Status
Available
Call number
Collection
Publication
Penguin Books Ltd (1986), Edition: 6th printing, Mass Market Paperback
Description
Classic Literature. Fiction. HTML: In this era of pandemic fears, the gripping tale of the Great Plague that brought Europe to its knees in the mid-1600s is a surprisingly timely read. Defoe's fictionalized account of life in plague-stricken 1665 London is a harrowing and suspenseful page-turner..
User reviews
LibraryThing member Eurydice
Understated as it is, this fictional 'documentary' of the Plague Year is gripping. Compelling and eminently readable, it gives an almost businesslike account of the Plague's imagined horror.
As birchmore pointed out, there are fascinating authorial techniques at work. Early in the story, the saddler
Even as a modern reader, it's difficult not to succumb to the Journal's appearance of truth. As far as I'm concerned, that's an extraordinary testimony to Defoe's brilliance.
As birchmore pointed out, there are fascinating authorial techniques at work. Early in the story, the saddler
Show More
establishes his claim as a truthful source not only by his sober and skeptical tone, but by his constant reference to the actual Bills of Mortality. Then, as the story progresses, the narrator, firmly established in the reader's confidence, begins to cast doubt on their legitimacy and accuracy - realistically heightening the fears of catastrophe. Even as a modern reader, it's difficult not to succumb to the Journal's appearance of truth. As far as I'm concerned, that's an extraordinary testimony to Defoe's brilliance.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bookworm12
With Ebola outbreaks on the news and debates on vaccinations on every blog, it seemed like a perfect time to return to one of the original records of a disease outbreak. I was particularly curious to read this book because it was mentioned multiple times in “On Immunity”. The author of Robinson
Defoe looks at the plague through the eyes of one man. He’s forced to decide if he should stay or go when the outbreak begins. So many people fled, but some didn’t realize they had already been infected. They carried the plague with them to other towns. Some people who were sick would throw themselves into the pits of the dead and wait their death out.
The book is surprisingly interesting for a nonfiction account written centuries ago. Defoe talked about the actually details of how the outbreak was handle. For example, when one person in a family got sick, the rest of the family was kept in their house with a guard posted out front or other times they were all sent to the sick house, where they often became infected even if they weren’t sick before.
Random Tidbits:
The scene from “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail” where they are yelling out “Bring out your dead!” was a real thing. People went around with carts and actually yelled that out to collect the dead bodies.
The standard of burying people six feet under was also established at this point. It used to be a very arbitrary depth before the plague.
BOTTOM LINE: It’s less about the plague itself than it is about the study of a society in duress. It was fascinating to see the different ways people reacted. Their fight or flight tendencies haven’t changed much over the last 300 years.
Show More
Crusoe wrote this fictionalized account of a man who lives through the bubonic plague in England in 1665. Defoe was only 5-years-old at that time, but his account is considered one of the most accurate ones of the plague. Defoe looks at the plague through the eyes of one man. He’s forced to decide if he should stay or go when the outbreak begins. So many people fled, but some didn’t realize they had already been infected. They carried the plague with them to other towns. Some people who were sick would throw themselves into the pits of the dead and wait their death out.
The book is surprisingly interesting for a nonfiction account written centuries ago. Defoe talked about the actually details of how the outbreak was handle. For example, when one person in a family got sick, the rest of the family was kept in their house with a guard posted out front or other times they were all sent to the sick house, where they often became infected even if they weren’t sick before.
Random Tidbits:
The scene from “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail” where they are yelling out “Bring out your dead!” was a real thing. People went around with carts and actually yelled that out to collect the dead bodies.
The standard of burying people six feet under was also established at this point. It used to be a very arbitrary depth before the plague.
BOTTOM LINE: It’s less about the plague itself than it is about the study of a society in duress. It was fascinating to see the different ways people reacted. Their fight or flight tendencies haven’t changed much over the last 300 years.
Show Less
LibraryThing member santhony
I must admit to a morbid fascination with accounts of natural disasters, harrowing exploration tales and historical plagues. This ostensibly first-hand account of the 1665 visitation of the Black Death upon London, written by Daniel DeFoe, certainly fits nicely into that genre. I say
This is not a spellbinding or even captivating read. It is full of statistics and seemingly never ending references to specific neighborhoods and precincts as existed in London at the time. Much of the book is taken up with body counts and comparisons of mortality from time to time in the different areas of London and its environs. As most people have no geographic knowledge of the area, this is largely wasted, except to realize that, “Gee, a lot of people died in Whiteside, but not so many in Wapping.”
Sprinkled throughout this relatively short work (under 200 dense pages), are interesting anecdotes, and this is the beauty of the book; the actions and reactions of everyday people to the scourge within their midst. How did the authorities address the problem? What was the medical knowledge and prevailing treatments as existed at the time? What did people in London do when commerce and society effectively broke down? What did they do to acquire food? How were the bodies disposed of? All intriguing and practical questions that are asked and answered herein.
Given the factual and dry nature of most of the prose, coupled with the early 18th century writing style, I cannot recommend this work to the casual reader or one looking strictly for entertainment or to pass the time. Even an aficionado of the genre will likely be hard pressed to profess an unreserved endorsement of the book as anything other than what it is; a dry, at times enlightening, account of the Black Death’s impact on the city and citizens of London, written in close proximity to the event itself.
Show More
“ostensibly”, because while Defoe was alive at the time of the event, he was a very young child and wrote this work in 1722. Therefore, while we can be assured that many of the accounts therein are largely accurate, it would be stretch to label it as strictly non-fiction.This is not a spellbinding or even captivating read. It is full of statistics and seemingly never ending references to specific neighborhoods and precincts as existed in London at the time. Much of the book is taken up with body counts and comparisons of mortality from time to time in the different areas of London and its environs. As most people have no geographic knowledge of the area, this is largely wasted, except to realize that, “Gee, a lot of people died in Whiteside, but not so many in Wapping.”
Sprinkled throughout this relatively short work (under 200 dense pages), are interesting anecdotes, and this is the beauty of the book; the actions and reactions of everyday people to the scourge within their midst. How did the authorities address the problem? What was the medical knowledge and prevailing treatments as existed at the time? What did people in London do when commerce and society effectively broke down? What did they do to acquire food? How were the bodies disposed of? All intriguing and practical questions that are asked and answered herein.
Given the factual and dry nature of most of the prose, coupled with the early 18th century writing style, I cannot recommend this work to the casual reader or one looking strictly for entertainment or to pass the time. Even an aficionado of the genre will likely be hard pressed to profess an unreserved endorsement of the book as anything other than what it is; a dry, at times enlightening, account of the Black Death’s impact on the city and citizens of London, written in close proximity to the event itself.
Show Less
LibraryThing member NielsenGW
Daniel Defoe provides a unique view of the 1665 plague of London. His vivid, if snobbish, depiction of quotidian life is both colorful and enlightening. The reader will have to stumble through 17th century syntax and structure, but the hard work will pay off.
LibraryThing member gavieb
I would rate this book 4 stars but for the errors in the edition I was reading (Barnes & Noble Library Of Essential Reading). Regardless of whether this book is fiction, history or a blend between the two, it is a very interesting account of the Great Plague of London, and if the subject interests
Show More
you, I would recommend reading it. Show Less
LibraryThing member threadnsong
Reading this in 2020 is like knowing that we've been here before. I got to know this book via the appendices before even starting the volume which gave me a good grounding on what to expect. Because seriously, I never would have wanted to read this book until now. And I cannot recommend it
There are charlatans called out for peddling false cures. There are sick people stuck in their homes to prevent the rest of the City from getting the Plague. There are people who don't know they're sick who go about their business until they literally fall down dead. There are people who don't want to abide by the new law to stay in their homes, so they leave to go about their business, or go into the countryside. Whether they infect others is determined by where they were in the City when the Plague hit. There are people who turn to religion with a depth that they had not had before. And there are dead carts.
It is a series of observations, not a full narrative of events. Although there are two or three "stories" in here (a trio of brothers, a waterman who struggles to feed his family locked in their home), the vast majority of the pages are full of anecdotes, observations, and lists of the numbers of dead. What is fascinating is how the Plague started by one merchant from the Low Countries who arrives, not knowing he is infected, and the Plague moves from West to East. Were I not living now, I would never have known the importance of such a detail.
Show More
enough.There are charlatans called out for peddling false cures. There are sick people stuck in their homes to prevent the rest of the City from getting the Plague. There are people who don't know they're sick who go about their business until they literally fall down dead. There are people who don't want to abide by the new law to stay in their homes, so they leave to go about their business, or go into the countryside. Whether they infect others is determined by where they were in the City when the Plague hit. There are people who turn to religion with a depth that they had not had before. And there are dead carts.
It is a series of observations, not a full narrative of events. Although there are two or three "stories" in here (a trio of brothers, a waterman who struggles to feed his family locked in their home), the vast majority of the pages are full of anecdotes, observations, and lists of the numbers of dead. What is fascinating is how the Plague started by one merchant from the Low Countries who arrives, not knowing he is infected, and the Plague moves from West to East. Were I not living now, I would never have known the importance of such a detail.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Heptonj
This is a fictional account of one man's experience of the plague year. It is utterley fascinating and while Daniel Defoe was only 5 at the time of the plague it is surely drawn from the experiences/notes of near relatives?
There is great detail of the management of the people and the infection
This is well worth reading
There is great detail of the management of the people and the infection
Show More
with detailed statistics which are rather frightening to think about. He describes the desperation of the people and the lengths they go to in that desperation. According to the author there were numerous charletons in London selling quackery and uncountable tales of robberies during this horrendous time. There are tales of evil-doers tempered with the praise of the dignitaries and of the good souls who helped the poor in any way possible. This is well worth reading
Show Less
LibraryThing member AngelaB86
Kind of slow moving and repetitive in parts, not to mention long-winded. It was interesting, but I won't be rereading it.
LibraryThing member evano
Because 300 years later, so little has changed...
LibraryThing member starbox
We all learnt of the 1665 Black Death in school- "Bring out your dead"; plague pits, infected houses marked....but what was it LIKE living through it? What were the feelings, the responses, of the people?
This is an absolutely FASCINATING social document, visiting topics I'd never really
Daniel Defoe was only 5 at the time; he seems to have re-worked notes kept by his Uncle Henry Foe, who lived through it, unscathed, after ignoring advice and remaining in the city.
A recurrent theme is Defoe's conviction that the state policy of barricading an infected family (the healthy along with the dying)in their home, with a guard on the door, did no good at all. He tells of much dissimulation, so that the authorities shouldnt find out; of people fleeing (and spreading the disease far afield) for fear of being so confined.
Many who could escape did so...though patrols began preventing outsiders from entering the parish and possibly infecting them. Many were living rough in tents throughout that summer (it reached a crescendo in Aug/Sep).
Religion and sundry dire prognostications became more important. Defoe observes an eradication of usual religious differences as Dissenting ministers stepped into the breach to hold services for other sects (their own priests having died or fled.)
Terror and trauma naturally abound; suicides of those who realise the tell tale signs of the "distemper".
Defoe considers the govt to have done a pretty good job at ensuring constant food; at ensuring the burials were done promptly and at night. A lot of donations were received- though with the economy almost shot, there was much need of it.
And, with the realisation by the late autumn, that it was on the way out, an imprudent rush to resume normal living.
When youve read this, you realise more strongly than ever, that whatever covid is, it assuredly ISNT any kind of pandemic!!
This is an absolutely FASCINATING social document, visiting topics I'd never really
Show More
pondered.Daniel Defoe was only 5 at the time; he seems to have re-worked notes kept by his Uncle Henry Foe, who lived through it, unscathed, after ignoring advice and remaining in the city.
A recurrent theme is Defoe's conviction that the state policy of barricading an infected family (the healthy along with the dying)in their home, with a guard on the door, did no good at all. He tells of much dissimulation, so that the authorities shouldnt find out; of people fleeing (and spreading the disease far afield) for fear of being so confined.
Many who could escape did so...though patrols began preventing outsiders from entering the parish and possibly infecting them. Many were living rough in tents throughout that summer (it reached a crescendo in Aug/Sep).
Religion and sundry dire prognostications became more important. Defoe observes an eradication of usual religious differences as Dissenting ministers stepped into the breach to hold services for other sects (their own priests having died or fled.)
Terror and trauma naturally abound; suicides of those who realise the tell tale signs of the "distemper".
Defoe considers the govt to have done a pretty good job at ensuring constant food; at ensuring the burials were done promptly and at night. A lot of donations were received- though with the economy almost shot, there was much need of it.
And, with the realisation by the late autumn, that it was on the way out, an imprudent rush to resume normal living.
When youve read this, you realise more strongly than ever, that whatever covid is, it assuredly ISNT any kind of pandemic!!
Show Less
LibraryThing member rrainer
I find it difficult to give this a rating not only because of what it is--a book that straddles the fiction/non-fiction line, written centuries ago--but also because of the reasons I read it. I wasn't looking for the story, but for insight into the time period, the science and the language and the
Show More
people and the geography. It's part anecdote and part statistic, and it makes me wonder what it would have been like to be a contemporary reader of something like this, when it felt like an authentic representation of something that could conceivably happen again tomorrow and not a fictionalized account of something that we no longer fear...or if we do, not at all in the same way or context. Show Less
LibraryThing member Lukerik
This book contains the phrase "Bring out your dead". It also has a scene where a man is put alive onto the dead cart, at which he remarks "But I an't dead though, am I". If those aren't reason enough to read it, then I don't know what is.
My understanding is that historians are unable to tell
My understanding is that historians are unable to tell
Show More
exactly where the line between truth and fiction lies. This edition is lightly modernised, which perhaps slightly spoils the effect of reading an original document but it is very cleverly written, as if by one who doesn't habitually write. He introduces the story of the three brothers several times before he actually tells it. Ultimately, I think the book is a victim of its own success as once the brothers' story is told it becomes repetitive and rather tiresome. Show Less
LibraryThing member ToddSherman
“But others, and that in great numbers, built themselves little huts and retreats in the fields and woods, and lived like hermits in holes and caves, or any place they could find, and where, we may be sure, they suffered great extremities, such that many of them were obliged to come back again
O mIsErY!
We BoTH ShaLL DyE,
WoE, WoE.”
It’s not often that I can say I’m excited to read an introduction to a novel. And they really should be afterwords, anyway, since I’d suspect most readers wouldn’t want the narrative ruined by revealing details or hampered by prejudicial information. I usually do go back and read them—mostly they’re vaguely interesting, sometimes as boring as methodically measuring the hardness of cat shit over time, and, at worst, infuriatingly missing the fucking point. Yet, when that introduction is penned by, say, Thomas Pynchon (Warlock), Walter Cronkite (1984), or Neil Gaiman (The Stars My Destination), it serves as a necessary coda without which the main composition would suffer; kind of like listening to “We Will Rock You” and not playing through “We Are the Champions” (sacrilege!). And when that preface is written by Anthony motherfucking Burgess? I just may like it more than the book—and I really, really, really liked the book.
And the book . . . such bleakness could be overbearing. It’s not. The bills of the dead could be a bit mind-numbing and cause one to skip forward a bit (“skip a bit, brother”). I didn’t. Somehow, the pervasiveness, the dutiful tabulation, the catalogue of the fevered families locked up in houses worked much like the factual chapters on whaling (the flensing scene, e.g.) did in "Moby Dick"; namely, as a realistic ground to what could be an all-too-fantastic novel otherwise. I love that shit. And if I hadn’t already known that Defoe most likely had based this work on journals his uncle had written, I could’ve been fooled into believing this as nonfiction. I gladly call it a novel, even though it tests the bounds of what that definition is. And published in 1722? 17 motherfucking 22! And just what does all this “motherfucking” have to do with anything? Nothing, except to say that there aren’t enough intensifiers to show just how highly I regard the seamlessness, the polish and one-shade-below-world-weary poise of this great work. And of how badly I want to read that goddamn introduction. God damn!
And so, to that introduction. I’ll get to my own writing after.
“Besides, if God gave strength to some more than to others, was it to boast of their ability to abide the stroke, and upbraid those that had not the same gift and support, or ought not they rather to have been humble and thankful if they were rendered more useful than their brethren?”
—A Journal of the Plague Year by Daniel Defoe
Show More
whatever the danger was; and so those little huts were often found empty, and the country people supposed the inhabitants lay dead in them of the plague, and would not go near them for fear—no, not in a great while; nor is it unlikely but that some of the unhappy wanderers might die so all alone, even sometimes for want of help, as particularly in one tent or hut was found a man dead, and on the gate of a field just by was cut with his knife in uneven letters the following words, by which it may be supposed the other man escaped, or that, one dying first, the other buried him as well as he could:—O mIsErY!
We BoTH ShaLL DyE,
WoE, WoE.”
It’s not often that I can say I’m excited to read an introduction to a novel. And they really should be afterwords, anyway, since I’d suspect most readers wouldn’t want the narrative ruined by revealing details or hampered by prejudicial information. I usually do go back and read them—mostly they’re vaguely interesting, sometimes as boring as methodically measuring the hardness of cat shit over time, and, at worst, infuriatingly missing the fucking point. Yet, when that introduction is penned by, say, Thomas Pynchon (Warlock), Walter Cronkite (1984), or Neil Gaiman (The Stars My Destination), it serves as a necessary coda without which the main composition would suffer; kind of like listening to “We Will Rock You” and not playing through “We Are the Champions” (sacrilege!). And when that preface is written by Anthony motherfucking Burgess? I just may like it more than the book—and I really, really, really liked the book.
And the book . . . such bleakness could be overbearing. It’s not. The bills of the dead could be a bit mind-numbing and cause one to skip forward a bit (“skip a bit, brother”). I didn’t. Somehow, the pervasiveness, the dutiful tabulation, the catalogue of the fevered families locked up in houses worked much like the factual chapters on whaling (the flensing scene, e.g.) did in "Moby Dick"; namely, as a realistic ground to what could be an all-too-fantastic novel otherwise. I love that shit. And if I hadn’t already known that Defoe most likely had based this work on journals his uncle had written, I could’ve been fooled into believing this as nonfiction. I gladly call it a novel, even though it tests the bounds of what that definition is. And published in 1722? 17 motherfucking 22! And just what does all this “motherfucking” have to do with anything? Nothing, except to say that there aren’t enough intensifiers to show just how highly I regard the seamlessness, the polish and one-shade-below-world-weary poise of this great work. And of how badly I want to read that goddamn introduction. God damn!
And so, to that introduction. I’ll get to my own writing after.
“Besides, if God gave strength to some more than to others, was it to boast of their ability to abide the stroke, and upbraid those that had not the same gift and support, or ought not they rather to have been humble and thankful if they were rendered more useful than their brethren?”
—A Journal of the Plague Year by Daniel Defoe
Show Less
LibraryThing member AlexTheHunn
This was assigned in an undergrad Stuart history class. I was incensed that we were having to read a NOVEL! Well, I was stupid, indeed. This is a fine, revealing look at the horrors that people experienced in 1666.
LibraryThing member stillatim
Yep... Defoe's returns continue to diminish. This reminds me of Dostoevsky's 'House of the Dead,' since both books are absolutely riveting for the first 100 pages or so: you get an immediate impression of what it's like to live in a plague-ridden London (or Russian prison); you get drawn in by the
This penguin edition has some things going for it, starting with an amazing cover illustration and ending with Anthony Burgess' old introduction which is now an appendix. I suspect that's there because Burgess does what an introducer ought to do: describes a bit about Defoe's life and times, a bit about the book you're about to read, and a very slight interpretation of that book (here: 'can we preserve the societies we build?') The editor of this volume, on the other hand, gives us a semi-rapturous 'analysis' of Defoe's use of 'place' in the book, which sounds interesting until you read the book and realize that it's utterly tendentious.
Literary fashion is an odd beast- wouldn't it have made more sense to redo Roxana than to redo this?
Show More
odd 'life is stranger than fiction' moment, but then, before you know it, you're reading exactly the same thing two or even three times for no particular reason other than the narrator's inability to revise his own work. If you know much about the way plague was treated by the early moderns, you won't be surprised by too much here. This penguin edition has some things going for it, starting with an amazing cover illustration and ending with Anthony Burgess' old introduction which is now an appendix. I suspect that's there because Burgess does what an introducer ought to do: describes a bit about Defoe's life and times, a bit about the book you're about to read, and a very slight interpretation of that book (here: 'can we preserve the societies we build?') The editor of this volume, on the other hand, gives us a semi-rapturous 'analysis' of Defoe's use of 'place' in the book, which sounds interesting until you read the book and realize that it's utterly tendentious.
Literary fashion is an odd beast- wouldn't it have made more sense to redo Roxana than to redo this?
Show Less
LibraryThing member Pondlife
An interesting and believable account of the plague of 1665. It's difficult to be sure how much is fact and how much fiction, but it feels like it's based on a true account.
Some of the interesting things are the effect of the plague on the businesses and trades, and the measures put in place by the
It's a bit repetitive in places, with the same point often being made a few times. The lack of chapters also makes it more difficult to read than would otherwise be the case.
Some of the interesting things are the effect of the plague on the businesses and trades, and the measures put in place by the
Show More
Mayor and magistrates to give work and distribute alms which did a lot to reduce the problem and may have prevented a riot.It's a bit repetitive in places, with the same point often being made a few times. The lack of chapters also makes it more difficult to read than would otherwise be the case.
Show Less
LibraryThing member john257hopper
Although ostensibly fiction, this is very much written as a non-fictional memoir of one man's experiences during the Great Plague of 1665 (who signs off at the end as H F - Defoe himself was only five years old when the plague happened). Defoe usually calls it "distemper" rather than "plague". The
Show More
full gamut of human emotions and experiences are revealed in this slightly rambling, but very human narrative. You get a real feeling of colourful incident and emotion, but there are a lot of statistics as well. Good stuff. 4/5 Show Less
LibraryThing member aketzle
Gave up. Boring. Not a fan of journalistic-style fiction, really.
LibraryThing member RandyStafford
My reactions upon reading this in 1990.
I expected a more straight forward, organized narrative full of more anecdotes and not any references to what public policy and private behavior should be in the next plague epidemic. I found Defoe's narrative disorganized. (As the critic points out in the
On the other hand, Defoe gives us some compelling anecdotes of the plague and a balanced portrait of the good and evil of government and private responses to the epidemic. It's also interesting to see Defoe's mind grapple with some questions: is it faithless to flee London or is it wrong not to do all to save oneself? It's interesting to see Defoe try to reconcile the contemporary theory of the plague's infectiousness with how it actually spread. And it's interesting to see, in passing, a reference to some of the doctors of the time believing that the plague is due to "living Creatures ... seen by a microscope of strange monstrous and frightful Shapes." But Defoe says he doubts this, a glimmering of the bacteriological theory of disease.
I expected a more straight forward, organized narrative full of more anecdotes and not any references to what public policy and private behavior should be in the next plague epidemic. I found Defoe's narrative disorganized. (As the critic points out in the
Show More
introduction, this leads versimilitude to an ostensible common man's journal, but it's not really planned -- just a feature of Defoe's rushed, first-person style.). Defoe never really seems to make up his mind whether it was a good idea to quarantine plague victims in their homes. On the other hand, Defoe gives us some compelling anecdotes of the plague and a balanced portrait of the good and evil of government and private responses to the epidemic. It's also interesting to see Defoe's mind grapple with some questions: is it faithless to flee London or is it wrong not to do all to save oneself? It's interesting to see Defoe try to reconcile the contemporary theory of the plague's infectiousness with how it actually spread. And it's interesting to see, in passing, a reference to some of the doctors of the time believing that the plague is due to "living Creatures ... seen by a microscope of strange monstrous and frightful Shapes." But Defoe says he doubts this, a glimmering of the bacteriological theory of disease.
Show Less
LibraryThing member imyril
A rambling account of the London plague of 1665, repetitious and at times rather dry - but nonetheless a fascinating insight into the disaster. Includes death figures from the bills, anecdotes and rumours, opinion and contradictions, and is at times (unwittingly?) funny. With the constant
Show More
references to the infected, I couldn't help but reread the plague as a zombie apocalypse - ironically, the account bears this rather well. Show Less
LibraryThing member dandelionroots
Daniel Defoe, while only five when the plague ravaged London in 1665, writes a first hand fictional narrative of a citizen who remained in the city throughout the pestilence based upon parish/church records and personal accounts. The telling is consumed with misery, yet I was surprised at how well
Show More
government officials were able to keep order during such an extreme and uncontrollable calamity. Many well-off families fled to the countryside leaving behind a primarily poor populace. The government, church, and private citizens donated significant funds to provide necessities for those without thus preventing riots. The redonk amount of dead were buried by and the even more numerous sick were cared for by the poor. Defoe details many attempts to escape, alleviate, and contain the disease by city officials acting on the advice of respected physicians and by quacks looking to make a quick profit - largely to no avail. I was, however, impressed with the level of understanding the physicians had of the disease. If a similar scenario occurred today, I believe we would be fucked since the populace was largely controlled by their resignation to God's fury. Show Less
LibraryThing member la2bkk
Despite its age, this is a well written, very readable account of the the 1665 Great Plague of London. Although in actuality just historical fiction, the account is accurate enough to provide the reader with a meaningful understanding of the event.
My only complaint is that, by the second half of
All in all, a very interesting account.
My only complaint is that, by the second half of
Show More
the book, DeFoe becomes mired in repetition, hence at times I found my attention waning.All in all, a very interesting account.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ehines
Defoe's fictionalized first-person account of plague in 17th-century London. Rivetting.
LibraryThing member Prop2gether
World War Z long before it was written--a narrative description of the year the plague hit London--this novel was originally printed and accepted as a factual description of what was happening in the streets of London when plague came across the English Channel.
LibraryThing member LynnB
I didn't enjoy this book. When I am given a novel, I want strong characters. This was a book about a thing (the plague); not so much about people. Once in a while, we get glimpse of someone (e.g. the man bringing provisions to people living on boats) but then we'd be back to data tables.
To be
It was interesting to note the many similarities and differences between the Plague and Covid-19. Diseases mutate and learn much faster than people!
To be
Show More
generous, though, this book is an early example of historical fiction. It was introducing a new genre. And it does paint a vivid picture of London's streets. It was interesting to note the many similarities and differences between the Plague and Covid-19. Diseases mutate and learn much faster than people!
Show Less
Subjects
Language
Original publication date
1722
Physical description
256 p.; 7.6 inches
ISBN
0140430156 / 9780140430158