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.

The book "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara is the most realistic historical depiction of a battle that has ever crossed my path. The Battle of Gettysburg was the turning point of the Civil War. Shaara explains in thorough detail the thoughts and actions of the important generals that fought long and hard. I realized all the things the men had to give up and how amazing it was to see that they still had hope they would win and be back home with their families soon. The novel is set up in chronological order of events that took place during the four days of the bloody and decisive battle of the Civil War. It is split up by the days and then into the main generals that fought. This way the readers can have a good mental picture of how each event came about. It even shows maps for the readers to understand each step the North and South took. I knew just where the battles were taking place and why the generals try to use the land for their own advantage. It was very interesting to read about the different strategies and tactics the generals utilized in the destruction of their enemies. The main generals for the South were Lee and Longstreet. For the North there was Buford and Chamberlain. These men truely believed in what they were fighting for and had praid to God for help. The battlefield sections of the novel were my favorite parts to read. Chamberlain's sight on Little Round Top was very moving and courageous. I enjoyed how the book made me feel like I was directly involved with the incidents that occurred. I could feel the love and impact each man had on one other. The men had big dreams and a huge desire in their hearts to win. This re-creation of the battle was amazing.

Even if you are not a Civil War buff, forget about it! This book will touch your heart and sometimes amaze you. Friends and collegues fighting against one another, killing one another as they stand behind their strongest convinctions. The author reveals this story primarily from the point of view of the officers on both sides as they ponder the circumstances and consider what they must sacrifice in order to win. The story is the battle of Gettysburg, three bloody days in July 1863 told through the eyes and hearts of the men who stood across the battlefield from one another and witnessed the bloodiest battle in American History. (More American's died on the fields of Gettysburg in three days than during the entire Vietnam war) For me, it's a difficult thing to consider Americans killing Americans for what they believe in. Of course, in the modern era Americans are still shooting at each other, but usually it's of a criminal nature. Back then, it was to defend values and character. This book opens up a world that has been long forgotten. It is a brilliant work that has given me a fine appreciation of what it means to die for what you believe in. Even if you hate the civil war, you should give this book a try. It is enjoyable on many levels.

This book is an absolute MUST for all Civil War buffs. I have read this book at least 25 times, and I will NEVER tire of it. Shaara's characterizations of ALL the people involved, not just the main characters, bring the Battle of Gettysburg to life in a way that will stay with you forever. I especially enjoyed the details of the confederates' interaction with and reaction to Lt. Col. Fremantle of the British Cold Stream Guard. Also, Shaara's writing puts you in the shoes of the main characters...makes you feel like you are there. Finally, this book cemented and affirmed my true admiration for Gen. Robert E. Lee. He was truly a man of extreme intelligence, fiery moral and religious convictions, and more than likely the greatest military strategist the world had ever seen. If I could go back in history and meet any one person, Robert E. Lee would be at the top of the list. I have Michael Shaara to thank for that. And if you read this book and love it, DON'T MISS "Gods and Generals" and "The Last Full Measure" by Jeff Shaara.

The amazing Quinn family is back!

Seth, the youngest Quinn, is home for the first time in years. An acclaimed painter, who is blessed with a gift he can't quite explain, Seth is as handsome and dynamic as the other Quinns. He comes home to find things in St. Chris much the same, with the exception of lovely Dru Whitcomb-Banks, a new shopkeeper in town. Dru is not what Seth expected and he soon finds himself drawn to her, despite his unsavory roots. She's carrying quite a bit of baggage herself, but finds that she's falling for him just the same.

Nora Roberts had already built a compelling family that intrigued readers through the first of the Chesapeake Bay saga, Sea Swept, Rising Tides and Inner Harbor. But in response to overwhelming reader demands (she dedicates the book to "Every reader who ever asked, "When are you going to write Seth's story?") she writes Seth to be as dreamy and decidedly alpha as the other Quinn men. Dru is a perfect match for Seth, strong willed and determined and also a bit of a lost soul. The combined traits make the couple vibrant and interesting. On top of that, you get to revisit your favorite characters from the first three books and find out what's become of them and their children. Nora's greatest gift is her ability to write a family that keeps the reader's attention.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book to both first time, or habitual Noraholics! If this is your first Nora book, I suggest that you read the first three in the saga before reading Chesapeake Blue. You'll find your enjoyment of the story even greater having met the secondary characters before.

Nora's done it again!

I absolutely loved the brothers trilogy, it was truly my favorite of all Nora Roberts trilogys. Of course I do love them all! This book was telling the story of Seth as he now is grown up. I felt like I knew the entire family and cared about each and every one of them.

Seth is home with his family, the business, and the mother who has followed him over the years since he was a young boy. Blackmailing him, doing her best to ruin everything for him and for the family that gave him everything and made him who he is. Although he's all grown up now, he'll still pay her off, do just about anything to protect the family he loves.

Dru enters the picture, who has fled a cheating fiance and the life of the wealthy in Washington D.C. to strike out on her own in St. Chris. She owns a flower shop and does her best to fit into the community. Given her experience with men, she doesn't want to fall in love, doesn't even want to date. But Seth can be as convincing as any of the Quinn men and Dru finds herself in love with Seth.

I think Nora Roberts did an excellent job with this ending story. Her plot was great, the ending was a surprise and all the characters we loved in this trilogy have returned. If you start with this book you may want to read the first three to start.

The Chesapeake Bay Triology is expanded into a saga with the addition of this fourth book. This story is a sequel to the original trilogy about the Quinn brothers and this book focuses on younger brother, Seth Quinn--who is certainly deserving of his own story.

Seth is a painter/artist who has returned to his small hometown to be near his 3 brothers and run away from the demons that have haunted his past- namely an evil biological mother and the mystery of his own paternity. He finds and meets his soulmate- Dru. Dru has settled into running a flowershop in this small town but she is also fleeing from her own past torment as well. Both don't want a permanent relationship but are drawn to each other. Their story is a great ending to this series and it is nice to catch up with the other Quinn brothers and their wives as well. It is also great to resolve the mystery of who Seth's father is and put to rest his conflict with his birth mother.

I read this book without having read the triology, but since finishing Seth's story, i have read the Chesapeake Bay triology _(seaswept, inner harbor etc) I definately think you can read this as a standalone novel but those familiar with the previous books will find this as a satisfying conclusion.

Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Notes from Underground" is an existential classic. This book, like many of Dostoevsky's works, intertwines the notions of literature and philosophy, probing the depths of aesthetic contemplation through philosophy. Dostoevsky, used this manuscript as a testing or training ground for later ideas he would explore in his groundbreaking and notorious books such as "Crime and Punishment,""Brothers Karamazov," and "the Idiot." Also central to the theme of the writing one will enciounter many notions of autonomy, or freedom of the individual. The main character, "the Underground man," performs many absurd actions, often in spite of his own self. However, this deals with the notion as Sartre later expressed, is it better for the individual to choose for him or herself and be wrongs sometimes or once in a while, then to have others choose for oneself? The protagonist, is continuously struggling, with himself and the existential burden of constructing and being soley responsible for ones own existence, for owns own counciousness. "Notes from Underground" is a magnificent, psychological exploration, into the mind of the individual, free, autonomous and choosing completley for oneself, which is anything but an easy matter.

The first words of this deeply disturbing, but powerful, novel are "I am a sick man....I am a spiteful man." and these may refer equally to the main character and to the author. Dostoevsky has written an amazing portrait of a loner, whose introverted, sick thoughts spill out on the pages in demented brilliance. The novel is a product of European cynicism, nihilism, and inertia, all of which reached a certain height in the paralyzed upper circles of 19th century Russia. Nobody could write such a book without some personal acquaintance with the mean moods of this anti-hero. The main character, who does nothing except hide from the world, is a total misfit, a loser in life at home, at work, and in love---a jerk, a dweeb, a dork, a geek in modern American parlance---yet through Dostoyevsky's clear prose, we see into his wounded soul. "Actually, I hold no brief for suffering, nor am I arguing for well-being." he writes, "I argue for...my own whim and the assurance of my right to it, if need be." He is apart from society, recognizes no social obligation. He argues that suffering is still better than mere consciousness, because it sharpens the awareness of your being, therefore suffering is in man's interest Someone who can argue that is not going to write an average novel. This is in fact not an average novel at all, but a book concerned with the play of ideas, ideas that flash around like comets and meteorites inside Dostoevsky's head. It can no more escape Dostoevsky's brain than a Woody Allen movie can escape Woody Allen.

The plot line of NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND is extremely slim. It concerns an underground man, a man like a rat or a bug, who lives outside, or more likely, underneath the world's gaze. It is a lonely, tortured life lived inside a single skull with almost no contacts with the rest of the world except for a vicious servant. The "action" of the book comes only when the protagonist worms his way into a dinner with former schoolmates. They don't want him, he despises all of them. So, as you can imagine, a good time is had by all. The underground man winds up in a brothel with an innocent, hapless prostitute named Liza. He wishes for some relationship, he immediately abhors the very thought of contact with another person. The result is worse than you can predict, though I will say that it involves "the beneficial nature of insults and hatred".

In the tradition of novels of introspective self-hatred, Dostoevsky's has to be one of the first. I wondered as I read how much Kafka owed him, for after all, the hero here is a cockroach too, only remaining in human form. I realized how much Dostoevsky had influenced the Japanese writers of the 20th century---Tanizaki, Mishima, Soseki, Kawabata, and others. The pages are brilliant, but full of vile stupidity, useless, arid intellectualism, hatred of one's best and love of one's worst qualities, withdrawal from life, and self-loathing. A less American novel would be hard to imagine. But, some of these characteristics are found in almost everyone at some point in their life, unpleasant as that realization may be. I have to give NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND five stars, though I can't say I enjoyed it. It is simply one of the most impressive novels ever written.

"Notes" is a true classic, with Dostoevsky at his most psychologically insightful. In this book you will find the roots of many of the ideas that Freud would later make common knowledge, particularly that of the contradictory impulses and emotions which unconsciously fight to drive the actions of each individual. To Dostoevsky, a human being can never be governed by reason alone despite popular views of his day. Upon reading this book, you will fall victim to some of these contradictory emotions yourself, as you are torn between loving and hating Dostoevsky's antihero. This nameless narrator is a man who believes to be the victim of excessive consciousness, but in reality, although no doubt a possessor of extreme intelligence, is consumed by desires beyond his control. At times this narrator serves as a mouthpiece for some of Dostoevsky's own philosophical views, at times he is an object of satire, but no matter what his purpose, he always holds our attenti! on and never fails to interest. The ending of the novel is particularly shattering.

The Puppet Masters by Robert Heinlein has to be my favourite book on the planet, which is quite something, considering I read a lot and don't particularly like the other Robet Heinlein stuff that much (it's okay, better than most, but nothing compares to *this*!) TPM is a book that keeps you thinking, long after you've read it. The characters are well-developed and engaging, and stretch the gamut from black to white. There are no Satans in this book, and likewise, there are no saints. Everyone (or thing) has it's faults. I love the style of writing... descriptive and fluid. Overall, this book is extremely realistic. There are some creations that have yet to be created (such as the plane cars) but Heinlein doesn't so much write about them as possibilities... rather, he states that they exist, and weaves his words so well that you come away looking for the yellow pages in order to look up the nearest plane-car dealership. The aliens (both the Titans and their *masters*) are awesome, like the title of this review states. The Titans (those cruel, slimy little buggers that attach themselves to human backs and penetrate into the spinal cords with long whip-like tentacles) evoke a sense of dread in the reader that can't be compared to any other monster. Dracula, Werewolves and 'gray' aliens with probes fall miserably short of developing the same sense of thready-pulsed fear.

The plot is basic... in a nutshell, an alien ship crashes in a forest in the states in the year 2007 and people begin to act 'odd'. Of course, no one knows what is happening, save for a small, motely group of survivalists bent on overcoming the invasion of this hostile ET organism. Because the creature is 60% brain mass, and doesn't have any eyes or ears, or any viable means of ambulating itself, it attaches itself to human 'hosts'... who it then disposes of when it's finished with. On a scarier note, these little buggers seem to share a 'collective' brain, and their understanding of our species increases in leaps and bounds, while the human understanding of this strange nemesis slows to a trickle. Canny and manipulative, what scared me most about the Titans was the way they almost seemed to take pleasure in 'destroying' the hosts... *shudder*

The main character is Elihu Nivens (Sam Cavanaugh until well into the book), a young man who is struggling with keeping a bold face for his cagey, bitingly cruel father, and the new partner he's been set up with... Mary. Mary is a cool, collected, intelligent red head who keeps Sam's hormones pumping and may be the driving force that keeps him alive when the alien invasion heats up. But this isn't no 'knight in shining armor' tale. Sam and Mary have their moments... from funny, to downright... painful. *winces* In fact, their frequent interactions are SO realistic, one can't help but wonder if Heinlein had real-life models to work with. The closest example I can think of is the first or second season relationship between Mulder and Scully of "The X-Files".

Towards the climax of this novel, my heart was *pounding* violently (I'm seriously not joking) and my eyes were, to use a cliche, glued to the pages. I took it to school, and got snapped at by more than a few teachers for not paying attention to the garbage they were 'teaching'.

I haven't read this book since age 12 (five years ago) but I *still* love every single crafted page. I expect to find it under the tree this year, and I can't wait until Saturday morning, for that reason alone. I can't recommend this book enough. It's possibly the best thing to hit the sci fi genre since it's inception. It's gorgeous, inventive, scary, nostalgic (in a weird way the reader yearns for the fictional world Heinlein has created, even in the midst of such chaos and horror), original, chalk-full-of-ideas and one crucible of a tale. When it's all over, and the alien's are defeated, the tale boils down to showcase the surviving nature of the homo sapien species. In one word: AWESOME!

A book so great, it almost reads itself.

This fast-paced action-packed adventure is a sparkling example of Heinlein's early post-juvenile output. As such, there's virtually none of the sexual obsession, social commentary and philosophical maundering that some find so offensive, although fans of his later work may find this book low on substance.

The characters are pretty good (for sci-fi, anyway), and their relationship goes through some development before they fall for each other, plus their bantering conversation is a substantial improvement over the dialogue in most genre fiction. Of course the plot is straight out of H.G. Wells, as an alien race invades the earth and only a secret organization of government agents can act against them. The real strength of this novel is the breezy reality Heinlein brings to his story, and the clever (and all too believable) means the slugs use to control the country without the general populace ever knowing the difference. Surely this is Heinlein's interpretation of the Communist witch hunts of the twenties and fifties, when even someone you thought you knew well could prove to be a deadly enemy. The horror element should probably not be overemphasized, although this book was surely much scarier forty years ago. The whole concept of having an inhuman thing hanging on your back and controlling your every action is perhaps more creepy than grisly, and may not impress too many modern readers, but this particular reader found it quite disturbing enough, thank you.

Demonstrating a command of technique largely absent from his later novels, Heinlein's tightly controlled point of view puts the action right in your face, and keeps the reader in sympathy with the hero throughout. This is an excellent book for younger readers, even though it's not aimed at them specifically, and it's also a top choice for fans of sci-fi escapism; just don't expect it to change your life.

"The Puppet Masters," in its fully restored version, is one of the best science fiction novels of the fifties. Fast-paced, exciting, and chilling, the novel whips us through the alien infestation of Earth, while creating a running commentary on the Cold War mentality of the fifties. Today, it may be hard to understand why everyone was so frightened of the Communists; what with the Soviet Union's collapse and the chumminess we seem intent on pursuing with other so-called Communist governments. But reading this novel makes a reader feel the genuine terror of a species that robs humanity of their free will and liberty, which is precisely what the totalitarian government tried to do in the Soviet Union. Along with George Orwell's "1984," this book needs to be read as a constant reminder of what can be lost if we do not stand vigilant against those who would rule us. Heinlein, as always, drives us with his plotting and narrative surprises; as always, when we're done with one of his works, we have ideas buzzing around our heads for weeks and years afterwards.

This text covers every important aspect in the field, from experimental techniques and basic concepts to reviews of immunology, cancer, and developmental biology. I used it as a reference in four different undergraduate classes, and have prepared for several job interviews by reviewing the relevant information in this book. The illustrations are all relevant, the organization is excellent, and the prose is so well written that I take the book off the shelf and read it for fun. A new edition would be useful - some of the more speculative information is outdated - but this is still the best textbook I own.

Most people, when commenting about this book, tend to compare it to Lodish's Molecular Cell Biology. I own both, and I must say that they are quite similar in their content but different in the way of explaining concepts. Although Lodish's book is a little more up-to-date, it's just a matter of time until a new edition of MBoC is published. In fact, a great number of concepts are clearer in Molecular Biology of the Cell... and vice-versa. About the book, it is the authoritative text of molecular biology for beginners and a reference guide to all fields of cell biology. The chapters concerning the structure of the cell and of the organelles are amazing and include in-depth explanations. It also comprehends the best revision chapters on macromolecules compared to Lodish's. The team of authors was accurate to compose one of the best books in molecular biology for students of all biological and biomedical sciences.

Well, considering that this book got me through a full year of molecular and cell biology as an undergraduate, I'm pretty fond of the book. Especially considering that the second half of the year was taught by two people who had never taught a class in their lives before. Reason for the five stars is that this is an INTRODUCTORY level textbook written about 7 years ago. Even considering that, it's thorough enough and comprehensive enough for an entire year. I wasn't expecting work done last year to be included and I wasn't expecting that it would delve into the intricate details of photosynthetic reaction centers or the latest in optical methods in single molecule dynamics. If you want that kind of detail, go to the journals or specialized texts. However, for those undergraduates undertaking a full year of MCB, I can't recommend this text highly enough. And if you're looking for prokaryotic information, I'd go pick up a copy of Prescott, Harley, and Klein's "Microbiology."

I initially approached this book with a great deal of trepidation. I had never read Dostoyevsky, and was concerned that I would get bogged down in some lengthy, mind-numbingly boring, nineteenth-century treatise on the bestial nature of man or something. I am happy to report this is not the case. Instead, and to my delight, it is a smoothly flowing and fascinating story of a young man who succumbs to the most base desire, and the impact this has both psychologically and otherwise on himself and those around him.

To be sure, the book seems wordy in places, but I suspect this has to do with the translation. And what translator in his right mind would be bold enough to edit the great Dostoyevsky? But this is a very minor problem.

What we get with Dostoyevsky is dramatic tension, detailed and believable human characters, and brilliant insight into human nature. Early in the novel our hero meets and has a lengthy conversation with Marmeladov, a drunkard. This conversation is never uninteresting and ultimately becomes pathetic and heartbreaking, but I kept wondering why so much time was spent on it. As I got deeper into the book, I understood why this conversation was so important, and realized that I was in the hands of a master storyteller. This is also indicative of the way in which the story reveals itself. Nothing is hurried. These people speak the way we actually speak to one another in real life, and more importantly, Dostoyevsky is able to flesh out his characters into whole, three-dimensional human beings.

And what a diverse group of characters! Each is fleshed out, each is marvelously complex. Razujmikhin, the talkative, gregarious, good-hearted, insecure and destitute student; Sonia, the tragic child-prostitute, with a sense of rightness in the world; Petrovich, the self-important, self-made man, completely out of touch with his own humanity; Dunia, the honorable, wronged sister: we feel like we know these people because we've met people like them. They fit within our understanding of the way human beings are.

Dostoyevsky also displays great insight into human nature. Svidrigailov, for example, talks of his wife as liking to be offended. "We all like to be offended," he says, "but she in particular loved to be offended." It suddenly struck me how true this is. It gives us a chance to act indignantly, to lash out at our enemies, to gain favor with our allies. I don't believe I've ever seen this thought expressed in literature before. In fact, it never occurred to me in real life! Petrovich, Dunia's suitor, not only expects to be loved, but because of his money, and her destitution, he expects to be adored! To be worshipped! He intentionally sought out a woman from whome he expected to get this, and is comletely flummoxed when she rejects him. His is an unusual character, but completely realized.

There is so much more to talk about: the character of Raskolnikov, which is meticulously and carefully revealed; the sense of isolation which descends on him after committing his crime; the cat and mouse game played on him by the police detective. I could go on and on. I haven't even mentioned the historical and social context in which this takes place. Suffice to say this is a very rich book.

Do not expect it to be a rip-roaring page turner. Sit down, relax, take your time, and savor it. It will be a very rewarding experience. And thank you SL, for recommending it.

Set in Russia in the midst of its troubled transition to the modern age, this classic novel is the profound human drama of Raskolnikov, a sensitive intellectual driven by poverty and the belief of his exemption from moral law. Through his unforgettable gallery of characters, Dostoyevsky provides a provocative look at the human motivations of obsession and possession with unflinching philosophical and moral insight. A masterpiece of dramatic literature by one of the greatest novelist of all time. Crime and Punishment is the story of a murder committed on principle, of a killer who wishes by his action to set himself outside and above society. A novel of great physical and psychological tension, pervaded by Dostoevsky's sinister evocation of St Petersburg, it also has moments of wild humour. Dostoevsky's own harrowing experiences mark the novel. He had himself undergone interrogation and trial, and was condemned to death, a sentence commuted at the last moment to penal servitude. In prison he was particularly impressed by one hardened murderer who seemed to have attained a spiritual equilibrium beyond good and evil: yet witnessing the misery of other convicts also engendered in Dostoevsky a belief in the Christian idea of salvation through suffering. END

This novel stands out as one of the finest pieces of actual literature I have read. Top 5 at least.

First, let me pay tribute to "Everyman's Library Series". They make very handsome novels, complete with soft cream pages, and a built in fabric book mark. They all come in moroon, and add a certain pinache to any book collection. Best of all, they are well priced.

As for Crime and Punishment. I was very impressed. More often than not, I read the classics, and wonder how it is they have become classics. For Dostoevsky, there can be no doubt. And Crime and Punishment is his best known effort. Not his best though. C&P is the exploration of the world that it's hero/villain Raskolnikov occupies. He takes it apon himself to murder a particularly vile pawnbroker(thus making him a villain) under the guise of the highest moral resposibility. Well, no plan is perfect, and most of the book is an involved psycological examination of it's main character, the ways he tries to justify his crime to himself, and the people around him who have no idea what the hell is going on. Dostoevsky creates living breathing people that you care about in this tale. It's simple premise gives way to an incredibly complex story. The dialogues bewtween Raskolnikov, and Porfiry( the ever suspicious investigator) are wonderful. And then theres the clever and sneaky Svidrigailov, whom I found rather amusing at times. To me the book was very suspenseful. never knowing if or when young Raskolnikov would confess, or continue to hide in uncertainty due to the circumstancial evidence that linked him to the crime. SO many times I wanted to read to the end to find out. But I didn't, and neither should you. There's just so much depth to this book, I have no doubt it will recieve a return read. Perhaps in another 10 years I will read it, and get even more out of it. That's how all great books are. Highest recommendation.

Elvis Cole, private investigator, was tasked by a famous director, Peter, to find his ex-wife and son. A seemingly simple assignment soon turned out to be mission impossible. After locating Karen and Toby, Elvis soon uncovered that the former was owned by the mafia, who would not be at all happy with the interference of Elvis and his partner, Joe Pike. Being his usual righteous self, Elvis could not sit back and see Karen's life destroyed by the mob. However, could he and Joe take on the mafia, save Karen from its clutches, and escape unscathed?

Like all other Robert Crais' books, it had the compelling power which made it impossible for me to put the book down. I have always believed that for a book to be likeable, we must like the characters in the book and really feel for them. This is precisely the reason which I enjoy this book so much. I was rooting for Elvis and Joe all the way as I followed the story which simply took my breath away.

Elvis Cole, "the world's greatest detective", is hired by Hollywood director Peter Alan Nelson to find his ex-wife, Karen, and son, Toby. His search takes him to small-town Connecticut where, once he finds Karen and her son, finds himself in the middle of problems involving the Mafia.

Pithy comment follows dry-witted humour in another very enjoyable detective story with the irrepressible Elvis Cole in control. For the first two chapters I found that I was chuckling to myself at least once per page as Elvis met the self-centered, big-shot director client, Peter Alan Nelsen. Although the humour doesn't continue at this pace, a light-hearted feel is maintained throughout the whole book. If you like your detective stories slightly on the humorous side with just a little bit of danger thrown in for spice, then this book (and all the Elvis Cole books) are just perfect.

Although this book is part of an ongoing series, it isn't really necessary to read it in the order that it was written. While the main characters are the same (Elvis and Joe Pike), previous plots aren't divulged.

This is the third book I have read by Robert Crais in the Elvis Cole series. Trying to read them in order. I think this is the best one so far. Elvis and Joe Pike are great together. Still wonder if Spencer and Hawk could take them but think it would be a pretty close match. Elvis is hired to find the son of Peter Alan Nelsen. He had left him and his wife years ago. Elvis finds them but they now have mob connections and the mob does not want to give the wife up. Elvis and Joe then take on the mob. Coles fast mind and quick wit get him into and out of trouble. Pike is always around someehere. You may not see him but he is there. A very good mystery and Crais holds you attention. I found myself nearly skipping pages to find out what happened next. IF you like a good fast paced book you will like this one.

The problem I have with the world in this book is that the people in power are totally trustworthy and benevolent. The teachers in the book downplay the need for rights, but they don't realize that in their fairytale world no one NEEDS rights. If the police would never unfairly harrass members of a particular ethnic group, plant evidence, or take bribes then of course no one would need rights. If Heinlein had been able to problematize his world by putting moraly flawed humans in power, it would have been a more interesting book. The author just didn't seem mature enough to question the world he created. For this reason the book seemed to predictable and real (interesting)problems seemed glossed over (i.e. if anyone in power was ever selfish or dishonest what would happen?). A little childish philosophically if you ask me.

A friend mentioned that this was an incredible book, and being a fan of "Stranger in a Strange Land" for nearly 2 decades now, I dropped my reading list for a Sci-Fi space escape... I forgot it was Heinlien; low and behold some of my favorite stomping grounds, a provocation of social values, moral values WITH analyses, all in the sterile environment of Science Fiction. Myself, being flung left of center, Starship Troopers reminded me of some of my more conservative "core" values regarding freedom, service to man, and duty... A Klingon's paradise. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I could cite chapter and verse that which Hollywood wouldn't dare touch (Their very own "31 crash landings" by which to avoid controversy)... but, "Hey!", I'm there for the F/X. Starship Troopers will make you think... and fan the fires of disagreement; this is a good thing. The usage of Sovereign Franchise as a form of government, the challenges to our "unalienable rights" (very poignant), the forwarding of duty as the application of "survival" toward the "group", and Heinleins "59" analysis of the end of the XX'th centuries social and judicial woe's was a prophetic indictment of the status quo. I didn't agree with the RAH's whole doctrine... Then again it wasn't a doctrine was it? It was a novel. A science fiction novel... put out as a model of a utopian society, I don't believe that was RAH's point. Let Starship Troopers stir the settled detritus of your social value system and leave you feeling like your back in college spoiling for moral debate... Then ask yourself "What's the point?".

The book is not the movie. Only some elements of the book made it into film, and they were grossly overshadowed by the weight of the director's distaste for his own perceptions.

The book is not the Amazon.com review. The reviewer's words connotate apology for having to write something positive; his/her statements about the necessity of military service to earn voting rights (it was Federal Service, only some of which was military) and the stressing of "beating children in order to make them into good citizens" (Heinlen discusses the uses of unfortuneately required corporal punishment) are a view of the book through aged and broken glass.

The book is part rollicking-good military action, part esthetics, part political philosophy. It reads well (as it should for its intended younger audience) and revisits well (as it should for the political philosophy and esthetics).

I'm an individualist, and found the conformity of the characterization difficult. One has to look for signs that non-conformity is tolerated.

I'm also a realist, and believe that a balance of authority and responsibility is essential to maintain a society that remains stable and rich enought to permit individualism (which requires a non-tribal level of economic and social development). The book brings these issues to the fore.

I took a point off, for a rating of 9, because Heinlein got caught up in 'mathematically provable' social assertions, leading to a greater degree of certainty in his social engineering than would actually work. In doing this, he was reflecting a recent (when the book was written) burst of optimism about formal logic. People thought that, with appropriate premises, formal logic would allow all sorts of problems to be definitively solved. They forgot, or did not know, that the social 'sciences' work with confidence intervals that would make a physicist burn his/her results. They also did not appreciate the difficulties of formal logic. One significant problem with formal logic is the creativity required to find solutions (something seen in all higher math) that makes it intolerant of automated (computer-based) resolution. Another (and to date, the major road-block)is the non-linear increase in solution difficulty when moving from simple propositions to complex ones. Proving a few assertions might take several pages of logic. Proving many assertions balloons out from there; speaking generally, it's easy to create groups of assertions that are non-computable.

Read the book! Think about the 'universal' franchise and the problems it causes. Think about the competing alternatives to universal democracy, and how Starship Troopers stacks up.

And enjoy a good read.

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.