A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

I have such mixed feelings about this book. Mainly, I kept being confused: is this really a book extolling the progress of modern (19th century) life, or a satire of self-satisfied Victorians who think they've figured everything out, when really they're only a few decades away from owning slaves themselves, and will also appear deeply flawed in the long view of history? Or both? I think both, but really I found the narrator so much of an arrogant boor that it was a slog to get through.

I listened to the audiobook, which was very skillfully narrated by Nick Offerman, so I'm giving him an extra star.

Main character was insufferable and has superiority complex. Just because he was from a different time did not make him smarter or better than the other characters. Still, there were some humorous bits, like trying to travel on a hot day in armor and having the sweat build up inside the suite.

Note: I listened to the version narrated by Nick Offerman. He was the best narrator they could have chosen and make this book more enjoyable. Picture Ron Swanson in Camelot. It was fun.

No, just no. A book written in the 19th century, with vocabulary from the 15th? century, following a story structure from the NO century.

Mark Twain, just like not many, but ALL of the classic writers, bears no attraction to me. The opposite actually. I can't stand his prose, his story structure, nothing.

I think it starts in the present, explaining how the protagonist (the author himself?) is visiting some old castle, and he meets an old timer who starts telling some tales of the old chivalry times. Then it changes perspective, and all of a sudden a very flourished Sir Lancelot tale is being told.

I hate this old knight tales, that more resemble a poem, and have no content whatsoever. Sir Lancelot, who is valiant, gallant, invincible, and... I can't take this any more.

Read 0:13 / 13:25 2%