A wickedly funny satire, with lots of excellent threads to be pulled apart and explored. Fielding's experimentation with fictional forms, as well as his expert wit and deep knowledge of the political and legal cultures this book skewers, make it well worth a read. The appended biographical sketch of the real-life Jonathan Wild is a good complement to the piece, as is the preface to the volume of Fielding's works in which is was originally published. ( )

Satire this funny is a lost art. Maybe it's just that I'm particularly irritated by contemporary great-man worship (see especially: presidential biographies, founding-father blather, Darwinismism), but this was a nice breath of fresh air. Why don't more novelists these days write about the world instead of writing memoirs about their navel-fluff? I do not know. ( )

I was eager to read this book after reading the delightful Jack Sheppard by William Harrison Ainsworth, in which Jonathan Wild, a historical figure, is featured as the villain of the tale, both because I looked forward to learning more about Wild and because this is an example of a very early novel. Alas, although I enjoyed reading it, I was also disappointed for several reasons.

The novel is a satire, in which Wild is considered "great" because he focuses single-mindedly on his own advancement and benefits, without indulging in the "good" "weaknesses" of compassion, honesty, fairness, or consideration of others. Indeed, Wild, along with his mentors and protegees is a sterling example of a "great" man as he regularly steals, incites others to steal, lies, and deceives all around him. One theory is that Fielding was actually satirizing several people high in the British government at the time.

Fielding more or less keeps the plot moving along, with many asides to the reader (an early novel version of metafiction?), although there is a digression or two. My problem is that based on what I learned about Wild from Jack Sheppard and, in fact, on what is historically known about him, this novel takes Wild on a different path, in that he is a thief, but not the notorious "thief-taker" of London, who captured thieves and others and turned them in to the authorities. (Fielding apparently knew he was taking only one aspect of Wild for his satire, and the Oxford World Classic edition I read includes a contemporary biographical sketch of Wild.) Wild is a much more enjoyable villain in Jack Sheppard.

My other problem with the book was that while the satire is witty and fun, it wears thin after a while. It also took me a while to get used to 18th century spelling conventions, in which nouns seem to be capitalized, although I realized that after a while I stopped noticing this. I did find it interesting to read so early a novel, when the approach and style we are used to from, say, 19th century novelists were not in place. I also appreciated the extensive notes which helped explain classical and other references.

Not the greatest of 18th century novels by a long shot, but it's a quick, entertaining read.

Fielding obviously made good use of his legal experience in putting together this satirical crime story, very loosely based on the life of a real London fence of the 1720s. The whole thing is set up as a spoof of the "inspirational lives of great men" idea, with Fielding putting forward a mock-serious argument that "GREAT" criminals are actually better models for us to imitate than politicians or generals. We are supposed to spot the parallels between Wild's career and Robert Walpole's, something that probably won't be at the forefront of most modern readers' minds. It doesn't really matter: the joke would work just as well if you filled in Bush, Blair, or Berlusconi. Crime may change with the centuries, but politics is still the same as ever... ( )