John William Corrington is one of the South's finest, if largely unknown, writers. His prose is exquisite and he is a masterful storyteller. His ability to get a story underway and keep it moving equals anything we find in today's action-oriented writers.

Corrington is also worth reading because he was an awfully interesting man (and it shows in his writing). He began his career as a professor of English at LSU and soon began to make his way as a poet. He befriended Charles Bukowski and they carried on an extensive correspondence before they had a falling out that ended the relationship (Bukowski wasn't much for loyalty to friends and he was no better with Corrington than so many others). Corrington published several collections of poetry, but he eventually gave up poetry to write serious fiction. Corrington's first novel, And Wait for the Night (set in the closing days of the Civil War and the early days of reconstruction) is a beautiful, if painful, story and marked Corrington's skill and craft as a writer. While Corrington's novels are all worth reading, in particular And Wait for the Night and a later novel, The Bombbardier, it is in his short fiction that Corrington reveals his greatness.

Corrington took up screenwriting (for Roger Corman) and gave up his academic position. At age 40 he took up the study of law and practiced law in New Orleans for three years. After his first exposure to law, Corrington began to feature lawyers and judges in his fiction. There are six (quite long) short stories in The Collected Short Stories of John William Corrington which are law-related and they are, in my opinion, some of his strongest writing. A reading of any one of these legal stories is enough to suggest that Corrington was a great master and deserves far more attention that he has received to date. In my view, Corrington produced in these law-oriented short stories, and in two novellas collected in All My Trials (University of Arkansas Press, 1987) some of the best legal fiction of the 20th century.

Corrington's work and life are more fully explored in two recent symposium issues of the Legal Studies Forum (Volume 26, 2002).

Corrington is a fine writer and I highly recommend his work.

This book chronicles the 1964 Broadway production of Hamlet starring Richard Burton and directed by Sir John Gielgud. The author played Guildenstern in the production.

Frank Rich (for 10 years the Drama Critic at the New York Times) called this his favorite book on an actor's perspective on mounting a play.

I agree with Mr. Rich on this one. The only reason I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 stars was to avoid overdoing my enthusiasm. (I'm worried people will notice that I am the author's son. Shush, don't tell anyone.)

It got rave reviews at the time it came out and has pleased readers for over 30 years. It is both instructive and hilariously funny.

Please request it at book stores, on line and write to Proscenium Publishing requesting another release.

Thank you

Adam Redfield

I can do nothing more than echo the praise of the other reviewers. This very personal account of the rehearsal process and out-of-town tryout of the 1964 Broadway production of "Hamlet" that starred Richard Burton and was directed by John Gielgud is truly fascinating. William Redfield was a superb actor who could also write well, even though there are a handful of passages that perhaps should have been edited out.

I don't know of any book that gives you a better feeling of what it's like to be in rehearsal and trying to piece together a performance as everyone around you is trying to do the same. Redfield's account of a group of major actors--apart from Redfield and Burton, the cast included Alfred Drake, Hume Cronyn, Eileen Herlie, John Cullum, George Rose, George Voskovec, and Barnard Hughes--working under a director of undoubted genius who is somehow not really helping anyone much definitely makes you feel what it must have been like to be part of that.

If you're an actor, a director, or just love theatre, you will probably find this book fascinating.

I read this book in the La Salle College library in 1965 or 1966, when I was supposed to be in class. I made the right choice. The memory of the description of Richard Burton being booed still brings a smile to my face. Mr. Redfield's witt is a source of constant pleasure throughout. I fondly remember William Redfield as a superbly entertaining guest on many talk shows, during that golden era of talk shows that was the 1960's.

Mill has to be among the most egotistical and arrogant of philosophers. That is saying quite a bit.

"On Liberty" shows this very well. In this little tract, he is hailed as focusing on the individual and extolling freedom, etc. In fact, however, it is a rather good reflection of his dim view of the majority of humanity as "mediocre" (which may or may not be accurate), and his very self-serving view of eccentricity. Why is this so? Quite simply, this can be seen by his vaunted "harm principle." It seems great on the surface, and hard to argue that it would limit "good" eccentricity. But this is not the case. If one wishes to stretch what is considered "harm," and (in following from the "Considerations on Representative Government") what is considered "self-protection," one would run against Mill's ideology, and one can guess that this protector of liberty would then be more than willing to come down on this "dangerous" eccentric. In the end, it turns out that Mill is very supportive of eccentricity....as long as it is the eccentricity of John Stuart Mill. Moreover, his system seems like it would only work if it became what he was arguing against: he wants to liberate (certain) people from the bonds of social prejudice. Yet, in order to free people from the intoleration of social opinion, tolerance must become the social opinion, which would be just as biased and intolerant as the previous variety. Perhaps this is where we have the origin of our modern "tolerance of all, except the 'intolerant.'"

For a man hailed so much for his writings, a deeper reading reveals a rather elitist and self-centered ideology. Quite a disappointment.

You can read Rand, Emerson and Hayek. You can even marvel at the orations of Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. There is still not a single book that defends individual liberty and individual spirit as well as J.S. Mill's "On Liberty."

First, it must be said; If we are judging by original philosophical arguments, Mill is not much. His "Utilitarianism" (on which much of "On Liberty" was built) has been attacked from many angles. His "Representative Government" is better replaced by Locke's "Second Treatise" or (if you've time to kill), Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws." I still give this five stars though because "On Liberty" is just that good. I've already read it 5 times in '02!

What makes it so gosh-durn tasty is that it is the first book- to my knowledge- to defend individual liberty without stooping to the 'natural rights' or 'social contract' balderdash. Liberty, Mill argues, is good for a few reasons. First, it maximizes debate which helps avoid the stifler of all societies, dogmatism. It is also the best way not to screw things up, meaning, that people know their interests better than others. As the reviewer below points out, Mill does disdain majority rule though it's not out of contempt for the masses (Mill is clear this is not what he means.) Rather, his view is that majority rule leads to tyranny just as fast as despotic rule. What it boils down to is that Mill defends democracy, liberty, skepticism and tradition (yes..simultaneously) as long as each AVOIDS dogmatic thinking and operates while keeping the individual sacrosanct. Ya know..come to think of it...Bush, Gore, Dashcale, Gephardt, Hatch, Lott and the entire beltway clan might benefit from this read. I wonder if they can understand such big thoughts?! Just kidding!! (No, I'm not!) ;-/