There ~are~ reasons to commend this book, like the bountiful illustrations, the charts showing the evolution of Chinese characters, etc. What I fault is that at many points the author departs from accuracy and injects over-Europeanized interpretations of Chinese mythology and symbols (for instance, characterizing Tibetan Lamas as "devil-worshippers" and calling the Chinese place of the dead and its god, "Hades" - repeatedly). To be truthful, some of the illustrations are so poorly drawn that you cannot really make out what they are. The text is easy to read and the topics covered numerous. I would use this book with caution, however, checking Williams' interpretations against other, more recent sources. For the record, I am giving this book a two because the only other reviewer to write about it gave it a five and that is far too high for it. I think this should yield an average of three, which is about right for this book.

This book is an A-Z listing of hundreds of Chinese names and symbols, with a brief explanation of the items relevance and importance in Chinese culture and history. Want to know the symbolism behind a bat, or a peach, or a mandarin duck, or other more abstract concepts, this book is for you. A very valuable reference tool for those interested in things Chinese.

In fact, it's been said that likely didn't write most of it. The production of this play performed at my university is generally considered to be the worst play performed on our stake in the last five years. Plot threads are left untouched, dialogue is uninteresting for the most part, etc. People in the audience either slept, left during the intermission, or pretended they were enjoying themselves. When you are in a play, usually people you run into on campus have something polite to say about the play. The best comment I got was, "You were OK, but I didn't understand what the play was trying to do with your character." Pericles does have some good scenes, but they are so scattered that the play isn't worth sitting through to get to them. Only for those who feel a compelling need to read all of Shakespeare's works. Even those may want to avoid it, because it isn't wholly the work of the bard.

I don't feel "Pericles" represents Shakespeare's best efforts. It lacks the profound aspects and suspense of his better (4-5 star) works. In my opinion, some characters like Cleon are handled less than fairly. The play seems to delight in his death, when he had nothing to do with the wickedness of his wife. Nor did he approve of it. Nevertheless, it is easy to see why this play has always been very popular. Pericles is a well developed character. First we see him as a youth jousting for the love of his life. Although not much time passes, we are somehow given the impression that he has aged. He becomes a father and he 'believes' he has become a widower. It is interesting how he changes from a typical teenage lovestruck youth to an adult concerned over his 'motherless' daughter. When he thinks his daughter is dead, he is reduced to an old man's solitary state. When he is reunited with his wife and daughter, it is almost as if he is young again. Marina is memorable as Pericles' virtuous daughter. Helicanus is striking as Pericles' loyal servant who is no flatterer. Cleon is sympathetic as the decent man who is destroyed by his wife Dionyza's wickedness. So, we have some interesting characters, a man's growth, good images, comical touches, a sudden dilemna, and a happy ending. In my opinion, this was Shakespeare's attempt at a fairy tale. If you read this (knowing not to expect his best efforts) you may be pleasantly surprised.

This least known of Shakespeare's romances was enormously popular during his day judging by handbills and other evidence--though not, of course, as much as his all time blockbuster; Romeo and Juliet.--And Pericles continued going strong for quite a while.

Immediately after the Restoration, when the Puritans (bless their hearts) fell from power and the theaters opened for business again, guess which play was the first the court wanted to see?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So what happenned?

Oscar Wilde once said there were two ways of disliking poetry. One was to simply dislike it and the other was to like Pope.

Preicles did not do well with the 18th century pundits because it deviates from the 'Aristotalean unities'. Unlike The Tempest, for example, which takes place in one locale over a couple of days, Pericles takes place over 10 to 15 years all over the ancient Mediterranean. It has the form of an epic. What can I say? Homer would have dug it.

It's the story of a prince who screws up. Partly from his fault, mostly not. It's got tyrants, incest, treason, murder, knights, wizards, teenagers, kings, pirates, brothels, young love, a great hero and The Goddess Diana.

Oh yeah, the poetry's not too shabby either.

The theme is what to do when everything goes horribly wrong. How to weather sorrow and get through your life. How to be honorable and not give in to despair.

Someone once remarked that the romances are tragedies turned upside down e.g; The Winter's Tale begins as Othello and then has a happy ending. At least if it's performed by a good cast who commits to the miracle of the statue coming back to life.

If they 'apologize' for an outlandish miracle, it's doomed. Likewise, Pericles also has a happy ending if it's produced by a company who loves the play rather than by a group who views it as a rare curiosity in the Shakespeare canon.

It might interest some readers to know that the nonsense about Shakespeare only writing part of it is, God help us, a compromise position from a few scholars who don't want to get into an argument with unorthodox loons about who really wrote Shakespeare's plays.

Pericles was left out of the first folio. For that matter so were 100 lines of King Lear and there's 300 lines that appear in the folio version of Lear that aren't in the quarto (having fun yet?) which, of course, is positive proof that de Vere or Queen Elizabeth or Bacon or Lope de Vega was really the true writer and never mind that while William Shakespeare lived and for 200 years later no one thought to question his authorship, what did those Elizabethans know , anyway?

Besides he never went to college, so there.

(sigh)

As James Barrie, the author of Peter Pan once remarked: I do not know if Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare' plays, but if he didn't he missed the opportunity of a lifetime.

In the hands of the right director, Pericles, Prince of Tyre is pure gold.

This book had writing all over the inside which was not disclosed in the book description. Sorry to say we were disappointed.

This is one of the best collections of Tennyson's poems I have ever read. Tennyson's wonderful poems are artfully compiled into this book. I would recommend it to anyone who loves Tennyson's poetry or just wants to see what its all about.

The mystery of the moaning cave is a great book. I recieved this book as a present and loved it . The story is very easy to understand and is a great read. It is a fun adventure that takes the Three Investagators to the Crooked Y Ranch. Many of the hands at the ranch are quiting because of accidents that are occuring near "el Diablo's cave,"Its good fun.

The book was a good book,but the Alfed Slote could of got in more detale with the writing of the book. The midile of the book the story got more and more interasting until the last chaper when they made the championship. The book did not till if the team won the campuonship or lost it. that was the worst part of the book, the rest was good so I give this book 3 stars.

This book consists primarily of a series of articles written by Peffer in 1899 on his political party. It serves as a good history, especially since it comes from a primary source, but is obviously biased for the same reasons. Peffer, while being petty on occasion, does a good job of removing himself from the story, putting the focus on the populist movement itself. His style is a bit dry, but not any worse than that of your typical historian. Recommended for those interested in populism, though this probably would not intrigue the layman with little historical concern.

I really enjoyed this book because it kept you consumed in it. It's about three investigators who are trying to find out what the mystery of the golden statue is. The day before the guys had stopped by a dark road to investigate a piecing cry for help. Then someon threw a statue over the wall. When they were just about to find out who threw the statue a high pierced laugh rose out of the night. Out of nowhere and scared the detectives off, on their way to a statue expert, a man leaped out waving a knife and snatched the statue away from them. I rate this book a six because it was enjoyable through out but otherwise, not very detailed.

My only complaint about this play is that Shakespeare should have had some dialogues where the characters discussed crucial history before the play opens. Gloucester (murdered or dead before the play but mentioned several times) had tried to usurp Richard's crown too many times. History itself is not sure if Gloucester died or was murdered. Bolingbroke for a while conspired with Gloucester and now sees another oppurtunity to usurp the crown.The virtuous John of Gaunt served Richard with honor and integrity and eventually moved parliament into arresting Gloucester for treason. This would of made John of Gaunt's rages all the more valid. Otherwise this play is outstanding! Richard shows himself to be capable of ruling at times, but gains our contempt when he seizes his the honorable John of Gaunt's wealth. John of Gaunt's final rage in 2.1 is a passage of immense rageful beauty. Also, Shakespeare moves us into strongly suspecting that Richard had Gloucester murdered. However, despite Richard's crime, Shakespeare masterfully reverses our feelings and moves us into having deep pity for Richard when he is deposed. The Bishop of Carlisle (Richard's true friend) provides some powerful passages of his own. I can not overestimate the grace in which Shakespeare increases our new won pity for Richard when Bolingbroke (Gaunt's rightful heir) regains his wealth and the death of Gloucester is left ambiguous. 5.1, when Richard sadly leaves his queen and can see that Henry IV and his followers will eventually divide is a scene of sorrowful beauty. 5.4 is chilling when Exton plots Richard's murder. 5.5 is chilling and captivating when Richard dies but manages to take two of the thugs down with him. The icing on the cake is that Bolingbroke (Henry IV) can only regret his actions and realize that he has gotten himself into a troublesome situation. But that will be covered in "1 Henry IV" and "2 Henry IV." We can easily argue that it is in "Richard II" where we see Shakespeare's mastery of the language at its finest.

The thing with Shakespeare histories is that almost no one reads them, as opposed to his tragedies and comedies. I don't know why that is. The histories that are read are either Henry V (largely due to Branagh's movie), Richard III (because the hunchback king is so over-the-top evil), or the gargantuan trilogy of Henry VI, with the nearly saintly king (at least by Part III) who much prefers contemplating religion and ethics to ruling and dealing with the cabals among his nobles.

So why read a relatively obscure history about a relatively obscure king? Aside from the obvious (it's Shakespeare, stupid), it is a wonderful piece of writing - intense, lyrical, and subtle. Richard II is morally ambiguous, initially an arrogant, callous figure who heeds no warnings against his behavior. Of course, his behavior, which includes seizing the property of nobles without regard for their heirs, leads to his downfall. Nothing in his character or behavior inspires his subjects so he has no passionate defenders when one of the wronged heirs leads a rebellion to depose Richard II. But Richard now becomes a much more sympathetic figure -especially in the scene where he confronts the usurper, Richard acknowledges his mistakes, but eloquently wonders what happens when the wronged subjects can depose the leader when they are wronged. What then of the monarchy, what then of England?

On top of the profound political musings, you get some extraordinarily lyrical Shakespeare (and that is truly extraordinary). Most well known may be the description of England that was used in the airline commercial a few years back... "This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, ..."

If you like Shakespeare and haven't read this play, you've missed a gem.

Richard II was incompetent, wastefully extravagant, overtaxed his nobles and peasants, ignored his senior advisors, and lavished dukedoms on his favorites. His rival, Henry of Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), was popular with the common man and undeservingly suffered banishment and loss of all his property. And yet two centuries later Elizabethans viewed the overthrow of Richard II as fundamentally wrong and ultimately responsible for 100 years of crisis and civil war. Queen Elizabeth's government even censored Shakespeare's play.

Shakespeare masterfully manipulates our feelings and attitude toward Richard II and Bolingbroke. We initially watch Richard II try to reconcile differences between two apparently loyal subjects each challenging the other's loyalty to the king. He seemingly reluctantly approves a trial by combat. But a month later, only minutes before combat begins, he banishes both form England. We begin to question Richard's motivation.

Richard's subsequent behavior, especially his illegal seizure of Bolingbroke's land and title, persuades us that his overthrow is justified. But as King Richard's position declines, a more kingly, more contemplative ruler emerges. He faces overthrow and eventual death with dignity and courage. Meanwhile we see Bolingbroke, now Henry IV, beset with unease, uncertainty, and eventually guilt for his action.

Shakespeare also leaves us in in a state of uncertainty. What is the role of a subject? What are the limits of passive obedience? How do we reconcile the overthrow of an incompetent ruler with the divine right of kings? Will Henry IV, his children, or England itself suffer retribution?

Richard II has elements of a tragedy, but is fundamentally a historical play. I was late coming to Shakespeare's English histories and despite my familiarity with many of his works I found myself somewhat disoriented. I did not appreciate the complex relationships between the aristocratic families, nor what had happened before. Fortunately I was rescued by Peter Saccio, the author of "Shakespeare's English Kings". Saccio's delightful book explores how Shakespeare's imagination and actual history are intertwined.

I hope you enjoy Richard II as much as I have. It is the gateway to Henry IV (Parts 1 and 2) and Henry V, all exceptional plays.

this Book is not for the newbies of shakespare. It wanders off into the land of the unknown fast.

Its has plenty of informations that are hard to find about Shakespeare and its pretty good book too but kinda complex of vocabularies to understand. Its help me instantly on my project. I'm average student and that book just gave me everythin what i need to know for project well I just wanna thank that author for helps

The only play Shakespeare wrote that I did not like at all was "Othello." "All's Well That Ends Well" was never that popular. It lacks the hilarious tone of "The Comedy of Errors," the superb construction of "Much Ado About Nothing," or the profound messages of "The Merchant of Venice." Also, we can very well be in two minds of what to think of Bertram's rejection of Helena. The characters are not that convincing, and much of the humour is based on bad taste. But the play is not quite a flop. There are moments of suspense. There is some delightful comedy (especially when Bertram chooses to stay in battle rather than go home and marry Helena). And at times, Helena is memorable. I would not make time to read this play, but then it's not a waste of time either.