I loved the first four books of Whyte's Camulod Chronicles, but apparently he lost his way in Fort At River's Bend (book 5). Now in Sorcerer, he has recovered quite a bit, but still fails to hold a candle to his previous works.

Finally, Whyte resolves dozens of our expectations and dangling questions. Certain characters have died, as we knew they must. Camulod is becoming less Roman, and more like the Arthurian Britain we all know. Merlin has now become the sorcerer, and Arthur has pulled the sword from the stone and become King of all Britain.

Unfortunately, the manner in which he did all this... left me far from impressed. While Whyte had spent immense detail on every little meaningless event in previous books, he then chaotically rushed through these MAIN events we have been waiting for since The Skystone.

It's a shame, but after six books- I am no longer interested in how this series will turn out.

First off, I love the way Mr. Whyte writes. It's been a while since I last found a series of modern works worth reading, and the Camulod series really satisfies the true reader. The words fly through the brain effortlessly and the thousands of pages are turned with amazing speed. A good read, and that is no lie. But! After all that, I am gravely disappointed that Arthur was not given more attention. This book, and this series, just ended - WHAM! Halfway through "Sorcerer," I panicked. Arthur was still only 15. That was when I finally excepted that Jack had no intention of telling the actual Arthur story. He instead has told the events leading up to the Arthur legend - the story of the making of Camelot. He has left the actual Arthur story largely untold. I guess this is what he intended, and I will not blame him, yet I am left languishing for the actual tales of Arthur in his manhood. Maybe... just maybe... there will be another book after "Uther" ??? I can always hope... In any event, I am a Jack Whyte fan and promote his work shamelessly.

Jack Whyte's "The Sorcerer: Metamorphosis", sixth book, and 2nd in the series is excellent. Once again we follow Caius Meryln Brittanicus, in his quests, and watch an older Arthur becoming a leader, and in time the high king of all of Britain and wielder of Excaliber. In this novel we are brought back to Camulod, and now Meryln serves as a leader of colony alongside his brother Ambrose. Not to give away story, but tragedy will strike, and through this Meryln makes the change from leader of men, to Sorcerer- friend of few, feared by many, a powerful transformation. Evil always dwells, and this 2nd book in series has alot more action then previous. Once again the characters are descriped in great detail, and we get to know them through Merylns narrative. I in particular like the Pendragon descriptions, characters like Huw and Lyewelln are nice to follow. The only downside I can see at moment, is that there has not been a real follow up to this as yet, as the next book follows Arthurs father, hopefully in time Whyte will deliver more books for this series. Highly Recommend the "The Sorcerer: Metamorphosis", an entertaining and enjoyable read.

I never really thought I would read this book. After "Taliesin" I thought, "hey, what's another Arthurian legend? They're all essentially the same and are at best bathroom literature."

I was wrong. Lawhead has just left the bathroom.

"Merlin" starts painfully slowly for the first 150 pages. It took me about a week to muster the energy to get through that part. But after that, it becomes a real page turner. The author throws out the traditional "facts" of Arthurian history (for example, Merlin finds religion, the story behind Arthur's conception) and replaces them with believable legend that fits his characters, fills in gaps that other authors ignore and made me want to read more.

I bought this book along with A.A. Attonasio's "Dragon and Unicorn." I'm finding Lawhead's series to be vastly superior to Attonasio's.

If it didn't start so slowly, it'd be a 5 star book. You wont be sorry.

This book was amazing. Lawhead combined all the different versions of the Arthurian Legends as well as the myths of Atlantis so well it made sense, and it made a wonderful story at the same time. He also dealt well with Merlin and many of the book's other main characters being Christian. While that is probably not historically accurate, it was written into the story well. I definitely reccommend this book to anyone with an open mind who is the least bit interested in Arthurian fantasy or ancient Britain.

Merlin is an awsome charecter of the Arthurian Legend,this book tells about Merlin's life before Arthur.Merlin once lived among the Hill Folk (people who are thought to be God's first children) and learns about and possesses power that the druids don't, he then meets his one true love. But shortly after their marraige she is killed by barbarians, he then goes into hiding in the woods, until Pelleas finds him they then go and find Vortigern (a tyrant) and warns him of Aurelius and Uther (the Pendragons)who will want revenge. The rest you'll have to find out in "Merlin".

HAIL MERLIN!!! LONG LIVE LAWHEAD!!!

Excellent continuation to "The Winter King." Cornwell has done a really good job creating the characters for this series. They, in combination with the adventure and romance, make this book thoroughly enjoyable. I am not the fastest reader in the world and work quite a number of hours per day, but I finished this book in less than a week.

This book, as the first, is narrated by Derfel Cadarn (a forgotten personage in Arthurian legend) as a very old monk. He tells his stories of battle as one of Arthur's warlords in Arthurs quest to achieve a peaceful Britain. At the same time he tells the story of the other characters and their life goals, which aren't necessarily the same as Arthurs.

I loved the book. The only reason I didn't give it 5 stars is because I liked the other two even better. This is the best series I have ever read. If you are reading this review means that you are interested in this subject -- so go ahead and buy this series, you'll really enjoy it, I promise.

This is a well-written political thriller set in fourth-century Britain, not the Arthurian legend that everyone's familiar with. As such, it's a fitting sequel to "The Winter King". As in that book, Cornwell takes some Arthurian legends from different eras and mixes them together, adding his own touch of historical realism. The portrayal of Saxon-Celtic conflict as well as Christian-Pagan conflict is very well done. An excellent book, though one that will disappoint some by painting a vision of Arthur that clashes with their own. As always, Cornwell's storytelling is top-notch.

The Warlord Trillogy is by far the best Arthur novels that I have ever read. Cornwell is a perfect storyteller and historian. In this second novel of Arthur we get plunged deeper into the legend that we all know, but in a very different way. This trillogy is not about magic, dragons and romance, but we see Arthur in a REAL dark ages setting. Cornwell makes this story as if it were really recorded down in history. Merlin, is a druid, not a wizard, he has no magic, though he may think he does. Arthur is not a King, but a Warlord, with a sword that is only said to be magic, but with no proof of it.

These changes make Arthur so much more believible. I personally, as a Medieval studies Major, believe in Arthur, but we have to understand what he was like without the stories we all grew up on. Cornwell has done just that. The most real Arthur and companions you will ever read about.

In Enemy of God, we learn more about the middle of the legends we all know. Arthur still prepairs the throne for the to be king Mordred, while Merlin and Nimue search for the Gold Cauldren in British history. Throughout the story we find new twists to old legends in believable situations and by the end of this second book we are just waiting for the third to pick up.

Kudos for Cornwell. This is a wonderful book. A must have for any fan of Arthur.

We only had one day on our tight vacation schedule to visit one of the Disney parks. The book helped us choose which (Disneyland Park) and helped us see the most we could. It was not a crowded day, but as such, the park hours were only 10am to 7pm so we didn't have much time. We followed the book's one day plan almost exactly, and everything was just as the book predicted it would be! We never waited in line for more than 20 minutes for anything. We knew the right times to get fastpass for rides, like Splash Mountain, where we waited about 5 minutes with our fastpass, while the line was estimated a 1.5 hours! Other rides we didn't have to use fastpass because we went at the right time and beat the lines. We also liked the ratings for age groups for individual rides, which helped us figure out what to skip and what not to miss. I have used Birnbaum's book for Disneyworld, and I found this book easier to use for making your plan of attack.

Note that it also has a chapter on Universal Studios, and I'm pretty sure Birnbaum's doesn't.

Complete and up-to-date! Covers Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure. Includes hotel and restaurant ratings. The guides for getting the most out of your trip to Disneyland are worth the price of the book alone. Of course, you don't have to follow the guides exactly. But, by reading them through they give you great insight into how to maximize your time in the park and see what you what to see in the time you have ... even with crowds. I wish I had this book on my previous trips. I know they would have seemed a lot less frustrating and harried. If you are going to Disneyland, do yourself a favor and get this book. It's worth its weight in gold.

Complete and up-to-date! Covers Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure. Includes hotel and restaurant ratings. The guides for getting the most out of your trip to Disneyland are worth the price of the book alone. Of course, you don't have to follow the guides exactly. But, by reading them through they give you great insight into how to maximize your time in the park and see what you what to see in the time you have ... even with crowds. I wish I had this book on my previous trips. I know they would have seemed a lot less frustrating and harried

I had been to Disneyland twice before I found this book so I can tell you first hand what a differnce this book makes in trip planning and in making your day at DL the most complete. The book covers every ride and attraction at DL. It has great information on the local hotels. It has goobs of information on going to DL with kids of all ages. If you are not experienced at doing DL, then get this book. Because of the information in this book you'll be able to see and do twice as much especially on busy days at the park. If you are going to Disneyland, do yourself a favor and get this book. It's worth its weight in gold. 5 stars at least!

Why should you read this book? Yes, it is a classic. Yes, it documents the wonderful, adventurous time of the clipper ship. But that's not why you should read it.

Richard Henry Dana must have been a most extraordinary man. While attending Harvard as a young man, his eyesight became weak and his health declined. He decided that the austere prescription of salt air and plain hard work would be the cure. Not many would give up comfort and privelege, but for two years, Dana served as a common sailor, given no special treatment as the gentleman he was, and lived in the forecastle of the Alert, eating the mess of salt beef and common hardtack, risking his life and serving under a captain crueler than most.

Dana was able to write in such a way as to re-create the life on board a sailing ship, down to the smallest details and that's what makes this book so real and touching. You can feel the cold of Tierra del Fuego, taste the salt beef, and feel the wind and damp. What's more amazing is that Dana's carefully-kept journal was lost along with his other mementos of his voyage when he landed back on shore in Boston, due to some tragic carelessness of someone he entrusted with his chest of belongings. Yet he was able to recreate his voyage in loving detail and in some very excellent writing.

Dana's later life as a lawyer was far from happy, though he made some critical contributions to maritime law. He died a poor and disappointed man, but left us the richer with his book. I just re-read it again for the tenth time, and it is fresher than ever. Read it along side of Moby Dick. It's American literature and American history and culture at its very best.

I waited 58 years to read Two Years Before the Mast! It was always on my list of books to read, but I had never reached it until recently, when my interest was sparked by a comment made by David McCullough (the author of the great biography of Truman) that this book greatly influenced him when he read it as a very young man. It is a a beautifully written book --- prose as good as any I have ever read. Dana's accurate and detailed narrative of his own life at sea on sailing ships in the 1830's, and his time spent on the coast of California,when it was true wilderness, is an unforgettable reading experience. The book has a personal intimate quality about; it is as if the author is a friend writing to you from abroad about his extraordinary adventure. This book deserves its esteemed place in American and world literature.

I'm a Californian who has seen the entire coast described by Dana. He has painted a remarkably true picture of that coast still recognizable. Jackson was president when Dana sailed in 1833. It was also the age of the Mountain Men some of whom were seen in CA while Dana was there. In San Diego Dana met professor Nuttal who taught at Cambridge and was known to Dana. Nuttal crossed the continent the hard way, as a naturalist, then made his way to CA, and eventually returned on the same ship with Dana to Boston. Both Dana and Nuttal, and their respective pursuits, were precursors to Manifest Destiny. Their trips also were descriptive of the times. Two years after his leaving Boston, Dana returned as an accepted 'foc'sle' sailor, a man cured of whatever ailed him when he left home. His exploits are remarkable for their daring. He never shirked his duty as a shipmate. His is a remarkable tale which could only have been told by one of his character. If read in conjunction with the landed history of the time, 'Across the Wide Missouri,' by DeVoto, it becomes a historical masterpiece significant for its truth, sadness, and moments of supreme beauty of expression.

The Legend of Sleepy Hollow is a scary tall tale told in the quiet town of Sleepy Hollow. It all starts out when Ichabod Crane(an intelligent school teacher) goes to a party at the Van Tassel's house. At the party a mean guy named Brom Bones tells a scary tale, about a headless horseman from the Revolutionary War. It was told that he roamed the night looking for his head, which he lost in battle. That night Ichabod had to ride home, he was very frightened. Lets just say Ichabod was never seen again, the only thing found the next day was his hat.
The legend of Sleepy Hollow is a great thriller. You can tell the tale at night, when you have a sleepover, or around a campfire. The book has a good story line and can be easily followed. I hope you don't get too scared when you read about the Headless Horseman...

"The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Rip Van Winkle" brings together these two classic stories by Washington Irving. The text of this Dover Children's Thrift Classic is accompanied by the whimsical illustrations of Thea Kliros. Both tales are set in the Dutch-American communities of rural New York State.

"Legend" tells the story of Ichabod Crane, a schoolteacher who lives in an area purportedly haunted by a terrifying spectre: a headless horseman. "Rip" tells the story of a farmer who has a remarkable paranormal experience while wandering in the mountains.

Each story explores the intersection of the supernatural with everyday life. The stories are full of vividly drawn characters and are rich with the local color of rural Dutch American communities. Issues such as folk beliefs, geography, history and oral tradition are well handled by Irving.

Irving's playful, earthy prose style is a delight to read. Passages such as a description of a Dutch-American feast are memorable. Funny, ironic, and poignant, these tales are true classics by one of the most enduring figures in American literature.

First off, this review is of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Rip Van Winkle" published by Dover Children's Thrift Classics, $.... While most reviews might concentrate on the merits of the stories themselves, this review is meant to support the benefits of purchasing this particular edition over others.

That said, the first thing I would like to comment on is the price. You can't ask for more of a bargain that to pay less than a ... of America's most popular and well known Revolutionary War era stories. Great for anyone on a budget, or parents who want to expand their child's library but don't want to break the bank on something they may only read once. ....

Secondly, I would like to mention that this book contains BOTH "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" AND "Rip Van Winkle" in their respective unabridged entirety. Both are relatively short, entertaining, and easy-to-read stories that supply a great introduction to period literature, beliefs, and storytelling for children and adults alike. While these are not Washington Irving's only writings, they are perhaps the most well-known.

As a former teacher, I have the following suggestion: If you live in the New York metro area, this book would be an excellent jumping off point for a trip to Washington Irving's homestead, "Sunnyside", in Tarrytown, NY, for which you can find plenty of information online. There are several other "living history" sites in the area as well.

This superb play by Shakespeare somehow reminded me of Antigona, the first play which directly examined the always complex interplay and usual confrontation between political reason and moral reason. This play is an excellent account of the immediately previous and subsequent days of Julius Caesar's assasination by Brutus, his best friend, and other conspirators. Brutus is persuaded by the resentful Cassius that Caesar has betrayed Rome by abandoning the Republic and turning to Dictatorship. Brutus gets to be convinced that, in order to save the Republic, Caesar must be killed. This puts him in a great dilemma, for he loves Caesar and he's his closest friend. Here we see in an acute form the way in which political power gets in conflict with morality and feelings. Friendship, power and betrayal are the basic subjects of this excellent piece of work.

This was the first play performed at the Globe Theatre. For that reason alone, this play deserves special attention. But the characters, the language, and this interesting situation represent Shakespeare's finest efforts. Cassius is ruthless with a malicious attitude. But he honestly fears what Caesar will do if he is crowned. Brutus is a good and honest man. He contemplates joining Cassius to kill Caesar despite the fact that Caesar loves him as a friend. (In history as well, Caesar was notably kind to Brutus.) But yet he too fears that if Caesar is crowned, Rome will bleed. Mark Antony is convincing as Caesar's loyal aid who SEEMS insignificant at first. But after Caesar is killed, he emerges as the most powerful and intelligent character in the play. What makes this play so phenomenal is that we can easily understand and sympathize with any of these major characters. (Even though they are on opposite sides.) What's left? Only chilling omens like the Soothsayer, the storm, the ghost of Caesar, etc. Only memorable passages like Mark Antony's famous 'honorable' speech. If you like this play, I suggest the B & W version where James Mason does Brutus, John Gielgud does Cassius, and Marlon Brando does Mark Antony.

This is certainly one of Shakespeare's greatest works. Every individual character has been perfectly planned before the play was written, and each has his/her own unique characteristics. The plot is well-known, but Shakespeare adds the themes of betrayal, love, and distrust into the mix, making it a nonforgetable story. This is definately a masterpiece to be reread over and over again. LONG LIVE JULIUS CAESAR! GO SM!! WE ARE HIS #1 FANS!!!

I rate this book 4 stars because it reel you in on a hook and it will not let go until you have read the whole thing. Its a keeper any person thats read it would say. It on the egde, exciting, and most of all it is very clever. Did I tell you that it is also Adventurous.

The book is about two main people. One is the great Sherlock Holmes and his ever faithful Dr. Watson. They go on Adventures together and make there murder look like a fool for even thing to fool the great team.

A quick example from the book is a evil uncle and two women in the house that the woman own. One day one woman was found dead and the local law enforcement had no clue until the great team of Sherlock and Watson were on the case. ...
That is just one of the many stories told. So if you want a fast pace book. Read The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.

Did you know that Holmes never, ever said "Elementary, my dear Watson" in any of the sixty stories Arthur Conan Doyle wrote?

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes were initially published in "The Strand" magazine as a series of 24 short stories. These stories saw publication between 1891 and 1893. When they were published in book form, the first twelve were published as "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" and the last twelve were called "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes." Today, when we speak of the original "Adventures," we usually refer to the first twelve Holmes short stories. These twelve stories include some of the best of Holmes: "The Speckled Band," "The Red Headed League," "A Scandal in Bohemia." Doyle continued his Holmes saga with other collections of short stories: "The Return of Sherlock Holmes," "Reminiscences of Sherlock Holmes," "His Last Bow," and finally "The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes." Almost every Holmes short story bears the title "The Adventure of . . ." One of my favorite Holmes stories is "The Problem of Thor Bridge." Not only is it a very good yarn, it is a "Problem" and not an "Adventure!" Although Conan Doyle ran out of Holmes stories, the public did not run out of its appetite for new Holmes stories, and production of pastiches continues to this day.

To me, the most satisfying way to relive the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, both original and pastiche adventures, is through the medium of audiotaped radio plays. There are at least four collections of adventures currently available. "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes," a publication of BBC shows starring Clive Merrison, reprises the original twelve adventures. This is probably the best radio collection of adventures. National Public Radio has published four "Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" consisting of four one hour productions starring various actors as Holmes. The quality is uneven. "Smithsonian Historical Performances: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" has twelve stories, four of which are original. Edith Meiser wrote the pastiches, and John Stanley starred as a rather disagreeable Holmes. Some stories are very good; others are woeful. Simon and Schuster publishes a series of six "New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes." Each collection has eight Holmes stories. Of the pastiches, these are the best. Nigel Bruce stars as a loveable, bumbling Watson, and Basil Rathbone portrays the archetypical Holmes. Anthony Boucher and Dennis Green wrote the scripts and did a very good job. Holmesaholics will also want to listen to "More New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes," published by the Brilliance Corporation, and starring Tom Conway as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Watson. These stories are on the whole better than the Smithsonian Historical Performances, but not as good as the Rathbone/Bruce "New Adventures." They also have the drawback of being published as individual cassettes. The avid collector can run to some expense getting all of these.

Holmes survived Conan Doyle's attempt on his life at the Reichenbach Falls; he has survived his creator 80 years without showing any signs of loss of vitality. The latest (and quite enjoyable) addition to the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is the BBC Television series starring Jeremy Brett.

You meet ordinary and strange characters in this book. Every adventure is different, and a spectacular story. They are first class mysteries. Sir A.C.Doyle is a very talented author. You try and break the case before Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes- quite a hard chore. Sherlock Holmes adventures are always fun filled and very, very, very exciting

I found the first half of "How the Scots Invented the Modern World" to be very informative and entertaining. The portraits of Hutcheson, Kames, Hume and Smith were interesting both by themselves and in the way in which the author explained the connections (both personal and intellectual) between these thinkers of the Scottish "Enlightenment." I was convinced that in one sense these Scots really did invent the modern world, or at least the modern mindset.

The book weakens, however, as it becomes in the second half a fairly pedestrian retelling of accomplishments of Scotsmen and their descendants. It was refreshing not to read any excessive English-bashing in this account, in fact, it might be the most pro-English book about Scotland I have read.

I can't say enough good things about this book. It is an extremely well-written and well-researched history of Scotland following the unification with England in 1707, built around the contributions Scots have made to the modern world. Filled with historical detail, it still manages to be easily readable and there is scarcely a dull paragraph in the entire work.

The author provides a window through which the reader can peer into the fascinating world of mid-18th Century Scotland and the people who inhabited it. Adam Smith, David Hume, Lord Kames, James Watt and other crucial figures to Western history walk through these pages. Not only is this work informative, but it is wonderfully entertaining- exactly what popular history should be.

This book fills what had been a missing gap in popular history. I urge you to read it.

The Scotland of William Wallace is not the Scotland that Arthur Herman celebrates in "How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World and Everything In It." To the contrary, Scotland's triumphant moment came four centuries after Braveheart's death, according to Herman, when Scotland welcomed--not threw off--the English. "In the span of a single generation it would transform Scotland from a Third World country into a modern society and open up a cultural and social revolution," Herman asserts. "Far from finding themselves slaves to the English, as opponents had prophesied, Scots experienced an unprecedented freedom and mobility." While its title intentionally embraces the Scottish tradition of boasting and exaggerating, "How the Scots Invented the Modern World" makes a strong case that the Scots, more than any other people, are responsible for the world after the Enlightenment.

What followed unification was not merely a Scottish renaissance, but a revolution in thought that changed the world. Adam Smith, David Hume, Robert Louis Stevenson, James Boswell, Andrew Carnegie, Alexander Graham Bell, Sir Walter Scott, and George Buchanan are among the Scots Herman discusses. Perfecting the steam engine, introducing inoculation to fight smallpox, inventing street lamps, devising the system of time zones, and discovering the simple method to prevent scurvy were all products of the Scottish imagination. "How the Scots Invented the Modern World" tells an untold story with wit and eloquence. This provocative book will gain the interest of Scots and non-Scots alike who are left to wonder how a small group living in the shadow of their southern neighbors had such a positive impact upon the world in which we live.

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.