"interstices" is another oft-repeated word. I found this book's main characters so annoying about midway through the book; people do things that make no sense, or an aspect of their chacter that would cause them to behave this way is missing. The ending is weird both in its brevity and occurance, and the book also feel dated, from the 1980's - who wants to relive the 80's in upper-class suburbia?

I'm not very enthusiastic about this book although I finished it. The story had some strange and disturbing twists, but never really gripped this reader. It reminded me in some ways of Bonfire of the Vanities--big shot gets in lots of trouble with the law--but with a very different kind of ending. Basically though the characters seemed humorless and drab. They didn't seem to be drawn from life (unless perhaps your life is Princeton where I believe Oates is a faculty member). In the dialogue the characters kept saying things like "Why on earth did you...?" and "What earthly reason was there for...?" The earth was invoked in this way at least forty times. I guess I never figured out what on earth the author was trying to get across except that even apparently happy and successful lives can be pretty aimless and depressing--like this book. If that turns you on, by all means read it.

This saga of successful lives torn apart by murder, Oates's 19th novel, appeals to the more sophisticated, mature reader. Ian and Cynthia McCullough, apparently happily married for 26 years, living interesting but average lives (Ian is a demographic expert working in social science research and Glynnis is a food writer working on a cookbook tentatively titled "American Appetites") are suddenly involved in a drunken brawl. Glynnis falls through a window and dies. Ian is charged with murder, goes to trial.

This story, in the hands of one of America's most skillful writers, turns out to be an expose of evidence against American appetites for food, wine, drink, power and sex. This is superb fiction that works on several levels, leaving the thoughtful reader with a great deal to think about.

The story line was simple, a murder, children trying to find out who murdered their father and a mother trying to keep everything a secret.

This family was so confused it would take a genius to figure out what was going on. The sister was crazy, she disgusted me in so many ways. She had strange, not every day, thoughts about every day things. The brother didn't know if he was straight ot gay. The mother was a what I considered a typical high class prostitute. The father you're not sure about, other people telling his story. The whole family was a little strange.

There was so a little too much back tracking in the book. As you read you traveled through too many avenues in the lives of these people. Too many times she went back in time and then jumped right back to the now, all on the same page. By the time you got one chapter figured out, you were once again confused about who was speaking or being spoke about in the next chapter (until about half way through it). I never knew from one chapter to the next what generation I was going to be in.

I judged this book by it's title, I had hoped for more. I would not recommened this book.

Maurice Halleck, direct descendent of 1850's anti-slavery martyr John Brown, is accused of wrongdoing and then found dead w/ a suicide note. His kids suspect foul play involving their mother and her lover. This unusually involving book by Oates uses family, politics, and history to weave a tale of justice against those in power.

This story of the American political scene is one of loyalty and betrayal, revenge and forgiveness. It's the old two-men-in- love-with-one-woman tale but this time with a twist: save a life and share a love.

When Maurice Halleck dies in disgrace his children vow to kill his betrayers -- their mother and her lover. It's a thriller that takes a good, hard look at the alienation of youth.

A few of these stories were memorable, but last year's edition was better and so is Houghton Mifflin's "Best American Short Stories 2002," which shares three of the stories. Don't worry that one of the judges edits the periodical that published the winning story -- it was one of the few intense stories in this book. Most of the stories are just character and setting studies by authors who added notes like, "I wrote the beginning, and then I didn't know where to go with the story." Apparently, the judges like to read about different people and places, but I don't. I like memorable stories that aren't filled with description, like the best works of O. Henry, which were not character sketches. Irony, still common in short fiction, is almost absent from this anthology.

I've picked up the last few years worth of the Prize Stories: The O. Henry Awards, and usually I'm not disappointed, but this year I was. I've read most of volumes Dark has edited, and usually I agree with him on most if not all the stories, but I found this year's selection to be different. There are some good stories in the volume, but most of the stories are mediocre, dull, or just plain bad. But one bad volume doesn't spoil it for me. I still eagerly wait for next year's selection.

According to the editor of PRIZE STORIES 2002: THE O. HENRY AWARDS, thousands of short stories from hundreds of magazines were painstakingly reviewed in an effort to compile an anthology of the year's best in stort story fiction. This year twenty stories made the list while three of them were voted the best by the jurors Dave Eggers, Joyce Carol Oates and Colson Whitehead. I personally do not agree with the juror's selection of the top short stories, which is a clear indication of how subjectivity is involved in the process of judging literature. What is enjoyable to one person certainly might not be for another. I've been reading this analogy periodically during the past couple of weeks and I finished with mixed feeling. Some stories intrigued me while others were downright uncaptivating. In addition, a couple were so utterly strange that they could be episodes of the twilight zone!

Out of this collection my favorite short story was A.M. Homes' "Do Not Disturb", which is a tale of a husband trying his best to emotionally deal with his bitter terminally ill wife as their marriage falls apart. I also enjoyed Anthony Doerr's "The Hunter's Wife" about how a husband deals with the supernatural powers of his wife in Montana. The reason why I didn't give this book five stars is because I believe that there are more losers than winners in this collection. But don't just take my word for it. Remember that the appreciation of literature is subjective. You just may love it!

I was tricked into reading this book due to it being a well known classic and from a desire to read a good romantic story which I thought it would be. Well, um, IT'S NOT.

I like to read books that draw me right into the story and then a couple of hours later you notice you are turning page 250 when the last you recall touching was page 97. This book was not like that at all. Unfortunately, I was always conscious that I was reading print from a page but kept reminding myself that a book this famous had to get good sooner or later. Far from not being able to put it down, I found myself often looking to see what page I was on and if I had read my quota for the night. It never did get good and when I had finished the last sentence I felt frustrated and cheated.

I worried that my lack of appreciation for this classic must be due to my inferior intellect and that I must after all be just some obtuse hill-billy. Thankfully I found that several people who had offered their reviews here shared my opinions for this book and I was quite relieved that I was not alone in my reaction.

For me, Lawrence's supremely descriptive, possibly brilliant (although I really wouldn't know) and flowery writing is all for not because of selfish, unlikeable and unbelieveable characters who don't really do anything. At the very end, the only care I had for anyone in the book was poor little Winifred. I hope she was alright.

In conclusion may I suggest that you pass on Women in Love and read instead Far From the Madding Crowd by Thomas Hardy. It is so much more a wonderful book about believable, likeable, women in love.

Women In Love written by D.H. Lawrence is not as explicit as his other novels, and instead of concentrating on sexual content, Lawrence chose to depict the relationships between two sisters and their boyfriends. D.H. Lawrence goes deep into the minds of human beings and reveals the real secrets of emotions, feelings, and thoughts that people usually hide inside. Statements such as "The Dead Should Bury the Dead" illustrate the content of living and dying, which the book frequently discusses. The book is difficult and long to read, but it opens up the reader's mind and forces the reader to reavaluate the content of his or her relationship with other people.

First of all, I have to own you up that reading Women in Love was one of the best experiences on books that I ever had. I know it's not Lawurence's masterpiece, but I touched me very deep. Everthing seems to wok in this book, from the characters to their enviroment.

It seems to me that Lawrence took daily events and showed them the way they are: unglamourised. He showed me what love and support seem to be. It's not about being happy all the time or that kind of love that happens only in movies. The book deals with the ordinary love, the one that normal human beings have the chance to face.

Following the experience of both couples made me see how different love can be and it is the still the same. I could perfectly understand all the worries and anxiets Gudrun had. And I think Gerald and she made quite a couple! Yet Birkin and Ursula look very nice together since the begin. Their love is not as 'wild' as the other couple's, but it is very strong indeed.

When the book was over I got down because I had to let them go. Following the lives of such people for a few days made quite an impression on me. Even though they may not be XXI century people like us, they have the same essence we do.

All in all, I know this review may read very emotive and personal, but this is a book that I couldn't apart in other to write about

While I ADORE Joyce Carol Oates and read her works faithfully and recommend them to my gifted English students routinely, this book felt like a modern rewrite of another. The female leading character was not as strong as she should have been even though she is a reflection of another time and attitude. She feigns strength but never pursues what is right for her inner core of self and honesty. She seemed to be transported from Gone With the Wind as part of a sci-fi quirk. The characters are, nonetheless, compelling and interesting. Oates characterizations alone will make the reader persist through the pages to follow the main character's decisions, satisfying or not.

I haven't read every Joyce Carol Oates novel, only a few of the 30 odd ones she has written. Based on what I have read, and especially this book, I feel it is a crime that Oates has yet to win literature's higest honor.

I read this book several years back and recently returned to it as part of a personal study of different literary styles. "Because It Is Bitter" is one of my five favorite novels. Oates's skill at putting herself in the shoes of virtually every type of character imaginable is simply astonishing. After reading this book I couldn't believe that she has also inhabited the head of an African American male like me. And she surely understands all of the ramifications of this nation's racial sickness.

Kudos to Oates, from one author (of nonfiction) to another, for this extremely brave and deeply moving book.

This gripping, powerful novel is one of the best Joyce Carol Oates has written -- and that's saying a lot, since she has published about 30 novels, some of them as good as anything by an American in the last fifty years (and, to be honest, some of them as bad).

You can read the novel simply to become absorbed in the events and characters, or you can read it as a study of morality, of the implications of race and gender, of violence and American dreams. I've read it three times, and each time I have come away more impressed with Oates's achievement. This is a stunningly vivid work -- her command of English prose here is at a level reached with her earlier realistic novels, Wonderland and them. Give yourself over to the writing, and you will truly feel every page of this book.

A warning, though: It's not an uplifting story, despite an ostensibly happy ending. The characters suffer, and the world they inhabit is brutal and unforgiving. But the pain is not without meaning, and moments in this story reach heights of tragedy which few American writers have scaled.

Even if you've hated things you've by Joyce Carol Oates in the past, don't dismiss this novel. It will dig itself into your consciousness.

Don't judge a book by its cover (or size). If ever this statement was true, it is now. At first glance, Billy Budd by Herman Melville looks like at quick easy read at only 80+ pages. Once you get through the first few paragraphs, you realize that you just might have bit off more than you can chew.

The character Billy Budd seems to be a stand up guy. Though quiet, he boosts the morale of his shipmates with just his presence. Melville himself calls him the, "Handsome Sailor." He appears to be almost perfect in every way, although he does have one fault. He stutters when he is overwhelmed by many feelings he cannot express. I like this about Billy. It shows that he is human and does have imperfections. Another character, Captain Vere, is a little bit creepy for my taste. His obsession for Billy, whether it be sexual or not, is a bit strange. A specific instance of the odd obsession is in the scene in chapter 10 in the mess hall. It is the well known "spilled soup" scene. The detailed description Melville gives to a small section dealing with spilled soup on the floor is a bit extreme. I agree with most people saying that there is much homoerotic content in Billy Budd.

Overall I give this book a low score. I do like the idea behind the story. A well liked sailor who doesn't cause trouble is set up by his commanding officers. Billy is portrayed as a hero to his shipmates. A young man, murdered because of his innocence. If it wasn't for the idea behind the story it would get a much lower rating.

This novella is difficult to read, with long and complex sentences and perhaps unnecessary diversions. But its power and depth reward the effort it takes to read it.

"Billy Budd" is an allegory of a young seaman who strikes and kills a superior officer when the officer's cruelty and treachery become unbearable. The focus of the story is the debate over whether to execute the seaman (Billy Budd) for his crime. With passionate and terrifying logic, Melville (through the voice of Captain Vere) demonstrates that human perfection is impossible - not because we humans are weak, but because perfection simply does not and cannot exist in this world. To make decisions based on our notion of "divine justice" is not only impractical and foolhardy, according to Melville, but even immoral.

If you like to think of yourself as an idealist, then reading this book will leave some unanswered questions in your mind, possibly for the rest of your life. I first read this story more than thirty years ago, and it still affects the way I think about almost everything to this day.

Herman Melville's Billy Budd is a classic which should be used more often in the High School ciricullum in order to make students more apprciative of the genius, Herman Melville. Melville incorporates a mix of biblical, mythological, and classical symbolism that is so profoundly genius in his development through each character in Billy Budd. I would recommend this book to every High School teacher to use as an introductory into Melville's works, especially Moby Dick!

i must address several untruths in ms. oates book.while she is certainly a good writer,apparently she didn't do much research for this book.she states that the majority of soldiers killed and who served in the vietnam war were black;wrong.blacks made up 12 percent of the u.s. population at the time,and 14 percent of the casualties.the average soldier who died in vietnam was a middle-classed white boy.next she states that champ jack dempsey was afraid to fight black fighters;wrong.he fought at least 3 black fighters that is easily verified,and his chief sparring partner was black.his promoter tex rickard wouldn't allow it,for fear of race riots.harry wills the top black fighter of the time was afraid to fight middleweight harry greb.he also sustained a horrific beating at the hands of white heavyweight jack sharky.jack johnson admitted that the only acknowledged fight he lost was to joe choynski.while the "saintly" joe louis was dringing,doing drugs,and cheating on his wife,max scmeling was freeing jews in germany.incidentally max scmeling and jack sharky are both still alive at nearly one hundred.do some research please!

I don't know what it is about Oates that makes so many, be they critics, fellow writers, or just average Joes and Janes, instinctively start spewing superlatives. Granted, some of what she's written is very good, but there are also those rather mediocre titles that seem to be praised to the skies for no other reason than that they're supposed to be, and that indeed appears to be the case with this little piece. It's amusing and it's informative, sure, but some kind of masterwork? Please.

'On boxing' is best when Oates focuses on the hard facts, like who did what where and when. That was not was I was looking for when I first got my hands on it, but it's still better - by far - than the parts where she tries to decipher the meaning of it all, which read like undergraduate assignments in pretentiousness. As is common with knowledgeable writers, Oates cannot help involving complex notions to say simple things. A boxer is not knocked out, he is knocked out of Time (yes, big 'T'). The opponent is not the opponent, he is the Other (yes, big 'O'). This is a practice I absolutely loathe. What we've got here is supposed to be a book about boxing, and if I wanted 'Being and Nothingness' I'd have bought it. Don't get me wrong - certainly boxing could make for some profound commentary on the nature of humanity, which, I presume, is what she was aiming at (although I don't think she'd admit it). I'm just saying that with what she finally came up with you just keep wondering why she can't stick to the point, namely, that two people are trying to beat each other up.

Some people say this is the best that has ever been written on boxing. Obviously, they haven't looked very hard - even the Mailer quote on page 103 is enough to see why this is so.

Give it three stars for the moderately enjoyable journalism and, I almost forgot to say it, some beautiful photographs.

And she's had long meaningful conversations with a pre-incarceration Mike Tyson. Before the ear biting and the crotch grabbing etc. The two chapters (actually essays) I highly recommend here are the one about Tyson and "Boxing: The Cruelest Sport." This is essentially a collection of essays Oates has written about boxing so they're a mixed bag. But it's worth getting for the two I mentioned.

This novel studies the traumatic effect of the assassination of a prominent conservative senator on those closest to him, namely his two disturbed brothers and his current, and equally disturbed, wife. Dark, unsettling, and difficult to understand at times, it is still a recommended reading experience.

The murder of Andrew Petrie, ex-United States senator, changes the lives of his wife, Yvonne, and two brothers, artist Hugh and the mystic Stephen. Here's a brilliant analysis of relationships that miss, of introspection and misunderstanding, and of repercussions. It's another example of Joyce Carol Oates's amazing range of interests and depths of insight into the human condition.

Anything by Oates will challenge and entertain the reader. She's a masterful storyteller who crafts characters so real the book fairly vibrates with their breath. Oates doesn't write shallow, mind-candy books. Each of hers (and she has written an impressive number) can be read on a number of levels. When you sit down with Oates, you're in fine company.

This book began quickly, but it took me 2 months to read the last 50 pages....Even though Oates is a respected author, this book didn't "hit it right" for me. The Barrens is "a little of this, a little of that." On the one hand, it is a fairly good suspense novel, though a little too wierd/gory for my taste (I don't like these "get in the head of the crazy serial killer" stuff). While a fairly good and succinct exploration of relationships (Matt & his wife & his boss & his "lovers") it was still stilted and incomplete. Probably what I liked best was the setting of New Jersey in many of its variations!

Although this novel has some Oates-ian touches, this is not a typical Joyce Carol Oates novel, which is presumably where the "Writing as Rosamund Smith" tagline comes into play. The basic plot is pretty much what you'd expect from an Oates novel: Matt McBride, a thirty-six year old man haunted by the abduction and murder of a young girl that occured when he was fifteen, becomes obsessed with the disappreance of a young woman who lives nearby. Matt sinks further into obsession at the cost of his marriage and career, but he won't rest until he finds out exactly what has happened to Duana Zwolle.

Oates also takes us tinto the mind of the killer, Name Unknown. Name Unknown has an obsession of his own -- ridding the world of impure, vulgar women. The passages written from Name Unknown's point of view are somewhat reminiscent of the narrative voice of Quentin P___ from Oates's earlier novel, Zombie. However, while Name Unknown's thoughts and actions are disturbing, they are nowhere near as frightening as the things Quentin does.

The Barrens also has a more satisfying conclusion -- almost a happy ending -- than many of Oates's novels. I'm reluctant to call this novel "Joyce Carol Oates Lite" because that sounds demeaning. However, while this book is dark, it doesn't get nearly as dark as the aforementioned Zombie, or Foxfire, or a number of other Oates novels. It's a book to be kept in reserve for those times when you want a compelling thriller, but not necessarily one that's going to make you think too hard about what Oates is trying to say.

As a 25 year intensive Oates reader, I found "The Barrens" particularly interesting and engaging. In this book, Joyce continues her investigatory writing on two main themes that are ubiquitous in her "Rosamond Smith" books. These two themes being: The Mental Processes Of Serial Killers AND Identical Twins

Joyce is fascinated by the telepathic interactions of identical twins. This has been heavily documented, both scientifically and empirically and Joyce interweaves the concept into her plot with great aplomb in this book. Additionally, the book is reminiscent of "Zombie", but in a more ordered and mass market style of writing. While this seems to have been Joyce's original intent writing under this Nom De Plume, this minor charade seems now to have been all but abandoned as the first edition now lists the author as Joyce Carol Oates writing as Rosamund Smith. Marketing wins in the end.

Nonetheless, the book represented an elevation of literary style when writing under her "Rosamond Smith Cloak" now that it has been exposed to reveal below, 'The Invisible Writer' hiding behind the "Wizard of Oz's Curtain." Perhaps this shall herald a new area for Joyce to develop yet another literary expertise.

I would highly recommend the book to any suspense novel enthusiasts, and of course, to all Joyce Carol Oates readers around the world.

I've enjoyed all of the books that I've read by author Joyce Carol Oates, except this one. She has portrayed the angst of adolescence so beautifully in previous novels. What happened?

Oates introduces the reader to fascinating people: mysterious John Reddy Heart, his luminescent mother and eccentric grandfather, but fails to flesh-out the characters, to establish deep family ties. Curiously, Heart's little brother becomes a computer industry tycoon and his pathetic little sister becomes a "famous" nun. If they had grown up to be less prominent citizens would that have diminished the plot?

The sensuality of being "young and restless" was ever-present as was the loss of that vitality 30 years later at the high-school reunion. In spite of the fact that the story was episodic, disjointed, I couldn't help but wonder what was the allure of John Reddy Heart (more saint than sinner). Alas, if only the story had been told from the "heart."

In "Broke Heart Blues" Joyce Carol Oates once again proves she is one of the great stylists of American literature. Like "Foxfire: Confessions of a Girl Gang" this novel is a meditation on american life at a specific time. The novel takes us through the 1950's to the present (though years are never named), focusing on a group of upper-middleclass suburbanites as they are reflected through their obsession with the novel's anti-hero, Johnny Reddy Heart. Through the eyes of the townspeople who surround him, Heart seems to be a James Dean-like rebel. Oates uses this set up to reveal the shortcomings of America's intoxication and obsession with fame. It works; it is not so much for the story of Heart that we read the first half of the novel, but for the fasinating portrait of contemporary american life revealed as we swim through the obsessions of the various teenagers, housewives, teachers and businessmen who construct what becomes the myth of Johnny Reddy Heart. The second half of the novel reveals the objective (dare I say "true"? in Oates' post-modern world true is a risky word) story of John Heart after his involvement in a fame and myth-making murder trial. We slowly find out what happened--as opposed to the whimsical, subjective impressions given in the first part of the novel. Gaps are filled in, and filled in in marvelous, fluid, at times perfect prose. This is a great read. It delivers almost everything Oates is know for at one point or another--compelling narrative, stylistic grace, lurid violence, sex, strong themes and brutal honesty. This is not the best Oates, but to say a book is not the best Oates is a compliment most writers would kill for. Highly recommended for all Oates fans and for the general reader of both "serious" and "popular" contemporary fiction.

Joyce Carol Oates creates a wonderful mix of characters in her story that takes place in Williamsville, N.Y. during the 60's. She calls the town Willowsville but keeps the other local names including Millersport Hwy. where I grew up. I found it easy to relate to the high school scene she describes. Maybe because I went to Williamsville High School during the 60's, but I think anyone who went to an affluent suburban high school will recognize the teenagers Oates describes. I kept wondering which is her character. A James Dean character, John Reddy Heart, comes to town and is the immediate and ongoing focus of much gossip and yearning from a distance. After reading the first part of the novel that primarily covers the girls' impressions of John Reddy Heart, it was interesting to switch to his perspective after he has left town. The novel ends with the 30th class reunion and it was a clever way to end the story. Oates creates fascinating characters. Maybe she didn't have to make them up.