Rating: 
Summary: I didn't really like the book it was boring, the end=best.
Review: It was grat at some parts and boring at others. The end made up for alot of the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Trash it
Review: This has to be the worst book Twain has every written. I had to do a book report on a book that was dull, stupid and lackluster. I love sifi and fanstay book but this is the worst I have ever read in 30 years
Rating: 
Summary: A often misunderstood satire.
Review: While the critique of the weaknesses of Arthurian society are obvious, this is a really remarkable book for its critique of Twain's (and perhaps our) America. The ending can be seen as a prophetic warning of the consequences for war of the adoption of modern technology. Even Twain's accounts of the problem of instantly democratizing a traditional society seem remarkably current to today's efforts to bring our political system to Eastern Europe, etc. This is no teenage science fiction novel, but as usual with Twain, a book with many meanings and insights.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Satire in the form of a Great work of Literature
Review: Mark Twain is no Science-Fiction author, but he makes this a good story anyway. He sends a mechanical genius back to the time of King Arthur to take a look back at America. Because of his knowledge, the narrarator becomes the King's right-hand man, the second most powerful man in England, known as The Boss. He begins to establish a more advanced society underground to gaurd against the Church. Over many years, he learns to adjust to the society and becomes respected world-wide due to his "magic." Unforetunately this results in making Merlin his great advisary. The Boss goes on many adventures and gets involved in many predicaments, each time surviving by his wit and knowledge. A wonderfully told tale that examines America's faults by looking at them from 7 centuries before. Unfortunately Twain, once again, falls short on his ending and leaves the reader mildly entertained, but not better off.
Rating:
Summary: Not a story for true King Arthor fans.
Review: I am a true fan of the King Arthor legands and of the writings of Mark Twain, but this novel does not meet up to either things. Basically the writing is not as well done as his other stories like Tom Sawyer and it puts down the whole legand of the Round Table. If you are inclined to be romantic about the Arturian period definitly do not read this story. I wish that I could have enjoyed this more, but there was little to make me love it
Rating: 
Summary: Not "cute"; but absolutely fascinating!
Review: This book is not a "good" book, in that it fails to achieve its supposed purpose (which is to deprecate chivalric romance). Yet the sheer fascination of this incredibly poigniant failure is enough to keep me returning! It nothing like the "cute" kids versions and movies that it has inspired. Prepare for a vitriolic horror-ride that seems to prove nothing but man's futility--i.e., welcome to Twaine's latter period. Mark Twain's work of psuedo-realistic phantasy is perhaps the most marked and fascinating failure in literature. In the novel Twain sets science and technology against chivalry and romance. Twaine attempts to overthrow a thousand years of fuedal and romantic tradition by means of scientific and economic efficiency. Yet (without revealing too much) in the end the Yankee must praise the romantic hero King Arthur; has used the very superstitions he disdains to dupe the people; come to love an archetype of the simple medieval personality he despises; and, amazingly, has threatened to destroy an entire civilization. In the end the only thing the Yankee proves is that modern man is far too arrogant for his own good, and that it is all too easy to become the villain you hate. So what was Twaine's point? Supposedly to prove the vast superiority of the modern age over the Chivalric Age. But did Twaine actually believe his utterly amazing ending carried out his task? I doubt it; I think the book is a classic example of Twain's disbelief of everything. But the world my never know.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome!!! A Classic!!!
Review: Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, is one of my all time choices, an incredible tale full of imagination , funny situations , magic and amazing adventures, is funny how our hero brings to King Arthur court all the inventions , ocupations, and culture from XX century and how all the knigths and the population in a very entertaining way for the reader, assume the whole way of life supposed to be achieved in our culture centuries ahead and all that with a hilarious normality. you can find also very interesting situations in wich King Arthur is involved because of his relation with the main character, definitelly you have to read this book , this is the kind of ligth literature we all should be used entertaining with , all parets must show their kids what is good and bad literature and recommend masterpieces like this
Rating:
Summary: Not "cute"; but absolutely fascinating!
Review: This book is not a "good" book, in that it fails to achieve its supposed purpose (which is to deprecate chivalric romance). Yet the sheer fascination of this incredibly poigniant failure is enough to keep me returning! It nothing like the "cute" kids versions and movies that it has inspired. Prepare for a vitriolic horror-ride that seems to prove nothing but man's futility--i.e., welcome to Twaine's latter period. Mark Twain's work of psuedo-realistic phantasy is perhaps the most marked and fascinating failure in literature. In the novel Twain sets science and technology against chivalry and romance. Twaine attempts to overthrow a thousand years of fuedal and romantic tradition by means of scientific and economic efficiency. Yet (without revealing too much) in the end the Yankee must praise the romantic hero King Arthur; has used the very superstitions he disdains to dupe the people; come to love an archetype of the simple medieval personality he despises; and, amazingly, has threatened to destroy an entire civilization. In the end the only thing the Yankee proves is that modern man is far too arrogant for his own good, and that it is all too easy to become the villain you hate. So what was Twaine's point? Supposedly to prove the vast superiority of the modern age over the Chivalric Age. But did Twaine actually believe his utterly amazing ending carried out his task? I doubt it; I think the book is a classic example of Twain's disbelief of everything. But the world my never know.
Rating: 
Summary: Very difficult to read
Review: I read this book, expecting it to be similar to Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn. However, I struggled through the old English monologues of some of the characters. While this is an amusing tale of a 19th century American attempting to modernize 6th century Britain, I wish I had applied my recreational reading time elsewhere.This paperback printing is difficult to read, too. The words run too close to the spine, requiring me to hold the book flat to read.
Rating:
Summary: What would you do for fun in Camelot?
Review: Who has not wondered what they would do if sent back centuries earlier armed with the knowledge of modern life? Mark Twain is perhaps the first writer (at least the first that I know of) who makes a serious effort (with much comedy thrown in) to consider this question. The main character, Hank Morgan, is mysteriously transported from the then modern age of the late 19th century into the land of Camelot, with King Arthur and his knights. Although the story is well known for the comedic stories within the book, less known is the author's serious statements about human frailties such as prejudice (this book is an outspoken criticism of slavery at a time when the Just Cause myth of the American south was getting its start), superstition, autocracy, blind reliance on tradition, etc. His severity against the Catholic church stings me because that is my faith, but when considering the history of the church and some of the atrocities committed by some church leaders, his denigration is not without some justification. There is much here for philosophical debate. Twain takes an anti-determinist view of what man is capable of accomplishing, but he is fatalistic about the ability of one person to make a lasting change. I think that he missed the point. Hank Morgan failed not so much because of the forces of custom or the clergy, but because he tried force cultural enlightenment. This is like expecting wisdom from ten year olds simply because they have the lessons of their elders available to them. Cultural improvement is a developmental process and comes from self awareness. The character would have also been improved if he had learned more of his own cultural shortcomings from involvement with this different society. Regardless, this is a highly enjoyable book that shows why it, and the author remains of interest over a century later. I disagree with the Editorial Review written by the School Library Journal that this book is recommended for as early as fifth grade. I believe that the subject matter would be better considered and discussed with those in later grades.
|
