Dreiser does a very nice job in this novel of recreating early 20th Century America from the perspective of an ambitious young man, Clyde Griffiths. Through Clyde, we get a taste of what it's like to be poor, to be middle class, and even to be wealthy. Despite Clyde's weaknesses, we rather like him, and we genuinely care what happens to him, for the most part. Naturally, bad things happen to Clyde, mostly due to his own fault. It is a tragedy, after all.

Clyde, thanks to the family name, is quickly brought into the social scene of his new hometown. He develops a relationship with a co-worker (Roberta) but as soon as a young lady of wealth and social status (Sondra)shows favor to him, Clyde looses interest in Roberta. He and Roberta produce a baby and the situation spins out of Clyde's control. Eventually Clyde's self interests outweigh his sense of right and wrong, resulting in tragedy.

The Characters are pretty easy to relate to and the plot is very realistic. I liked this book mainly because it was easier for me to understand Drieser's style of writing.

I read this book faster than most other books that I read. I think it's because I didn't always procrastinate reading it. most books I read I will put off reading until I really have too, this book was a breeze to read. I enjoyed it and recommend it to anyone who enjoys a big plot line with twists.

Dreiser's epic novel is rare as classics go since it contains all the elements of a novel that my 12th grade English teacher said should be present - a well defined plot and a central theme moral.The only reason I did not rate the novel as 5 star is that it was at least 300 pages too long. Dreiser leaves little to the reader's imagination as he explains every detail with percision.

Clyde Griffiths is a young man with ambition who longs for a better life than that of his parents, who are street missionaries. First he flees his Kansas City home after getting into some minor trouble. By chance, Clyde meets his wealthy uncle by chance and secures a job in the family collar factory in New York State.

Clyde, thanks to the family name, is quickly brought into the social scene of his new hometown. He develops a relationship with a co-worker (Roberta) but as soon as a young lady of wealth and social status (Sondra)shows favor to him, Clyde looses interest in Roberta. The affair with Roberta produces a pregnancy and the situation spins out of Clyde's control. Eventually Clyde's self interests outweigh his sense of right and wrong, resulting in tragedy.

From the first few pages you get a sense that Clyde's ambitions will eventually be his undoing. Drieser leaves very little to the reader's imagination as he weaves you through 800 pages of intricate detail. At the end Clyde comes to terms with his deeds and confesses his sins to both GOD and himself.

This is truly an amazing book, well deserving to be on the list of all time great novels, and should be at its head. Like many people, I saw the movie "A Place in the Sun," first, so there weren't such huge surprises in the book for me, but even so, I could hardly put it down. So compelling and fascinating it is, at each and every turn of the page, it took me a week to read, but was worth every second I spent on it. The character development and pacing of the story are absolutely incredible. There were moments I was shaking my head in awe. I didn't find anything at all about it boring or dull or "wordy." Just a powerful, heartbreaking, treasure of a book. I truly doubt I will ever read a better, more well-written, or thought-provoking novel (and I've already read many classics.) Simply put, this is by far the most entertaining novel I've ever read.

That being said, let me address all those one or two-star ratings this novel has unjustly earned. I hardly know what to say about that, except - don't believe them! I seriously doubt that anyone who actually read this whole book (and I mean word for word, not skimming as so many people do nowadays) and made any attempt to understand what they were reading (easy to do) could honestly give it less than five stars. The other explanation would be the many youths who are required to read this for school assignments or what not, and end up hating the task so much they are immediately prejudiced and blinded to the book's fine merits. But again, everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how unfair or dishonest it may be.

Some of the harsh criticism leveled at this masterpiece refer to Dreiser's writing style and his slow, deliberate, pacing. It's true that Dreiser's writing style may seem a little old fashioned (at least at first) but remember that it was written in 1925, way, way, before people's attention spans got so short. At the time it was published, no one thought that his style or choice of words or phrasing was unusual or difficult, although the novel's length was criticized then as it is now. Those who immorally say that Dreiser "can't write" are simply too ignorant to make such a bold statement, plain and simple. For if such a statement is true, then we had better say that Shakespeare couldn't write, nor Defoe, Stevenson, Hudson, or Hawthorne, for that matter. Dreiser's prose is smooth-as-silk compared to Dickens, for example, although not quite as clever as Nabokov - but nearly so. Criticism aimed at "wordiness" and excessive length, are just completely baseless and unworthy of this classic. And comparing "An American Tragedy" to "Crime and Punishment" as many readers have done is senseless also, as Dreiser's novel is the better of the two, by far. It has much more depth, substance, detail, life, humanity, and realism than Dostoyevsky could have ever hoped for. That's just my opinion, but I read these back to back with a balanced viewpoint. At least Dreiser didn't name every third character "Petrovich." (Talk about confusing the reader!) But anyway, for those who actually prefer the movie version, "A Place in the Sun," all I can say is that I agree that it's a fine film, but in no way does it come close to the depth, power, and substance, of the novel - not even close! It's a mere shadow of what "An American Tragedy" is really about. It just scrapes the surface, and leaves many important aspects of the story untouched. And the characters seem stiff and unrealistic or even cliché at times as a result. None of that comes from the novel. So how anyone can prefer the move is a bit of a mystery, unless it has to do with the Montgomery Clift / Liz Taylor chemistry, but then again, it could just be those short attention spans at work.

People can say whatever they want about "An American Tragedy," but they can never diminish its distinguished place in American literature. It will always remain, nestled comfortably in a lofty spot, because between its covers lies a story as precious as pure gold. Dreiser has given us something timeless and enduring, beautiful, meaningful, and truly heartbreaking and deeply sad. He knew exactly what he was doing when he composed this masterpiece - each and every word! Thank goodness there are still readers who can appreciate him.

Almost as good as Bleak House. Two shortcomings, though. One, the poetry of the language never reaches the same heights. Dickens just doesn't seem as inspired here, and there are moments when he even seems tired and to be suffering from the same disappointment his characters complain of. Two, the mystery theme is pushed to the background and is lame in comparison. Otherwise, the structure is excellent, weaving the themes of the Circumlocution Office and self-imprisonment relatively seamlessly through the story.

One reviewer here has commented that "Little Dorrit" is not without Dickens' trademark humor, and, with one qualification, I would agree. Mr F's Aunt, Mrs Plornish, and Edmund Sparkler in particular are all quite funny. Characters like William Dorrit and Flora Finching, however, who would have been funny in earlier books (eg, Wilkins Micawber and Dora Spenlow in "David Copperfield" it can be argued, are younger - and more romantic - versions of Dorrit and Flora) are only pathetic in this one. It is a sign of the change in Dickens that he can no longer see the lighter side of these characters.

BTW, there is another little joke for those versed in Victorian Lit. The comedic couple Edmond Sparkler and Fanny Dorrit are a play on an earlier couple, Edmond Bertram and Fanny Price in Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park". The joke is that Dickens has taken the names and inverted the characters. Fanny Dorrit couldn't be more different than Fanny Price, and likewise Edmond Sparkler and Edmond Bertram. I'm sure this is not an accident. Dickens had a thing for the name Fanny, using it for two of his less appealing "temptresses", Fanny Squeers (in "Nicholas Nickleby") and of course Fanny Dorrit. Funny stuff.

And speaking of Fanny Dorrit, I have one last comment. It is often said of Dickens that he couldn't create good female characters. This puts me in mind of Chesterton who related a similar complaint made by Dickens' male contemporaries that he couldn't describe a gentleman. As Chesterton deftly pointed out, however, what these gentlemen really meant was that Dickens couldn't (or wouldn't) describe gentlemen as they wished themselves to be described. Rather, Dickens described gentlemen as they actually appeared. I might say the same thing about the women who complain about Dickens' female characters. It's not so much that Dickens couldn't (or wouldn't) describe good female characters. Rather, it's that the kinds of characters he did describe aren't the ones the complanaints wish to see. Women praise the Elizabeth Bennetts of the book-world not because the real world is full of Liz Bennetts (it's not), but because that's the way they themselves wish to be seen. Truth is, however, there are far more Fanny Dorrits and Flora Finchings and Dora Spenlows than there are Liz Bennetts. The women who complain of these characters, though, would rather ignore this unflattering little fact. Whatever. The truth will out, and there's far too much truth in Dickens characters to be so lightly dismissed.

4 1/2 stars

Dickens' last novels (with the exception of the unfinished EDWIN DROOD) really form a group all to themselves: exceptionally concerned with the excesses of social institutions and the cruelties of high society, they in some ways read more like Trollope and Thackeray than they do Dickens' own earlier works, although they retain Dickens's fine gift for character and bite. LITTLE DORRIT is proabbly my favorite of the later works: its multiple stories are extremely gripping, and his satire at its sharpest and most necessary. Many people say these later novels are not as funny as his earlier works, but DORRIT is to me an exception: there are few funnier (or more dear) characters in Dickens' repertoire than the breathless, kindhearted Flora Finching, and I find myself almost helpless with laughter whenever Flora's senile and hostile charge, Mr F's Aunt, makes her perfectly doled-out appearances in these pages. (Arguably the funniest scene Dickens ever wrote is the scene with this "most excellent woman" and Arthur Clennam and the crust of bread). This is a great Dickens novel even for people who tend not to like Dickens (and yes, there are some of them, as hard as that may be for the rest of us to believe).

Little Dorritt is not light reading. While it is in many ways a very entertaining work, it is not for those seeking pure entertainment. It is a very rich work, full of social commentary [church bells ringing, "They won't come."; the Circumlocution Office], humor [can anyone resist laughing out loud and Flora Finching?], several memorable characters, and a very powerful statement on personal salvation.

Yes, the novel does drag from halfway to the three quarters mark; but what 900 page Dickens novel doesn't? When you read Dickens, you should expect that. It is during that time that he typically starts to resolve many of the issues raised in the first half and also sets up his exciting finale. While the finale of Little Dorritt is not exciting in the Hollywood sense, it is very fulfilling.

The major theme that spans the entire work, something I haven't seen others discuss, is that of Old Testament vs. New Testament thinking. It is the Old Testament thinking of Arthur's mother that keeps her in her wheelchair. It is only when she gets a dose of New Testament thinking from Amy Dorritt that Arthur's mother walks. Dickens was a Unitarian who had a strong belief in the redemptive power of Christ. While he often ridiculed both the Church ("They won't come.") and religious hypocrites (Borriohoola-Gha in Bleak House), it is through Little Dorritt that he presents this redemptive power. Entertainment becomes a treatise on right living.

Michael Harrington's Socialism: Past and Future is yet another example of Socialists' misconception of the common man. Many socialist writers, namely Marx and Engels, assume that the reader knows about socialism already, and has studied basic economics. This assumption was an integral part of the text. The book uses the vocabulary of a college text-book, refering to writers that nobody knows or cares about. This book, however, is not as poorly written as some of the older socialist texts. Another disease common to socialist texts is avoidance of certain issues, like the Third World, advancing technology, and basic human greed, but this book is different. Chapters are spent on subjects that Marx neglected, making this book better than the average of socialist books. Michael Harrington died of cancer shortly before the fall of the USSR. He predicts the fall of the communist powers in Asia, and most of his prophecies have come true, or are coming true.! The early chapters show the reader the world from the eyes of a socialist, and by the later chapters, the reader seeks knowledge of socialist theory and practice. Two things, that are, sadly, delivered abstractly, over many chapters.

At the end of the century, the late Michael Harrington's works remain the definitive works on socialism for the American Left. Socialism: Past & Future is his last book, and offers a clear picture of not only what democratic socialists believe, but also how socialists propose to deal with the problems of today's society.

I find the style confusing. Sometimes I can't tell if the section I am reading is text or if it is a quote from someone in the past. However, it is full of interesting facts and lots of pictures. I have a particular fascination for Old West history, and this closes a gap in my material.

We Lived There Too brings to life a little known aspect of Jewish American history in a lively and informative way. It is a pleasure to read. The pictures are remarkable and the first person accounts unforgetable. This book is a must buy.

Irving Howe was a 20th century Renaissance man who wrote with conviction and intelligence on three different areas: politics, literature, and Jewish culture. Although he made a living as a college professor for much of his life, most of his diverse and voluminous publications were meant for people outside academia. Howe is perhaps best known as the author of World of Our Fathers: The Journey of the East European Jews to America and the Life They Found and Made, but he was also an editor of and contributor to the journal Dissent for many years, as well as the author of a number of books of literary criticism.

Howe was a socialist. In his youth, he was a Trotskyist, and like many people, his politics became more moderate as he matured. But unlike many others from his generation of leftwing activists - some of whom were supporters of Stalin in their youth and then extreme conservatives later on - Howe remained a firm believer in democratic socialism throughout his adult life. This is not to say that his basic consistency always led him to what seem in retrospect to have been good opinions. In this regard, author Gerald Sorin gives us Irving Howe, warts and all (pardon the cliche). For example, before and even during World War II, Howe viewed that conflict as not much more than a battle between imperialist powers. Howe also fought long and hard with the New Left activists during the 60s - while some 60s radicals probably did think they were the first people to notice that there are problems in America, Howe's response to their arrogance left a lot to be desired. Howe also didn't exactly see the import of the women's movement in its early years. To his credit though, Howe eventually came around somewhat on feminism and was also an early and vocal supporter of the civil rights movement.

Just ten years after his death, many of the socialist ideas and ideals that Irving Howe wrote about seem to have been inspired by convictions that are anachronistic in today's world. Gerald Sorin does a terrific job conjuring up Howe and his world in a way that makes you hopeful that democratic socialism is still something that might just work, if it were given half a chance. Irving Howe: A Life of Passionate Dissent is a fine biography of a thoughtful man who believed that the world could be a better, more just place for all people.

The only difficulty with collections of Kipling is that he was so prolific that some pieces must be left out. Since this book's very goal was to be "portable", it suffers slightly from this. But the stories included are generally well-chosen. They span Kipling's entire literary career and range of subjects, from early stories of India to a 1930's science-fiction story. I particularly enjoyed the hilarious "Village that Voted the Earth was Flat", the interview with Mark Twain (a classic), and the devious "Dayspring Mishandled", which were new to me. I was also introduced to the author's series of stories of Privates Ortheris, Mulvaney, and Learoyd by this book. I had previously read "Stalky and Company", and this was like "Stalky and Co. Join the Army". However, several amusing favorites from other books were missing, such as "The Ship That Found Herself" and the story about the Army's animals talking to each other. If you haven't read much Kipling and would like to be introduced to this teller of tales, by all means get this book. If you have read Kipling, be sure to give the Table of Contents a scan for stories you might have missed.

Disappointing since 1/3 of the book is dedicated to foreign authors' translated versions. In the sense of making an anthology of super-short, the selection might come directly from original English instead of any translated, seemingly storytelling-only stories since the brightness of diction is far more important than a "short-short" story itself.

An excellent short short story that is less than 2500 words but more likely around 1500 words or less (as all of the stories in this collection are) is one of the most difficult things in the world to write.
Here, we have a collection of masterpieces of the short-short. While there is not time for character development, these stories are substantive masterpieces, usually boiling down to a single, profoundly revealing action.
Franz Kafka and Leo Tolstoy are just two of the great writers represented here. All of the stories are great. Most of the authors respresented are famous for longer works.
The odd events that occur in these stories stay with the reader, for good.
These short-short stories are very poetic, though they are not musical, or lyrical, or possessed of song, in any substantive way. They are more fiction than poetry, but they have much poetry in them. They are exquisite, little, literary jewels.
I highly recommend this book to everybody.

This anthology of "short shorts," that is, stories of less than a thousand words, is a nice overview of this unique literary genre. Working the border between poetry and fiction, these stories are not long enough to develop characters or even have much plot, but they excel in other ways. Like a good pop tune they lack substance but have hooks that capture your imagination. Months later, you will find yourself thinking of the odd happenings and subtle jokes that these short shorts depict. Most of the writers are well known for their longer fiction, but some seem to shine brightest in a brief flash. --David Monac

This book is about a man who runs away from his father because the father does nothing but yell at him. This book is one of my favorites, even though I gave it a four, because it had a lot of action and it made me want to keep reading. Although I still think that the orignal was one of the better ones that have been written.

The book "Rip Van Winkle" is about a guy named Rip and his father, Dame, who thinks that Rip can never do anything right. Dame is always yelling at Rip. Dame really got mad when Rip sold part of the family property, so he went away for awhile and met some strangers and started to drink quite a lot of beer. You have to read the book to find out what happens next.

Several of these other reviews are for a different version of this story. The one I am reviewing is an "All Aboard Reading" version. It is definitely written for beginning readers (1st-3rd grade)

This version is a good introduction to the classic Washington Irving story. I do not like the way Rip's wife yells at him to get to work or how Rip is only "maybe...a little" sad when we finds out that his wife has died after his long sleep. Neither Rip nor his wife were the most exemplary characters! :-)

Still, that is the way the story was written and can be a good launch into a talk about character.

Howe is a former Trotskyite, now a member of mainstream academia. Perhaps not surprisingly, his biography sympathizes with Trotsky's Marxist career - the anti-Stalinism in particular - while critiquing the undemocratic tendencies within Trotsky's unyielding Leninism. Still, unlike many former Trotskyites, he remains a socialist. I don't know if there is anything special about this brief biography; I suspect that if there is, the distinction lies in pointing out specific opportunities for democratizing the Russian revolution's direction. According to Howe, there were several such important missed opportunities. On the other hand, Howe's democratic sensibilities appear to minimize the class forces arrayed against Bolshevism in power. Pressures from predatory Western capitalism are all but absent in Howe's discussions. If history is a "bitch", as Howe holds, we should be no less cynical about appeals to democracy. For if History is the opiate of Marxism, Democracy is no less the opiate of bourgeois liberalism.