These are not necessarily the best-loved poems, nor the most famous poems, nor the most memorized poems. These are the best poems written in the English language, one each from the 100 best poets. So say the three editors - Harold Pinter, Geoffrey Godbert, and Anthony Astbury.

They apparently argued heatedly, but eventually arrived at a unanimous decision for each poet selected. They may not change your mind, but their choices will stimulate and challenge the reader. And this anthology makes very good reading.

I was disappointed that Pinter, Godbert, and Astbury did not share their discussions and arguments. How did they select the 100 best poets? Who was 101? Where are John Milton, William Cullen Bryant, Longfellow, and Whittier? For those poets that were chosen, I was curious whether some of my favorite poems had even been discussed as they made their final selection of the 'best' poem. Did they have bias toward works less frequently included in popular anthologies? Were they intentionally provocative?

For example, they did not select Thomas Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, nor any of William Blake's poems from Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience, nor a poem from A. E. Housman's admired A Shropshire Lad, nor a familiar poem by Robert Frost, nor Dylan Thomas' well-known Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night. I was also surprised by their choices for Kipling, Shelley, Pope, Donne, and to a lesser extent, Wordsworth.

Their selections for Shakespeare (I see many 'best' choices), Coleridge, Marvell, Keats (again, many 'best' poems), Burns, Carroll, Arnold, Poe, Stevens, and a few other poets were more in agreement with my preferences. I found that a bit reassuring.

I recommend this collection to anyone that enjoys poetry. Pinter, Godbert, and Astbury give us a selection that is less predictable than that found in most anthologies, and is thereby more provocative and stimulating. Have fun!

To kill time on a long trip, playwright Harold Pinter & 2 friends set themselves this task: pick the 100 most representative poems written in English. They excluded living poets in order to choose from a poet's whole corpus and they agreed to list the poems in alphabetical order by author.

The result: an anthology that ranges from the 13th-century to the present, from the formal love poems of John Skelton to the lacerating confessions of Sylvia Plath. One might not agree with some of Pinter's choices, but they comprise an interesting snapshot of several centuries of the art.

As idiosyncratic as this anthology is, it is also a testament to the broad tastes and deep appreciations of its editors. Could you have done better?

Start from the beginning and read through to the end, or dip into it randomly, this anthology is a small chest of treasures. Carry it in your pocket or assign it to your class, you won't regret the purchase of this book.

ONE OF HAROLD PINTER'S RECENT PLAYS, THIS DRAMA GRAPHICALLY EXPLORES CONCERNS OF THE PLAYWRIGHT'S THAT HAVE BEEN FOREMOST IN HIS WRITING SINCE THE BEGINNING OF HIS CAREER ALONG WITH THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN FOREGROUNDED FOR THE PAST TWO DECADES. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF REALITY, HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS, AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ARE BLENDED WITH HIS POLITICAL INTERESTS, MOST PARTICULARLY WITH HIS EXPLORATION OF THE HOLOCAUST.

IN THIS GRIPPING STAGE PLAY, THE HEROINE TELLS A MAN ABOUT HER MEMORIES OF SEEING CHILDREN, HER OWN CHILD BEING AMONG THEM, BEING RIPPED FROM THEIR MOTHER'S ARMS BY MEN IN UNIFORM, ONE OF WHOM WAS HER LOVER. BUT, THE MAN CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE IS SAYING, AND SHE IS TOO YOUNG TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE HOLOCAUST. SO, IS SHE REMEMBERING ANOTHER, MORE RECENT HOLOCAUST, OR HAS THE HOLOCAUST BECOME PART OF A JUNGIAN, RACIAL MEMORY?

ALTHOUGH NOT A MODERN CLASSIC LIKE THE HOMECOMING OR OLD TIMES, THIS IS ONE OF THE DRAMATIST'S MOST MOVING WORKS.

It was a fair way to state the problematical nature of criticism in the theater nowadays, to reduce Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? to a two-character one-act, and call it beautiful.

Thrillingly suspenseful. The pages just seem to keep coming with excitment. Gunn henderson was a great character. The caretaker himself was a mastermind amazing character. Loved every minute of it. Only thing wrong is getting what you want!

This is the story of three men. Mick is the proprietor of a shabby house in the countryside. Aston, his brother, is always busy with something but never accomplishes anything. Finally there is Davies, some kind of a hobo, adopted by Aston who gives him a place to sleep and - after a while - asks him if he wants a job as the caretaker. Davies is very reluctant and finds petty excuses to postpone the decision of becoming the caretaker.
What is the plot of this play? Everything stays the same, nothing will ever happen. It becomes clear that the three characters are stuck with each other ( Pretty much as the characters of 'With closed doors' by J.P.Sartre ).
The most impressive part of the play is the monologue by Aston in which he tells how he was treated with electro-shocks when he was a kid. This is one of the most gruesome parts I know in modern theatre.

A thoughtful and admirably complete survey of Pinter's life and career so far, even if it betrays the signs of being an "authorized" biography. I say so far because the author makes it very plain that Pinter is far from a spent force, either creatively or politically. Given the tiresome and almost ritualistic bollocking (a very Pinteresque word) he receives in the British press every time he signs a petition or attends a protest, the book comes on like a stern corrective, exposing the thoughtless double standard for what it is. Far from being a relatively recent fashionable pose taken by a celebrity intellectual, Billington makes clear that Pinter's political outspokenness is an organic consequence of his work in the theatre, which was essentially political from the start. Pinter's plays have followed a slow arc since the late fifties from the domestic to the more specifically political, but the overriding concern has been the same - the potential for language to conceal rather than to reveal meaning, even to corrupt our need to hope that transparency between people is attainable. Hope for Pinter lies in the potential for resistance to this process through imaginative identification with the sufferings of others.

If I have a criticism, it is the author's tendency to overstatement in sometimes irritating contrast to his subject's famous economy. Also, that the equivalence between personal intimate action and political reality comes a little too easy. I mean what does the phrase "sexual Fascism" (p. 377) really mean? I suspect that a victim of actual political Fascism wouldn't find that glib metaphor so easy to digest. Such phrases, which appear here and there in the book, would seem to be an example of the verbal laziness that Pinter himself spends so much time fighting. However, thanks are due to this author for constant emphasis on the actual performance of Pinter's texts, whether written for the screen or the theatre. Billington's comment and analysis of the performances are always insightful and interesting.

Having nearly walked out of "The Room" at the Almeida theatre in London, I determined to find out more about Pinter. This book sets the context and is a must for anyone new to Pinter or - like me - too young to have grown up with his work. The account of his early life in London's East End, and subsequent years as an actor in repertory theatre, are especially interesting. The Grocers school in Hackney was outstandingly successful in bringing out the best in its pupils - educationalists today can learn so much from it. And in turn we can learn so much from Pinnter about what it's like to be the "outsider" in a closed society. And his plays are so evocative of their vintage - it's hard to believe for example that as recently as the mid-1950s in England it was perfectly legal for a landlord to place a sign outside a house saying "To let - no blacks or Irish". The book also reveals Pinter's huge courage and passion in arguing for causes in which he believes. A wonderful book about a man who can justifiably claim to be one of the world's leading playrights.

This book was very good. It was very complex and made you think a lot. It was an odd book but I like odd books. I gave it four stars because it was confussing and hard to understand. But overall it was great.

It is a good book. Read it. Very interesting and fun too!

The Birthday Party is a very good play about a young man and his inevitable and perhaps unavoidable fate. The plot is quite simple, yet it is also elegant in its simplicity. Without saying too much, the story is about a young man who has been living for some time in a beach-sited boarding house owned by a mid-aged couple. These characters lives' are invaded by two men who for some unknown reason want to catch the young man. The story evolves...

The play is captivating and exciting, at some points also downright scary. Pinter has obviously used techniques of how to seize the attention of an audience, something a reader will surely experience. The incertainty and unease that fills the story is highly credible, as one easily can identify the feelings that fills you when something sudden, dangerous and unavoidable happens to you.

I think Pinter perhaps has found inspiration in other authors works. As I read it, I came to think on Hemingways short story "The Killers" and the sense of utter despair of Kafka's "The Trial". Please do not shoot me should you disagree..

As a play, one recognizes elements that characterize most great playwrights, both classical and modern, due to its "actor-friendliness" and room for interpretation.

Recommended, indeed.

And one last thing to Ken (The reviewer): Unless you follow the idea that Meg has a brain-disfunction, She is definitely not Stanleys mother.

Harold Pinter's _The Birthday Party_:

A young man lives with his mother at a run-down boarding house near the beach. Two visitors come and shake things up. They don't do anything wild or unusual, but they question and intimidate the young man, until the reader becomes unsure what sinister plans the two men have in mind.

Pinter's strength lies in his dialogue, which is thoroughly believable and memorable. Not for a moment does the reader doubt that these scenes could happen (and may HAVE happened) in real life.

As this reader read the play, the tension built and built, as I became more and more sympathetic to the young man, awaiting to learn his fate, as his own will seemingly deteriorated.

I would agree that this play is a funny read, but it's certainly very unsettling as well.

If you haven't read anything by Harold Pinter, or are curious because you've read his other plays, _The Birthday Party_ is worth checking out.

ken32

A side splitting send up of the misunderstood artist.

One of the funniest plays of the century, by one of England's greatest playwrights.

Bring your knife and fork!

Harold Pinter is arguably one of the most important playwrights to come out of England in the past 100 years. His plays resonate in the minds of his audience, not for what is said, but for what is left unspoken. The plays in this edition show Pinter at his best as a writer and are valuable to the reader.

Also recommended: REDEFINING THE 'SELF': SELECTED ESSAYS ON SWIFT, POE, PINTER, AND JOYCE by John Condon Murray

Harold Pinter, what more can be said than that he is one of the most important playwrights to come out of England in the past 100+ years.

"The Dumb Waiter," shows Pinter's dark indoor confussion at its best. "The Birthday Party," is twisted and fully capable of playing tricks with a reader's mind.

Anyone who enjoys Pinter, Samual Beckett (Pinter's mentor & author of "Waiting for Godot," as well as countless other pieces), or good absurd theater would be well advised to purchase this set of plays, short stories etc.

Early works of Pinter, show him at his best as a writer and this edition gives a great value. There are a lot of plays, an essay, and a couple of short stories, all in a book that does not cost too much more than an average "Grove Press," single play.

"Complete Works 1," will take you to some fascinating but dark places, and at the end you will be ready and excited to buy the second (then third, then fourth) edition(s) of Pinter's "Complete Works."

If you must have Pinter and are short of cash, this volume is THE must have(although I'd recommend all four volumes). Three classic Pinter plays are included in this volume: The Birthday Party, The Room, and The Dumb Waiter. For those of you new to Pinter, more than likely it was one of these plays that turned you on to him. However, the selling point of this volume is not actually the plays, but the outstanding introduction entitled "Writing for the Theatre" which is a 1962 speech made by Pinter himself. Any aspiring playwright as well as those immersed in all that is Pinteresque will find this introduction both profound and useful. On another note, for Pinter completists, be advised that The Birthday Party, The Room, and The Dumb Waiter are on VHS. The Dumb Waiter and The Room are difficult to find, but rest assured they're out there. In short, if you must have Pinter, this is the volume to get.

Being a long time Pinter fan I read Moonlight several times a while back with a view to staging it. The fact of someone dying in an unpeaceful, bitter way makes for a fairly gloomy canvas but Pinter succeeds in giving his dark protagonist a meaningful depth which hints at possible redemption, if not for himself then perhaps for his family. This pathos is offset brilliantly throughoutof the play by the subtley hilarious, sardonic repartee that characterises Pinter at his best. Andy, who is ill, lies in bed for most of the play and bickers nastily with his long suffering wife about their misremembered past and estranged children. The sons, in separate scenes on the other side of the stage attempt to unravel the meaning of their own dysfunctional lives and rivalry, thereby mirroring their parents while the daughter, in cameo appearances, is the vessel for all that is potentially good and redeemable in the family. I read somewhere that the play works on stage very well in its evocation of death and has the audience silently gripped during the denouement if done well.

"One For The Road" marks a major departure for Harold Pinter, providing readers and theatregoers with a theatrical experience that is riveting and unnerving. I have directed this play several times and have always found it to be a goldmine of writing. The language is exact, offering clear and distinct motivation from the characters, yet the play allows ample room for interpretation. Though it concerns the events of political torture--it is much more than that. It is subtle in its examination of power, corruption, and the apparent ease of destroying one's soul. I have had the "interrogator" played by both a man and a woman; the results were always the same: anyone can destroy a person's life with only words. The physical torture in the play happens offstage, but the punishment of the characters is performed in front of our eyes by the interrogator's words. It is one of the most violent moments in theatre. It is classic Pinter. A true masterpiece. As a side note: The US version of "One For The Road" contains a glaring ommision in the text. Early in the text the interrogator speaks of the victims eyes. There is a small speech that he makes about the viewing the soul of one's eyes. This speech is missing two, very crucial lines that are in the English text, but missing from the US version. This is not a change by Pinter, but a publishing error by Grove. This explains a rating of "8" since the text is incomplete.

This play caused a great controversial stir when it was first performed in 1965. This is supposed to be a classic example of an existentialist and absurdist play. It was Pinter's first stage play and the one that made his reputation. Although it was very daring and shocking in 1965, the play has aged and lost its freshness and original power, in my opinion. There are many other portrayals of dysfunctional families that have retained their freshness and power--such families have been a mainstay of drama from the time of the ancient Greeks. Shakespeare and even fairy tales have built themselves around exploring the dark and abusive aspects of the family dynamic. So Pinter's on to nothing new or radical here. The script as such is blatantly misogynist. The one female role, Ruth, has no lines that sound human--she comes across as a stilted android. Ruth is so obviously not a real woman but a male projection of lust, fear, possession, hate, and paranoia. I recently saw this play performed in Manchester, UK, and have to wonder why people still think this play, with all its misogynist posturing, is relevant to a contemporary audience. If it were just a black absurd comedy, it might have worked better for me, but Pinter seems to be aiming at something deeper and more menacing yet can't seem to make up his mind if we're supposed to be feeling sympathy with his characters or taking them (and the underlying meaning of the play) seriously or not.

Pinter at his darkest and most experimental.

This play's first and second acts are of equal length down to the line.

Sexual deviance, abuse, name calling, assault and torture: these are the norm. These people make the rest of our families seem pretty good. The play is twisted and as much a psychological journey as anything else.

Pinter lives up the claim that his plays were like, "Beckett in doors," with this one. Though most of Pinter's plays have a dark edge to them, this one may even cross over the line, if you are paying close attention to what is really going on.

Worth reading at least twice, after the shock from the first time through, the second read (if read closely), becomes even darker and more forbidding.

Wonderfully written, and further proof that Pinter is one of the masters of modern British drama.

I agree that this play could be viewed at totally crazy, but it's supposed to. I really loved this play. I think Pinter has an excellent way of making us step back, and be disgusted and enjoy a show at the same time.

It's not supposed to have a beginning, middle, or an end. It is more like real life than realism is. It's not a life full of 'Drama,'it's more like real life, only we can find it funny because it's not happening to us.

Read Pinter with an open mind, and a sense of humor. Try not to take him litererally, but read the subtext.