This play is magnificient. I won't tell you the plot, because you really need to read it for yourself. If you enjoyed The Crucible and Death of a Salesman, this should be the next Miller book to your library. A great play to put on also.

A driving piece of work that sets up Miller's continual theme of personal versus business ethics.

After searching long and hard for this book to complete my English requirement (I also had to read Miller's "The Crucible" and "Death of a Salesman") the payoff came when I finally got to read this highly suspenseful and fast-moving play. The characters are so real and the script reads like you would never imagine. This play is very good for two reasons: 1) It is interesting to read one of M iller's very first plays to see how he has evolved into one of the most famous playwrights ever. 2) The enlightening parallels to "Death of a Salesman" are very interesting and numerous. If you liked DOAS, then you will enjoy this play just as much, if not better.

When I first opened the book and read the first few lines, it was easy to tell that this book was going to be easy to read. But aside from that, All My Sons is filled with much symbolism, foreshadowing, and just a great plot.

The story is unique, the conflicts are twisting, and the ending is shocking. I've yet to read many novels or plays that contained all of these features.

I think what makes this play great is that it is written so a child can read it, yet the theme can relate to anyone young or old.

I read this book in school and in my opinion the story may be good but the vocabulary was very difficult. You can't read without a dictionary. I had to read like five times a line because I didn't understand a word. It's a very dramatic and romantic play. I like tragedies but this play is very detailed and has a lot of scenes. I would like some day to read the same story but in actual English. If it weren't because of the literature teacher didn't help us understand I think nobody would have understood a thing. It's a very good story. I would recommend to read it but not in old English. Shakespeare's words are weird but romantic and may be too nice for his time. He is very creative and plays a lot with the characters.
It's funny how two different teenagers and from families who hated each other could have love one another. At the end they would have died if instead they had had hated each other because of the quarrel. This tragedy is weird and something different from all of the other plays, and I think that may be that's why It's still famous now a days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Frankenstein is part of our literary heritage. Halloween would not be complete without images of a large green monster wearing bolts in his neck. However, the origins of this monster conceal a horror far greater than the character popular culture has embraced.

For me, it is not the actions of the monstrous laboratory experiment that frighten me, but the act of the monster's creation itself. Mary Shelley created a novel that places the act of creation into the hands of one man, an idea which eliminates the necessity of the female sex. Technology has usurped the need for male-female partnership. What a horrific idea!

Dr. Victor Frankenstein was terrified of female power. His feelings of torment concerning his fiancee, including a particularly unsettling dream passage concerning her, led him to strip the female sex of child-bearing responsibility. If a single man can create another man then natural laws no longer apply, the male and female of a species no longer live in symbiosis.

This is the fantastic premise behind this classic horror novel. Some of the writing is crude; one instance in particular is when the monster teaches himself to read after conveniently finding a satchel of books by the side of the road. This is an example of the inexperience Shelley had as a writer; however such breaks in the story are minimal and should not overly detract from the reader's enjoyment. This is a wonderful book.

Mary Shelley's classic book has often been regarded as the first science fiction novel. Brian Aldiss has referred to it as the first novel of the Scientific Revolution. It should be required reading of any college or college-bound student. The version I read was the original 1818 edition. In 1831, Mary Shelley made a number of changes (but, nothing of great import; for example, in the 1831 version Elizabeth is no longer Victor's cousin). I did read the author's new introduction to the 1831 edition however. This introduction is well done. In this novel, written in the epistolary form, a young (age 21) student at the University of Ingolstadt, Victor Frankenstein, discovers the method of imparting life to inanimate tissue. He uses his skills to construct a creature and to give it life. The creature's and Victor's lives are intertwined and the reader can detect much of Mary Shelley's early life as well. Her mother (i.e., her creator) died a few days after her birth. The female act of creation and its results is an aspect of this novel. Others have pointed out that this is a true female novel. Although, the monster "inspires loathing" in all who see him, I came to the conclusion that the real villian in this story was Victor Frankenstein. He allows his own creation to control him.

Although I agree with the criticisma made by other readers, I still loves "Shadows On The Hudson" and consider it a worthwhile and engrossing book.

Singer writes about a small group of exciles who survived the Holocaust be fleeing to New York City and creating a community in the shadows of the Hudson river. It was here that they contemplated their devastaing past and doubious future.

The characters are intelleigent and intense, anguished by their expulsion from their homeland and the collapse of their cultural and religious values.

Shadows on the Hudson is one of the best novels I've ever read. The people are real--and thank god, they're deeply sexual and deeply intelligent. Some readers are irked by the one, some by the other characteristic; by me a novel flops if the people are too dumb, or too free from the driving burdens and blessings of relentless sexuality. This more or less simultaneous wrestling with sex, faith and its lack, and the problem of theodicy (why God permits evil) is Singer's forte. Only Tolstoy does it better, but there is more real flesh in Singer, while the religious issues are at least as alive as those of Tolstoy's stellar episode toward the end of Anna Karenina, in which Levin successfully struggles toward theism. Singer's characters know what Tolstoy's don't: that 6 million Jews and 20 million Russians are gone who should not be gone. This novel is art, and monumental art; not another pleasure cruise for the beach umbrella.

This is a long, deep novel that deals with some of the fundamental problems of human existence. More than any other writer, Singer (at least in this book) reminds me of Dostoyevsky, whose characters were constantly in existentialist turmoil over questions such as good vs. evil and whether or not there is a God (and if there is, is He good, evil or indifferent?) Of course, while Dostoyevsky was a Christian, all of the characters in Shadows on the Hudson are Jewish holocaust survivors who have recently emigrated to New York from Europe shortly after World War ll. This is something that none of them can forget, even for a day, as many barely escaped while their loved ones perished. Beyond this confrontation with evil and death, the novel is largely about the philosophical war between religious orthodoxy and hedonistic modern life. Contemporary readers who do not come from a strongly religious background may have some difficulty appreciating this dilemma. The mass culture that Singer found vulgar and amoral in the 50s has now all but taken over in America, leaving many people no frame of reference for any other type of existence. While there is much philosophizing, Singer succeeds in creating flesh and blood characters whose moral anguish is not simply abstract, but put to the test in daily life. The character we spend the most time with is Hertz Grein, a middle-aged man whose religious yearnings are in stark contrast to his lifestyle. He is a married man who has had a long affair with another woman. As the novel opens, he is preparing to run off with yet another woman. Grein's behavior through most of this book is both irrational and indefensible. He lies to all three women, and makes all his decisions on the whim of the moment. At the same time, he is hardly without a conscience. On the contrary, he is deeply ashamed of the pain he causes others and desperately wants to redeem himself. Reading Shadows on the Hudson, I got the feeling that Singer himself, as he wrote the book, was struggling with the very issues faced by Grein and his other, equally fascinating and conflicted characters. The central problem posed by the book is the paradox of faith. On the one hand, there is no evidence that God exists. Indeed, the prevalence of suffering and evil suggests an indifferent universe. On the other hand, life without faith is unbearable and leads to a world without meaning or values. Does this mean that we should, even in the absence of evidence, embrace a strict moral code? Although the conclusion of Shadows on the Hudson is somewhat ambiguous, Singer seems to answer this question tentatively in the affirmative. Whether or not you agree (I actually don't), the question is an extremely important one and this book gets to the core of it.

With this rendition of The King James Old Testament, Stephanie Beacham lends dramatic vocal talent and passion to the most ancient words of God. Certainly worthwhile, and again, beautifully done!

If you've ever felt the tug of truth at your shoulder and stepped onto a path to find it, this book is for you. It is written with such a command of wisdom gleened from so many mystery schools that each page teaches as well as entertains.

The author's character development works in the case of each individual as well as in the ecceltic group that they form as the story unfolds.This book has a smart ending that left me anxiously awaiting Ms. Gillentine's next one.

I read MESSENGERS last year and became so immersed in the story and the characters that I could hardly put it down until I had turned the final page.

My certification in Alchemical Hypnotherapy gave me a deep appreciation for the hypnotic regression portions of Gillentine's book, and so many facets of it seemed to parallel my own life long spiritual quest.

Anyone with an interest in or resonance to: Egyptian themes, the mysteries of Atlantis, "star lore", the possibilities and potentialities of reincarnation, and the notion that our destiny (and our soul mates) may indeed follow us through time, will love this book.

"The path of the Soul is written in the stars".

The vivid descriptions in Julie Gillentine's MESSENGERS awakened deep feelings. I felt transported back in time to ancient Egypt and Atlantis. MESSENGERS is well researched and accurately describes the path of initiation. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in ancient wisdom traditions.

"The Glass Menagerie" by Tennessee Williams was very well written. Williams did an excellent job of portraying life-like characters. They were so well written, that they seemed real, like us at certain points in our lives. At one time, we were all like the mother, Amanda, who seems to live in the past, and be kind of overbearing at times, for example when Laura only went to three days of her business class that she was sort of forced into going to. Laura, the shy character, also is very life like in the fact that we all were a bit like her too. Everyone, at one point in their life was really shy and just wanted to stay locked up in their room. Tom, the son, is the narrator in the story. He constantly tries to escape reality by going outside and to the movies. He's the sort of person who just needs to constantly escape from life. The main theme of "The Glass Menagerie" is just that. Trying to escape from the sometimes-disappointing reality called life. The plot was simple, yet very effective. A reason for the simplicity I think is that this book is meant for us to realize that even though things may have been better in the past, not to live in it, but rather to live in the present, because we may be missing something even better than what we had that is right in front of us, waiting for us to notice it, but we're so enthralled in the what has happened in the past we don't see it. Basically what "The Glass Menagerie" is trying to tell us is that we need to live in the future and if we don't, then we will miss out on all the un-lived life that lies right in front of us, waiting for us to discover it.

I enjoyed the book, The Glass Menagerie. It wasn't too long and it was very interesting to read. This was my favorite out of all the summer reading books i had to read. One reason is that it is written as a play. The play focuses on three main characters: Amanda, the mother, her daughter Laura, and her son Tom. I also liked it because it is one of those books you can't put down. I found myself wondering what was going to happen next. I perceived the atmosphere of this play to be a sad one. It's not like a sudden tragedy had occurred, but just their day-to-day life seemed hopeless. I felt sympathy for the characters. I wanted to give them help and support at times! Amanda and Tom always fought with one another. Tom was sick and tired of the way he had been living. He wanted real adventure instead of just watching it on the movies. Laura, on the other hand, was content to sit at home with her glass menagerie. Their mother, Amanda, had become so obsessed with finding a gentleman caller for Laura that everything else almost didn't matter anymore. Amanda always reminisced of how she had so many gentleman callers in her day. She wanted the same for Laura. But Laura was much different than her mother was. It wasn't that easy for Laura to meet gentlemen. Amanda needed to realize and accept that. I was impressed by this play. It was filled with emotion and diverse characters. They were almost oblivious to reality. They had their own worlds and expectations of what life should be. Their struggles to make their lives better were desperate and real. In the end we don't really know how everything turns out, but we were left thinking that anything could happen.

If you hated this play, chances are, you didn't understand it.With the characters, the plot was inevitable. Have any of you actually read about Tennessee Williams and his life? Its has AMAZING comparisons to his real life. Amanda is stuck in the past, how can she be looking for a suitor? Laura is amazingly timid, and she, like the rest of the family members, lives in her fantasy world, so shy she can barely bare reality. Tom is trapped in-between his fantasy world, reality, and responsibility. Think about it from Amanda's point of view, not just Tom's. For those of you morons who hate the book, not all books have happy endings, just TRY to understand the book before you judge.