A.C. Bradley wrote these lectures in 1904, and the book has gone through at least 26 printings. It is significant that the Folger Shakespeare Library has republished these lectures. They are hugely important and vibrantly written. I am sure my father read these in college, and I know my son did, too. I'm glad I finally got around to them! You will be, also, for all the reasons that other reviewers have noted.

(Amazon should spell Macbeth's name correctly - not as "MacBeth"!) This has for almost a century been, and continues to be today, one of the most important books on Shakespeare's best and most popular tragedies. For much of the time since around 1930, it has been severely criticised: on the grounds, chiefly, that the author is too much inclined to respect or have sympathy for the heroes (which he is), and that he treats them too much like "real" people (which he does, and which they aren't).

Yet, for all that, Bradley's approach to the heroes as though they were characters we all know has revealed a great deal about what Shakespeare has made those characters, and those who see the characters as complex and psychologically worth exploring identify a more significant aspect of Shakespeare's interest in humans and his art than do many of Bradley's opponents. Moreover, the detail of his examinations of the texts makes it possible to probe much with him, even if one continues to question or quarrel with him on the way (and he is not infrequently demonstrably wrong). Thus this remains a work of criticism which is inspirational and searching even if at times quite wrongheaded; and every serious reader of Shakespeare (including actors and directors) should read this book and own it. - Joost Daalder, Professor of English, Flinders University, South Australia

I am so glad this book is still in print (it was first published in 1904, I think). My original copy was second-hand and it would be awful to think I couldn't get another! Bradley is so illuminating on Shakespeare's intentions, and on the characters of his great tragic figures. If nothing else, read his brilliant discussion of Macbeth - it will convince you that, for a perspective on human nature, for conceiving a dramatic character whole, Bradley was as great a critic as Shakespeare was a playwright. Don't miss him!

This book contains an analysis of the economic and social effects of the Pinochet dictatorship by John Lear and Joseph Collins around 1990 and an epilogue by Stephanie Ronsenfeld from around 1994.

The authors show the effects of deregulation on all aspects of Chilean life. The public health system--which seventy percent of Chileans as of 1990 belonged to--has been rapidly defunded , farmed out to municipalities. Relatively few Chileans can afford the relatively new HMO-type companies whose primary focus is accomodating people who can pay the most i.e. the well-off. Thyphoid fever and Hepatitis rapidly expanded to epidemic proportions from the mid-70's until a decaded later--short term profit, absent government restraint, makes dumping industrial waste and chemicals into rivers into the water supply a reasonable cost-effective mean as does neglecting to ensure adequate sanitation standards in the food you sell. The government finally enacted some regulations in the mid-80's to try to roll back the epidemics. The authors point out the declining infant mortality rate, which neoliberal advocates point to with pride is, apart from the expanding birth rate in the upper classes, in large part due to "socialistic" government programs targeting new mothers and infants. The health of the infants and mothers after they conclude the program is, of course, another story. The authors show that Chile's privitization and municipilization of education has grossly skewed the benefits towards wealthy municipalities able to generate the resources and high-income students to be "self-financing."

They show that the privitized social security accounts are of scant benefit for a large number of Chileans who cannot generate enough income to meet their stringent minimum requirements. This great mass of people inevitably have to fall back on the scant package offered by the government which, combined with required government payments to those who retired before the early 80's when privitization was implemented, promises to bring severe fiscal probolems for Chile in the next few decades. They show that wages have stagnated or declined relative to pre-1973 levels--per capita income did not return to its 1970 level until 1989. They show that the monumental economic crises in the early 80's which admirers of Pinochet's economic policies like to forget, was very much due to the extreme neoliberal policies of the junta. In the late 70's Chile's economy took off. Tarrifs were eliminated, restrictions on foreign investment lifted and the Peso was pegged at 39 to the dollar, considerably overvalued. The result was a flood of ultra-cheap imports, mostly luxury items and little productive inbestment. The banks, freed from regulation, recklessly loaned out. Then at the end of 1981 all of the suddent there was recession in the U.S. and thus restriction of its market, capital flight, corporations and banks under enormous debt went under and the economy was on the verge of collapse. Pinochet took over the bankrupt banks and corporations using the resources provided by Chile's immensely profitable government owned companies to get back into shape and then sold them to his friends and foreign corporations at grossly undervalued prices. During this process some unkind critics labeled it--"the Chicago road to socialism"--government ownership was as high as it ever was during Allende's term--after the proteges of University of Chicago free market gurus like Milton Friedman who took over Chile's economic policy after 1975. The immensely profitable public companies then followed into the private sector, again grossly low prices.

The show that working conditions, wages and living conditions have largely gone down hill, helped enormously by Pinochet's extreme anti-labor policies. The rapid elimination of native forests and fisheries protends serious problems. Miss Rosenfeld points out that the democratic governments since 1990 have eliminated some of the harder edges of Pinochet's policies by increasing spending considerably for housing and other social services and increasing the minimum wage and have shown more success in narrow statistical indicators than he ever did. But the structure of his society is still more or less intact; Chile is still primarily an export-oriented economy, largely by exploiting non-renewable resources. Its over-reliance, for instance, of grape exports, the workers in whose industry are mostly temporary laboring under bad conditions and low wages, makes it very vulnerable to new competitors who are discovering more cheaper ways of production and can pay even lower wages. Government funding for research and development and funding of infrastructure before 1973 laid the basis for the industry's prosperity but since that time it has been eliminated.

The book is a little bit dated and I didn't understand one or two points but it is a very important book and, for an economics book, lucidly written.

Beginning in the mid-Nineteenth Century, Mexico City became a primary destination for the multitudes of country folk who were in search of better economic opportunities. The depravity of life for many of the countryside?s population, along with those from nearby villages and towns proved to be a compelling force in the urbanization of growing metropolitan surrounding Mexico's Federal District. The economic opportunities were a direct result of the burgeoning industrialization of the region, which had been aided, in no small measure, by foreign investors whom had held the welfare of the Mexican laborers in pitiful regard. Though the indigenous industrialists, artisans and corrupt politicos were predominantly of the same ilk. As the population swelled, the physical dynamics of the city were transformed. Advances in transportation technology permitted the steady growth of suburbs, while simultaneously feeding into a distinct stratification of economic classes along geographical lines. As the numbers of workers, skilled and unskilled continued to escalate through the early part of the Twentieth Century, a series of national political revolutions changed forever their relationship in the political power balance in Mexico.
John Lear's Workers, Neighbors and Citizens explores the relationship between the physical growth patterns of Mexico City during its forty year period of continued industrial growth, 1880's-1920's, and the formation of skilled and unskilled laborers as a nearly unified class of workers. Lear's argument is one of multi-causation. Some of the elements that force the reaction of the workers fed into the revolutionary zeal of the age. The preponderance of foreign capital and foreign industrialists which poured into Mexico during this period, certainly allowed this Latin American nation to move forward in the global economy, however, the cultural indignation that the workers suffered, both men and women, at the hands of the paternalistic elite was not unnoticed, nor easily forgiven. As the Revolution swept through the countryside, the workers repeatedly made attempts at labor reform through political and economic pressures, both of which were new elements within Mexican society, and both aided the working class in achieving some tangible reforms, such as a reduction of hours and minimal wage increases.
The book is divided into three sections. The first discusses the physical geographical developments of Mexico City along both social and economic lines during the industrial expansion. Within this context the divergent paths of the elite and workers are very neatly laid out; the reader yearns with great anticipation of the inevitably of extreme conflict and unification by the close of the second chapter, a reoccurring phenomenon throughout the entire book. The following section, "Political Cultures and Mobilization" is of sufficient scholarly merit to stand alone as an individual work. The sense of class formation amongst the ranks of labor, along with the impact of the populist political rhetoric and unionism in the solidification of this configuration is not just analyzed succinctly; Lear's suggestive, detailed narrative encapsulates a great array of factors in an economy of words. Of particular note is his treatment of the mutual (and moral) aid societies, his astute handling of the three great vices and enemies of the family: alcohol, tobacco and explicit sexualisms, and the overtly paternalistic and sexist manner of the foreign business owners and how the laborers, especially the women react to these unacceptable societal components within Mexico City. The final section wraps up the author's overarching theme, which connects the workers with the national revolution. Absolute consensus does not occur as factions of support develop along the lines that support no political involvement, the Constitutionalists, and the impact of the foreigners, especially in the formation of unions, though strangely absent is any real treatment of the influence of the Communist party.
"Workers" is a study in depth that confronts the role of the social reform movements in Mexico City that greatly parallel the Progressive era reform movements in cities such as New York, Chicago and Detroit. The common elements that all of the reformers addressed were the number of hours that folk labored, the consumption or over-consumption of alcohol (cheap whiskey in the United States, pulque in Mexico), "proper" familial order - a reduction or eradication of spousal abuse, and a real voice in politics. Where Lear truly adds to the great library is within his attention to role of women within this climate of change, though it could be argued that until the third section of his tractate the mention of women and their roles is at best cursory, with a few notable exceptions, which could be attributed to the lack of women within the industrial workers ranks before the Revolution. The image of the woman in the framework of an identifiable class formation that enveloped the laborers is represented both in text and image in other words - decisive. This book is essential for any that might have interest in urban history, labor history or Revolutionary Mexico history. Lear is an adept writer; his literary devices make this work a pleasure to read.

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.

I really enjoyed reading these poems. Lear is the master of his domain and his silly poems are always funny.
This is an anthology of poems, of different lengths. Lear's style can make even the most serious adult burst with laughter. I was stifling my laughs in the library. I think you're never too old for funny poems such as these, and reading books like this can be cathartic during stressful times.
Read these poems to everyone you know.

Power Training for Sport by Al Murray and John Lear is illustrated with photographs and contains detailed instructions for about 50 weight lifting exercises. Some of these exercises are rarely if ever seen in other books, for example the "sprint curl" and the "bench press to 45 degrees." Out of print but worth searching for if you want to add a few new exercises to your routine.