Beginning in 1881 and continuing to 1906, Ambrose Bierce created a series of sardonic word definitions of his own. Many of these were collected and published as The Cynic's Word Book, which he later protested was "a name which the author had not the power to reject or happiness to approve." So in 1911, he pulled together a collection that was more to his own liking and called it The Devil's Dictionary. The entries are a tad uneven in quality, but most are amusing and some are great. Each reader will have his own favorites, some of mine are as follows : ACQUAINTANCE, n. A person whom we know well enough to borrow from, but not well enough to lend to. A degree of friendship called slight when its object is poor or obscure, and intimate when he is rich or famous. ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third. BIGOT, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain. BORE, n. A person who talks when you wish him to listen. CONSULT, v.i. To seek another's disapproval of a course already decided on. CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision. DICTIONARY, n. A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work. DISCRIMINATE, v.i. To note the particulars in which one person or thing is, if possible, more objectionable than another. EDUCATION, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding. FUTURE, n. That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends are true and our happiness is assured. HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.... A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling... He has the last word in everything; his decision is unappealable. He sets the fashions and opinion of taste, dictates the limitations of speech and circumscribes conduct with a dead-line. POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. And, my choice for the very best among them : CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. By all means, read it and pick out your own; you're sure to find a few that tickle your fancy. GRADE : A

Webster's this ain't. Ambrose Bierce, a very angry and witty man, wrote down his personal definitions (1881 to 1906) of various things and concepts, which were eventually compiled into "The Devil's Dictionary." The result is immensely funny in a twisted kind of way.

A bigot is "one who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not share." Disobedience is "the silver lining on the cloud of servitude." Brute is "see: Husband." Patience is "a minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue." Philosophy is "a route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing." And that's just a few...

Weirdly funny, twistingly witty. It's an enjoyable, very politically-incorrect book that will be over before you want it to be.

A classic that should be read by everyone. Many will hate it but it's a part of every American's heritage -- and probably more relevant in some ways today than when it was written a hundred years ago. Bierce was the only noted American writer who actually fought in the Civil War. All the other notables -- like Mark Twain -- dodged the draft. So for many years Bierce was the only major American writer who'd actually experienced the blood and guts of actual combat. He ended up a bitter man -- but the questions he raises are good ones. And he does it with a wit that is seldom seen in writing today.

Written in the 15th Century and directed towards monks, this is a devotional for Christian living and Monastic life. While noting the time period helps give depth to the historical backdrop of when Thomas was writing this book, it is perhaps more important to know the audience. The intended audience for The Imitation of Christ was monks. This is obvious in the text and it should be kept in mind while reading this work.

This highly influential work has a very simple message: live like Christ. Presented in this book, it is a very strict message. Thomas takes a very strict interpretation of following Christ and the message is very much rooted in the idea of works. It is the actions that one must perform, and not so much the inner state (though he does stress that the inner state is important). This would be a difficult message to take or to give, but again, we must consider the audience: monks living in a monastery. They must live a harsher life and because of their vows, this devotional makes perfect sense.

This can be read as a historical document in Christianity or as a devotional. Either way, one can find great value and and some illumination of the words of Christ through this volume.

Thomas a Kempis was medival monk and priest (1380-1471) who served as chronicler of the monastery at Mt. St. Agnes. During his long life of scholarship, he wrote several biographies of church fathers and a number of devotional works. The "Imitation of Christ" remains his most famous work and the one that has best stood the test of time. Indeed, one of the wonderful things about this work is that it reminds us that the life of the mind is not a creature of the Enlightenment. Even during the so-called Dark Ages there were brilliant scholars with a wide knowledge of both scripture and philosophy. Reflecting its vibrant insight into the human condition, the "Imitation of Christ" remains influential on both sides of the Reformation divide. It reportedly was, for example, one of John Wesley's favorite devotionals.

The "Imitation of Christ" is divided into 4 books, each undertaking a basic theme for development. They are, respectively, the Spiritual Life, the Inner Life, Inward Consolation, and the Blessed Sacrament (i.e., the Eucharist). In turn, each book is sub-divided into numerous chapters, each a page or two long. All of which makes the "Imitation of Christ" a useful book for daily devotionals. One can skip around freely within the book, dipping in as the mood strikes. Yet, I think one is well-served by reading it through at least once. Only then does one see Thomas' thought in its fully-developed form. Do be sure to get a good translation. I am fond of the one by Leo Sherley-Price.

Thomas a Kempis was medival monk and priest (1380-1471) who served as chronicler of the monastery at Mt. St. Agnes. During his long life of scholarship, he wrote several biographies of church fathers and a number of devotional works. The "Imitation of Christ" remains his most famous work and the one that has best stood the test of time. Indeed, one of the wonderful things about this work is that it reminds us that the life of the mind is not a creature of the Enlightenment. Even during the so-called Dark Ages there were brilliant scholars with a wide knowledge of both scripture and philosophy. Reflecting its vibrant insight into the human condition, the "Imitation of Christ" remains influential on both sides of the Reformation divide. It reportedly was, for example, one of John Wesley's favorite devotionals.

The "Imitation of Christ" is divided into 4 books, each undertaking a basic theme for development. They are, respectively, the Spiritual Life, the Inner Life, Inward Consolation, and the Blessed Sacrament (i.e., the Eucharist). In turn, each book is sub-divided into numerous chapters, each a page or two long. All of which makes the "Imitation of Christ" a useful book for daily devotionals. One can skip around freely within the book, dipping in as the mood strikes. Yet, I think one is well-served by reading it through at least once. Only then does one see Thomas' thought in its fully-developed form. Do be sure to get a good translation. I am fond of the one by Leo Sherley-Price.

I am a programmer/consultant in another language and have purchased many programming books over the years. In the VB world (as other languages) I've encountered difficult to understand authorship in many of the books out there.

Paul Sheriff's style is not only easy to understand, but the material gets to the heart of the matter in each topic with excellent examples. This book is for all levels of VB programmers as it can be used as a beginners book, yet as a good reference book for more advanced programmers. You don't need the index cards with this one.

Hat's off to this one! It's about time! (No, I'm not one of Paul's friends :)

Of the five books I've read on Visual Basic, including the two CDs that come with the Learning Edition of VB 5, Paul Sheriff's book is the best.

He follows a logical progression of concepts, nearly every idea is accompanied by complete code, and his explanations are concise and coherent. The content is practical. It's easy to see how he is able to make a living training others how to use VB.

I bought this book to strengthen my grasp of the basics, and I've learned a lot even while covering what is now familiar ground. I wish I had bought this book first.

Sam's Teach Yourself VB 6 in 21 Days was a complete waste of time due to incomplete code references. Paul Sheriff's book is the exact opposite. It offers clear-cut code with a purpose.

I will buy a second copy as a Christmas gift for my nephew.

If Mr. Sheriff updates the book, I hope his publisher does a better job of proof reading, but that's a minor distraction.

Paul Sheriff teaches VB6 is the best book I have read for beginners and intermediates, firstly you learn what vb6 is and then he teaches you on how to develop a complete business application. One excellent thing about this book is that he gives you lots of examples, so that it will be easier for the readers to understand. He gives you a excellent VB6 overview. I also bought Sam's teach yourself vb6 in 21 days before I bought this book. Sam's book was the worst vb book I have read, and there was not much examples and it was hard to understand the code properly. But when I read Paul Sheriffs's book I understood the code quickly and easily. If Paul Sheriff makes another Visual Basic 6 book (intermediate to expert) it will be on my shopping list.

Paul Kyriazi moves through the elements of living the James Bond lifestyle like a silken-sailed clipper ship in a fresh breeze. This 90 minute motivational tape is densely packed with practical information on personal improvement and developing a personal style--everything from organizing your thoughts to reading the wine list at your favorite Vegas hotel.

You can take or leave Kyriazi's specific advice on certain subjects (such as "Order the cheapest champagne by name so she won't know." Personally, my Bond Girl knows more about champagne than I do!) Still, 99% of this tape is an excellent primer for upgrading your life and lifestyle

Whether you are a Bond man or a Bond woman this book on tape is well worth the price. I'm only sorry it isn't on CD, since I expect I'll wear mine out. It won't make you Sean Connery, or Ursula Andress, but it will help to make you a better, more vibrant, you.

The single drawback of this tape is that "How To Live The James Bond Lifestyle" should be an entire series of lectures. You may not agree with everything Mr. Kyriazi says or suggests, but this tape certainly gives you food for thought. And a taste of Dom Perignon to go with it.

Enjoy!

"The Complete Live the James Bond Lifestyle Semiar" by Paul Kyriazi, is a dynamic, and surprisingly educational read, loaded with class, style, and motivational advice-a-plenty.

A serious, but, fun approach is offered showing man how easily they can cash in on life's little rewards via exercising his alter ego.

Mr. Kyriazi's unique talent, insight, and advice expertly introduces the "Today's Bond Wannabe" to a lifestyle of sophistiction, charm, style and success by showing the alter ego in man how easy it can be to achieve goals by approaching life as a real winner -- A life just like James Bond -- one of excitment-- conquests -- and???

A book I recommend for any guy that wants to add a little spice to his life!

This review was made on the paperback edition.

I already consider myself successful having achieved many of my personal goals. And although I've been studying and achieving success for years, I had gotten stale and complacent. In other words I began to go into a dirty t-shirt wearing, couch potato mode. Then I bought this tape and, as absurd as it sounds, galvanized my entire life back into action and positive progress.

The important aspect of the tape (and book) is the re-programing of your mind and asserting control over your negative emotions. This sounds wishy-washy, but it's the real gem. Once you begin to ask yourself "what would James Bond do in this situation" it all falls into place. You will not believe the results and turn your life will take.

You begin to immerse yourself in a lifestyle that promotes action and excitement. You plan adventures, you dress well, you act (and then become) confident. You exude prosperity. Much of the by-product of all of this is attracting women.

This tape scratches the surface but it is one of the best. I then recommend you get the book. I have listened to and read a lot of personal improvement products over the years. This one has lots of realistic techniques: not just theoretical advice. Highly recommended.

"Our Mutual Friend" is the last of Dickens's completed novels, and apart from "The Mystery of Edwin Drood", the only one of his novels I had hitherto not read. The more I've read Dickens, the less impressed I've been. Before I began "Our Mutual Friend", I thought that "Little Dorrit" was his worst, but I'm afraid "Our Mutual Friend" now takes the top spot in my list of Dickensian horrors.

It's not the length of the novel that's the problem (it being of average length for Dickens's larger works), nor the usual limitations of the author's writing style (the utterly unconvincing portrayal of female characters, the grindingly forced humour, the welter of two-dimensional characters, the inevitable surfeit of padding by an author writing to quota), rather I felt that Dickens was guilty of one of two fatal errors. Either he was over-ambitious in trying to develop simultaneously, and with the same importance, several plots within the novel, or he was incapable of deciding which plot and which set of characters should be the main driving force of the novel.

That's a pity, because "Our Mutual Friend" starts off well: a night scene on the Thames, a drowned man, a mystery concerning an inheritance. Unfortunately, I soon became bogged down in a lattice work of characters as Dickens skipped from one plot to another, failing convincingly to develop those plots and the characters in them.

There are interesting themes in the book - a febrile economy based on stock market speculation, a glut of rapacious lawyers, the contrast of private wealth with public squalor - 140 years later, has England changed that much? But such interesting social criticism died quickly, along with my interest in this book.

G Rodgers

An interesting assumption undergirds George Orwell's fascinating essay on Charles Dickens, that everyone reading his essay will have read and remembered nearly every word and certainly every character of Dickens. Once upon a time, this was likely true. We're all familiar with the story of eager readers waiting at the dock to greet the ocean liners that were bringing the next installment of Great Expectations. If memory serves, it is also a book by Dickens that the womenfolk read aloud to themselves in Gone With the Wind, while the men are out on their first Klan raid. It was undoubtedly the case, particularly when the art form of novel was itself young, that everyone used to read all of Dickens enormous oeuvre. Today though, I doubt whether many of us get past about four or five of his most popular works: A Tale of Two Cities, A Christmas Carol, David Copperfield, Great Expectations and Oliver Twist. At least, I know I've got about five others sitting on a shelf collecting dust, their daunting size defeating my mild wish to have read them. But recently PBS ran a Masterpiece Theatre adaptation of Our Mutual Friend and it was terrific, which proved sufficient motivation to read it too.

In barest outline, John Harmon is the heir to a junkman's fortune. But his father conditioned the inheritance on his marrying a young woman, Bella Wilfer, whom the elder Harmon had once met in the park when she was a mere child. Harmon rebels at the notion, for her sake as much as his own, and when fortune presents him with the opportunity to stage his own death, he takes it. A corpse, later identified as Harmon, is found floating in the Thames by Gaffer Hexam and his daughter Lizzie, whose trade it is to loot such bodies. With John's "death," the fortune reverts to Nicodemus Boffin, who had been an assistant at the junkyard. Boffin and his wife bring Bella to live with them, in hopes of alleviating her disappointment at not receiving the fortune. The avaricious Bella is indeed determined to marry money and so has little inclination, at first, to humor the affections of John Rokesmith, the mysterious young man (and eponymous Mutual Friend) who comes to work as Boffin's personal assistant.

Meanwhile, while Gaffer Hexam has a falling out with his old partner Rogue Riderhood, Lizzie gets her bright but selfish young brother into a school, where his teacher Bradley Headstone develops an unhealthy love for Lizzie. She is also being pursued by the young lawyer Eugene Wrayburn, despite the obvious difference in their social stations.

While the first story line features the moral development of Bella and the growing love between her and John Harmon/Rokesmith, the second soon degenerates.... Beyond the two basic plots, the book is completely overstuffed--with ridiculous coincidences and impossible happenings; with characters who are little more than caricatures, some too virtuous, some too malevolent; with subplots that peter out and go nowhere. Running it's course throughout the story, like a liquid leitmotif, is the River Thames and brooding over it are the enormous piles of "dust," the garbage on which the Harmon fortune is founded. It all gets to be a bit much, but it's also really refreshing to see the great novelist at work.

This is what Tom Wolfe meant when he urged modern authors to get out and look around and write about what they found, instead of penning the increasingly insular and psychological novels which have become the staple of modern fiction. Dickens got the idea for the body fished from the water by seeing rivermen at work, for Charlie Hexam after seeing such a bright young boy with his father. The "dust" piles were in fact a real source of wealth, in a society where the refuse of the well to do could be used again by the poor. If Dickens writing is ultimately too broad for us to think of the book as realistic, it at least attempts to capture the flavor (or the stench) of a time and a place and it is animated by the society that teemed around him. If Dickens ultimately seems to have tried to do too much, better a novel like this where the author's reach exceeds his grasp than to settle for one where the author ventures little. Sure it could stand to lose a couple hundred pages, a few subplots and a dozen or so characters, and it's not up to the standard of his best work (there's a reason after all why we all read the same few books) but it's great fun and, even if just to watch the steady growth of Bella Wilfer and the steady disintegration of Bradley Headstone, well worth reading.

GRADE: B

Elusive in a good way, of course. Our Mutual Friend, his last novel, shows some decidedly modernist techniques and situations that were very much ahead of their time. This novel would have been at home if written in, say, the early twentieth century. The twin images of the River and of Garbage (not just decay and dust, but also recycling and renewal) permeate the beginning of this book, and carry through with characters that don't fall into easy categories. All of the requisite Dickensian elements are here, but the reader is also presented with an ending that is both an epiphany and a recognition that the story REALLY doesn't end, after all; storytellers just move onto different subjects. In other words, there isn't the neat bow at the end of the novel that is so prevalent in Victorian literature--one more reason this novel remains somewhat apart from Dickens' other works, while at the same time being a fresh, engaging read. Probably not the best work to begin with, if you're new to Dickens, but if you have the rhythm of his prose down from other, shorter works, you'll certainly enjoy the greater complexities of Our Mutual Friend.

I liked this book very much. Paul does a great job of conveying that the best results come from a basic understanding of how dogs view the world and how they learn. It is a huge stretch to getting the humans past thinking and acting as though the secret to training companion dogs is imposing your will on a dog and then correcting it for "disobeying". Without knowing any better, many, many people think that the ONLY way to train a dog is by teaching it to avoid corrections. I think that is killing an ant with an anvil and happily, many other dog owners do, too. The only criticism I have is that the book may have a narrow appeal. Some may be turned off by the spiritual overtones. I found that aspect refreshing myself. It's pretty hard to learn how to use a clicker well by reading a book, but I guess it won't hurt anyone if the human screws up, right? If I had a client who was "into" a holistic approach, this would be my first pick.

About a forth of the book explains proper nutrition for dogs. The author recommends cooking "human" foods for your dog. If I followed the diet recommended in the book, my dogs would be eating better than me!!

I found the rest of the book to be a repeat of information that was learned in obedience class. The classes my dogs took were reward based nonviolent training classes. Choke chains and pronged collars were not allowed. Gentle Leaders (Promise collars) were suggested but not mandatory.

This would be a good book for someone who is serious about using a nonviolent approach (the best approach) to train a dog and does not have access to a nonviolent, reward based obedience class. If you have access to a reward based obedience class, I would recommend taking the class as opposed to using this book. This is a good book, but should not replace taking a class (especially if you have never taken a dog to an obedience class).

Amy
"I'd be happy to have my biography be the stories of my dogs. To me, to live without dogs would mean accepting a form of blindness." - Thomas McGuane

Paul Owens Nonviolint approach allows your dog to keep its personality. Where as the other methods break the dogs spirit. the old methods of controlling through domination is just that OLD. This book taught me many things I paid hundreds of dollers to learn by having a in-home-trainer,However this book continued on where my trainer left off. This book also helps you see things from the dogs mind of reasoning and understanding. I was able you use the lessons and get results in as little as 5 min. and as long as I practice what Paul tells us in this book I am a happy dog owner with a dog that obays me very well. There truly is no need for the old way of training and the proof is in this outstanding book. I can not praise this book enough. please if you are going to get a dog or have one already do yourself a favor and get this book.And please do not let any one tell you that those cruel training methods are better until you try this first, you will be amazed.I love the hide and seek game and the "find it" with my dog.

These four plays by Sartre are all very different in style if not tone, but they all cut to the bone of meaning in delivering their sobering messages. The best play is also the most famous, No Exit, filled with brilliant language and dramatic fire. The situations and questions posed within aspeak directly to our age. Next, The Respectful Prostitute, which shows how funny existentialists can be, and how gut-wrenching comedy can be both funny and chilling. The Flies is a wonderfully inventive play that one can picture just by reading, with its harsh words, though in the guise of classical language, never missing a stab at the characters--or the audience. The weakest play, Dirty Hands, is still a compelling but rather cliched drama which is a little too ponderous for theatre, but dead on with its analysis of the human condition. Overall, a very worthwhile collection and a great introduction to Sartre, and existentialism.

I like existentialist writings, because they are almost always thought provoking, but I seldom agree w/ the thoughts or ideas presented. No Exit is of course the famous one. Since I know someone who considers being stuck in a room w/ me to be hell, I guess it is at least partially valid, though I personally would go crazy just as easily stuck in the room alone. I used The Flies for my Senior term paper in high school, comparing it to the classic Oedipus story [it was a contrast of style]. The Flies is Sartre's version of Mourning Becomes Electra. This play explores ideas of guilt, authority, and repentence. I think my favorite of the bunch was the Respectful Prostitute, because it brought to light contrasts between what we expect of people and who they actually are [the prostitute is more honest than the respectable people she finds her self around.] All the plays have the theme of a character trapped in a situation in which they must give in and compromise their beliefs/ standards, or suffer the consequences imposed by those in authority.The characters choices, and their reasons, are quite interesting. This summary merely touches on the ideas in the plays; you must read them to understand the thoughts and ideas of Sartre's philosophy.

I have just picked up Sartre's No Exit and Three Other Plays and already I am fascinated. I had heard that his play, "The Respectful Prostitute" was a strong criticism of American racism and wanted to check it out. Skipping to the very end of the book and reading this play first, I came away with feelings of anger, and praise. Anger because I am an African-American and was hurt by its realism, but I also praise the work for its scathing, although subtle and multi-layered (sophisticated) critique of American racism. Textually, the work was extremely easy to read. Embedded in this "easy" text however is some of the most thought provoking material ranging from classical notions solitude and isolation to gender issues that should keep the feminist talking for years to come. For me, the most interesting and thought provoking portion of the text deals with the homoeroticism (not to be confused with "homosexualism") that has always been the singular preoccupation in the white male mind with respect to the black male body. The dramatic utilization and subtle working of this topic would have made Freud proud, and Dr. Francis Welsing say, "I told you so!" A must read for anyone interested in portrayals of American racism in the French imagination or just excellent dramatic work.

One of the things you can assume when you write about Shakespeare--given the hundreds of thousands of pages that have already been written about him in countless books, essays, theses and term papers--is that whatever you say will have been said before, and then denounced, defended , revised and denounced again, ad infinitum. So I'm certain I'm not breaking any new ground here. King Lear, though many, including David Denby (see Orrin's review of Great Books) and Harold Bloom consider it the pinnacle of English Literature, has just never done much for me. I appreciate the power of the basic plot--an aging King divides his realm among his ungrateful children with disastrous results--which has resurfaced in works as varied as Jane Smiley's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, A Thousand Acres (see Orrin's review), and Akira Kurosawa's last great film, Ran. But I've always found the play to be too busy, the characters to be too unsympathetic, the speeches to be unmemorable and the tragedy to be too shallow. By shallow, I mean that by the time we meet Lear he is already a petulant old man, we have to accept his greatness from the word of others. Then his first action in the play, the division of the kingdom, is so boneheaded and his reaction to Cordelia so selfishly blind, that we're unwilling to credit their word.

Then there's the fact that Shakespeare essentially uses the action of the play as a springboard for an examination of madness. The play was written during the period when Shakespeare was experimenting with obscure meanings anyway; add in the demented babble of several of the central characters, including Lear, and you've got a drama whose language is just about impossible to follow. Plus you've got seemingly random occurrences like the disappearance of the Fool and Edgar's pretending to help his father commit suicide. I am as enamored of the Bard as anyone, but it's just too much work for an author to ask of his audience trying to figure out what the heck they are all saying and what their actions are supposed to convey. So I long ago gave up trying to decipher the whole thing and I simply group it with the series of non-tragic tragedies (along with MacBeth, Hamlet, Julius Caesar), which I think taken together can be considered to make a unified political statement about the importance of the regular transfer of power in a state. Think about it for a moment; there's no real tragedy in what happens to Caesar, MacBeth, Hamlet or Lear; they've all proven themselves unfit for rule. Nor are the fates of those who usurp power from Caesar, Hamlet and Lear at all tragic, with the possible exception of Brutus, they pretty much get what they have coming to them. Instead, the real tragedy lies in the bloody chain of events that each illegitimate claiming of power unleashes. The implied message of these works, when considered as a unified whole, is that deviance from the orderly transfer of power leads to disaster for all concerned. (Of particular significance to this analysis in regards to King Lear is the fact that it was written in 1605, the year of the Gunpowder Plot.)

In fact, looking at Lear from this perspective offers some potential insight into several aspects of the play that have always bothered me. For instance, take the rapidity with which Lear slides into insanity. This transition has never made much sense to me. But now suppose that Lear is insane before the action of the play begins and that the clearest expression of his loss of reason is his decision to shatter his own kingdom. Seen in this light, there is no precipitous decline into madness; the very act of splitting up the central authority of his throne, of transferring power improperly, is shown to be a sign of craziness.

Next, consider the significance of Edgar's pretense of insanity and of Lear's genuine dementia. What is the possible meaning of their wanderings and their reduction to the status of common fools, stripped of luxury and station? And what does it tell us that it is after they are so reduced that Lear's reason (i.e. his fitness to rule) is restored and that Edgar ultimately takes the throne. It is probably too much to impute this meaning to Shakespeare, but the text will certainly bear the interpretation that they are made fit to rule by gaining an understanding of the lives of common folk. This is too democratic a reading for the time, but I like it, and it is emblematic of Shakespeare's genius that his plays will withstand even such idiosyncratic interpretations.

To me, the real saving grace of the play lies not in the portrayal of the fathers, Lear and Gloucester, nor of the daughters, but rather in that of the sons. First, Edmund, who ranks with Richard III and Iago in sheer joyous malevolence. Second, Edgar, whose ultimate ascent to the throne makes all that has gone before worthwhile. He strikes me as one of the truly heroic characters in all of Shakespeare, as exemplified by his loyalty to his father and to the King. I've said I don't consider the play to be particularly tragic; in good part this is because it seems the nation is better off with Edgar on the throne than with Lear or one of his vile daughters.

Even a disappointing, and often bewildering, tragedy by Shakespeare is better than the best of many other authors (though I'd not say the same of his comedies.) So of course I recommend it, but I don't think as highly of it as do many of the critics.

GRADE : B-

One of literature's classic dysfunctional families shows itself in King Lear by William Shakespeare. King Lear implicity trusts his three daughters, Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia, but when the third wishes to marry for love rather than money, he banishes her. The two elder ones never felt Lear as a father; they simply did his bidding in an attempt to win his favor to get the kingdom upon his death. Cordelia, on the other hand, always cared for him, but tried to be honest, doing what she felt was right. As Lear realizes this through one betrayal after another, he loses his kingdom -- and what's more, his sanity...

The New Folger Library edition has to be among the best representations of Shakespeare I've seen. The text is printed as it should be on the right page of each two-page set, while footnotes, translations, and explanations are on the left page. Also, many drawings and illustrations from other period books help the reader to understand exactly what is meant with each word and hidden between each line.

"Nothing will come of nothing" the fatal line Lear utters to Cordelia sums up the entire play. The wizened king believes he is urging Cordelia not to refrain from expressing her love for him when in fact he is unwittingly prompting her to use the same insincere flattery as her sisters. When Cordelia refuses to acquiesce to Lear's wishes, he banishes her from the kingdom and divides it among her nefarious sisters Goneril and Reagan. In doing this Lear accepts their empty flattery instead of Cordelia's austere profession of paternal love. Goneril and Reagan quickly betray Lear and then turn against each other. Thus Lear's preference for empty flattery (nothing) destroys his authority and embroils his kingdom in civil strife (generates nothing).

This theme runs like a thread through other parts of the play. Gloucester's blindness toward the nature of his sons results in his literal blindness later in the play. Metaphorical blindness generates physical blindness (nothing comes of nothing). Similarly, after Edgar is banished he avoids further harm by shedding his identity and disguising himself as a vagrant. In the new order of things eliminating one's status results in no harm (another version of nothing coming from nothing).

The motif of nothing coming from nothing has psychological and political ramifications for the play. From a psychological point of view Lear fails to realize that the type of adulating love he wants from Cordelia no longer exists because Cordelia is no longer a child. Her refusal to flatter Lear is, in a sense, an act of adolescent rebellion. Lear's failure to recognize the fact that Cordelia still loves him but not with the totality of a child proves to be his undoing. From a political point of view the fact that Lear divides his kingdom on the basis of protocol (who is the most flattering) instead of reality (whose words can he really trust) also proves to be his undoing. The fact that Lear sees what he wants to see instead of what he should see is the fulcrum of destruction throughout the play.

It is interesting to note that "King Lear" was staged barely one generation after England endured a bitter war of succession (The War of the Roses). The sight of Lear proclaiming his intention to divide his kingdom must have shocked contemporary audiences in the same manner that a play about appeasing fascists might disturb us today.

"The world was full of holes, tiny apertures of meaninglessness, microscopic rifts that the mind could walk through, and once you were on the other side of one of those holes, you were free of yourself, free of your life, free of your death, free of everything that belonged to you." These are author Paul Auster's words in the mind of protagonist/narrator David Zimmer in Auster's new novel, THE BOOK OF ILLUSIONS. These ideas occur to Zimmer while having a revolver aimed at his chest by a woman who, in her own uniquely persuasive manner, has come to liberate him from his Vermont home and an absurdly tragic life and send them both off to the New Mexican desert on a very strange mission. Her name is Alma Grund, daughter of an obscure silent movie cameraman; she has a fist-sized birthmark on the left side of her face, and she promises to introduce Zimmer to a silent film star named Hector Mann who mysteriously fell off the map many years before and whose films Zimmer has written a book about, as well as show him a number of private films Mann made at his ranch, meaning never to show them and willing them to be destroyed upon his death. Paradox being, of course, if a movie is never shown, is it still a movie? If not, then what? Auster's answer: it's an illusion. Everything is illusory in any case; all of existence is a frustrating mirage in which any truly substantive communication between people is absolutely hopeless.

In the final analysis, ILLUSIONS comes across as a particularly clever work of postmodernism, suffering perhaps from a bit of bulge around the middle, a few too many redundancies, and metafictional coincidences. One element I found particularly annoying was the author's cavalier attitude toward his character's finances. Any time the question of funds is raised, Auster invents a quick means to make them wealthy enough not to worry over something so pedestrian and potentially polluting to his plot. Perhaps this was a ploy intended to strike a contrast between real suffering and the illusion of money, but I found it a dull solution for what is, ultimately, at the hollow heart of the vast majority of humankind's daily grind.

This is an easier book to fall into than get out of. Auster asks us to ponder something usually rather done on a subconscious level: what of ourselves survives when we are finally gone? And who or what are the caretakers of that memory? There is a powerful, moving ending here, one that resonated in me long after the final sentence.

Paul Auster--writer, director, and one-time actor (look for his cameo in The Music of Chance)--has written another masterpiece with The Book of Illusions. For years, Auster has been plying audiences with the tricks of the postmodern trade: metafiction, hypertextual references, self-referentiality. Instead of encouraging the reader to lose him/herself in the text, his novels never let you forget that you are reading a work of fiction. In the hands of a lesser writer, this would make for a miserable reading experience, but Auster uses postmodernism as a tool to find deeper meaning, not merely as the literary equivalent of pyrotechnics.

It is hard to say much about The Book of Illusions without revealing too much, but on the surface the book is about a college professor who has lost his entire family to a plane crash, and in order to escape his thoughts of suicide he immerses himself in an in-depth study of Hector Mann, an old silent-film comedian who has not been seen or heard from in well over half a century. But when he turns the fruits of his depression into a book about Mann's films and gets an invitation to meet this virtuoso of the silver screen, he realizes that things--and people--are not always what they appear to be.

This engrossing story is brimming with wit, and leaves you with the feeling that you've read something more like a testimony than a novel. What Auster has done here is to create what all novelists strive for: a story that is extremely specific but never obscure, universal in theme but never cliche.

If you liked The Book of Illusions, try Auster's City of Glass.

Auster is an extraordinary writer -- his prose spare and elegant, his focus the shifting shadows between reality and illusion. Never was a book more appropriately titled.

The protagonist, academic David Zimmer, has suffered the nearly unimaginable, but quite credible tragedy of losing his family in an air crash. His response is to drink, to shut himself away, and, when briefly re-introduced to his former life, to be appallingly obnoxious.

His chosen therapy is to write a book about a forgotten (and as it turns out, disappeared) silent film star. The publication of this study produces the remarkable news that his subject is still alive. The story of his subject Hector's life post-Hollywood mirrors the escape Zimmer himself is trying to make from the awful reality of his own tragedy. The parallels between Zimmer as author and Hector as subject are striking.

The resolution of this marvellous novel is both sad and shocking, and yet, as with all Auster's work, there is a note of hope at the end, coupled with the sense that what is real, and what is not, is divided by the thinnest possible line.

If this book were judged only on its evocation of the end of the silent movie period, it would be a complete success. Containing, as it does, many layers of complexity built around what we know to be real, imagine to be real, and imagine to be imagined, seen against the backdrop of unforgettable characters whose own reality is compelling, this is an extraodinary novel by a writer at the height of his powers. Read it more than once -- it will repay you many times over.

John Quincy Adams has long endured the reputation of an aloof, pugnacious elitist totally out of touch with his constituency and his times. In this recent biography, Paul Nagel seeks to go beyond the historical negative image of our sixth president to uncover the man behind the mask.

Given the author's stated intention, this book is as much character analysis as historical biography. Other reviewers of this book listed below have criticized Nagel for neglecting an in-depth accounting of JQA's public accomplishments. Clearly, they didn't read the preface (in which the author clearly lays out the focus of the book) and would have been much better off reading a different volume on Adams' life, such as Samuel Flagg Bemis' masterwork, "John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy," which won the 1950 Pulitzer Prize for Biography and provides a comprehensive analysis of JQA's many public achievements.

Using JQA's private diary as the primary source, Nagel describes a talented but conflicted man tormented by a life of extreme self-doubt and merciless self-criticism. From an early age JQA was groomed for greatness by his parents. But that preparation - which included a stint as secretary to the US Minister to Russia while only 14 years old, the best classical education a young American of his time could dream of, and close contact with many heads of state and intellectuals - proved to be more curse than blessing in a nation rapidly shifting toward the popular democracy of Jacksonianism. The intense pressure to succeed and a public increasingly hostile to his aristocratic upbringing and bearing caused JQA a lifetime of great personal anguish and ultimately national rejection.

For those interested in learning more about Adams' role as chief negotiator at Ghent during the War of 1812, his storied tenure as Monroe's secretary of state, his disastrous presidential administration, or his controversial career in the House in later life, there are much better volumes to read than Nagel's. However, few biographies exceed Nagel's insight into Adams' personal life - his pettiness, self-pity, disappointment, and grief.

It's a matter of debate who was our most intelligent President: Lincoln, Madison and Jefferson would certainly garner their share of votes. But John Quincy Adams warrants serious consideration: he was an intellectual titan with an astounding breadth of intellect. He was impossibly well-read, sober, amazingly articulate with a rapier-like ability to demolish opponents or defend his position. It's debatable whether he was, in fact, America's most brilliant President, but this book goes a long way in making that case.

Nagel wisely delves into Adams' private side and quotes extensively from his own words. If you are looking for a glum recitation of Adams' political life, look elsewhere, this is a more human biography. There was a refreshing amount of material focusing on Adams' boyhood, and the chapters covering his Congressional years are especially interesting. His story reads like something from a novel: failed President transformed into one of the most influential Congressmen who ever serve in the House.

My only minor criticism is that Nagel does not sufficiently explore or explain Adams' brilliant son, Henry, who grew up to be a caustic and clever chronicler of the late 10th century. Otherwise, this is a solid book, well-written, thoroughly researched and illuminating.

This book was a wonderful book to read which is surprising because of the detail that was presented. The author was also surprisingly objective. I find that the typical biographer is biased towards his subject but Nagel really strove to provide a well balanced presentation of the man and his accomplishments and his shortcomings.

One criticism is that at times he didn't provide enough background for events that were happenning in JQA's life. I was able to fill in some of the blanks myself because I had just read David McCullough's John Adams. He also could have put a little more detail in how JQA became to be regarded as the foremost American diplomat while he was stationed in Great Britain the first time.

He also came down hard on Abigail Adams. McCullough's book was a little gentler on her than Nagel's was. I'm not sure whose is more accurate.

Overall, it was a very enjoyable and very informative book.