I really liked this book, how could i not? It's Shakespeare. I liked Twelfth Night also because it doesn't end with happiness and laughter like most comedies, it ends with the fool's sad song. very good.

I began to read this book with very high expectations. I heard so much about Malcolm Little and what he was all about through oral tradition although I never once read anything from him. I really didn't know what Malcolm was all about or his accomplishments. I choose this book knowing that a majority of it was written by Malcolm.
....

The book is very descriptive about Malcolm's childhood and his views." This is the story of a man who lived life intensely, first as a criminal and then transformed into the nation's leading prophet and social critic. You get to know him as a naive student, a hip hustler in 1940s Harlem, a jailbird and finally, as a Muslim activist acutely aware that he is a target, a man who confronts danger in the face without compromise."-wvw Its easy to make assumptions of ones life through what is said, but until you read the views of Malcolm himself you cant possibly have a full understanding.

The parts in the book about Malcolm and his trip to Islam should be read by everyone who is interested in the sixties Islam time period. He tends to quietly shun the scandals and mishaps of the honorable Elijah Mohammed.

Over all it is a great bout about a great man. I recommend it to anyone!

Probably one of the most inspiring books you would ever come across... a book about a man who was lost but was found. Although I am not religious and could not associate with X's feelings towards 'God', however, I admire his determination, spirit and aggression in fighting for what he believed in. Also, for a man to educate himself and was able to speak in such an eloquent manner should make many of us (college graduates) ashamed of ourselves.

Before converting to Islam, Malcolm X went through stages of life, which I believe many people today continue to suffer from. But I am not sure how many people nowadays can be as brave as Malcolm X in giving up many of the world's evil. The hustler turns leader journey is worthy read - even a must own!

Finally, to those who will read this book, I strongly advice you to take a look at how Malcolm X described the world he lived in and the world we are living in... nothing has changed much. The only thing that has changed is that the media and information technology has advanced society! But still being controlled by the 'devils', the American government has used these to enforce their own causes to the world when her 'own backyard is still in a mess'. Should Malcolm X still be around today, I think he would be attacking the US government of being the puppet master of the Third World.

When I was first told by my Ethics teacher (I'm a high school Junior) that our syllabus would include The Autobiography of Malcolm X, I questioned why. Why in a course of ethics, would we study Malcolm X? As we delved into the book, I realized that it was an integral part of our studies. Malcolm's plight was a slap in the face, especially from my point of view. My first reaction to his "rants" on white america, was pure anger, I felt his vast generalizations to be demeaning and insulting, and if it had not be required reading, I would have probably put the book down. I am thankful that I didn't, because it has opened my eyes, and I believe that every person, regardless of religion, race, or creed, needs to experience this book, and examine Malcolm's life as a hustler to a martyr. My views will forever be changed by the words of Alex Haley, and the amazing story of Malcolm X.

Since the age of 12 (I'm in my 30's now), I have tried to absorb everything Shakespeare. Even though I have trepidations about film adaptations of the Bard's work, I had to see this film based on the prodigious talent of Emma Thompson. I'm glad I gave into my gut instinct, for her portrayal of Beatrice is so natural and glorious, you will actually get swept away with her performance and believe that she actually IS Beatrice!

Most of the supporting cast is also wonderful. Hats off to the performances by Denzel Washington (Don Pedro), Richard Briers (Seigneur Leonato), Brian Blessed (Seigneur Antonio), Michael Keaton (Constable Dogberry), and a absolutely stunning performance by Kate Beckinsale (Hero). The exceptions in the casting are Keanu Reeves (Don John), Robert Sean Leonard (Claudio) and...yes...Kenneth Brannagh (Benedick). Fortunately Reeves' role is small. Leonard's performance seems too contrived, to the point of distraction. And even though this is Brannagh's baby, Brannagh himself portrays the role of Benedick with a smugness that is a bit nauseating. If you read the play, Benedick is not smug at all. Though I enjoy Brannagh's other work, he seems to use Shakespeare as a way to show superiority. I have seen this in other actors, and find such action reprehensible. Shakespeare wrote plays for people to enjoy and to indugle in escapism...not to give people an excuse to be a snob.

Having said that, this film is very enjoyable, and I've actually had friends become Shakespeare addicts after seeing this particular film. I, personally, particularly love the Tuscan locations, and the costuming is wonderful! No over-the-top lacey outfits in this film, but rather those that would be suited to the climate. This adds another depth of reality that pulls you into the story.

If you are a fan of Shakespeare, or any of the aforementioned actors, this movie is a must-see. It's actually one of the very few film versions of a Shakespeare play that I own. This particular interpretation allows the viewer to become comfortable with Shakespeare's style, thus creating an interest in his other work. Well worth the purchase. And yes, it's VERY funny!

"Much Ado About Nothing" is a beautifully made, performed, and directed film by the incomparable Kenneth Branaugh. This film includes an all-star cast that give wonderful performances and draw you into the lives of the characters. The plot is somewhat complicated, so I'll give a general version. The film is basically about love, misunderstanding, scandal, revenge, virtue, and bravery. That's a lot for one film, but believe me, it's all in there!

Kenneth Branaugh, Emma Thompson, Denzel Washington, Keanu Reeves, and Michael Keaton give excellent performances in this film that you wouldn't want to miss. Although the film is a period piece and the Shakespearean language is used, you will have no difficulty understanding it perfectly.

The scenery and landscape in this film are exquisite as well. I never thought there could be such a beautiful, untouched place like that on earth. I would suggest watching the film just for the beautiful landscape, but it's the performances and the story that you should really pay attention to.

Anyone who loves Shakespeare would absolutely love this film! Anyone who loves Kenneth Branaugh and what he has done for Shakespeare in the past 10 or 15 years will appreciate this film as well! There isn't one bad thing I can say about this film. Definitely watch it, you won't be disappointed!!!

One of the problems with Shakespeare's comedies, an English professor once told me, is that they are not funny. Now, this is not to say that Shakespeare was a bad comedy writer, or that this professor had no sense of humour. In fact, quite the opposite--he had turned his sense of humour and love of humour into an academic career in pursuit of humour.

What he meant by the comment was, humour is most often a culture-specific thing. It is of a time, place, people, and situation--there is very little by way of universal humour in any language construction. Perhaps a pie in the face (or some variant thereof) does have some degree of cross-cultural appeal, but even that has less universality than we would often suppose.

Thus, when I suggested to him that we go see this film when it came out, he was not enthusiastic. He confessed to me afterward that he only did it because he had picked the last film, and intended to require the next two selections when this film turned out to be a bore. He also then confessed that he was wrong.

Brannagh managed in his way to carry much of the humour of this play into the twentieth century in an accessible way -- true, the audience was often silent at word-plays that might have had the Elizabethan audiences roaring, but there was enough in the action, the acting, the nuance and building up of situations to convey the same amount of humour to today's audience that Shakespeare most likely intended for his groups in the balconies and the pit.

The film stars Kenneth Brannagh (who also adapted the play for screen) and Emma Thompson as Benedict and Beatrice, the two central characters. They did their usual good job, with occasional flashes of excellence. Alas, I'll never see Michael Keaton as a Shakespearean actor, but he did a servicable job in the role of the constable (and I shall always remember that 'he is an ass') -- the use of his sidekick as the 'horse' who clomps around has to be a recollection of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where their 'horses' are sidekicks clapping coconut shells together.

I'll also not see Keanu Reeves as a Shakespearean, yet he was perhaps too well known (type-cast, perhaps) in other ways to pull off the brief-appearing villian in this film.

Lavish sets and costumes accentuate the Italianate-yet-very-English feel of this play. This film succeeds in presenting an excellent but lesser-known Shakespeare work to the public in a way that the public can enjoy.

Scout, a young girl in a quiet southern town, is about to experience the dramatic events that will affect the rest of her life. She and her brother Jem are being raised by their widower father Atticus and by a strong-minded housekeeper Calpurnia. Wide-eyed Scout is fascinated with the sensitively revealed people of her small town but, from the start, there's a rumble of thunder just under the calm surface of the life here. The black people of the community have a special feeling about Scout's father and she doesn't know why. A few of her white friends are inexplicably hostile and Scout doesn't understand this either. Unpleasant things are shouted and the bewildered girl turns to her father. Atticus, a lawyer, explains that he's defending a young Negro wrongfully accused of a grave crime. Since this is causing such an upset, Scout wants to know why he's doing it. "Because if I didn't," her father replies, "I couldn't hold my head up."
Scout Finch recalls three years of her childhood during the Depression in Maycomb, Alabama, beginning the summer before her first grade. She lives with her older brother Jem and their lawyer father, Atticus, a widower. That summer they find a new friend named Dill Harris, whose interest in stirring up drama leads the children to try to entice the town bogeyman, Boo Radley, to come out. Meanwhile, a drama affecting the adults begins as Mayella Ewell, the daughter of a drunk and violent white farmer, accuses Tom Robinson, an African-American, of rape. Atticus is called on to defend the accused while Scout and Jem struggle to understand issues of prejudice and justice. The two dramas intersect as one person is killed, Jem's arm is broken, and Boo Radley does indeed come out.

To Kill a Mockingbird is a timeless classic by Harper Lee. The book narrates the story of a young girl named Jean Louise Finch, also called ¡°Scout¡±. Lee presented this book through the eyes of Jean Louise.
The story takes place in Maycomb, Alabama, during the 1930¡¯s or so. The plot is about Scout¡¯s father, Atticus Finch (a lawyer), trying to defend Black suspect Tom Robinson for accused of raping a White girl in the Maycomb County of Alabama. The plot incorporates several issues that people were struggling during the time of the story, including racism, injustice, and prejudice. The entire novel circulates around Scout and her family. Many situational conflicts arise, from trying to make Boo Radley come out of seclusion to dealing with family and community difficulties.
Lee did a miraculous job of telling the story through the view of Scout. The characters were depicted hardly by their appearances, but by their personality traits, which showed advanced style in writing. The setting and the time periods had a great impact on the story, as people those days lived quite close to each other and knew their neighbors well. I was amazed how natural and realistic the characters were made. Scout and her older brother, Jeremy (also called Jem), reacted to situations exactly as many of the children now days would act. Almost every character in the story had a crucial role at some point of the story. The character development was beyond imagination. From Dill (Jem and Scout¡¯s best friend) coming to visit the Finch family in the summer, to Jem trying to make it past the Radley¡¯s gate, to Calpurnia (the house cook) scolding the children for not coming home, this piece of literature truly elaborated on pivotal character details. After reading this book, one would think he knows the characters quite well.
Overall, this was a fantastic novel to read and I was truly impressed with the quality of writing and development presented in this story by Harper Lee. To Kill a Mockingbird will truly be an American Literature classic for as long as it will be remembered.

To Kill A Mockingbird, by Harper Lee belongs in the pantheon of great American novels like Huck Fin. Indeed both stories are about children peering beneath the veneer of Southern life and coming face to face the ugly secrets of class distinction and racism. The discoveries of such secrets always lead children ultimately to the loss of their own innocence. However, unlike Huck Fin, Jem and Scout have Atticus Finch, their father, to guide them. Atticus is aware he can't keep the world away from his children forever. Perhaps it is for this reason that Atticus, a lawyer, decides to represent a black man wrongly accused of rape. Atticus is that rarest of people, a man who is willing to lead by example. It is the example Atticus sets for his children during this trial which will stay with Jem and Scout for the rest of their lives. I read To Kill A Mockingbird first in middle school and again years later during college. Upon my second read I was stunned by how much of the book I didn't understand during the first read. Everyone should be forced to read To Kill a Mockingbird twice. Full of profound and deeply moving truths regarding human nature, To Kill A Mockingbird is a complex and beautifully written novel.

Preston McClear...

Although I have generally found Orwell to be a politically confused thinker, 1984 stands out as one of the best and most forward thinking works I have ever read. The amount of relevance this book has today is overwhelming, considering modern government propaganda techniques and the double edged sword of technology. This story serves as a warning to all who trust the government, especially in regards to privacy issues.

Winston Smith, while not the ideal romantic protagonist, is still compelling in his own right with his inspiring (and finally tragic) fight against Big Brother. The struggle that takes place between Winston and the government in 1984 is psychologically thrilling and intense, and it is still difficult for me to put the book down each time I read it. I am particularly drawn to the character of O'Brien, who represents to me the culmination of a path that all seasoned politicians and government officials travel down.

The year 1984 has come and past, but an extreme statist government similar to the one portrayed in the novel still may haunt us in the future.

1984 is unquestionably one of the greatest books in the history of English literature. A terrifying look at the dangers of totalitarian government, it is ingeniously written and scarily realistic. George Orwell is meticulously thorough in his depiction of a world that is bleak, hopeless, and horrifying--and perhaps not as distant as we think. The writing style is factual and almost impersonal, reflecting not only the government but the people themselves, who have been reduced to unthinking robots. Protagonist Winston Smith's resistance against Big Brother (the symbolic leader of the Party) and ultimate complete acceptance and execution demonstrate the debility and irresolution of the human mind and spirit. The authoritarian government itself is eerily familiar, complete with conspiracies, cover-ups, and double-dealing politicians. While the year 1984 is long past, the book is still a relevant and potent warning of what the future may bring if we let it. The concept of 1984 is brilliant, the writing is brilliant, and it is nearly impossible not to love this book. 1984 is a definite must-read for anyone. Enthusiastically recommended; 5 stars.

This book vividly portrays the most extreme end of socialism's slippery slope. The book is terrifying to read because the eery science fiction-like society which Orwell describes is not so inconceivable. I lived in Russia a few years ago and was struck by the cold impersonal drabness of everything. In the blank, hollow, empty eyes of many of Russia's elderly I saw how tyranny had literally erased personality. The spark of humanity which puts light in the eyes had been doused, and all that was left was a shell of a human being who was no longer a person, but merely a function with no independent thought. George Orwell's 1984 has existed to a large degree in totalitarian regimes of the past, and its radical egalitarian roots exist in society today. They seem to be an integral part of human nature's dark side.

Two things in this book were especially profound for me. First was Orwell's exposition of the social conflicts between the highs, the middles, and the lows, which Winston Smith read about in Goldstein's book. George Orwell understood totalitarianism well enough to see that equality is not socialism's end, but merely the propagandistic means for replacing the highs. Self-serving tyrants inevitably usurp socialism's ideals and use them to become the highs themselves, indulging themselves in privilege at the expense of the rest of society. After reading Goldstein's book, Winston understood the how, and O'Brien explained to him the why when he declared, chillingly, that power was an end in and of itself.

The second thing which struck me as profound was Orwell's exposition of Newspeak, the official language of Oceania which robbed people of their ability to think by robbing them of their ability to express thoughts in words. Rudimentary examples of doublethink, crimethink, and the thought police can be seen in various political groups within our society today.

This book is brilliant and prophetic, a must read for all those socialist utopians who have forgotten the dark realities of human nature.

This is a romance novel between Stingo, Sophie, and Nathan. Sophie's choice is between Nathan and Stingo. Wait. That's not it at all. Since I had no idea what the book was about, I didn't know what the primary issue being addressed truly was. Fellow readers, the plot is the aftermath of a Polish woman who survived her residence in a German concentration camp during World War II. She tells her story in America to the narrator, Stingo, who is in love with her. Very interesting and powerful stuff. Not so fast. If this were all the novel was about, it would be pretty straightforward. We also must note Sophie's detrimental relationship with Nathan. "Detrimental" is a euphemism. Can someone please explain to me why Styron felt inclined to have Sophie tortured in both Germany AND America? What message was he trying to ram home? I admit that his scholarship provided irreplaceable insights, images, and facts concerning the occurrences inside and around the camps. But I found the devastating dynamics of Sophie's relationship with Nathan too difficult to swallow. Styron put too much on my plate, and I didn't ask for some of the portions he generously plopped down. In conclusion, if you are reading this book in the summer, try to listen to some cheerful music to raise your spirits. I recommend the Beatles' White Album. If you are reading this in the winter (the better season for such a novel), it should get you through those bitterly cold evenings while you imagine what Sophie goes through. Well Styron, you win. I don't think I'll ever forget this book. And you, my fellow readers, likely will not either.

William Styron has written a profoundly moving and disturbing novel with 'Sophie's choice'. The story of Sophie, a beautiful Polish Catholic who survived Auschwitz and was left with no family, and Nathan, her schizophrenic American Jewish lover, as related by Stingo, a naive but sensitive 22 year-old Southerner wishing to be a writer, is, perhaps, one of the most harrowing stories one can manage to read. Styron evidently conducted a considerable amount of research on the Nazi occupation of Poland and the hideous dynamics of their concentration camps, and his synthesis through Sophie (whose name, etymologically, means knowledge) is convincing and compelling. But what makes 'Sophie's choice' go beyond a mere historical novel is the excellent way in which Styron weaves Sophie's story with those of Nathan and Stingo and the deep ruminations on the nature of evil and madness and their consequences. Although Styron sometimes gets long-winded, especially when he has Stingo ponder about sexual matters, the novel succeds in making us understand a sad historical event in more humane terms. Perhaps a creative university professor teaching World War II history would be wise enough to assign this novel to make students realize that history is not, as somebody once facetiously said, 'one damn fact after another'.

I can honestly say that I have never read a better book. That is not to say it was the most fun to read, nor the easiest. It is an unforgettable book, the kind that probably will darken your mood, but will teach you as no other book can.

The story begins in 1947. Stingo, a cocky but nevertheless self-deprecating young Southerner, gets himself fired (with flair!) from his job in a prestigious, rather stodgy publishing firm. He gathers up his savings and moves into a boarding house, with plans to write The Great American Novel during the rest of the summer, or at least until his money runs out. Almost against his will, Stingo is drawn into a relationship with two of his neighbors-- the gorgeous Sophie, a survivor of Auschwitz, and her Jewish lover Nathan, an oddly compelling but often terrifying man.

Meanwhile Stingo tries desperately to have sex with a girl, any girl. The retelling of his hysterical failures are intertwined with Sophie's tortured memories of the death camps of Poland. And then the truth about her experiences, as well as the truth about Nathan, is revealed. Ow.

Styron is an amazing writer. He makes me gnash my teeth at my own pitiful efforts to write. This is his best work.

George Orwell's Animal Farm is a superb animation of the Russian Revolutioon. The book is amusing and interesting; it includes a comic element as it synonymously demonstrates the evolution from the proletariat revolution to a totalitarian government led by the swine of the society. Orwell successfully simplified the not-so-simple theory of class stratification and Karl Marx's proposed solution of communism. Orwell's method of conveyance is incredibly inventive. He uses satire in the form of a fairy tale to share his indignation for ideological doctrines that would, if allowed, lead to the eventual destruction of a society. Each character in the story is representative of someone who was involved in the Russian Revolution. Old Major is Marx, and inspires the proletariat revolution by motivating the over-worked animals and educating them on the ways of the human beings, who represent the bourgeoisie. Orwell's creativity convinces the reader that the animals on the farm are intellectual beings, revolting against the tyranny of the humans. Animal Farm offers itself as an example of a responsible criticism of Marxism. The story gives us a peek at the Utopian vision, and then offers a long look at what results from using a Marxist approach at achieving it. I strongly reccomend this book, as it is entertaining and educational. Orwell succeeded in creating a fairy tale that evokes both sadness and laughter, while causing us to feel sympathy and even empathy for the working class animals. The book escapes complexity, but its message does not.

George Orwell writes about a society that parallels the Soviet Union in his satirical novel, Animal Farm, where the animals revolt against their cruel master and form a new society based on the same principles as communism.
After the animals' revolt and the formation of Animal Farm, the animals' name for their society, things start to look up. But as with the real Soviet Union, the leadership begins to become corrupt, conditions deteriorate, and freedoms slowly slip away. By the time anyone outside the leadership realizes what is happening, it may be too late.
This interesting and easy to read book provides fascinating political commentary on Orwell's time-period and the failures of communism (specifically the USSR). The reader's ability to see where things are going and the ability to spot the parallels of the characters from the novel in history only enhances the book and George Orwell gets his point across without mentioning the Soviet Union, its leaders, or communism even once. His warnings on the dangers of any form of totalitarianism show through in his writing, and this book almost reads like 1984 (another Orwell classic) in parts.
Those who read this looking for a happy fairy tale where a bunch of talking animals live in an utopia of their making will probably not be satisfied, nor will the story be rewarding if the reader ignores the historical context of the novel. But if you're looking for an interesting novel and don't mind the constant reminder that this was meant as a political commentary, you will probably enjoy this book.

Taking a Russian history class and learning in detail about Joseph Stalin's rule would help one understand Animal Farm much better, as well as the characters. George Orwell's hatred of totalitarianism, especially that of the Stalinist USSR, formed the basis for this short satirical fiction.

A band of oppressed farm animals oust Jones, their cruel human owner and take over the farm. Led by two pigs, Napoleon and Snowball, the animals proceed to run the farm by themselves so they are no longer exploited.

Napoleon is clearly Stalin, while Snowball is based on Leon Trotsky, and the Old Major is Lenin. Squealer may be Molotov or Kaganovich, but I'm not sure. The first attack on the Farm by Jones and his men is based on the Russian Civil War (1918-1921), where disorganized factions of anti-communists attacked the Soviet Union from all sides, and lost. However, things don't always go in parallel, as the Old Major dies before the Revolution. Lenin of course precipitated the Revolution in 1917. And note the date of the liberation of Manor Farm: 12 October. That is close to 24 October, the date of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Other items: Boxer the horse is the epitome of the hard worker whose two sayings are "Napoleon is always right" and "I will work harder." In fact he may be Stakhanov, the worker whose team so efficiently met their quota in one of Stalin's 5-Year Plans, that the word Stakhanovite became synonymous with an A-One Soviet worker. And the inability of most animals to read only the first two letters of the alphabet hint at their being lowly, illiterate subjects blindly obedient to the State.

The Seven Commandments--ironic for a Biblical reference in an atheist system-- plays an important key to the book, as they keep changing during Napoleon's reign. They are: "Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy, 2) Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend, 3) No animal shall wear clothes, 4) No animal shall sleep in a bed, 5) No animal shall drink alcohol, 6) No animal shall kill any other animal, and 7) All animals are equal." However, as Napoleon consolidates his rule, the Commandments become slightly altered. For example, after the animal executions, analogous to Stalin's purges, the sixth Commandment has the words "without cause" appended. And talk about irony in using the name of Napoleon for the Stalin character when in fact Napoleon invaded Russia, the result of which increased distrust of the West by Russians.

Orwell's portrait of the totalitarian state would be finalized in his masterpiece 1984. Animal Farm was a preview for that grand work, but the final thing that comes through in this book is that the Stalinist regime was just as oppressive as the czarist regime, with the ordinary animals on the receiving end-i.e. "but some animals are more equal than others."

This play is great! I've always liked Shakespearean comedy and tragic romance, and I didn't want to read this play at first, but when I did--it got me.

For those who want to read a play full of word play, appearance and reality in the world and for you, irony and Christian innuendoes, Macbeth is for you. The word play, especially the surprising comparison of murder with "Tarquin's ravishing", and the really effective ones like ambition with drunkeness, will make you read it again and again. There is a haunting soliloquy in Act 5 that Macbeth gives about life--it's famous and most would have heard of it, but nothing beats reading it together with the play.

Behind every successful man there is a woman, and behind every tragic hero there should be a tragic heroine. Lady Macbeth will repulse you and gain your pity. Don't despise her, folks, she just squashed her femininity thinking it was the best thing to do. She wouldn't have to ask evil forces to take away her human compassion if she didn't have any to begin with.

A must-read, and must-savour.

"Macbeth," the play by William Shakespeare, is definitely one literary classic that still holds its own as a vital and engaging piece of art. Despite being a stage play, it also works superbly as a reader's text apart from a theatrical setting.

The plot begins thus: Scottish warrior Macbeth is told by three witches that he is destined to ascend the throne. This fateful prophecy sets in motion a plot full of murder, deceit, warfare, and psychological drama.

Despite being a lean play, "Macbeth" is densely layered and offers the careful reader rewards on many levels. Woven into the violent and suspenseful story are a host of compelling issues: gender identity, the paranormal, leadership, guilt, etc. In one sense, the play is all about reading and misreading (i.e. with regard to Macbeth's "reading" of the witches' prophecies), so at this level the play has a rich metatextual aspect.

Macbeth is one of Shakespeare's most unforgettable tragic characters. His story is told using some of English literature's richest and most stunning language.

While I was basically familiar with Shakespeare's Tragedy of Macbeth, I have only recently actually read the bard's brilliant play. The drama is quite dark and moody, but this atmosphere serves Shakespeare's purposes well. In Macbeth, we delve deeply into the heart of a true fiend, a man who would betray the king, who showers honors upon him, in a vainglorious snatch at power. Yet Macbeth is not 100% evil, nor is he a truly brave soul. He waxes and wanes over the execution of his nefarious plans, and he thereafter finds himself haunted by the blood on his own hands and by the ethereal spirits of the innocent men he has had murdered. On his own, Macbeth is much too cowardly to act so traitorously to his kind and his country. The source of true evil in these pages is the cold and calculating Lady Macbeth; it is she who plots the ultimate betrayal, forcefully pushes her husband to perform the dreadful acts, and cleans up after him when he loses his nerve. This extraordinary woman is the lynchpin of man's eternal fascination with this drama. I find her behavior a little hard to account for in the closing act, but she looms over every single male character we meet here, be he king, loyalist, nobleman, courtier, or soldier. Lady Macbeth is one of the most complicated, fascinating, unforgettable female characters in all of literature.

The plot does not seem to move along as well as Shakespeare's other most popular dramas, but I believe this is a result of the writer's intense focus on the human heart rather than the secondary activity that surrounds the related royal events. It is fascinating if sometimes rather disjointed reading. One problem I had with this play in particular was one of keeping up with each of the many characters that appear in the tale; the English of Shakespeare's time makes it difficult for me to form lasting impressions of the secondary characters, of whom there are many. Overall, though, Macbeth has just about everything a great drama needs: evil deeds, betrayal, murder, fighting, ghosts, omens, cowardice, heroism, love, and, as a delightful bonus, mysterious witches. Very many of Shakespeare's more famous quotes are also to be found in these pages, making it an important cultural resource for literary types. The play doesn't grab your attention and absorb you into its world the way Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet does, but this voyage deep into the heart of evil, jealousy, selfishness, and pride forces you to consider the state of your own deep-seated wishes and dreams, and for that reason there are as many interpretations of the essence of the tragedy as there are readers of this Shakespearean masterpiece. No man's fall can rival that of Macbeth's, and there is a great object lesson to be found in this drama. You cannot analyze Macbeth without analyzing yourself to some degree, and that goes a long way toward accounting for the Tragedy of Macbeth's literary importance and longevity.

Jealousy is perhaps the ugliest of emotions, an acid that corrodes the heart, a poison with which man harms his fellow man. Fortunately for us, Shakespeare specializes in ugly emotions, writing plays that exhibit man at his most shameful so we can elevate ourselves above the depths of human folly and watch the carnage with pleasure and awe.

In "Othello," the "green-eyed monster" has afflicted Iago, a Venetian military officer, and the grand irony of the play is that he intentionally infects his commanding general, Othello, with it precisely by warning him against it (Act 3, Scene 3). Iago has two grievances against Othello: He was passed over for promotion to lieutenant in favor of the inexperienced Cassio, and he can't understand why the Senator's lily-white daughter Desdemona would fall for the black Moor. Not one to roll with the punches, he decides to take revenge, using his obsequious sidekick Roderigo and his ingenuous wife Emilia as gears in his transmission of hatred.

The scheme Iago develops is clever in its design to destroy Othello and Cassio and cruel in its inclusion of the innocent Desdemona. He arranges (the normally temperate) Cassio to be caught by Othello in a drunken brawl and discharged from his office, and using a handkerchief that Othello had given Desdemona as a gift, he creates the incriminating illusion that she and Cassio are having an affair. Othello falls for it all, and the tragedy of the play is not that he acts on his jealous impulses but that he discovers his error after it's too late.

It is a characteristic of Shakespeare that his villains are much more interesting and entertaining than his heroes; Iago is proof of this. He's the only character in the play who does any real thinking; the others are practically his puppets, responding unknowingly but obediently to his every little pull of a string. In this respect, this is Iago's play, but Othello claims the title because he -- his nobility -- is the target.

As a play, "Othello" encompasses many things but more than anything else it is a study of pure evil. Although Othello is an accomplished professional soldier and a hero of sorts, he is also a minority and an outcast in many ways. As a Black man and a Moor (which means he's a Moslem), Othello has at least two qualities, which make him stand out in the Elizabethan world. He is also married to a Caucasian woman named Desdemona, which creates an undercurrent of hostility as evidenced by the derogatory remark "the ram hath topped the ewe".

Othello's problems begin when he promotes one of his soldiers, Michael Cassio as his lieutenant. This arouses the jealousy and hatred of one of his other soldiers, Iago who hatches a plot to destroy Othello and Michael Cassio. When Cassio injures an opponent in a fight he is rebuked, punished, and subsequently ignored by Othello who must discipline him and teach him a lesson. Iago convinces Desdemona to intervene on Cassio's behalf and then begins to convince Othello that Desdemona is in love with Cassio.

This is actually one of the most difficult Shakespeare plays to watch because the audience sees the plot begin to unfold and is tormented by Othello's gradual decent into Iago's trap. As with other Shakespeare plays, the critical components of this one are revealed by language. When Othello is eventually convinced of Cassio's treachery, he condemns him and promotes Iago in his place. When Othello tells Iago that he has made him his lieutenant, Iago responds with the chilling line, "I am thine forever". To Othello this is a simple affirmation of loyalty, but to the audience, this phrase contains a double meaning. With these words, Iago indicates that the promotion does not provide him with sufficient satisfaction and that he will continue to torment and destroy Othello. It is his murderous intentions, not his loyal service that will be with Othello forever.

Iago's promotion provides him with closer proximity to Othello and provides him with more of his victim's trust. From here Iago is easily able to persuade Othello of Desdemona's purported infidelity. Soon Othello begins to confront Desdemona who naturally protests her innocence. In another revealing statement, Othello demands that Desdemona give him "the ocular proof". Like Iago's earlier statement, this one contains a double meaning that is not apparent to the recipient but that is very clear to the audience who understands the true origin of Othello's jealousy. Othello's jealousy is an invisible enemy and it is also based on events that never took place. How can Desdemona give Othello visual evidence of her innocence if her guilt is predicated on accusations that have no true shape or form? She can't. Othello is asking Desdemona to do the impossible, which means that her subsequent murder is only a matter of course.

I know that to a lot of young people this play must seem dreadfully boring and meaningless. One thing you can keep in mind is that the audience in Shakespeare's time did not have the benefit of cool things such as movies, and videos. The downside of this is that Shakespeare's plays are not visually stimulating to an audience accustomed to today's entertainment media. But the upside is that since Shakespeare had to tell a complex story with simple tools, he relied heavily on an imaginative use of language and symbols. Think of what it meant to an all White audience in a very prejudiced time to have a Black man at the center of a play. That character really stood out-almost like an island. He was vulnerable and exposed to attitudes that he could not perceive directly but which he must have sensed in some way.

Shakespeare set this play in two locations, Italy and Cypress. To an Elizabethan audience, Italy represented an exotic place that was the crossroads of many different civilizations. It was the one place where a Black man could conceivably hold a position of authority. Remember that Othello is a mercenary leader. He doesn't command a standing army and doesn't belong to any country. He is referred to as "the Moor" which means he could be from any part of the Arab world from Southern Spain to Indonesia. He has no institutional or national identity but is almost referred to as a phenomenon. (For all the criticism he has received in this department, Shakespeare was extrordinarlily attuned to racism and in this sense he was well ahead of his time.) Othello's subsequent commission as the Military Governor of Cypress dispatches him to an even more remote and isolated location. The man who stands out like an island is sent to an island. His exposure and vulnerability are doubled just as a jealous and murderous psychopath decides to destroy him.

Iago is probably the only one of Shakespeare's villains who is evil in a clinical sense rather than a human one. In Kind Lear, Edmund the bastard hatches a murderous plot out of jealousy that is similar to Iago's. But unlike Iago, he expresses remorse and attempts some form of restitution at the end of the play. In the Histories, characters like Richard III behave in a murderous fashion, but within the extreme, political environment in which they operate, we can understand their motives even if we don't agree with them. Iago, however, is a different animal. His motives are understandable up to the point in which he destroys Michael Cassio but then they spin off into an inexplicable orbit of their own. Some have suggested that Iago is sexually attracted to Othello, which (if its true) adds another meaning to the phrase "I am thine forever". But even if we buy the argument that Iago is a murderous homosexual, this still doesn't explain why he must destroy Othello. Oscar Wilde once wrote very beautifully of the destructive impact a person can willfully or unwittingly have on a lover ("for each man kills the things he loves") but this is not born out in the play. Instead, Shakespeare introduces us to a new literary character-a person motivated by inexplicable evil that is an entity in itself. One of the great ironies of this play is that Othello is a character of tragically visible proportions while Iago is one with lethally invisible ones.

Othello relects the true meaning of a tragedy both in its content and its structure.Tragedy is 'a story of exceptional calamity produced by human actions, leading to the death of a man in high estate.'The downfall of Othello is caused by his own actions, rather than by his character, or rather the two work in unison to create the stage for his downfall.
This is what captured my attention when I read this play.It is very profound to realize the fact that Shakespeare uses Iago to set this stage on which Othello is a mere player.
I love the character of Iago. His total confidence, the superiority that he feels when psychoanalysing human nature, his rational thinking and intellectualism sways the reader to think: 'Wow, this is a compelling and sophisticated man we're dealing with here!'
However, my admiration of Iago does not in anyway undermine my love of Othello. His poetic and calm demeanor makes the reader feel the pity and terror for him when he falls from grace (catharsis). Yet, we are made to understand that the reason why he is made to appear a gullible and ignorant fool to some readers is that he does not have any knowledge of a delicate, domesticated life. Venetian women were foreign to him. This tragic flaw in Othello added to the circumstances used by Iago to destroy him.
The meaning, and hence the tragedy of the play is conveyed through the use of Shakespeare's language, style, literary devices and imagery. Without these dramatic effects, readers would never be able to enjoy the play as much, although the dialogue is at times difficult to decipher.
I thoroughly enjoyed Othello and it is my hope that more people find it enticing as I have. I would be delighted to contribute more of my reviews to that effect.

Native Son is a very deep book that explores the race relations (or lack of them) in Chicago in the 1940s. A black twenty-year old named Bigger Thomas accidentally kills a prominent white woman and then tries to cover it up. Wright goes deeply into the feelings of Bigger, mostly in regard to his attitude toward the whites. Bigger has been so oppressed by the whites that his major feelings are hate and fear. Native Son really made me think about how hard it was for blacks back then and, to some extent, even now. The book is very depressing to read because Bigger is such a sad character. He has no options in life, so after his accidental murder, he's almost happy because now something is happening to him. He's finally the center of attention, and he matters in the world. The parts where he covers up the murder, the reporters find the dead girl, and the police's chase of him through the streets and apartments of Chicago are very exciting. However, the rest of the book focuses mainly on Bigger's emotions, and gets a little boring. The best part about the book is how the author, speaking through Bigger's lawyer, explains how the oppression of blacks has made all blacks hate and fear whites, forcing Bigger to murder. This attitude is much different than the one expressed in To Kill A Mockingbird, by Harper Lee. While that book has a hopeful outlook on race relations, Native Son has a much more negative viewpoint. Wright feels that the oppression and dehumanization of blacks has made it so that blacks and whites will never treat each other as they would members of their own race. I recommend this book to anyone looking for a long book that isn't easy to read but really makes one think.

It`s my personal opinion that Richard Wright`s Native Son is one of the best books ever written by an African-American writer. In his book he desribes the pains of ghetto life for the negroes in Chicago`s black belt, cira 1920. Never has an author ever caught the thoughts and feelings of a single person as Wright did with the main character Bigger. Bigger`s life is portrayed as bleak and dark but, things start to look up when he accepts a job as a driver for the millionaire Dalton`s. He is getting paid well with extra spending money and the opportunity to get an education. His first job is to take the Dalton`s daughter to a university function but, there is a change of plans, a change that turns out to be fatal. I don`t want to give the whole book away so I highly suggest read and find out what happens to Bigger. So if you enjoy reading classic American books you will enjoy Richard Wright`s Native Son.

I recently read Native Son,by Richard Wright, in my 8th grade English class while my class was reading To Kill a Mockingbird. Native Son is the shocking story of a young African American man, Bigger Thomas, living in the "black belt" of Chicago. Every second of his life he encounters the hateful separation society has put between blacks and whites. One night, caught in fear, anger and hate he commits his first murder against the daughter of his employer. Reading the two books simultaneously, I found many interesting comparisons between Native Son and To Kill a Mockingbird. They are both about the trial of a black man. In To Kill a Mockingbird the black man is innocent, however the racist town convicts him. Yet in Native Son he is guilty. Harper Lee tells her story through the point of view of a white person ( she herself is white) yet Richard Wright (a black man) tells the tale through Bigger's eyes. It is interesting to compare the two points of view, telling a similar tale through the two sides of racism. Both authors show their side of the story. Bigger's tale is told in a bigger and more dramatic way than how the whites regard the trial in To Kill a Mockingbird. Both stories portray the separation between African Americans and whites. Reading about this separation in both stories taught me a lot about this countries history. I learned about the strong hate that came between the races and the fear, anger and rage that results from it. The content of Native Son, is not always light. The hideous crimes Bigger commits are hardly small sins, but actions that effect an entire society. Wright's phenomenal writing described the hateful emotion of racism I will never understand. I found it difficult reading such horrible tales of hate, fear and anger. However, I found that reading it helped me to understand a lot of the scandalous society I live in. I learned to what degree racial discrimination of any kind can affect a person. It taught me a lot about issues I don't encounter everyday. I could not honestly say I liked this book; it is not a book one enjoys. It was a book that taught me a lot about our countries history and simple human emotions. I can only say that I am glad I read it, for it was a worthwhile experience. It is a hard book to read, both in language in content, but it shows an account that most likely happened at some time. Its historical aspects teaches the reader not only about racial discrimination but hate, anger and fear. Everyone living in America should read Native Son.