This book made me want to scream, or cry. The characters are beautifully rendered, and some of them are dispicable people. That's what made it so unenjoyable to read for me.

The heroine, Isabel Archer, begins her adventures with much vitality and promise, yearning to see life and the world and not to settle prematurely into marriage and domesticity. Although James shows she's not perfect -- she's naive and somewhat conceited -- it's still pretty easy to fall in love with her. You look forward to seeing what great things her life will bring.

And then it all falls apart. After 200 pages of building her up, James marries her to a scoundrel and spends the next 300 pages suffocating her, one liberty at a time. Others have described this book as "uplifting" and spoken of Isabel's strength and courage; I honestly can't see what they could mean. I found it genuinely painful to see such a beautiful character destroyed. With all credit to James's writing skills, this book made me miserable. I couldn't wish it on anyone.

The best thing about 19th century novels is that they take so long to unwind, you know that you are guaranteed a long and satisfying trip into a story. I initially bought this book after seeing the Jane Campion film, (which I actually wasn't too crazy about)but I always think it's a good idea to read the source material. After a few false starts (warning: one needs to devote all their attention to James in order to enjoy him)I finally got into this book, and couldn't put it down. From the great settings of the novel, to the variety of fascinating characters (the liberated Henrietta Stackpole, the sinister Madame Merle, the beloved Ralph Touchett, Ralph's eccentric mother, the flighty Countess Gemini, the deadly Gilbert Osmond, and of course, Isabel Archer herself... James gives characters great names as well) "Portrait" is a great novel not only of self discovery, but self deception. How many of us in this world have liked to have thought ourselevs as free to make our own chocies, and were excited by a future full of "possibility" only to allow something (or usually someone) to get in our way and make us realize just how quickly we can lose our freedom and be in a cage that we need to get out of. (Pardon my bad grammar.) Those of you looking fora Jane Austen type ending, this may not be the book for you, but I think this book is more of a spiritual cousin to Austen than we may think. It all comes down to making choices, and teh effects of those decisions. Throw off any reservations that you may have because this book was written over a century ago, it's as fresh, funny, tragic and riveting today as it was then. (And hey, buy the film soundtrack which perfectly captures the mood of the story for accompaniment..that was a plug!)

The novel Portrait of a Lady is a beautiful. It starts out with a girl named Isabel Archer who goes with her Aunt Touchett to England. Isabel is portrayed beautifully by James in the novel as a curious, independent, intelligent lady. She arrives in isolated Gardencourt where she meets her uncle and her cousin, Ralph Touchett. Soon, she is proposed to by Lord Warburten portrayed as a polite, wealthy, radical gentleman but rejects him because her curiousity expects another, better suiter. Caspar Goodward, her other lover, fallows her to England and is determined to marry her. The two men come in even further in the novel when intrigue and scandel take place. Isabel travels all through Europe but is eventually entrapped and decieved. Drama and intrigue take the stage then. By that time it may sound like some domb soup opera, but really he refines the situations and makes them realistic but still dramatic unlike most stupid soaps. Some parts may seem long and dull because he explains himself so explicitly with huge paragraphs about one subject but it's worth it when your finished. The characters are done superbly with wonderful description. There is much irony, too, but if you immiedietly think irony is funny like some people its not in this novel. Its as a whole a serious novel. The ending is very well done if you think about it. Though,it may seem odd it is as a whole witty and crafty.

Readers should note that this site does not distinguish between the various editions of Shakespeare, so the reviews you read may be for audiotapes, modern translations, etc. I am reviewing the Kenneth Branaugh BBC Radio recording of Hamlet. It is adequate, which I consider high praise for this challenging play. Like Branaugh's movie a few years later, it includes the entire text of the play, which is a nice way to remind yourself of some issues you may have forgotten.

The performances are pretty good, and include Branaugh (of course) as Hamlet and Derek Jacobi as Claudius, giving us a hint of the performances they would later give in the movie. No one's performance really blew me away, although Jacobi was excellent.

Ultimately, the play loses quite a bit when transferred to audio only. There's a lot to be conveyed with stage placement, physican action, expression, etc. Somehow, listening to the play limited my imagination on those issues, preventing my from using my "mind's eye" to the fullest.

Hamlet is considered, by many scholars, the pinnacle of Shakespeare's dramas. If you haven't read it yet this this Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism edition would be a great place to begin.

The text notes that are included with the play are very helpful to understand some of the more difficult language nuances that are inevitable with any Shakespeare. The structure is well laid out and conclusive. It complements the complexity of Hamlet very well.

Of course Hamlet is one of the great paradoxes and mysteries every written. The search of finding yourself and what it is that fuels the human spirit. Hamlet can be a very confusing play because of the depth of substance. However, the critical essays that suppliment the reading make it very accessable.

Each of the critical essays are of different schools of literary criticism: Feminist Criticism, psychoanalytic criticism, post-structuralist (deconstuctionist) criticism, Marxist critism, and finally a New Historicist criticism. Before each critism there is clearly written introduction to explain the motives and histories of that type of criticism.

This edition of Hamlet will not only introduce the reader to more Shakespeare, but also explain the play and help to familiarize the reader with literary criticism too. It is a beautiful volume that cannot be more recommended if you are wanting to buy a copy Hamlet.

Hamlet has always been thought of as one of the classics of literature. I could not think of another book which deserves this title more. The story of a Danish pricne who learns from his fathers ghost that his father, the king, was murdered by his brother, Hamlet's uncle, who then went on to marry Hamlet's mother. Hamlet is overcome by a longing for revenge, but also indecisive. Shakespeare creates a great amount of tension between the chatacters with powerful confrontatoins and biting language. It is a suspenseful tragedy, filled with anguish.

William Shakespeare was a genious when it came to breaking down the human psyche, and Hamlet is perhaps one of the most complex plays when it comes to human emotions. It is undoubtably one of his finest works, full of very complex, interesting characters, and a wonderfully chaotic plot. There are innumerable theories on Hamlet, why he is so indecisive, and if it all comes down to an oedipus complex. whatever way you interpret it, everyone can get something out of it. I feel like I am priveleged to have read such a wonderful play.

Hamlet is a character that I can relate to in some ways, being a very indecisive person myself. I felt I could connect with him better than many Shakespeare characters, MacBeth, Ceasar, Juliet, Helena or Hermia. That is one of the reasons that I enjoyed Hamlet so very much. I wish that everyone could love Hamlet as much as I did, but I know, especially being a high-school student, that it is a little much for general reading. For high school students, like me, I very strongly recommend this book, if you really like Shakespeare, and aren't looking for a quick read. Otherwise, it might be a little to much to tackle, if you don't really enjoy Shakespearian tragedies. For anyone who has time required to comprehend such a complex work, and is looking for a masterpiece of literature that will keep them thinking, Hamlet is the book for you.

Kafka's The Metamorphosis stands as one of the most important existentialist literary works ever written.

The novella follows Gregor Samsa, a lonely and somewhat pathetic salesman who lives at home supporting his family. Inexplicably, Samsa awakens one morning to find that he has transformed into an insect. In typical existentialist fashion, Samsa's physical transformation is accompanied by a dramatic psychological transformation, as Samsa's mother and father utterly reject their newly transformed son. Even Samsa's previously sympathetic and caring sister changes her ways, eventually seeking to destroy the monstrous insect that her brother has become.

This novella is meant to be thoroughly depressing and succeeds very well, though there remains a tinge of comedic elements throughout the book. There is purposefully very little explanation as to why and how Samsa's transformation took place, and Kafka allows the reader to come to his/her own conclusions about the deeper meaning of his work.

This is a fast read and an enjoyable one at that. People vehemently opposed to the existentialist philosophy may find this book frustrating and overly depressing, but it is worth reading nevertheless. Ultimately, I think each of us has a little Gregor Samsa in us, and all readers will be able to identify with Samsa's plight.

Kafka is truly a great 20th century author and this book, along with "The Trial" are excellent and open to a huge number of interpretations. The bleak urban settings are some of the most memorable aspects. This book has a lot of essays and explanatory notes in the back that present theories about the deeper meaning (though you will want to think about it yourself before you read them). Why exactly the metamorphosis occurred is an issue you can think about. Gregor first seems to ignore the metamorphosis but later associates it with shame. In fact, it may represent some repressed side of him. Gregor's situation is made even worse by his family's failure to support him.

This book is remarkable in that, while so much literature relies on extraordinary events or characters, the only real extraordinary event here is Gregor's unlucky transformation into a beetle. (Note, Kafka never actually says it is a dung beetle.) Everything after that is quite believeable and, while depressing, probably represents what would happen in real life and what does happen in so many people's lives that are never written about. The book manages to be both surrealist and brutally realistic at the same time.

I just read this book a few days ago, and it more than worthy of being called a classic. I'm still drawing thoughts as to what the symbolism means. The way I veiw it, Samsa was main source of income on the family, because of the father's aging problems and not being able to work, and is only truely noticed when he isn't working dependably "don't just stay in bed making yourself useless". To his family and to his boss (kafka hated his job and his boss in real life) he was looked at as something as a horse, good only to do work; but horses are still adored and loved by numerous people so that would an inferior symbol as to how samsa's company saw him. Instead of a horse samsa turns into a bug, which can also represent a time in any person's life when they feel that everyone is watching them and judging them.

So by turning all the outside concerns of samsa's (the way people view him and general physical looks) he can focus on his inner self. This is proven by two passages, one when gregor's furniture is taken out and he starts loosing his human identity (further isolating him from society to be alone with his inner slef) and when he reaches for what he wants, not what his boss or parents want, even though he ultimately fails at getting his sister to play her violin to him alone.

As for other reviewers, sebastian and gregory: 1)kafka is not a romantic writer. the deffinition of a romantic is any writers that flees from the present and aviods the facts, be it to the past, the future or some vague fog. Kafka is an existentialist writer, which is not same. When I first saw that metamorphosis got only 4 stars I wanted to search for any bad reviews, and i stopped with gregory's measly 3 star review. First off samsa turns into an insect that is more like a cockaroach than a fly. If your theory that the book's message is that one day you will have to deal with huge changes in your life is correct, then why didn't samsa "deal" with his change? Instead he dies, and that message sounds like, someday you will have huge changes in your life that will kill you if you do nothing about them...eh i don't think so... the meaning behind samsa's death is that death is inevitable, with most stories it ends with something like living happily ever after, but all those characters eventually have to die, which is one of beliefs of existentialism

Doctorow's historical novel, Ragtime, cracks this century's top 100 novels around position 75. The story, whose setting is in New York during the early 1900's, has several non-fictional characters in it. The reader catches a personal look at escape artist Houdini, investor and millionaire J.P. Morgan, mechanical inventor Henry Ford, and feminist Emma Goldman.

Inadvertently, these characters play an important part in causing an event that involved a Negro looking for justice. Coalhouse Walker was a ragtime musician whose car was wrecked by jealous firemen. Walker, seeking restoration of his car, escalates the fight after going to authorities. He fails to find justice and eventually a group of his men hold Morgan's museum / library in New York City as hostage and cause a stand off until the leader of the firemen restores his car.

At the start, the reader is lead to think he is getting an expose into the lives that made the early 1900's. However, there is a sense that Doctorow is taking the reader somewhere, but it isn't revealed until midway. Doctorow has done his research and captures the turmoil and amazement of the period perfectly. If you like this period of American History, this book will certainly interest you.

Calling this "a novel about America" would be a crime, because it would make the average reader pitch forward into a deep coma (and if you're at Barnes & Noble at the time, you could be injured when a pile of Grisham falls on you), and you'd never read this vibrant crackerjack of a book. So let's call it "a lively, funny, poignant, well-paced novel that happens to be about America but it's so fascinating you might not notice." It's about an unnamed family (the characters are simply named Father, Mother, The Little Boy, etc., which makes for some very lovely metaphoric overtones) who keep running into and involving themselves in the lives of celebrities of the '20s (Harry Houdini, Henry Ford, J.P. Morgan...about a dozen of them are recurring characters) as well as some no-name underclass workers and immigrants, who were treated far more shabbily than popular memory tells. The classes clash in a contrapuntal dance, history is made, and all the while The Family is subtly changing, and by the end of the book we actually care that the stage is set for our modern world, and that the glories and abuses of the Roaring Twenties are about to be lost forever. The writing moves at a satisfying clip, and the book is on the brief side anyway, so you'll burn through much of it at your first sitting, and be eager to get back to it, even if you don't do what I did: get to the end, smile, and start to reread it at the beginning. I've wanted to meet E.L. Doctorow ever since. You should be similarly charmed

This book is very amusing, presenting an interesting story as well as portraying nonfictional characters (such as H. Ford, J.P. Morgan,Evelyn Nesbit,and Harry Houdini) in their true identity. One gets to experience the early century and pre-Great War era. Each chapter allows the reader to enter a life of character all intermingled with one plot.

As one reads, the reader experiences the times as an African American, an immigrant, and rich businessmen. What I enjoyed most was the immigrant (Tateh & Daughter) which reminded me of my Great Grandmother's trip into America for the first time.

After reading, I did background research on many characters. For what reason? to see if Doctrow was telling the truth about the nonfictional characters, such as J.P. Morgan. It turns out that Doctrow was on the dot with all characters, which shows the hidden secrets of people we thought we knew.

I find this book very entertaining. Although not recommended for anyone under the age of 16 for some sexual content and vivid descriptions, I think anyone of any age old enoguh, would enjoy the read. It is a very interesting and a page turning history lesson as well as drama.

After reading consider getting the CD for the musical, which very precisely follows the book.

I have recently read "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet" in school. I enjoyed reading this play as I felt it provided me with a different outlook because of its vocabulary. The plot of the story was very romantic, but in the end the play became dramatic. It tells a story of true love between two resented families, Montague and Capulet.
Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet risk their lives to be together and nothing could get in the way of their feelings of true love. Even though their families hated each other, they still found a way be married, although it was not easy because of all the tragedies throughout the play. Romeo's best friend, Mercutio and Juliet's cousin, Tybalt both died. Also, Juliet's father was forcing her to marry Paris, another man. There were many more tragedies, which kept the two lovers away from each other. The name of both houses was the main reason why Romeo and Juliet could not be together. As Juliet said, "What's in a name?" If it were not for the significance of the names there would be no tragedy.
Without William Shakespeare's acts of irony, love, hate tragedy and pride the story would not have been worth reading. The way he twisted the story when they got married was unusual too, as getting married can make life different in a good way, but in this story, not.

This book is a story tells a story about true love. The characters Romeo and juliet has been a role model for many people in their love life.This story includes all the elements to prove that love that Romeo and Juliet had was true love. William Shakespeare uses tragedy,love, hate, pride, and irony.

Romeo, from house the house of Montagues,is best described as a love. He does things for Juliet even though it risks his life. But no matter the consequences, he went with hs feelings. Juliet, from house of Capulets, is a lover at will. She had never loved a man as much a Romeo. But though they were from opposing families, she finds a way to marry him.

There were many tragedies. Two being Mercutio and Tybalts death. There were many more tragedies that happened and one main reason why they happened which was the fact that the two house were against each other. This caused all the tragedies because if they were not, both lovers would live happily. One thing that kept the family against each other was the pride in their name. If it were not for the name then all would not end in tragedy.

One ironic part in this story was when the two lovers got married. Getting married usually makes life better but in this marraige, it made thing worse and turned the story into a different direction.

This story must have been the best story i have ever read. It is love story that makes me think of how far i would go for a girl. Though it is hard to read, I enjoyed it very much and i suggest the book to all the lovers out there but could be enjoyed by all.

Romeo and Juliet are the two most known lovers created by William Shakespeare. Their love story is one to be cried for, and it really shows the true meaning of what love is. Many people have claimed and agreed it is the most sad but romantic play ever written, and it really is.
They're a pair of star crossed lovers, who fall in love at first site. Their hopless love is denied from the very beginning: their families have an awful hatred towards each other which has been everlasting. They go through many tests for them to prove they really love each other: Romeo's best friend dying; Romeo's exile after murdering Mercutio, Juliet's cousin; and finally Romeo learning his dear lover's "death".
Although it has a tragic ending, many people say this story is actually happy, for they both die at the same time, and their love is kept together, for eternity.

After reading Uncle Tom's Cabin, I think that i now have seen slavery in a totally different way. the hardships that Uncle Tom faced were awful, and I can see why a Civil War was started after people read this novel. I give Uncle Tom's Cabin a four, because it clearly showed the difference between the fate of someome who rebels against the system, and someone who sits back and goes through the system. It is not a five however, because i believe this book is severely flawed. Little Eva, is about five or six when she is introduced, and then later passes away. She seemes to look on death as a good thing, which is totally unrealistic for a child of that age. Eva says things like "the time will come soon, when i will have to leave you, I will leave, never to return." and "I am not nervous- I am not low-spirited, and I know I am going, before long. If it were not for you Papa, and my friends, I should be perfectly happy. I want to go- I long to go" Now these are not things that come out of a childs mouth, so this part of the book is not believable. Also, I think a good book should have well rounded characters. Characters who are flawed. Uncle Tom is too good, he is whipped tourtured, and beaten and all he thinks about is wanting to save Simon Legree's soul. I believe that every person has a little bit of good in them. This is not shown in Simon legree which makes him also, an unbelievable character. The book was by no doubt a well writen book, and I look up to Harriet Beecher-Stowe for having so much courage, that ever when she recieved death threats from slavery supporters, she went along and kept writing this book.

Uncle Tom's Cabin is about the evils of slavery from many different sides of the issue. The main character (Uncle Tom) is a good, always obedient, Christian slave that's master has to sell to pay off a debt. He has several masters, one very kind, one just normal, and one very brutal. It reallly shows how horrible slavery was. After reading it, it became obvious to me why there was a war to put an end to this terrible atrocity. Uncle Tom shows us how it is possible to do the right thing, face horrible punishments (being beaten almost to death), and still love everyone, including his evil master which he also forgave. It was one of the most memorable books I have read. I recommend it to everyone and I think it should be required reading for all schools. I think this book definitely deserves five out of five stars.

I just read Uncle Tom's Cabin for the first time, and I fell in love with it right away. I am not a strong reader, so I found it difficult at times. But, to me, it was worth every minute of my time. The story is filled with unforgettable characters that you will teach you a lesson about how to live life as you read about them. Harriet Beecher Stowe is an amazing author and makes each and every event mesmerizing and unique.
I have never read a book of this genre that kept me intrigued throughout the whole novel. I normally find historical novels boring, but the author pulled me into the story and really made me realize the horror and cruelty of the treatment of slaves at that time. The message of this novel by a true abolitionist, Harriet Beecher Stowe, was clear to see...Slaves needed to be free, treated equally, and able to live their own lives!
Uncle Tom's Cabin starts off with Eliza (a slave-mother) overhearing her master and a slave trader talking about selling Uncle Tom (one of the most loyal and reliable slaves on the plantation) for a large sum of money. The trader is reluctant to the deal because he doesn't believe that any slave is worth the amount of money that was offered. But when a slave boy comes in (Eliza's son) he asks if he can buy both Uncle Tom, and the little boy. The plantation owner agrees, and Eliza is very worried.
When the plantation owner tells his wife that he sold their best slaves, she is not at all happy. She even suggests telling the trader that he had changed his mind and no longer needed to sell two slaves......but he assures her that she is wrong, and that even though Uncle Tom is the best slave that they have on the whole plantation, he needs the money to pay off the debt he owns to the trader. She informs him that the little boy has a loving mother but, he just acts as if he doesn't care and assures her once again that he needs the money.
That same night Eliza, tells her son that they are running away and finding Canada, because the plantation owner is trying to sell him. He quickly agrees and they run off, hours after their escape when they are reported missing, a search is sent out for them, and they are seen for a few minutes but then are lost again. This is just the beginning of an amazing adventure with a life changing impact. Uncle Tom's Cabin is one of the best novels I have ever read in my entire life! I encourage you to read this thrilling and fascinating story.

I'll say this very simply: If you are interested in existentialism, philosophy in general, or the theater of the absurd, read this book. If you are looking for a book with any plot or deeper meaning, look elsewhere. If you choose to read this, a word of warning: though it is a short book, it is the opposite of a page-turner. You can barely finish a page before you have to put the book down and think about something else. Also, it will most likely depress you.

Samuel Beckett's classic work is possibly the most important work of the 20th century. He defies many dramatic traditions within the work as he drives home the play's minimal, yet powerful theme. If one reads or views the play, then asks himself "Who is Godot?", then one has missed the entire point. Godot is irrelevant. The play is about Gogo and Didi waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting. What do we, as humans, do everyday? We wait. We wait to wake up, we wait to go to work, we wait to go to lunch, we wait to get off work. We all live in a repetitive structure of waiting, but what are we really waiting on? What? Nothing? Who knows? We involve ourselves in these repetitive structures to avoid the questions of nothingness. Gogo and Didi's games are an attempt to avoid nothingness. As one reviewer once said, "The play is about two men in search for the meaning of life and finding meaninglessness." The play can be utterly hilarious, but just when you're at the peak of your laughter, a character says or does something that makes us realize their predicament, our predicament, and it crushes you. It is a masterpiece. Sadly, it is a hard read and good productions are rare, but if you do catch a good one, it might make you see many aspects of life in a different light, for better and for worse.

There is something about this innovative play that is really funny, but it is hard to say what exactly. The story is almost like an episode of "Seinfeld" where it is really about nothing, but the various plot lines keep it moving and captivating. I am not a huge fan of most literature (plays or novels), but this is by far the best thing I have ever read. There's no complicated language that muddies the story or useless information that has no relevance. Every line has a purpose and gets the point across well. The story is clearly based on the life of Beckett as brief research on him, and an understanding of existentialism, will reveal that he was waiting for something in life but didn't know what. That is my interpretation of the play, but the true beauty of the play is that there is an endless number of ways that it can be interpreted, and it is different for every reader. Because the underlying concept of waiting without purpose is easy to relate to, this play is great for anybody. I highly recommend it!

Toni Morrison, receiver of 1978 National Book Critics Award for fiction, 1988 Pulitzer Prize for fiction and 1993 Nobel Prize in Literature has one of the boldest pens in the world of Women's Literature.

Sula is the first book by Toni Morrison I have read and the others are following it on my bookshelf. I was very impressed with her writing style and her strong characters.

Although "Sula" is said to be the story of Nell and Sula, two friends but as I see, its more of a story of women from two different families. The first family is that of Nell whose mother is a proper housewife trying to escape from the immoral past of her own mother and trying to instill good values in her own daughter. On the other hand, Sula's mother is very uninhibited sexual being and Sula follows a similar course. Both Sula and Nell grow up in different environment with different values, however as the book progresses they are both a completion of one another. One is what the other is missing in her character. Nell settles for a blissful marital life never leaving the place of birth and Sula takes off for ten years only to return and be an experience to remember for her home-towners.

The story is set in Bottom, Ohio around the period of 1920s, so on. While the country was very segregated, it was also going through the depression. Sula is a bold character developed by Toni Morrison who breaks race and gender driven barriers and lives life for herself, her own pleasure, with her own rules and set of values.

Highly Recommended for readers interested in Women in Literature, African-American Literature.

Sula is shorter and easier to understand than Morrison's two masterpiece longer works, Song of Solomon and Beloved, but that does not mean that it's not a work of great literature. Sula is beautifully written and powerfully rendered. The scenes between Nel and Sula, plus the odd cast of characters like Chicken Little will haunt you long after you finish. Her dialogue is fantastic. Curiously, the last three years when I have taught this book to high school students, the women all loved it and most of the guys didn't. Maybe it's hard for white teen age boys to see the angst of young black girls growing up? Or maybe it's just that as a growing up story of the friendship between two childhood friends, boys that age don't find it that interesting. I agree with the reader below who remarks on the "magic realism" style -- I have always been struck by the way Morrison includes fantanstic elements in her novels: kind of a black folklore meets magic realism confluence. A great read and an important one to her overall corpus.

Having read The Bluest Eye, I felt compelled to read another Toni Morrison book. People have mentioned Morrison's powerful poetic undertones in Sula -- I couldn't wait to read it. This is one of the most powerful and gripping novels I have ever heard. The story follows the path of best friends Sula and Nel. They grow up in a poor black neighborhood with eccentric and suicidal characters. Sula and Nel grow apart. Sula wants to see the world, Nel settles for a married life. Will Sula return to her roots? If so, how will she be received? And will she be able to reconstruct her friendship with Nel?

I marvel at Morrison's gorgeous language and quirky symbolism. Her work is thought provoking and realistic. I look forward to reading her other books.

Willy Loman the protagonist of the play „Death of the Salesman" is supposed to embody the American average man. An American average man is married, has children, lives in a house, possesses a well paid job. Hence he spends his quality time with his family, so most of American fathers use to teach their children football, baseball or other sport activities. Willy Loman the protagonist in Arthur Miller's play just seems to fulfill the duties of an American average man. Yes, he is married to Linda, yes, he also has children, two boys named Biff and Happy. Willy and his sons are footballphile. Nevertheless, he lives in a house and he seems be to be succesful as a salesman. But while you read the play you will realize Willy Loman is just a faker who is still dreaming and has not woke up yet. Willy Loman has internalized wrong values which are money, success and „being well liked". He wanted to earn respect and lost his view for the most significant values a human being should have such as being satisfied with yourself and having people around you who support and love you. The consequence of having wrong values is Willy Loman alienated himself from society, although he deeply wanted to be part of succesful people. Ironically Willy Loman is a product of society. He tried to adapt himself to society's expectations and actually lost himself in the crowd. Willy has always looked for more, more than he actually was able to achieve. Willy wanted success, money and respect which people should bring towards him.

At this point I am wondering if these goals will lead individuals to become satisfied with themselves. Can people be actually pleased with money and success? Or are these aims only an illusion? Biff and Happy Loman experience whether money and success are worthy values you should set your life on or not. They both come up to a different conclusion. Happy still holds on to success and money. He believes that these values are the key to life. Money rules the world. Whereas Biff has found other criterias he wanted his life to be based on. Biff believes in his individual talent, he trusts his feelings what they tell him to do. Biff goes his own way, therefore he prefers to work on a ranch. Biff came off from what society thinks, what society expects him to do.

Therefore I think Death of the Salesman has lost a little bit of topicality. Arthur Miller focuses his play especially at Willy Loman's failure in society because of his wrong values. But today I think people have enough courage to stand and speak up for themselves as Biff does by the end of the play. Our daily American and even European society is a crowd of individuals.

Death of a salesman is a play written by Arthur Miller (1915- ). The play focuses on how Willy Loman, the main character always thinks and talks about being successful. Being successful is Willy's great dream. Just like the American dream. Willy strives to bring happiness to himself and his family, but does not succeed. He is too prideful to accept the fact that his dream of being a successful salesman never will become true, and he is too prideful to accept where he fits in society. People like Willy are very common in today's society. They are caught up in the American dream; everybody wants to be successful, but only a few make it to the top. But is this really the most important values in life? Willy looks at himself as a failure, just because he didn't make it to the top in business life, well, that is how business is; not everybody can make it to the top. That doesn't necessarily mean that your whole life is over. That is what happened to Willy; when he felt like a failure because of his broken dream, he let it out on his wife, and his two sons, Biff and Happy. Then he killed himself. This shows that Willy's only values in life were to become wee-liked and successful and if he didn't, it wasn't worth living. I think the book was a bit difficult to read, because the play shifts between present and past, which makes it a bit confusing. All over, I liked the book, not because the story was so good, but because after finishing it, it made me think about how much people think about their career, and how often the career becomes a first priority, no matter what. Is it the career that makes a man successful?

In my view the drama "Death of a Salesman" by Arthur Miller is a very popular book. It is a tragedy where the reader can see the development of the tragic flaw from the first page till the end: The main character is Willy Loman. He is a normal father working as a salesman in a firm for many years. But something goes wrong with his mind and he lives in illusions. Hereby the point is to find out what went wrong in his life. Arthur Miller shows up all the different situations that led Willy to his decision at the end of the book. He looses his job for example, he does not come along with the behaviour of Biff and he cannot pay for his family anymore. So at the end he preferred the death more than being alive ("You end up worth more dead than alive"). Willy Loman is a dreamer. Looking back to the past is lovely for him, and there are all the flash-backs in the play which underline his dissipations into the past. The flash-backs are a good way to show the people after and after what might have gone wrong in the long past, because the real set is shortly before Willy`s death. So the reader just gets to know from the flash-backs what really happened in the past, and Willy`s own ones are not conformable with the real truth every time. The hotel scene in Boston is one big evidence. Very early the reader gets to know that his oldest son Biff broke up school shortly before his finishing. He did not want to go to summer school, but why? Later on the reader gets the answer because of the hotel scene where Biff caught his father with a strange woman and he was disappointed. There are hints like this one in every scene. Many criticisers, like Eleanor Clark, wrote about Miller`s play that it was definitely the capitalist system which made Willy loosing his mind. I share this opinion because the time Arthur Miller wrote the play is the shift in the society in the later thirties. On the one hand it might be a strong critic by the author about this new system, on the other hand he just could show how some normal people could break off because of this system. A big proof therefore is the brutal firing of Willy out of his firm where he worked more than forty years, and the remembers at his brother Ben who could go out into the world trying to make his way a long time before the capitalist system came. In the end I can say that I enjoyed the play; even the fact that many questions are unanswered (particular at the requiem) does not disturb me that much. The reader therefore gets the chance to make up his own decisions and thinks about it a lot. I think that is well done by Arthur Miller as well.

countless literary fiends have just flinched, i'm sure. something uneasy is crawling around under their skin, and they can't place it. little do they know it's merely me, baby-bashing a much-loved, canonized, idolized classic.

i read. i read a lot. i majored in creative writing and english because i loooove books and criticism. (does this pre-qualify me for faulkner? hardly, i'm just giving myself a few wobbly stilts worth of "reading credentials"). i armed myself. i knew it'd be tough. i'm unafraid to ask for help/use cliff notes, etc., and that's what i did.

it didn't help. oh sure, i understood it, but once unraveled it's just another incestous, suicidial, land obsessed, southern novel. i'm just not into books that take every ounce of my stamina to keep reading, books that make sense to no one but the author, and readers who've used the assistance of a zillion critics, who've spent lifetimes pouring over every single itty-bitty word in order to make some sense of it.

hooray for those who find the genius, hooray for faulkner for opening up doors that lead into hallways filled with self-induldgent experimental drivel, and self-induldgent brilliance.

i still didn't enjoy it. but i have to give it 3 stars because of where it took literature.

just be warned.

A masterpiece of writing, Faulkner's book is also extremely demanding. It took me about three weeks to get through it all, and I had to often reread sections and finally consult booknotes to further explain text. The novel contains infinite rewards, as it is a true character study, the finest of its genre, which deals completely with the history of a family. The first section alone is possibly the greatest, and most demanding, piece of literature ever written, unlike anything else ever written before. The novel as a whole tries to answer a fundamental question: the meaning of life. Is life, as Shakespeare said, merely a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing, or does it truly have meaning? Like all things in life, you must find the answer for yourself. Brilliant in scope and form, it is unlike any other piece of writing

I'm just finishing reading the Sound and the Fury for a college course in American Literature. Many people in my class either love this book or hate it, but I must say that it is the best book I have ever read. Faulkner breaks many of the rules we have learned about reading and writing, uses time order much in the way that the movie Pulp Fiction does, and shares the characters' experiences and thoughts through a stream of consciousness form of writing. This book is very unlike any I have read and is well worth the time it takes to understand it. Faulkner says in his introduction that in writing this book he learned how to read and I believe that in reading this book I have learned in a new way how to read.