I won't bother to review Dante's "Divine Comedy". The fact that it has withstood the test of time, and its depicitions of heaven and hell have become ingrained into our mythology, reveal far more than anything I could say.

This translation, however, was simply too difficult to read. It was too full of "thees" and "thous", and quite frankly did not flow at all. Reading it was a real struggle for me. The annotation and Canto introductions, however, were very helpful, and gave me a better picture of what Dante was saying than the actual text itself. The book also has the advantage of being compact (all three parts in one average-sized book), and reasonably priced.

However, I would recommend searching for a translation written in a more modern style, so that Dante's message isn't obscured in a linguistic haze. What he said was too important to be lost in a struggle with the langauge.

Whether you care to join the scholarly debate over whether Dante's soaring masterpiece is medieval or renaissance literature, this trilogy is well worth the time and effort anyone cares to invest. Make no mistake - this account of the journey of a soul through Hell, Purgatory and Heaven is very demanding reading, no matter how well translated and how many helpful notes are provided (I first "discovered" Dante in high school and remain faithful to the Ciardi translation). Dante can be read on so many levels that it constantly challenges the reader, yet the rewards are great. Dante the poet and the protagonist is a medieval Christian who is also embracing the masters of classical antiquity, such as his first guide, Virgil. He is a Florentine who bitterly resents the people who contributed to his exile from his beloved city-state. He is a political theorist who embraces a sort of world order far beyond the nations and petty principalities of his day. He is a devout believer who abhors the corruption of the late medieval Church. He is a writer who constructs a masterpeice of structure. He is a romantic who pines for his ultimate guide Beatrice. But ultimately, Dante is a passionate believer who chronicles the allegory of his soul's journey from sin (The Inferno) to repentance (Purgatory) to salvation (Paradise). Don't make the all-too-frequent mistake of reading only the most entertaining Inferno. A third of Dante is fascinating but the entire Divine Comedy is an inspiration.

This review is of the John Ciardi translation - apparently Amazon links it in to all versions? Different translations will suit different tastes.

This classic translation of Dante's trilogy remains one of the best. It nicely preserves the musicality of the original by retaining the "terza rima" rhyme scheme throughout. This may seem like a narrow point but it makes this a satisfying read for one who enjoys rhyme. Terza rima is an ABA, BCB, CDC... arrangement of triplets where the first and third lines rhyme and the middle line's rhyme becomes the first of the next triplet - simple but not sing-song. Over a poem of this length it helps to weave an amazing fabric of rhyme and story.

In the original Italian, a language with only a handful of primary word endings, such an approach was not the central challenge of a poetic work - Dante gets credit for the vision and scope. The challenge for translators is whether to preserve the content or the rhyme more closely; the English language is not comfortably suited for such relentless rhyming. Ciardi has, nevertheless, done a wonderful job of this. As to the other element, I've been told that the "story" is a tad "creative" at times. Perhaps Dante would object a few times if he reread this translation, but I found Ciardi's telling well crafted.

This edition combines all three parts of the "Comedy" in a nice, clothbound package. You might end up owning other translations of Dante (I have three), but you should certainly own this one.

I recently decided to try reading some classic books. Mutiny on the Bounty was the first one I tried. Although some of the navigational and shipping vocabulary was unfamiliar to me, the plot of the book and the triumph of good and truth made this story one of the best I've ever read. Better still, it is based on actual events! I think you'll agree with me that Captain Bligh makes a most agregious villian-his parts were almost difficult to read. Still, Roger Byam's heartfelt account made this a fascinating read. Give it a try!

Mutiny on the Bounty is a stunning work of historical fiction that is a pleasure to read.

The novel chronicles the events of the HMS Bounty as seen through the eyes of Roger Byam, a midshipman on the infamous Bounty. Through his eyes, the reader sees the terrible events unfold aboard the ship--the cruelty of Capt. Bligh that ultimately leads Fletcher Christian and much of the crew to mutiny against the captain. With Bligh left at sea, the crew returns to the South Pacific, seeking to make a new life for themselves and hoping to avoid capture and court martial by the British authorities. The conclusion of the novel is heart-wrenching and simply superb (and will be left as a surprise).

This novel relies a good deal on historical fact, though the authors clearly fill in the gaps with literary license. The characters are superbly developed and the story is riveting throughout. There is much nautical vocabulary, but this shouldn't distract readers as it can be glossed over without losing any significant content. I am not a historian and can make no statements about the veracity of the portrayals in this book. I do know that readers will find this novel difficult to put down. It is simply a classic story.

This book is interesting. It gives a great and detailed history of the ship Bounty. With her tyrant captain (William Bligh) and the admirable Fletcher Christian the ship sails from England to the south sea island of Tahiti. The whole crew recieves either physical or verbal abuse by Captain Bligh. Finally Christian becomes sick of it and gets most of the crew to rise in mutiny... You will have to read the book to find out the rest of this exciting story. Told in the words of the innocent midshipman, Roger Byam, who is wrongly found guilty of mutiny and condemned to death, this is a classic few can forget. Read this exciting book and I guaranty that you will love it's adventure and suspense. You won't be disappointed!

henry iv is misnamed since the play isn't really about king henry but about his son, prince hal, and his enemies, especially henry percy (aka 'hotspur') who is a rival to hal. hotspur is one of the leaders of the rebellion against the king and, at a tender age, is already an accomplished soldier. his story provides the drama of the play. hal, on the other hand, has fallen out of favor with the king, and is whiling away his days in the company of dissolute company, led by sir john falstaff, one of shakespeare's great characters. his adventures with sir john provide the comic relief. fortunately for the king, hal sheds his prodigal ways in time to save his father and his crown in the battle at shrewsbury, where, coincidentally, hal meets and slays his rival, hotspur.

this is one of shakespeare's best plays. the story of the rebellion is intriguing, and the adventures of hal and falstaff are laugh-out-loud hilarious. the culmination of the two stories in the final battle scene is wonderful. this is a fitting sequel to richard ii.

note that there are some historical inaccuracies and even outright inventions in this play. foremost is the character of falstaff who is pure invention (and genius). the story of hal's adventures stems from his reputation, enhanced by legend, as a playboy. falstaff was the perfect foil for a carousing prince. the biggest inaccuracy is hotspur's age. he was actually of the generation of henry iv, and not as young as he's depicted in the play. shakespeare made him younger to enhance, maybe even create, the rivalry with hal. there are other inaccuracies here, but better for the reader to consult 'shakespeare's kings', an excellent book by saccio that explains the history of the period and the discrepancies in the play.

This is the play where the Percy rebellion begins and centers around the Achilles like Hotspur. Eventually, Hotspur (Henry Percy) and Prince Hal (Henry Monmouth - later Henry V) battle in single combat.

We also get to see the contrast between these young men in temperament and character. King Henry wishes his son were more like Hotspur. Prince Hal realizes his own weaknesses and seems to try to assure himself (and us) that when the time comes he will change and all his youthful foolishness will be forgotten. Wouldn't that be a luxury we wish we could all have afforded when we were young?

Of course, Prince Hal's guide through the world of the cutpurse and highwayman is the Lord of Misrule, the incomparable Falstaff. His wit and gut are featured in full. When Prince Hal and Poins double-cross Falstaff & company, the follow on scenes are funny, but full of consequence even into the next play.

But, you certainly don't need me to tell you anything about Shakespeare. Like millions of other folks, I am in love with the writing. However, as all of us who read Shakespeare know, it isn't a simple issue. Most of us need help in understanding the text. There are many plays on words, many words no longer current in English and, besides, Shakespeare's vocabulary is richer than almost everyone else's who ever lived. There is also the issue of historical context, and the variations of text since the plays were never published in their author's lifetime.

For those of us who need that help and want to dig a bit deeper, the Arden editions of Shakespeare are just wonderful.

-Before the text of the play we get very readable and helpful essays discussing the sources and themes and other important issues about the play.

-In the text of the play we get as authoritative a text as exists with helpful notes about textual variations in other sources. We also get many many footnotes explaining unusual words or word plays or thematic points that would likely not be known by us reading in the 21st century.

-After the text we get excerpts from likely source materials used by Shakespeare and more background material to help us enrich our understanding and enjoyment of the play.

However, these extras are only available in the individual editions. If you buy the "Complete Plays" you get text and notes, but not the before and after material which add so much! Plus, the individual editions are easier to read from and handier to carry around.

Having just completed Henry IV Part I, I must say that I came away delighted and impressed with Shakespeare's genius once again. Shakespeare's ability to intertwine the arduous dichotomy of the impcomparable comedy of Falstaff and the meaningful history of Henry IV, Prince Hal, & Hotspur is impressive to say the least. It comes as no surprise that this was one of Shakespeare's most popularly staged plays during his day and enjoyed an unusually long stage run.

Falstaff is undoubtedly the most infamously famous literary comic character in the history of English literature. The scenes of him being robbed by Prince Hal, feigning his death, stabbing the already deceased Hotspur in the leg while claiming victory, and his employment of beggars as his foot soldiers galvanize the comic aspect of the play and make for a hilarious & farcical sublot. Interestingly, in the bar in Eastcheap, Prince Hal alludes to his future persecution of Falstaff when he is crowned king.

I strongly recommend Henry IV Part I to all Shakespeare aficionados seeing as I deem it in the top five of all Shakespeare's works along with Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, & Henry V. Now on to Part II. Adieu.

"The better part of valor is discretion." - Falstaff

How closed did David Crockett come to being presidient of the United States? Closer than you might think.  That's one of the many interesting issues covered in "Three Roads to the Alamo" This book is deep and well researched.  The foot notes were as interesting as the book itself.  Most Bubba Texas history buffs never considered Crockett, Bowie and Travis until they bite the big bullet.  We sometimes forget that Davy Crockett was not much more than a tourist.   He had just lost an election and  made one campaign promise that he kept.   He said, "If I lose this election I'll either go to hell or Texas." He chose Texas.  His travels led him to San Antonio at a time that coincided with the defense of the Alamo. James Bowie was a land swindler that forged a lot of Spanish land grants in Louisiana and did a poor job of that.  He was kind of hiding out from creditors and enjoying his new squeeze, a pretty local girl from a influential San Antonio family.  She died of typhus that rampaged the area and Jim went into a depression that kept him from a timely exit from San Antonio. William Travis was thriving in Texas with a law practice.   Only after he had sneaked out of Alabama leaving a family and lots of debt.  This book does a great job of explaining how these three men came together and rose above their short comings to lead a brave defense of the Alamo.

Three key figures in the Alamo legend, three biographies intertwined into a single story. Davis is able to write parallel accounts of the lives of Crockett, Bowie and Travis, so that the reader knows what the others have been up to while reading about the third. Meticulous research, and Davis does not bog down the narrative with long explanations about sources. However, he does supply adequate information in the notes at the end of the book, for those who are fond of reading them. Perhaps the most interesting information to come from the book is the shattering of myths surrounding these three men. Travis was a failure in life, whose law career didn't pick up until he abandoned his native Alabama--and his wife and family--for Texas. Bowie was a swindler, who forged documents claiming to be Spanish land grants for land in present-day Arkansas and Louisiana. And Crockett was the Jesse Ventura of his day, an unlettered self-promoter who became nationally known in the early 1830s and parlayed his fame into a political career that eventually collapsed for lack of substance. A great American story, "Three Roads to the Alamo" can be enjoyed by anyone--even Texas newcomers like me.

This is the most important book about the Alamo and its heroes to appear in the last three decades. Davis has undertaken meticulous research, including review of previously unseen documents in Mexico's military archives, to construct new, revealing biographies of the three most celebrated Alamo heroes. Especially valuable are the sketches of Bowie and Travis, about whom there are no earlier satisfactory biographies. Many will find Travis's story completely new, and Davis portrays the Alamo commander as an important political leader of the Texian revolt, whose death was an incalculable loss to that cause. Bowie, on the other hand, is something of a rogue, forever scheming to turn a dishonest dollar through slave smuggling or land fraud. However, Davis also captures Bowie's daring, bravery, and leadership capabilities, particularly in battle. Crockett's story is more familiar, but Davis adds new interpretation and assessment of the frontier politician and folk hero,! deftly distinguishing the two and tracing the emergence of the fictional "Davy," partially by Crockett's own design. Other historical figures, particularly Sam Houston, do not fair so well, and Davis reveals the petty politics that may have led to abandonment of the doomed Alamo garrison. The work is not intended as a study of the Alamo itself, and the siege and battle are confined to a single chapter. Nonetheless, Davis has uncovered new information and formed unique insights about the event and the actions there of the three heroes. Much myth is stripped away, and Davis reveals the human failings of the three figures, who still emerge as courageous men of stubborn conviction, in many ways typical of those who sought to improve their fortunes by exploiting opportunities along America's expanding frontier. The book deserves a place beside such highly-regarded Alamo works as Walter Lord's "A Time To Stand."

Allen J. Wiener

I didn't like to read any books before, but after I have read this book , I become more and more interested in reading. I started to have motivation to read as many books as in my life.
" A Study in Scarlet " ( written by Conan Doyle ) is the first full-length novel appearance of Sherlock Holmes. And I know Sherlock Holmes is very famous detective in fiction. Therefore, I choose this book.I like Holmes's deduction the most. He has great power in observation and understanding in all types of crime. He is full of knowledge that can help him to solve the problem and he likes violin and opera. If his brain contains anything apart from these , he must try to forget them all as quick as possible.

I am quite interested in mystery. If you don't know which book is good to read , try to read the story about Sherlock Holmes . You must like it .

A Study in Scarlet is a good detective story, but certainly not Doyle's greatest. But it bears the distinction of being the novel which introduced the world to the legendary Sherlock Holmes. First appearing in 1887, it was not to be the greatest story about Sherlock Holmes, but it was the first. Doyle first introduces us to John H. Watson, a medical doctor recovering from duty in Afghanistan. Watson needs a room-mate, and a mutual acquaintance introduces both him and us to Holmes. So we come to know both Holmes, Watson, and the memorable 221B Baker Street.

Watson's first impressions of Holmes are merely that he is a man enshrouded in mystery and eccentricity, and Watson politely restrains his curiosity by avoiding asking too many intrusive questions, despite the parade of strange individuals that come to their apartment to consult Holmes, and despite his bemusement at Holmes' passion for playing the violin and his egotism. Watson's perplexation at Holmes' character and profession is slowly unravelled in the second chapter which Doyle appropriately titles 'The Science of Deduction'. Watson observes that 'his zeal for certain studies was remarkable, and within eccentric limits his knowledge was so extraordinarily ample and minute that his observations have fairly astounded me 'His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing ' That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to me to be such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.'(p11). Holmes apparently is brilliant at identifying a stain on your trousers, but completely ignorant about the most elementary contemporary political events.

Ironically, Watson's inability to deduce Holmes' profession proves that he lacks the very ability that he is seeking to uncover in Holmes: deduction. For Holmes doesn't just excel in specialized knowledge, but especially in the science of deduction and logic. By utilizing the skills of observation and analysis Holmes asserts that logic could solve all virtually all problems. In his words: 'From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it. Like all other arts, the Science of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only be acquired by long and patient study, nor is life long enough to allow any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it. Before turning to those moral and mental aspects of the matter which present the greatest difficulties, let the inquirer begin by mastering more elementary problems. Let him, on meeting a fellow-mortal, learn at a glance to distinguish the history of the man, and the trade or profession to which he belongs. Puerile as such an exercise may seem, it sharpens the faculties of observation, and teaches on where to look and what to look for. By a mans' finger-nails, by his coat-sleeve, by his boots, by his trouser-knees, by the callosities of his forefinger and thumb, by his expression, by his shirtcuffs ' by each of these things a man's calling is plainly revealed. That all united should fail to enlighten the competent inquirer in any case is almost inconceivable.' (p14-15). Watson calls this science of deduction 'ineffable twaddle', but as we know, this is the vintage Holmes we love and the very core of his being. Not only does he prove it to Watson by remarkably deducing that Watson had served duty in Afghanistan, but by collaring the criminal in a murder case.

The story itself consists in two parts: the first part introduces us to Holmes and Watson, and describes the murder of Enoch Drebber and his secretary Joseph Stangerson, and several failed attempts of Scotland Yard detectives to solve it, concluding with Holmes unmasking the real perpetrator, to the complete astonishment of all present. The second part is a flashback, explaining the background and motives for the murder, as finally Holmes relates the observations and deductions that led him to solving it. In short, 'the crime was the result of an old-standing and romantic feud, in which love and Mormonism bore a part.' (p103)

But what is fascinating about 'A Study in Scarlet' is not so much the mystery, but the man: Holmes himself. Doyle would later learn to eliminate some of the excess baggage present in this story (such as the extended flashback) and focus on Holmes and his deductions. The characterization of Holmes as an eccentric man driven by logic is wonderfully created for the first time in this novel. Already here is the foundation of the Sherlock Holmes that would become so successful in all of Doyle's later stories. A few quotes illustrate how the tone of the deductive Holmes is set: 'In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backward. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a very easy one, but people do not practise it much.' (p99-100) 'There is no branch of detective science which is so important and so much neglected as the art of tracing footsteps.' (p100) 'You see, the whole thing is a chain of logical sequences without a break or flaw.' (p102)

Here the successful formula is already established: Scotland Yard is baffled, so is his foil the bumbling doctor Watson, and so are we the readers. Holmes has long solved the mystery before we have even begun identifying red herrings, and it is when he sits by the fire and explains to Watson the process of deduction that we curl up in delight. The partnership between the super-sleuth Holmes and his beloved side-kick Watson all starts here, and if you love Sherlock Holmes, you won't want to miss it!

Dr. John Watson, invalided out of the army because of wounds sustained in Afghanistan, is looking for a roommate. He finds one in the person of Sherlock Holmes, a rather odd individual who displays astounding depth of knowledge in some areas and abysmal ignorance in others. Despite (or perhaps because of) his uneven education, Holmes displays acute powers of observation and deduction. Watson also finds Holmes to be a talented boxer, fencer, and violinist who conducts noxious chemistry experiments and entertains strange guests. Watson is mystified, but being too polite to ask blunt questions, he unsuccessfully tries to deduce what the devil his new friend is up to.

All becomes clear when Watson is called on to assist Holmes as he solves a murder mystery which completely baffles Scotland Yard. The story moves quickly to the inevitable capture of the "bad guy," and then through a lengthy flashback sequence we discover the "bad guy's" motive. Next we return to the "present," where the story draws to its satisfying conclusion.

Thus begins a crimefighting partnership that Conan Doyle took through four novels and fifty six short stories. And long after Conan Doyle put down his pen forever, the parternship continues to thrive in countless theatrical performances, radio plays, movies, and literary pastiches.

This superb play by Shakespeare somehow reminded me of Antigona, the first play which directly examined the always complex interplay and usual confrontation between political reason and moral reason. This play is an excellent account of the immediately previous and subsequent days of Julius Caesar's assasination by Brutus, his best friend, and other conspirators. Brutus is persuaded by the resentful Cassius that Caesar has betrayed Rome by abandoning the Republic and turning to Dictatorship. Brutus gets to be convinced that, in order to save the Republic, Caesar must be killed. This puts him in a great dilemma, for he loves Caesar and he's his closest friend. Here we see in an acute form the way in which political power gets in conflict with morality and feelings. Friendship, power and betrayal are the basic subjects of this excellent piece of work.

This was the first play performed at the Globe Theatre. For that reason alone, this play deserves special attention. But the characters, the language, and this interesting situation represent Shakespeare's finest efforts. Cassius is ruthless with a malicious attitude. But he honestly fears what Caesar will do if he is crowned. Brutus is a good and honest man. He contemplates joining Cassius to kill Caesar despite the fact that Caesar loves him as a friend. (In history as well, Caesar was notably kind to Brutus.) But yet he too fears that if Caesar is crowned, Rome will bleed. Mark Antony is convincing as Caesar's loyal aid who SEEMS insignificant at first. But after Caesar is killed, he emerges as the most powerful and intelligent character in the play. What makes this play so phenomenal is that we can easily understand and sympathize with any of these major characters. (Even though they are on opposite sides.) What's left? Only chilling omens like the Soothsayer, the storm, the ghost of Caesar, etc. Only memorable passages like Mark Antony's famous 'honorable' speech. If you like this play, I suggest the B & W version where James Mason does Brutus, John Gielgud does Cassius, and Marlon Brando does Mark Antony.

This is certainly one of Shakespeare's greatest works. Every individual character has been perfectly planned before the play was written, and each has his/her own unique characteristics. The plot is well-known, but Shakespeare adds the themes of betrayal, love, and distrust into the mix, making it a nonforgetable story. This is definately a masterpiece to be reread over and over again. LONG LIVE JULIUS CAESAR! GO SM!! WE ARE HIS #1 FANS!!!

I write this review as possibly the only Scottish person who hated the film- after reading this book it was huge disappointment.

MacKay's book is very engaging, providing a very powerful tale of one of Scotland's two biggest hero's that is very enjoyable to read. Wallace's rise from obscurity into a national hero, his massive victory against the odds followed by his spectacularly rapid fall from grace are truly inspirational. Furthermore MacKay has made the effort to try to correct common misconceptions and redirects the spotlight onto those important figures whom are commonly neglected. No, unlike Mel Gibsons claims, William Wallace didn't believe in 'The American Dream'. No, he didn't reluctantly resort to violence and war as a last resort and in revenge for a loved one- he relished battles out of hatred for the english oppressors and corrupt scottish barons. And finally, no the Irish soldiers didn't change sides and join the scots out of a desire to please Irish-Americans and thus increase box office takings for a motion picture to be made hundreds of years later- they stuck with the english against their fellow celts.

There is a large problem, namely how much of the book can be trusted as being true. As very little documentation from the period exists, Mackay heavily uses a poem written by 'Blind Harry', which in turn was based on a second hand account by a church figure. Thus parts such as the claim Wallace rose from near death, must be taken with a pinch of salt. In addition Mackay sometimes bombards the reader with too many names at once, which makes it harder to decipher who the main figures are.

Still, I would certainly recommend the book as a fine historical tale, which is about as close to the truth as we are likely to get. Oh and to find out what happened next, read Caroline Bingham's book on Robert the Bruce.

The legend of William Wallace facinates me, and this book offered an in depth insight into his life. James MacKay really did a good job of researching this subject. It is a tough read, but full of facts to keep you interested. Reminds me of the "Similarian" by tolken, numerous names to keep track of, but far better.

Worth Reading, if your are into History.

P.S. I read this one for fun, not coursework

As a child of 9 I picked out the decor for my new room - Wallace Plaid - which dumbfounded my family since our Clans were MacGillivray, Ogilvie, Grant, Fraser and Montgomerie! But I thought Wallace such a great, sweeping figure. This was decades before Randall Wallace accidentally discovered William Wallace on a vacation in Scotland and read Anne Porter's Highland Chiefs. Wallace, to me, was such a true Patriot - not a Saint, but a man willing to go to the wall, to die for what he believed. Not many of us would walk in his shoes, so I have to admire his willingness to die for an idea.
James MacKay gives a richly details account of the Scottish clime of politics that formed and fermented Wallace. It might be a little bit more than the average reader would be interested in (I would suggest Grey's book on Wallace in that case), but for those wishing to know more without wading through Blind Harry, this is a wonderful work.

A perfect gift to that friend that watched Braveheart more than once!!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, William Shatner has written what I would proclaim as a piece of fine science fiction and Star Trek literature. The story begins with a great mysterious/emotional awe as it opens with Spock at the grave of his fallen friend James T. Kirk. Then, the story sky rockets as Mr. Spock recalls their last adventure in the final days of the beloved James Kirks life! The story starts with Kirk reliving a simulation on Tycho VI where he lost his girl friend and relives a challenging moment with arch-villian Androwar Drake. In the end Kirk awakes from a simulation and drags on his last day virtually hopeless until a new young lady enters his life. A half Romulan/Klingon hybrid she leads Kirk and virtually gives a desperate Kirk hungary for a last piece of action hope. Kirk's friends think he is crazy but Kirk does not listen. Instead he gets involved with the young women and leaves Starfleet to aide her in defense of her planet Chal. This young woman named Telani gives him the Enterprise after Kirk learns his arch-enemy Androwar Drake becomes the CiC of the Fleet and plans to blow the ship to dust. So, Kirk returns with the Enterprise and old friends Scott to the planet! But that is one half. Meanwhile Checkov and Uhura go on a mission to find out Klingon's are selling weapons of mass destruction. While there both Checkov and Uhura run into a rogue agent of Star Fleet Intell and get ditched and left to die until Captain Sulu rescues them. Then the crew goes to the new CiC and the old gang along with Spock and McCoy are assigned to hunt down Kirk! Well, in the end the two sides meet in epic battle that only the reader will have to find out! Shatner blows the fans away with a great book! Long life James T. Kirk!

Starting with this book, Willam Shatner has proven how much he knows about and truly loves Star Trek and its characters. Along with the help of the Reeves-Stevens (They also deserve a high salute as well), Shatner adds some much needed depth to the cheap "death" of Kirk in Star Trek: Generations. He also takes care of some hanging continuity threads from the past movies as well. Gosh! Is it more than satisfying or what to finally see the resolution and evolution of some key questions and themes! The interesting thing here, while reading this, is that word has it Shatner proposed this story for the next Star Trek film. 6 was a great way to go out, but if they would have come back for one more, this would have been it. This story would have merited it, and I gurantee you everyone would have been leaving that theater with tears in their eyes and their fist in the air in victory. All sorts of juicy details are touched upon, including how and why The Genesis Project failed and more about David Marcus's death and everything else. I, too, had a little bit of a struggle seeing the young Teilani go after Kirk. I realize he IS Kirk, but come one, he is 60 years old now. (This is rectified in the following books in the series when Kirk is in the 24th century and Teilani is more his age) Whatever reputation Shatner may have, there is one thing no one should dispute: He knows and loves Star Trek like the back of his hand. It's too bad; as awesome as his books in this series have been, I wish he and Nimoy would take over the reign of control over the Star Trek franchise. I would DIE to see the saga Shatner had portrayed in these books on the big screen. For me, his books are what the movies used to be. Star Trek has become so cheapened, watered down, and politically correct, that when I finally ran across these books, I finally had REAL Star Trek again. Not some soap opera like what it has become. Go ahead: Compare these books to anything Star Trek in the past several years. The difference will make you weep. Here is the difference between love and the almighty dollar.

I have read enough Star Trek novels to know the typical pattern ... Shatner has broken it. His book would have just been another installment of sci-fi action pulp, if not for some of the observations he made and details he observed. Yes, there is the obligatory bad guy and the conflict between good guys. But this time, Shatner added several elements that made the book irresistible.

First of all, the whole "growing old" bit that Kirk went through, his melancholy and observations regarding his continuing usefulness (or lack thereof) -- Shatner wrote about old age without sounding whiny, which is no small task. I am twenty-one years old, yet I could feel what he was going through. I've never been famous either (yet), but I felt like I understood what Kirk/Shatner was trying to say. He made it real, somehow.

Also, Shatner expanded on Kirk's "change the rules" behavior, and his near-obsessive need to live in the moment and beat the odds, elements vital to Kirk's status as hero. I had not been a Kirk fan until this book, because I'd never been inside his head; all I ever saw was the over-acting testosterone-charged character who spoke in small bursts. Shatner made me like and respect Kirk for his maturity and courage, which no one has ever done before.

Finally, the book came together on two fronts: action and philosophy (as all good Trek does). It blended perfectly - Kirk's quest for youth unravels even as he realizes all things must change, must die and become something new. Teilani grows up by learning to face up to the unknown, even as Kirk realizes that he can't move forward until he accepts where he is.

One last note regarding how Shatner treated Kirk's love interest: Shatner excelled as a novelist in his treatment of a character's perspective on love and romance. No other author I have read seems so capable of grasping what love means to a man, how it changes him and draws him together in new and fascinating ways. If for nothing else, I would have loved this book for his portrayal of the concept of love and relationships - not as an interesting diversion, but as an underpinning to one's entire philosophy of life.

This is Shatner's best book to date, eclipsed (in parts) only by his sequels.

As a play, "Othello" encompasses many things but more than anything else it is a study of pure evil. Although Othello is an accomplished professional soldier and a hero of sorts, he is also a minority and an outcast in many ways. As a Black man and a Moor (which means he's a Moslem), Othello has at least two qualities, which make him stand out in the Elizabethan world. He is also married to a Caucasian woman named Desdemona, which creates an undercurrent of hostility as evidenced by the derogatory remark "the ram hath topped the ewe".

Othello's problems begin when he promotes one of his soldiers, Michael Cassio as his lieutenant. This arouses the jealousy and hatred of one of his other soldiers, Iago who hatches a plot to destroy Othello and Michael Cassio. When Cassio injures an opponent in a fight he is rebuked, punished, and subsequently ignored by Othello who must discipline him and teach him a lesson. Iago convinces Desdemona to intervene on Cassio's behalf and then begins to convince Othello that Desdemona is in love with Cassio.

This is actually one of the most difficult Shakespeare plays to watch because the audience sees the plot begin to unfold and is tormented by Othello's gradual decent into Iago's trap. As with other Shakespeare plays, the critical components of this one are revealed by language. When Othello is eventually convinced of Cassio's treachery, he condemns him and promotes Iago in his place. When Othello tells Iago that he has made him his lieutenant, Iago responds with the chilling line, "I am thine forever". To Othello this is a simple affirmation of loyalty, but to the audience, this phrase contains a double meaning. With these words, Iago indicates that the promotion does not provide him with sufficient satisfaction and that he will continue to torment and destroy Othello. It is his murderous intentions, not his loyal service that will be with Othello forever.

Iago's promotion provides him with closer proximity to Othello and provides him with more of his victim's trust. From here Iago is easily able to persuade Othello of Desdemona's purported infidelity. Soon Othello begins to confront Desdemona who naturally protests her innocence. In another revealing statement, Othello demands that Desdemona give him "the ocular proof". Like Iago's earlier statement, this one contains a double meaning that is not apparent to the recipient but that is very clear to the audience who understands the true origin of Othello's jealousy. Othello's jealousy is an invisible enemy and it is also based on events that never took place. How can Desdemona give Othello visual evidence of her innocence if her guilt is predicated on accusations that have no true shape or form? She can't. Othello is asking Desdemona to do the impossible, which means that her subsequent murder is only a matter of course.

I know that to a lot of young people this play must seem dreadfully boring and meaningless. One thing you can keep in mind is that the audience in Shakespeare's time did not have the benefit of cool things such as movies, and videos. The downside of this is that Shakespeare's plays are not visually stimulating to an audience accustomed to today's entertainment media. But the upside is that since Shakespeare had to tell a complex story with simple tools, he relied heavily on an imaginative use of language and symbols. Think of what it meant to an all White audience in a very prejudiced time to have a Black man at the center of a play. That character really stood out-almost like an island. He was vulnerable and exposed to attitudes that he could not perceive directly but which he must have sensed in some way.

Shakespeare set this play in two locations, Italy and Cypress. To an Elizabethan audience, Italy represented an exotic place that was the crossroads of many different civilizations. It was the one place where a Black man could conceivably hold a position of authority. Remember that Othello is a mercenary leader. He doesn't command a standing army and doesn't belong to any country. He is referred to as "the Moor" which means he could be from any part of the Arab world from Southern Spain to Indonesia. He has no institutional or national identity but is almost referred to as a phenomenon. (For all the criticism he has received in this department, Shakespeare was extrordinarlily attuned to racism and in this sense he was well ahead of his time.) Othello's subsequent commission as the Military Governor of Cypress dispatches him to an even more remote and isolated location. The man who stands out like an island is sent to an island. His exposure and vulnerability are doubled just as a jealous and murderous psychopath decides to destroy him.

Iago is probably the only one of Shakespeare's villains who is evil in a clinical sense rather than a human one. In Kind Lear, Edmund the bastard hatches a murderous plot out of jealousy that is similar to Iago's. But unlike Iago, he expresses remorse and attempts some form of restitution at the end of the play. In the Histories, characters like Richard III behave in a murderous fashion, but within the extreme, political environment in which they operate, we can understand their motives even if we don't agree with them. Iago, however, is a different animal. His motives are understandable up to the point in which he destroys Michael Cassio but then they spin off into an inexplicable orbit of their own. Some have suggested that Iago is sexually attracted to Othello, which (if its true) adds another meaning to the phrase "I am thine forever". But even if we buy the argument that Iago is a murderous homosexual, this still doesn't explain why he must destroy Othello. Oscar Wilde once wrote very beautifully of the destructive impact a person can willfully or unwittingly have on a lover ("for each man kills the things he loves") but this is not born out in the play. Instead, Shakespeare introduces us to a new literary character-a person motivated by inexplicable evil that is an entity in itself. One of the great ironies of this play is that Othello is a character of tragically visible proportions while Iago is one with lethally invisible ones.

Jealousy is perhaps the ugliest of emotions, an acid that corrodes the heart, a poison with which man harms his fellow man. Fortunately for us, Shakespeare specializes in ugly emotions, writing plays that exhibit man at his most shameful so we can elevate ourselves above the depths of human folly and watch the carnage with pleasure and awe.

In "Othello," the "green-eyed monster" has afflicted Iago, a Venetian military officer, and the grand irony of the play is that he intentionally infects his commanding general, Othello, with it precisely by warning him against it (Act 3, Scene 3). Iago has two grievances against Othello: He was passed over for promotion to lieutenant in favor of the inexperienced Cassio, and he can't understand why the Senator's lily-white daughter Desdemona would fall for the black Moor. Not one to roll with the punches, he decides to take revenge, using his obsequious sidekick Roderigo and his ingenuous wife Emilia as gears in his transmission of hatred.

The scheme Iago develops is clever in its design to destroy Othello and Cassio and cruel in its inclusion of the innocent Desdemona. He arranges (the normally temperate) Cassio to be caught by Othello in a drunken brawl and discharged from his office, and using a handkerchief that Othello had given Desdemona as a gift, he creates the incriminating illusion that she and Cassio are having an affair. Othello falls for it all, and the tragedy of the play is not that he acts on his jealous impulses but that he discovers his error after it's too late.

It is a characteristic of Shakespeare that his villains are much more interesting and entertaining than his heroes; Iago is proof of this. He's the only character in the play who does any real thinking; the others are practically his puppets, responding unknowingly but obediently to his every little pull of a string. In this respect, this is Iago's play, but Othello claims the title because he -- his nobility -- is the target.

Othello relects the true meaning of a tragedy both in its content and its structure.Tragedy is 'a story of exceptional calamity produced by human actions, leading to the death of a man in high estate.'The downfall of Othello is caused by his own actions, rather than by his character, or rather the two work in unison to create the stage for his downfall.
This is what captured my attention when I read this play.It is very profound to realize the fact that Shakespeare uses Iago to set this stage on which Othello is a mere player.
I love the character of Iago. His total confidence, the superiority that he feels when psychoanalysing human nature, his rational thinking and intellectualism sways the reader to think: 'Wow, this is a compelling and sophisticated man we're dealing with here!'
However, my admiration of Iago does not in anyway undermine my love of Othello. His poetic and calm demeanor makes the reader feel the pity and terror for him when he falls from grace (catharsis). Yet, we are made to understand that the reason why he is made to appear a gullible and ignorant fool to some readers is that he does not have any knowledge of a delicate, domesticated life. Venetian women were foreign to him. This tragic flaw in Othello added to the circumstances used by Iago to destroy him.
The meaning, and hence the tragedy of the play is conveyed through the use of Shakespeare's language, style, literary devices and imagery. Without these dramatic effects, readers would never be able to enjoy the play as much, although the dialogue is at times difficult to decipher.
I thoroughly enjoyed Othello and it is my hope that more people find it enticing as I have. I would be delighted to contribute more of my reviews to that effect.

William James's approach to the varieties of religious experience shows such an incredible understanding and willingness to believe. And compassion. Having had many religious experiences myself, It was the first book I read that seriously studied these mysteries. Making them a whole lot less mysterious to me. James brings in powerful and beautiful excerpts, and quotes for case studies, and shows the reader the spiritual progression of the soul as it moves from Oneness, the Mystical and 'happy soul', through to the Compassionate and 'sick soul' to the martyr, prophet and saint. Anyone who has felt the tug of the Divine Will and the Spirit of Unity will find this book a treasure.

You will not draw the nectar out of this book unless you are aware (the earlier the better) of James' premise that the stronghold of religion lies in individuality. These lectures are not a study of "religion" nor even a study of religious "experiences" in toto, but a study of "individual" religious experience. Singular. It sounds narrow only until you add the other word of the title... "varieties."

Why such an emphasis upon the individual? Because, as James states, the pivot around which the religious life revolves "is the interest of the individual in his private personal destiny." All proper "religion" by such a definition must consist in an individual experiencing connection with that which he considers to be the higher power(s). In fact, at one point James states that "prayer is real religion." And further, "Wherever this interior prayer is lacking, there is no religion; wherever, on the other hand, this prayer rises and stirs the soul, even in the absence of forms or of doctrines, we have living religion." A thought-provoking principle.

You will never appease your hunger by staring at a menu. You have to actually open your mouth and "experience" the eating of some food. Similarly, we can only learn about religious experience by recounting the experiences of those who've done some profound religious eating (so to say). This is James' method. He renounces the ambition to be coercive in his arguments (this is not an apologetic work) and simply focuses on "rehabilitating the element of feeling in religion and subordinating its intellectual part." He does this by the examination of diverse case histories.

And he uses the "extremer examples" because these yield the profounder information. He called these types "theopathic" characters; those who tend to display excess of devotion. His reasoning is thus: "To learn the secrets of any science, we go to expert specialists, even though they may be eccentric persons, and not to commonplace pupils. We combine what they tell us with the rest of our wisdom, and form our final judgment independently."

Concerning this "final judgment" I found the following principle in the lecture entitled "Mysticism" to be particular liberating. As regards the extremely theopathic: "No authority emanates from them which should make it a duty for those who stand outside of them to accept their revelations uncritically." A good word to hide in your heart against the next time some well-intentioned saint feels that their eccentricities should be yours.

To be honest, I found the lecture entitled "Philosophy" to be fairly technical and daunting, but such criticism I charge to my own lack of knowledge in this area rather than to any deficiency in the book itself. Upon closing its covers, I was a satiated bee. The book is total nectar.

Coming from an essentially secular upbringing, I thought religion was something I should learn about as part of a well-rounded liberal arts education. This book helped me to see that religion might also have something to say to me personally (as did Thomas Merton's "Seven Storey Mountain").

"Varieties" is a wonderfully written exploration of the psychology of individual religious experience--whether within or without organized religion--by one of America's greatest philosophers and psychologists. It includes lots of interesting case studies and lots of insight. Major topics: conversion, saintliness, mysticism, and James's illuminating distinction between "healthy-minded" religion and that of the "sick soul." Fun fact: the panicky, melancholic "Frenchman" near the end of the "Sick Soul" section is actually William James. Also noteworthy: this book was an important influence on "Bill W.," co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous.

(Another book I highly recommend on the psychology of religion: Gerald May's "Will and Spirit: A Contemplative Psychology.")