Most English readers do not understand this novel as it has always been poorly translated from French. In the original version it pokes fun at all of them, especially the main character, but English translators missed this and tried to make the characters heroic instead. Of course all the movies have followed the same lead.

The reviewer's fixation with this classic, rather tongue-in-cheek story's 1870s notions reminds me of reactions to, for instance, the Americana classic "Huckleberry Finn" by modern readers who get stuck on the story's 1850s language and sensibilities, who then fixate on those features, and even call for suppressing the book, rather than understanding it as portraying a different era, which its author experienced -- and moreover, keeping alive a window into that era, and implicitly aiding awareness of the broader historical phenomenon of evolving social assumptions. It'd be fascinating to see which widely unquestioned 2017 US attitudes (possibly including some of the reviewer's here?) are disdained and stigmatized in say 2130, along with calls (in the name of the public good) to suppress 2017 literature that still reprehensibly exhibits the attitudes of its day.

Incidentally the burning of books (whatever horrific things it leads to) has invariably begun with cries of righteous indignation.

What a worthless article. At least it is in the right publication...the equally as worthless Mountain View Voice.

Taliban destroyed a huge Buddha statue that survived two thousand years in the name of culture and religious purity. ISIS destroyed similar culture icons, banned books, music, etc., because they don't fit its ideology. The thought process reflected in this article is rather similar and dangerous. Sadly it seems similar things are happening in this country right now. Statues are toppled. Schools are renamed. Now someone seems to suggest we shall ban Around the World in 80 Days too.