The writing is good if you take it in short small segments, but I had a hard time getting the flow of the book. Also he seemed to spend time on people who weren't the "young war correspondents" and he seemed to spend time on things that happened outside the early Vietnam timeframe. [...]

"Once Upon a Distant War," is a highly readable history of the various journalists covering America's involvement in the early years (1961-63) of Vietnam. Prochnau has produced an intriguing popular history that has some flaws, but on the whole is quite a good book.

The strength of the book is the fact that the material itself is so fascinating. Saigon, circa 1963, was an extremely exciting place for a foreign journalist. America had begun a huge build-up of forces in South Vietnam, the Diem regime was at its most oppressive, and the Vietcong were making huge gains in the rural countryside. Into this mix were thrown men like David Halberstam, Neil Sheehan, Peter Arnett, and Malcolm Brown: relatively young, idealistic reporters who were determined to get the real story. But the US officials in South Vietnam were less than willing to assist the "green" correspondents, who they claimed were not "on the team." Lied to and rebuffed by the official channels, the reporters sought out contacts in the middle of the action: South Vietnamese officers and American field advisors like John Paul Vann who were willing to tell the ugly truth. The result was a constant battle between the Saigon correspondents and the Kennedy administration, other journalists, and even their own publishers. The only people who hated the journalists more were President Diem, his brother Nhu, and most vociferously, South Vietnam's First Lady, Madame Nhu. For two years the correspondents fought for every story and risked everything, including their lives, to get what they believed was the truth about Vietnam out to the American public.

Prochnau is clearly in awe of his protagonists, but I think he still manages to give a fair account. The correspondents are not perfect: Sheehan goofs big time in his early account of My Tho, inflating the body count from 15 to 200. Halberstam was hugely influential, but as Prochnau makes clear, he was also incorrigible, uncompromising, and had a mean temper. One of the most important points that Prochnau stresses is that these men were not anti-war (certainly not at this early stage). Men like Halberstam were ardently anti-communist, and were only angry because the government was lying about a cause that mattered so much. But even the reporters' ostensible adversaries, such as Ambassador Nolting, are given full and fair treatment. (General Harkins is the one exception, but I've never read anything that suggested he was other than incompetent, blind optimist.) In addition to these detailed characterizations, Prochnau adds a wealth of anecdotes that give the book both humor and authenticity. Particularly interesting were the stories of Marguerite Higgins and her Machiavellian ways ("innocent as a cobra"), Sheehan's obsessive 16 year struggle to write "A Bright Shining Lie," and Halberstam mouthing off to high government officials ("Bull..., General! Why are you standing here telling our friend Clurman this bull...?").

My complaints are few. The first is about Prochnau's style: he is eminently readable and well suited for the material, but sometimes his tone becomes so informal it borders on cheesy ("Vietnam was not simply exotic. It was erotic. And narcotic.") My second complaint is that Prochnau glosses over many aspects of the war and does not give a very complete picture of the complex military situation. But his story is about the journalists, so maybe this is an unfair criticism. Then let me leave it as a caveat: do not read this book to gain an in-depth understanding of the political-military situation in South Vietnam, read it to learn about the tribulations of the journalists. In some ways, this book is better suited for people who already understand the history of the era and will not be confused by Prochnau's overly-simplistic (albeit justifiably so) account of the war. That said, this is still quite an entertaining look at some very interesting characters at a crucial juncture in modern American history.

Not long after I finished the book, I read that Jerry Bruckheimer ("Armageddon" and all those big-bucks Hollywood action thrillers) is planning a major movie on it. Not surprising. Prochnau's "Once Upon a Distant War" reads like an adventure novel: a half dozen young war correspondents fighting everybody -- the U.S. govt, the South Vietnamese govt, their own colleagues in the media, even their bosses -- to get the early Vietnam story to the public. It's also first-rate history. You won't learn more about how we got into the mess in Vietnam -- and learn it with such page-turning narrative drama -- anywhere else. I don't know how I missed this the first time around. It's one of the best war books I've read and the best ever about reporters. Don't wait for the movie.

The HarperCollins Bible Commentary, published in 2000, is a good volume to have sitting on one's shelf. So far as one-volume commentaries are concerned, this one is accessible, authoritative, and well conceived and written. 'The Commentary covers all of the Hebrew Bible, as well as the books of the Apocrypha and those of the New Testament, and thus addresses the biblical canons of Judaism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Its innovative format covers the books of the Bible in three ways.'

These three ways include general essays that set context (literary, historical, sociological, etc.), major sections of the Bible, and individual commentaries on each book.

This book is the product of a cooperative effort between HarperCollins Publishers (a major publisher in the field of biblical and religious material, both scholarly and popular) and the Society of Biblical Literature (the major academic group of biblical scholars, of which I am a member). The range of contributors is international in scope, as well as incorporating the views of scholars and researchers from many faith traditions and points of view regarding the biblical text.

The general editor is James L. Mays, professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia. Associate editors include Joseph Blenkinsopp, Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Jon D. Levenson, Wayne A. Meeks, Carol A. Newsom, David L. Petersen, and Gene M. Tucker - a list of names second to none in the field of biblical studies, and a testament to the authoritative nature of this book, as well as its depth and accessibility.

'The positions and approaches presented in this volume represent the mainstream of scholarship typical of the Society of Biblical Literature; eccentric and improbable positions are avoided. The individual commentaries and articles, however, do express the learning and judgment of their authors as scholars. As a result, the volume includes a rich diversity of biblical scholarship. Those who use this Commentary encounter the variety that characterizes the continuing work of scholarship on the Bible rather than the single approach of one school of interpretation.'

This is meant to be a companion to the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, a book widely used as in homes, libraries, churches and classrooms for background material and ready reference. I had always considered the Dictionary to be a companion volume to the HarperCollins Study Bible, one of the more authoritative and annotated volumes of the New Revised Standard Version around (because Oxford University Press dragged its heels at getting the NRSV out in their version, HarperCollins has managed to steal Oxford's old pre-eminence). This Commentary is designed to be a companion volume to any English Bible, not just the HarperCollins versions, and not just the NRSV.

The introductory essay talks about the Bible as a whole, its history and development, with particular attention given to the stages of writing and development. For those studious enough to have compared Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Jewish Bibles, one finds many things that are different - the order of the Old Testament, for instance, is not the order of the Hebrew Bible, hence it is inaccurate to call the Old Testament the Hebrew Bible, and vice versa. The ordering makes a difference. Also, the apocryphal books (and sections in canonical books) have an ambiguous relationship both with the Jewish and Christian canons. To this discussion, Fred Craddock (the author of the introduction) concludes that the canon serves a purpose, whichever canon one might be speaking of.

'The community of faith embracing the canon has said yes to certain books and no to others. Individual preferences among believers has not altered that fact. ... Each community in each generation does not create its own Bible. The church exists in time and over time with traditions and memories received and passed along. The closing of the canon ensures that the process will not cease and that no one will chop down the family tree, no matter how strange the birds nesting in its branches.' After illuminating essays, the commentary is arranged in general order by broad section: Biblical History (those books that give a narrative historical tone, Genesis - Chronicles); Psalms and Wisdom (included in this are the books of Job and Song of Songs); the Prophetic Works (the major and minor prophets); the Apocrypha (Catholic and Orthodox); New Testament Narratives (gospels and Acts); and Books in the Form of Letters.

My general practice is to disapprove of reliance on one commentary only. For depth and breadth of interpretation, one really needs to consult many different treatments of texts. However, for many, the limitations of time and finances prevent having a number of separate commentaries on individual biblical books, much less a range of commentaries on each one. I think that the HarperCollins Bible Commentary will be to those who are looking for insight and assistance in interpretation but haven't the resources for research a worthwhile volume as companion to their Bible.

I have loads of Bible commentaries, and this one is absolutely fantastic, and totally worth the price. It is different from many commentaries in its approach, in that the various authors focus almost exclusively on the texts as literature, an approach which, particularly in the Old Testament, yields hundreds of interesting and enlightening insights which just are not present in others, and frankly, which never would occur to you or me otherwise. I used it as a resource while teaching an Old Testament class last year and I quickly came to regard it as indispensable. It does not delve into historical or contextual issues much (for that, you should get the sister volume, the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary, which is also amazing, or perhaps the IVP Bible Background Commentary by Craig S. Keener), but is fantastic in its own unique way.

Some Christians are reluctant to purchase commentaries that are not written explicity from a "faith-perspective", but I have to say that although this is a scholarly work, I do not regard it as incompatible at all with a devout faith in the inspired nature of the writings discussed. It is true that the writers use the NRSV translation for their Biblical text and this is usually a big turn off for some folks, but if you can overlook that, you'll get a lot out of it. For the devout student looking to assemble a great resource library, this book might be coupled with a more theological, faith-based commentary (the AMG Concise Bible Commentary by Don Fleming is an excellent choice), and of course the HC Bible Dictionary I mentioned above. And while I'm on the resource library thing, I might as well also recommend that serious Bible students check out the English Standard Version translation of the Bible.

Anyway, the HC Bible Commentary is an invaluable, thoughtful, and penetrating analysis of The Bible. You'll never read The Bible the same way again.

My somewhat negative comments about an earlier version are attached to this revised version. I would like to clarify my comments. This 2000 version is a significant rewrite of the 1988 Harper's Bible Commentary, also edited by James Mays. The 1988 version is listed as out of print, but I saw it in a bookstore today. Although the two differ in their detailed commentaries, they follow the same basic approach with the same general articles.

My earlier comments were about a 1962 version published as Harper's Bible Commentary, edited by William Neil. It is considerably shorter (about 500+ pages) and contains no general articles or other supporting materials. It was re-published in 1997 as "Pocket Bible Commentary." I may have confused this version with the 1988 version when I wrote my comments.

I did not mean to imply that I thought the current version was only 2 stars in value.

Bible users need a good commentary, but there not many single-volume commentaries in a reasonable price range that are written for the non-scholar. Combined with the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, most users should find this book useful in expanding their understanding of the Bible.

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.

A Crazy Scheme?

The Applause First Folio of Shakespeare should not be confused with a facsimile of the 1623 folio published by Applause in the 1990's. In the earlier facsmile, Applause used the images from
the Norton Facsimile without permission. W. W. Norton sued, and Applause withdrew the facsimile. In 2001 Applause published another edition of the first folio, this one being in modern
type. It's not specifically a facsimile edition, but it does present the Shakespeare's plays in the order they were presented in the 1623 folio. Though this edition is in modern type the spelling and punctuation of the first folio have been for the most part retained.

In his acknowlegements Freeman thanks his publisher for persisting with such a crazy scheme. Crazy? Perhaps. Audacious? Certainly. You see, Freeman is an actor, not a textual scholar and he rejects the work of textual scholars. For example, he proposes that the punctuation marks of the folio are rhetorical signals. They are the cues for the actors. This controversial proposition has been roundly criticized by many scholars, but Freeman is undaunted. I applaud his audacity. The great value of this edition is that it retains so much of the spelling and punctuation of the 1623 folio. Finally we have an original spelling edition of most of Shakespeare's plays in print.

It is important to note that this is not a complete edition of Shakespeare's writings. The narrative poems, the sonnets, the occasional poems, "Pericles," and "Two Noble Kinsmen" are not included.

It should be stated that this edition does not in every instance reproduce the spelling of the 1623 folio. Freeman's treatment of abbrivations is unsatisfactory. For example it was common practice in the 17th century to represent certain words by a special kind of abbrivation. On page lviii Freeman explains that "y" with an umlaut was usually short hand for "you," "thee," "thou," "thy," "thine," or "yours." The 1623 folio usually spells these abbrivations differently from the way Freeman describes it. The word "thou" could be represented by the letter "y" with the superscript "u" directly on top of it. The word "that" could be written with the letter "y" with the superscript "t" directly over it. The word "the" could be written with the letter "y" with the superscript "e" directly over it and so on. In Freeman's edition all the superscript letters are replaced by umlauts, so there is no way of telling what the superscript letter was, and hence no way of knowing what the word is. So when you come across the line "Thou do'st then wrong me, as (y/with umlaut) slaughterer doth" (page 441, col. 2, line 1) are you supposed to read:

"Thou do'st then wrong me, as thou slaughterer doth," or
"Thou do'st then wrong me, as thee slaughterer doth," or
"Thou do'st then wrong me, as that slaughterer doth"?

You'll have to go to a facsimile edition to find out that that the third line is the correct reading. It is also interesting to note that the word "that" doesn't appear in Freeman's list of what "y with umlaut" could stand for.

The edition should be used with caution.

If you are interested in a simple read of the Bard, any edition will do. But if you want to know what Shakespeare wanted from his actors - how he imagined (I imagine) his lines being spoken - this is the edition for you. The line endings in this edition are different from those in most editions and clearly change the meaning of the text. Captializations and punctuations are clear guides to speech. While this edition is not for everyone, anyone interested in acting Shakespeare, whether on stage or in the privacy of home, must have this edition.

This is the best edition of Shakespeare's works FOR THE ACTOR OR PERFORMANCE. Period.

Shakespeare wrote before spelling and punctuation were standardized. If he wrote "Meee" he wrote it so the actor would say it that way - think musical scores. These words are meant to be spoken out loud, and Neil Freeman brings you the Folio text so you can see Shakespeare instructions on how to speak them. A large percentage of what you see in a normal edition of Shakespeare is actually a product of an editorial decision made by some editor since Shakespeare wrote. In other words: people who think their poetic sensability is better than Shakespeare's. Neil Freeman, a founding member of the acclaimed Shakespeare & Company theater in Massachusetts creates what is in essence a musical score for the actor: he uses the original Shakespeare Folio texts, spelling, punctuation, etc., but in modern typeface (so you don't have trouble reading the f's and s's and things). His notes (which are not very helpful if you're writing at thesis, but are invaluable if you're performing, directing, etc.) are also very powerful.

FOR SHAKESPEARE IN PERFORMANCE, YOU CANNOT BEAT THIS TEXT.

SK

This book is a study guide to accompany the textbook, Biology -- ISBN 0805330445. The study guide offers more in depth questions than the book and is meant to prepare you for tests and test your knowledge over the material you've read in the book. I like most study guides in general, so I decided to get this one. It definitely helped me, I would recommend it to someone who is willing to take the time to use it.

This is the best work of Shakespeare that I have read. It contains jems of wisdom, such as the fall of Cardinal Wolsey, or the sympathetic speaches of Queen Catherine. These are also events of history, not far removed from Shakespeare's own times; tragic events which ultimately reshaped the world we live in.

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.)

With its scenes of war and mobs, CORIOLANUS is a work best expirienced on the stage, of course, being one of his least popular plays, it doesn't get produced too often.

The only killing Coriolanus does is on the battle field, but he still comes off as a much less likable character than the murdering Hamlet or Macbeth because Coriolanus spends much of the play berating the citizens of Rome. CORIOLANUS has often been called Shakespeare's manifesto against democracy because of this, but the play is much more complex than that. Yes, it's a play about the fickleness of the masses, but it's also about leaders who don't perform their responsibilities either.

The play is much more political than emotional, and therefore not one I'll return to often, but its political statements are as timely today as they were 400 years ago, if not moreso.

I never understood why this play is so unpopular. Coriolanus is a very striking figure. He is a brave and valiant soldier. Yet, he has contempt for the people he protects. In all honesty this is very common. Shakespeare never allows the intensity of this play to drop for a moment. At first Coriolanus fights to the extreme for Rome. Then he fights to the extreme against Rome. His reconciliation with his former enemy Aufidius in 4.5 is a very memorable scene. Only when he is confronted by his mother, wife, and son does he go through a crisis of conscience. It is interesting that because he begins to see the world in terms other than himself, his downfall becomes inevitable. To be sure, this play is not a masterpiece like "Julius Caesar," "Hamlet," "King Lear," or "Richard III." But it is A LOT BETTER than some of his popular plays like "Othello" or "Romeo and Juliet." I highly suggest it!

This inexpensive volume is a fine edition with very readable text, good notes, and a nice introduction. Coriolanus is not one of Shakespeare's most popular plays, though it has its partisans. As with several of Shakespeare's best plays, it is an attempt to combine an investigation of the nature of power with a psychological portrait. The nature of power or kingship was one of Shakespeare's great themes, featured in some of the great tragedies like MacBeth or Lear, and this theme runs through many of his history plays. In Coriolanus, however, this theme is handled less well. It is interesting to speculate why Shakespeare, who dealt with this theme so well in many plays, doesn't do such a good job in Coriolanus. The action in Coriolanus is set in a republic, not a monarchy. The structure of republican politics is not one Shakespeare would have known well and the problems of politics and authority in a republican are different than those of a monarchy. Particularly for modern audiences, whose intrinsic understanding of republican politics is much greater than Shakespeare's, the clumsy handling of the tension between the aristocratic Coriolanus and the plebes rings false. In addition, the psychological portrait of Coriolanus is not nearly as rich as Shakespeare's analysis of quite a few of his other protagonists. Much of the language in Coriolanus is powerful but it lacks the dramatic movement and insight of his best work.

I found Strauss and Howe's hypothesis of a four-stroke generational cycle fascinating, and it does have a lot to say about groups behavior, especially how society treats its members of different ages at different points in time. It also suggests points of departure for other historical studies, like why bebop, modern science fiction, and slapstick Hollywood cartoons developed at about the same time. (A personal note; many of my favorite classical composers were born between 1860 and 1885, which nearly coincides with Strauss and Howe's "Missionary" generation.) Finally, the book has a lot to suggest about the nature of historical interpretation--how similar events occuring at different times might inspire very different reactions. The idea becomes problematic when the writers extrapolate from the behavior of groups to the behavior of individuals. First of all, some of their examples don't fit with the generations they cite. (Grace Slick, for example, was actually born in 1941, putting her in the "Silent" generation instead of the "Baby Boom".) Secondly, the profiles Strauss and Howe construct for "typical" members of particular generations are so general, it's easy to find some things descriptive of oneself and the people one knows. Because human beings tend to want to impose patterns on behavior where none may exist, these generational profiles don't necessarily have any more validity than, say, horoscopes. Another problem is that the hypothesis is only extended to the USA. While the appendix has some speculations on how the four-stroke cycle might work elsewhere, the writers don't provide the support for it that they do for this country. This leads one to wonder if the cycle applies outside the USA at all. Then too, in a time when nations interact more than ever, how societies whose generational cycles are out of sync affect one another? Again, there are some good ideas in this book, but readers should approach it with some skepticism.

A friend of mine lent me this book a few weeks ago. Skeptical about any book purporting to predict the future, I immediately read their predictions section - after all, the book was published ten years ago. To my surprise, I found that their predictions for 1992-2002 were largely correct! So I started again, at the beginning. The book is a work of genius.

The central tenet of this book is that generations don't age the same way, and when looking at generations through history, the correct way to look at them is by cohort - that is, by groups with similar birth years - rather than by age. In other words, if you're born in 1950 and grow up in the '60s and '70s, you'll be different at age 50 than you will if you're born in 1970 and grow up in the '80s and '90s. Strauss and Howe then trace a number of generational cohorts through American History, and find evidence of a cycle of generational types - usually a four part cycle, but in one case a three part cycle. For example, they liken Gen X (whom they call "13ers"), born in 1961-1980, to the "Lost" generation born in the late 1800s.

As a trailing edge boomer, born in 1960, I was not surprised to find that the authors, both boomers, correctly identify the defining characteristics of my generation - characteristics that I happen to dislike, as I'm in the minority that don't fit the mold that well, but that I have to acknowledge as accurate for the majority. On the other hand, the description of the Silent generation, to which my parents belong, was an eye opener - it explained well why my fathers views of what different stages in a man's life are like seemed so alien to me. The description of Gen X was likewise enlightening, both in terms of explaining some of my previous business interactions with Gen Xers (they always seem so surprised when someone actually gives them a break - turns out it's because they hardly ever get breaks) and helped me understand and interact much better with one particular Gen X who is very important to me - my wife. The description of the Millenials seems to be accurate so far for undergraduates I work with.

Two caveats when reading this book - first, remember it's American history, and the conclusions don't apply to those born overseas; second, the authors seem to emphasize the optimistic view of the future, for example focusing on the possibility that the current cycle will be a triumphant four part cycle, rather than an agonizing three part cycle as the Civil War cycle was.

At any rate, I'm now buying my own copy. I just wish I could find a hardcover, but hopefully it will still be in print when the paperback I'm buying wears out from repeated reference in a few years.

Authors Neil Howe and William Strauss explore the history of American generation more in depth than in their other book The Fourth Turning. Generations is most valuable for giving the reader insight into the mind set and behavior of different generations and how they react to one another. It gives you a greater understanding of people, generations, and how they affect history. Strauss and Howe take a diplomatic approach in their evaluation of different generations stating that they have their strengths and weaknesses and hence I came up with the above title for the review to describe the book.

A basic explanation of their theory is that history moves by seasons from spring to winter. In spring, there is a civilizational high of good behavior, peace, and prosperity but also stultifying conformity and spiritual deadness. In summer, there is a consciousness revolution, in which the younger generation rebels against their elders and their institutions. In fall, there is an unraveling in which people turn inwards and focus on their private satisfactions and let public institutions and the community values fall into neglect. In winter, there is a crisis of usually war or economic depression that forces everyone to become more communal and morally strict again.

The generations are of 4 types. A prophet generation is born in a civilization high of springtime. They are inwardly focused on spiritual values. They rebel in youth, but become morally authoritarian in old age during a crisis. A nomad generation is born in a summer of consciousness revolution and aren't raised very well since their elder parents are more focused on themselves than their children. This generation is considered a lost or bad generation in which crime and immorality increase with its rising. A hero generation is born in the fall of an unraveling; they become the heroes during a crisis when they are young adults. An artist generation is born during a crisis; they are a meek and mild generation who are sensitive to other's needs and are indecisive as leaders.

When reading the book I couldn't help noting that a prophet generation often generates an unneeded crisis to solve. President George W. Bush is of a prophet generation and I kept thinking of him as a prime example of that, making Saddam Hussein to be bigger threat than he really is. I also made judgements against the artist's generations emphasis of plurality and diversity and the expense of cultural cohesion. I made judgements against the hero generation for hogging most of the public spending on themselves, letting young people fend for themselves. I made judgements against my own nomad generations for their excessive love of tasteless entertainment and general down in the dumps depression and negativity.

It was also interesting to note that during civilizational crisis and high, society is generally anti-female and pro-male in its outlook. In a consciousness revolution and an unraveling, it is general pro-female and anti-male. Depending on the times, people will general espouse philosophies that celebrate or denigrate either sex.

The current generations now living in large numbers are the G.I. elders who are heroes passing on, the Artistic Silent generation who are in elderhood, the Prophetic Baby Boomers who are entering elderhood, The Nomadic Gen Xer's who are beginning to enter middle-age, and Heroic Millennials who are beginning to move into rising adulthood. A new artistic/compromiser generation will eventually replace Millennials in the youth category.

A heroic generation usually values conformity over individualism and they tend to be rationalistic and secular. They build public institutions and generally are young adults during a prosperous, optimistic age. An Artist generation is known for its high educational level and professional expertise. A Prophet genereration is known for its focus on inward idealistic spiritual values and its weakening educational levels. A Nomad generation is known as pragmatic, cynical, unbelieving, pessimistic and poorly educated generation who are middle-aged technical managers of a crisis era. They are wild as kids and young adults, but cautious and reactionary as older people. Each generation rebels against the values of the others, which has a tendency to balance out any excesses given to any one value.

The authors give famous examples of different generational types, some of which fit the type while others don't. The ones that don't are interesting to note: Norman Rockwell, that creator of wholesome Americana art was from the bad Lost generation. He seems more like Hero generational type. Andrew Jackson, that Southern hell-raiser who chased a rival with a knife in the days of his youth was of the supposedly meek and mild Artist/Compromiser generation. He seems more like a Bad/ Nomadic generational type.