Dreamcatcher: The Shooting Script is a unique book that presents the William Goldman and Lawrence Kasdan collaborative film script of the movie "Dreamcatcher", along with an extensive commentary describing how Stephen King's popular horror novel was successfully adapted to the silver screen. A superb resource that teaches by example the tips, tricks, and techniques of professional screen writers, Dreamcatcher: The Shooting Script is a welcome addition to personal, professional, and film school resource collections and reference archives.

a good read, but can be confusing for kids. It takes a while to comprehend all of the Shakespearian langauge, but is very interesting. It is boring at parts.

The Winter's Tale is a lot of things: heart-breaking, exhilerating, funny, beautiful, romantic, profound, etc. Yeah, it's all here. This is one of the bard's best plays, and I can't believe they don't teach this in schools. Of course, the ones they teach are excellent, but I can see high school kids enjoying this one a lot more than some of those others (Othello, King Lear).

The story is, of course, brilliant. King Leontes goes into a jealous rage at the beginning against his wife Hermione. Leontes is very mistaken in his actions, and the result is tragic. Shakespeare picks the story back up sixteen years later with the children, and the story works to a really, really surprising end of bittersweet redemption.

This is one of Shakespeare's bests. The first half is a penetrating and devestating, but the second half shows a capacity for salvation from the depths of despair. Also, this being Shakespeare, the blank verse is gorgeous and the characters are well drawn, and the ending is a surprise unparalleled in the rest of his plays. The Winter's Tale is a truly profound and entertaining read.

The Winter's Tale contains some of the most technically difficult solutions to telling a story that have ever appeared in a play. If you think you know all about how a play must be constructed, read The Winter's Tale. It will greatly expand your mind.

The play opens near the end of a long visit by Polixenes, the king of Bohemia, to the court of his childhood friend, Leontes, the king of Sicily. Leontes wants his friend to stay one more day. His friend declines. Leontes prevails upon his wife, Hermione, to persuade Polixenes. Hermione does her husband's bidding, having been silent before then. Rather than be pleased that she has succeeded, Leontes goes into a jealous rage in which he doubts her faithfulness. As his jealousy grows, he takes actions to defend his misconceptions of his "abused" honor that in fact abuse all those who have loved him. Unable to control himself, Leontes continues to pursue his folly even when evidence grows that he is wrong. To his great regret, these impulsive acts cost him dearly.

Three particular aspects of the play deserve special mention. The first is the way that Shakespeare ties together actions set 16 years apart in time. Although that sounds like crossing the Grand Canyon in a motorcycle jump, Shakespeare pulls off the jump rather well so that it is not so big a leap. The second is that Shakespeare captures entirely different moods from hilarious good humor to deep depression and remorse closely adjacent to one another. As a result, the audience is able to experience many more emotions than normally are evoked in a single play. Third, the play's final scene is as remarkable a bit of writing as you can imagine. Read it, and marvel!

After you finish reading this play, think about where your own loss of temper has had bad consequences. How can you give yourself time to get under control before acting rashly? How can you learn to be more open to positive interpretations of events, rather than dark and disturbing ones?

Love first, second, and always!

If you are looking for tragedy and a dark bloody drama then I recommend Macbeth with no reservations whatsoever. On a scale of 1-5, I fell this book deserves a 4.5. Written by the greatest literary figure of all time, Shakespeare mesmorizes the reader with suspense and irony. The Scottish Thane Macbeth is approachd by three witches who attempt and succeed at paying with his head. They tell him he will become king, which he does, alog with the aide of his ambitious wife. Macbeth's honor and integrity is destroyed with the deceit and murders he commits. As the novel progresses, Macbeth's conscience tortures him and makes him weak minded. Clearly the saying "what goes around comes around," is put to use since Macbeth's doom was similar to how he acquired his status of kingship. He kills Duncan, the king of Scottland and chops the head off the Thane of Cawdor, therefore the Thane of Fife, Macduff, does the same thing to him. I feel anyone who decides to read this extraordinary book will not be disatisfied and find himself to become an audience to Shakespearean tragedies.

William Shakespeare's tragedies are universal. We know that the tragedy will be chalk-full of blood, murder, vengeance, madness and human frailty. It is, in fact, the uncorrectable flaws of the hero that bring his death or demise. Usually, the hero's better nature is wickedly corrupted. That was the case in Hamlet, whose desire to avenge his father's death consumed him to the point of no return and ended disastrously in the deaths of nearly all the main characters. At the end of Richard III, all the characters are lying dead on the stage. In King Lear, the once wise, effective ruler goes insane through the manipulations of his younger family members. But there is something deeply dark and disturbing about Shakespeare's darkest drama- Macbeth. It is, without a question, Gothic drama. The supernatural mingles as if everyday occurence with the lives of the people, the weather is foul, the landscape is eerie and haunting, the castles are cold and the dungeons pitch-black. And then there are the three witches, who are always by a cauldron and worship the nocturnal goddess Hecate. It is these three witches who prophetize a crown on the head of Macbeth. Driven by the prophecy, and spurred on by the ambitious, egotistic and Machiavellian Lady Macbeth (Shakespeare's strongest female character), Macbeth murders the king Duncan and assumes the throne of Scotland. The roles of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are tour de force performances for virtuosic actors. A wicked couple, a power-hungry couple, albeit a regal, intellectual pair, who can be taken into any form- Mafia lord and Mafia princess, for example, as in the case of a recent movie with a modern re-telling of Macbeth.

Nothing and no one intimidates Macbeth. He murders all who oppose him, including Banquo, who had been a close friend. But the witches predict doom, for Macbeth, there will be no heirs and his authority over Scotland will come to an end. Slowly as the play progresses, we discover that Macbeth's time is running up. True to the classic stylings of Shakespeare tragedy, Lady Macbeth goes insane, sleepwalking at night and ranting about bloodstained hands. For Macbeth, the honor of being a king comes with a price for his murder. He sees Banquo's ghost at a dinner and breaks down in hysteria in front of his guests, he associates with three witches who broil "eye of newt and tongue of worm", and who conjure ghotsly images among them of a bloody child. Macbeth is Shakespeare's darkest drama, tinged with foreboding, mystery and Gothic suspense. But, nevertheless, it is full of great lines, among them the soliloquy of Macbeth, "Out, out, brief candle" in which he contemplates the brevity of human life, confronting his own mortality. Macbeth has been made into films, the most striking being Roman Polansky's horrific, gruesome, R-rated movie in which Lady Macbeth sleepwalks in the nude and the three witches are dried-up, grey-haired naked women, and Macbeth's head is devilishly beheaded and stuck at the end of a pole. But even more striking in the film is that at the end, the victor, Malcolm, who has defeated Macbeth, sees the witches for advise. This says something: the cycle of murder and violenc will begin again, which is what Macbeth's grim drama seems to be saying about powerhungry men who stop at nothing to get what they want.

While I was basically familiar with Shakespeare's Tragedy of Macbeth, I have only recently actually read the bard's brilliant play. The drama is quite dark and moody, but this atmosphere serves Shakespeare's purposes well. In Macbeth, we delve deeply into the heart of a true fiend, a man who would betray the king, who showers honors upon him, in a vainglorious snatch at power. Yet Macbeth is not 100% evil, nor is he a truly brave soul. He waxes and wanes over the execution of his nefarious plans, and he thereafter finds himself haunted by the blood on his own hands and by the ethereal spirits of the innocent men he has had murdered. On his own, Macbeth is much too cowardly to act so traitorously to his kind and his country. The source of true evil in these pages is the cold and calculating Lady Macbeth; it is she who plots the ultimate betrayal, forcefully pushes her husband to perform the dreadful acts, and cleans up after him when he loses his nerve. This extraordinary woman is the lynchpin of man's eternal fascination with this drama. I find her behavior a little hard to account for in the closing act, but she looms over every single male character we meet here, be he king, loyalist, nobleman, courtier, or soldier. Lady Macbeth is one of the most complicated, fascinating, unforgettable female characters in all of literature.

The plot does not seem to move along as well as Shakespeare's other most popular dramas, but I believe this is a result of the writer's intense focus on the human heart rather than the secondary activity that surrounds the related royal events. It is fascinating if sometimes rather disjointed reading. One problem I had with this play in particular was one of keeping up with each of the many characters that appear in the tale; the English of Shakespeare's time makes it difficult for me to form lasting impressions of the secondary characters, of whom there are many. Overall, though, Macbeth has just about everything a great drama needs: evil deeds, betrayal, murder, fighting, ghosts, omens, cowardice, heroism, love, and, as a delightful bonus, mysterious witches. Very many of Shakespeare's more famous quotes are also to be found in these pages, making it an important cultural resource for literary types. The play doesn't grab your attention and absorb you into its world the way Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet does, but this voyage deep into the heart of evil, jealousy, selfishness, and pride forces you to consider the state of your own deep-seated wishes and dreams, and for that reason there are as many interpretations of the essence of the tragedy as there are readers of this Shakespearean masterpiece. No man's fall can rival that of Macbeth's, and there is a great object lesson to be found in this drama. You cannot analyze Macbeth without analyzing yourself to some degree, and that goes a long way toward accounting for the Tragedy of Macbeth's literary importance and longevity.

One of the things you can assume when you write about Shakespeare--given the hundreds of thousands of pages that have already been written about him in countless books, essays, theses and term papers--is that whatever you say will have been said before, and then denounced, defended , revised and denounced again, ad infinitum. So I'm certain I'm not breaking any new ground here. King Lear, though many, including David Denby (see Orrin's review of Great Books) and Harold Bloom consider it the pinnacle of English Literature, has just never done much for me. I appreciate the power of the basic plot--an aging King divides his realm among his ungrateful children with disastrous results--which has resurfaced in works as varied as Jane Smiley's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, A Thousand Acres (see Orrin's review), and Akira Kurosawa's last great film, Ran. But I've always found the play to be too busy, the characters to be too unsympathetic, the speeches to be unmemorable and the tragedy to be too shallow. By shallow, I mean that by the time we meet Lear he is already a petulant old man, we have to accept his greatness from the word of others. Then his first action in the play, the division of the kingdom, is so boneheaded and his reaction to Cordelia so selfishly blind, that we're unwilling to credit their word.

Then there's the fact that Shakespeare essentially uses the action of the play as a springboard for an examination of madness. The play was written during the period when Shakespeare was experimenting with obscure meanings anyway; add in the demented babble of several of the central characters, including Lear, and you've got a drama whose language is just about impossible to follow. Plus you've got seemingly random occurrences like the disappearance of the Fool and Edgar's pretending to help his father commit suicide. I am as enamored of the Bard as anyone, but it's just too much work for an author to ask of his audience trying to figure out what the heck they are all saying and what their actions are supposed to convey. So I long ago gave up trying to decipher the whole thing and I simply group it with the series of non-tragic tragedies (along with MacBeth, Hamlet, Julius Caesar), which I think taken together can be considered to make a unified political statement about the importance of the regular transfer of power in a state. Think about it for a moment; there's no real tragedy in what happens to Caesar, MacBeth, Hamlet or Lear; they've all proven themselves unfit for rule. Nor are the fates of those who usurp power from Caesar, Hamlet and Lear at all tragic, with the possible exception of Brutus, they pretty much get what they have coming to them. Instead, the real tragedy lies in the bloody chain of events that each illegitimate claiming of power unleashes. The implied message of these works, when considered as a unified whole, is that deviance from the orderly transfer of power leads to disaster for all concerned. (Of particular significance to this analysis in regards to King Lear is the fact that it was written in 1605, the year of the Gunpowder Plot.)

In fact, looking at Lear from this perspective offers some potential insight into several aspects of the play that have always bothered me. For instance, take the rapidity with which Lear slides into insanity. This transition has never made much sense to me. But now suppose that Lear is insane before the action of the play begins and that the clearest expression of his loss of reason is his decision to shatter his own kingdom. Seen in this light, there is no precipitous decline into madness; the very act of splitting up the central authority of his throne, of transferring power improperly, is shown to be a sign of craziness.

Next, consider the significance of Edgar's pretense of insanity and of Lear's genuine dementia. What is the possible meaning of their wanderings and their reduction to the status of common fools, stripped of luxury and station? And what does it tell us that it is after they are so reduced that Lear's reason (i.e. his fitness to rule) is restored and that Edgar ultimately takes the throne. It is probably too much to impute this meaning to Shakespeare, but the text will certainly bear the interpretation that they are made fit to rule by gaining an understanding of the lives of common folk. This is too democratic a reading for the time, but I like it, and it is emblematic of Shakespeare's genius that his plays will withstand even such idiosyncratic interpretations.

To me, the real saving grace of the play lies not in the portrayal of the fathers, Lear and Gloucester, nor of the daughters, but rather in that of the sons. First, Edmund, who ranks with Richard III and Iago in sheer joyous malevolence. Second, Edgar, whose ultimate ascent to the throne makes all that has gone before worthwhile. He strikes me as one of the truly heroic characters in all of Shakespeare, as exemplified by his loyalty to his father and to the King. I've said I don't consider the play to be particularly tragic; in good part this is because it seems the nation is better off with Edgar on the throne than with Lear or one of his vile daughters.

Even a disappointing, and often bewildering, tragedy by Shakespeare is better than the best of many other authors (though I'd not say the same of his comedies.) So of course I recommend it, but I don't think as highly of it as do many of the critics.

GRADE : B-

This star-rating system has one important flaw: you have to rank books only in relation to its peers, its genre. So you must put five stars in a great light-humor book, as compared to other ones of those. Well, I am giving this book four stars in relation to other Shakespeare's works and similar great books.

Of course, it's all in the writing. Shakespeare has this genius to come up with magnificent, superb sentences as well as wise utterings even if the plot is not that good.

This is the case with Lear. I would read it again only to recreate the pleasure of simply reading it, but quite frankly the story is very strange. It is hard to call it a tragedy when you foolishly bring it about on yourself. Here, Lear stupidly and unnecessarily divides his kingdom among his three daughters, at least two of them spectacularly treacherous and mean, and then behaves exactly in the way that will make them mad and give them an excuse to dispose of him. What follows is, of course, a mess, with people showing their worst, except for poor Edgar, who suffers a lot while being innocent.

Don't get me wrong: the play is excellent and the literary quality of Shakespeare is well beyond praise. If you have never read him, do it and you'll see that people do not praise him only because everybody else does, but because he was truly good.

The plot is well known: Lear divides the kingdom, then puts up a stupid contest to see which one of his daughters expresses more love for him, and when Cordelia refuses to play the game, a set of horrible treasons and violent acts begins, until in the end bad guys die and good guys get some prize, at a terrible cost.

As a reading experience, it's one of the strongest you may find, and the plot is just an excuse for great writing.

One of literature's classic dysfunctional families shows itself in King Lear by William Shakespeare. King Lear implicity trusts his three daughters, Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia, but when the third wishes to marry for love rather than money, he banishes her. The two elder ones never felt Lear as a father; they simply did his bidding in an attempt to win his favor to get the kingdom upon his death. Cordelia, on the other hand, always cared for him, but tried to be honest, doing what she felt was right. As Lear realizes this through one betrayal after another, he loses his kingdom -- and what's more, his sanity...

The New Folger Library edition has to be among the best representations of Shakespeare I've seen. The text is printed as it should be on the right page of each two-page set, while footnotes, translations, and explanations are on the left page. Also, many drawings and illustrations from other period books help the reader to understand exactly what is meant with each word and hidden between each line.

The book was very educational. The authors really knew what they were talking about. They understood how tough it can be to be a trainer and the obsticles we are faced with every day.

They gave an abundance of information to overcome any training hurdle.

This informative biography tells the complex story of William III of the United Provinces (Netherlands) Born in 1648 at the end of the 30 Years War, William must learn to navigate the fratious system of Dutch politcs which is deeply divided and ant-autocratic, but at the same time must struggle to survive against the encroachments of Louis XIV' France. In order survive the Dutch must allow power to be centralized in the office of the Stadtholder, which by right belongs to the ruling house of Orange. It is during the desperate War of 1672-78 that William is called upon to become States-General, in charge of all combined Dutch land and naval forces. Through sheer grit and determination William manages to rally thre faltering Dutch forces before the seeminly invinceable advances of the French under their talanted generals.

The French under the Duc de Luxambourg and others mainatin the largest and most aggressive army in Europe. These are the years when France seeks to create a greater hedgemony. Population and ecomonic growth has blessed France since it was largely spared the devastations of the 30 Years War earlier in the Century. Now under their highly autocratic monarch, Louis XIV (The Sun King), they seek to dominate Europe. They have impressive resources to do this. Vaubin is the genius of siege-craft. Under his brilliant direction one Dutch fortress after another falls as the French armies advance deeper into the Spanish Netherlands and the Low Countries. Only the dogged determination of William is there to stop them. Each year another major Dutch or Spanish Netherlands fortress falls, but William holds out long enough to wear the French down. Louis begins to tire of the tangled web of Dutch fortifications and William's determination to keep a field army together. The French become interested in bullying the German principlaities instead. William is given a repreive and through various loosely worded treaties which the French constantly keep changing, he manages to save the Dutch Republic. For this alone William deserves to be known as the George Washington of the Low countries.

But fate has a larger story for Dutch William. Through marriage to Princess Mary, the protestant daughter of King James II, William has a direct claim on the English crown. This is brought into play when the English parliament seeks to remove James for his pro-Catholic and auto-cratic ways in 1688. The Glorious Revolution as it is known in England brings William and Mary bloodlessly to the English crown and forever changes
Anglo-Dutch history. William now has a new lease on life and can bring the larger resources of England into his greater conflict againt the dominations of Louis XIV. The Nine Years War will see William first campaigning in Ireland to defeat James II at the famous battle of the Boyne in 1690. This watershed moment in Irish History is little understood today despite numerous pictures of the event hanging in many Irish pubs around the world! William will then return to the Continent and continue the struggle against the French. The battles of Stenkirk (1692) and Landan (1693) are largely inconclusive but prove Williams increasing abilities of generalship over Louis XIV's armies. The siege of Numur (1695) is Williams crowning military achievement. He here manages to beseige and take a fortress designed by the great Vaubin. The myth of French invincibility in this period is finally broken. France, exhausted under Louis's harsh domestic and foreign policies must seek peace for the time being.

William continues as joint monarch of England and the Netherlands. The English will see themselves established as a leading maritime and commerical power, while the Dutch will beigin their descent into non-entity. Yet, for all that William does for the English he is not generally liked by them and is regarded derisively as "Dutch" William. The Dutch will tend to have an indifferent attitude toward him in their history.

Williams place in history covers the histories of two nations (England and Holland) and his influence extends beyond into Ireland, the Spanish Netherlands, Germany and even France. Louis XIV, despite numerous attempts to assassinate him, comes to respect William. The Dutch and English will have mixed feelings, and to the Irish he will become a distant almost mythical figure. There is no doubt that his legacy was the salvation of Europe from a French universal monarchy under Louis XIV. Dutch William may be largely forgotten today, but his struggles helped to shape modern Europe.

This book, while extensive on William' life, is at times tedious. The author's discussion of the complicated court politics and dynastic claims of the period was at times quite confusing. His descriptions of English politics is equally hard to follow. The author can not totally be blamed for this as the dyanstic politics in the 17th century were extremely confusing. The author writes with evident admiration for his subject, and seems to truly admire William almost to the point of excess. While not a great Biography in terms of style and writing, the subject and the historical period are fascinating.
Until a better and more recent work on William III comes out I would strongly recommend this book for anyone interested in the military politics and dynastic history of the 17th Century.

The book gives a concise description of places to eat in any size city in the USA. Does not give a lot of detail but can be useful if your not always interested in five star restaurants.

This book makes cross country back road traveling even more fun. Sure there are a few problems, but most fair-sized towns have entires, and many small towns do. We have had wonderful fun and some interesting, to say the least, meals because of it. Well worth its price.

We've used this book four times, and have been pleasantly surprised each time (Carson City NV, Winnemucca NV, someplace or other in UT, and San Francisco).

I think this would have been a better anthology if the editor had spent more time finding sources. It doesn't really seem like he searched lesser-known documents; just about everything here is pretty well known. The quality ranges from excellent to somewhat pointless.

I purchased this book without having any firsthand knowledge of it as a background source and I haven't been minutely disappointed. Kadzis assembled both primary and secondary sources either from the time of the Civil War or from more modern secondary source writings about aspects of that war. In any case the extracts were singularly well chosen and are valuable for my purposes. I would recommend Kadzis' compilation to any person searching for a single source of Civil War rememberances written at the time or of modern fiction writers using the events of that war around which to build their longer story. The writings he has selected are very useful and interesting.

This book is in a series put out by Adrenaline books and each book contains certain selections chosen by the editor. The selections are generally either excerpts from books, excerpts from diaries and journals, short stories, or an occasional essay. I look at how good the writing is, and how good the stories are.

This is a strong anthology in many ways. It had a variety of civil war literature that helps to give a fuller picture of the civil war experience. There are many letters, stories, and diary entries and even a copy of orders given by a General. We get a picture of the inner workings of the war by people directly involved, as well as a picture of the world outside the war and how it was effected. We hear aspects of the war from multiple points of view. A soldier's fighting experience, a General's commanding view, letters to loved ones back home, the viewpoint of a young southern girl, life in a military prison. The reader gets to see not just the war, but the world it encompassed.

The anthology is made even stronger by the selections of famous people's writings. We get to read the words of General Ulysses S. Grant, Stephen Crane, Generals Pickett and Sherman, Abraham Lincoln, and even Walt Whitman (who worked in the hospitals treating wounded soldiers from both sides).

The only negative thing about this book is that it has no amazing powerful pieces. Almost all the selections are good (with two or three exceptions), but none are outstanding, in terms of either the writing or the story. There are no exceptionally well written pieces and no really incredible stories. This is unfortunate, but does not detract too much from the overall book. And also this volume includes some fiction, which generally does not exist in these series of books. Other than that the book is good and worth reading.