I have found this book quite useful and comprehensive for my course work. As a computer Science student I would like to keep this book in my personal collection for a long time. It is good introductory, advanced and reference source for me and has added definite information to my knowledge base. Thanks for writing good books!

Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy is a compelling and intriguing novel. Instead of most conventional novels that rely on plot, it places its emphasis on getting certain points and ideas across to the reader. It is a book meant to make the reader think, not as a leisurely Sunday afternoon story. The story takes us through a series of tragic events, starting first, in contrast, with Jude as a young child full of hopes and dreams, the primary dream being to go to Christminster to become a learned fellow. We follow his life as he marries Arabella, a woman who fakes a pregnancy to get Jude to marry her. Because their marriage does not have the foundation of love, it quickly crumbles and Arabella leaves Jude to go to Australia.
Jude then decides to follow his old dreams and travels to Christminster, only to find it was little like what he had imagined. There he falls in love with his cousin Sue, who in order to spite Jude, marries the schoolmaster Phillotson. She despises their marriage, and soon asks her new husband to let her leave. After much contemplation, he consents, and Sue runs off with Jude. The two start a life together with Jude worshiping Sue and Sue constantly pushing Jude away. They will not commit to marriage, and live a life together looked down upon by all of society. After a while, they get a surprise from Arabella, saying she has a son that belongs to Jude, and that he will be coming to live with them. Father Time, as he was nicknamed, comes to live with them. He is a very depressed young soul, burdened by things way beyond his years. Sue and Jude have two more children out of wedlock, and constantly move from town to town to get away from the jeers of society.
Just as things are starting to look up, as Sue seems to finally love Jude, Father Time decides to take things into his own hands and hangs himself as well as the other two children. Sue, being unable to cope with the situation, leaves Jude and goes back to Phillotson, saying it is her duty. Jude, left alone, is then visited by the vivacious Arabella, who gets him drunk so he will consent to re-marry her. Their marriage, however, is simply one huge lie, and Jude, from depression and a loss of hope, becomes sick and finally dies in his misery.
The main topics looked at by Hardy seem to be about goals and marriage. Hardy clearly defines Jude's many goals, for instance his pursuit of knowledge and his pursuit to win the love of Sue, but just as St. Jude, the saint of hopeless causes, Jude is never able to achieve them. The idea seems to conclude that no matter what your goals are, you will never be able to attain them. This is a depressing thought, and though it may be true for some people, I believe it does not clearly express the true things that happen in people's lives. Most people, if they have a goal in sight, do achieve their goals, bringing themselves happiness.
Marriage is clearly looked down upon in this book. Hardy shows marriage between both Sue and Phillotson as well as Jude and Arabella as a trap of unhappiness. He then contrasts that unhappiness with the life of "true" happiness that Jude and Sue had together, out of wedlock. This idea, in my opinion, is absolutely false. Marriage is meant to be the union of two people who love each other so much that they are willing to commit their entire lives to each other. It is meant as a means for happiness and love to blossom. Hardy's demented idea of marriage is clearly false.
Even though some of the philosophies in this book tend to be skewed, I thoroughly enjoyed the book. It made me think on an entirely different level. I could sympathize Jude's pain, and though it may not be a leisurely novel, it is a classic that I recommend any educated person should study.

Jude the Obcure is really a book about life. It involves Jude's search for happiness. Of course, he never quite achieves happiness because something is always in the way-preventing him from being happy. He starts out as a young lad living with his working-class aunt, dreaming that one day he may study at Christminster. The problem is as he grows he falls in love with a devilish girl named Arabella who tricks him into marrying her. Inevitably the marriage goes sour and he goes to Christminster, while she moves to Australia. Jude then meets his cousin Sue. He sets her up with Phillotson and they get married. Sue is then not happy and leaves to live with jude. As you can see this is really just a soap opera, but isn't life really just one big soap opera. Arabella then comes back to Jude with a son in Australia. Basically Jude feels responsibility to go back to Arabella and Sue goes back to Phillotson. Jude then dies soon after.

It's quite interesting how Hardy devises his plot. It's quite a dark novel, filled with every character's problems. Through this book we see that what society thinks is the right thing to do isn't always best for everyone. The climax of the book is a horrifying murder-suicide of Jude's children. This is no doubt a book that makes you think about the psychological aspect of life. It's a good read if you like the fact that none of the problems actually get resolved and trying to solve problems only makes new ones.

Hardy wrote Jude the Obscure at the height of his career. Does the book reflect his mastery? Or does it fall short of his capability? At the time of its publication, Jude (like Tess) received critical admonition from the public: The blatant sexuality and the unfulfilled/unheroic main character won over fanatics and made enemies of literary elites.

I picked up this book out of boredom, believing I'd put it down after a few pages. I enjoyed Tess from High School, but Jude for leisure? I was wrong: Hardy's poetic melancholy and rythmic cadence drew me in yet again. I was mesmerized by Jude, Arabella, and Sue. Though their conversations seem forced and some of their characterics unnatural, I felt sympathy for their deterioration and sadness. And in my feeling this, Hardy has accomplished a great poetic influence.

I really believe that Hardy could have written a greater Jude the Obscure if he was unhindered by the public. Though his true passion lay in poetry, he had much potential in prose. Too bad this was his last novel...

I came across this book last summer when I was in Stratford, Ontario, attending their annual Shakespeare festival. I had just seen Henry V so this title caught my eye. A glance through the table of contents made me think this book might be a real eye-opener. Unfortunately, I ended up being a bit disappointed.

Sutherland and Watts take turns addressing what they call different "puzzles" in various Shakespearean plays. The problem is, except for the rare exception, most of these questions can be answered in various ways depending on how the play is performed. For example, is Malvolio vengeful or reconciled at the end of Twelfth Night? Or, does Bottom actually sleep with Titania in Midsummer Nights Dream? In both cases the ultimate answer is, it depends on how you play it. There is no one answer fixed in the text.

Even questions that seem like they should have a specific answer like, who killed Woodstock in Richard II?, are given waffling answers. There's simply no way to know. Again, the ultimate answer will lie in how the play is performed. Different companies will lead their audience to different answers depending on what they decide to focus.

Ultimately, this book has value in the sense that it points out what some of the issues are with various plays. On the other hand, the writing here is not very dynamic. The authors rarely take a position and, when they do, they approach it so weakly that they do not inspire a response in the reader. Perhaps the authors felt that they didn't want to provoke any controversy with their readers but, if they had, it might have made for a more readable book.

Shakespeare wrote plays that were to be seen only as performances before live audiences, running around two and a half hours, on a rather small stage. And he probably wrote pretty fast. Are the numerous inconsistencies (or apparent inconsistencies) one finds in the plays genuine errors of oversight, deliberate toying with the audience, unavoidable given the physical limitations of actors and stage, or part of some grand artistic design? For any given play, the answer can be any or all of the above.

The authors discuss about 30 such "glitches," and seem to derive most of their fun from summarizing how various Shakespearian commentators (few distinguished for intellect) have dealt with the glitches over the past 350 years. Sometimes, the authors appear to me to be deliberately obtuse about an issue, perhaps because they had some trouble finding as many as 30 genuinely puzzling glitches to comment upon.

One comment I have about the whole matter, which the authors do not make: Shakespeare's intellectual and artistic depths seem virtually boundless, and every seeming inconsistency might well have a reason for being other than carelessness or a schedule that didn't allow complete revision. The authors are aware of this, even when they don't state it explicitly.

Among the questions discussed: Why does Shakespeare's Henry V during the battle of Agincourt twice order all French prisoners to be slaughtered in cold blood, yet have "full fifteen hundred" prisoners "of good sort" left after the battle, not to mention a like number of "common men"?

Why does Juliet say, "Oh, Romeo, Romeo, wherefore (why) art thou Romeo," when the problem is that he is a Montague? Why do so many of the plays end with nothing resolved, everything hanging in suspension? [Notorious examples are Troilus and Cressida, and Love's Labour's Lost. The answer here is probably, oh say can you see, a sequel being demanded by audiences.] How is Desdemona able to deliver several lines of dialogue after being strangled or smothered by Othello? How can King Lear be more than 80 and Juliet only 13? And so on.

Some of the answers were fairly obvious to me, although apparently not so to the authors. Juliet falls in love with Romeo when they are both in disguise, and it is the revelation that he is who he is that is upsetting. He could be referred to as Romeo, Romeo Montague, or Montague, and the sense would be the same. The action of Richard II would cover 30 years or so in real time, yet the performers would have looked the same and worn the same costumes throughout the play, so Shakespeare has the characters proclaim themselves as "lusty, young" in the early scenes, and having "worn so many winters out" in the last scenes. Further tipoff to this necessary compression is that where ever the dialogue would naturally refer to "years," it instead refers to "minutes" and "hours." As the authors put it, Shakespeare has invented "Warp Time."

The book is a great pleasure to read, and will greatly deepen your knowledge of Shakespearean drama, and your viewing of any Shakespearean film. Highly recommended.