Meant for younger readers it still was good info about the KKK. How they would start in a community and what they said to get people interested. The law or lack of was interesting. Gave info about the time period.

Since the age of 12 (I'm in my 30's now), I have tried to absorb everything Shakespeare. Even though I have trepidations about film adaptations of the Bard's work, I had to see this film based on the prodigious talent of Emma Thompson. I'm glad I gave into my gut instinct, for her portrayal of Beatrice is so natural and glorious, you will actually get swept away with her performance and believe that she actually IS Beatrice!

Most of the supporting cast is also wonderful. Hats off to the performances by Denzel Washington (Don Pedro), Richard Briers (Seigneur Leonato), Brian Blessed (Seigneur Antonio), Michael Keaton (Constable Dogberry), and a absolutely stunning performance by Kate Beckinsale (Hero). The exceptions in the casting are Keanu Reeves (Don John), Robert Sean Leonard (Claudio) and...yes...Kenneth Brannagh (Benedick). Fortunately Reeves' role is small. Leonard's performance seems too contrived, to the point of distraction. And even though this is Brannagh's baby, Brannagh himself portrays the role of Benedick with a smugness that is a bit nauseating. If you read the play, Benedick is not smug at all. Though I enjoy Brannagh's other work, he seems to use Shakespeare as a way to show superiority. I have seen this in other actors, and find such action reprehensible. Shakespeare wrote plays for people to enjoy and to indugle in escapism...not to give people an excuse to be a snob.

Having said that, this film is very enjoyable, and I've actually had friends become Shakespeare addicts after seeing this particular film. I, personally, particularly love the Tuscan locations, and the costuming is wonderful! No over-the-top lacey outfits in this film, but rather those that would be suited to the climate. This adds another depth of reality that pulls you into the story.

If you are a fan of Shakespeare, or any of the aforementioned actors, this movie is a must-see. It's actually one of the very few film versions of a Shakespeare play that I own. This particular interpretation allows the viewer to become comfortable with Shakespeare's style, thus creating an interest in his other work. Well worth the purchase. And yes, it's VERY funny!

"Much Ado About Nothing" is a beautifully made, performed, and directed film by the incomparable Kenneth Branaugh. This film includes an all-star cast that give wonderful performances and draw you into the lives of the characters. The plot is somewhat complicated, so I'll give a general version. The film is basically about love, misunderstanding, scandal, revenge, virtue, and bravery. That's a lot for one film, but believe me, it's all in there!

Kenneth Branaugh, Emma Thompson, Denzel Washington, Keanu Reeves, and Michael Keaton give excellent performances in this film that you wouldn't want to miss. Although the film is a period piece and the Shakespearean language is used, you will have no difficulty understanding it perfectly.

The scenery and landscape in this film are exquisite as well. I never thought there could be such a beautiful, untouched place like that on earth. I would suggest watching the film just for the beautiful landscape, but it's the performances and the story that you should really pay attention to.

Anyone who loves Shakespeare would absolutely love this film! Anyone who loves Kenneth Branaugh and what he has done for Shakespeare in the past 10 or 15 years will appreciate this film as well! There isn't one bad thing I can say about this film. Definitely watch it, you won't be disappointed!!!

One of the problems with Shakespeare's comedies, an English professor once told me, is that they are not funny. Now, this is not to say that Shakespeare was a bad comedy writer, or that this professor had no sense of humour. In fact, quite the opposite--he had turned his sense of humour and love of humour into an academic career in pursuit of humour.

What he meant by the comment was, humour is most often a culture-specific thing. It is of a time, place, people, and situation--there is very little by way of universal humour in any language construction. Perhaps a pie in the face (or some variant thereof) does have some degree of cross-cultural appeal, but even that has less universality than we would often suppose.

Thus, when I suggested to him that we go see this film when it came out, he was not enthusiastic. He confessed to me afterward that he only did it because he had picked the last film, and intended to require the next two selections when this film turned out to be a bore. He also then confessed that he was wrong.

Brannagh managed in his way to carry much of the humour of this play into the twentieth century in an accessible way -- true, the audience was often silent at word-plays that might have had the Elizabethan audiences roaring, but there was enough in the action, the acting, the nuance and building up of situations to convey the same amount of humour to today's audience that Shakespeare most likely intended for his groups in the balconies and the pit.

The film stars Kenneth Brannagh (who also adapted the play for screen) and Emma Thompson as Benedict and Beatrice, the two central characters. They did their usual good job, with occasional flashes of excellence. Alas, I'll never see Michael Keaton as a Shakespearean actor, but he did a servicable job in the role of the constable (and I shall always remember that 'he is an ass') -- the use of his sidekick as the 'horse' who clomps around has to be a recollection of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where their 'horses' are sidekicks clapping coconut shells together.

I'll also not see Keanu Reeves as a Shakespearean, yet he was perhaps too well known (type-cast, perhaps) in other ways to pull off the brief-appearing villian in this film.

Lavish sets and costumes accentuate the Italianate-yet-very-English feel of this play. This film succeeds in presenting an excellent but lesser-known Shakespeare work to the public in a way that the public can enjoy.

You can almost smell the gunpowder. Michael Shaara brings the Battle of Gettysburg to life in this thrilling, Pulitzer prize winning dramatization of the Civil War's most famous battle. Each chapter focuses on the perspective of one of the Battle's key leaders - Lee, Longstreet, Pickett, Chamberlain and Hancock. In preparing to write this novel, Shaara researched the personalities of each of these men. He tells us not only how they thought, but how they felt. For example, Shaara reveals Longstreet's grave doubts regarding the wisdom of the attack and Robert E. Lee's leadership during the days and hours preceding the battle.
The battle itself is described with such vivid imagery you can almost feel the fear of the men who know they are about to die. Like a spy moving from one side to the other, Shaara takes us behind the lines of both camps.
More American men died in this single battle than this country lost in the entire Vietnam War. Shaara reveals that Robert E. Lee, in spite of his reputation as one of our country's great generals, ordered his men to fight a battle that even his right hand man, General Longstreet knew had little chance of success. The book is well-researched, but its' true strength is Shaara's ability to place the reader in the middle of the battlefield and help us appreciate the true horror of the Civil War.

Some literary critics take offense to the phrase "historical novel." After all, they claim, all novels fit into a historical context. (Obviously they've forgotten about futuristic science fiction.) These critics think it presumptuous for a writer to create dialogue for the the likes of Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, and Lawrence Chamberlain. Because the world will never know what exactly was yelled, cried, and whispered on the battlefield of Gettysburg, the pessimists feel history is being distorted. Author Michael Shaara does not distort history. He brings history to life.

Recently, I wondered what I disliked most about going to school. I decided the long reading assignments from boring, impersonal textbooks were the reasons I most detested nine months out of the year. "The Killer Angels" should be required reading for anyone studying American history and the Civil War. Instead of mere facts and figures, Shaara shows us what it must have been like to fight on that hilly Pennsylvanian countryside.

I'd like to write about the structure of this book; the way it was ingeniously organized by Shaara. Readers will frequently turn back to the Foreword. The descriptive information given makes it easy for the reader to remember who's who. The maps by Don Pitcher are marvelous. Uncluttered and informative, the maps appear in just the right places: they do not disrupt the flow of reading. Best of all, when Shaara gets into his best description (that of the third day of the battle) no maps appear. The reader can focus on the words, freeing the imagination.

The characters are what make this novel so good. I say characters, but in reality they are historical figures shown in all their honor, courage, shortcomings, and fraility. General Rober E. Lee, for example, is shown as a dualistic man torn between God and "winning the war for Virginia." The most refreshing thing about the book is its objectivity through Shaara's obvious extensive research.

Lawrence Chamberlain and James Longstreet will undoubtedly speak loudest to most readers. They both ponder the Cause of the war, and through their words, readers too will try to understans why the war and its bloodiest battle were necessary. In the past, history had not been one of my interests, but after reading this novel, I feel compelled to learn as much about the North and South as I can while I search for another great "10" of literature.

I first read "The Killer Angels" in 8th grade on the suggestion of my history teacher. I loved it, but soon moved on with my life. When I began my research paper on James Longstreet as a Junior, I thought of what inspired me to choose this man. One book immediately came to mind: "The Killer Angels".

This novel almost single handedly pulled Longstreet out of the endless bog of minor history and back into the forefront of the Civil War. A man maligned after Lee's death, he faded into obscurrity before Shaara's moving work. However, Longstreet wasn't the main reason this novel was so amazing.

By following the thoughts and actions of several men on either side of the battle of Gettysburg, Shaara gave the reader insight into their lives and made the battle real. For me, one of the qualities of a great book is that after you are finished, you think about the characters for days afterward, as if they were friends you knew in life. "The Killer Angels" did that to me. Unlike almost all other books about history, in "The Killer Angels" you aren't reading about the battle , you are living it.
male, 17

The amazing Quinn family is back!

Seth, the youngest Quinn, is home for the first time in years. An acclaimed painter, who is blessed with a gift he can't quite explain, Seth is as handsome and dynamic as the other Quinns. He comes home to find things in St. Chris much the same, with the exception of lovely Dru Whitcomb-Banks, a new shopkeeper in town. Dru is not what Seth expected and he soon finds himself drawn to her, despite his unsavory roots. She's carrying quite a bit of baggage herself, but finds that she's falling for him just the same.

Nora Roberts had already built a compelling family that intrigued readers through the first of the Chesapeake Bay saga, Sea Swept, Rising Tides and Inner Harbor. But in response to overwhelming reader demands (she dedicates the book to "Every reader who ever asked, "When are you going to write Seth's story?") she writes Seth to be as dreamy and decidedly alpha as the other Quinn men. Dru is a perfect match for Seth, strong willed and determined and also a bit of a lost soul. The combined traits make the couple vibrant and interesting. On top of that, you get to revisit your favorite characters from the first three books and find out what's become of them and their children. Nora's greatest gift is her ability to write a family that keeps the reader's attention.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book to both first time, or habitual Noraholics! If this is your first Nora book, I suggest that you read the first three in the saga before reading Chesapeake Blue. You'll find your enjoyment of the story even greater having met the secondary characters before.

Nora's done it again!

I absolutely loved the brothers trilogy, it was truly my favorite of all Nora Roberts trilogys. Of course I do love them all! This book was telling the story of Seth as he now is grown up. I felt like I knew the entire family and cared about each and every one of them.

Seth is home with his family, the business, and the mother who has followed him over the years since he was a young boy. Blackmailing him, doing her best to ruin everything for him and for the family that gave him everything and made him who he is. Although he's all grown up now, he'll still pay her off, do just about anything to protect the family he loves.

Dru enters the picture, who has fled a cheating fiance and the life of the wealthy in Washington D.C. to strike out on her own in St. Chris. She owns a flower shop and does her best to fit into the community. Given her experience with men, she doesn't want to fall in love, doesn't even want to date. But Seth can be as convincing as any of the Quinn men and Dru finds herself in love with Seth.

I think Nora Roberts did an excellent job with this ending story. Her plot was great, the ending was a surprise and all the characters we loved in this trilogy have returned. If you start with this book you may want to read the first three to start.

Nora Roberts has returned to the Quinn family from the Chesapeake Bay trilogy, fast forwarding to the adulthood of the last "lost boy" Seth. Since the Quinns have long been friends of mine, the release of this book was much anticipated. It did not disappoint! It was delightful to see glimpses of characters developed previously in the series, and an interesting twist that they are now twenty years older.

Though I'm sure Chesapeake Blue stands alone as an entertaining novel, I'm also sure it adds to this story if the Chesapeake Bay trilogy has been read.

In typical Roberts style, there is strong character development, intriguing interaction, and clever dialogue. Seth was quite a character at eleven, and he's even more so in his late twenties. The storyline itself is not as intricate as some of her other work, but that also is part of the charm -- the simplicity of returning to a quiet place, to the roots of family... the symbolism of returning home.

"Notes" is a true classic, with Dostoevsky at his most psychologically insightful. In this book you will find the roots of many of the ideas that Freud would later make common knowledge, particularly that of the contradictory impulses and emotions which unconsciously fight to drive the actions of each individual. To Dostoevsky, a human being can never be governed by reason alone despite popular views of his day. Upon reading this book, you will fall victim to some of these contradictory emotions yourself, as you are torn between loving and hating Dostoevsky's antihero. This nameless narrator is a man who believes to be the victim of excessive consciousness, but in reality, although no doubt a possessor of extreme intelligence, is consumed by desires beyond his control. At times this narrator serves as a mouthpiece for some of Dostoevsky's own philosophical views, at times he is an object of satire, but no matter what his purpose, he always holds our attenti! on and never fails to interest. The ending of the novel is particularly shattering.

The first words of this deeply disturbing, but powerful, novel are "I am a sick man....I am a spiteful man." and these may refer equally to the main character and to the author. Dostoevsky has written an amazing portrait of a loner, whose introverted, sick thoughts spill out on the pages in demented brilliance. The novel is a product of European cynicism, nihilism, and inertia, all of which reached a certain height in the paralyzed upper circles of 19th century Russia. Nobody could write such a book without some personal acquaintance with the mean moods of this anti-hero. The main character, who does nothing except hide from the world, is a total misfit, a loser in life at home, at work, and in love---a jerk, a dweeb, a dork, a geek in modern American parlance---yet through Dostoyevsky's clear prose, we see into his wounded soul. "Actually, I hold no brief for suffering, nor am I arguing for well-being." he writes, "I argue for...my own whim and the assurance of my right to it, if need be." He is apart from society, recognizes no social obligation. He argues that suffering is still better than mere consciousness, because it sharpens the awareness of your being, therefore suffering is in man's interest Someone who can argue that is not going to write an average novel. This is in fact not an average novel at all, but a book concerned with the play of ideas, ideas that flash around like comets and meteorites inside Dostoevsky's head. It can no more escape Dostoevsky's brain than a Woody Allen movie can escape Woody Allen.

The plot line of NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND is extremely slim. It concerns an underground man, a man like a rat or a bug, who lives outside, or more likely, underneath the world's gaze. It is a lonely, tortured life lived inside a single skull with almost no contacts with the rest of the world except for a vicious servant. The "action" of the book comes only when the protagonist worms his way into a dinner with former schoolmates. They don't want him, he despises all of them. So, as you can imagine, a good time is had by all. The underground man winds up in a brothel with an innocent, hapless prostitute named Liza. He wishes for some relationship, he immediately abhors the very thought of contact with another person. The result is worse than you can predict, though I will say that it involves "the beneficial nature of insults and hatred".

In the tradition of novels of introspective self-hatred, Dostoevsky's has to be one of the first. I wondered as I read how much Kafka owed him, for after all, the hero here is a cockroach too, only remaining in human form. I realized how much Dostoevsky had influenced the Japanese writers of the 20th century---Tanizaki, Mishima, Soseki, Kawabata, and others. The pages are brilliant, but full of vile stupidity, useless, arid intellectualism, hatred of one's best and love of one's worst qualities, withdrawal from life, and self-loathing. A less American novel would be hard to imagine. But, some of these characteristics are found in almost everyone at some point in their life, unpleasant as that realization may be. I have to give NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND five stars, though I can't say I enjoyed it. It is simply one of the most impressive novels ever written.

Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Notes from Underground" is an existential classic. This book, like many of Dostoevsky's works, intertwines the notions of literature and philosophy, probing the depths of aesthetic contemplation through philosophy. Dostoevsky, used this manuscript as a testing or training ground for later ideas he would explore in his groundbreaking and notorious books such as "Crime and Punishment,""Brothers Karamazov," and "the Idiot." Also central to the theme of the writing one will enciounter many notions of autonomy, or freedom of the individual. The main character, "the Underground man," performs many absurd actions, often in spite of his own self. However, this deals with the notion as Sartre later expressed, is it better for the individual to choose for him or herself and be wrongs sometimes or once in a while, then to have others choose for oneself? The protagonist, is continuously struggling, with himself and the existential burden of constructing and being soley responsible for ones own existence, for owns own counciousness. "Notes from Underground" is a magnificent, psychological exploration, into the mind of the individual, free, autonomous and choosing completley for oneself, which is anything but an easy matter.

I was about 13 years old when I read this book in its' first issued paperback form in the late 1950's. The original book cost 35 cents and the cover showed a man making a call from a phone booth while on the background behind him was a flying saucer that had landed. To this day I consider it one of the best science fiction books written. So many concepts were introduced in it, including organ donor banks (which are now reality). The plot built up nicely and held your interest and attention. The characters in it were quite believable and the action exciting. For some reason the "Pass Christian Saucer" line always stuck in my head. Probably since I didn't know where it was until I looked it up. To sum it up briefly, it's a GOOD read!

The Puppet Masters by Robert Heinlein has to be my favourite book on the planet, which is quite something, considering I read a lot and don't particularly like the other Robet Heinlein stuff that much (it's okay, better than most, but nothing compares to *this*!) TPM is a book that keeps you thinking, long after you've read it. The characters are well-developed and engaging, and stretch the gamut from black to white. There are no Satans in this book, and likewise, there are no saints. Everyone (or thing) has it's faults. I love the style of writing... descriptive and fluid. Overall, this book is extremely realistic. There are some creations that have yet to be created (such as the plane cars) but Heinlein doesn't so much write about them as possibilities... rather, he states that they exist, and weaves his words so well that you come away looking for the yellow pages in order to look up the nearest plane-car dealership. The aliens (both the Titans and their *masters*) are awesome, like the title of this review states. The Titans (those cruel, slimy little buggers that attach themselves to human backs and penetrate into the spinal cords with long whip-like tentacles) evoke a sense of dread in the reader that can't be compared to any other monster. Dracula, Werewolves and 'gray' aliens with probes fall miserably short of developing the same sense of thready-pulsed fear.

The plot is basic... in a nutshell, an alien ship crashes in a forest in the states in the year 2007 and people begin to act 'odd'. Of course, no one knows what is happening, save for a small, motely group of survivalists bent on overcoming the invasion of this hostile ET organism. Because the creature is 60% brain mass, and doesn't have any eyes or ears, or any viable means of ambulating itself, it attaches itself to human 'hosts'... who it then disposes of when it's finished with. On a scarier note, these little buggers seem to share a 'collective' brain, and their understanding of our species increases in leaps and bounds, while the human understanding of this strange nemesis slows to a trickle. Canny and manipulative, what scared me most about the Titans was the way they almost seemed to take pleasure in 'destroying' the hosts... *shudder*

The main character is Elihu Nivens (Sam Cavanaugh until well into the book), a young man who is struggling with keeping a bold face for his cagey, bitingly cruel father, and the new partner he's been set up with... Mary. Mary is a cool, collected, intelligent red head who keeps Sam's hormones pumping and may be the driving force that keeps him alive when the alien invasion heats up. But this isn't no 'knight in shining armor' tale. Sam and Mary have their moments... from funny, to downright... painful. *winces* In fact, their frequent interactions are SO realistic, one can't help but wonder if Heinlein had real-life models to work with. The closest example I can think of is the first or second season relationship between Mulder and Scully of "The X-Files".

Towards the climax of this novel, my heart was *pounding* violently (I'm seriously not joking) and my eyes were, to use a cliche, glued to the pages. I took it to school, and got snapped at by more than a few teachers for not paying attention to the garbage they were 'teaching'.

I haven't read this book since age 12 (five years ago) but I *still* love every single crafted page. I expect to find it under the tree this year, and I can't wait until Saturday morning, for that reason alone. I can't recommend this book enough. It's possibly the best thing to hit the sci fi genre since it's inception. It's gorgeous, inventive, scary, nostalgic (in a weird way the reader yearns for the fictional world Heinlein has created, even in the midst of such chaos and horror), original, chalk-full-of-ideas and one crucible of a tale. When it's all over, and the alien's are defeated, the tale boils down to showcase the surviving nature of the homo sapien species. In one word: AWESOME!

A book so great, it almost reads itself.

This book has sort of dated badly with its depiction of a cold war and an attitude on Communism that is many years out of date but other than that the plot itself is typical Heinlein, which means that it's darn good. Simply put he went for the simple this time out and the premise is that alien invaders who can steal our minds are trying to take over the Earth. The aliens aren't given much personality and if you're looking for ET sort of interactions this isn't going to happen, the aliens never really talk and most of the time they only show up so the humans can kill them. In fact this is mostly a celebration of why we should be so glad the military is around and that in the end the best way to get rid of something is to just annihilate it. Yeah, whatever you say, Rob. Fortunately he tends to tone down the radical stuff this time out (for an example of when he doesn't go read Starship Troopers, otherwise very good as well) and what we're left with is great fun, Heinlein throws in everything, suspense, terror and heck even a little romance for those interested in that sort of stuff. What we're left with is a depiction of paranoia that is very interesting and those ideas that are weird that he uses are fairly harmless (i.e. why do we wear clothes and if you're wondering what I'm talking about just go read the book). In other words it's not essential Heinlein but is just a small step below. Hey good enough for me.

Most people, when commenting about this book, tend to compare it to Lodish's Molecular Cell Biology. I own both, and I must say that they are quite similar in their content but different in the way of explaining concepts. Although Lodish's book is a little more up-to-date, it's just a matter of time until a new edition of MBoC is published. In fact, a great number of concepts are clearer in Molecular Biology of the Cell... and vice-versa. About the book, it is the authoritative text of molecular biology for beginners and a reference guide to all fields of cell biology. The chapters concerning the structure of the cell and of the organelles are amazing and include in-depth explanations. It also comprehends the best revision chapters on macromolecules compared to Lodish's. The team of authors was accurate to compose one of the best books in molecular biology for students of all biological and biomedical sciences.

This text covers every important aspect in the field, from experimental techniques and basic concepts to reviews of immunology, cancer, and developmental biology. I used it as a reference in four different undergraduate classes, and have prepared for several job interviews by reviewing the relevant information in this book. The illustrations are all relevant, the organization is excellent, and the prose is so well written that I take the book off the shelf and read it for fun. A new edition would be useful - some of the more speculative information is outdated - but this is still the best textbook I own.

Well, considering that this book got me through a full year of molecular and cell biology as an undergraduate, I'm pretty fond of the book. Especially considering that the second half of the year was taught by two people who had never taught a class in their lives before. Reason for the five stars is that this is an INTRODUCTORY level textbook written about 7 years ago. Even considering that, it's thorough enough and comprehensive enough for an entire year. I wasn't expecting work done last year to be included and I wasn't expecting that it would delve into the intricate details of photosynthetic reaction centers or the latest in optical methods in single molecule dynamics. If you want that kind of detail, go to the journals or specialized texts. However, for those undergraduates undertaking a full year of MCB, I can't recommend this text highly enough. And if you're looking for prokaryotic information, I'd go pick up a copy of Prescott, Harley, and Klein's "Microbiology."

I didn't finish "Crime and Punishment". The reasons I'm about to give made me think twice about typing up a review. My decision has been made however, and some may disagree with my reasons; probably with a disgusted "who do you think you are?" spoken in my direction. Well, I'm sorry, but do read on if you like.

I am not a Dostoevsky newbie. Previously I read "The Brothers Karamozov" as well as "Notes From Underground", and both demanded my full attention to grasp what Dostoevsky was trying to put across. He's a very thoughtful writer, and a self-styled philosopher as well. Many times through "The Brothers Karamazov", he would go for page after page, thinking out loud about whatever subject came up, be it infidelity, God, friendships, gambling, social classes, you name it. The same can be said for this novel, although I was getting confused throughout "Crime and Punishment", so confused in fact that I had to put this book down, and will not likely return to it.

The story is not confusing, really. We follow Raskolnikov, a nearly-useless beggarman while he tries to live his pathetic life in 19th century Russia. Dostoevsky paints a bleak picture of the country at that time, with most people being filthy, drunken, poets and "intellectuals" eeking out a living by begging and mooching off everyone in sight. Raskolnikov (rascal?) is no different, and spends much of his time leeching off relatives and pawning off anything of value to the local pawnbroker. Shortly into the book, he murders said pawnbroker and we follow the wretch as his inner torments get the better of him over time. No, that's not a spoiler; it's right there on the back cover glurge, silly. A simple concept for a book, something we're all familiar with in one form or another, and the way his conscience affects him after the murder should lead to a satisfying novel. Instead, all I got was confusion. I was able to follow the action, but too much of my time was spent piecing together what I THOUGHT was happening, rather than being taken for the ride the writer intends.

Asking myself why I was confused, I picked up "Brothers" again and opened the book randomly. Reading ten or so long-winded pages of that monsterous work, I was NOT confused. So what was my problem with "Crime"? Was the book written earlier, when Dostoevsky was a lesser writer? No, that can't be it since I read "Notes" with no problem, and it had been written many years before "Crime".

Then it dawned on me. Translation! Each of these three in my collection have been written by a different translator. In this case the translator is a person named Constance Garnett. Looking into other books in my "unread" pile, I noticed that Ms. Garnett's translations are considered "definitive". I gulped. Could it be that this nonsensical style is what Dostoevsky really intends to put in front of his readers? Was my version of "The Brothers Karamazov" NOT translated as it was intended? How, then, to reconcile the fact that I LOVED the novel?

I don't read Russian. I am personally incapable of translating a novel from ANY language into English. Maybe I am completely off base. But this novel, as translated by Ms. Garnett, is nearly UNREADABLE. It makes very little sense. These characters behave like lunatics, and can't seem to express their thoughts in anything resembling coherency. Razumihin, Raskolnikov's best friend and essentially a 19th century "beatnik", is incomprehensible in everything he does. Was this intentional? I don't think so, as the characters who interact with him only find him a "little" strange. I couldn't understand what Raskolnikov was trying to accomplish, WHY he thought the way he did, nor HOW he was able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes without even trying. This CANNOT be how Dostoevsky imagined his work would be read. He styles himself a deep thinker; not a clown. And Ms. Garnett makes him a clown though this very poor translation. Grammatically, it is as atrocious as anything I've ever read as well.

A new reader to Dostoevsky would probably be pushed toward reading "Crime and Punishment", as it is his most famous work and considered to be his first important novel. But when presented with this sloppy and unreadable script, it's likely to turn them off for good. I know I would have been. It is a crime, no pun intended, for his most important work to be translated as ham-handed as this. Is it possible that poorly-translated Dostoevsky paved the way for other Russians like Tolstoy to steal the center stage of Russian literature? I think that IS possible, and that is an unforgivable crime as well.

If anyone should know of a different English translation of this novel, please let me know. I am unable to finish it in it's present form. In my opinion, Garnett is a very poor translator, and this novel is in dire need of a new, readable translation. New readers to Dostoevsky should steer clear. Buy "The Brothers Karamazov" instead.

The basic premise of this novel is well-known, namely that a young Russian law student (Raskolnikov) commits murder. He does this out of pride, vanity, and in order to act on a napoleonic theory of society and history that he develops. "Crime and Punishment" is a very dark novel that mostly deals with criminal psychology, psychology in general, and redemption. One would think that the "punishment" in the title refers to Raskolnikov's self-inflicted psychological torturings from the pangs of guilt for his crime, that he is "accepting his suffering" or "taking up the cross" to use expressions from the novel. However, Raskolnikov never really seems to feel guilty or come to acknowledge his guilt; his tortured state of mind seems rather to be mostly based on an intense questioning of his self-worth in the recognition that he is not destined to succeed like Napoleon. He is intelligent, selfish and vain.
There are no "moments of wild humor" as claimed on the back-cover of my edition! The novel does not really deal with crime and punishment in a legal or even a philosophical sense. Those pre-law students who read the book looking to perhaps gain some insights relevant to their crim law courses in law school will most likely be disappointed in this respect.
I read the translation by Jessie Coulson in Oxford Classics and can recommend it.

I initially approached this book with a great deal of trepidation. I had never read Dostoyevsky, and was concerned that I would get bogged down in some lengthy, mind-numbingly boring, nineteenth-century treatise on the bestial nature of man or something. I am happy to report this is not the case. Instead, and to my delight, it is a smoothly flowing and fascinating story of a young man who succumbs to the most base desire, and the impact this has both psychologically and otherwise on himself and those around him.

To be sure, the book seems wordy in places, but I suspect this has to do with the translation. And what translator in his right mind would be bold enough to edit the great Dostoyevsky? But this is a very minor problem.

What we get with Dostoyevsky is dramatic tension, detailed and believable human characters, and brilliant insight into human nature. Early in the novel our hero meets and has a lengthy conversation with Marmeladov, a drunkard. This conversation is never uninteresting and ultimately becomes pathetic and heartbreaking, but I kept wondering why so much time was spent on it. As I got deeper into the book, I understood why this conversation was so important, and realized that I was in the hands of a master storyteller. This is also indicative of the way in which the story reveals itself. Nothing is hurried. These people speak the way we actually speak to one another in real life, and more importantly, Dostoyevsky is able to flesh out his characters into whole, three-dimensional human beings.

And what a diverse group of characters! Each is fleshed out, each is marvelously complex. Razujmikhin, the talkative, gregarious, good-hearted, insecure and destitute student; Sonia, the tragic child-prostitute, with a sense of rightness in the world; Petrovich, the self-important, self-made man, completely out of touch with his own humanity; Dunia, the honorable, wronged sister: we feel like we know these people because we've met people like them. They fit within our understanding of the way human beings are.

Dostoyevsky also displays great insight into human nature. Svidrigailov, for example, talks of his wife as liking to be offended. "We all like to be offended," he says, "but she in particular loved to be offended." It suddenly struck me how true this is. It gives us a chance to act indignantly, to lash out at our enemies, to gain favor with our allies. I don't believe I've ever seen this thought expressed in literature before. In fact, it never occurred to me in real life! Petrovich, Dunia's suitor, not only expects to be loved, but because of his money, and her destitution, he expects to be adored! To be worshipped! He intentionally sought out a woman from whome he expected to get this, and is comletely flummoxed when she rejects him. His is an unusual character, but completely realized.

There is so much more to talk about: the character of Raskolnikov, which is meticulously and carefully revealed; the sense of isolation which descends on him after committing his crime; the cat and mouse game played on him by the police detective. I could go on and on. I haven't even mentioned the historical and social context in which this takes place. Suffice to say this is a very rich book.

Do not expect it to be a rip-roaring page turner. Sit down, relax, take your time, and savor it. It will be a very rewarding experience. And thank you SL, for recommending it.

A friend mentioned that this was an incredible book, and being a fan of "Stranger in a Strange Land" for nearly 2 decades now, I dropped my reading list for a Sci-Fi space escape... I forgot it was Heinlien; low and behold some of my favorite stomping grounds, a provocation of social values, moral values WITH analyses, all in the sterile environment of Science Fiction. Myself, being flung left of center, Starship Troopers reminded me of some of my more conservative "core" values regarding freedom, service to man, and duty... A Klingon's paradise. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I could cite chapter and verse that which Hollywood wouldn't dare touch (Their very own "31 crash landings" by which to avoid controversy)... but, "Hey!", I'm there for the F/X. Starship Troopers will make you think... and fan the fires of disagreement; this is a good thing. The usage of Sovereign Franchise as a form of government, the challenges to our "unalienable rights" (very poignant), the forwarding of duty as the application of "survival" toward the "group", and Heinleins "59" analysis of the end of the XX'th centuries social and judicial woe's was a prophetic indictment of the status quo. I didn't agree with the RAH's whole doctrine... Then again it wasn't a doctrine was it? It was a novel. A science fiction novel... put out as a model of a utopian society, I don't believe that was RAH's point. Let Starship Troopers stir the settled detritus of your social value system and leave you feeling like your back in college spoiling for moral debate... Then ask yourself "What's the point?".

The book is not the movie. Only some elements of the book made it into film, and they were grossly overshadowed by the weight of the director's distaste for his own perceptions.

The book is not the Amazon.com review. The reviewer's words connotate apology for having to write something positive; his/her statements about the necessity of military service to earn voting rights (it was Federal Service, only some of which was military) and the stressing of "beating children in order to make them into good citizens" (Heinlen discusses the uses of unfortuneately required corporal punishment) are a view of the book through aged and broken glass.

The book is part rollicking-good military action, part esthetics, part political philosophy. It reads well (as it should for its intended younger audience) and revisits well (as it should for the political philosophy and esthetics).

I'm an individualist, and found the conformity of the characterization difficult. One has to look for signs that non-conformity is tolerated.

I'm also a realist, and believe that a balance of authority and responsibility is essential to maintain a society that remains stable and rich enought to permit individualism (which requires a non-tribal level of economic and social development). The book brings these issues to the fore.

I took a point off, for a rating of 9, because Heinlein got caught up in 'mathematically provable' social assertions, leading to a greater degree of certainty in his social engineering than would actually work. In doing this, he was reflecting a recent (when the book was written) burst of optimism about formal logic. People thought that, with appropriate premises, formal logic would allow all sorts of problems to be definitively solved. They forgot, or did not know, that the social 'sciences' work with confidence intervals that would make a physicist burn his/her results. They also did not appreciate the difficulties of formal logic. One significant problem with formal logic is the creativity required to find solutions (something seen in all higher math) that makes it intolerant of automated (computer-based) resolution. Another (and to date, the major road-block)is the non-linear increase in solution difficulty when moving from simple propositions to complex ones. Proving a few assertions might take several pages of logic. Proving many assertions balloons out from there; speaking generally, it's easy to create groups of assertions that are non-computable.

Read the book! Think about the 'universal' franchise and the problems it causes. Think about the competing alternatives to universal democracy, and how Starship Troopers stacks up.

And enjoy a good read.

While I don't agree with much of the book, but I still enjoyed it. It's a nice mix of Sci-Fi, action, and thinking. If you've ever seen the movie, you know the basic idea of this book. The book and movie follow almost two different paths, so they have quite different stories. The movie's focus seems more on action and effects, while the book is more on details and thinking. Having watched the movie several times prior to reading this book, I found the book's version of the story very refreshing.

I really enjoyed the sci-fi themes and battles described in the book, and I didn't really mind the all the debates about morality, society, and etc. The trouble is that it is simply too much too often. I found myself just skimming or completely skipping whole pages, if not chapters, simply because I was sick of the endless rambling. I don't share a lot of the views that are frequently brought up in the book, so it's grueling to keep reading about it. The book sticks to a single view of things far too often. I don't think it's going too far to say it borders on blabbing when discussing morals and society.

As for the story itself though, it is very entertaining. It is certainly very funny and witty, and almost always enough to make you want to read more. With the many nice twists and turns in the plot, great character development, and some very good humor tossed in this makes for a great book.

- Rirath.com

Macbeth is one of Shakespeare's more gloomy plays. It is downright grim. It starts grim and only gets blacker... ...It is one of Shakespeare's better plays

Macbeth is one of Shakespeare's more ambiguous main characters. Motivation is always a big question with him. Sure, he is hungry for power. Yet he also needs prodding from several quarters to take most of his actions.

Lady Macbeth is really no different. She comes off as eager for evil early on, but is utterly shocked by its repercussions. Her attempt to go against nature leaves her absolutely unhinged and thirsting after guidance--only to find despair. In this regard, Shakespeare anticipates the psychology of Dostoevsky.

Macbeth is also one of Shakespeare's most supernatural plays. Regardless of whether one wants to debate the reality of Banquo's ghost, there are forces at work in Macbeth that are often unseen, but which drive the plot. The witches and all the unnaturalness come up against the forces of nature (the trees) and the divinely appointed King.

The most remarkable thing about this play is, for me at least, that it becomes a true tragedy only in its last moments. Only when all the stuff has hit the fan, and he has realized his doom is eminent, does Macbeth show the courage and nobility of a true tragic hero.

Macbeth is a great place to start if you are new to Shakespeare. It is a fun place to return if you're not.

Shakespeare's shortest and bloodiest tragedy, MACBETH is also possibly the most serious. Macbeth is a warrior who has just had his greatest victory, but his own "vaulting ambition," the spectral promises of the three weird sisters, and the spurring on of his wife drive him to a treason and miserable destruction for which he himself is completely responsible. The ominous imagery of the fog that hovers over the first scene of the play symbolizes the entire setting of the play. Shakespeare's repeated contrasts of such concepts as fair and foul, light and darkness, bravery and cowardice, cut us to the quick at every turn. MACBETH forces us to question "what is natural?" "what is honor?" and "Is life really 'a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury/ Signifying nothing?'" Few plays have ever illustrated the torments of Guilt (especially how it deprives one of Sleep) so vividly and stirringly.

I have read this play curiously as a child, excitedly as a teenager, passionately as a college student, and lovingly as a graduate student and adult. Like all of Shakespeare's writing, it is still as fresh, and foreboding, and marvelous as ever. As a play it is first meant to be heard (cf. Hamlet says "we shall hear a play"), secondarily to be seen (which it must be), but, ah, the rich rewards of reading it at one's own pace are hard to surpass. Shakespeare is far more than just an entertainer: he is the supreme artist of the English language. The Arden edition of MACBETH is an excellent scholarly presentation, offering a bounty of helpful notes and information for both the serious and casual reader.

A dark and grim tale of murder and deceit, Macbeth emerges as perhaps Shakespeare's bloodiest and most demonstrably macabre of his tragedies. Is Macbeth motivated by unadulterated avarice, ambition, by the witches, or his wife? An interesting and mystifying conundrum for the ages. Macbeth, unique unlike other Shakespearean tragic figures, murders his victim, the noble and just Duncan, without any provocation, without having been purportedly wronged in any way, shape, or form.

Whereas Hamlet has just provocation in the wickedness of Claudius, Othello suspects Desdemona of infidelity, Brutus, in his reasoning, deems it a necessary evil for the republic to assassinate Caesar due to his ambition, conversely Macbeth murders others who have done him no wrong to speak of. Lady Macbeth, in her infinite guile and cunning, proves to transcend literature - as we all have known ruthless and amoral opportunists such as her. Macbeth, due to its authentic ingenuity, is among my favorite Shakespeare. How can you not enjoy such a sanguine and yet powerful play infused with such morose death and gloom?