Meant for younger readers it still was good info about the KKK. How they would start in a community and what they said to get people interested. The law or lack of was interesting. Gave info about the time period.

"Much Ado About Nothing" is a beautifully made, performed, and directed film by the incomparable Kenneth Branaugh. This film includes an all-star cast that give wonderful performances and draw you into the lives of the characters. The plot is somewhat complicated, so I'll give a general version. The film is basically about love, misunderstanding, scandal, revenge, virtue, and bravery. That's a lot for one film, but believe me, it's all in there!

Kenneth Branaugh, Emma Thompson, Denzel Washington, Keanu Reeves, and Michael Keaton give excellent performances in this film that you wouldn't want to miss. Although the film is a period piece and the Shakespearean language is used, you will have no difficulty understanding it perfectly.

The scenery and landscape in this film are exquisite as well. I never thought there could be such a beautiful, untouched place like that on earth. I would suggest watching the film just for the beautiful landscape, but it's the performances and the story that you should really pay attention to.

Anyone who loves Shakespeare would absolutely love this film! Anyone who loves Kenneth Branaugh and what he has done for Shakespeare in the past 10 or 15 years will appreciate this film as well! There isn't one bad thing I can say about this film. Definitely watch it, you won't be disappointed!!!

One of the problems with Shakespeare's comedies, an English professor once told me, is that they are not funny. Now, this is not to say that Shakespeare was a bad comedy writer, or that this professor had no sense of humour. In fact, quite the opposite--he had turned his sense of humour and love of humour into an academic career in pursuit of humour.

What he meant by the comment was, humour is most often a culture-specific thing. It is of a time, place, people, and situation--there is very little by way of universal humour in any language construction. Perhaps a pie in the face (or some variant thereof) does have some degree of cross-cultural appeal, but even that has less universality than we would often suppose.

Thus, when I suggested to him that we go see this film when it came out, he was not enthusiastic. He confessed to me afterward that he only did it because he had picked the last film, and intended to require the next two selections when this film turned out to be a bore. He also then confessed that he was wrong.

Brannagh managed in his way to carry much of the humour of this play into the twentieth century in an accessible way -- true, the audience was often silent at word-plays that might have had the Elizabethan audiences roaring, but there was enough in the action, the acting, the nuance and building up of situations to convey the same amount of humour to today's audience that Shakespeare most likely intended for his groups in the balconies and the pit.

The film stars Kenneth Brannagh (who also adapted the play for screen) and Emma Thompson as Benedict and Beatrice, the two central characters. They did their usual good job, with occasional flashes of excellence. Alas, I'll never see Michael Keaton as a Shakespearean actor, but he did a servicable job in the role of the constable (and I shall always remember that 'he is an ass') -- the use of his sidekick as the 'horse' who clomps around has to be a recollection of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where their 'horses' are sidekicks clapping coconut shells together.

I'll also not see Keanu Reeves as a Shakespearean, yet he was perhaps too well known (type-cast, perhaps) in other ways to pull off the brief-appearing villian in this film.

Lavish sets and costumes accentuate the Italianate-yet-very-English feel of this play. This film succeeds in presenting an excellent but lesser-known Shakespeare work to the public in a way that the public can enjoy.

I saw this movie when I was fairly young. I admit that I couldn't understand much of what was going on let along what was being said (I was nine, I wasn't exactly fluent in Olde English). Since then I've watched it many times. Not only do I understand it now, but I fully apreciate how good it is.

The movie is a very good adaptation of the play. The impressive lines that Shakespeare wrote were generally given new life in their delivery. Also, I must compliment Michael Keaton on his role. It isn't a very big one, but if you watch this movie, you'll understand why I mentioned it. Overall, this is simply a fully enjoyable movie, whether you're a fan of Shakespeare or not.

I have read a lot of books on the Civil War and this is simply the best. It makes the conflict and its participants come alive in a way no dry historical work can. You will really feel the ebb and flow of the battle as it is fought over every inch of the landscape of Gettysburg. Especially interesting is the account by the author of the exploits of Joshua Chamberlain, a professor of rhetoric from Maine who is one of the central heroes of the battle. The only problem with this book is that, after you finish, you will feel an overwhelming urge to jump on a plane to visit the battlefield. Don't resist -- it is a wonderful historic site that has been well preserved since the battle. It is an unbelievable feeling to look at the field where Pickett's charge took place, or to stand on Little Round Top, with the words of this masterpiece fresh in your mind.

At least that was true until I read Michael Shaara's "Killer Angels." Now I'm a goner. I have bought five more books on the Civil War including McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom," a huge tome that promises to fill me in on the whole historical context, time, place, politics, all of it. All this happened because I was interested in a single book. This is Michael Shaara's fault.

It is of no consequence that the prospective reader may not have the slightest interest in war, the Civil War in particular, guns, Gettysburg, generals, muskets, artillery, smoke, fire, or death. All the reader need be interested in is a good book that is a pleasure, an enlightening experience, to read. If you like reading, if you enjoy books that captivate, that keep you turning pages, that won't let you sleep, then buy this book.

Let me note here that the author indulges in several literary devices that might pain the true Civil War buff. He uses interior monologues which are, of course, pure fiction (though based on written material of the time). He also centers his story on two major fights that took place at Gettysburg: the battle of Little Roundtop, and Pickett's Charge, even though quite a lot of other great moments occurred there. Both these battles are told well, and the characters of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain - the commander of the 20th Maine who held Little Round Top against attacking Confederates to the "last bullet," and James Longstreet, commander of the I Corps of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia who had serious differences with his superior over the tactics used at Gettysburg, are explored at depth.

By necessity, Shaara could not tell, in a single novel (for that is what this book is), all that happened those three fateful days. For those who want to know more I refer you to Shelby Foote's "Stars In Their Courses."

I aim this review at those who are unsure of whether a Civil War novel is what they want to read. Be assured you will not be disappointed. This is a truly fine book, especially for the uninitiated, as I was. I recommend this book to all without hesitation.

This fine example of what historical fiction should be, which I first picked up to read as an eighth grader, was the gateway into my now militant obsession with the Civil War and my idolization of Gen. Joshua Chamberlain. The well-deserved rave reviews that litter the front and back covers drew me to it, but Shaara's powerful writing style and stunningly human characters drew me INTO it. Not surprisingly I worship the film Gettysburg and have accumulated a large collection of Civil War and Chamberlain-related literature, though some have suggested this is slightly abnormal for a fifteen year old. While reading The Killer Angels one must wonder at Shaara's amazing ability to portray the major players of the battle, whose real personalities must have since been lost over a century of historian analyzation, as real people. I absolutely love this book and jealously guard my much-used copy. To enjoy it you don't have to be a Civil War buff or even know anything about the battle, you only have to be prepared to appreciate what is epic and human in the midst of this otherwise horrifying war.

The amazing Quinn family is back!

Seth, the youngest Quinn, is home for the first time in years. An acclaimed painter, who is blessed with a gift he can't quite explain, Seth is as handsome and dynamic as the other Quinns. He comes home to find things in St. Chris much the same, with the exception of lovely Dru Whitcomb-Banks, a new shopkeeper in town. Dru is not what Seth expected and he soon finds himself drawn to her, despite his unsavory roots. She's carrying quite a bit of baggage herself, but finds that she's falling for him just the same.

Nora Roberts had already built a compelling family that intrigued readers through the first of the Chesapeake Bay saga, Sea Swept, Rising Tides and Inner Harbor. But in response to overwhelming reader demands (she dedicates the book to "Every reader who ever asked, "When are you going to write Seth's story?") she writes Seth to be as dreamy and decidedly alpha as the other Quinn men. Dru is a perfect match for Seth, strong willed and determined and also a bit of a lost soul. The combined traits make the couple vibrant and interesting. On top of that, you get to revisit your favorite characters from the first three books and find out what's become of them and their children. Nora's greatest gift is her ability to write a family that keeps the reader's attention.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book to both first time, or habitual Noraholics! If this is your first Nora book, I suggest that you read the first three in the saga before reading Chesapeake Blue. You'll find your enjoyment of the story even greater having met the secondary characters before.

Nora's done it again!

I absolutely loved the brothers trilogy, it was truly my favorite of all Nora Roberts trilogys. Of course I do love them all! This book was telling the story of Seth as he now is grown up. I felt like I knew the entire family and cared about each and every one of them.

Seth is home with his family, the business, and the mother who has followed him over the years since he was a young boy. Blackmailing him, doing her best to ruin everything for him and for the family that gave him everything and made him who he is. Although he's all grown up now, he'll still pay her off, do just about anything to protect the family he loves.

Dru enters the picture, who has fled a cheating fiance and the life of the wealthy in Washington D.C. to strike out on her own in St. Chris. She owns a flower shop and does her best to fit into the community. Given her experience with men, she doesn't want to fall in love, doesn't even want to date. But Seth can be as convincing as any of the Quinn men and Dru finds herself in love with Seth.

I think Nora Roberts did an excellent job with this ending story. Her plot was great, the ending was a surprise and all the characters we loved in this trilogy have returned. If you start with this book you may want to read the first three to start.

Thank You Nora Roberts for very satisfying ending to the Chesapeake Bay Series with Seth's story! The book had me hooked from the begining, taking us back to the fateful car ride to Maryland with a 10 year old Seth. It jumps us to the "now" with Cam, Ethan and Phillip and their families still loving and living at Ray and Stella's home by the shore. Seth returns running from his demon and wants the security that was always home. He is a young master painter who has travled the world. He comes back to St. Chris and meets flower shop owner Druscilla, who is running away as well. The true wonder of the story is the rich comlexities of the brother's relationships. Ms. Roberts blends in humor and more importantly--overwhelming love. I wonder if the Quinn's would adopt me. I could see a book for Aubrey, but time will tell. Thanks Nora Roberts for the amazingly complicated Quinn Boys.
P.S. Thanks for Stella, too!

This is perhaps the best novella ever written; everyone should read it. Dostoyevsky's writing is evocative and powerful, both in that it evokes feelings and in that these feelings are feelings that you will always find yourself sharing. You will shudder at the degree to which you resemble the petty, unhappy narrator of this little book--at the degree to which you are tortured by the everpresent gaze of popular culture and of yourself, and the degree to which to find that spite and irrationality pervade your everyday modes of thought.

What makes Dostoyevsky unique among 19th-century authors is his connection to philosophical debates; his critique of the Enlightenment is perhaps one of the most powerful expressions of what contemporary thinkers refer to as "the crisis of modernity."

But unlike the vast body of existentialist, marxist, and post-structuralist writing that has proliferated during this century, Notes from Underground's critique wields intense emotional power. Against the background of humanistic faith in progress and reason, the narrator finds himself mired in his own spite and squalidity, and in his own self-hatred he comes to view all humanity cynically.

Dostoyevsky's critique of the Enlightenment is devastating. The narrator stares at the statement "2+2=4" and then rejects it, questioning whether it really matters anyway. For Dostoyevsky, like Foucault, power is a productive relation--power always produces resistance. As such, all utopian schemas of rationalization are bound to carry the seeds of their own defeat. Humans, Dostoyevsky tells us, will always find new ways to express their stupidity and irrationality.

Central to this book is Dostoyevsky's explosion of the public/private dichotomy. The progress of Enlightenment humanism (represented by a reference to Kant's notion of 'the lofty and the beautiful') situates the individual as a cog in a rational social machinery, but this rationalization totally fails to extend into the private sphere--the Underground. The utter squalidity of the narrator's private life is horrifying because the reader always feels that she can relate to the narrator's tortured feelings. Here lies the disturbing power of Dostoyevsky's work.

On the other hand, from a philosophical point of view, Dostoyevsky's focus on the private sphere becomes a source of optimism. Dostoyevsky's politicization of the private opens up new spaces for political agonivity: the narrator uses the Underground as a space of spiteful critique, but the Underground can also enable personal emancipation from the contingent roles coerced by the technical imperatives of rationalized society.

When I read this book for the first time I read it in high school the first section was gibberish to me and in the second part I learned that dostoevsky's characters are mean to prostitutes.

The second, more carefull and guided tour through this book that I had through a philosophy class was much more enlightening - understanding the first section gives the reader a lot more insight to the underground man's motivations and actions in the second section.
To summarize the godforsakenly long paper that I had to write on this book, The underground man sees any limitations or rules as direct affronts to his freedom. He sees determinism, or the idea that all of our actions have prior causes, as depressing and that actions that are predetermined are necessarily unfree. Even Reason is a straightjacket, for a man who acts in all situations according to the dictates of Reason is a slave to the limitations of Reason nonetheless. The only way the Underground Man sees freedom as possible is by acting agaist one's own best wishes, or doing stupid things that are harmfull to oneself, just because one can and to express one's freedom. Either that, or acting in a purely spontaneous fashion. Of course, the Underground Man's days in the dusty cellar have addled his existential brain, because acting against one's own best wishes in the name of freedom is still acting for a cause, only one puts freedom this time as the highest of priorities. That and acting spontaneously for no reason whatsoever can't really be considered acting freely, because one has no personal control over said actions.
Well, that's still rather muddled, but hopefully slightly more palatable than our russian literary leftist's words.

Quick read? I finished Crime and Punishment and thought I'd zip through Notes like a snack before going on to the Brothers Karamozov, afterall, it's barely over 100 pages. Quick read? Think again.

Imagine being locked in a very small room with a verbose, insane, brilliant, jaded, before-his-times, clerk-come-philosopher....with a wicked sense of humor, and a toothache that's lasted a month. Pleasant company....are you searching for the door yet?

For the first hour, he's going to rant about his philosophy of revenge, the pointlessness of his life, his superiority, his failure, oh yeah, and his tooth. FOr the second half of the book, he's going to tell you a tale, with the title "Apropos of the Wet Snow". Because of course, there's wet snow outside on the ground.

I will leave you with this encouragement. If you can get through this book, you will appreciate Doestoevsky more, understand Crime and Punishment better, and probably enjoy a good laugh more than once.

Notes from the Underground is not light reading, but it is well worth the effort. And the translation by Pevear, including the translators notes at the back, is excellent.

The Puppet Masters by Robert Heinlein has to be my favourite book on the planet, which is quite something, considering I read a lot and don't particularly like the other Robet Heinlein stuff that much (it's okay, better than most, but nothing compares to *this*!) TPM is a book that keeps you thinking, long after you've read it. The characters are well-developed and engaging, and stretch the gamut from black to white. There are no Satans in this book, and likewise, there are no saints. Everyone (or thing) has it's faults. I love the style of writing... descriptive and fluid. Overall, this book is extremely realistic. There are some creations that have yet to be created (such as the plane cars) but Heinlein doesn't so much write about them as possibilities... rather, he states that they exist, and weaves his words so well that you come away looking for the yellow pages in order to look up the nearest plane-car dealership. The aliens (both the Titans and their *masters*) are awesome, like the title of this review states. The Titans (those cruel, slimy little buggers that attach themselves to human backs and penetrate into the spinal cords with long whip-like tentacles) evoke a sense of dread in the reader that can't be compared to any other monster. Dracula, Werewolves and 'gray' aliens with probes fall miserably short of developing the same sense of thready-pulsed fear.

The plot is basic... in a nutshell, an alien ship crashes in a forest in the states in the year 2007 and people begin to act 'odd'. Of course, no one knows what is happening, save for a small, motely group of survivalists bent on overcoming the invasion of this hostile ET organism. Because the creature is 60% brain mass, and doesn't have any eyes or ears, or any viable means of ambulating itself, it attaches itself to human 'hosts'... who it then disposes of when it's finished with. On a scarier note, these little buggers seem to share a 'collective' brain, and their understanding of our species increases in leaps and bounds, while the human understanding of this strange nemesis slows to a trickle. Canny and manipulative, what scared me most about the Titans was the way they almost seemed to take pleasure in 'destroying' the hosts... *shudder*

The main character is Elihu Nivens (Sam Cavanaugh until well into the book), a young man who is struggling with keeping a bold face for his cagey, bitingly cruel father, and the new partner he's been set up with... Mary. Mary is a cool, collected, intelligent red head who keeps Sam's hormones pumping and may be the driving force that keeps him alive when the alien invasion heats up. But this isn't no 'knight in shining armor' tale. Sam and Mary have their moments... from funny, to downright... painful. *winces* In fact, their frequent interactions are SO realistic, one can't help but wonder if Heinlein had real-life models to work with. The closest example I can think of is the first or second season relationship between Mulder and Scully of "The X-Files".

Towards the climax of this novel, my heart was *pounding* violently (I'm seriously not joking) and my eyes were, to use a cliche, glued to the pages. I took it to school, and got snapped at by more than a few teachers for not paying attention to the garbage they were 'teaching'.

I haven't read this book since age 12 (five years ago) but I *still* love every single crafted page. I expect to find it under the tree this year, and I can't wait until Saturday morning, for that reason alone. I can't recommend this book enough. It's possibly the best thing to hit the sci fi genre since it's inception. It's gorgeous, inventive, scary, nostalgic (in a weird way the reader yearns for the fictional world Heinlein has created, even in the midst of such chaos and horror), original, chalk-full-of-ideas and one crucible of a tale. When it's all over, and the alien's are defeated, the tale boils down to showcase the surviving nature of the homo sapien species. In one word: AWESOME!

A book so great, it almost reads itself.

"The Puppet Masters," in its fully restored version, is one of the best science fiction novels of the fifties. Fast-paced, exciting, and chilling, the novel whips us through the alien infestation of Earth, while creating a running commentary on the Cold War mentality of the fifties. Today, it may be hard to understand why everyone was so frightened of the Communists; what with the Soviet Union's collapse and the chumminess we seem intent on pursuing with other so-called Communist governments. But reading this novel makes a reader feel the genuine terror of a species that robs humanity of their free will and liberty, which is precisely what the totalitarian government tried to do in the Soviet Union. Along with George Orwell's "1984," this book needs to be read as a constant reminder of what can be lost if we do not stand vigilant against those who would rule us. Heinlein, as always, drives us with his plotting and narrative surprises; as always, when we're done with one of his works, we have ideas buzzing around our heads for weeks and years afterwards.

I was about 13 years old when I read this book in its' first issued paperback form in the late 1950's. The original book cost 35 cents and the cover showed a man making a call from a phone booth while on the background behind him was a flying saucer that had landed. To this day I consider it one of the best science fiction books written. So many concepts were introduced in it, including organ donor banks (which are now reality). The plot built up nicely and held your interest and attention. The characters in it were quite believable and the action exciting. For some reason the "Pass Christian Saucer" line always stuck in my head. Probably since I didn't know where it was until I looked it up. To sum it up briefly, it's a GOOD read!

Molecular Biology of the Cell is written in a straightforward easy-to-read manner. The book is especially well up-to-date on many ascpects and, to my delight, connective tissue components are given enough space. This is your book if you're interested in molecular biology. A drawback from the point of view of a medical student is the lack of integration of metabolism to the organ level, let alone human body. Molecular Biology of the Cell sticks to its header by consistently leaving out topics such as - insulin regulation of blood glucose - ketone bodies - fasting (and ketone bodies) - CYP enzyme family (cytochrome P450) - pentose phosphate pathway/hexose monophosphate shunt/glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase - purine catabolism/xanthine oxidase/uric acid/gout

Clearly, if backed up with a texbook of biochemistry or physiology covering metabolism on a higher level, Molecular Biology of the Cell is an excellent choice, even for medical students.

This text covers every important aspect in the field, from experimental techniques and basic concepts to reviews of immunology, cancer, and developmental biology. I used it as a reference in four different undergraduate classes, and have prepared for several job interviews by reviewing the relevant information in this book. The illustrations are all relevant, the organization is excellent, and the prose is so well written that I take the book off the shelf and read it for fun. A new edition would be useful - some of the more speculative information is outdated - but this is still the best textbook I own.

Most people, when commenting about this book, tend to compare it to Lodish's Molecular Cell Biology. I own both, and I must say that they are quite similar in their content but different in the way of explaining concepts. Although Lodish's book is a little more up-to-date, it's just a matter of time until a new edition of MBoC is published. In fact, a great number of concepts are clearer in Molecular Biology of the Cell... and vice-versa. About the book, it is the authoritative text of molecular biology for beginners and a reference guide to all fields of cell biology. The chapters concerning the structure of the cell and of the organelles are amazing and include in-depth explanations. It also comprehends the best revision chapters on macromolecules compared to Lodish's. The team of authors was accurate to compose one of the best books in molecular biology for students of all biological and biomedical sciences.

This Dostoevsky Classic is about a young man named Raskolnikov. He is a young man living in St.Petersburg, Russia who is struggly financially. He lives in run down apartments in a bad part of town. Raskolnikov believes that his natural superiority places him above the moral law of common men. With that, he finds good reason for murdering two men. All through the novel, each reason is found to be insupportable. Raskolnikov starts to feel a lot of guilt for what he has done and cannot even spend the money obtained by the crime. Finally he turns himself in and is sentenced to hard labor in Siberia. Siberia is a very cold part of Russia. Raskolnikov soon begins to discover that what he did was wrong and he tries very hard to make up for it.

I would recommend this book, but you really have to know how to understand that way it's written. There are a lot of hard words and complicating phrases. You also have to push yourself to read this because some parts can begin to get very boring at times but don't let that stop you because this is a great book!!!!

I initially approached this book with a great deal of trepidation. I had never read Dostoyevsky, and was concerned that I would get bogged down in some lengthy, mind-numbingly boring, nineteenth-century treatise on the bestial nature of man or something. I am happy to report this is not the case. Instead, and to my delight, it is a smoothly flowing and fascinating story of a young man who succumbs to the most base desire, and the impact this has both psychologically and otherwise on himself and those around him.

To be sure, the book seems wordy in places, but I suspect this has to do with the translation. And what translator in his right mind would be bold enough to edit the great Dostoyevsky? But this is a very minor problem.

What we get with Dostoyevsky is dramatic tension, detailed and believable human characters, and brilliant insight into human nature. Early in the novel our hero meets and has a lengthy conversation with Marmeladov, a drunkard. This conversation is never uninteresting and ultimately becomes pathetic and heartbreaking, but I kept wondering why so much time was spent on it. As I got deeper into the book, I understood why this conversation was so important, and realized that I was in the hands of a master storyteller. This is also indicative of the way in which the story reveals itself. Nothing is hurried. These people speak the way we actually speak to one another in real life, and more importantly, Dostoyevsky is able to flesh out his characters into whole, three-dimensional human beings.

And what a diverse group of characters! Each is fleshed out, each is marvelously complex. Razujmikhin, the talkative, gregarious, good-hearted, insecure and destitute student; Sonia, the tragic child-prostitute, with a sense of rightness in the world; Petrovich, the self-important, self-made man, completely out of touch with his own humanity; Dunia, the honorable, wronged sister: we feel like we know these people because we've met people like them. They fit within our understanding of the way human beings are.

Dostoyevsky also displays great insight into human nature. Svidrigailov, for example, talks of his wife as liking to be offended. "We all like to be offended," he says, "but she in particular loved to be offended." It suddenly struck me how true this is. It gives us a chance to act indignantly, to lash out at our enemies, to gain favor with our allies. I don't believe I've ever seen this thought expressed in literature before. In fact, it never occurred to me in real life! Petrovich, Dunia's suitor, not only expects to be loved, but because of his money, and her destitution, he expects to be adored! To be worshipped! He intentionally sought out a woman from whome he expected to get this, and is comletely flummoxed when she rejects him. His is an unusual character, but completely realized.

There is so much more to talk about: the character of Raskolnikov, which is meticulously and carefully revealed; the sense of isolation which descends on him after committing his crime; the cat and mouse game played on him by the police detective. I could go on and on. I haven't even mentioned the historical and social context in which this takes place. Suffice to say this is a very rich book.

Do not expect it to be a rip-roaring page turner. Sit down, relax, take your time, and savor it. It will be a very rewarding experience. And thank you SL, for recommending it.

This book was written in 1865-1866 and shows the dark side of the human psyche. A young man (Rodion) commits a horrible, disgusting crime for two main reasons: 1) He believes that he is above the rest of humanity and that it is "permissible" for him to commit murder and 2) He believes he will be doing society a huge favor by getting rid of this old woman. He murders the old woman and is overcome with grief and guilt, although he doesn't recognize them as such. He is angry about these feelings because, as a superior human being (which is believes he really is), he shouldn't be having these kinds of emotions. The novel continues through his emotional hell and finally, at the end, his redemption through the love of a young woman. The details of this novel are incredible and, in my opinion, far surpass those found in the thriller novels of today. Dostoyevsky has a style that has yet to be equalled. This is not a "quick and easy" read, it is a somewhat heavy read, but it is (in my opinion) worth every minute of the reader's time!

A friend mentioned that this was an incredible book, and being a fan of "Stranger in a Strange Land" for nearly 2 decades now, I dropped my reading list for a Sci-Fi space escape... I forgot it was Heinlien; low and behold some of my favorite stomping grounds, a provocation of social values, moral values WITH analyses, all in the sterile environment of Science Fiction. Myself, being flung left of center, Starship Troopers reminded me of some of my more conservative "core" values regarding freedom, service to man, and duty... A Klingon's paradise. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I could cite chapter and verse that which Hollywood wouldn't dare touch (Their very own "31 crash landings" by which to avoid controversy)... but, "Hey!", I'm there for the F/X. Starship Troopers will make you think... and fan the fires of disagreement; this is a good thing. The usage of Sovereign Franchise as a form of government, the challenges to our "unalienable rights" (very poignant), the forwarding of duty as the application of "survival" toward the "group", and Heinleins "59" analysis of the end of the XX'th centuries social and judicial woe's was a prophetic indictment of the status quo. I didn't agree with the RAH's whole doctrine... Then again it wasn't a doctrine was it? It was a novel. A science fiction novel... put out as a model of a utopian society, I don't believe that was RAH's point. Let Starship Troopers stir the settled detritus of your social value system and leave you feeling like your back in college spoiling for moral debate... Then ask yourself "What's the point?".

The book is not the movie. Only some elements of the book made it into film, and they were grossly overshadowed by the weight of the director's distaste for his own perceptions.

The book is not the Amazon.com review. The reviewer's words connotate apology for having to write something positive; his/her statements about the necessity of military service to earn voting rights (it was Federal Service, only some of which was military) and the stressing of "beating children in order to make them into good citizens" (Heinlen discusses the uses of unfortuneately required corporal punishment) are a view of the book through aged and broken glass.

The book is part rollicking-good military action, part esthetics, part political philosophy. It reads well (as it should for its intended younger audience) and revisits well (as it should for the political philosophy and esthetics).

I'm an individualist, and found the conformity of the characterization difficult. One has to look for signs that non-conformity is tolerated.

I'm also a realist, and believe that a balance of authority and responsibility is essential to maintain a society that remains stable and rich enought to permit individualism (which requires a non-tribal level of economic and social development). The book brings these issues to the fore.

I took a point off, for a rating of 9, because Heinlein got caught up in 'mathematically provable' social assertions, leading to a greater degree of certainty in his social engineering than would actually work. In doing this, he was reflecting a recent (when the book was written) burst of optimism about formal logic. People thought that, with appropriate premises, formal logic would allow all sorts of problems to be definitively solved. They forgot, or did not know, that the social 'sciences' work with confidence intervals that would make a physicist burn his/her results. They also did not appreciate the difficulties of formal logic. One significant problem with formal logic is the creativity required to find solutions (something seen in all higher math) that makes it intolerant of automated (computer-based) resolution. Another (and to date, the major road-block)is the non-linear increase in solution difficulty when moving from simple propositions to complex ones. Proving a few assertions might take several pages of logic. Proving many assertions balloons out from there; speaking generally, it's easy to create groups of assertions that are non-computable.

Read the book! Think about the 'universal' franchise and the problems it causes. Think about the competing alternatives to universal democracy, and how Starship Troopers stacks up.

And enjoy a good read.

While I don't agree with much of the book, but I still enjoyed it. It's a nice mix of Sci-Fi, action, and thinking. If you've ever seen the movie, you know the basic idea of this book. The book and movie follow almost two different paths, so they have quite different stories. The movie's focus seems more on action and effects, while the book is more on details and thinking. Having watched the movie several times prior to reading this book, I found the book's version of the story very refreshing.

I really enjoyed the sci-fi themes and battles described in the book, and I didn't really mind the all the debates about morality, society, and etc. The trouble is that it is simply too much too often. I found myself just skimming or completely skipping whole pages, if not chapters, simply because I was sick of the endless rambling. I don't share a lot of the views that are frequently brought up in the book, so it's grueling to keep reading about it. The book sticks to a single view of things far too often. I don't think it's going too far to say it borders on blabbing when discussing morals and society.

As for the story itself though, it is very entertaining. It is certainly very funny and witty, and almost always enough to make you want to read more. With the many nice twists and turns in the plot, great character development, and some very good humor tossed in this makes for a great book.

- Rirath.com

Macbeth is one of Shakespeare's more gloomy plays. It is downright grim. It starts grim and only gets blacker... ...It is one of Shakespeare's better plays

Macbeth is one of Shakespeare's more ambiguous main characters. Motivation is always a big question with him. Sure, he is hungry for power. Yet he also needs prodding from several quarters to take most of his actions.

Lady Macbeth is really no different. She comes off as eager for evil early on, but is utterly shocked by its repercussions. Her attempt to go against nature leaves her absolutely unhinged and thirsting after guidance--only to find despair. In this regard, Shakespeare anticipates the psychology of Dostoevsky.

Macbeth is also one of Shakespeare's most supernatural plays. Regardless of whether one wants to debate the reality of Banquo's ghost, there are forces at work in Macbeth that are often unseen, but which drive the plot. The witches and all the unnaturalness come up against the forces of nature (the trees) and the divinely appointed King.

The most remarkable thing about this play is, for me at least, that it becomes a true tragedy only in its last moments. Only when all the stuff has hit the fan, and he has realized his doom is eminent, does Macbeth show the courage and nobility of a true tragic hero.

Macbeth is a great place to start if you are new to Shakespeare. It is a fun place to return if you're not.

While I was basically familiar with Shakespeare's Tragedy of Macbeth, I have only recently actually read the bard's brilliant play. The drama is quite dark and moody, but this atmosphere serves Shakespeare's purposes well. In Macbeth, we delve deeply into the heart of a true fiend, a man who would betray the king, who showers honors upon him, in a vainglorious snatch at power. Yet Macbeth is not 100% evil, nor is he a truly brave soul. He waxes and wanes over the execution of his nefarious plans, and he thereafter finds himself haunted by the blood on his own hands and by the ethereal spirits of the innocent men he has had murdered. On his own, Macbeth is much too cowardly to act so traitorously to his kind and his country. The source of true evil in these pages is the cold and calculating Lady Macbeth; it is she who plots the ultimate betrayal, forcefully pushes her husband to perform the dreadful acts, and cleans up after him when he loses his nerve. This extraordinary woman is the lynchpin of man's eternal fascination with this drama. I find her behavior a little hard to account for in the closing act, but she looms over every single male character we meet here, be he king, loyalist, nobleman, courtier, or soldier. Lady Macbeth is one of the most complicated, fascinating, unforgettable female characters in all of literature.

The plot does not seem to move along as well as Shakespeare's other most popular dramas, but I believe this is a result of the writer's intense focus on the human heart rather than the secondary activity that surrounds the related royal events. It is fascinating if sometimes rather disjointed reading. One problem I had with this play in particular was one of keeping up with each of the many characters that appear in the tale; the English of Shakespeare's time makes it difficult for me to form lasting impressions of the secondary characters, of whom there are many. Overall, though, Macbeth has just about everything a great drama needs: evil deeds, betrayal, murder, fighting, ghosts, omens, cowardice, heroism, love, and, as a delightful bonus, mysterious witches. Very many of Shakespeare's more famous quotes are also to be found in these pages, making it an important cultural resource for literary types. The play doesn't grab your attention and absorb you into its world the way Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet does, but this voyage deep into the heart of evil, jealousy, selfishness, and pride forces you to consider the state of your own deep-seated wishes and dreams, and for that reason there are as many interpretations of the essence of the tragedy as there are readers of this Shakespearean masterpiece. No man's fall can rival that of Macbeth's, and there is a great object lesson to be found in this drama. You cannot analyze Macbeth without analyzing yourself to some degree, and that goes a long way toward accounting for the Tragedy of Macbeth's literary importance and longevity.

Noble Macbeth and the story of his decay due to the seduction of the forces of darkness - I liked it. The play sets off with an impressing scene, the chant of the three witches, a perfect use of language, I dare say. It takes only about a page and I knew it by memory after two times reading. We used to quote it during the breaks, and actually still do so sometimes. "When shall we three meet again...and so forth. After this promising start the language gets quite hard (I'm not any native form Enland, the US or any other english speaking part of this planet). One can follow the action though and every five or six pages there's a reward for your patience, at least for anybody who likes the power Shakespeare's language is able to display in their good or best moments: "Have we eaten on the insane root?" and the likes. Of course there's also the famous "It is a tale, told by an idiot...". It's for these moments, where Williams knew how to transfere a feeling of one of his caracteres into the realm of a universal significance, that I enjoyed the play...