This is a fun book that should help your youngster develop an interest in American History. It is easy to read an has great illustratiions. You will not be disappointed with this purchase. Look for others by the same author.

The story of Paul Revere is simply written by Fritz. Aftereach account she writes, "And then what happened? This patternthroughout the book makes the book easy to read, as you always know what the next section will be about. The information provided about Paul Revere is authentic. Young readers would find the information appealing. Not only does Fritz give authentic accounts of Revere's ride through Boston, Concord and Lexington, but she adds specific details to each. For example, she tells of how Revere and Adams had to return to a tavern in Lexington to get a trunk of important papers Adams had left, and how they walked right through the American lines in the process. While the actual text is informative yet light-hearted and easy to read, the illustrations provide essential support. This adds to the simplicity of the book. Included at the end of the story is an author's note on historical facts contained within the story that were not completely developed in the text. Fritz in her notes adds to the events so that the reader gets a true account of history. Overall, this book is an appealing, authentic, and easy to read account of Paul Revere's life, perfect for the middle school child!

This book was great! Fritz makes learning FUN! I never knew that Paul Revere forgot his spurs on his ride! Did You?

A must-have for any student of Monet. Volumne I contains covers his biography proper, while volumes II-IV provide a COMPLETE record of the artist's body of work.

Wilderstein protrays Monet life for the most part as that of a debtor. However to his credit, he tempers the romantic "suffering artist" idealism with insight into Monet the creditor. By illustrating what a jackass the artist could also be, the author creates a deep and lively narrative.

Most of the personal insight into Monet come to us by way of coorespondance with Alice Hoeschede. Due to 'appearances' however she requested of Monet her letters be destroyed immediately and thus we're sadly left with a one-sided portrait of the man. While his artistic talents we're unparalled, it's his devotation to correspondance that allows Wildenstein to bring him back to life. Without giving away the ending, it's Monet's inability to write rather than paint that signals the end.

If you are in love with Claude Monet's Water Lily Pond paintings, this is the best book for an explanation as to their origins and where Monet found his inspiration. There is a photograph from 1926 showing the bridge covered with climbing plants.

The Japanese Bridge at Giverny, 1924 is just one of the outstanding paintings in a series of works devoted to the bridge that preoccupied Monet during his final years.

Monet loved his garden at Giverny with such a passion that one could say it bordered on obsession. Harmony in Green, The White Water Lilies, The Water Lily Pond are all explained in detail. There is even a picture of Monet photographed in his beloved garden in 1917.

In every life there is beauty and sadness. The beauty of the water lilies contrasts with the pain Monet felt when he painted Camille on her death bed.

When Monet's wife died, she not only left him without a companion, he then had small children depending on him. He spent most of his meager earnings on his wife's medical treatments and he was also deeply depressed and alone.

This type of revealing information makes him so very human and the paintings then contain a certain depth when these secrets are revealed.

I loved this book! The pictures were wonderful and the readings that went with them were as well. Learned many things that I did not know about his artwork. VERY informative...give it a try, it would make a great gift book!

This autobiography is rather dull, confirming my suspicion that Sartre is over-rated, as much a product of a nationalist culture-aggrandizement machine as of his talent.

Coming from a bizarre family, he was maladjusted and socially inept, and so he lived in the world of books. No wonder he thought and wrote such strange things: he didn't have a clue about how to live as a normal person. Then, in the part not covered in the book, he built a brilliant career as an independent yet professional intellectual from his obsessions. If this kind of thing is your cup of tea - and if you buy into the myth of Sartre's genius - then you will like this book. I approached on its own terms as a literary work, without a fascination for this little toad, and I was left unimpressed. Not even the writing, which a French pal praised to me and which I read in the original, is very good.

As I put it down, I felt, "so what." Sartre was just a self-obsessed, bright twerp of a kid.

Surpassing the likes of Huxley and Orwell in its vision of dystopic horror, told in the guise of a childhood memoir, the story is simple yet brilliantly complex. Jean-Paul is a little boy with no personality ("no super-ego") who longs for fame and eventually takes over the world by creating a new religion, sold as an antidote to fascism. The final irony in this self-reflexive work of fiction is in the title: the boy discovers his own power in that of words, the power to change perceptions and to obscure individual differences (the author knows his Wittgenstein). Infinitely more subtle than any outspoken critique of the Soviet Union, it perhaps has more in common thematically with Nabokov's 'Bend Sinister': the boy's description of himself as 'toady' suggests a kinship with that book's villain, The Toad, founder of the 'Average Man Party'. I would suggest this book was both the peak and death-knell of the existential / nouveau roman era that combined narrative objectivity with moral-ambiguity-by-numbers, a belief attested by the extraordinary poetic and imaginative range of the great French authors since 1964, such as Jean Barth, Donald DeLille and Thomas Pynchonne.

Dear Sir,

I can appreciate your not liking Sartrean philosophy. It is limited, self-refuting, and one-sided. When Sartre says "man is what he wills himself to be" we tend to agree. But Sartre goes on to say that "consiousness is afraid of its own spontenaity." In fact, he argues that there is no "I" behind consciousness. In other words, we aren't really "free" after all. Not to mention his neglect of mysticism and peak experiences, which to me have more validity than "nausea."

So far so good. You're right: people have made Sartre a trend. However, your criticisms of his youth are bogously 'out of line.' Calling him names ("twirp," "abnormal") is immature at best. You show no sympathy for the young boy Jean-Paul Sartre. It seems to me that you display a jealousy to Sartre's intelligence. You put him down because you cannot relate to him. And to cover this up, you try to say that Sartre had no genious in the first place. Obviously you never read his novels, which got him a Nobel Prize. Even you cannot deny that Sartre is one of the only philosophers to be a "writer" too.

Even if Sartre was "maladjusted," as you so unbrilliantly point out, how is this Sartre's fault? His devotion to books was the best thing for him to do. Had he not done so, he would never have become the most famous thinker (next to Freud) of the 20th century. While you were dating shallow girls, young Sartre was seeking truth. While you were getting drunk, young Sartre was being an individual and thinking for himself. Keep that in mind, if you have the courage.

The statutory rapists Simone de B and JP Sartre neglect to mention the hordes of students they raped in this swan story of their sick love.

To get a glimpse of one of many that get glossed over after having been sexually harassed and raped by this duo one could read A Disgraceful Affair by Bianca Lamblin.

She was seventeen when these two old fogies began to do her.

It's amazing how the communist left sees itself and its heroes as such innocents when they were criminal scumbags from the ground up. Trained in anthropology these creeps would have known better than to see themselves as such perfectly innocent people.

A disgraceful pair whose memory stinks to the heavens and cries out as a warning to young leftists everywhere that you will end up as filthy as these two cochons.

Then you need to read this book. It is Simone de Beauvoir's first-person account of the last ten years of Sartre's life, and it is heartbreaking to read in several places. Her descriptions in particular of his final few days are wrenching, and I did actually cry as she described Sartre's death. The prose is characteristic of de Beauvoir: deeply and intimately detailed, meticulous, and dense in some places. But the reading is ultimately rewarding as it gives the reader an even more thorough understanding of the devoted side of de Beauvoir--and the very human and mortal side of the great philosopher Sartre.

Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre were *the* couple of the 20th century. For all the immense history they created, it may be beyond our ability to imagine just how and why they were first drawn together, or more why they *stayed* together right up until Sartre's death in 1980. This two-part memoir is remarkable for its poignant intimacy, first as an historical record from 1970-1980, and then as a transcription of de Beauvoir's own interviews with Sartre during that same period of time. These two were a rough mix, as though that was a revelation. And, ironically, it's perhaps de Beauvior's own deep emotional commitment that comes through most clearly in these pages. On the other hand, we're also offered a fascinating view of their long public life together. From the times of divided German-occupied France, to the political activism of the 60s and beyond...and, above all, the writings they produced! If anything, this book reveals how moot is the point of Sartre's caustic personality, and to what extent he may have "used" her. (As if a woman of this caliber *could* be used!) Their focus was always on the change they hoped to produce in the world. Well, and for de Beauvoir, at least, there was also the issue of their own personal relationship. Therein lies the charm of this book. You won't be disappointed.

Rather than a biography of Baudelaire or a critical examination of his works, this book (actually more like a lengthy essay) is an exhaustive existential psychoanalysis of the poet by Mr. Sarte, based on images from his poems, correspondence with friends and family, his essays on poetry and art... it's kind of a harsh judgement on the guy, actually, stating in no uncertain terms that Baudelaire was an extremely repressed and control-obsessed individual whose greatest creation and greatest failure was his public persona. While reading this, I couldn't help but wonder what the motivation for behind it all was... I can't say I agree with all of his conclusions (even if I did, should it make me enjoy his poetry any more or less?), but it's thought-provoking in the very least.

I thought this book was difficult to get into to but there are sharp questions to hit on throughtout it.

this book completely changed the way i view myself and others. sartre takes his philosophy and applies it to baudelaire in the form of an existential psychoanalysis, and, more than anything else, reveals more plainly what his philosophy really means.
an existential psychoanalysis, as opposed to a freudian psychoanalysis, attempts to discover the reason behind the choices made in a person's life without positing any sort of subconscious but rather positing that one's choice is entirely uncompelled. in this way, the "style" of an individual's life is revealed.
baudelaire is certainly a very interesting character (to say the least) and you can probably imagine how interesting an existential psychoanalysis of him would be (by sartre of all people!), and, in my case, it was even better than i imagined. sartre reveals baudelaire's perpetual, impossible struggle of wanting to be objectified and transcendent, his abiding by a banal moral code only so he can break it and hold himself up as evil, and so much more. this is one of those books that say so much that no summary would do it justice unless it were as long as the actual book.
this book is a much easier to read than Being and Nothingness, but you do need to know the fundamentals of sartre's philosophy before you read this, since he doesnt go over it in this book. this book not only made a much bigger change in my life than B+N, but it also clarified and gave more relevancy and meaning to the contents of B+N.

very highly recommended

p.s. i dont know how _accurate_ sartres psychoanalysis actually is (at times he does seem to be way too sure of his opinions as to why baudelaire did what he did; and he has unique opinions, to put it kindly), but i advise the reader to just take baudelaire as a fictional character created by sartre and based on his conception of the actual baudelaire.

Mendy Thompson, a very brave 12 year old girl, who has two sisters and four brothers, is forced to stay home by her mother over the summer of 1958 with her little brother. She amuses herself by going to visit her favorite place; her Taj Majal, which is a clearing in the woods she is not allowed to go to. Because she is black, and her best friend Jeffrey is white they are no longer allowed to see each other. When Mendy realizes tesspassers are coming to the Taj Mahal, she sets a trap to try to stop them. She and Jeffrey meet each other secretly, and she tells him about the tresspassers. Jeffrey says it is the Klu Klux Klan, a group who does not like people who are different from them, anyone who is not white or Christian, which makes Mendy very scared. Together, they must figure out who is in the KKK before the group destroys an event Mendy has really been looking forward to.
I liked Aunt Sis, an elderly black woman, because she was so loving towards Mendy like when she would welcome her into her house and listen to her problems.
I would recommend this book to anyone who likes exciting books. It was suspensful like when Mendy and Jeffrey saw the KKK meeting in her Taj Mahal.

Mendy is a twelve-year-old African American girl living in rural Tennessee in the late 1950's. She is an admirer of Eleanor Roosevelt and is thrilled when her father tells her that Mrs. Roosevelt is coming to visit the Highlander School, which is located only a few miles away. Soon, however, she discovers that the men that have been meeting in her favorite clearing in the nearby woods belong to the Ku Klux Klan and are planning an attack on Mrs. Roosevelt when she appears at Highlander. Mendy feels she must do something to prevent the attack, but what can she do? Will she get herself in danger?

This story is based on a real incident and conveys a small taste of the violence, hatred and fear inspired by the KKK. As a piece of literature, it is not quite up to the standard set by such things as the Harry Potter books. Nevertheless, this book gives young readers experience of a genuine American historical setting while also providing a positive role model and some insight into the evils of bigotry and racial discrimination. It is another solid entry in the "History Mystery" series and my daughter and I both enjoyed it together. We recommend it.

The History Mystery Circle of Fire, takes place in 1950?s Tennessee, during the times of segregation when great changes for African Americans. The central character in the story is a twelve-year-old African American girl named Mendy, who has discovered a secret clearing she had named, the Tahj Mahal after a beautiful place in India. But one day, she discovers her secret clearing, littered with beer bottle, cigars and cigarette butts. She is convinced that they are trespassers. Mendy is determined to find out who the trespassers are and how to scare them off, so she sets a trap and uses her bowie knife lure them into her trap. Unfortunate the trespassers knew it was a trap and they killed her tamed rabbit, Mr. Hare. Strangely, the trespassers left her rabbit in a bundle with a strange red symbol on it. She asks her Aunt Sis is she had seen anything strange occurring in the woods. Fortunately, Aunt Sis informs Mendy that a group of hateful men called the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) are planning to bomb the Highlander School where Eleanor Roosevelt, Mendy?s role model, will be reciting a speech. Mendy?s mother forbids her to ever go to the Highlander school because she feels that some dangerous and racist events take place, which is true, but Mendy is looking forward to hearing Mrs. Roosevelt?s speech, and does everything she can to stop the Klan.

The reason why the KKK is planning on bombing the Highlander School is because a friend of Mendy?s father who is white owns it. He allows blacks and whites to swim together, eat together, and do other things in the same place. Mendy is determined to find out that is in the KKK, with the help of her best friend Jeffery. Mendy?s mother forbids her to spend time with Jeffery, but they secretly spy on the Klan and try to find out what their plan is. She is strong-minded to warn Mrs. Roosevelt. When the police found out about the Klan?s horrendous plot, they foiled the plot and disrupted Mrs. Roosevelt?s visit. I liked this story very much. I liked how most of the events were based on true incidents. I learned a lot about the racist and prejudice activity that occurred for African Americans during the 1950?s. This book was exciting, historical, thrilling, and adventurous. As I read, this story gave me some information about what the times were like for African Americans in the 1950?s.

Two Hollywood murder cases wrecked havoc on the lives of those closest to the victims. One was William Desmond Taylor. The second was Paul Bern.

When Paul Bern was found dead one morning, suspicions flew and continued to haunt his young bride Jean Harlow until her own tragic end. Did Paul Bern kill himself? Did Jean Harlow do it? Did he really beat poor Jean to a pulp, pushing her to the edge? Or was another force at work?

Like William Desmond Taylor before him, Paul Bern had a secret life that Hollywood knew little about. A woman, Dorothy Millette had lived with Bern as man and wife before his Hollywood glory days. Could Dorothy have reappeared in Bern's life and pulled the trigger on her former lover/common law spouse before ending her own life mere days later?

The only people who will truly ever know what happened at those in the room the night of Bern's death. But Samuel Marx builds a strong case for Paul Bern being murdered and not at the hands of his young wife. If Dorothy Millette was the real murderer, the rumor mill of 1930s Hollywood and a certain Harlow biographer of the 1960s did Jean Harlow and Paul Bern a great injustice and insult.

Even Hollywood's earliest scandals are frequently raked over today: the infamous Arbuckle trials, the William Desmond Taylor murder case, and the questionable suicide of actress Thelma Todd are but a few examples of 1920 and 1930s scandals still being discussed into the new millenium. One of the most famous of these tales concerns Paul Bern, an MGM producer, who was found dead of a gunshot wound in his Beverly Hills some two months after his marriage to Jean Harlow. Word quickly spread that Bern was sexually inadequate and he had taken his life when even marriage to Hollywood's reigning sex goddess failed to arouse him. His death was quickly ruled a suicide and that was that.

Or rather, that would have been that except for one little thing: the whispered rumor Paul Bern was murdered. Over the decades that whisper has enticed a great many writers, but none approach the subject with such dogged determination as Samuel Marx and Joyce Vanderveen. Making use of Marx's insider connections (he was an MGM story editor), the two piece together a somewhat speculative but extremely credible tale of insanity, bigamy, police corruption, studio power, murder, and suicide to considerable effect. The cast of characters in this 1930s scandal are fascinating in and of themselves, and although the style in which it is written is a bit simplistic DEADLY ILLUSIONS makes for a great rainy-day read; fans of true crime, Hollywood scandal, and Jean Harlow will find it a must have. Recommended.

I might be wrong but I don't think this author is American. His wording and thought process is a bit difficult to follow at times and I sometimes get the feeling that he is rambling.

As far as proposals go, there were only 18 ideas in the book. This book is definitely "self published" which makes it hard to read at times with the weird spacings, etc.

I was much happier with what I got at the website howtoproposemarriage. com

A wonderful book to help you prepare for that magic moment. Aimed primarily at those proposing marriage I nonetheless found it invaluable when planning how to suggest to my wife that we reaffirm our vows. While I disagree with Marjorie's assessment that I was "completely wasted" when I first proposed to her 24 years ago I will be the first to admit that I'd comfortably exceeded appropriate Dutch Courage margins. Thanks to Jean Paul I think I'll make this time memorable for different reasons.

The Marat Sade is truly misery made beautiful, where else can the hero be made to suffer as much as Marat does. Through the course of the reading one can not help but desire to emulate the characteristics of Marat, this and the conflict between Marat and Sade are the elements of the story that keeps interests and stimulates thoughts. Weiss argues both the points of view of Marat and Sade well and ultimately delivers an interesting message.

The Marat Sade does have a captivating message, but much of the beauty in the delivery of the message may have been lost in the translation. Translations are difficult to accomplish, especially when many words do not translate from one language to another, and when verse or meter is concerned, especially verse or meter that rhyme it is nearly improbable. However, the story did have its moments of intrigue especially some of the monologues. To be truly understood The Marat Sade needs to be seen. This realization is probably what inspired someone to make the play into a film.

The film about was not stimulating aside from a few moments of irony in the simplest form made out to be humorous. The story is meant to be seen on the stage. The time period that the film was made in was not equipped well enough with special effects ,not that there was need for this in the Marat Sade but it could have made some kind of impact. The Low budget appearance of the film added to the melancholy of the film that appeared worse than the disorder of the mental patient playing Charlotte Corday and defiantly makes the viewer experience moments of sudden and involuntary sleep. If done today and well budgeted as well as directed the play could be portrayed through cameras in a most pleasing manner. Still, the play is meant to be seen on stage, this is the true way for the audience to feel the experience that Weiss wanted otherwise he would have written a film script.

I do not claim to be an expert on Marat Sade or some official critic or well read for that matter but neither is the general public and that is who an artiest should want to reach considering they are the majority, even though they fall to rule. This play is a product of the past. I feel that most American people would not be able to relate to it and they would fall to be lured into the story. The martyr roll has been over used - after all many people were force fed a similar story since birth.

When the character of Marquis de Sade shouts out at Marat, "Can't you see this patriotism is lunacy/Long ago I left heroics to the heroes/I turn my back on this nation/I turn my back on all the nations. . ." the reader can truly sense what the play of Marat/Sade is all about. As the reader gets lost in the production of a play within a play, the idea of surrealism presents itself almost at once. The reenactment of the killing of Jean-Paul Marat by Charlotte Corday seems to be a secondary plot alongside of the chanting and screaming of idealism concerning the revolution and liberty. A division of strategies regarding revolution develops between Marat and Sade. Marat advocates fast action, while Sade preaches that it is hopeless or fruitless to even bother to act. Of course, the cries of the asylum patients tend to distract, but it all adds to the surreal, bizarre nature of the play. I felt that one of the aspects the play touches on is how the revolution affects those living within it. The ideas of liberty, freedom, and revolution all make for interesting debate, but I felt one of the themes that struck me was the reality of revolution as it affects those who live around it day in and day out. One of the more striking scenes of the play, for me, came when Charlotte is in the middle of a monologue, describing children playing with toy-like guillotines. The very idea of children treating such a deathly object as a toy is disturbing, but also brings to life the desensitization that revolution brings about. The play reminds the reader that the death of masses makes the value of life and the impact of an individual death meaningless. That alone is a very somber and surreal thought. There are literary techniques throughout the play that seem to remind the reader that the dramatization depicts things which took place in the past, but threaten to become a part of our future. Marat/Sade attempts to mock the aristocratic classes that seem to catalyze such mass movements of revolution in the first place. The play seems to slap the hand of those in power through the action that takes place throughout. Every time that the characters in the play (the asylum patients) seem to become too excited or outspoken, when the truth behind their madness seems to get out of control, the "Herald" of the play speaks out to placate Coulmier, the director of the asylum. I believe that Weiss tries to make the play more socially acceptable by presenting it in a way that mocks and brings out the weakness of the debacle of government that followed, in this case, the French Revolution, but actually cuts across so many more layers than just one isolated revolution.

Our society will always have people who have large amounts of material wealth, and those who do not. That is an injustice that we must rise above, and change ourselves. Whether our means of change is reached through violence and upheaval or through escape within oneself, this is the core dialectic that the play tackles. Although at times this play is a little hard to follow or even outlandish, the play offers a look at how society deals with its corruption and injustice once it escalates to what may seem to be a point of no return. The element that seems to be the most surreal in my mind is that the ranting of the characters within the play, although they are asylum patients, reveal more truth and brutal honesty than the audience would like to admit. I think Weiss is clever to choose some very clear and controversial themes and present them in a way that is socially appropriate. He does this by blatantly speaking out against established forms of government and rule, but discrediting the characters speaking by placing them in an insane asylum. It is true to say that there are many elements of the play that never seem to completely gel in the end, or come together nicely as in most plays. But to be honest, if the story had come together neatly in the end, the essence of the play would have been lost. I think the point of the play is to show that although people may have conflicting ideals of how to handle a revolution, whether of government or ideology, things do not always work out as we had hoped. People may preach liberty and justice, but when the reality is murder and riots, there are two conflicting messages being handled at once. I believe that is what this play shows rather well. In a very surreal and bizarre way, Weiss enables the reader to see that society hardly ever practices what they preach, and although our goal might be change, in the end, upheaval and disarray may be the only things truly achieved.

Marat/Sade, by Peter Weiss, is a play centering on the murder of Jean Paul Marat. Weiss sets the play in the Asylum of Charenton, where both Marat and the Marquis de Sade are inmates. Before reading this play, I did not have much knowledge of Marquis de Sade or Jean Paul Marat. The French Revolution was a topic that I had studied, however not these members specifically. For the reading of this work, not much understanding of these ideas is needed. Some knowledge of Modernism would be helpful for insight into the motivation and reasoning of the play, however that is not needed either. The plot of the play is very thin and does not do much for the reader. There does not seem to be much action involved in the play. The characters mainly discuss and wax philosophical about the French Revolution and whether or not it was successful. It is the characters themselves and the dialogue that are most intriguing. Characters that are patients in the asylum are the driving force of the work. Many off the wall topics and rants are shouted by any number of patients. Clever use of the director of the asylum gives the reader a better sense of how a play produced in an asylum might work out. The format of the work is what seems to be an extended poem. The rhyme scheme, which is at points non-existent, can be carried from one character to the next. This is at times confusing, however it does give the work a somewhat psychotic feel. The work is a relatively easy read, however it does at times get to be a bit confusing. Because the plot is so thin, the reader is bombarded with confusing dialogue, rather than constant flowing action. The work leaves something to desired, as the reader waits for some twist of fate or action that may create some interest. Personally, I was not impressed with the work as a whole from an entertainment aspect. However as a writer I could see the work is definitely that of a talented author. There is a political aspect to the work that focuses around Sade. The many conversations between Marat and Sade focus on the Revolution and its positives and negatives. Commentary is given on the state of affairs during this time, as well as the idea that revolutions do not work on a general basis. Other such ideals are discussed throughout the work, however Sade seems to be more of a reactionary and Marat seems to be more of an idealist. On a whole this work does accomplish its goals in discussing sadism and other such ideas. Modernistic works such as this, often do not have much entertainment value, however they are quite intellectual and original; the two best points of this work.

THis is the first novel length fiction I've read of Sartre. Not his best form I think. Perhaps too many blank, beguiling pages to fill with unrelenting existentialism incarnate in meandering vignettes of characters that one can neither really place nor pity. A pity. Such a stunning writer in a shorter format ("The Wall" and other short stories). One grows a bit weary of self-castigating anti heros (the common man hero I gather one is supposed to infer) but a bone to lick for all one's trouble would be nice. Alas, one is not ever offerred a bone, which is not really the problem. One is never offerred a bone and therefore expects one. What one does procure, in turn, is a handful of mordant, self pitying and pitiable characters indignant that their forces were overcome with such swift Teutonic efficiency. Above and outside of this, however, Sartre has his own efficiency for writing dialogue, the sum of which, becomes many times more than the mere words which comprise it. Suffice it to say, if one is interested in Sartre's philosophy, this book, in parts, is not a bad sugarpill.

This novel is the third in the trilogy which started with "The Age of Reason" and "The Reprieve". Through the eyes of his characters, Sartre depicts French reactions to defeat and occupation in 1940.

There is comparatively little "battle action" in this novel, so if you're looking for a conventional war book, this is not the one to pick up. Sartre seemed to me to be far more concerned with staring in the face the uncomfortable realities of 1940. What and who did the French blame for their defeat? What were their reactions to the on-coming German occupation? In this sense, it's a deeply introspective work about one of the (if not the) most difficult eras of French history.

The feelings of the characters are deeply mixed: betrayal; regret and anger at pre-war disunity; loss of "moral fibre" and so on. The reactions to occupation are as, if not more, interesting, ranging from the sheer folly of the belief that now the war had "ended" life would return to normal, through collaboration (Hitler's an OK guy and France deserved what she got, it will do France good), to the early seeds of resistance.

I thought the the Communist characters were very interesting. Within the French prisoners-of-war, the Communists find each other and start organising a "cell". They hold the most realistic views of the Nazis, and yet hold the least realistic views concerning the nature of the Soviet regime. Their great intellectual and moral struggle is to come to terms with the Communist party's ambivalence towards the Nazi threat in the immediate run-up to war and invasion.

I understand that Sartre intended to continue with further volumes of this work, and this novel does feel part of a bigger scheme: I found myself wanting to read the next instalment. The downside of it is that you can be left with the feeling that it's a somewhat inconclusive piece of work. Nonetheless, I thought that it stands on its own as a very interesting novel.

This is the first Sartre book that I have ever read. I liked it enough to read more from this author. There were 2 (maybe more) other sub plots going on that just left you hanging, I thought.I have not read much literature that dealt with WW II that wasn't directlyrelated to the Holocaust(sp?) or from an American perspective. That made, for me, all the difference in the world.