Golding is an incredible wordsmith. With stark realism and deep insight, he probes one man's outer and inner struggles for survival after washing up on a rock in the mid-Atlantic. I found the psychological portrail wholly believable, but I had a difficult time sympathizing with this character. He's a womanizer, a self-centered egotist. With near-animal drive, he carves out meager existence on the rock. I found very little emotional connection with Martin, and read on primarily because of Golding's narrative power.

Essentially, Golding seems to say that, brought to our lowest common denominator in a fight for life, we are all self-centered, that greed takes over. I found the argument weak because we discover that Martin was this way already. I would've liked to see a selfless person's fight for existence and the consequences of his actions.

Or maybe that's Golding's point: Martin's self-centeredness eventually corrodes his ability to survive because the motivations run shallow. Numerous true-life accounts show the struggle of men and women to rise above their base needs and extend life heroically to others. Selflessness often leads to the survival of the group, it seems, but in this book we have only one character's survival to consider.

A second reading might reveal to me more of Golding's intentions in this story, but the fact remains: Golding knows how to build word upon word until you are trapped within the dwelling of his character's minds. That alone lifts this book above the volumes of so-called literature stacked on most shelves.

Based on Golding's own standards from his other books, I cannot highly recommend this as a great story, but only as a great example of powerful wordage and characterization. I think Golding sells us short here on the premise of survival. I finished the last page with little emotional or intellectual reaction. I felt, like Martin, only blank disillusionment.

One star taken away only because some of the material is dated. I'm an ex sailor and was enthralled from first page to last. I felt the motion of the boat, the bite of the weather and the stark reality of the island. This book proved to me Mr. Golding is a master story teller.

Golding proves he is a master of probing man's psychology when in the greatest of danger. The plight of the stranded naval officer is vivid and frightening. Riveting, exciting and thoughful, the story displayes Golding's awesome and expansive imagination in such a confined environment. Take heed that the book is about the TWO deaths of Christopher Martin.

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

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

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

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

If you're not familiar with Hamlet, a pox on you! Hamlet is the most famous failed law student in Western culture. Go see a live production. Read the play. Or get a video, or listen to an audio version. Do all four. Versions of Hamlet have been done by Laurence Olivier, Nicol Williamson, Mel Gibson, Kenneth Branagh, Derek Jacobi, or the unattainable version done by Baylor University Theater in the 1950s - the film version won a world film festival in Brussels in 1957. (Yes, I know Jacobi plays the King in Branagh's version, but Jacobi himself played Hamlet - - about the time when Branagh was 15 years old. It's better than his I, Claudius.)

Hamlet, like Shakespeare's other plays, has created a huge cottage industry of scholars, actors, theaters and books. The force of Hamlet's personality dwarfs all others, however. To see a man driven mad, and while mad, feign madness, is one of the most clever story twists of world literature. The mind and heart of Hamlet has been thrown into great, tortured pain by several levers -- the death of his father, the overhasty marriage of his mother to his uncle, the usurpation of his throne by his uncle, the threat to the entire kingdom from Fortinbras, the horrifying appearance of the ghost of his father in purgatory torments, the news of the murder of his father from a supernatural phenomenon. The rejection by his lover, Orphelia, and his ensuing mistrust of her, adds nuclear fission to the fire.

You must experience Hamlet. Oh, for a true friend like Horatio!

Having just finished this book a mere few hours ago the pain of it is fresh in my mind, but I'm sure it will distract me for weeks, such is the intensity of this tragedy. The only other novel of Hardy's I have ever read - Jude the Obscure - was a good book, stable and interesting, though not compelling until it's heart-wrenching twist three quarters of the way through the book. It was, in essence, more a social commentary, so it was with some surprise that I absorbed the constant emotion and passion that was this book. The basic storyline is as follows: Tess Durbeyfield, a young woman of a poor country family, is sent to visit her rich cousin, Alec d'Urbeville, after learning of her (perhaps mythical) relation to the ancient family which bears his name. In the obscure randomness that fate casts over life, innocent Tess is then pursued by perhaps the only man she could never tolerate (Alec), who is as his most evil in the early parts of the book. At Alec's house Tess works as a keeper to the poultry and is assaulted by Alec's constant sexual attentions until finally (and this is suggested rather than explained), exhausted and numb, she submits to intercourse with him. She later gives birth to a baby, whom she names Sorrow, who soon dies; and then meets a man she had glimpsed once years before at a dance: Angel Clare. Working together at a milking farm, they become drawn to each other despite Tess's unwillingness to incite the attentions of any man. Their love for each other grows but Tess knows that she dare not enter into marriage considering her past and a society that is both ludcrously religious and prejudiced. The strength of her love finally wears her down and they wed. However, on that very night she confesses her past, and is cruelly thrown aside by Clare, who now begins to view her as an impure woman separate to the Tess he had always loved (despite his past containing a similar history). After suffering years of solitutde and hardship, Tess finally gives up on Clare and falls in the way of Alec d'Urbeville again, relying upon him for the care of herself and her family. Sick and wasted, Clare eventually realizes the mistake he has made in casting Tess aside and finds her at d'Urbeville's mansion: too late. This brings the story to its close where greater tragedy ensues.

The book was brilliant in its emotive persuasion and its depiction of Tess, who is impossible to not feel for, and, indeed, love. The misfortunes of her life are never self-inflicted, and we are left to wonder at the end at the awful nature of a world that would bring such sorrow upon one person. Tess is wonderful, stoic, and pure in her unyielding love for Clare; d'Urbeville is horrible in his initial portrayal as the villain who will singlehandedly destroy Tess's life, though is perhaps a little less repulsive at the end as one understand's the depths of his feeling for her; and Clare is the one who holds in his hands the ability to restore all past wrongness and find joy himself, but tragically fails to do so because of pride and convention.

Overall, there were only two problems I had with the storyline: the first being Tess's succumbing to Alec's sexual persuasion in the beginning - if we are to believe that she is repulsed so many times by Alec's advances so completely and bodily, how are we to believe that she so easily concedes in one (unmentioned) incident? Her strength is greater than that. And the second is one which has been mentioned by another reviewer here: the ending, where a minor, unimportant character is introduced as a means through which to resolve everything, where in fact she is incapable of doing so, since we know nothing about this character, and can therefore put no faith in her.

Despite these minor quibbles the whole of the book, with its engaging plot and brilliant prose, is worth more than the sum of its parts, with the pain of lost love being the principle effect one experiences long after the reading is over. Tess is beautiful.

Although Hardy claimed that 'The Woodlanders' was his favourite work, 'Tess of the d'Urbervilles' was his masterpiece. Only in this intense tale of a 'pure woman' did he unveil his tragic view of the world, conveying his feeling of the injustice of his society. He tells of a young girl taken advantage of by a wealthier man whose actions leave such a stain on her life that, when she seems to be on the path towards happiness following her marriage to Angel, they return to haunt her and, ultimately, effect her destruction. The book was condemned as immoral and pessimistic by contemporary critics, and was indeed written by a deeply unhappy man, but 'Tess' is a novel that should be read by every generation. It is beautifully written; though Hardy had a harsh view of life, his images of an idealistic 1840s Wessex are truly magnificent. Tess' journeys across the ancient tracks of a rustic, simple Southwest England remain within the mind of the reader eternally unforgetable; the contrast with her life at Flitcombe Ash, too, is deeply moving. Although his critics were harsh, the writer of 'Tess of the d'Urbervilles' was, and remains, unrivalled in evocation of tragic emotion.

"Tess of the D'Urbervilles," by Thomas Hardy, is a book about a young woman who struggles to find her place in society. When it is discovered that the low-class Durbeyfield family is in reality the d'Urbervilles, the last of a famous blood line that dates back hundreds of years, the mother sends her eldest daughter, Tess, to beg money from relations with the obvious desire that Tess wed the rich Mr. d'Urberville. Thus begins a tale of woe in which a wealthy man cruely mistreats a poor girl. Tess is taken advantage of by Mr. d'Urberville and leaves his house, returning home to have their child, who subsequently dies. Throughout the rest of this fascinating novel, Tess is tormented by guilt at the thought of her impurity and vows to never marry. She is tested when she meets Angel, the clever son of a priest, and falls in love with him. After days of pleading, Tess gives in to Angel and consents to marry him. Angel deserts Tess when he finds the innocent country girl he fell in love with is not so pure. This touching story depicts how difficult it was being a woman in the 1800s.
There are many reasons to recommend "Tess of the D'Urbervilles." It is a story one can easily relate to. If anyone has ever suffered prejudice, then he/she will want to read this book. The book is also thought-provoking. "Tess" is also interesting in that the author gives the point of view of all the characters in it, not simply that of Tess. This means that the reader gets a better understanding of the plot. Thomas Hardy writes in an eloquent and descriptive manner.
"Tess of the D'Urbervilles" does have perceived flaws. It has been described as rather verbose, but one finds that this is not the case, and that the details only add to the book. The plot is tragic, which might make it depressing to read. However, one finds that it is tragic in a beautiful and compelling sense, not in a sad sense. "Tess of the D'Urbervilles" is a book that will touch your heart.

What would you do if you fell in love with the wrong person? Well Romeo and Juliet are in this same situation. The scene is set in Verona where two household families share the same social status. From the birth of these two enemies come Romeo and Juliet....P>This book was amazing. Once I started reading, I couldn't put the book down. I felt as if I wanted to get in the story and try to fix all their problems. Shakespeare is a creative writer. He put in true life problems that teenagers deal with today. Shakespeare taught me never to give up and to accomplish my goals. In this book, Romeo and Juliet are not allowed to fall in love. Their parents band them from seeing each other and they wouldn't allow them to following their hearts. But they did it anyway. This book taught me to follow what I believe in and to think for myself, not to listen to what other people want me to do. If I did, then my life would have been miserable. The only thing I didn't like with this book was that it was so hard to understand because it was written in Old English.

I recommend the book, Romeo and Juliet, to anyone who loves to read tragic love stories, who is interested in reading Shakespeare's writings, or who is interested in reading an outstanding book.

I have seen all movie versions about Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and still love the book everytime I revisit the story. Every word captivates the reader into truly feeling the passion and tragedy of these two lovers. Even a character such as Tybalt Capulet won me over as far as description goes. Shakespearian writing is very much complex and confusing but it has a touch romance and anger which adds to the emotion of the story. Read this classic tragedy!

I have seen plenty of time the story about Romeo and Juliet and it still captures me.The way all the characters express themselves,the way Shakespear combines hate and love in the same story.It tells you how much two peple can really love each other and they gave up their lifes for their love.
The character I liked most is Tybalt, because I feel reflected. The way he acts, the way he feels towards the Montagues and the most important the way he expresses himself.I won't summarize the plot, as it is one of the best-known tales in all literature, and deservedly so. Being a classic, it can be read from different perspectives and standpoints.
Shakespearian writing is very much complex and confusing but it has a touch romance and anger which adds to the emotion of the story.Read this classic tragedy!

Most of the above reviews are pretty confused, these people cannot spell, or did not properly understand the story. Two men, Lenny and George work on farms, yet Lenny's mental problems lead them into trouble, and they have to flee many of these places. Once again, they work on a farm, and George helps Lenny and tries to keep him out of trouble. Lenny's need for female contact causes him to want something soft to handle, so he chooses furry animals. He is so strong that he keeps killing them accidentally. Curley, the bosses's son immediately hates Lenny feeling jealousy for his size and strength. Once Lenny is finally left alone with a puppy, he kills it, and Curley's wife walks in wanting to comfort him and have someone to talk to like most of the other lonely people on the farm. She ends up asking him to touch her hair and feel how soft it is, and Lenny is forced to run away to the bushes where George told him to go if anything happened. The story's ending is pretty good, we are told how George's love for Lenny is so strong that he will do anything keep him happy 'till his death. A well written book, good story, remake of the movie is well done. Unlike most hollywood movies, it makes you feel attached to the characters, and not ignore a simple gun shot. Morals of love, and lonelyness, survival of the fittest, and more. Short book, well worth reading.

This book seemed at first to be almost comical, yet the story took a tragic turn. Lennie's character being as it is, made me feel sorry for him. He was like a big dumb animal, and just like Candy's dog ~ was of no help to himself. George befriended Lennie and tried to keep him out of trouble, but in further reading I found that not even George could help Lennie. The ending shocked me, and brought tears to my eyes. I recomend this book to all ages, and to those who have never liked to read. Just trust me on this, you won't be dissapointed.

This is a wonderful story about true friendship and strenth.It's great to get to know the characters. Icould'nt put it down, and I read it three times. I loved it every time.I recomend it just about anyone. Of Mice And Men is the perfect classic!

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

One of the most striking plays written in the 20th century, Samuel Beckett's, "Waiting for Godot," is a must read for any serious student of theater, lover of the theater of the absurd, or those interested in high thought as seen through the eyes of a couple of nobodys.

An absurd play, it is stirring, chilling and unreprentively satirical. The characters even poke fun at the play that they are in as one of the states that, "nothing ever happens," and he is right. Stark and empty, the play has an air of waiting for something to happen. Not only are the main characters, Didi and Gogo (Vladimir and Estragon), waiting for something monumental, but so are the readers.

The potential bleakness of the world that we live in comes to a head in this play where every action hinges on the appearance of Godot, who strikes a resemblence (acording to the players) to God himself.

Beckett was quoted as saying that if he had meant, "God," he would have said "God." Godot, is ambiguous and powerful; as is the play that carries his name.

An excellent, though thick read. The play is dark, and by no means uplifting. By this point in time, "Waiting for Godot," should have been read by everyone. This piece is the center of the theater of the absurd movement, and has been quoted, and been alluted to more often then any play since its writing. It is perhaps only less well read than, "Hamlet," and "Private Lives," by Shakespeare and Coward, respectively.

I'll admit, I don't know a whole lot about theatre or drama. I've spent the past three years reading history, philosophy and other non-fiction. I finally understood though, that I am denying myself philosophy, political critique and history as astute as Sartre, Chomsky or Zinn by Not reading Fiction. I went from devouring every Brecht play/poem/essay I could take out of the library, to a seemingly odd choice; Waiting for Godot. I say again, I don't know a whole lot about theatre (though it is on my list) - however, I was able to understand Waiting for Godot.
People have complained that it is difficult to read. Perhaps my opinion is shaded because I read it right after Finnegan's Wake,
but I found it pleasingly direct, if sparse in "meaningful" dialogue. It ultimatly boils down to two men, apparently homeless, who are waiting for "Godot". Godot (I believe it's pronounced Ga-Doe) is never really explained. It's a "he" according to our two "protagonists". Is it the answer to existential torment? Destiny? Death? I don't know. I suppose the point is not to answer, but to ask, like Ibsen - My call is to ask, not to answer.
Anyway, don't let the reputation of Waiting... Fool you. Some books (Finnegan's Wake *cough*cough*) DO deserve their reputation; some don't. Waiting for Godot will give as much back to you as you put into it. I've already read it twice and enjoyed it more the second time. I bet the Third time will be better. I recommend this play highly.
Also, the translation is as spot-on as you can get; it was done by the author.

I was very disappointed by William Golding's novel The Spire. Golding, whose most famous book is Lord of the Flies, tells in The Spire the story of an Dean Jocelin's obsession to add a 400-foot tall spire to his English Cathedral. All, including the builder, tell Jocelin that this is impossible, as the building lacks adequate foundation. Nonetheless, Jocelin persists, going mad in the process. While much of the writing and language of this book is first-rate, I found it difficult to either pay attention or follow the plot. I found myself rereading many parts of the book with no greater comprehension than the first time through. For me, this was one of those books which I was thankful was short.

"The Spire" manages to brush up against the successful elements of Golding's best work. Although it never reaches the heights of the brilliant "The Lord of the Flies," it does paint vivid and fragmented pictures of man come undone.

William Golding, after seeing the horrors of war firsthand, rejected the foundational thought of humanism that "man is basically good." In "The Lord of the Flies," he used concise language and haunting symbolism to validate his thoughts. And, by creating sympathetic characters, he drew us into his viewpoint. Few of his other novels create such sympathy. It is as though he bought into his own philosophy so deeply that he no longer found value in his fellow man. "Pincher Martin" and "Free Fall" left me impressed with his skills, but intellectually unmoved.

In "The Spire," he moves me again. At first, his protagonist--an anti-hero in every sense--is hard to sympathize with in any fashion. The man, Dean Jocelin, is driven to the point of obsession and insanity by his need to serve God, or, ultimately his need to feel worthy in God's sight. He demands obedience and servitude from those around him, driving them to complete his vision of a 400 ft spire above his cathedral. In the process, some will die, others will lose faith, hope, and love. Only as Jocelin comes to terms with his fallibility do we begin to care about the doomed outcome of his dream. Only as he admits his own pride and stubborness do we hope for his absolution, deserved or not.

This book is an ode to all those who become obsessed by religion and love, who strive for something to the point of sacrificing everything of true value along the way. Here, finally, Golding once again finds a way to show the madness of humanity while still proferring a glimmer of hope.

William Golding's reach in this novel is prodigious. Not only does he demonstrate that the one historical constant is human nature, he also manages to flesh out the scope of behaviour admitted in one particlar human being. The novel takes the reader back in time and to an historically, as well as geographically, foreign place. It deals with how human beings cope with pain, loss, ambition, vision and the tenderest of feelings. The novel is a tour de force.

It was a pretty good book. It made me realize what life was like back in dickens' time. The industrial revolution was going on... It started off pretty slow than got exciting as I read on. I encourage young readers to think about reading this book.

Hard Times depicts the lives of ordinary people during the industrial revolution in England. Dickens brings several characters to life and weaves an interesting story about their interactions with each other. Most of these characters are poor and they live in a pollution ridden town where the economy is based on coal production. Dickens's description of their lives is excellent. The only reason for the four stars is that one or two secret matters are alluded to near the beginning, but they are never revealed, leaving the reader a little disappointed. Overall, Hard Times is very good book.

Hard times lyrically explains life in the early 1800's while captivating its readers and showing that hard times hits people of all eras, decades, and even surpasses those of 1800's to the 1990's. However, what is most intriguing is the fact that Charles Dickens in some aspects suggest that sometimes hard times are circumstances that we subject ourselves and others to and whether is under ones own volition or under false pretenses. Hard Times is indeed a knowledgeable novel that teaches a lesson and shows one of many Dickens attributes. This review is from Merci McKinley who is 16 years old from Potomac High School in Oxon Hill, Maryland.

Lord of the Flies is an imaginative novel that I recommend to all patient readers. I believe in this novel, like others I have read published in this period, has a slow paced plot that does not have incredible amounts of action. In this book, it is sometimes necessary to read two chapters before something exciting accure. For this reason I feel the book may leave something to be desired among the new generation of readers. However, I feel that William Golding does a great job of creating the beautiful, yet traitorous terrain and characters on the island. Overall, this book deserves its crown as one of the best books of its type in the 20th Century.

It's often a distinct pleasure to listen to an audio book read by the author, as the writer of a story can bring an added depth, a richness that eludes voice performers. Such is certainly the case with this reading by the incomparable Cornwallian William Golding, the recipient of the 1983 Nobel Prize for Literature.

"Lord of the Flies" has become a contemporary classic since its publication in 1954. Who can forget this thrilling adventure of British school boys marooned on a tropical island? After their plane is wrecked on a deserted spot the boys must manage to survive.

Initially, the boys use their only resources - themselves, as there is no adult supervision. They make their own rules and way of life. But camaraderie is short lived as some of the boys follow Jack who would rather swim and play, while others are drawn to Ralph as he attempts to bring about order and delegate responsibility.

Throughout the years "Lord of the Flies" has been called a lesson in politics, a parable, and even a myth. Whatever the delineation it is timeless.

William Golding recorded his tale in a London studio in 1976. We're fortunate it has been remastered and re-released for our listening pleasure today. It is not a recording to be played and tossed aside; it is one to hear over and over again.

- Gail Cooke

Now, I don't pretend to be a scholar, let alone a biblicalscholar. And I can not say that I am particularly religious, but Ihave found "The Book of J" to be particularly fresh and intriguing.

I have read Tanakh, the Jewish Publication Society's 1985 translation of the Torah, and have dipped into both its earlier 1917 version and the King James version. I have fought my way through Jonathon Kirsch's "Moses, A Life" and have delighted in reading and rereading Thomas Cahill's "The Gifts of the Jews"; and while I have enjoyed them, I've never really thought about the authors of the Old Testament. But David Rosenberg's translation of J's work, and Harold Bloom's wonderful commentary have brought a new sense of wonder towards my reading of these sacred works and has made them fresh and new to me.

I look forward to furthering my own study into my religion and my spirituality and would recommend highly to anybody who is interested in reviving their interest in the Torah to read "The Book of J" and take a new look at an old text.

Harold Bloom's 'The Book of J' caused quite a stir when it first was published. The book contains both introductory essays on authorship, a discussion of the theory of different texts being used to make up the books of the Bible (the Documentary Hypothesis), some historical context, and translation notes.

The bulk of the book consists of David Rosenberg's new translation of the J text, that text having been separated and isolated from the other source texts of the Torah (first five books of the Bible).

The concluding section contains essays by Bloom on different characters and themes in the text, as well as some modern theoretical analysis of the text, isolated as it is in this volume from the greater mass of material in the Bible.

There is a brief appendix by Rosenberg with notes specifically geared toward translation issues and difficulties, as well as source materials.

First, for a little background: since the 1800's, much of Biblical textual scholarship and analysis has subscribed to the theory that most books were not first written as integrated wholes, but rather, consist of a library of amalgamated texts, largely put together by a person who goes by the title Redactor, or R, for short. This was (in terms of Hebrew Bible timelines) a relatively late occurrence. Prior to this, there were various sources, including the J (J for Jehovah, or Yahweh, which is what God is called in these texts), but also E (Elohist, which is what God is called in these texts), P (Priestly, which largely comprises Leviticus), and D (Deuteronomist). The separation of these strands is controversial, and will probably never cease to be. But with literary and linguistic analysis, certain traits can be discerned of each of the particular strands.

The most controversial conclusion which Bloom advances in this volume is that J is a woman, who lived in the courtly community of King David, and that her stories are not only a retelling of the ancient stories which would have been known commonly, but is also a satire and indictment of courtly life as she finds it.

'J was no theologian, and rather deliberately not a historian.... There is always another side of J: uncanny, tricky, sublime, ironic, a visionary of incommensurates, and so the direct ancestor of Kafka, and of any writer, Jewish or Gentile, condemned to work in Kafka's mode.'

Bloom's assertion that J is a woman consists of several 'telling' ideas, not least of which that the J text seems to have no heroes, only heroines.

'Sarai and Rachel are wholly admirable, and Tamar, in proportion to the narrative space she occupies, is very much the most vivid portrait in J. But Abram, Jacob, and Moses receive a remarkably mixed treatment from J.'

Also, on the basis of sensitivity to subject and social vision, Bloom argues for a female J. Of course, women in positions of authority (as any courtly author or historian would have to be) were very rare in ancient Middle Eastern culture, but not unheard of; of course, literacy rates for women were incredibly low, and there has always been the unspoken assumption that, naturally, the authors of all ancient texts are men.

Whether or not you subscribe to this (and I must confess, I am less than convinced, clever and interesting and thought-provoking as Bloom's essay may be), both on the person of the author of J, as well as many of his other equally unorthodox views, this text still provides much food for thought, and an interesting side text with which to read the accounts in Genesis and Exodus.

Reading Rosenberg's translation is, likewise, an interesting exercise. I would wish for footnote or some key to be able to follow along in the Bible, but Rosenberg's purpose was to let J stand as its own text, on its own merits, and thus, without interruption, he has done that here. A refreshing look at familiar texts, Rosenberg's new translation will give things to think and argue about for some time.

Irreverent, profound, and deeply disturbing, this (putative) Book of J will change one's view of the Tanakh and the Old Testament for good; For that alone David Rosenberg is to be commended, given how hard it is to approach the Bible afresh-- the weight of history, in the form of the King James Version (and others)has other ideas. Rosenberg's J is deeply ironic, and inclined to view YHWH and reader alike with bemusement: a symmetry that seems to me to be the source of much of the text's charisma. Bloom is, as always, a powerful(if perhaps overly-rhapsodic) commentator, and this is Yale's Grand Old Man at his rhetorical best (before the repetitive bug bit him in the Western Canon and Shakespeare: Invention of the Human). Some have complained about the wildly speculative nature of his theory: I can only conclude that they have missed the point; whether or not "J" really was Bathsheba (a hypothesis Bloom adopted subsequent to the book's publication) the flight of fancy whereby one identifies the two (or indeed even "reconstructs" the Book of J itself) is the best way to honor the imagined "Yahwist" author.