Beowulf is in Anglo-Saxon, but is probably originally a Norse legend. Please ignore the comment in another review that the Anglo-Saxons were ancestors of King Arthur! Arthur, if he existed, was a British king who fought the Romans. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes were teutonic tribes who came to England at the end of the Roman occupation several centuries later.

The concept of the Modern Critical Interpretation series is an excellent one. The editor, Harold Bloom, a renowned scholar in his own right, has assembled the best literary criticism of a large number of important works.

If you want to get a deeper insight into Beowulf as a work of literature, this book is an excellent way to do it. Some of the essays are a bit challenging--the book is for the fairly serious Beowulf fan. Seamus Heaney's translation really got me into a work which I've been meaning to get to for a long time. This collection of essays took me the rest of the way--it told me all I wanted to know about Beowulf as work of literature. Think of it as a senior-level college text book.

The essays give the reader some valuable insights into the language, but you don't have to know Old English to appreciate it. But a willingness to learn about a few of the words will help.

"Difficult" classics usually pay back many-fold the effort one puts into studying them. Beowulf and these essays are definitely worth that time and effort.

When I had to switch my college study to English, I was a bit frightened of all the reading before me. This book told me that I was in for a REAL exciting journey towards my B.A. "Beowulf" is no less than an exquisite masterpiece. It is just the right length, the images are well drawn, the language is well used, and the plot is more complex than we may have thought. The setting prior to Beowulf's entrance is well constructed. Beowulf's character is well prepared upon his entrance. Unferth is well placed. He reveals to us that despite Beowulf's piety and courage, he is not a flawless hero. He suffers from excessive pride. Beowulf's fight with Grendel offers suspense and captivation, and we are even allowed a small amount of sympathy for Grendel when he escapes only to die later. We are then told the story of Siegmund, and his fall over excessive pride foreshadows Beowulf's fall. (History repeats itself.) Grendel's mother than comes to avenge her son. (This goes way beyond a simple chapter.) She is a threat that must be dealt with, but it is difficult not to feel sorry for her. (She is after all a mother in sorrow over her son's death.) Although Unferth rebuked Beowulf earlier, he joins with Beowulf for a common cause, and later, Beowulf ADMITS that the battle was very close. (He is not invincible.) King Hrothgar then warns Beowulf of excessive pride. Later the dragon attacks, and Beowulf displays excessive pride (the very thing King Hrothgar warned him against). In this battle Beowulf does fight with courage, and Wiglaf displays touching loyalty to Beowulf in this battle where Beowulf dies. Beowulf's funeral is a fitting end for this masterpiece. So we have a hero with strength, virtues, and flaws, suspense, well organization, well drawn supporting characters, complex villains, and even an element of mystery! Who was this author?

Part of the reason Dickens uses his "flowery" language, despite the effectiveness in creating vivid imagery, was that he was paid by the word. Therefore, his wordiness should not solely be considered an artistic choice, which makes you a bit more sympathetic to how long winded this book can seem. It is however a classic for good reason, with a compelling plot, even without very memorable characters. Still a good book to read for its historical context, and if you can handle the language it, for its good story.

Probably the first thing I thought about when I first read Charles Dicken's A Tale of Two Cities was, 'There's WAY too much detail in thing dumb novel!' Well, as I read on it occurred to me that Dicken's uses his amazing flowery language for a reason. It gives you the 'reality' feeling, like you can actually see and picture in your mind what is going on. The novel grabs you in places and lets you feel the sorrow or happiness the characters feel. His rendition of London and Paris are extraordinary because he lets you see the injustice and the anguish that the peasant class felt at that time. The use of detail and language in this novel is one of its most effective elements and truely I would rate this book as one of the best.

A young man must break away from his mother and her life before he can discover a life of his own.

I skipped over Lawrence for years. I had heard the tawdry tales of his work and felt a bodice ripper is a bodice ripper no matter what century you put it in. But I was wrong! He is a marvel. As soon as I finished Sons and Lover's I went out and got The Rainbow. S & L, reads very quickly, much like Maughm's On Human Bondage. They are both of the same period and are both loosly based on the perspective authors lives. Tantilizing, they allow us a glimpse into the emerging industrial era. The middle classes and lower middle classes are emerging into the plutocracy but slowly. All around them are the dredges of a past system. The coming of age of Lawrence as he throws off his childhood and his need to throw off his mother is engrossing, since you know it is based on real life and not a campy Sally Jessy Rapahel show. He struggles as we all struggle to make the right choices. What Lawrence does is let us in on the stuff that most novels don't let the reader know. The truth the character gives to the reader is unheard of today. Read this book and follow him from childhood of a mama's boy in a coal town in Norther England that love's, and love's, and looses only to truly love .

Ésta no es una novela para pasar un rato agradable.

En la historia aparecen muchos símbolos o representaciones sobre la sociedad humana y esto puede ser interesante para varios lectores, pero la esencia de la novela es cruda, fuerte, inmisericorde.

El hecho de que los protagonistas sean jóvenes no la convierte automáticamente en literatura juvenil. Sugiero leerla antes de recomendarla o regalarla.

El Señor de las Moscas William Golding La isla desierta, el segundo comienzo de la humanidad, la juventud e inexperiencia de sus ocupantes, la relajación de los controles morales y la gradual caída de sus habitantes en la inercia y la anarquía, estos son los elementos que encontramos en el señor de las moscas. Me pregunto que seria de mi si estuviese en esa situación, caería en la anarquía o trataría e imitar la decadente sociedad de la que vengo? Aunque estoy de acuerdo con el autor en muchas cosas, no estoy de acuerdo con la premisa de que el mal es innato y que la supresión de los controles provoque caos. Quizás sea yo el menos indicado para señalar esto y solo sea un simple soñador, ya que en mis años de colegio fui un Piggy cualquiera, blanco de las burlas y las mofas de los más astutos aunque menos intelectuales que yo. Y después en mi vida adulta como profesor he visto que el egocentrismo de los niños los lleva a veces a ser crueles con sus compañeros. Pero aun me resisto a creer, deseo firmemente demostrar que ese proceso puede revertirse, aunque veo que por lo visto en los últimos tiempos la violencia infantil en las escuelas por parte de niños ha aumentado bastante. La novela sin embargo trata el punto de vista del autor que supo expresar sus pensamientos magistralmente, aunque debo decir que las descripciones de la selva me resultaron cansonas. Pero eso ya es culpa mía, pues nunca he sido muy adepto a las descripciones de paisajes, siendo atraído enormemente en cambio por los aspectos psicológicos de las obras...... Descripción de la obra Esta obra de William Golding es una fábula al estilo ingles ( parece ser que a los ingleses les encanta escribir este tipo de fábula moralista de mundos en decadencia. Solo tenemos que acordarnos de Un Mundo Feliz, 1984, Hacienda de Animales y otras mas, todas sobre mundos o sociedades en su ocaso o dominados por seres autoritarios) en que un grupo de PRE-adolescentes y niños se ve atrapado en una isla desierta . Los personajes principales de la obra reflejan cada uno una condición distinta del ser humano. Ralph, el gobernante elegido por el grupo, tiene buenas intenciones, don de mando, y una inteligencia por encima de la mediocridad aunque no siempre tiene las mejores ideas. Se apoya inconscientemente en Piggy y solo al final se da cuenta de que era el único amigo verdadero y el único con visión suficiente para pensar casi como adulto. Piggy representa la inteligencia, no siempre escuchada cuando se mueven otros intereses, a veces solo cuando es demasiado tarde. Jack es el antagonista por excelencia, en busca de poder no escatima en esfuerzos por satisfacer sus ansias de ser un gobernante de la isla y dar rienda suelta a instintos que quizás en un mundo civilizado hubiesen permanecido acallados. Su odio visceral hacia Piggy desde un principio es el odio hacia el sentido común que le impedirían dar rienda suelta a sus ambiciones y manías. La historia puede prestarse a múltiples interpretaciones, pero creo que la mas clara de ellas es la sombría visión del autor hacia la humanidad en si y de cómo el mal es algo innato que surge en el ser humano una vez se han relajado los controles que lo mantienen a raya... Luis Méndez

Es uno de los mejores libros que se pueden recomendar para pasar un momento totalmente entretenido, y sobre todo para reflexionar acerca de nuestras propias carencias y limites.

Bloom ate Blake, Crane, Shakespeare, Shelley, and the rest of them before adolescence and has been digesting ever since. Even before his lifelong meal, his intellect is simply larger and sharper than anyone else's.

The most accessible book on British Romanticism I've ever read. Bloom does an outstanding job providing the big picture of the period and a close, specific explication of individual works.

A couple of things to start off: This is the best of Bloom at the height of his power, and this book is ultimatly the one that will be remembered despite Bloom's sad, downward spiral into "Omens of The Millenium" and other such kitsch.-This book, when first published in 1960, was an affront to the prevailing Neo-Classicism triumphed by T.S. Eliot and the soi-disant New Criticism, both of which defined themselves, to a great extent, by despising the Romantics and in seeking to give the lie to their poetic ability and influence. Neither school is now given much account, while the Romantics are still with us.-The problem with a book defending the Romantics and explaining their poetry is that you are attempting to explain what the poets themselves saw as inexplicable, the vision of the visionary company is that of a divine beauty not of this world making itself known to the poets not at the summoning of their will, but, as Shelley beautifully puts it, like a sudden wind firing a fading coal. It would be a futile endeavor to go over the texts of each of the poets in this necessarily brief review and explain, as Bloom does, how this vision manifested itself in each of them.-That's, after all, what the book's for!-But, as an example, take the final poem of one of Bloom's and my favorite of the Visionary Commpany, Shelley. His unfinished, final poem before he drowned at the age of 30, "The Triumph of Life," is an almost perfect example of why defending the Romantics is such a difficult and complex task, and why this book is such a triumph for Bloom. The "Triumph of Life" describes a public way thronged with people "All hastening onward, yet none seemed to know whither he went, or whence he came, or why...". This is the plight not only of the common man, but of kings, potentates etc. (Napolean makes a brief and horrid appearance). Then follows behind a blazing chariot, which is Life here on Earth as we commonly know it, and that light blinds all to the moon and stars, symbols of Nature and Imagination, respectively. Thus Shelley learns, in common with all the Romantics who had not the luck that Keats had, of dying young, that the "spark with which heaven lit my spirit" is no match eventually for the blinding light of Life. This view of common life, devoid of poetic vision, as, frankly, something evil, is a difficult matter to explain to those who have not shared in the vision. But, intellectually, it's subject matter should not appear strange. It amounts to the Fall of Man, as described Biblically.-The upshot of all this for the poet, who now sees life as evil, is that, quoting Bloom, "Life, our life, can be met only by quietism or by willful self-destruction." This echoes some lines by that later (some would say last) Romantic, Yeats, "What portion can the artist have, who has awakened from the common dream, but dissipation and despair?"-This is hard and unpleasant to many, but it is logical, and makes sense of what the aforementioned literary schools trampled on as sentimental cheeseparings. This then is the book's triumph. No longer can these poets and their poetry be dismissed without contending with Bloom. A formidable obstacle indeed!

Shelly's Frankenstein is pretty well understood to be a flawed work, an amazing first attempt by a young author while also being a classic of literature. It is hard to say how I avoided reading it for so long but was surprised to find my friends negative attitudes on this book. Classics though must be read, so I devoured this over the course of a weekend and found the book quite enjoyable, however, at times I found some of its problems nearly overwhelming.

The first problem Frankenstein has is that it is (as far as content goes) really a short story. I can't imagine it needing more than 60-100 pages, but Shelly inflates it to over 200, and for no discernable reason. The expanded length leads only to additional passages where Frankenstein himself is lying unconscious for months, or needless travelogue scenes which only serve to detract from the story. It might also be said that after 100 pages of melancholic whimperings from Frankenstein the reader has probably lost all sympathy toward the character. There are also certain plot elements that seem to repeat themselves a bit too often, but I the appeal of these elements will be based upon the reader.

Ultimately, Frankenstien seems a great story that you occasionally feel compelled to skim through. There is a certain sloppiness (I am still not clear what happened to Edward--the only surviving Frankenstein, but I do know something about some of the townspeople mentioned in a letter which have NOTHING to do with the story), but when you put all that aside, the very heart of Frankenstein is an enjoyable read. The monster is a sympathetic one and I found myself glued to the pages as he first illustrated how he came to understand the world around him.

Unlike Moby Dick which should never be abridged since so much of its irrelevance seems the primary point of the story (I often consider Ahab and the whale merely a sub-plot in Ishmael's life), Frankenstein could do with some good editing. Despite Frankenstein being a relatively short book to begin with, even 200+ pages feels a bit trying when all you are reading about is landscape and Frankenstein fainting.

Those who know Frankenstein only from movies and television may well be surprised to read the original book by Mary Shelley. Indeed, one may well look back to the cover to see if the book is in fact Frankenstein because the first pages consist of messages from an R. Walton to his sister concerning his expedition to the northern polar regions. Victor Frankenstein appears as a wretched creature stranded on an ice floe beside the ship. After he is rescued and recovers somewhat, he tells his incredible story to Walton, who in turn preserves the story in writing. Frankenstein reminisces about his happy childhood, particularly the close relationship between himself and his "cousin" Elizabeth, and then explains how his interest in discredited natural philosophy led him to create a living man of his own design. The creature is a hideous, misshapen, giant of a man who so disgusted Frankenstein upon his awakening that he fled his laboratory and residence. The creation process, it should be noted, in no way involved an elaborate machine powered by lightning such as is portrayed in the movies; in fact, beyond the fact that chemicals are involved, we are told nothing of the process. For two years, Frankenstein goes about life with a clinging sense of guilt and nervousness, hoping the creature has perished. When his little brother is murdered, though, he returns home and soon discovers that it was the monster who committed the deed. In an isolated mountainous area, the monster appears before him and explains his actions. Although the creature does nothing more than grunt in the movies, the original Frankenstein was possessed of great eloquence and intelligence, and he tells a moving story about his attempts to make a connection with a society that is revolted at the sight of him. He describes living in a small hovel at the back of a small house for many months, watching the interaction of the family inside, learning how to speak their language and eventually even learning how to read. When he eventually tries to interact with the family, he is assaulted and runs away, and it is at this point that his virtuous and peaceful nature begins to become inflamed into a torrent of hatred for mankind. When he rescues a girl from drowning, he is rewarded with a bullet in his shoulder. Each time he performs a good deed, mankind runs from him in disgust or attempts to harm him. Living in total isolation and loneliness, his one purpose in life eventually becomes tormenting his creator, and many terrible misfortunes ensue for Frankenstein, who himself eventually becomes dedicated to the sole purpose of destroying his tormentor.

Both Frankenstein and his monster are tragic figures. The complete alienation of the creature makes him a very sympathetic character in many respects, and he does perform many kind deeds for humans early on. Frankenstein is an utterly pitiable character utterly destroyed by his mad decision to create the monster; he burdens his soul with responsibility for every crime the monster commits, and his inability to tell anyone his secret for so long destroys him in body, mind, and soul; everyone and everything he cares for is taken from him by his horrible creation. His tendency to bemoan his fate at every turn of the narrative can get rather tiresome, but one cannot question the depth of his turmoil. Both creator and created seem to be mirror images of each other in important ways, their fates clearly tied to one another, each soul deserving both blame and pity. There is much about human nature, both good and bad, revealed in the monster's life as well as Frankenstein's; the novel is a far cry from horror for the sake of horror. This is actually a very complex, compelling story full of human pathos; it is unfortunate that modern media have turned Frankenstein's creature into a simple, heartless, mentally deficient monster for the sake of scares and laughs.

You don't know Frankenstein until you've read the novel. Forget everything you remember about the classic horror movie of Frankenstein, sure it's great cinema, but the movie just doesn't do it justice like the novel does. The novel has every quality of a perfect story, and Mary Shelley paints a picture with her writing that's far more disturbing and exciting than the movie ever was. What's really great about the book is that the creature speaks and is literate. Throughout the novel, the creature does speaks about the cruelty of man and I actually had sympathy for him as he told his accounts of misfortune. One thing I particularly liked is the way the creature was almost invincible, it really added to the horror that his creator feels as he's chasing him through the bitter cold. The novel is not difficult reading at all and has a decent steady pace to it. There is more than meets the eye to the novel as well. One could look at Shelly's work through a psychoanalytical standpoint and see the novel on an entirely different level than just what's on the surface. Psychoanalyzing the novel brings with it some interesting discussions; for instance, is the creature really just a duplicate of its creator? Read the book and form your own analysis, you won't be disappointed.

I read this book years ago after reading Jane Eyre. This is nothing like Jane Eyre or Pride and Prejudice. It does not have the spirite or the heart of those two books. For years I tried to figure out what was wrong with me that I should not love such a classic. But now that I am more mature and a more seasoned reader; ...It just is not to my taste. Sometimes I like books that others do not and sometimes others like books that I dont. This book lacks the hope and sense of awe for life that I desire in a novel. For me the hero and herroine must be worthy of my time and attention. Something good in them must prevail. That just doesn't happen here. This story is really sad because it is a love story writen by a woman who never know what it was like to love and be loved in return. IF she had she would never have writen this abusive version of love. But you know as well as i do that some women truely belive that abuse is love. So like I say to each his own.

P.S. Read The Tenant of Wildfell Hall By Ann Bronte instead. It shows the real face of an abusive relationship with a happy ending. Her characters are realistic and true heros of their lives.

Emily Bronte sure knows how to write about destructive love! I thought both Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliff the stupidest people ever! I could hardly understand Joseph's tongue...perhaps because my language is too polished:)
Ok, maybe I'm being too harsh. Wuthering Heights really isn't that bad. I actually understood it (for a thirteen year old, you've gotta give me credit)It was written nicely as Ellen {Nellie} Dean for the orator of Heathcliff's complete past. Catherine is pretty stupid though. And Heathcliff stupider for not trying to convince her to marry him BEFORE she married Linton. But I felt pretty sorry for Heathcliff when he called for Catherine the night that Lockwood spent the night. My favorite character was Hareton because i loved his speech! It was funny when almost every time he spoke, he sweared. I have to say that I hated Linton for being such a weakling, even though he could hardly help it. Despite Heathcliff's trickery with Isabel and hatred for Cathy, I couldn't help liking him a teeny bit, because he's just so unique! I really wanted Hareton and Cathy to make the match, and i positively despised Heathcliff and Linton for making him look so stupid. And i just loved Hareton's "thundercloud" face! Go ahead and read Wuthering Heights. You'll probably both hate and love it. It was a rather exciting and tiresome novel. Then again, I may be to young to criticize this "great classic" novel :)

Wuthering Heights is one of oldest romance novels and stands as a classic in litterature history.
All through the book you will meet great contrasts that to a certain extent can explain the actions. Wuthering heights is the land of storm and wilderness compared to the quiet and more passive Thruscross Grange where one might think it's more appropriate for children to grow up. The Earnshaw family lives on Wuthering Heights while the Linton family is from Thruscross Grange. When those two contrasts meets with the children of these two families, the conflicts starts. Catherine and Heathcliff are drawn to eachother from the begining and their passion is powerful and destructive. There's love, hate and suffering, but written in a poetic somewhat advanced language and it's echanting how you get caught up with this book.
Sad is it that Emily Brontë died the year after its publication at the age of thirty... But with this novel and her poems, she is one of the most well known female English writers of the 18th century.
You will surely miss out on something great by not reading this book. I warmly recommend Wuthering Heights to everyone who loves to read. It is truly a unique piece of writing!

While reading "...Caged Bird" I payed attention to Angelou's innovative writing style. She is of a new generation who dares to write about life as it really is. Instead of an autobiography that idealizes and candy-coats life, this book tells about life's embarassing and not-so-enjoyable details. I enjoyed this book. It was a fast and easy read. I would recommend it for older audiences (9th grade--on). Some of the content may not be appropriate for younger readers. Teachers: this book could be coupled with Mildred D. Taylor's "Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry". It would be a great complement for authors like Langston Hughes, Gwendolyn Brooks, Zora Neal Hurston, Jean Toomer, Walter Dean Myers,James Baldwin... for a unit on Multicultural American literature. You could address topics like: racism, rape, relocating and its adjustments, teen pregnancy, parental roles, autobiography writing styles... I'm a 21-year-old female studying to be an Enlish teacher.

Maya Angelou's autobiographical narrative, I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, was a major eye-opener for me, a high school sophomore. It frankly depicts her life as a southern, black child. The story begins as she is sent, at the age of four, to live with her strict and very religious grandmother in Stamps, Arkansas. After she leaves to go live with her mother in St. Louis, she bluntly describes the events in which she was molested and raped by her mother's live-in boyfriend when she was eight. The novel continues to include all of the important events in her early life such as: her move back to Stamps, the move to California, the beginning of World War II, and giving birth to her son at age sixteen. Throughout the novel she constantly compares herself to her brother, whom she considers beautiful. The book mentions many popular novels including The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Jane Eyre and also the authors Edgar Allan Poe and William Shakespeare. I enjoyed this book because it made me apprciate my life as a middle-class, white girl.

Although I'm caucasion, I was able to relate to many of the experiences that Maya describes in her book; it's more than the Negro experience in the racist South during the depression of the 30's and early 40's, it's about the tenacity one must adhere to in order to overcome the myriad of obstacles that one endures during a lifetime. It's about finding your voice, and then using it effectively. What makes Maya Angelou's book so poignant is her honest narrative as she journeys back to the little town of Stamps, Arkansas. The reader is almost immediately pulled in to the story because we can simply share in her episodic adventures: Growing up with "Momma", who is really her grandmother, and a very strict and dedicated Christian woman who doesn't waver from the God's will nor his ten commandments; she deals with an inspiring school teacher who serves as a springboard for Maya's eventual success as a person and writer; Maya also deals with the inequality of the races, the blatant disrespect by the white people, and the mixed feelings she experiences due to her parents uninvolvement with her and her brother, Baily. Maya Angelou is honest and straight forward with her language. This book is clearly one of the best books I've ever read. You have no choice but to be moved. There is something for everyone is this masterpiece. We all want to feel connected, to become a part of the story, if you will, and this book does just that. Maya Angelou is truly gifted as a writer, and we're lucky that a woman named Mrs. Flowers tapped into Maya's talents and encouraged her to expose it. The end result has been an eternal gift for all of us to share.

I read this book in 9th grade. I am 26 years old now and still think about the morality and symbolism of human nature I discovered in "Lord of the Flies". I decided to write this review all these years later after watching the first installment of the TV show "Survivior". I saw a lot of similarities. In "Lord of the Flies" we are given a sort of scenario...what if a group of young adolescent boys were left abandoned on a deserted island. This is what happens...and as I describe some of the scenes from the book, compare them to that of a real life TV show a lot of us watch. Maybe like me, you'll see a more animal, evil side to these "real-life" strategy survival shows. On this deserted island a natural leader is born, Ralph. He is kind, and understanding of the fears his fellow students face. He accepts responsibility and delegates "chores" for the other boys to do. They must tend a rescue fire. They must hunt for food. They must tend to the wounded pilot. Ralph chooses the path a responsible adult might. Soon some of the boys become lazy. They do not follow Ralph's rules. These unruly boys are headed by another natural leader. The more "wild" and fun-seeking Jack. Jack and Ralph argue. To maintain control the boys find a large shell ....the conch....and whoever holds it has the right to speak. This attempt at order works for a little while but soon Jack dismisses the control the conch holds. He and his pig-hunting, lazy friends split from the original group and leave to another part of the island. They want to "do their own thing". They defy rules and organization which Ralph feels is the key to survival. Meanwhiile Ralph and his friend Piggy struggle to keep their small group in order. It becomes increasingly difficult to maintain adult responsibility. For the youngest who fear Jack and his clan, Ralph becomes almost their savior, their security on an island of unknown. Soon Ralph's pack decides they too are tired of rules, and one by one leave to join Jack's ideas of senseless fun. Jack represents abandonment of control, living purely through pleasures. This is where you can form a million metaphors between the two clans of boys. Jack and his bandits become so wild and animal-like near the "end" that they actually start hunting Ralph in the manner of a real pig-hunt. They have forgotten society, basic humanity, and most of all..they have forgotten they were once all friends. This kind of behavior echoed alot of the back-stabbing things I see on TV and in the government, religion, everywhere in real life. Read this book and never let yourself abandon what you truly beleive to be good in your heart...Let us compare this book of instinct and leaders and followers to our own lives....On a personal note....Jack always kind of reminded me of Adolph Hitler and his control over his followers during the war. I would love to hear some other thoughts via e-mail. If you are reading this book for school, like I did once, really try to think about some real-life comparisons you find between the pages of Golding's work of art.

The novel THE LORD OF THE FLIES focuses on the defects of society and their relationship with the defects of human nature. The story begins when about fifteen prep shool boys are stranded on a Utopia-like paradise island after their plane crashes. They immediately try to set up a social system like any modern-world people would. Through democracy(a vote) they crown an attractive, intelligent boy named Ralph as leader. They crown a wild, power-hungry boy named Jack and a mellow, calm, an most importantly peaceful boy named Simon as his assistant-leaders. As the novel progresses Jack, who is also the leader of the choir(the group of boys who represent the military) becomes very violent, power-hungry and mutinous and attempts several times to overthrow Ralph before finally leaving the group of boys to form a tribe of his own. This split is what drives the book forward into the amazingly complex and symbolic novel that it is. It is through this split that Golding tries to explain the main theme of his novel. This theme being of course that the defects of society can be traced back only to the defects of human nature and that shape of a society depends upon the ethical nature of the creatures that inhabit it not anything else no matter how perfect or logical it appears. With this theme set in place Golding then begins to use complex symbolism such as the symbol of the sow, who represents the human conciense,and Piggy who's glasses represent the sane, accurate view and who himself represents the sane voice of society. It is through these characterizations that Goldings novel becomes the writing of a genius. If you are a psychologyst who hasn't read this book-READ IT! If you're a person interested in the study of society read this book! Thanks, Nick McCulloch,15

I cannot even use words to explain the sheer beauty of Golding's writing. The novel is about british boys whose plne crashed on a deserted island, but they are devoid of any adults. They begin to live life on their own and their true animal instinct divulges from the depths of their souls.
I read this book for my ninth grade English class. I usually do not enjoys books in class as much as I do books I read on my own, simply because I did not chose them and I fell as though I am being forced to read them. The Lord of the Flies is more fascinating than any book I could ever pick for myself. The words are strong enough to lift a house. My eyes were stuck to every words Golding described with such thouroughness. The words are more thick with detail than one's eyes could every see. Every word is important and expresses a new meaning to the nature of man kind. I am daring you to take a chance by reading this book, even if it is not forced upon you. You may have a completely different view on the genuine nature of yourself.

First of all, I admit I'm biased here. I am a tremendous admirer of Hemingway's writing style. The language - unbelievably minimal, declarative, free of any irrelevance - is absolutely intoxicating. This, by itself, makes Hemingway a joy to read. Every sentence is so tight, so compact, yet they all say so much and create as vivid a picture in your mind as a photograph. Hemingway's writing at its worst is amazing.

However, "The Old Man and the Sea" is one of Hemingway's finest novels, fully deserving of the Nobel Prize. The story is simple and may seem boring to some, but the beauty of the old man's struggle with the marlin is heartbreaking and encouraging at the same time. Hopelessness and full awareness of defeat are contrasted with perseverance, determination, and an unwillingness to be destroyed. "The Old Man and the Sea" brings home all of mankind's failures and all of mankind's successes in every sentence.

I can't recommend this book more highly. Read it and stand in awe, both at Hemingway's astonishing command over the English language and at the dignity he brings to the failed in mankind. Brilliant in every sense of the word.

The Old Man and The Sea is a wonderful book that tells a story of an old man and his art of fishing. The author Earnest Hemingway uses intricate symbolism and a great story line to draw readers into this story. With these techniques he protraies a livable story that applies to many abroad./One aspect of this book I enjoyed was the old man, Santiago. His character, to me, helped me to become involved in the story. Earlier in the book , the old man was struggling with a large Marlin. Even with his body beaten and broken, he continued to fight the fish. The old man's strength and persistence helped me to appreciate his art of fishing./This is definitely a good book to read, not only once but many times over. It is a story that truly was one of Hemingway's greatest novels. Within it is contained beautiful writing and a meaning close to life.

Ernest Hemingway's short novel "The Old Man and the Sea" received the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 1953, and undoubtedly played a role in his being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1954. The book tells the story of an elderly Cuban fisherman and of his epic struggle with a gigantic marlin.

This is a simple, straightforward story of courage and endurance. For most of the book, the old man is totally alone (aside from the animals he encounters) on his boat. Hemingway fills the book with memorable details about marine life and the fisherman's trade. An interesting touch is the invocation, throughout the book, of U.S. baseball player Joe DiMaggio as an iconic figure.

Hemingway's style has been justly celebrated over the decades, and his writing in this book is remarkable. In "The Old Man" he achieves a purity, clarity, and stark beauty that remind me of the poetry of Stephen Crane. This book is an enduring classic, and Hemingway's old man is one of the most memorable characters in American literature. If you like this book, also try "The Story of a Shipwrecked Sailor," by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.