Just returned from a trip to Nice, Villefranche, St Jean Cap Ferrat, and Monte Carlo and this is the guide we lived by.

We recently traveled throughout Provence and used this guide to determine what to stop and see and what to miss. Great pictures, up-to-date information about costs and hours. We use this series whenever we travel.

Oh, this book made me wish I was in France. Pictures of Lavender fields, sweeping views of the Plateau de Valensole (the largest lavender-growing areas of Provence), the Vieux Port looking south, with Notre-Dame de-la-Garde that I didn't have time to see because we were too busy shopping for pretty French clothes and soaps.

You will be delighted with information on The Riviera, The Alpes Maritimes, The Var, The Iles D'Hyères, Bouches-Du-Rhône, Nîmes, Vaucluse and Alpes-De-Haute-Provence.

This book is part of a series of books called: Eyewitness Travel Guides. Each book is a graphically exciting and visually pleasing guidebook. You will find concise maps, carefully selected hotels, restaurants and cafes in all price ranges, 800-full color photographs, unique cutaways and floor plans to help you explore public buildings and landmarks and town-by-town information on sights, beaches, cafe life, markets, and festivals.

I started reading: "Cassis is a lovely little port, tucked into limestone hills.....Cassis is still known for its excellent seafood." pg. 153 (Is that why I ordered two helpings? :) We sat in the sun at an outdoor restaurant and had the most amazing fish I have ever had in my life.

They brought the fish out to us and then we selected what looked like freshly caught fish. I am sure it was because it was quite delicious. We wandered around and found a bakery (la boulangerie) and a place to buy olive oil and garlic. Of all the places I went, Cassis stands out as a place I would want to stay a bit longer. We found it quite by accident and even though you might take this book along, I think sometimes the places you find just by accident are going to be the most memorable.

If you want to visit Provence or if you have been there, this book will serve as an excellent way to wet your appetite or as a journey of delightful remembrance.

If you don't hear from me again, I went to live in an idyllic spot in Provence. Sigh....

P.S. 1. The French Phrase Book ISBN: 0-7894-3234-X is a great little book of essential words and phrases.

P.S. 2. Provence: A Country Almanac by Louisa Jones is not to be missed as a coffe table collectable book.

P.S. 3. To learn how to make those French desserts: Chocolate by Patricia Lolusada

P.S. 4. The French Dictionary ISBN: 0-7894-4494-1 has over 50,000 words and phrases.

P.S. 5. If you want to see a cute movie: Go look up the reviews for: A Year in Provence. What I loved was that Peter was a writer and he is always trying to finish his novel. His wife helps him on a writing assignment about Provence and that is when things turn more into a mystery. If you know of any movies or books on Provence, feel free to e-mail the information to me. I would be delighted!

"Vaughan! You have to read this book"
"What book?"
"Ohhh, its called A MIDNIGHT CLEAR... written by the same guy who is responsible for BIRDY!"

The next day I purchase it on AMAZON.

The following day the book comes.

That same day I finish it.

That day is today.

Let me say, that this book was is an amazing piece of work. Its a classic about World War II, but nothing really too in-depth which would really confuse the heck out of me. A simple plot, but a very unique one, that really does play on your emotional side. I kid you not, my heart was pumping so fast at times, and I just couldn't control myself from screaming into the pages! Ahh, a book sometimes does this for me - and this one did it for me.

A group of 5 soldiers, lead by WONT, really don't care about the war, and rather are discovering themselves through eachother. They hope that the enemy isn't too near, and they hope that their daily lives can be as less stressful as possible. This all changes though when a group of German soldiers seem to be in a very playful mood, and start joking around with the Americans. Leaving messages here and there, which all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. But a piece goes missing at the end. Read it!

Magical, awe inspiring. As a 17 year old, it is the greatest book i have ever picked up and wish it to be read by all, for it is amazing.
Well done Mr. Wharton, for you have written a perfect book.

A handful of young GI's are stuck in a snowy wilderness somewhere in northern France at the end of the Battle of the Bulge. Christmas time is approaching,and they are hoping and praying for salvation from this truly unpleasant situation. Perhaps holing up somewhere will keep them from from freezing to death, and hopefully the enemy is nowhere near. This strategy backfires when they realize that Germans have found them. Even worse, some monstrous German tanks make a very alarming appearance.Possibly, the German soldiers are as scared and sick of this war as they are...Maybe there's even a way to communicate all this to the enemy, especially as the holiday gets nearer by the day. The rest is a story that should be among the classics, one that Mr. Wharton tells perfectly. Simply, it can't be beat, and the movie was just as good. Both underrated,little known gems.

This was my first Bernard Moitessier book. I picked it up after reading "Godforsaken Sea" by Derek Lundy. Lundy referred to Moitessier several times through the book as the father of single-hand sailboat racing.

The book was not at all what I expected, about solo long-distance blue water racing, but I enjoyed the first half about Moitessier's childhood in Indochina, how he came to love the sea and set out to follow his dreams. It was an account of the history of Indochina that I found facsinating, told through the eyes of an adolescent that loved that part of the world. Moitessier can be an excellent writer.

Unfortunately, the second half of the book turned into a self-absorbed, preachy lecture about his trying to "find himself." What was forgivable wanderlust and adolescent idealism in a teen and twenty-year-old, turned into a sad tale of a middle-aged guy who could never grow up. He tried to legitimize his behavior as his attempt to save the world from war and poverty (from Tahiti, mind you). On several occasions I felt like saying "Get a life!"

I probably will read Moitessier's classic, "The Long Way." I hope that it is as good as he says it is in "Tamata and the Alliance!"

Bernard Moitessier's writings are a true work of art. I was so inspired by this book, that I have just had a 28' wooden sloop restored for Circumnaviation. The boat's name:
ESPRIT DE MOITESSIER ( Spirit of Moitessier ).
Tamata and the Alliance is not just a sailing book, but is a magical window into the mind and soul of a peaceful man, whos wonderful ideas and insights have the power to change your vision of the world ... for the better.
Don't miss out .... buy Tamata and the Alliance.

Bernard Moitessier was more than the "Father of singlehanded sailboat racing", his book is that of a poet in action-all his life. Reading The Long Way first would be well recomended to better understand Bernard's references in this book. The author has put his heart & soul into writing this for us as he did working to elevate social awareness. If you've ever been daunted by Cape Horn, yearned to live on a deserted Atoll, or thought World Powers should make the world a better place, then this is for you! If you want to bring Western ways to the Paradise of Sea and Sand, you'll not likely understand what the title means!! :)))

What I thought of the book is that it was good. It was short but I liked it. In the beginning it is not very interesting, but after you get into the book its not so bad. What I like the best about this story is it is suspensful and keeps you wonder what is going to happen next. It also makes you realize how hard it was on those kids during those time.

I read Twenty and Ten when I was a 3rd grader (about 30 years ago), and is my lifetime favorite book. The story, based on an actual situation, describes how 20 Christian children used their wits and compassion to hide 10 Jewish children from the Nazis during World War II. The children's experiences are truly an adventure, yet do not trivialize the Holocaust. Although I do not recommend teaching young children about the Holocaust's grim details, this book opens the discussion about people's responsibility to one another regardless of differences. I have yet to find a child or adult who can put the book down once they start reading it

I loved this book as a child, came across it again as an adult in my parent's attic, and still love it. In retrospect the overall themes are somewhat heavy: Nazi's, hiding fugitives at the risk of your own life and children keeping life or death secrets, but as a child I didn't grasp the greater issues, and it didn't matter to the storyline. Based on a true story, twenty children at a convent are asked by the nuns to help them conceal ten Jewish children from the Nazi's. When I read this as a child I basically had NO religious education, and knew little about WWII except for what my father told me, and that Nazi's were bad. That's all you need. It's a short, but gripping story, and for the children of today who have so much, it's glimpse into the lives of others in the past who didn't. I highly recommend this book to anyone who reads.

Shirer's solid narration on the troubled history of the French Third Republic (1870-1940) explains how decades of monarchism, anti-semitism, and bitter divisions weakened France and contributed to the 1940 collapse. When Shirer covers the 1940 debacle in the later chapters, it seems almost pre-destined. I liked the author's strong attention to the 1930's, when weak French governments failed to confront a re-arming Nazi Germany. William L. Shirer (1904-93) was a U.S. journalist in Europe from 1925-40 who later spent years researching the rather baffling subject of the decline of France. This volume doesn't quite match his "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," but Shirer's immense talents are evident, and Charles De Gaulle complimented his objectivity.

In the opinion of this reader, Shirer has coupled his splendid evocative power of language with a subject worthy of it; the fall of France in 1940 remains one of the greatest defeats ever suffered by the champions of liberty. If you wish you understand the Third Republic with all the depth of complexity that Shirer intended, reading the whole of this admittedly corpulent history will be well worth the effort. However, with a familiarity with the history of France, reading the prologue and the last 50 pages or so will transport you to Paris in spring of 1940, as the government split and the Petain decided that this time, unlike Verdun, "they shall... pass." While typing my tenth-grade history report at 4 in the morning, last May, I can still remember being moved to the depths of my soul by Shirer's eloquent and tragically beautiful portrayal of the fall of Liberty. If you love France, the war between freedom and oppression, or simply the erudite potency of Shirer's writing, "The Collapse of the Third Republic" is utterly indispensable.

Although not as famous as Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", this book is just as important. The book gives a survey of the history of the French Third Republic from its founding in the aftermath of the humiliating defeat at the hands of Prussia in 1870, through its crisis in the Dreyfus Affair, victory in World War I and finally to the debacle of 1940. The author has the unique background of being both an accomplished journalist as well as a serious historian which gives the book a very readable style. What particularly appealed to me is his moral passion. He is no "objective, neutral observer". He is a Francophile who is willing to expose the terrible weaknesses that brought down the country he loves so much. The fact that he, as a newspaper correspondent, personally witnessed the horrors of Nazi Germany before the war gives a fervor to his writing that is refreshing in this day and age of viewing history as merely a comparison of the various "narratives" of the different sides in a conflict.
Shirer begins by pointing out the important fact that at the constituent assembly that wrote the constitution for the Third Republic, the majority of the delegates were, in fact, monarchists, but they could not decide if the king should be from the House of Bourbon or Orleans, so a republican form of government was chosen as a compromise. Thus, the new regime started out on the wrong foot as something no one really wanted. Throughout its 70 years history there were always strong anti-republican movements that threatened the very existence of the regime, chronic political instability and resistance to necessary reforms (for example, women were given the vote only after World War 2). In the military realm, the exhaustion resulting from the terrible losses in World War 1 combined with a reluctance to change the strategies that worked then and obliviousness to major technological changes in armored and aerial warfare led to the ossification of the army high command and the development of the "Maginot mentality".
In spite of all the disadvantages, when the German invasion began in 1940, the French stood a good chance of halting the invader. It has been repeatedly demostrated in modern warfare that the defense is very strong and that the attacker usually needs to have a clear superiority in order to prevail. Shirer demolishes the myths propagated by French Commander Weygand and others that the Germans had overwhelming superiority. In numbers of men and tanks the two sides were pretty evenly matched and the French tanks were of superior quality. The French officer corps was also much more experienced than that of the Germans because of the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty. The Germans took unbelievably huge risks in mounting their main attack through the Ardennes where there were few roads and some well-aimed air or artillery attacks could have upset the whole German plan. It is true that the Luftwaffe had aerial superiority but the author shows that large numbers of French aircraft were inexplicably never sent into battle (the French Air Force had more aircraft available at the end of the campaign than at the beginning!) French troops fought valiantly in many engagements, especially in holding the perimeter at Dunkirk allowing many more men to escape back to England. This disproves the claim that all French felt resentment to the British or were not willing to fight to save their country.
So, the question remains, what brought about the sudden collapse? Once Petain started talking about an armistice, resistance collapsed. The military setbacks were exploited by unscrupulous anti-republican leaders like Petain, Laval and Weygand in order to overthrow the hated republican regime.
The disgrace of France in 1940 was not that they were defeated on the battlefield in metropolitan France. The British, Russians and Americans also suffered grievous setbacks early in the war before turning things around. The disgrace is that (1) they refused to continue the war from their colonies in North Africa where they could be protected by their powerful navy, (2) they accepted humiliating, immoral armistice terms that forced 1.5 million French POW's to remain interned for the duration of the war and agreeing to hand over refugees who had found haven from the Nazis in democratic France, many of whom were subsequently murdered and (3) the pro-republican leaders (especially the Socialists) allowed themselves to be meekly stampeded into voting the republican regime out of existence and granted unlimited dictatorial powers to Petain who then set up a new regime called the "French State" (instead of "Republic") which instituted a totalitarian regime that ultimately arrested the former leaders of the republic and other opponents (even murdering some of them like Mandel and Zay), handed Jews over to the Nazis to be annihilated and, finally, openly collaborating with them to the point of even agreeing to supplying the Germans with forced labor. Shirer mentions at the end of the book that many patriotic Frenchmen, years after the war, felt that their leaders were right in capitulating because "it saved another bloodbath like that of 1914-1918". Shirer points out that France's freedom was restored by the sacrifice of millions of Russian, British and American lives (among others). I think this obtuseness, or, alternately, a strong feeling of shame, explains why many Frenchmen have such a prickly attitude to Americans.
The lesson of this book is that a nation can have all the material, technological and military advantages but without internal solidarity, a sense of national dignity and a will to make sacrifices for its freedom, it can fall in an instant. This should serve as a warning for future generations.

OK so it takes half the book to get to the story. In typical Henry James fashion you are completely prepared for the action. Unlike Thomas Hardy, whose surroundings tell us of the character of the person it surrounds, James wishes you to know the depth of his characters as seen through the eyes of others. This of course brings on many minor characters that just seem to disappear, but it is a view of a person as if the reader was on the other side of the mirror watching the story unfold. Yes, James is wordy, yes this is not a quick read, but Henry James has a mastery of language and story telling that is rare.
"The American" is a wonderful love story that ends as a real life love story might end. Do not expect roses and happily ever after, it is as much a story of an ancient social system as it is of the life of "our hero." And the thing that seems to get missed is that Henry James actually wrote this as a mystery, not a love story.
This is a novel to contemplate and read between the lines. Good verses Evil, Noveau vs Old Money, Right and Wrong, can literature get any better than that?

I have this friend who hates Henry James. I can't understand it. The style is dated, in that people dont write that way today, but as you get into the book you begin to enjoy the style, as well as the plot, characters, and French/American dual culture shock that still goes on today. (For an update on the theme, look at Le Divorce and Le Mariage by Diane Johnson). I couldn't wait to see what was going to happen to these characters and the description of Paris in the Second Empire were fascinating. If you watch the Masterpiece Theatre version without having read the book, you will be totally confused. They moved events out of sequence all over the place and after about ten minutes I shut off the tape and picked up the book. You have to know the whole story before you watch them throw characters and events at you in the first two scenes that only appear 2/3 of the way through the novel, after a foundation has been laid as to who they are and when and why things happened.

I couldnt recommend this more for a good read. The only caution I have is for readers who have never been to France. They may get an extremely negative impression of French people from many of the characters in this book. Go to Paris and you will find the city is wonderful, and so are the French people. These characters are not typical!! They belong to a certain class, and the book does take place 150 years ago. If this book doesnt get you hooked on James, I dont know what will. Try Washington Square and dont miss that movie, with Jennifer Jason Leigh, Albert Finney and Maggie Smith.

This book is long, but only because that's how James tells the story. It's like a soup that needs to boil all day, so it's kept on low, but when it's done, it's perfect. The book stays at the pace of "our hero" the American Christopher Newman. A smart, educated, rich, yet easy going, simple, and humane veteran of the Civil War and a self made tycoon, who goes to Europe to see the "treasures and entertain" himself.

He becomes entangled in what he thinks is a simple plan for matrimony, but is really truly a great deal larger and more treacherous and terrible than that.

We spend a lot of time in Newman's mind, paragraphs of character analaysis are sprung upon us, but nothing seems plodding or slow, nothing feels useless. By the end of the book we find that we think like the character and can only agree with what he does. We react to seemingly big plot twists and events as he does, without reaction, and a logical, common sense train of thought.

But don't misunderstand that. For a book that is so polite and the essence of "slow-reaction", it is heartwrenching and tragic. You will cry, you will wonder, and you will ask yourself questions. Colorful, lifelike, and exuberant characters fight for your attention and your emotions, and we are intensely endeared to them. Emotional scenes speckle the book and are just enough. And the fact that something terrible and evil exists in this story hangs over your head from the beginning. It's hard to guess what happens because James doesn't give us many clues, and the ending may come as a surprise to some people. And without us knowing it, James is comparing American culture to European culture (of the day), and this in of itself is fulfilling.

Indeed, James uses every page he has, without wasting any on detailed landscapes and useless banter. 2 pages from the end you have a wrenching heartache, but the last paragraph and page is utterly and supremely satisfying, and you walk away the way Newman walks away, at peace.

a good read, but can be confusing for kids. It takes a while to comprehend all of the Shakespearian langauge, but is very interesting. It is boring at parts.

The Winter's Tale contains some of the most technically difficult solutions to telling a story that have ever appeared in a play. If you think you know all about how a play must be constructed, read The Winter's Tale. It will greatly expand your mind.

The play opens near the end of a long visit by Polixenes, the king of Bohemia, to the court of his childhood friend, Leontes, the king of Sicily. Leontes wants his friend to stay one more day. His friend declines. Leontes prevails upon his wife, Hermione, to persuade Polixenes. Hermione does her husband's bidding, having been silent before then. Rather than be pleased that she has succeeded, Leontes goes into a jealous rage in which he doubts her faithfulness. As his jealousy grows, he takes actions to defend his misconceptions of his "abused" honor that in fact abuse all those who have loved him. Unable to control himself, Leontes continues to pursue his folly even when evidence grows that he is wrong. To his great regret, these impulsive acts cost him dearly.

Three particular aspects of the play deserve special mention. The first is the way that Shakespeare ties together actions set 16 years apart in time. Although that sounds like crossing the Grand Canyon in a motorcycle jump, Shakespeare pulls off the jump rather well so that it is not so big a leap. The second is that Shakespeare captures entirely different moods from hilarious good humor to deep depression and remorse closely adjacent to one another. As a result, the audience is able to experience many more emotions than normally are evoked in a single play. Third, the play's final scene is as remarkable a bit of writing as you can imagine. Read it, and marvel!

After you finish reading this play, think about where your own loss of temper has had bad consequences. How can you give yourself time to get under control before acting rashly? How can you learn to be more open to positive interpretations of events, rather than dark and disturbing ones?

Love first, second, and always!

The Winter's Tale is a lot of things: heart-breaking, exhilerating, funny, beautiful, romantic, profound, etc. Yeah, it's all here. This is one of the bard's best plays, and I can't believe they don't teach this in schools. Of course, the ones they teach are excellent, but I can see high school kids enjoying this one a lot more than some of those others (Othello, King Lear).

The story is, of course, brilliant. King Leontes goes into a jealous rage at the beginning against his wife Hermione. Leontes is very mistaken in his actions, and the result is tragic. Shakespeare picks the story back up sixteen years later with the children, and the story works to a really, really surprising end of bittersweet redemption.

This is one of Shakespeare's bests. The first half is a penetrating and devestating, but the second half shows a capacity for salvation from the depths of despair. Also, this being Shakespeare, the blank verse is gorgeous and the characters are well drawn, and the ending is a surprise unparalleled in the rest of his plays. The Winter's Tale is a truly profound and entertaining read.

Around the state of Washington, and practically everywhere else, Frances Farmer seemed to a person practically no one was willing to discuss, or so author William Arnold claims. But why? Whatever happened to this radiant screen beauty who had once been teamed with talents such as Cary Grant and Tyrone Power? Why had so many claimed that she had suddenly "gone crazy" with no apparent explaination, and why did she suddenly seem to just disappear? In "Shadowland",William Arnold tries to unravel the tragic and poignant mystery behind the life and death of motion picture star Frances Farmer. Beginning with her beautifully written essay about an etremely conroversial subject, the death of God, Frances Farmer became no stranger to unwanted trouble. Furthermore, it seemed that every attempt made to free herself- failed. Lilian V. Farmer, a clinging, demanding and stern woman in devout oppostion to Communism, became enraged when she found that her impressionable sixteen year old daughter had won an all expense paid trip to Russia for her beautifully written and poignant essay. To the passionet and level-headed Frances, it was the opportunity to do what she'd always wanted- to travel through another country and study the beautiful artwork and the elaborate theatrical performances. To her mother, it was raging paranoia. "Shadowland" is William Arnold's account of what he discovered in his search for the real truth behind this incredibly complicated story. He explores the the question of the truth behind the tell-all autobiography released after her death. Why was it that she claimed she could not recall whole years of her life, and just how horrific were the conditions in the hospitals she was confined to? Though this book is primarily about motion pictures and theater, it is unique in that it is also a detailed study in the the attitudes and stereotypes that have accompanied mental illness and a shocking look into past treatments and diagnoses (or mis-diagnoses as the case may be). I was glad to have read this book merely because of the author's interest in a seemingly forgotten subject, and I would strongly recomend the autobiographical book, "Will There Really Be A Morning?" By Frances Farmer. Read them both and compare!

This book should be on the MUST READ list of all students in any branch of the human service field. Although blunt at times it remains factual through-out. The author was good about letting fact speak for itself and not falling prey to the "want" to embellish in order to make a great drama. You start out thinking that the events of Frances Farmer's life could never happen - at least not with the ease at which they did. And they centainly could not continue. The book answers many questions. But they may not be what you expect.
I am not one who reads often but I had a hard time staying away from this one. If you are one who has a hard time concentrating for long periods of time you can stop anywhere and pick up the book again; you do not need to wait until the end of a chapter. I have not seen the move that was made from the book called "Frances", which I understand is quite good also, and I am not sure I would want to take the chance on spoiling an excellent book.

I read this book having first read the powerful book (please read this book), "Will There Really Be A Morning?". A lot of the questions I was left with following my completion of that book were answered by reading "Shadowland" and I think it is a well-written book that is worth the time to find and read. Frances Farmer's story is tragic and thought-provoking and Arnold's book gives a comprehensive look at Frances triumphs and tragedies. I would recommend reading "Will There Really Be A Morning?" by Frances Farmer (partially) (both books are easy to find on Ebay) before reading this book. It will make the story more interesting and easier to follow.

the Oxford Shakespeare has been touted as 'a new conception' of Shakespeare, but is in fact merely an update of the cumbersome old Arden editions. Like these, 'King John' begins with a 100-page introduction, divided into 'Dates and Sources' (full of what even the editor admits is 'tedious' nit-picking of documentary evidence); 'The Text' (the usual patronising conjecture about misprints in the Folio edition and illiterate copyists); 'A Critical Introduction', giving a conventional, but illuminating guide to the drama, its status as a political play dealing with the thorny problem of royal succession, the contemporary legal ambiguities surrounding inheritance, the patterning of characters, the use of language (by characters as political manoeuvring, by Shakespeare to subvert them); and an account of 'King John' 'In the Theatre', its former popularity in the 18th and 19th century as a spectacular pageant, the play distorted for patriotic purposes, and its subsequent decline, presumably for the same reasons. The text itself is full of stumbling, often unhelpful endnotes - what students surely want are explanations of difficult words and figures, not a history of scholarly pedantry. The edition concludes with textual appendices.
The play itself, as with most of Shakespeare's histories, is verbose, static and often dull. Too many scenes feature characters standing in a rigid tableau debating, with infinite hair-cavilling, issues such as the legitimacy to rule, the conjunction between the monarch's person and the country he rules; the finer points of loyalty. Most of the action takes place off stage, and the two reasons we remember King John (Robin Hood and the Magna Carta) don't feature at all. This doesn't usually matter in Shakespeare, the movement and interest arising from the development of the figurative language; but too often in 'King John', this is more bound up with sterile ideas of politics and history, than actual human truths. Characterisation and motivation are minimal; the conflations of history results in a choppy narrative. There are some startling moments, such as the description of a potential blood wedding, or the account of England's populace 'strangely fantasied/Possessed with rumours, full of idle dreams/Not knowing what they fear, but full of fear'. The decline of the king himself, from self-confident warrior to hallucinating madman, anticipates 'King Lear', while the scene where John's henchman sets out to brand the eyes of the pubescent Pretender, is is full of awful tension.
P.S. Maybe I'm missing something, but could someone tell me why this page on 'King John' has three reviews of 'Timon of Athens'? Is somebody having a laugh?

Many people feel that this play of Shakespeare's is either unfinished or a poor effort. But I do not think this is accurate or fair. The reality is that many people can never find a middle ground. It is actually (in my opinion) quite common for people to only be able to see things from one extreme or the other. Despite Apemantus' cynical nature, there is no denying that whatever his faults are, HE DOES HAVE RIGHT ON HIS SIDE when he tells Timon: "The middle of humanity thou never knewest,/ but the extremity of both ends...." (4.3.342-343). Critics also tend to think Apemantus is unlikable, but are we missing a crucial point? I can not help but think Shakespeare is commenting on the fact that more people DON'T have a concept of reality. Apemantus refuses to join in the delight when Timon thinks highly of his false friends. Apemantus is aware of reality and no one wants to hear it. In my opinion Timon and Apemantus are VERY TRUE to life. In addition, the roll of Flavius is very touching. He can not dessert his master even when he knows (or thinks) Timon has nothing. Finally, I can not over estimate the mastery of Shakespeare when first Timon has money, he can not do enough for his so called friends and when he has nothing they dessert him. When Timon through fate gains a second fortune, he does not turn back into what he was, but rather he uses his 2nd fortune to destroy Athens. It is interesting that Shakespeare derived this play on the legend of 'Timon the Manhater,' and decides to take it a step further and show how he got there. And how much more realistic could Shakespeare have made this than by first showing Timon as a 'manlover?' Many people feel Timon should have somehow found the middle of humanity, but if he had, that would have defeated the whole purpose of this excellent play.

Among the least performed of all the Shakespeare plays, is probably the most disturbing. In the beginning, Timon is (not to put too fine a point on it) stupidly philanthropic; in the end he is equally misanthropic. When Timon is on top of the world, we have the cynical Apemantus to be our voice and let him know what a fool he is. In the last two acts, we simply wish (I do, at least) that our hero would stop complaining and let us "pass and stay not here," as he would have all men do in his epitaph.

But a recording is to be judged on its performances, not so much on its text. The Arkangel series, now in its last laps toward completion before (I am told) it is all redone on CDs, has every reason to be proud of its "Timon of Athens," thanks to its strong and intelligent readings. The opening scenes of artisans and poets building up the play's themes of wheel-of-fortune and gratitude/ingratitude are almost intelligible without a text open before you. Alan Howard, whom I saw in New York long ago as Henry V and as the main character in "Good," has that kind of friendly voice that is so well suited to the extravagant Timon in the open acts that we feel all the more for him when his false friends deny him in his need.

The snarling voice of Norman Rodway's Apemantus is a perfect counterpoint, and he casts out his invective in those early scenes with a hint of humor. However, when Timon becomes the misanthrope, his voice darkens and coarsens; and it is very hard to tell it from Apemantus' in their overly-long exchange of curses in 4:3. If the actor playing Alcibiades (Damian Lewis) sounds far too young for the role, that is a minor quibble--and perhaps the director wanted him to sound like a young Timon.

The incidental music sounds sufficiently Greek but too modern; still, Ingratitude knows no particular time period. A superior production of a much flawed play and a very welcome addition to any collection of recorded drama, especially since the old Decca set is long out of print and Harper audio does not yet have a "Timon" in their series.

'As you like it' is one of those Shakespearean plays that is considered 'great' by critics, but never really found true popular acclaim, perhaps due to the absence of charismatic characters (the romantic hero is particularly wet) or compelling dilemmas.

It shares many features with the great comedies - the notion of the forest as a magic or transformative space away from tyrannical society ('A Midsummer night's dream'); the theme of unrequited love and gender switching from 'Twelfth night'; the exiled Duke and his playful daughter from 'The Tempest'. But these comparisons only point to 'AYLI''s comparative failure (as a reading experience anyway) - it lacks the magical sense of play of the first; the yearning melancholy of the second; or the elegiac complexity of the third.

It starts off brilliantly with a first act dominated by tyrants: an heir who neglects his younger brother, and a Duke who resents the popularity of his exiled brother's daughter (Rosalind). there is an eccentric wrestling sequence in which a callow youth (Orlando) overthrows a giant. Then the good characters are exiled to Arden searching for relatives and loved ones.

Theoretically, this should be good fun, and you can see why post-modernist critics enjoy it, with its courtiers arriving to civilise the forest in the language of contemporary explorers, and the gender fluidity and role-play; but, in truth, plot is minimal, with tiresomely pedantic 'wit' to the fore, especially when the melancholy scholar-courtier Jacques and Fool Touchstone are around, with the latter's travesties of classical learning presumably hilarious if you're an expert on Theocritus and the like.

As an English pastoral, 'AYLI' doesn't approach Sidney's 'Arcadia' - maybe it soars on stage. (Latham's Arden edition is as frustrating as ever, with scholarly cavilling creating a stumbling read, and an introduction which characteristically neuters everything that makes Shakespeare so exciting and challenging)

Anyone with a working knowledge of Shakespeare's plays knows that As You Like It is a light, airy comedy. It is clearly not one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. As You Like It is more obscure than famous. Even amongst the comedies it comes nowhere close to the popularity of plays such as A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Tempest, or Twelfth Night. That said, it is a treasure in its own right. This is so, if for nothing else, because it contains one of the greatest pictures of a woman to be found in Shakespeare's works, excluding the Sonnets.

Ah, sweet Rosalind. In her are encapsulated so many ideas about the nature of woman. She is first pictured in a rather faux-Petrarchan manner. This quickly fades as an intelligent woman comes to the fore. While the intelligence remains, she is also torn by the savage winds of romantic love. Rosalind, in all her complexity and self-contradiction, is a truly modern female character.

Most of the women in Shakespeare's tragedies and historical plays are either window dressing (as in Julius Caesar) or woefully one-sided (Ophelia, Lady Macbeth). This is not the case with Rosalind. Rather than being marginalized, she is the focus of a good chunk of the play. Instead of being static and [standard], she is a complex evolving character.

When Rosalind first appears, she outwardly looks much like any other lady of the court. She is a stunning beauty. She is much praised for her virtue. Both of these elements factor in the Duke's decision to banish or [do away with] her.

Rosalind falls in love immediately upon seeing Orlando. In this way she at first seems to back up a typically courtly idea of "love at first sight." Also, she initially seems quite unattainable to Orlando. These are echoes of Petrarchan notions that proclaim love to be a painful thing. This dynamic is stood on its head following her banishment.

Rosalind begins to question the certainty of Orlando's affection. She criticizes his doggerel when she finds it nailed to a tree. Rather than wilting like some medieval flower, she puts into effect a plan. She seeks to test the validity of her pretty-boy's love. In the guise of a boy herself, she questions the deceived Orlando about his love.

Yet Rosalind is not always so assured. Her steadfastness is not cut and dried. Composed in his presence, Rosalind melts the second Orlando goes away. She starts spouting romantic drivel worthy of Judith Krantz. Even her best friend Celia seems to tire of her love talk. This hesitating, yet consuming passion is thrown into stark relief with her crystal clear dealings with the unwanted advances of the shepherdess Phebe.

Rosalind contradicts herself in taking the side of Silvius in his pursuit of Phebe. She seeks to help Silvius win the love of Phebe because of his endearing constancy. Yet the whole reason she tests Orlando is the supposed inconstancy of men's affections.

This idea of Male inconstancy has made its way down to the present day. Men are seen, in many circles, as basically incapable of fidelity. Though a contradiction to her treatment of Silvius' cause, Rosalind's knowing subscription to pessimistic views on the constancy of a man's love places her on the same playing field as many modern women.

Rosalind takes charge of her own fate. Until and even during Shakespeare's own time women largely were at the mercy of the men around them. This is satirized in Rosalind's assuming the appearance of a man. Yet she had taken charge of her life even before taking on the dress and likeness of a man. She gives her token to Orlando. She decides to go to the Forest. She makes the choice of appearing like a man to ensure her safety and the safety of Celia.

Rosalind finally finds balance and happiness when she comes to love not as a test or game, but as an equal partnership. Shakespeare is clearly critiquing the contemporary notions of love in his day. His play also condemns society's underestimation and marginalization of women. However, the Bard's main point is more profound.

As You Like It makes it clear that the world is never picture perfect, even when there are fairy-tale endings. Men and women both fail. Love is the most important thing. With love all things are possible.

"As You Like It" is bar none, one of Shakespeare's VERY best works. It is probably the most poetic of the comedies and contains perhaps as many famous quotations as any other of his plays. Rosalind is perhaps his greatest female character and this work, along with the equally (or even more) brilliant "Midsummer Night's Dream," is the best example of Shakespeare's theme of the "dream world" vs. the "real" world. This play, especially the scenes in the forest, is a celebration of language and the power of the freedom of the imagination. It consequently can be read as a criticism of the "real world," here represented by Duke Ferdinand's court. Like many of the other comedies, Shakespeare is mocking the "ideal" which many in his society would have praised. Though this play deals with some pretty dark themes (which of his plays doesn't?) it is a light-hearted and fully enjoyable read!