By my Green Candle !! Jarry is very difficult to translate from the French, so be sure to read and compare various translations to really get the feel, if you don't read French. Well worth the effort, and this volume is a fine place to start.

This is a school joke that has evolved into an epic! McLeish's translation takes a lot of liberties and sometimes many things are lost. On the other side, he possesses great wit and through compensation, his work comes out as one of the best translations!

Alfred Jarry is the grandfather of modern day surrealism, and the Ubu trilogy is a great, twisted work of genius. It reads like Shakespeare crossed with a slasher film. It's also a great parody of anything you can think of, and it is quite hilarious. The Ubu trilogy deals with the epic rise and fall of Pa and Ma Ubu, as they become Kings of several European countries, get involved in murder more than once, fight in wars, have deadly encounters with bears in caves, and even voluntarily become slaves. Great stuff! If you like Samuel Beckett, then you have to check out Jarry too!

The entries, and average of four or five paragraphs long, are detailed enough to send the reader in the right direction should he desire a more in-depth treatment, and aquaint one with all of the fundamental points of any given concept presented. Very well done.

I think this is a very useful and enlightening reference book for many of the key and mind-twisting ideas in history. Reading this book is a real treat and I can lose track of time as I jump from one topic to another. Anyone who wants to build his humanities and to go on a journey to understand the society of his own time should learn from this book. The Key Ideas in Human Thought is really an amazing book and a jumping board for me in the way an intellectual should look at the world and his space in it.

Never loan this book to anyone! I made that mistake several years ago and now I have to place an out of print order! The authors solicited a number of English and American critics as to what books they would take with them to a desert island. While the selections are strongly grounded in European and American authors the book does cover every major topic from Anthropology to Zoology. Descriptions are offered for each selection as well as rationale. Stars are added next to seminal writings. This is certainly a worth addition to any book lovers library. Just don't be an "lending" library or you might never see it again.

This an excellent, opinionated, acerbic review of Western Literature. The only other book in this catergory that comes close to this survey is Clifton McFadden's "A Lifetime Reading Plan". Both books make you want to go out and read the best literatue available. It is also daunting to think others have read this entire catalogue of books. For comments sent mail to my e-mail address.

I began a complete reading of Shakespeare and along the way I started browsing secondary works here and there, and this one really began to stand out for me. The layout of the book makes it easy to browse, and the individual takes on each play are unpredictable though not eccentric. For instance plays that are generally universally regarded as substandard Shakespeare (such as Timon of Athens or Pericles) are given the benefit of the doubt that maybe their worth lies in other areas than where the general run of criticism has determined it should lie. The chapters for each play are not too long, and they're broken up into useful sections (story, main characters, general criticism, performance history, etc)... The Complete Works of Shakespeare is one of the few summit works of the world, and a person really shouldn't get to weighted down with secondary works about the plays themselves, but this book is very compact and to the point and helpful and worth having if you're just going to have a few secondary works to help you along...

'Medea' by Euripedes is a classic and powerful Greek tragedy that broke all the rules of that time period. Euripedes takes two great figures in Medea and Jason, and uses Iconoclastic techniques brilliantly to make Jason seem stupid and Medea seem like a murderer. It is especially interesting because of the story that you need to understand outside of the play. You will need to know who the gods are and how Medea and Jason got together. Medea is a powerful sorceress, which is a major point in this play. The imagery of the death scenes were VIVIDLY scripted and the gods, who are supposed to represent all that is good and rightous, are also mocked and bashed by Euripedes. Overall, Euripedes defied all and created a tragic masterpiece, I will definately recommend you to read this. Thank you.

This is one of those remarkable plays that feels like it was written just last week. Medea is the daughter of the evil King Aeetes in Colchis -- on the remote, eastern side of the Black Sea. She assists Jason in slaying the serpent that guarded the golden fleece, and fell deeply in love with him. (See Apollonius Rhodius' Argonautica for a fuller treatment of the love episode at Colchis). She even killed her brother, Absrytus, on their way back to Greece.

Medea has one problem, however. Aside from the fact she is a witch, she is a barbarian, a non-Greek. The Greeks used the word "barbaros" to refer to all people who weren't Greek, because if they didn't speak Greek, it just sounded like "bar bar bar" to the Greeks.

So after Jason and Medea settle in together back in Greece, his homeland, he decides that his interests (and Medea's) are better served if he marries the daughter of King Creon of Corinth. Medea gets jealous, poisons the woman, and then kills her two children in revenge.

Medea is an absolutely riveting character, whose tragic problems are those of all woman who have left their homes and families to follow men to foreign lands, only to be scorned by them in the end. The speeches of Jason and Medea are remarkable point-counterpoint presentations which reflect the deep influence of the sophists of Euripides' day. Medea sounds, at times, like a proto-feminist. She is one of the most enduring dramatic creations of all times, revealing with each line the remarkable genius of Euripides, the most modern of the three great Greek tragedians

Every time there is a horrific story in the news about a mother murdering her children, the classic tragedy "Medea" by Euripides is mentioned. However, a close reading of the actual play shows that the point Euripides is trying to make in this drama is not about infanticide, but rather about the way "foreigners" are treated in Greece (this is best seen in the odes of the Chorus of Corinthian Women). The other key component of the play is the psychology of Medea and the way in which she constructs events to help convince herself to do the unspeakable deed and kill the two sons she has borne Jason. There is a very real sense in which Jason is the true villain of the piece and I do not think there is a comparable example in the extant Greek tragedies remain wherein a major mythological hero is made to look as bad as Euripides does in this play.

Another important thing to remember in reading "Medea" is that the basic elements of the story were already known to the Athenian audience that would be watching the play. Consequently, when the fact that Medea is going to kill her children is not a surprise what becomes important are the motivations the playwright presents in telling this version of the story. The audience remembers the story of the Quest for the Golden Fleece and how Medea betrayed her family and her native land to help Jason. In some versions of the story Medea goes so far as to kill her brother, chop up his body, and throw it into the sea so their father, the King of Colchis, must stop his pursuit of the Argo to retrieve the body of his son. However, as a foreigner Medea is not allowed to a true wife to Jason, and when he has the opportunity to improve his fortune by marrying the princess of Corinth, Medea and everything she had done for him are quickly forgotten.

To add insult to injury, Jason assures Medea that his sons will be well treated at the court while the King of Corinth, worried that the sorceress will seek vengeance, banishes her from the land. After securing sanctuary in Athens (certainly an ironic choice given this is where the play is being performed), Medea constructs a rather complex plan. Having coated a cloak with poison, she has her children deliver it to the princess; not only will the princess die when she puts on the cloak (and her father along with her), the complicity of the children in the crime will give her an excuse to justify killing in order to literally save them from the wrath of the Corinthians.

This raises an interest questions: Could Medea have taken the children with her to her exile in Athens? On the one hand I want to answer that obviously, yes, she can; there is certainly room in her dragon-drawn chariot. But given her status as a foreigner, if Jason goes to Athens and demands the return of his children, would he not then have a claim that Medea could not contest? More importantly, is not Medea's ultimate vengeance on Jason that she will hurt him by taking away everything he holds dear, namely his children and his princess bride?

In the final line of the play the Chorus laments: "Many things beyond expectation do the gods fulfill. That which was expected has not been accomplished; for that which was unexpected has god found the way. Such was the end of this story." This last line has also found its way into the conclusion of other dramas by Euripides ("Alcestis," "Bacchae" and "Andromache"), but I have always found it to fit the ending of "Medea" best, so I suspect that is where it originally came from and ended up being appended to those other plays sometime during the last several thousand years. However, the statement is rather disingenuous because one of the rather standard approaches in a play by Euripides is that his characters often deserve their fate. In a very real sense, Euripides provides justification for Medea's monstrous crime and his implicit argument to the Athenian audience is that the punishment fits the crime. However, Athenians would never give up their air of superiority; at least not until foreigners such as the Macedonians and the Romans conquered the self-professed cradle of democracy.

A solid translation of the fascinating and passionate story of Dionysus in Thebes, although it lacks the lyricism of other translations. Woodruff's version is meant to be performed aloud, and so it has more of the feel of a play to it. Students of literature and classics might want a different version; students of drama and theatre would be interested in this translation.

If, like me, you had Greek Tragedy down as an austere thing, full of parched plains, unswerving Fate and dour verse, then 'The Bacchae' might come as a pleasant surprise. It has these things of course, but the first quality that shocks is the vibrant, fervid excess of the language. The story concerns Dionysus, the God of wine, the Life Force, the Chaos of the Irrational etc., who inspires a possessed devotion in his acolytes, as they express themselves in high-flown, ecstatic rhapsodies. Not every one takes this proto-hippie's divinity seriously, in particular the family of his mortal mother, led by the impetuous teenage king Pentheus, who sees all this Bacchanalia in the woods and mountains in loose robes as so much lechery. Dionysus exacts such terrible revenge on these unbelievers that 'Bacchae' makes Shakespeare's 'Titus Andronicus' look like a Julie Andrews vehicle.
If Sophocles' 'Oedipus the King' is the first detective story, than 'Bacchae' might be the first police procedural - a central sequence sees Pentheus arrest Dionysus and interrogate him, a scene as tightly written and suspenseful as any thriller. But detection and policing, embodying the forces of reason and the Law, have no power against the Irrational or Unknowable, and Pentheus is soon made mad, his order and sense of self in tatters. The terrible grip of irony familiar from Greek Tragedy gives the play a violent momentum, but the most extraordinary scenes take place offstage, related in vivid and tumultuous monolgues by messengers - the whirlwind revenge of Dionysus' female followers on the forces of surveilling civilisation, and the cruel enactment of the God's revenge. This idea of hearing about improbable catastrophes but not being able to see them adds ot the supernatural terror that is the play's fevered life-blood.

I am a classical history major with a focus on poetry and drama. I have actually read Bacchae in Attic Greek and I have to say that I find this translation to be one of the most fluid and natural of any that I have ever read. I would highky recommend this to anyone looking for a well-written, very gory introduction to Greek theatre. This edition is also great for using as a script, wheras many translations are good only for reading. I just put up a production using this translation and my actors were very comfortable with the wonderful language Woodruff uses.

Often funny. Often bizarre. Always deep. Peer Gynt first appears to me as this self-centered youth who cares only for himself and the satisfaction of his impulses and whims at any cost. He is the quick non-thinker, who leaves a life of relative conventionality to roam as a dissolute wanderer. He is indeed all of these things, but all the while his "self" is not "centered". At the end of his adventures as a libertine, the grey-bearded Peer Gynt is at a cross-roads, and he asks the character of the Button Moulder this question: "What, after all, is this being one's self?" The Button Moulder replies that being one's self means slaying one's Self, and furthermore "observing the Master's intentions in all things." Peer Gynt contemplates this... restraint and delayed gratification have never been manageable themes with him. In my opinion, this whole idea of the search for the "self" is what Peer Gynt is all about. At the very final crossroads he is redeemed by the undeserved forgiveness and love of Solvieg, the woman he has once abandoned... this scene being a beautiful picture of the grace and love of God that is available to the Peer Gynt in every reader.

Ibsen originally wrote Peer Gynt as a poem, and therefore we lose the Norwegian rhyme and metre in any English translation. To compensate if at all possible, I suggest reading the play while listening to the incidental music of Edvard Grieg, specifically composed to accompany the live performance of Peer Gynt. (Note: My review is based on the translation by Peter Watts).

He writes like a comedian, waving his fist at your face, all while enthronging you to read on!

A genuinely wonderful comedy, not a bit dated, & a wiser way into Ibsen than any of the later & generally rated greater problem plays. Peer is immensely charming, if reckless & stupid from time to time. He learns, some, with special assistance from Mom & a perhaps incredibly grand sweetheart. Christopher Fry's translation (Oxford) seems particularly nice.

I feel that this is a horrible translation of an otherwise great work of literature. This translator felt the need to re-arrange pieces of Aristotle's work, and completely relocate some to an "Appendix." If you find this appalling, then you need to find another translation. However, if you are fine with the butchering of another person's work, by all means, order this book.

The "Poetics" contains Aristotle's observations on what elements and characteristics comprised the best tragedies based on the ones he'd presumably seen or read. He divides "poetry," which could be defined as imitations of human experience, into tragedy, comedy, and epic, and explains the differences between these forms, although comedy is not covered in detail and tragedy gets the most treatment. For one thing, tragedy, he states, seeks to imitate the matters of superior people, while comedy seeks to imitate the matters of inferior people.

To Aristotle, the most important constituent of tragedy is plot, and successful plots require that the sequence of events be necessary (required to happen to advance the story logically and rationally) and probable (likely to happen given the circumstances). Any plot that does not feature such a necessary and probable sequence of events is deemed faulty. Reversals and recognitions are plot devices by which tragedy sways emotions, particularly those that induce "pity and fear," as is astonishment, which is the effect produced when the unexpected happens. He discusses the best kinds of tragic plots, the kinds of characters that are required, and how their fortunes should change over the course of the plot for optimum tragic effect.

With regard to poetic language or "diction," he emphasizes the importance of figurative language (metaphor, analogy) in poetry and the importance of balancing figurative with literal language. It is his opinion that metaphoric invention is a natural ability and not something that can be taught. Of all the poets Aristotle mentions who exemplify the ideals proposed in the "Poetics," Homer draws the most praise.

Malcolm Heath's introduction in the Penguin Classics edition offers some helpful and amusing clarification and commentary on the "Poetics," including a demonstration of the Aristotelian method of constructing a tragedy using the story of Oedipus as an example. A work that is scant in volume but rich in ideas, the "Poetics" demands to be read by all those interested in ancient thought on literature.

Aristotle's Poetics is hailed as the first systematic critical theory in the world. For centuries and centuries, it has inspired writers, critics, and philosophers alike. Aristotle, the father of critics, as many would exalt him, sets the rules for many key literary genres such as Tragedy, Comedy, and Epic. Through comparing and contrasting these classical genres, Aristotle convincingly argues for the highness and greatness of tragedy, as the most mimetic literary genre. Thanks to Aristotle, we are introduced to such eternally important critical terms such as mimesis(imitation), muthos(plot), anagnorisis(discovery), peripeteia(reversal),hamartia(misjudgment), catharsis(purgation). In other words, Aristotle's Poetics is the bible for critics, playwrights, and fans of tragic literature.

Hedda Gabler lives in an absolute prison. Her idylic residence is a prison, her marriage to a hopeful "ilustrious intellectual" is a prison, but above all, she lives imprisoned by herself, trapped by the social parameters that demand her to live the way she does. Hedda just can't figure out how to get out of that tedious state. She's intelligent, cold, severe; Gabler has an almost prodigious capacity to obtain all the information she inquires about the people around her; she manipulates them, she seems to get involved, but she simply tries to take advantage of the situation. Apparently, she doesn't feel much, but in reality, Hedda is in constant turmoil - her involvement has to do, almost exclusively, with what she just cannot allow herself to do.

For this woman, being able to have some sort of "power" over someone becomes the most exciting of all experiences, however - there's a point when she no longer will be able to manipulate the situation on her favor, she will realize how many forces have power over her; therefore, she will simply do the most congruent and coherent of things, as unexpected and shocking as the outcome of this play could possibly be.

Hedda Gabler is a wonderful story of a woman desperately trying to have control over her life. Married to a husband she doesn't love and pregnant with a child she doesn't want, Hedda seeks comfort in an old friend. There are enough surprizes in this play to keep it interesting throughout. Ibsen uses his brilliant writing style to capture the very essence of Hedda. I highly recommend Hedda Gabler as well as other works by Henrik Ibsen.

Hedda Gabler is a play filled with tensions and the theme of power play. Personally, I feel that Hedda Gabler is a reflection of a woman trapped in the wrong time. She is one who wants power but is denied of it due to her gender and also her status in the society and all that she needs is to just sit at home and recieve visitors. She has no aims to look forward to and I believe that it is suffocating for this woman. If she had been born in this time of the century, I believe that she would not land up in that patathic end.

I read this play first for pleasure and years later for a English composition II class several years ago and as I read some of the reviews before writing and posting this one I can see that a lot of reviewers that came before me didnt understand the play at all. This play took place over a hundred years ago. The choices for women then were limited plus Nora and Tovald lived In Norway whose laws are sgnificantly different from ours due to time and culture. Nora certainly had her faults but sometimes we are just found stuck in roles society gives us. And what would take more courage to remain in a bad role after a moment of self discovery is made or to walk out of that role and try to grow as a person and discover things about yourself on your own? Nora's choices were very limited. It was stated in the play that by walking away from the marriage she would also have to disclaim any rights to her children in Norway. She had no choice but to give up the rights to her children. Neither Nora nor Tovald knew who she was very well. Sometimes it is much better for the children if a marriage ends because it is bad and has no foundation. But Nora is a very strong and determined character. She forged a bank note to save her husbands life when no one else could. She saves and earns money to pay back the loan. But also she is trapped in the facade of her marriage with Tovald who neither respects her or knows who she really is. Lies beget lies and it is out of the lie of the marriage she is in that she is made to conceal what she did to save her husbands life and tell lies herself. Finally after her husband finds out and is so consumed with how it will look to others that he tells her that the marriage for now on will just be a cover for the benefit of the outside world but he can no longer trust her nor shall she be trusted with her children etc a self discovery moment occurs. Nora and Tovald didnt really know each other nor was the marriage real in any meaning of the word. But when something happens and he has a change of heart about Nora in the blink of an eye Nora realizes that the whole marriage was a lie and in a moment of strength and determination she decides to leave the situation to find something better and grow as a person. But here is the rub Tovald said that she can not be trusted after what she did was revealed to him and that she has lost his respect but this is just a circumstance we are made well aware of in the play . Tovald shows us that he never did trust or respect Nora in the first place so what she is rejecting is a fruadulent marriage. She refused to go on living in that lie any longer. And that decision takes more courage , strength and determination than anyone who has never been in that place will know. I say three cheers for Nora for finally waking up and doing what she had to do!

The Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen subjects his writing to the intricacies of marriage time and time again. He seems to have an omniscient power and ability to observe the sacrament itself, along with the fictional characters whom he creates to engage in these marital affairs. Such is the case with his classic drama, A Doll's House.

The play raises questions about female self-sacrifice in a male-dominated world. Nora is a "wife and child" to Torvald Helmer, and nothing more. She is his doll, a plaything on display to the world, of little intellectual value and even less utility in his life. Thus it is logical for Helmer to act so shockingly upon his discovery that Nora has managed financial affairs (typically a family responsibility reserved for the patriarch) without so much as his consent or knowledge. What, then, is the play saying about women by allowing Nora to act alone and independently, all the while allowing her to achieve little success in doing so?

Such an apparent doubt by the playwright of the abilities of women is quickly redeemed by Nora's sudden mental fruition, as though she, in the course of a day or so, accomplishes the amount of growing up to which most persons devote years and years. She has developed the intuition and motivation to leave behind everything she has lived for during she and Helmer's eight years of marriage in exchange for an independent life and the much-sought virtue of independent thought. Nora suddenly wishes to be alone in the world, responsible for only her own well-being and success or failure. She is breaking free of her crutches (Helmer, her deceased father, the ill-obtained finances from Krogstad) and is now appetent to walk tall and proud.

Through the marital madness of Helmer and Nora, Ibsen is questioning the roles of both husband and wife, and what happens when one person dominates such a relationship in a manner that is demeaning to the other, regardless of whether such degradation is carried out in a conscious, intended frame of mind. Ibsen is truly a master playwright, and his play A Doll's House is truly a masterpiece.

Henrik Ibsen in one of the most famous Norwegian writers thoughout the world. And he is known for his plays where he gives a critical view upon the society.
In this play, everything happens around the main character Nora. She is innocent, naiv and has no education at all, just like most women of her social rank had at that time. Her husband, Torvald, is well known in the city, and his wife is just a "doll". She isn't supposed to have opinions on anything, just smile and look pretty in this male dominated world.
When Torvald Helmer finds out that his wife has "stole" money from her father to be able to pay for a health insitution for him, he's shocked. Nora, not understand what she might have done wrong, was only trying to help her husband, and yet protect her dying father. She wakes up, starting feel independant, wanting to discover herself...
Ibsen was a master of showing different sides of the social levels, and giving a critic view on what he didn't like. He has done it yet again, focusing on the marriage of these two people. Supression and a male dominated world is central aspects, and also the growing feminisme.
The book is worth reading for anyone how loves to read. It is truly one of Ibsen's best plays!