantly being made, broken, and renewed by other nations. What, they ask, is the good of a treaty? Aren't all human beings natural allies already? And if a person's prepared to ignore a fundamental bond like that, is he likely to pay much attention to a mere form of words?" "...you can't rely on treaties at all. The more solemnly they're made, the sooner they're violated, by the simple process of discovering some loophole in the wording. Indeed, such loopholes are often incorporated deliberately in the original text, so that, no matter how binding one's commitments appear to be, one can always wriggle out of them, thus breaking treaty and faith simultaneously. The fact is, such diplomacy is downright dishonest. If the very people who pride themselves on suggesting such tricks to their rulers found the same sort of thing going on in connection with a private contract, they'd be the first to denounce it, in shrill, self-righteous tones, as sacrilegious and criminal."

  29. 5 out of 5

    Ana Sofia

    My evaluation is of 4.5*! This book is amazing! I really enjoyed reading it! Although it was a to-read book for college I was quite surprised for liking it so much. Every page is a constant brainstorm and you feel amazed with all the hard truths about our world. Of course I don't believe that such place like Utopia could ever exist, but I think that we can make our world a whole lot better, because what we're doing now isn't enough! If you agree with me you'll love this!

  30. 5 out of 5

    Faith (BookSelf ~ You Are What You Read)

    I loved the dialogue in book 1; Raphael is really quite woke. While the structure of Utopia itself was interesting, I would have rather liked a story rather than a textbook explanation. Nonetheless, it was enjoyable.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.