After finishing 'The First Man in Rome,' I knew that I would continue to read this series. So I picked up TGC and read it. I must say that Colleen is a fantastic imagist. She throws you right into Rome with all its brutality and glory, with no holds barred, teeth bared and mystical significance combined into one. I just know that Sulla is going to play a HUGE role when he comes back from the war in Africa. I must say that the death of Gauis Marius should have taken on a deeper meaning, especially for all the Romans that must have still loved him, even after he'd gone completely mad. But still, his life was only a snapshot of what is to come. If you liked reading 'The First Man in Rome' you won't be disappointed here. She continues on in the same manner, right where she left off. All in all, WELL DONE. Bravio!

"The Grass Crown" follows up on the themes first played out in "The First Man In Rome"--political pre-eminence, alliances and betrayals, the worsening relationship between Rome and her Italian allies, and, of course, love, marriage and infidelity.

As Gaius Marius ages and loses influence with the Senate, Lucius Cornelius Sulla rises and attains power simply by being in the right places at the right time. McCullough paints Sulla as, paradoxically, the invisible man--his peers support him for his high birth while knowing next to nothing about the man or his motives. And Sulla keeps his secrets well, in spite of his attempts--and failures--to keep his darker impulses in check. McCullough does an excellent job of portraying Sulla as a sociopath who manages to camouflage himself so well in civilized society.

Gaius Marius starts out strong in the beginning but swiftly goes downhill after suffering his second stroke during the War of the Allies, his mind and his ethics succumbing to his desire to fulfill the prophecy of his own greatness. Caught in this desire are the fates of his son, his wife, and his nephew, a young boy named Gaius Julius Caesar.

The characters are better drawn here than in "First Man"; there is greater depth to people like Marcus Livius Drusus the reformer, Servilius Caepio, and Pompeius Strabo, but at least one, Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, suffers a softening (which is really too bad for fans of the feisty old man). McCullough does a good job with the children as well--Servilia, Livia Drusa's neglected daughter, is a thoroughly unlikeable, but not completely unsympathetic character, and Young Sulla and his sister Cornelia are wonderful, spirited young people.

The end of this book is bloody, gruesome, and gives a sense of how horrific this period was for Rome, patrician and pleb alike. The changes of fortune are swift and well-told, but McCullough can't resist long pages of barely-broken paragraphs and anachronistic language, even though she throws in a few more Latin phrases and expressions to make her dialogue more authentic. Still, it's a faster and more exciting book than "First Man," which is all to the good.

You'll change that opinion once you're immersed in "The Grass Crown". Better yet, start with "The First Man in Rome" in order to fully appreciate the grandure of Colleen McCullough's series. I've been reading historical novels all my life, and been disappointed by many. But for sheer quantity of details, I've never seen the like. It truly feels like Ms. McCullough was there. It reads like an eye witness account. I especially liked her description of Caesar's mother, and the world she created and inhabited. But the story deals primarily with Sulla. His progress through life reminded me of "The Picture of Dorian Gray". His deeds and misdeeds are etched on his face and body. What a warning we receive from this description of a dictator who gained power due to the apathy of his fellow citizens. They let him have too much power and died regretting it. Think about that the next time you're tempted not to vote. These are long novels, but I couldn't get enough. Some have compared this to "I, Claudius". Not a good comparison. As much as I enjoyed "The Grass Crown", it can't compare to Robert Graveses wit and lyrical style. Still, it has charms aplenty of its own. Read it, you'll be glad you did.

In this interesting and very readable book, Garry Wills provides a close reading of Lincoln's Gettysberg Address in order to place it in proper historic context. Wills reviews the circumstances of the occasion and the production of the speech, rebutting a number of common misconceptions. A close analysis of the rhetorical aspects of the Address demonstrate how the Address is rooted in 19th century American interest in Greek rhetoric, the Romantic revival, and Transcendentalism. Most important, Wills shows how the Address exemplifies Lincoln's vision of American society based on a vision of Liberty and Equality with the Declaration of Independence as the foundation document of the nation. This view, which had a long and distinguished history in the first half of the 19th century, became the intellectual underpinnings for the attack on Slavery. Wills may exaggerate when he says that the Address itself became a major vehicle for this transforming view of American political life. It is more likely that the Address is one of many elements that combined to expand the conception of liberty. On the other hand, Lincoln's immense prestige after the Civil War, which was bolstered tremendously by the power of this speech and his second Inaugural Address, acted as a guarantor of the views he advocated.

Wills carefully recreates the world of Lincoln's time in retelling the story of America's greatest speech. In the course of painting the intellectual, social, political, and military canvas that forms the background for the dedication of the Gettysburg cemetery, he convincingly put forth his thesis: that the Gettysburg speech powerfully shaped the course of American history -- in ways that were much more profound than any piece of legislation, Supreme Court ruling, or other overt political act. Lincoln's speech not only defined what the Civil War was about, but also defined what the results of the war should be -- and because of the Gettysburg Address -- would be. The "better angels of our nature" must prevail not merely in re-uniting the disparate states, but in fact in redefining the American union and calling the nation to "a new birth of freedom".

Well deserving of the Pulitzer Prize, this is inspired exegesis of some of the most inspirational words in American history. It should be required reading for every citizen who casts a ballot.

Literary prizes are handed out every year, but true worth is manifested by actual readers going out and buying their books year after year. Nearly a decade has passed since Garry Wills won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award for "Lincoln at Gettysburg," but the magnitude of his achievement is measured by the continued interest which book lovers have lavished on this thoughtful and debate-stirring work of history. Wills situates the Gettysburg Address in the Greek Revivalism exemplified by Edward Everrett (the forgotten featured speaker at the dedication of the Gettysburg cemetary), as well as in the Transcendentalist movement of Theodore Parker and Ralph Waldo Emerson. He goes on to demonstrate the inherant radicalism of Lincoln's 272 immortal words, imbued as they are with the dangerous notion that all men are created equal. Wills argues convincingly that the Gettysburg address hijacked the narrow readings of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution put forward by the southern rebels; through his words, Lincoln succeeded in placing these founding documents on the side of the angels by insisting that liberty and equality rather than sterile legalisms about states rights were the true basis of the grand experiment of the founders. In so doing, America's greatest President changed the history of the nation forever, influencing politics and policy right down to the present day. Huzzahs to Mr Wills for disinterring the radical hidden within the Great Compromiser!! And thanks to the prize committees for getting it right for a change.

I bought this book because of my best friend . We are two golf junkies from Kentucky . We both have our favorite golfers mine being John Daly , his being the late Payne Stewart. I thought maybe i could one up him a time or too on Payne Stewart , and rib him a little but when i began and finished the book, it inspired me unbelievably . In the book , Tracey Stewart talks about the struggles of life and the PGA Tour. During Paynes fathers death , he was strong and held on to strive . It inspires you not to give up hope when life throws a curve ball at you . The book also shows how spirtuality , and setting priorities on life can help you out tremendously in the long run . Payne Stewart lived a great and inspiring life , and this Biography touches on all aspects of it . A Great book

I bought a copy of this book for my husband for the upcoming Father's Day (he is a golf nut). As I was looking at it I began to read a few chapters here and there. Before I knew it I had read the whole book. I am not a golf fan (don't really like sports) but I thoroughly enjoyed this book. We could all use more stories about men of quality, like this of Payne Stewart. I'm only sorry for all of us that he was taken so soon....I look forward to asking my husband more about Payne (after Father's Day of course).

Undoubtably the best book I've ever read!

Tracy Stewart allows us to take a look at the inside life of Payne. From their first glance across a crowded room when Payne knew he was, "going to marry that girl", to the heartrenching funeral that brought us all closer to God through the life of Payne Stewart, whose death was not in vain.

It's wonderful to see not only the professional side of this fallen hero but look into his family and spiritural life as well.

Abraham Verghese's second book, "The Tennis Partner," is far different from his first, "My Own Country," in which he chronicles his work in a rural area in Tennessee as the physician in a "one doctor town." An inordinate number of AIDS cases begin to come his way and he tells the story of his learning quickly how to deal with this challenging disease in an area with extremely limited resources. (An outstanding read available through Amazon.)"The Tennis Partner" begins with Verghese's arrival in San Antonio, Texas, with his wife and two sons where has taken a new position as a Professor of Medicine in a teaching hospital, a prestigious advance in his medical career. Soon into the story, we learn that Verghese finds himself fairly humanly bankrupt as he finally realizes the reality that his marriage is in ruins and now ending due to his own neglect of his wife in the amount of attention he has given to his career. He learns that he is extremely rootless: a foreign born physician, in a new town, with no friendships or personal support systems. Verghese, after assisting his wife establish a new home and a create a sense of stability for his sons, begins to look for an apartment near his wife's home so that he can be near his sons and complete the actual separation from his wife that they have been essentially living for quite some time by this point. Verghese begins a friendship with David, an intern in his final year (actually, we later learn, that David is repeating his internship, due to drug addition having interrupted his earlier, nearly completed internship.) There is a similarity to Verghese's rootless and David's own. The intern, a bit older than the typical medical school following a fairly successful run on the professional tennis circuit. The heart of the story is the newly developing friendship between the two men, the mutually rewarding relationship they ultimately establish in co-mentoring each other; Verghese mentoring his intern in medicine and David mentoring Abraham in improving his tennis game. While sounding simplistic, as one reader, I enjoyed observing the somewhat complex relationship that is rife with the the awkwardness and clumsiness of two heterosexual men essentially creating a non-sexual love and friendship that is a fundamental need that all men have. Verghese's book very accurately mirrors the reality of men needing other men in their lives for significant friendships and characterizes well, the complexity of "male bonding."The story doesn't have a particularly happy ending, yet, it is a true story. It is an excellent documentation of the need for, the high degrees of complexity, the platonic love men often develop for one another, the degrees of petty rivalry and subtle competition that often exist in men's friendships and the ultimate limitations of any friendship - male or female.The "tennis element" adds even more to the story for the person who is a tennis fan but the tennis games and the medical mentoring the two men exchange are, in many ways, metaphors of the manner in which male friendships develop and volley from one side to the other, each holding high expectations of the other, each contributing something to the other, yet careful not to overwhelm the other -- often with one winning more than the other as is the case in this story in both tennis and medicine. Verghese is clearly an excellent physician who takes great interest in his patients and uses his keen personal intuition as one of his best diagnostic tools. Yet, Verghese's sensitivity, attentiveness and keen intuition seems to start and stop at the hospital doors as he shows himself to be quite human in his personal inadequacy, stilted personal development and in his normal human incompleteness. David is equally complex, engaging at the same time he is able be maintain his clear boundaries and keep a certain distance. An excellent and gripping story. Highly recommended!

I highly recommend this real-life account of a physician hisvery moving story of a medical student caught in the black hole ofdrug addiction. I had erroneously picked up this book thinking it wasa fiction novel with some connection to tennis(which I am a big fanof). But when I began reading it I turned over the cover and did seethat is was a memoir. But much to my amazement, Verghese's book readslike a good novel .. and a well-paced, gripping page turner. Despitebeing a doctor, this is not a dry or unemotional work either. Readerswill be drawn into Verghese's life and find themselves experiencingthe same feelings (hope, denial, despair) when it comes to hisrelationship with former tennis pro and now med student"David."

A true testimonial for "The TennisPartner" is that I have passed it along to several other peopleand they have had the same strong (and positive) reaction to it. Theyhave since even recommended the book to others. While this memoirdoes have a good deal of content related to tennis (this is whatinitially brings Verghese and David together) that will enhance thereading experience for fans of the sport, my non-tennis orientedfriends were not turned off by it. Being a fairly avid reader, thishas been one of the best books I have read in the past severalyears. An unforgettable read.

For any student of the game of tennis who is madly in love with the game and its ability to completely take over your life, 'The Tennis Partner' will ring true in many ways. Verghese understands the passion behind the game and how it can draw two men together despite the difficulties in their relationship. Written with a lucid prose, the book sometimes feels a bit raw in its emotion, but you can hardly fault the author for baring his soul about his love for the game of tennis and his desire to share it with his friend, despite his friend's struggle with drug addiction. The book also treads fragile ground by venturing forth into intense relationships between heterosexual men. The book is risky in its integrity as well as its intensity in the author's descriptions of his emotions for his tennis partner. But, best of all, he desribes beautifully what many of us love so much - the game of tennis.

I read the book twice, can identify with her as I come from the same background. After doing my own homework, I discovered that the book is not a novel, but based on her own life experience. There is one big error that she made while writing her book, which is usualy honored by most authors, in her "NOVEL" she mentions names of people that are the same in real life, some of these people are married now, and leading orthodox lives, she has put them in a very embarrassing situation.
It is her choice to choose her own lifestyle, but I think its very wrong to mention people's real names that she associated with in real life. The book is accurate in most of its stories and contents,
however in many situations she over-criticizes and portrays the hasidic community in a more negative prospective then it realy is .
One must remember that the way she portrays the Hasidic community
is only her point of view, over 99% of the youth in the hasidic community do not choose her path in life. She may have been persuaded to stay within the community but she was not forced, and the best proof is the fact that she did leave.
When a person of the secular or non orthodox world wishes to read about the life of the Hasidic people, I don't think that this book will give you a true picture of the Hasidic community.
In reading this book I, came to the conclusion that the autors main objective was to air her own, anger frustration and disappointments in her life, and thereby having her readers think that every person (teenager) goes through the same that she did, which is totally wrong.
When reading this book one must bear in mind that they are reading the opinion of one person only, and does not represent the real lifestyle of the community.

Rachel is a great heroine, struggling between tradition and
freedom. She manages to straddle both of her worlds throughout
most of the book, although we're left hanging about where she
ends up. Does she stay with her (oddly forgiving) family? If
so, how far is she able/willing to break with the Benjamin
family culture?

The author leaves several such blank spots, in the novel, like
when we think Mr. Gartner is about to ravish Rachel's teenage
self, but I guess nothing like that happens with her boss after
all.

I was unhappy with the sexism in their religious community, and
shocked at the insensibility of requiring newly married women to
shave their heads, then wear wigs just like their old hairstyle.
The author never explains why this was considered necessary.

Despite the holes in the plot, the characters, especially Rachel's sister Leah and friend Elke are likeable, and Rachel's
courage and commitment to herself made this an enjoyable novel.

I loved this book. I was raised within Orthodox Jewish tradition myself, and feel that this is an accurate portrayal of a rebellious daughter within an Ultra-Orthodox family. I know many of the customer reviews disagree with me; however, I do feel that within every single culture there are naturally bound to be certain individuals "who want out"! (Just as there exist secular Jews who want to be ultra-Orthodox). At any rate, the writing is excellent. And I especially enjoyed the part around her wedding; her horrible feelings around her mother shaving her head; and before that, picking her husband, sadly feeling that it didn't matter whom she picked; she had to pick him or someone similar. I had two criticisms: one, that the main character showed no affection for any of the ultra-Orthodox traditions. (There must have been something she liked about her life!) The other is the ending; I felt it was too concise and superficial, didn't really answer what happened after she returned to her family. But overall, this is a wonderful book, and lets us see a world that is mostly hidden from view. I only wish the author would write a sequel, so we can see how the main character deals with non-Orthodox life. I am waiting impatiently!

In a letter to his confidant and friend, Wilhelm Fleiss, the then middle aged neurologist, Sigmund Freud, was in the midst of researching and writing his beloved 'dream book'. He wrote the following:

"Now I have finished and am thinking about the dream book again. I have been looking into the literature and feel like a Celtic imp."Oh, how I am glad that no one, no one knows..." No one suspects that the dream is not nonsense but wish fulfillment."

Indeed, this is the premise of Freud's entire thesis: dreams are no more than repressed unconscious wishes, battling for expression and consummation.

In his own words, Freud had 'dared' to rally against the 'objections of severe science, to take the part of the ancients and of superstition.' In 1900, the official year of the book's publication, its reception, despite its provoctive title, was tepid, and in the course of six years, only sold 351 copies. Freud never gave up hope, and 30 years later, in the preface of the third English edition, he wrote, "It contains, even according to my present day judgement, the most valuable of all the discoveries it has been my good fortune to make. Insight such as this falls to one's lot but once a lifetime.' In present day, one can question any Freud scholar about ~The Interpretation of Dreams~ and they will say the same thing: the book contains everything that 'is' psychoanalysis.

Anyone interested in the history of psychoanalysis and the mind of Sigmund Freud, reading this book is an absolute must. The reading runs along too, quite easily, as Freud was an excellent writer: his unique prose style even shines through some clumsy translations.

If you are interested in the book's process of development, I would suggest reading ~The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Fliess~; another gold mine for understanding the growth of psychoanalysis.

Easy to read and perfectly inteligible for the average
non-professional reader like me. This is the most important book written by Sigmund Freud and is in the Freudian tradition of writting some books which focus on difficult issues with a rather simple to understand language and fine style. The purpose of the author, in his own words, was to disturb the sleep of mankind.

This is the kind of book that will help you a lot in understand the mechanisms behind one's dreams and all the relationship between what Freud calls your "waking life" and your "dream-life". Before going on interpreting a lot of his and his patients dreams, something that took a lot of personal sacrifice to someone so jealous of his private life as Freud, the author introduces us to the then (1899) accepted theories of dreams, which basically took the dreams as irrational and confuse manifstations that didn't have nothing to do with our real or waking life.

The rationale Freud uses to demolish the anti-Freudian myths is powerful and convincing and he even suggests that reading the book will have some effect on our immediate dream life (it happened to me). Despite quite voluminous (700 pages) it deservs the attention and the effort of all of us who want to understand what dreams are all about. Here also, one reads the first paragraphs Freuds devotes to the Oedipus complex, and one has the opportunity to explore along with Freud the mechanisms of the UCS (unconscious) and of our Conscious activities, which some decades latter would lead to the concepts of Ego, Super-Ego and Id.

As a trademark the text is always polemical, remembering this same quality one faces in Marxists texts.

Dreams are some of the most mysterious, most enchanting, and most sacred experiences in all of human existence--and yet they are also some of the most elusive, and so their meaning has been scrutinized by every culture of the human race, for thousands and thousands of years.

In all of these inquiries, perhaps none has been more thorough, more scientific, and more systematic than Dr. Sigmund Freud's "Interpretation of Dreams" (1900). In his book, Freud surveys the scientific research on dreams put forth so far (a remarkable achievement of scholarship in itself), and then puts forth his own theory of dreams.

Dreams, Freud claims, are nothing more than a fulfillment of an unconscious wish. He supports his theory with analysis from a selection of actual dreams from his patients and from his own experience.

Much of this book is entertaining and enlightening. Freud's good taste in literature is reflected in his own engaging style, and his sense of scholarly adventure is catching. Plus, he doesn't shy away from the big questions. How can we interpret dreams? How does a dream come about? What is the purpose of dreams? Why are all dreams wish fulfillments? What are the meaning of typical dreams, like losing teeth?--all these questions are tackled here. This is the book where Freud first puts forth his Oedipal theory.

Freud's theory is always insightful, if not totally accurate. He seems to try too hard to make all the data jive with his "wish-fulfillment" theory, and when it doesn't, he resorts to ludicrous arguments reminiscent of Anselm's ontological catastrophe. For example, when a dream is clearly not a wish fulfillment, Freud asserts that it has actually fulfilled a wish--a wish that his theory is wrong. Poppycock.

Despite these occasional stretches of reasonability, you'll come away from this book with a much greater understanding of the nature of dreams and the mental processes that bring dreams about. Highly recommended.

This is a good intro to Freud; consider also "Introductory Lectures on Psychoanaylsis."

To be blunt, I was highly disappointed in this promising work on a very captivating time in our history. This is a work for a general or beginning reader of the Civil War, not something that seems as scholarly as it could be.

I absolutely agree with reviewer Wayne Smith who states that the book feels thin. It feels like a rushed article that might appear in MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History and knowing this, Winik has tried to lengthen the subject by putting in short characterizations of the men that this work revolves around: Lee, Lincoln, Davis, etc.

There seems to be quite a bit of the Southern apologist in Winik and I feel there is a bias that arises where Winik favors the Confederate cause. When reading history, I appreciate a balanced view that lets me draw my own conclusions and beliefs about what I have read. While he is fair to the treatment of Lincoln and wife Mary, Winik fawns over Lee and dismisses Grant quite too easily. In once instance Winik points out Grant [in Winik's opinion] (and Sherman along the way) was all too willing to destroy the homes, countryside, etc of the Confederates and Lee did not. Hmm -- Lee was fighting the majority of the time in Virginia -- I don't think he would burn and destroy his own beloved state. Yes, while in Maryland and Pennsylvania Lee did choose not burn and destroy, but Lee also wanted the citizens of those states to see the Confederates in a good light. Grant understood in order to win he had to destroy the hand that fed the mouth, while Lee knew that for him to secede among the divided citizens of Maryland he had to be cautious. Obviously one man was of the future, the other of a bygone age as Catton noted.

I feel Winik is bumbling in area where he hasn't had too much experience and therefore label this work as I have: one for the general reader. I also am appalled by the endorsement of the book by both McPherson and Kearns Goodwin, two highly vaunted historians. It seems like they were caught napping, especially McPherson whose "Battle Cry of Freedom" was a true analysis of this critical era in US history.

If you are just beginning to read about the Late Unpleasantness or you are a general reader, this book is fine -- but beware his inaccuracies and mistakes. Make sure to read further if you are interested in the Civil War to ensure you get a balanced and more fairly accurate view of what when on and just who shaped our nation as it is today.

Winik does a good job describing the events before and after what he argues is the most critical month in the existance of the republic, April 1865. The book is very well written and researched. He argues very effectively that history is causal in nature. One events leads to another one which leads to another. He applied this concept to the events leading up to the Civil War. From the beginning of America's history, slavery and race relations played a front role in the political scene. Winik describes these forces in detail. Founding Fathers like John Adams and his son John Quincy both were detractors of slavery while Thomas Jefferson believed that slavery was evil, but yet supported it as a traditional institution. These feelings boiled over into the Civil War. Winik then goes on to describe the events of the War and really focuses in on the last days of it, which is the most critical part of the war. Winik believes that April 1865 was such a critical month because it would determine whether the country would remain a united whole or not. Critical issues like Reconstruction were being debated at the time. The possibility that guerilla warfare might break out in the south was also a possibility. All of this, and President Lincoln was assassinated and a Vice President most people thought of as a drunk hack, Andrew Johnson, was to take the Presidency. It was a very turbulent, yet very important month in our nations history that would mark the first true test of our democracy. Winik describes the tension very well.

April 1865 is a good book despite its recurring theme of southern apology.

April 1865 gives a good description of the potential guerrilla war that the Civil War could have become if the southern generals had not agreed to surrender. Its description of the fighting in Missouri that devolved from banditry to butchery was chilling.

April 1865 also does a good job of providing ample background information on each historical character it highlights. The characterizations of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were excellent. By the end of the book, I had a real sense of having known a living Lee and Davis.

April 1865 suggests the South fought not to preserve and extent slavery but for self-determination. The war just happened to end about a month after the Confederate Congress agreed to allow slaves to be armed soldiers who would earn their freedom by fighting. This, southern leaders agreed, would lead to the end of slavery.

Lee is buoyed up by slighting Grant. Grant's presidency and work on Reconstruction is not mentioned.

Confederate cavalry leader Nathan Bedford Forrest's behavior during the Fort Pillow massacre of mostly black Union troops gets a pass (maybe he was responsible, maybe he wasn't). His later founding of the KKK in Tennessee isn't mentioned.

"It is as if Emily Bronte could tear up all that we know human beings by, and fill these unrecognizable transparencies with such a gust of life that they transcend reality." -Virginia Woolf

Damn straight, sister! I gotta tell you, read this book in the *summer time*. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT, read this in the gloom of winter, as I stupidly did.

The epic story of Catherine and Heathcliff plays out against the dramatic backdrop of the wild English moors, and presents an astonishing vision of fate and obsession, passion and REVENGE.

This classic book is a bummer. Not that it's bad writing, but my oh my.. it makes you so sad! Your heart just goes out for Heathcliff and the depression he faces. But also, the um... "inter-breeding" (*blush*) is quite disturbing!! One cousin marries one other cousin and they have kids who marry their other cousins, I was just surprised that the whole lot of them weren't, "messed up".

I really wouldn't recommend this book for happy people. If you want some romance and a historical novel, read "Gone with the Wind". My favorite.

Wuthering Heights is a classic only in the sense that it was written in the 19th century. But it is a compelling story w/ dark, violent passions, and emotions of love and hate. Heathcliff's only goal in life is to seek revenge on anyone associated w/ the Earnshaws and Lintons. His love for Catherine is evident, but his hate is chillingly cruel and violent that touches everyone between the two estates. Only when he is w/ Catherine is he pacified. Catherine is torn between her true love Heathcliff, and her duties to marry someone of her station in life. But she doesn't understand her love and emotions for Heathcliff. (Which makes me believe she's too childish, spoiled, and bratty to handle her emotions rationally or she's a manic depressive). It's a dark passionate story that is compelling to read. Unfortunately it's also hard to follow in the third person narrators. The long winded descriptions makes the book drag (which explains the 300 pages). And what in heaven's name is Joseph saying? Are most uneducated people of countryside England so hard to understand? This book isn't for the light reader. If you want something easier and more light hearted, go for Charlotte Brönte's "Jane Eyre." Or books by Jane Austen.

"Wuthering Heights" is, with Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice," my alltime favorite book. I've read it several times, beginning at age twelve. Even when I was too young to understand all of its complexities, I still appreciated its highly atmospheric qualities and the magic that makes it timeless.

Over the years, I've asked myself, time and time again, just what it is about "Wuthering Heights" that gives it such power. I've finally come to the conclusion that "Wuthering Heights" endures simply because its characters dare to feel things and act in ways the rest of us don't. We all have times when we're tempted by obsession and revenge, but most of us don't act on those temptations. At times, we all feel driven almost to madness and we all have a wild side (some of us more than others) that finds perfect expression in the character of Heathcliff. In this book, the characters are always threatening to break the bounds of respectibility and civility.

While some people see "Wuthering Hieghts" as the ultimate love story, I've never found much love in this book, not even between Catherine and Heathcliff. What I have found are obsession and revenge. Love would have watered this story down; obsession and revenge crank it up. Love is an acceptable (even prized) emotion; obsession and the desire for revenge, though felt my many, are definitely frowned upon. The fact that Emily Bronte allows her characters to give in to obsession, to go mad, to exact revenge, gives her novel a distinctly disturbing, unsettling power.

There are many criticisms of this novel that attempt to analyze what Emily Bronte was trying to say. Many compare the domesticity of Thrushcross Grange to the isolation and wildness of Wuthering Heights. These ctiticisms don't interest me in the slightest. No matter how educated Emily Bronte was or wasn't, she certainly didn't study psychoanalysis and she certainly didn't write her novel keeping the finer points of analysis in mind. Emily Bronte was, by all accounts, a highly imaginative girl who cared more for the world of fantasy than for reality. Approach her book as literature; enjoy it and don't attempt to "pull it apart."

Many people have said that the "second generation" in this book redeems the one that preceded it; i.e., Cathy and Hareton redeem Catherine and Heathcliff. I can't agree with that assessment. All of the characters in "Wuthering Heights" show themselves to be capable of violence and obsession (even Edgar). I think, in seeing the "second generation" as restorative, we deny many of the passions inherent in this book. Catherine and Heathcliff are the characters most given to wild emotions but they are not the only ones; all of the characters can and do resort to violence when it suits their needs.

"Wuthering Heights" is one of those rare books: a truly inspired masterpiece. It has a very unsettling, disturbing, even fascinating quality about it because it touches the darkest regions of our soul. Heathcliff is the dark side in all of us; the side we don't enjoy even acknowledging and Catherine's failure to deal with her obsesion reminds us that we, too, can fail, we all are vulnerable to Catherine's fate.

"Wuthering Heights" is a stormy, unsettling, often violent book that explores the darkest side of human nature. Its beauty is raw and savage; its emotions spill over the constraints of civility and common sense. It's a powerful book (one of the most powerful in all of literature). It's a work of genius that's truly unforgettable.

This is a fun book, hard to put down, and is comparable to a romance novel or a so-called "chick flick"--with unfortunately about as much depth. If you are a Feynman fan or a Physics fan or someone who is considering Physics as a career--this book is 5 stars. What the author omits one can can figure out,if you already know quite a bit. I dropped out of Physics as I preferred reading about the great Physicists to working through the problems in the Electricity and Magnetism or Quantum Mechanics texts, and did not have the feel for all those waveicles.

Since my brother was for a time a theoretical Physicist I heard much of the Feynman folklore. Gleick captured the folklore quite well. But the power and influence of the famous lectures given by Feynman to Caltech freshman and sophomore Physics students(known simply as Feynman's Lectures)was understated. During the last half of the 60s and through the 70s it would be hard not to find Physics Graduate students at the elite Universities (Chicago,MIT and so on) intensely studying Feynman's lectures as preparation for their PHD comps. This is so well known that the conceitful dream of other introductory text writers such as Samuelson in Economics, is to have the same role in their field.

The real shortcoming of the book is that it is a 90% solution. It would be interesting to have compared him with other Physics theoreticans--as a group. They are quite similar in many ways. You look at the famous and not so famous in that area and they have a set of commonalities. They will have self-taught themselves Mathematical subjects and found those challenges less exciting than understanding the physical world. In fact,that is the rationale of their existence, at least for a time. They all need to be do-it-themselfers. Many are great puzzle solvers in other contexts. They almost all had a certain kind of nurturing to encourage them to develop their talents along the way. The author leaves the false impression that these are special characteristics of Feynman. They are not--he is special enough in his achievement.

The title genius in that already extremely intelligent group goes to those, like Feynman's fellow Noble recipients for developing Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED),who learned the regular stuff/theory so well they were smart enough to figure out difficult solutions for the problem that was implicit in the prior theory. The rarer type of genius is the Feynman treated the problem as if he had figured out just enough to know what the problem was and used novel means (now known as Feynman diagrams)to solve the problem--ignoring the powerful but obscuring technology developed by those who came before and developing new more usable tools.

Despite its originality Feynman did not regard the QED in the same light as his discovery (independent initially of his fellow Cal Tech professor Gell Mann)of a theory of weak interactions. But he regarded his Lectures in Physics as his great contribution--no where could you get that from Gleick. A very interesting oversight was that Gell-Mann suffered writers block but was emersed in the standard literature. But Feynman often worked things out but would not work them out in publishable form but when they were forced to work together they did very well indeed. This relationship should have been explored in more depth. I wondered did Gell-Mann serve as the filter to let some of the standard work or not?

The late great contemplative Thomas Merton kept himself cut out from the news while in the monestary except that which was shared with him by friends such as the Berrigan brothers and James Forest. Did Feynman have similar friends or associates who informed him of problems out in the Physics world he might be interested in? Feynmann appeared to have few lifelong friends beyond family if you listened only to Gleick, but some of his sometime collaborators seemed to have been friends, but not of long standing.

This book generates more questions than answers and adds too little to the knowledge of Feynman but synthesizes quite well. Good work, well written but not up to the clarity or completeness standards of the subject.

A man as brilliantly lucid as Richard Feynman deserves a biography equally brilliant and lucid. James Gleick achieves this. And though Richard Feynman is painted in human tones, the reader still experiences the mystique which surrounded this legend of science.

Some of the most enjoyable sections of this book deal not with physics or biography, but Feynman's philosophy and refreshingly rational worldview.

This book is a testament to the power and beauty of a great intellect, in its all its humanity.

My only reservation with this otherwise astounding book is that it was, at times, a bit too glowing and not critical enough. Feynman is presented as a scientific hero, but as we all know too well, even heros are not without their faults. As for these, as Feynman himself said, "it does no harm to the mystery to know a little about it."

James Gleick's life of Feynman comes highly recommended to anyone concerned with the scholarship of safe-cracking , impromptu Brazilian samba ensembles and the fineries of quantum electrodynamics . Space shuttle design and the Manhattan Project are also included , so that no critic can claim in any seriousness that Feynman lacked balanced life-experience. This book is highly and competently researched ( 70-odd pages devoted to notes , acknowledgements and bibliography ) but it is no mere archive - there is a sense of presence in Gleick's narrative which , at times , borders on the voyeuristic (see , for example , the chapters detailing the correspondence between Feynman and his first wife Arline while he , shrouded in systematic censorship and effectively isolated , worked on the Bomb and she died slowly of consumption.) His account of Feynman's physics is similarly uncanny, making esoteric and , dare I say it , deep , theoretical material accessible to non-specialists . Perhaps this success in transmitting his ideas in a second-hand fashion is due to some aspect of the nature of Feynman's thinking - he was what might be called a ' freehand ' theoretician , prepared to step outside the realm of the accepted processes in order to see new ways of achieving old results , and thus to reconfigure the family-tree of physics and open new branches of inquiry . His closest rival for much of his career , Julian Schwinger , also comes across as his antithesis - Gleick , in any case , would have us believe in two incompatible minds , in Feynman the intuitive doodler and Schwinger the rigorous draftsman , both working to slice the same pie but with different mental utensils , one with a machete and the other with a laser . This was an academic showdown of the first order and one of the more compelling themes in the book . Compiling the life of an arch-scientist with a penchant for percussion and amateur safe-cracking is no mean feat . Feynman was enigmatic as an individual , to say the least , but this book goes! a lot of the way to answering , in the positive , the old freshman question " IS FEYNMAN HUMAN ? "

-First of all, Bruce Feiler is clearly a great adventurer who walks deserts to descend into caves in the midst of war-torn countries. Additionally, he has an intense and admirable passion for this subject and writes an engaging book that ends up being part history, part travel literature, and part theology.

-However Feiler seems to stretch at times in making his case that Abraham 'unites' the three religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. On the contrary, Abraham is more a point of contention than one of unity. I wish Feiler had made the statement that all three positions on Abraham cannot be equally true since they often directly contradict each other. A worthy goal is always to divide truth from error in order to understand which position, if any, is accurate. Instead of taking this path, Feiler seems to desire peace at the expense of truth as he places religious harmony higher than a right understanding of theology.

-Feiler is correct that the most mesmerizing story of Abraham's life--his offering a son to God--plays a pivotal role in the holiest week of the Christian year, at Easter. This is surely the case as Christianity sees Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac as a foreshadowing of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus. However, this is a radically different interpretation of the event from either Judaism or Islam.

-Feiler states that Abraham, is a character who has shape-shifted over the millennia to the extent that the religions don't even agree on which son he tried to kill. This is true, and the interpretation may have shape-shifted, but that does not mean the scriptural documents were changed. That is, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the claim that documents had been changed in order to fit with dogma, has little foundation.

-Feiler claims that Abraham is a type of metaphor and that this historically elusive man embodies three religions. That's a difficult claim to back up. Abraham 'embodies' all three religions? Certainly Christian scholars would not make that claim. They would claim that only Jesus would fit this role. Abraham was the one to whom the promise was made and Jesus was the fulfillment of that promise. Abraham's role would be significantly secondary.

-Feiler concludes with a passionate and prayerful argument for peace between faiths. This is a valiant attempt and his motives are surely good. However, it would have been refreshing if he would have explained that when two people theologically disagree with each other that does not mean that they necessarily hate each other. The existence of truth means that at least one party is wrong, but that does not mean that the parties cannot respect each other as people, even though they may not respect all theological positions. Grace, peace, and love can and do exist side by side with truth - and if truth exists, so does error. One party being 'wrong' is part of the package and it is the reality. I wish Feiler's final sentence had been, "Call your brother wrong and love him with those words."

I, like many evangelical believers, have always (unknowingly) viewed Abraham through Christian-colored glasses. This book expanded my vision, opening me up to views of Abraham that go beyond the simple biblical text. The depiction of Abraham in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), for example, was modified, shaped, and re-interpreted by Christians, Muslims, and even later Jews, often depending upon the situation at the time. The pivotal event of the Abraham story is the near-sacrifice of his favored son to God. Interestingly, to Jews and Christians, the favored son was Isaac, while Muslims hold Ishmael to be the favored son. Christians, of course, regard this event as a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice. Interestingly, Jewish rabbis after the time of Jesus interpreted the text to say that Abraham actually did slay Isaac, who later would return from the dead.

The different interpretations of the Abraham story lead the author to conclude that there are actually a multitude of "Abrahams" to fit different historical, political, and social situations. Indeed, Fieler makes a little too much of the fact that there is no archaeological evidence that Abraham ever existed. He doesn't take a hard-line position on Abraham's existence or non-existence, so I guess one could call him an "Abraham agnostic". His ultimate goal, to find common ground and possible reconciliation among the monotheistic religions on the basis of Abraham would have a very shaky foundation indeed if it was based on a mythical character.

This book is much more than a study of Abraham. It documents a personal journey by the author to the crucible where these great religions lead a frighteningly non-peaceful co-existence: the land of Israel. After reading of his encounters with various Jewish, Christian, and Muslim clerics, one sadly sees little hope for a full reconciliation. Of course, that should come as no surprise. But this little book can go a long way in cracking open the doors of understanding.

With the current political climate continuing to build up heat and tension, religion is playing a significant role in the politics of the world today. In an ironic twist, that some would say proves the existence of a God with a sense of irony, three of the world's major religions (and the 3 most involved in the middle east tensions of today) all claim some fountainhead with one man - Abraham. The interesting part of the story is how three worlds could work with the same man and his family, and mold that into the image that would best suit each religion's needs and agenda. This is what I found most interesting about the book - how a sketchy story in the distant past could be used and interpreted to certain ends in order to help religion develop. Some other reviewers have quibbled with Feiler's interpretations of interpretations, but overall he does a credible job in exploring the stories and the major faiths involved. He approaches each of the faith with a skeptical eye, looking to understand how and why such interpretations worked out. He even turns the questioning eye to his own Jewish faith and the development of Abraham into the father figure he is. Like in his "Walking the Bible," Feiler starts off in Israel, looking to find the pieces of the Bible that he can see, and touch. But quickly he realizes that instead of physical locations and objects, for the most part the story of Abraham resides not in the land but in the stories, and the hearts of the faithful. He is engaging in less of a journey through history as he is a journey through the hearts and minds of those who came before. Hardly the last word on the topic of Abraham, but a good introduction and exploration of the issues involved. An interesting and very accessible book.