Jack Worthing is engaged to lady named Gwendolyn and they are soon to get married. Jack had to find away to escape from Miss Prism because she disapproved of him so he created a brother named Earnest. While Jack was in London he feel in love with another women named Cecily Carden. Over time his fiancée's mother started to see that there was more to Jack than what he was letting on to. The only reason that Cecily wants the marry Jack is because she thinks that his name is really Earnest. Jack/ Earnest has a fiancée but is in love with another women at the same time.

This is a very short book but at the same time it is very easy to get in to because of the conflicts that occur. This book is very funny especially the conversations between Jack and Algernon. The story is a political and social satire and a look at the upper British society. I thought that the story was great because of the humor but at the same time the story was kind of sneaky which drew me into the story even more. I would suggest the book to anyone.

Perhaps it is my unique sense of humor, but I found this book incredibly funny. I wasn't rolling on the floor or anything, but it is funny in an Oscar Wilde way. My personal favorite is The Importance of Being Earnest, although all the others are very good also. Get this book. There are great quotes and good characters.

"All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does. That's his.
Is that clever?
It's perfectly phrased! and quite as true as any observation in civilized life should be."

This is just one of the many jocular exchanges and epigrams in this short but brilliant social satire. Wilde wryly and cleverly gets his claws into the upper caste and its twisted moral etqieuette, romantic relationships, and self-critically the propensity for sententious moral (and aesthetic) self-guidance.

Dispensing with politeness and social convention through his farcical dialogue, Wilde unleashes his comic criticism on all types of hypocrisies and spurious norms. The Importance of Being Ernest is always subversive and funny, but never crude or sophomoric.

The Folger Library series are your best Shakespeare source. They specialize in Shakespeares' greatest plays and are quality books that are perfect companion and translator to Shakespeare. It is loaded with page after page of translation from the Old English expressions that are no longer in use to our modern talk, and pictures as well as historic background information on th Elizabethan era and Shakespeares' life. Hamlet is without question Shakespeare's greatest tragedy, remaining in our theatrical culture to this very day. It has become a conversation piece for English professors, dramatists and screen actors (Mel Gibson tackled the role in 1991) and even psychologists, who claim that Hamlet had the Oedipal complex, especially when they read the scene in which Hamlet is in his mother's bedroom. What makes Hamlet so great ? Why does this old play still come alive when performed on the stage in the hands of the right actors ?

Shakespeare, believe it or not, was a people's person and knew about the human condition perhaps more than anyone in his day. Hamlet deals principally with obscession for revenge. Hamlet is a prince whose father has been murdered under the evil conspiracy from his uncle Claudius and even the support of his mother, Queen Gertrude. Depressed, wearing black all the time, and very much as solitary as any "Goth" would be in our day, Hamlet laments his situation, until his father's ghost appears and urges him to avenge his death. The mystery still remains, is this ghost real ? Is it, as many in Elizabetheans thought, a demon in disguise ? Or is it simply a figment of Hamlet's own emotions and desire for revenge. At any rate, Hamlet's father appears twice and Hamlet spends most of the play planning his revenge. His most striking line that reveals this consuming need is "The play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king!".

Pretending to be mad, he scorns even the love of the woman he genuinely loves, Ophelia, whose mind is shattered and heart is broken and who has an impressive mad scene. The deaths of Hamlet's friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, are also in Hamle'ts hands and a consequence of his revenge. The famous soliloquy in the play, is of course, "To be or not to be", taken on by such great actors as Lawrence Olivier and Orson Welles. Hamlet muses on the brevity of life and the suffering which can only cease through death, as he holds a skull and is evidently suicidal. Finally, the last scenes are the most dramatic. Hamlet duels with Laertes, Ophelia's brother, and with Claudius himself. The deaths of the main cast, including the Queen, goes to show how tragic the human desire for greed and revenge is.

This is Shakespeare's finest tragedy, and quality drama, best seen in a live stage performance, but that also works as a film. As for this book, as I said before, this is the Hamlet to have. You will become more acquianted with Hamlet and Shakespeare even more than taking a year's course with a teacher. This book itself is the teacher.

If you could read only one thing in your lifetime Hamlet should be that one thing. It is Shakespeare's best work by far, and within its pages is more meaning than you could find within the pages of an entire library full of books, or plays as the case may be. A mere review, a couple words, cannot do Hamlet justice. At times I realize that the language of Shakespeare can be difficult that is why I recommend the Folger version because it helps to make the images expressed by Shakespeare's characters clear to the reader, and allows them to get their own deep personal meaning from Hamlet, Shakespeare's greatest work, with out being bogged down in trying to decipher and interpret his antiquarian English. Don't just listen to what I say, or read what I write, read the play on your own outside the cumbersome restraints of a classroom and see for yourself what I mean.

Ah, yes. Hailed by many as Shakespeare's Magnum Opus (is that right?), this is certainly one of his most significant dramatic works. Hamlet is an atmosperic story of internalization - of feelings (guilt, love, hatred), of people, thoughts, and actions. Marked by indecision and a strong sense of self-pity and self-consciousness, Hamlet makes the slow transition from fear to determination in his quest to avenge his father's death. Oedipal complex, supernatural powers, royal incest, revenge - these are all explored in the play. Several famous questions are posed and thoughts explored - of existence, suicide, meaning, value. Hamlet is just packed with philosophy, psychology, and humanity. A must-read in which you will find many of the most famous soliloquies in all of Shakespeare. Thrown in Yorick's skull, poor Ophelia, good Horatio, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, you've got yourself one awesome play.

Comedy, in the strictest sense, is concerned with ultimate forgiveness and reconciliation. In Shakespeare's play, "The Tempest," the protagonist, Prospero, must come to terms with his brother Antonio, who conspired to have him driven from his duchy in Milan, and with the world of social interaction in general.

Magic, Power, and Conspiracy are the foundational thematic elements through which Shakespeare effects Prospero's reintegration into human society. Thrown into a boat with his infant daughter Miranda, Prospero comes to live on a nearly deserted island in the Mediterranean Sea. Prospero's concentration on developing his proficiency in Magic caused him to become alienated from his political and social responsibilities in Milan, leading to his expulsion. His brother Antonio conspired with Alonso, king of Naples, and seized the power Prospero forsook for book-learning.

Prospero hears of a sea voyage undertaken by his enemies, and, using his Magic, whips up a storm, a great tempest, which causes his enemies to be shipwrecked on his island. On the island, Prospero exercises total power - over the education of his daughter, his slave, the deformed Caliban, and now over his enemies. He engages Ariel, a sprite, to orchestrate the division of the traveling party, and to put them through various trials to exact vengeance and ultimately, submission from them.

"The Tempest" is a fine effort from Shakespeare, but the power relations in the play are problematic. Prospero's insistent dominance over the action of the play is extremely troubling. Although he is presented as a benevolent character, Prospero's relationships with Miranda, Caliban, and Ferdinand, King Alonso's son, complicate his overall worth as a man and an authority figure. The dynamic between the slave Caliban and the drunks, Trinculo and Stephano, is also very unsettling.

Overall, "The Tempest" remains a whimsical flight of imagination, while exploring intriguing themes of education, political intrigue, and romance. Certainly, it is still a well-constructed and entertaining play after nearly four hundred years.

One of the best works by Shakespeare and also his final full play (most likely), The Tempest draws on many elements that Shakespeare used in his earlier works and adds a comic twist. Shakespeare doesn't spend much time on character development in the Tempest, other than Prospero and possibly Caliban (e.g. Miranda is the ideal chaste woman, Trinculo & Stephano are lowly schemers). However, Prospero is extremely well developed and the simple aspects of the other characters do not detract from the story at all. There are many different levels of meaning at work in the play...some see it as a pro-colonialist diatribe, others see it as Shakespeare's own swan song, where Prospero himself is based on the Bard, and Prospero's surrendering of his magical powers is representative of Shakespeare giving up his craft. I read it as both, and a million other things, and that is one of the great things about the play...it can be read in so many different ways. The structure of the play seems almost chaotic at first, with so many things going on at once. However, if you read the play over again, or read some of the essays contained in the Signet Edition, it becomes much more clear, although still open-ended. The Signet Edition is excellent, and Signets in general are. Buy this over the Folger Library editions...the footnotes here are much easier to work with and make the reading much smoother overall.

Yes, there is once again murder brewing in the play of Shakespeare but only in a comical way. Not able to claim to be a Shakespeare expert, I have only read four of his other plays. However, it is in my opinion that this be the best one, most likely because it is a comedy and is much lighter that his other plays. This classic play tells the story of the former Duke of Milan who was wrongly dethrowned by his brother. Using his magical power that originally expelled him from Milan, he is able to bring the King (Alonso), Alonso's brother (Sebastian),his own brother (Antonio) and other servants to the his mostly vacant island. Ordering about the spirit Ariel, he manipulates his way into an interesting and funny situation. There is much to gain from reading this wonderful play which is one of Shakespeares last. I recommend this book to Shakespeare lovers and even more so, to variety readers such as myself. You won't be dissapointed by the plays light mood which is much better than Shakespeares serious murder stories.

When rating Shakespeare, I am comparing it to other Shakespeare. Otherwise, the consistent "5 Stars" wouldn't tell you much. So if you want to have this book rated as compared to the general selection of books in the world, it probably deserves five stars, certainly four. But as Shakespeare goes, in spite of being one of his best-known plays, it truly isn't one of the best.

Certainly, there are the bones of a fine plot here, but the play is very short and thus doesn't really give us the smooth development of plot and character that we usually see in Shakespeare. Nor, given how entirely unappealing the main character is, is it properly a tragedy when he dies; granted, one can consider it tragic that good King Duncan is killed, and Banquo as well, to say nothing of McDuff's family. But can a play in which the unequivocal "good guys" categorically win (and several of them even survive) be properly called a tragedy?

There are certain similarities between the plot (or at least, the theme) of this play and that of the novel "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoyevsky. If you liked that book, you may enjoy this play. If you like this play, you will probably enjoy that book (it is a much more in-depth character portrait). Granted, the issue of Kingship never comes into play in Dostoyevsky's work, but the concept of the effect a murder has on the murderer is there, and actually handled rather better.

Of course, being Shakespeare, there is much beautiful language to be found here, and as Shakepearean plays go, the language isn't too difficult for the modern reader; there are only a few places where the footnotes are absolutely essential to an understanding of what's been said. But truly, it is hard to really like this work, and while it can be interesting, it would have been better if it weren't so rushed.

a tragic story of death and betrail. A great play to watch, read, and perform. Read this play!

This play can be read as anti-semitic. In fact, it's pretty hard to defend it from such charges. Shylock is a pretty rotten character and the fact that he is jewish is difficult to overlook (particularly since the other characters mention it on pretty much EVERY page). However, I think it is important to mention that the "heroes" of this play do not necessarily have to be interpreted as heroes. They are by no means perfect and there are many subtle (and some not-so-subtle) instances within the text in which their biases against ANYONE unlike them is illustrated. If one reads the play this way, then Shylock becomes more of a tragic figure rather than an absolutely heartless villain. I don't know. My feelings about this are mixed. There are a few funny parts of this play and the language is, as always, beautiful. The theme of putting a price on human beings is one which has been explored numerous times since. Overall, it is enjoyable, but perhaps not so much so as some of the other comedies. Do not read this play without having read a few others by Shakespeare first. It is an excellent play, but not his best and not his most enjoyable either.

This is a wonderful play - and unless you have seen it or read it you don't know it at all. That's because everything the popular culture tells us about this play is false (for example; how many of you think this play is about a merchant named Shylock? ;-)

The Merchant of Venice is a lively and happy morality tale. Good triumphs over bad - charity over greed - love over hate.
There is fine comedy. Portia is one of Shakespeare's greatest women (and he ennobled women more than any playwright in history). There are moments of empathy and pain with all the major characters. There is great humanity and earthiness in this play. These things are what elevate Shakespeare over any other playwright in English history.

Plays should be seen - not read. I recommend you see this play (if you can find a theater with the courage and skill to do it). But if it is not playing in your area this season - buy the book and read it.

After reading most of the other reviews here, I am fully aware that most of the reviewers didn't read carefully enough (or watch carefully enough if they saw the play.) Now, I'm not saying its not open for different interpretations, but there is one thing I would really like to get straight.

I read MoV for a Bar Mitzvah project on Anti-Semitism. Naturally, my sympathies went to Shylock. However, even if i were Christian, i still would've favored Shylock. What many people believe is that Shylock is a cold hearted ruthless person and only wanted to get back at Antonio because Antonio was a Christian.

Not true. Shylock specifically says something along the lines off, "Why should I lend money to you? You spit on me, and call me a Jewish dog!" I'm not saying that Shylock was a good guy, but I am saying that he is not the villain.

In fact, the "Merchant of Venice," in this story is actually Shylock, not Antonio, contrary to popular belief. My thoughts on the story was that Shylock requested a pound of Antonio's flesh because he did not trust Antonio. Who would trust someone that spat on him? The fact is, Antonio doesn't pay him back in the end.

Now, there's always something else we have to put into consideration. Would the judge had given the "spill one ounce of Christian blood" verdict at the end if Shylock were not a Jew?

This is the mark of a great play. A play that really gets you thinking. But I encourage you, I beg of you, that when you read it or see it, please do not hold Shylock up to being a cold hearted villain. Hold Antonio up to that image. (joking, of course, Antonio's not a bad guy, he's just not a good guy.)

A professor highly recommended this book to my art history class. I was disappointed in it. I had hoped it would offer some useful advice but instead it merely outlines the things anyone writing on a college level (and the book seems to be aimed at college students) should already know. Perhaps it would be better suited to high schoolers.

My Art History department adopted this book as its official style-manual a few years ago, and we assign it as a textbook for our writing and methodology class. To my great dismay, however, our bookstore has had some trouble ordering it this year, and so I have encouraged my students to "cut the Gordion knot" by ordering it from Amazon. The chapters on choosing a topic and organizing an argument are, I think, useful and well-written, but the greatest value of this book is Chapters 9 and 10, which provide clear instructions for writing footnotes and bibliography. This may be a mechanical task, but it is a frustrating one for many students, because there are so many possible formats to use (MLA, Turabian, etc.) Barnet's system has the virtue of being designed specifically for research papers about art and art history, and the format he recommends is clear and logical. The book also reprints the instructions for contributors from the Art Bulletin, the most prestigious art-historical journal in this country, and so will be of value for graduate students and recent PhD's preparing their first works for publication.

This book made an enormous impact on my life. I had graduated from a top girls school in Memphis and burned out at a college in San Antonio and came back to Memphis and worked at OfficeMax. I got a second chance and went back to Rhodes College in Memphis after being away from school for a semester for a while and hadn't read much of anything in the interim. Sweeping floors at Office Max gave me a hunger to succeed but I was still unsure how to secure my success. When I was assigned my first paper, in an art history class, the professor said he put this book on reserve and I went and studied it and made copies of important elements. I made an A on that paper and immense praise from the professor. I went on to win the thesis prize in the English Dept at Rhodes and several more including the Southern Literary Conference at Millsaps College. Some of it was my own desire but it so affected me -- I thought I could write about anything after that. . . and write it well. I would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know concrete details of how to ORGANIZE one's thoughts. How powerful it is, how good it is, to know what you think and how to say it in a cohesive, logical, way -- in a way, that is a beautiful thing and what we all want to be able to do with our words and thoughts -- say them well, and make SENSE. I highly recommend this book and will always remember standing at the reference desk asking for it and those first few moments of acquainting myself with its advice. That was a pivotal moment and it shaped my college career beyond measure.

This book was very useful for my Introduction to Literature class. (Naturally) Contains works from many of the great authors.

I am VERY,VERY disapointed in the overall quality of the book. DON'T BUY THE PAPER BACK EDITION. Get it in hard back if you can. With my copy of this book, as well as, the copies that belonged to several other members of my Lit. class, the binding broke and the book fell apart. Now I can't resell it.

Currently a college student who is currently using this book for the third (last year) quarter of english. This is what i would consider a great anthology filled with many literature. How this differs from other books is that it contains a ton of plays, drama, rather then just short stories found in other anthologies. For mostly short stories divided into major sections, i recommend a book called An Introduction to Literature by author, ABACARION. It has poems, short stories, plays, and essays divided into major topics including "culture and identity, conformity and rebellion, and innocense to experience which are major topics covered in college."

Written for the Intro to Lit university course market, this type of guide is a necessary evil. Barnet works: students can usually find what they need in the index or contents (How to write a good sentence, what makes a good paragraph, etc.). If you have to have one, you could do worse than to choose Barnett

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.

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.