I first picked this book out from our public library because my son Alex loves to talk about monsters. The author brought the monsters to life, and allow the little boy to play and party with his monsters. This book is good especially for kids who are afraid of monsters, since it gives the kids control: telling the monsters to go to sleep and ordering them to stay on the paper. It also allows the kids to have fun with the monsters, again decreasing the fear factor and giving permission for fantasy.

The reason for the four stars is that I think it is not as good as Charlotte Bronte's best, the incomparable Jane Eyre. But it is, compared with most novels of today, very good indeed. The character of Shirley is wonderful. It is clear that Caroline is the protagonist, and that she is based on Charlotte herself and is therefore given the lion's share of attention. I consider this one of the book's few faults. The character of Robert Moore is beautifully drawn and I disagree with the editors that Louis is not. Although the device of the diary is a bit clumsy, the dialogue between Louis and Shirley is enthralling. Highly recommended.

Despite Charlotte Bronte's disclaimer that the reader will find this book "a dinner of bitter herbs" it is nonetheless a must-read classic of 19th century litterature. Many themes combine in this book; the expansion of industrialism and the dissapearance of the English countryside; the place of women in society; feminine loyalty and friendship; the conflicts of love and work, evangelism and tradition. It is perhaps the most uneven and at the same time the most interesting of the Bronte books.

While it lacks the symmetrically designed shape of Jane Eyre or the clear-eyed study of obsession of Villette, it lets the imaginative reader glimpse the Bronte sisters themselves between the lines. The characters of Shirley and Caroline are based on Emily and Anne Bronte, both of whose deaths occurred during the writing of the novel. It is a tribute to sisterly love and a fantasy that lashes back at grief. Some may find the ending a romantic cop-out, but this cannot detract from the many good qualities of this fascinating novel

While I loved this book, there were some things I didn't like, but none that mean it doesn't deserve five stars. This is my favourite Charlotte Bronte book. i believe there is too much focus on Jane Eyre, or perhaps even Villette. There are a few coincidences in this story, especially one, which I can't mention without giving away part of the story. However these are common in CB, Villette being overun with them, and Jane Eyre ending up on the doorstep of her long lost cousins. Shirley is more believable. Another comment it the long speeches the characters often make. Apart from these though, this is one of my most loved books. It has been neglected, I feel, by the fact that the first 50 pages are very difficult to read, after that though, the story becomes apparent, and it's worth it. Something strange is that the heroine of the title doesn't appear, and is not mentioned until page 200, although she fairly dominates the rest of the book. Perhaps 'Shirley and Caroline' would have been a more appropriate title

Just about every work of historical fiction ever written owes its existence to Walter Scott and to Waverley, his first novel. At the time, it was a new way to write novels - indeed, combining historical fact with entertainment was a brilliant idea. By creating a fictional character and inserting him into the middle of the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion, Walter Scott was able to bring the culture and traditions of Scotland to life in the most staid bourgeois imagination. As a result, he achieved unprecedented popularity for his time, singlehandedly started a tourist industry in Scotland, and kicked off a new genre of fiction, which was then studiously adopted by countless authors, of whom Dumas and Fenimore Cooper are canonical examples.

Sometime in the middle of the nineteenth century, however, Scott's popularity took a nosedive, and has never recovered since. Unfortunately, after all the years and all the imitators, and after this kind of novel turned into an established genre, much of Waverley's charm has been lost, and the book no longer seems particularly impressive. Its length is sure to turn off many, especially given that for all the historical romance, there's relatively little action here. However, what still makes it worth your time is Scott's delightful and quintessentially British humour, which he applies through odd digressions and liberal use of comic anticlimax to alleviate tension. One also can't help but be impressed by his vocabulary; there are many passages in Waverley that are more or less devoid of content, but which are so elaborately constructed as to be a pleasure to read.

The story itself is no less worth one's attention than before, as far as its "educational value" goes, but the modern reader will not enjoy wading through the obfuscatory prose. I confess that I had a hard time getting through the first few chapters; after that, though, I got used to it and actually enjoyed the rest of the book. I can't however, claim that it was a particularly mindblowing read. I'm not alone; Scott has often been criticized for being a daft romantic entertainer and not a serious artist. This isn't quite true since he was rather conservative (not romantic); he writes about romantic things, but with a rather tongue-in-cheek approach that isn't visible in the works of, say, Dumas. What is true, however, is that this is primarily a tale of manners, and thus by necessity somewhat stuck in its time. Dumas's colourful, loyal, wine-loving Musketeers can thrill the mind even to this day; Scott's characters seem rather bland in comparison, and it looks like he is doomed to fall even further into disfavour as time passes and readers' frames of reference change even further.

I do recommend Waverley, but more for the author than the book - unable to extract any great effect from the latter, I found myself more and more captivated by the former, who lets the reader in on his jokes and invites him to regard the events of the book with the same attitude of respect and fascination lightened by bemused wit. That doesn't make for any life-altering enlightenment, but it is enjoyable.

Waverley, Walter Scott's first successful novel, concerns Edward Waverley, the scion of a noble, landed family in England. He's a Romantic young man, in the formal sense of belonging to the Romantic movement and in temperament--the relative ease of his life and his passionate dilettantishness land him, eventually, in the service of the Jacobites during the rebellion of 1745. He discovers the wild landscapes of the Scottish Highlands, the curious manners of the Highland folk, and learns that life and war are not exactly like all those romantic books about adventure and glory he loves to read.

Scott's book can be interpreted as a critique of the Romantic temperament, and I think the book succeeds best when it contrasts reality with the puffed-up imaginings of Edward Waverley's literature-addled perception. He is not quite Don Quixote, according to Scott, but he suffers from a milder version of the same disease; the most amusing parts of the book center around Waverley's naivete toward battle, ceremony, and love. He is feckless, to be sure, and abysmally undisciplined--but he is a decent fellow in the end, and learns from his mistakes. The people that populate Scott's novel are generally civilized, noble, and upright people, even the fierce rebels; while Scott doesn't approve of rebellion, the rebels are portrayed as misguided at worst, and of equal nobility to the English at best. Scott's purpose was to peer into the world "sixty years since" his own time, and helped give birth to the historical novel. It has confusing and near-unreadable parts (especially when the pedantic Baron shows up), but as a historical novel, it certainly sets the template for all other books of its type to come.

Sir Walter Scott, I think, needs to be redeemed only in the eyes of people who don't know him. He has a bad rep in most English Departments--because most people (including English professors) haven't read him. Typically, the process goes like this: a professor will tell you that Cooper got the "historical novel format" from Scott, and then you read "The Last of the Mohicans," and you're cured forever. But really, Scott himself is the antidote to this hasty conclusion.

"Waverley" is a great novel. It takes some work though: you'll have to get over the sometimes convoluted language, the artificial dialogue, the idealized descriptions of character and setting. But once you do that, this novel is a blast. The hero may look like a sissy for most of the book, but after the Jacobites' retreat back to Scotland, Scott will show you that Waverley is a "real" character after all. The happy ending, after adventuring incognito through England back to London, may seem too romantic for a student in an English Department, but Scott never loses sight of the pain and bloodshed that are the inevitable result of civil war.

Romantically speaking, it's up to you. Rose or Flora? I always think it's sad that Scott has Waverley marry Rose instead of providing us with a super-happy ending, but perhaps this goes to show you--Scott is not that romantic after all. Romantically speaking, you got to love the couleur locale of the Highlands, the dirks and claymores, the unwavering loyalty of Evan Dhu, Flora's waterfall... Don't forget, all you professors and Ph.D.'s and M.A.'s, we also read to enjoy, and I enjoy the heck out of this novel!

This particular edition, like all the others by OUP, is very competent. The introduction by Clare Lemont could have done with a healthy dose of Marxist criticism (see the OUP edition of "Rob Roy"--in my opinion, by the way, a much less exciting novel), but the apparatus, which includes extensive notes by the editor and Scott's introductions and notes to the Magnum Opus-edition, is great.

So there you have it: this is a very good edition of a wonderful novel by a wonderful storyteller. Go get you a copy and read it with glasses colored by whatever critical theory you subscribe to--but read it first, and read it for enjoyment also.