Scan barcode
jmrprice's review against another edition
4.0
A beloved classic that remains filled with derring-do and the possibilities of challenges.
soleil_soleil's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
Yes, he was ahead of his time, and he had great worldbuilding, but Jules Verne's works aren't super relevant anymore.
yellowswagger's review against another edition
1.0
Carmen Sandiego did it better.
I can’t believe I finished this racist, imperialist fantasy book. Everywhere the characters went, the people that hadn’t been “civilized” by the English were “savages.” I can’t even justify it as for its time. This book is a pat on the back to the white saviors and ultimately a waste of time.
I can’t believe I finished this racist, imperialist fantasy book. Everywhere the characters went, the people that hadn’t been “civilized” by the English were “savages.” I can’t even justify it as for its time. This book is a pat on the back to the white saviors and ultimately a waste of time.
readsbyannie's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
funny
informative
relaxing
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
the_sunken_library's review against another edition
4.0
My first time reading this classic.
A fun little adventure. I would highly recommend listening to a performance of this while reading along, it really brings the book to life.
A fun little adventure. I would highly recommend listening to a performance of this while reading along, it really brings the book to life.
daja57's review against another edition
4.0
I was inspired to re-read this after watching the first episode of the recent BBC adaptation which utterly changed the story.
When I first read this book, as a kid, I loved it. Fundamentally, it is a race against time. Phileas Fogg, an English gentleman of fixed habits who is almost catatonic in his reserve, bets that he can travel around the world in eighty days and sets off with his newly hired manservant Passepartout, whose role in the novel is to provide comedy and to do stupid things which will cause delays. On the journey Mr Fogg acquires a tail, a detective called Fix (never Mr Fix!) who believes Mr Fogg is a bank-robber and follows him in the hope that he will land in an English territory where an arrest warrant might be served. During the journey, the travellers rescue a lady from the clutches of murderous savages who becomes the love interest. But the excitement is provided mainly when missed connections require the improvisation of unorthodox means of travel.
There is also quite a lot of 'travel writing', describing the scenery and customs of foreign lands.
The fundamental problem to a modern reader (or a BBC scriptwriter) is that the book was written at the height of the British Empire and the indigenous peoples visited are invariably described in blatantly racist terms. In addition, the only female character is essentially passive.
When you add the fact that a large part of the excitement requires that the reader/ viewer realises that in Victorian days steamships and locomotives were cutting edge travel, it makes me wonder why they bothered to adapt this book; why not simply take the premise of a race around the world and write your own tale?
But the first episode added a shoot-out in which Passepartout's brother was trying to assassinate the French president. I suppose the BBC believe that the average viewer is unable to be gripped by the fundamentally simple tensions set up by Jules Verne.
Unusually for Jules Verne, this isn't scifi. It was a classic in its time and it is still a good read but it reveals racist and sexist attitudes that were typical of its time but make uncomfortable reading today.
When I first read this book, as a kid, I loved it. Fundamentally, it is a race against time. Phileas Fogg, an English gentleman of fixed habits who is almost catatonic in his reserve, bets that he can travel around the world in eighty days and sets off with his newly hired manservant Passepartout, whose role in the novel is to provide comedy and to do stupid things which will cause delays. On the journey Mr Fogg acquires a tail, a detective called Fix (never Mr Fix!) who believes Mr Fogg is a bank-robber and follows him in the hope that he will land in an English territory where an arrest warrant might be served. During the journey, the travellers rescue a lady from the clutches of murderous savages who becomes the love interest. But the excitement is provided mainly when missed connections require the improvisation of unorthodox means of travel.
There is also quite a lot of 'travel writing', describing the scenery and customs of foreign lands.
The fundamental problem to a modern reader (or a BBC scriptwriter) is that the book was written at the height of the British Empire and the indigenous peoples visited are invariably described in blatantly racist terms. In addition, the only female character is essentially passive.
When you add the fact that a large part of the excitement requires that the reader/ viewer realises that in Victorian days steamships and locomotives were cutting edge travel, it makes me wonder why they bothered to adapt this book; why not simply take the premise of a race around the world and write your own tale?
But the first episode added a shoot-out in which Passepartout's brother was trying to assassinate the French president. I suppose the BBC believe that the average viewer is unable to be gripped by the fundamentally simple tensions set up by Jules Verne.
Unusually for Jules Verne, this isn't scifi. It was a classic in its time and it is still a good read but it reveals racist and sexist attitudes that were typical of its time but make uncomfortable reading today.
trin's review against another edition
3.0
I hate to be this person, but...this is not as good as the 2021 Masterpiece miniseries I just watched? I am now even more impressed by what a good job was done with that adaptation, which enriches not only the characters but also the plot, adding significantly more drama (and significantly reducing the racism!). I mean, I suspect that all adaptations of this book are, shall we say, loose -- did you know that no hot air balloon appears in the novel? Some stories take on lives of their own once they're out in the world, and this is very much one of them.
Possibly because, while Verne's idea is great, his execution is rather thin. His novel is still a fun adventure and a quick read, but his Fogg is an emotionless cipher -- I believe this is meant to be Verne's parody of an Englishmen -- and almost every problem he and Passepartout encounter is solved via money. Verne still accomplishes some good gags -- I'll admit I laughed at the Mormon missionary on the train -- but there's not a ton here. And maybe, in a way, that's why this story has been so often and so ably embellished.
Possibly because, while Verne's idea is great, his execution is rather thin. His novel is still a fun adventure and a quick read, but his Fogg is an emotionless cipher -- I believe this is meant to be Verne's parody of an Englishmen -- and almost every problem he and Passepartout encounter is solved via money. Verne still accomplishes some good gags -- I'll admit I laughed at the Mormon missionary on the train -- but there's not a ton here. And maybe, in a way, that's why this story has been so often and so ably embellished.