He was a great organiser, and he controlled various bands of robbers whose lives he did not hesitate to sacrifice when his own was in danger. Naturally he was so hated by many of his underlings that it is a wonder he was able to maintain his authority over them as many years as he did. His rascality had been notorious a long time before his crimes could actually be proved.
That Jonathan Wild is for the most part a magnificent example of sustained irony, one of the best in our literature, critics have generally agreed. Admirable, too, is the ironical humour, in which Fielding so excelled, and which in Jonathan Wild he seldom drops.
This point of this book is hard to grasp so I went to Wikipedia to pick up the main idea. That helped a lot. It is a satire on politicians of the early 1700s that shows how "great" politicians are just like great criminals. Altogether, it shows the power of humor to attack political enemies (in this case, Prime Minister Horace Walpole).
I got onto this book by listening to Tom Jones by the same author. That is a great book which I better recommend. It has the same extraordinary writing and a pretty good story.
Jonathan Wilding is better viewed as an example of great satire that could be used today. It is in the line of "Onion" newspaper.
2 of 2 people found this review helpful
Somebody needs to make a movie here, although I doubt they'd match the mystery and insight of the story and its main character. Such perspective and wisdom in short story form I doubt has ever been exceeded.
1 of 1 people found this review helpful
Boring, boring, boring. The narrator talks in a dull monotone and after a brief while, you don't even care about the character she is speaking about. Sorry I spent my money on this one.
2 of 13 people found this review helpful