I'm glad to see this book in paperback, and I hope it is successful. Kittredge deserves readers, and my particular hope is that the success of this book will bring his masterpiece, "A Hole In the Sky" back into print.

But my own reading of this book is complicated. I felt a bit misled by the title, which makes the book sound like a treatise, or at least meditations on a single theme. Generosity figures in the book, of course, but this is not a theme that obviously holds this book together. It is also being billed as the sequel or perhaps second volume of his memoir/meditation, "A Hole in the Sky," which it is in a sense, but for me it lacks the autobiographical and emotional tension that made that prior work so powerful. I found this book looser, and its autobiographical exposition or reportage is less interesting that the thoughts and historical information he weaves into it. In short, for me this book is brilliant in parts, combined with sections that are pretty mundane and not all that well connected. So in my own perhaps odd system of values, I couldn't reccommend buying this book in hardback, but I can reccommend buying the paperback. I find myself returning to various parts of the book, but I doubt if I will read it front to back again. That's fine, of course--we use books in all kinds of ways, and a few lines can be just as precious as a thousand pages, and a reader like me can be just as grateful to Kittredge for writing and publishing it.

William Kittredge's Nature of Generosity blends a memoir of the author's early life on his family's ranch with a travel account of his search for diversity around the world. With a definite philosophical twist, this provides an observation of cultural diversity and human nature which is filled with interesting insights.

"The Nature of Generosity" continues the personal story William Kittredge began in "Hole in the Sky" (1993), a sobering but eloquent anti-myth about growing up and growing away from his family roots.

Like Ivan Doig's magnum opus, "This House of Sky," this resumed memoir explores Kittredge's youth in the West and the influences of family, landscape, and a dismayingly complex "outside" world on personal values. In the end, he seeks a world that is less dismaying and less complex, one where the "endless project" of generosity breeds peace and plenty. Man's primitively selfish and combative behavior, he says, is not only bad for the human race, it will ultimately destroy the Earth if unchecked. Kittredge's premise: Man has a moral and spiritual obligation to his planet and his memories to be kinder and gentler.

His poetic petition is both personal and panoramic. Its genesis is a 60-something writer's memory of childhood, of travels in diverse landscapes (and mindscapes) such as Montana, Venice, New York City, the heartbroken Andalusian hills of Federico Garcia Lorca , and the French village of Les Crottes, where Nazis executed the entire population -- 17 souls -- in the desperate fury of defeat near the end of World War II. In the end, "The Nature of Generosity" is an eloquent philosophical treatise, a sublime travelogue and a visceral memoir of an Oregon boyhood that straddled the Depression and World War II, and it all grows from the taproot of sensual, but fleeting, images long lost.

On this journey through time and space, the reader is accompanied by eclectic companions: Pablo Neruda, Piet Mondrian, Joseph Brodsky, Niccolo Machiavelli, Walt Whitman, Vladimir Nabokov, Mark Twain, Aristotle and Annie Dillard, among others. Others flash past like ghostly hitchhikers on dusky roadsides: Vance Valorida, a cowboy's cowboy who dies alone, or Oscar and Jo Kittredge, the author's own parents, whom he describes as "secret radicals" who simply forgot how to talk to each other.

Kittredge is at his lyrical best when exploring the place of storytelling and the storytelling of place. To him, the future is mapped by stories.

Ambrose Bierce, a devilish writer who haunted the American West even before he disappeared into thin air, once said philosophy was a route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. But "The Nature of Generosity" is a book of graceful rhythms, from one of America's most elegant writers in a place of extraordinary beauty. It aims toward a noble, if elusive, *something.* Kittredge has helped define a whole school of literature from the Interior West, but in this volume his place is clearly at the center of a world where the boundaries are not geographical, but emotional.

Readers should note that this site does not distinguish between the various editions of Shakespeare, so the reviews you read may be for audiotapes, modern translations, etc. I am reviewing the Kenneth Branaugh BBC Radio recording of Hamlet. It is adequate, which I consider high praise for this challenging play. Like Branaugh's movie a few years later, it includes the entire text of the play, which is a nice way to remind yourself of some issues you may have forgotten.

The performances are pretty good, and include Branaugh (of course) as Hamlet and Derek Jacobi as Claudius, giving us a hint of the performances they would later give in the movie. No one's performance really blew me away, although Jacobi was excellent.

Ultimately, the play loses quite a bit when transferred to audio only. There's a lot to be conveyed with stage placement, physican action, expression, etc. Somehow, listening to the play limited my imagination on those issues, preventing my from using my "mind's eye" to the fullest.

Hamlet is considered, by many scholars, the pinnacle of Shakespeare's dramas. If you haven't read it yet this this Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism edition would be a great place to begin.

The text notes that are included with the play are very helpful to understand some of the more difficult language nuances that are inevitable with any Shakespeare. The structure is well laid out and conclusive. It complements the complexity of Hamlet very well.

Of course Hamlet is one of the great paradoxes and mysteries every written. The search of finding yourself and what it is that fuels the human spirit. Hamlet can be a very confusing play because of the depth of substance. However, the critical essays that suppliment the reading make it very accessable.

Each of the critical essays are of different schools of literary criticism: Feminist Criticism, psychoanalytic criticism, post-structuralist (deconstuctionist) criticism, Marxist critism, and finally a New Historicist criticism. Before each critism there is clearly written introduction to explain the motives and histories of that type of criticism.

This edition of Hamlet will not only introduce the reader to more Shakespeare, but also explain the play and help to familiarize the reader with literary criticism too. It is a beautiful volume that cannot be more recommended if you are wanting to buy a copy Hamlet.

Hamlet is, by far, the most complex of Shakespeare's many plays. Many of the themes covered are love vs hate, action vs non-action, revenge, and jealousy. Hamlet discovers that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" when he encounters the ghost of his father, the King, who has recently been killed in battle. From here, Hamlet goes on a search for the discovery of what happened to his father. However, Hamlet not only uncovers secrets of the past, but also the depths of his own being.

The Folger Edition of Hamlet is a great edition to buy, especially for those who are studying this play in high school or college, because it is relatively cheap in price and is very "reader-friendly" with side notes and footnotes that accompany each page of each scene. So, even if you aren't a Shakespeare lover or if Shakespeare is just a little intimidating (we all know how this feels), this version at least allows you to get the gist of what is going on. Also, there are summaries of each scene within each act, to let you know in layman's terms what is taking place. I highly recommend this edition.

What would you do if you fell in love with the wrong person? Well Romeo and Juliet are in this same situation. The scene is set in Verona where two household families share the same social status. From the birth of these two enemies come Romeo and Juliet....P>This book was amazing. Once I started reading, I couldn't put the book down. I felt as if I wanted to get in the story and try to fix all their problems. Shakespeare is a creative writer. He put in true life problems that teenagers deal with today. Shakespeare taught me never to give up and to accomplish my goals. In this book, Romeo and Juliet are not allowed to fall in love. Their parents band them from seeing each other and they wouldn't allow them to following their hearts. But they did it anyway. This book taught me to follow what I believe in and to think for myself, not to listen to what other people want me to do. If I did, then my life would have been miserable. The only thing I didn't like with this book was that it was so hard to understand because it was written in Old English.

I recommend the book, Romeo and Juliet, to anyone who loves to read tragic love stories, who is interested in reading Shakespeare's writings, or who is interested in reading an outstanding book.

Romeo and Juliet are the two most known lovers created by William Shakespeare. Their love story is one to be cried for, and it really shows the true meaning of what love is. Many people have claimed and agreed it is the most sad but romantic play ever written, and it really is.
They're a pair of star crossed lovers, who fall in love at first site. Their hopless love is denied from the very beginning: their families have an awful hatred towards each other which has been everlasting. They go through many tests for them to prove they really love each other: Romeo's best friend dying; Romeo's exile after murdering Mercutio, Juliet's cousin; and finally Romeo learning his dear lover's "death".
Although it has a tragic ending, many people say this story is actually happy, for they both die at the same time, and their love is kept together, for eternity.

Romeo and Juliet is a great tragic romance. The story is full of love, violence, passion and hate. It's an excellent epic poem in which Shakespeare tells this tragic story using a beautiful language, very poetic and lyrical. Try it, you'll never forget it.
This story is about a pair of two star-crossed lovers, which take their life in Verona. For years, the feuding of the Montagues and the Capulets has disturbed the peace of Verona.
It all began in a party in the Capulet's house in which Romeo and Juliet made their love vows, and Romeo proposed marriage to Juliet. After this marriage, everything was tragic.
Deaths and fights were constantly a problem in the two houses. So Romeo and Juliet would leave Verona to stop the quarrels, but this plan failed when Lord Capulet told Juliet to marry Paris.
Friar Laurence would make a new plan, to skip this ceremony. Juliet would pretend to be dead and afterwards, when wake up, leave Verona with her love.
This plan also failed because Romeo didn't get to know about this and killed himself when he saw Juliet lying on her grave. Juliet did the same when she saw Romeo lying beside her.
After these deaths, both families realised that hate between them caused lots of deaths. Capulet and Montague made up their quarrel. They promised not to fight again and make a golden statue about the two beautiful star-crossed lovers.

When rating Shakespeare, I am rating it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistent 4-5 stars wouldn't tell you much. So if you want to know how this book rates against the general selection of books in the world, I suppose it might rate four stars; it certainly rates three. The language, as usual in Shakespeare, is beautiful. Still, it's far from Shakespeare's best.

For one thing, this is one of those cases, not uncommon in Shakespeare's comedies, in which the play has suffered a great deal by the changes in the language since Shakespeare's time; it loses a great deal of the humor inherent in a play when the reader needs to keep checking the footnotes to see what's happening, and this play, particularly the first half of it, virtually can't be read without constant reference to the notes; even with them, there's frequently a question as to what's being said. At least in the edition that I read (the Dover Thrift edition) the notes frequently admit that there's some question as to the meaning of the lines, and there is mention of different changes in them in different folios.

But beyond this, as an overweight, balding, middle-aged libertine, I object to the concept that Falstaff is ridiculous just because he is in fact unwilling to concede that it is impossible that a woman could want him. Granted, he's NOT particularly attractive, but that has more to do with his greed, his callousness, and his perfect willingness to use people for his own ends, to say nothing of his utter lack of subtlety.

Is it truly so funny that an older, overweight man might attempt to find a dalliance? So funny that the very fact that he does so leaves him open to being played for the fool? Remember, it isn't as though he refused to take "no" for an answer; he never GOT a "no". He was consistently led on, only to be tormented for his audacity. Nor is he making passes at a nubile young girl; the target of his amorous approaches is clearly herself middle-aged; after all, she is the MOTHER of a nubile young marriageable girl. And given the fact that she is married to an obnoxious, possessive, bullying and suspicious husband, it is not at all unreasonable for Falstaff to think that she might be unhappy enough in her marriage to accept a dalliance with someone else.

If laughing at fat old men who have the audacity not to spend the last twenty years of their lives with sufficient dignity to make it seem as if they were dead already is your idea of a good time, you should love this play. I'll pass.

i've just finished reading/watching all of shakespeare's comedies and mww is one of the funnier ones. it is a lighthearted look at marital jealousy and features one of shakespeare's great fools, falstaff (of henry iv fame). the out-and-out funniest shakepearean play is still "taming of the shrew", imho, but mwv runs well ahead of the laggards, and certainly well ahead of such better known plays as "twelfth night" and "as you like it".

Shakespeare, considering he wrote this little gem of a comedy in a mere 14 days for the Virgin Queen, pulls off a play that proves both witty and fun. Unequivocally, The Merry Wives of Windsor makes for a more enjoyable play if seen live. Nonetheless, reading it is the 2nd best thing.

Sir John Falstaff is once again such a fool - but a lovable and hilarious one at that. Having read Henry V - where Falstaff ostensibly had met his end - I was pleased to see him so alive(pardon the pun) in this short, albeit clever play. It is no surprise that The Merry Wives of Windsor enjoyed such a long and successful stage run during Shakespeare's day and continues to be one of his most popularly staged plays. Recommended as a fun break from the more serious and murderous Shakespearean tragedies.

"Why, then the world's mine oyster,
Which I with sword will open." - Pistol

This is Shakespeare's 2nd last play. Yet, nothing indicates that he was running out of steam. The images are beautiful. Stephano, Caliban, and Trinculo are memorable as the bumbling conspirators. Miranda and Ferdinand are fine as the two young lovers. Ariel is striking as Prospero's loyal servant. Prospero is a magnificent creation. Not only does he offer several beautiful and memorable passages, but he is well drawn as a character who was unfairly forced into exile. He also makes his prison his paradise. In addition, he is a fine representation of Shakespeare himself: "Knowing I loved my books, he furnished me / From mine own library with volumes that / I prize above my dukedom" (1.2.166-168). His speeches in 4.1 and 5.1 also reflect how Shakespeare himself was contemplating the end of his career. The story itself is very well drawn. Shakespeare grabs our attention with a storm at sea. He offers us a reflection of himself, comical touches, beautiful images, profound passages, beautiful language, young lovers, comical villains, and deep messages. If you like this, be sure to read his final play "Henry VIII."

Comedy, in the strictest sense, is concerned with ultimate forgiveness and reconciliation. In Shakespeare's play, "The Tempest," the protagonist, Prospero, must come to terms with his brother Antonio, who conspired to have him driven from his duchy in Milan, and with the world of social interaction in general.

Magic, Power, and Conspiracy are the foundational thematic elements through which Shakespeare effects Prospero's reintegration into human society. Thrown into a boat with his infant daughter Miranda, Prospero comes to live on a nearly deserted island in the Mediterranean Sea. Prospero's concentration on developing his proficiency in Magic caused him to become alienated from his political and social responsibilities in Milan, leading to his expulsion. His brother Antonio conspired with Alonso, king of Naples, and seized the power Prospero forsook for book-learning.

Prospero hears of a sea voyage undertaken by his enemies, and, using his Magic, whips up a storm, a great tempest, which causes his enemies to be shipwrecked on his island. On the island, Prospero exercises total power - over the education of his daughter, his slave, the deformed Caliban, and now over his enemies. He engages Ariel, a sprite, to orchestrate the division of the traveling party, and to put them through various trials to exact vengeance and ultimately, submission from them.

"The Tempest" is a fine effort from Shakespeare, but the power relations in the play are problematic. Prospero's insistent dominance over the action of the play is extremely troubling. Although he is presented as a benevolent character, Prospero's relationships with Miranda, Caliban, and Ferdinand, King Alonso's son, complicate his overall worth as a man and an authority figure. The dynamic between the slave Caliban and the drunks, Trinculo and Stephano, is also very unsettling.

Overall, "The Tempest" remains a whimsical flight of imagination, while exploring intriguing themes of education, political intrigue, and romance. Certainly, it is still a well-constructed and entertaining play after nearly four hundred years.

One of the best works by Shakespeare and also his final full play (most likely), The Tempest draws on many elements that Shakespeare used in his earlier works and adds a comic twist. Shakespeare doesn't spend much time on character development in the Tempest, other than Prospero and possibly Caliban (e.g. Miranda is the ideal chaste woman, Trinculo & Stephano are lowly schemers). However, Prospero is extremely well developed and the simple aspects of the other characters do not detract from the story at all. There are many different levels of meaning at work in the play...some see it as a pro-colonialist diatribe, others see it as Shakespeare's own swan song, where Prospero himself is based on the Bard, and Prospero's surrendering of his magical powers is representative of Shakespeare giving up his craft. I read it as both, and a million other things, and that is one of the great things about the play...it can be read in so many different ways. The structure of the play seems almost chaotic at first, with so many things going on at once. However, if you read the play over again, or read some of the essays contained in the Signet Edition, it becomes much more clear, although still open-ended. The Signet Edition is excellent, and Signets in general are. Buy this over the Folger Library editions...the footnotes here are much easier to work with and make the reading much smoother overall.

This play can be read as anti-semitic. In fact, it's pretty hard to defend it from such charges. Shylock is a pretty rotten character and the fact that he is jewish is difficult to overlook (particularly since the other characters mention it on pretty much EVERY page). However, I think it is important to mention that the "heroes" of this play do not necessarily have to be interpreted as heroes. They are by no means perfect and there are many subtle (and some not-so-subtle) instances within the text in which their biases against ANYONE unlike them is illustrated. If one reads the play this way, then Shylock becomes more of a tragic figure rather than an absolutely heartless villain. I don't know. My feelings about this are mixed. There are a few funny parts of this play and the language is, as always, beautiful. The theme of putting a price on human beings is one which has been explored numerous times since. Overall, it is enjoyable, but perhaps not so much so as some of the other comedies. Do not read this play without having read a few others by Shakespeare first. It is an excellent play, but not his best and not his most enjoyable either.

This is a wonderful play - and unless you have seen it or read it you don't know it at all. That's because everything the popular culture tells us about this play is false (for example; how many of you think this play is about a merchant named Shylock? ;-)

The Merchant of Venice is a lively and happy morality tale. Good triumphs over bad - charity over greed - love over hate.
There is fine comedy. Portia is one of Shakespeare's greatest women (and he ennobled women more than any playwright in history). There are moments of empathy and pain with all the major characters. There is great humanity and earthiness in this play. These things are what elevate Shakespeare over any other playwright in English history.

Plays should be seen - not read. I recommend you see this play (if you can find a theater with the courage and skill to do it). But if it is not playing in your area this season - buy the book and read it.

After reading most of the other reviews here, I am fully aware that most of the reviewers didn't read carefully enough (or watch carefully enough if they saw the play.) Now, I'm not saying its not open for different interpretations, but there is one thing I would really like to get straight.

I read MoV for a Bar Mitzvah project on Anti-Semitism. Naturally, my sympathies went to Shylock. However, even if i were Christian, i still would've favored Shylock. What many people believe is that Shylock is a cold hearted ruthless person and only wanted to get back at Antonio because Antonio was a Christian.

Not true. Shylock specifically says something along the lines off, "Why should I lend money to you? You spit on me, and call me a Jewish dog!" I'm not saying that Shylock was a good guy, but I am saying that he is not the villain.

In fact, the "Merchant of Venice," in this story is actually Shylock, not Antonio, contrary to popular belief. My thoughts on the story was that Shylock requested a pound of Antonio's flesh because he did not trust Antonio. Who would trust someone that spat on him? The fact is, Antonio doesn't pay him back in the end.

Now, there's always something else we have to put into consideration. Would the judge had given the "spill one ounce of Christian blood" verdict at the end if Shylock were not a Jew?

This is the mark of a great play. A play that really gets you thinking. But I encourage you, I beg of you, that when you read it or see it, please do not hold Shylock up to being a cold hearted villain. Hold Antonio up to that image. (joking, of course, Antonio's not a bad guy, he's just not a good guy.)

Neither the absolute and utter despondency of sheer and impending defeat nor the the deposition of his honor and place in Roman society can deter the once-revered Marc Antony from his insatiable, yet ill-fated longing to be with the sultry and divine demigodess that is Cleopatra.

Having just read the incomparable Julius Caesar and longing for more of the same after Antony & Octavius Caesar's sound defeat of the "noble" Brutus and Cassius at Philippi, I ordered Antony & Cleopatra. Although in some respects it is similar to its predecessor, Antony & Cleopatra, having been written by Shakespeare much later in life after the tragic death of his lone son Hamnet and a turbulent relationship with his wife, brings forth a much more cynical and wily Bard than the young and idealistic one who wrote Caesar. This disillusionment can be witnessed not only in the tragic deaths of Antony and Cleopatra, but moreso subvertly in the incongruity and disingenuousness of their supposed driving impetus - their love for one another. Both Antony & Cleopatra continuously and almost purposefully betray each other throughout the play - undermining their ability to lead and therefore leading to their tragic and untimely demise.

I recommend this to those who adored Julius Caesar as well as those Shakespeare aficionados who simply cannot get enough of The Bard. Antony & Cleopatra proves a lucid, enjoyable, and easy read, although somewhat longer, but with less substance than Julius Caesar. Enjoyable nonetheless.

"Make not your thoughts your prisons." - Octavius Caesar

'Antony and Cleopatra' is a great tragedy about two personalities who were larger than life, and therefore shared a love fitting to their stature. Anthony is torn between the high seriousness & order of the Roman Empire (embodied in Caesar) and the sensuality & licentiousness of Ancient Egypt (embodied in Cleopatra)- worlds which are perfectly evoked by Shakespeare as he chronicles the political wheeling & dealing of the time, which ultimately led to the suicides of the two lovers. I don't think Shakespeare favours one world view over the other, and to read the play moralistically and say Rome = virtue = good and Egypt = vices = bad is to to do it a disservice.

The language in this play is often romantic and lush, a grand language suited to rulers of the world. Cleopatra's "O, my oblivion is a very Anthony,/ And I am all forgotten" has to be some of the most erotic stuff that the Bard ever wrote.

Cleopatra is a very passionate woman and a great role-player, but she is always herself, never inauthentic. What she feels may change from moment to moment, but while she's feeling it, it's REAL. I find her to be the more mature one in her and Anthony's relationship. Notice how she never yells at him for marrying Octavia, which is certainly a terrible betrayal. She accepts that he did what he had to do and is only glad that Anthony is again united with her. Her love for him is beyond judgement.

The relationship between Anthony and Caesar is a very complicated one, and one that fascinated me almost as much as that of Cleopatra and Anthony. Caesar admires Anthony, but he betrays himself as having contempt for him in the way he expresses that admiration. Dodgy man, that little Caesar.

Anthony and Cleopatra is one of Shakespeare's difficult plays, and so I suspect the ratings on the play are low because it's a more mature play than Romeo and Juliet. Here we have two middle age lovers who part of the time are foolish with lust/love and the rest of the time are tough minded heads of state. The "tragedy" is that they can't be both and survive. This is not a play for the young folks, I'm afraid. But if you want some heavy drama where the characters are spared nothing and given no slack, read Anthony and Cleopatra (hint: Cleopatra's suicide is more political statement than a crazy wish to die with Antony). Better yet see it performed by some real actors some time.

Although this book certainly has artistic merit, I would not have called it the "Best of". We have visited the area many times and are well aware of the various terrains. In some cases, the photographer seemed to choose the "ugliest of" and in even more cases, the photos could have been taken anywhere - there was nothing to indicate a particular location. Examples would be an animal running across an empty field. Fine if you're looking for nature, not very useful if you are trying to identify "Best of"/beautiful spots to visit. This was a gift for my husband and he was not very impressed...

This book has very enchanting photography. If you love nature, but are locked up in city life; This is a very nice book to have just to linger in and daydream of the wide open spaces. Of course it may get addictive and make you leave the city in search of a peaceful homestead to call home...

Like most of Shakespeare's comidies, LLL involved a couple of very independent women falling in love with a couple of guys who were in love with them too. It also brought mistaken identities into play and, like A Midsummer Night's Dream, it had a play within the play. The humor was mostly in the form of puns, most of which were hard to understand the first time through. The ending was really bad, though, because the girls didn't get together with the guys like they should have if Shakespeare had planned a happy ending. All-in-all, I would only recommend this play for really serious Shakespearean scholars, as it is almost too dense for us laypeople

this is witty play about four guys who vow to sequester themselves for three years in serious study, but who are forced to forswear their vows when four attractive women show up and upset their plans. the humor is mainly in the form of wordplay, as only shakespeare can do, and the verbal jousting between berowne and his lady is especially entertaining, and anticipates the tete-a-tetes between petruchio and katherina in "taming of a shrew" and benedick and beatrice in "much ado about nothing". definitely worth a read, and if you can get it, the bbc television production of LLL is also worth seeing. last of all, i disagree with the other poster who complained of the ending. i thought it was pretty clear that the couples would get together in a year's time. so the ending was implicitly happy. only someone who is accustomed to instant gratification could find fault with it.

Many people would like to say that Shakespeare did not write this play. But this is hardly fair. Even with the world's finest writers such as Marlowe and Dickens, not every single thing they write can be a masterpiece. But what makes "The Two Gentleman of Verona" worth reading? Well, Shakespeare presents us with a valid theme. (Conflicts often exist between romance and friendship.) There is also beautiful language. Launce and his dog offer some interesting comedy as well as a beautiful and memorable passage in 2.3. The scene where Valentine is accepted amonst the outlaws is memorable. This is Shakespeare's first play where a woman (Julia) disuises herself as man to do some investigating. It is also easy to see that several elements of this play were used in "Romeo and Juliet." To be sure, this is not a masterpiece like "The Comedy of Errors," "Richard III," or "King Lear." But it is still an good study that is worth some interest.

Although few would claim that Two Gentlemen of Verona is one of Shakespeare's greatest plays, it is well worth reading in order to serve as a reference for the best of his romantic comedies. In essence, Two Gentlemen of Verona gives you a measuring stick to see the brilliance in the best works.

The play has the first of Shakespeare's many brave, resourceful and cross-dressing heroines, Julia.

Shakespeare always used his fools and clowns well to make serious statements about life and love, and to expose the folly of the nobles. Two Gentlemen of Verona has two very fine comic scenes featuring Launce. In one, he lists the qualities of a milk maid he has fallen in love with and helps us to see that love is blind and relative. In another, he describes the difficulties he has delivering a pet dog to Silvia on his master, Proteus', behalf in a way that will keep you merry on many a cold winter's evening.

The story also has one of the fastest plot resolutions you will ever find in a play. Blink, and the play is over. This nifty sleight of hand is Shakespeare's way of showing that when you get noble emotions and character flowing together, things go smoothly and naturally.

The overall theme of the play develops around the relative conflicts that lust, love, friendship, and forgiveness can create and overcome. Proteus is a man who seems literally crazed by his attraction to Silvia so that he loses all of his finer qualities. Yet even he can be redeemed, after almost doing a most foul act. The play is very optimistic in that way.

I particularly enjoy the plot device of having Proteus and Julia (pretending to be a page) playing in the roles of false suitors for others to serve their own interests. Fans of Othello will enjoy these foreshadowings of Iago.

The words themselves can be a bit bare at times, requiring good direction and acting to bring out the full conflict and story. For that reason, I strongly urge you to see the play performed first. If that is not possible, do listen to an audio recording as you read along. That will help round out the full atmosphere that Shakespeare was developing here.

After you finish Two Gentlemen of Verona, think about where you would honor friendship above love, where equal to love, and where below love. Is friendship less important than love? Or is friendship merely less intense? Can you experience both with the same person?

Enjoy close ties of mutual commitment . . . with all those you feel close to!

"The Two Gentlemen of Verona" is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. Maybe that's because it's one of the only one's I understand. My youth Theatre did a wonderful production of this play. I was not in it, but I saw it twice. It was set in the 60's, peasant-shirted and bell-bottomed. I think it's a wonderful story, although a bit unrealistic because of all the forgiveness that happens at the end of the play. But I think that it's a play everyone should read. This edition of the play is, I think, a very good one. If you are planning to buy a copy of "The Two Gentlemen of Verona," I would advise you to buy the most current edidtion printed by the Folger Shakespeare Library. They have lots of information in the book, and many definitions of the more difficult Elizabethian words.