One of his lesser known works, Shakespeare's Trojan play is also one of his most intriguing. Not quite a burlesque, 'Troilus and Cressida''s lurches in tone, from farce to historical drama to romance to tragedy, and its blurring of these modes, explains why generations of critics and audiences have found it so unsatisfying, and why today it can seem so modern. Its disenchanted tone, its interest in the baser human instincts underlying (classical) heroism look forward to such 20th century works as Giraudoux's 'The Trojan War Will Not Take Place' or Terry Jones' 'Chaucer's Knight'; the aristocratic ideals of Love and War, inextricably linked in this play, are debased by the merchant-class language of exchange, trade, food, possesion - the passionate affair at its centre is organised by the man who gave his name to pimps, Pandarus, and is more concerned with immediate sexual gratification than anything transcendental. The Siege of Troy sequences are full of the elaborately formal rhetoric we expect from Shakespeare's history plays, but well-wrought diplomacy masks ignoble trickery; the great heroes Ajax and Achilles are petulant egotists, the latter preferring the company of his catamite to combat; the actual war sequences, when they finally come, are a breathless farce of exits and entrances. There are a lot of words in this play, but very few deeds.

Paris, Prince of Troy, has abducted Helen, wife of Menelaus, King of Sparta. Led by the latter's brother Agamemnon, and his Machiavellian advisors Ulysses and Nestor, the Greeks besiege Troy, demanding the return of Helen. However, Achilles' dissatisfaction at the generals' endless politicking has spread discontent in the ranks. Within Troy, war takes a distinct second place to matters of the heart. While Paris wallows in luxury with his prize, his youngest brother Troilus uses Pandarus as a go-between to arrange a night of love with his niece, Cressida. When one of the Trojan leaders is taken prisoner by the Greeks, the ransom price is Cressida.

There is only one character in 'Troilus' who can be said to be at all noble and not self-interested, the eldest Trojan prince Hector, who, despite his odd interpreation of the quality 'honour', detests a meaningless war, and tries to spare as many of his enemies' lives as he can. He is clearly an anachronism, however, and his ignoble slaughter at the hands of a brutal gang suggests what price chivalry. Perhaps the most recognisable character is Thirsitis, the most savagely cynical of his great Fools. Imagine Falstaff without the redeeming lovability - he divests heroes and events of their false values, satirises motivations, abuses his dim-witted 'betters' and tries to preserve his life at any cost. Written in between 'Hamlet' and 'All's Well That Ends Well', 'Troilus' bears all the marks of Shakespeare's mid-period: the contrapuntal structure, the dense figures, the audacious neologisms, and the intitially deferred, accelerated action. If some of the diplomacy scenes are too efective in their parodic pastiche of classical rhetoric, and slow things down, Act 5 is an amazing dramatic rush, crowning the play's disenchantment with love (with an extraordinarily creepy three-way spaying of an infidelity) and war.

The New Penguin Shakespeare is the most accessible and user-friendly edition for students and the general reader (although it does need updating). Unlike the Oxford or Arden series, which offer unwieldy introductions (yawning with irrelevant conjecture about dates and sources) and unusable notes (clotted with tedious pedantry more concerned with fighting previous commentators than elucidating Shakespeare), the Penguin's format offers a clear Introduction dealing with the play and its contexts, an appendix 'An Account of the Text', and functional endnotes that gloss unfamiliar words and difficult passages. The Introduction is untainted by fashions in Critical Theory, but is particularly good at explaining the role of Time ('When time is old and hath forgot itself...And blind oblivion swallowed cities up'), the shifting structure, the multiple viewpoints in presenting characters, and Shakespeare's use of different literary and linguistic registers.

Troilus and Cressida is one of Shakespear`s many romances, and, like most of his romances, is a tragedy. Since time immemorial, Shakespears` works have been used as plays, literature and (least often) just casual reading. While Troilus and Cressida is one of the less known plays, it is no less a good one. It is based in Troy(as the name might imply)during the much renowned Trojan War. The valiant Troilus, son of the Trojan king is enamoured of Cressida, also of Troy. Meanwhile, the Greek hosts have laid siege to the city, and the warrior Achilles refuses to fight, encouraging further interaction between the two sides. Cressida, however, is the daughter of a Greek sympathizer(if that is the correct word)and may not be able to honour her commitment to the Trojan prince...

I think this is one os Shakespeare's most underrated plays, probably because of all the uncouth characters. Based on Chaucer's rendition of the story, T and C are Trojan lovers, and she is then traded to the Greeks in exchange for captive soldiers. Aside from this, the women of Troy are wanton and lustful, and the men are prowess driven. If you can deal with this, you will really enjoy Shakespeare's ability to wrap this into all kinds of twists and turns. It delivers a mixture of satire, comedy, romance, tragedy, and a semi-historical (in that people at the time probably believed the Trojan War really happened). Interestingly, this mixture of laughs and tragedy is reminiscent of war novels I have read about Vietnam. The romantic dimensions give this play its edge, and somehow WS manages to make it plausible in spite of all the killing and deceit going on at the same time.

I rated it a "one" only because there is no zero or minus option. We just returned from three weeks in France and in our opinion this cute little book was nearly useless when trying to decode menus. We survived thanks to a combination of English-speaking wait-staffs and Rick Steves' French Phrase Book. The large number of omitted items is forgiveable--after all, this is a small book. What dooms this book is its unwieldy organization. Seven main sections, several of which are further subdivided, make the book a navigational nightmare. It is frustrating to have to wade through it page by page only to find that what you are looking for is not there. The book should be organized like Larousse Gastronomique--one global alphabetical list with pertinent cross-references. Also, we believe that the authors should actually visit Paris and Provence to observe the changes in menu lingo that has occurred since 1971 when the book was compiled. I say don't buy this book--instead, use the money to buy a bottle of wine. You'll get a lot more value from the wine.

No matter how well (or how poorly) you may speak French, this little book is an indispensable addition to your travel kit. It can help you navigate the dizzying varieties of delicious sauces, the hundreds of preparation styles, the regional specialities, and keep you from ordering kidneys when you thought you were asking for veal cutlets...Helpful pages, too, on money, numbers, basic traveller's phrases. Plus it's small enough to be consulted with discretion at cafes or bistros...and don't forget how helpful it would be for ordering with confidence in your favorite French restaurant back home.

The specialized terminology of French cuisine is rarely found in any pocket dictionary. I carry this little pocket guide not only in France, but also when dining in authentic French restaurants in the USA.

If you know little or no French, you can consult this guide and the menus posted outside most French restaurants, and decide what you're going to order before you even go inside.

The unfortunate use of "entrée" for "main course" may lead to confusion outside the USA.

What was the cause of those murders? Why did it occur then, when the affair was going on for years? I have a suggested solution.

It happened a few days after the Halls came back from their New England vacation in the mountains. I think something happened there, where Mrs Hall had a narrow escape from a fatal accident while with the Reverend. She thought about it, and realized that if she had an accident, Reverend Ed would inherit her fortune, and be free to seek another rich wife. Eleanor would be dropped like yesterday's newspaper. Mrs Hall discussed this with her brothers, and they decided to confront the Reverend while he was with Eleanor, so he could not deny the affair, and would be forced to end it. The emotional interaction escalated beyond reason, and the deaths occurred. The best laid plans of mice and men still go astray.

The case was not solved so justice would triumph over the law. The Reverend Ed messed up his own marriage, and destroyed the Mills' marriage. Alive, he would break up another marriage. It was all for the best. When someone poor falls in love with a rich person, the poor person often comes to an unhappy ending. The rich have many resources to accomplish their ends. This is the moral of "Love Story", that love does not triumph over material facts. No matter how hard you wish it were different. Love conquers all? Forget about it!

This well-written book lacks an index, but lists the people involved. Part I tells about the events of 1922. After the murders no indictments occurred! Part II tells of the events in 1926. A divorce action against the former Hall's maid alleged a pay-off to keep quiet. The NY Daily Mirror publicized this, and NJ Governor Moore ordered a new investigation. Four indictments followed. Part III tells of the five weeks of trial; all were found not guilty. The murders were never solved. In Part IV Kunstler fantasizes about it being a Klan killing. No proof is given, he only argues by analogy. No group of men were seen there. I wonder if this is part of a whitewash? There is no mention of public opinion from these times.

The Reverend Hall married Frances Stevens, 37 years old, a few years before she inherited millions (with her brothers). Around this time Mrs. Eleanor Mills became active in church affairs. Married at 17, perhaps to escape an unhappy home life, she soon had two children. She sought the mirage of happiness in closeness to her minister. But this minister married for money; love was a secondary concern. Their meetings were not secret from their close associates.

On Thursday September 14, 1922 Mrs. Mills read an article justifying divorce for a minister. She cut it out and called Reverend Hall for a meeting; he soon left to meet her. Mrs. Mills boarded a trolley then walked to De Russey's Lane. Reverend Hall left his house by 7:30PM and was seen walking to this location. They were never seen alive again. Saturday morning 9-16-1922 a young couple went for a walk down De Russey's Lane and turned into a grassy path. They found two bodies near a crabapple tree, then ran to Easton Ave to call the police. The missing couple was found.

Four people who lived nearby heard shots or screams around midnight Thursday (p.31). The affair between the minister and the choir singer became public knowledge. Next month they learned of the testimony of the "Pig Woman". While riding a mule to follow a suspected thief, she saw two men and two women arguing near a crabapple tree. There was a shot, and someone fell to the ground. She heard a woman scream, then more shots (p.70). She had tried to tell her story earlier, but was put off (p.72). Detectives accompanied her reconstruction; it checked out.

I believe that Frances, Henry, and Willie went looking for the missing minister, and found them together. Frances asked Edward to kneel and promise to sin no more. Willie, covering him with his pistol, touched it off. They then chose to finish the job (p.29). Future events would tell of witnesses paid to vanish or forget. Who was paid to kill the investigation in 1922? [If they were to find the missing gold watch buried in the Hall's garden we would know the truth.]

Of the two books and numerous articles I have read on the Hall-Mills case, Kunstler's is the most excitingly written, even though it leaves one not wholly satisfied. Boswell and Thompson's trashily titled volume The Girl in Lover's Lane, (Gold Medal paperback original; Fawcett Books: Greenwich, CT: September 1953 [no title on spine]) seems fairer and is more tempered but is also less thoughtful and analytical. Kunstler's solution is dramatically wrong because he writes The Minister and the Choir Singer like a whodunit: the guilty must be among the dramatis personae. To bring in an outside third party, as Kunstler does (and as many Perry Mason mysteries do, by arranging for the Drake Detective Agency to find facts no reader could extrapolate), violates one's sense of literary fairness. Of course, life is not obliged to follow the laws of literary form.

Curiously, in his earlier Oceana Publications book (New York: 1960) First Degree, Kunstler hints strongly at the guilt of Jim Mills. And Boswell and Thompson, on page 24 of The Girl in Lover's Lane, casually dismiss the answer for which Kunstler earnestly argues. They also hint that the vestryman Ralph Gorsline knew more than he told; unfortunately, Gorsline had died by the time they assembled their story. Barring an unlikely disclosure--e. g., a word from one of the Mills descendants, a diary by the murderer, or a contemporary report that contains fresh data, the Hall-Mills case will probably always be unsettling and unresolved, so it seems unlikely that any solution could be more convincing than Kunstler's, however disappointing it may be.

I'm a die-hard Frances Farmer fan. In my opinion, she was the most beautiful actress in the history of Hollywood. I know much about her life, so when I read this "biography" by William Arnold, a "journalist", I was surprised by the errors he had made. He has her date of birth wrong, for instance. And further into the book he writes falsehoods or half-truths to support his claim that Frances had had a lobotomy. I saw the "This Is Your Life" episode honoring Frances and clips of her hosting her talk show in Indianapolis, and it's clear she did not have the procedure. Readers should be aware that Arnold is a Scientologist and he employed an anti-psychiatry approach to this "biography". One could read between the lines that he's using Frances to discredit the psychiatric establishment. To mask his hidden agenda, he makes FF into a martyr for the individual spirit, victimized by a narrow-minded society.

In truth, Frances was never a victim. She made her decisions and paid for it. It's a mystery (which Arnold never mentions) how she became a star and remained in the film business for so long, after alienating her co-workers (no one from the film industry came to honor her in TIYL) and badmouthing the industry that made her rich and famous. Farmer may not not have deserved the treatment she received in the asylums, but, according to those who knew her, she was mentally ill and those treatments were the standard of her time. Arnold delves into possible government conspiracies against FF, and some of his theories border on the ludicrous--it seems everybody was plotting to destroy Frances. He also claims Frances was raped in the asylum by hundreds of soldiers from a nearby army base, without naming a single source to verify this claim. From reading Shadowland, one leaves with a feeling that perhaps Arnold is mentally ill himself. So read this book for entertainment, not to know Frances Farmer.

I do have some sympathy for Frances Farmer and her being committed to asylums for being insane when she was probably just an "in your face" rebellious young woman or manic depressive or something else that can be treated with medication now. I don't have sympathy for her communism. I find it very interesting that Frances studied drama at the University of Washington, went to Hollywood to become an actress/star, but oh, she hated all that glamour movie star business. She wanted to be a communist, share and share alike. Yeah right. If she hated Hollywood and all it stood for, why did she go there to begin with? Please don't make me laugh and tell me she didn't know how Hollywood was. Hollywood was the dream factory in the 1930s. Stars were worshipped. That was the "golden era" of Hollywood.

Frances had a real rebellious streak. She was born too early. She should have been young in the 1960s. She wouldn't have been committed to an asylum. She would have been going around with Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Jane Fonda, you get my drift. Anti-establishment was hip in the 60s, not in the 30s and 40s.

Shadowland by William Arnold is one of the few books available about Frances Farmer. Farmer was an actress in the late 1930s and early 1940s that was institutionalized, and as some believe, this was due to her political beliefs rather than mental illness. Today, Shadowland is still sought after and is somewhat hard to get a hold of, but is a valuable book as it sheds light on a captivating actress and what happened to her.

Shadowland is an attention-grabbing book that is hard to put down and reads quickly. This book is basically an outline of William Arnold's progress as he attempts to solve the mystery of Frances Farmer. Arnold recounts the life of Farmer from various documents and personal interviews of people that claim to have known her. More than half of this book is about Farmer's life before she was institutionalized, and only after 150 pages does it get into her psychiatric involvement.

This book makes a great companion to Farmer's autobiography. Although Arnold does point out information that shows the autobiography may be inaccurate, for the most part, Shadowland does not entirely contradict the autobiography. Shadowland is an important book to read for anyone interested in knowing more about what happened to Frances Farmer.

William Wharton, American expatriate in France, author and artist, determines to live in a houseboat on the Seine. It promptly sinks. The book recounts the refloating, repositioning and refurbishing of this old tub. Somehow, he does it with the help of friends and a very bright, very practical teenaged friend. As I can barely find my way around a hardware store--and care less--I didn't appreciate the cleverness of the rehab, but I did enjoy the people and the stories abounding in the countryside. Wharton, of course, succeeds. He may be a moderately annoying expat, but he writes an interesting book.

If you find home restoration stories interesting you will find this an intriguing and satisfying read. However, despite the title and location the book contains exceedingly little in the way of descriptions of French atmosphere, scenery, or culture, virtually none, actually. While this doesn't necessarily detract from what is an interesting memoir, Wharton's story could have taken place on the Mississippi or Hudson for its descriptions of the host nation.

It is an amazing story of fortitude and luck. The story begins with Wharton's acquisition of a houseboat and what appears to be a lingering plague of bad luck. However, through sheer determination he surmounts it, and in so doing he attracts the advice and help of people interesting in making his houseboat reconstruction project a success. In the process he learns alot about himself, and the project galvanizes what is a family distinctive in patience, character, flexibility, and sense of adventure.

An interesting side note is the allusions to what is a seemingly cohesive American ex-patriot community which seems to live in France but not to assimilate. One gets the impression that they appreciate the location, but aren't inclined to acclimate to French society.

The book isn't great literature and about 4/5 of the way through, after describing grueling tests and continually avoiding devastating failures, he suddenly begins to describe his life approaching retirement 20 years later...with virtually no segue. Hmmm. Still, an interesting book. The intricate (excessive?) detail given to the reconstruction project will appeal to a distinctive audience; this might be generalized as a "men's interest book".

This was the first book I read by Wm. Wharton. I found it so interesting I couldn't put it down. It held my interest right away. I loved it. He is a very detailed writer and keeps my interested to the end. I continued to find other books by him.
Ever After is another to hold ones interest. As before he is an exellent writer. Would love to see his paintings also.
I would say anyone who reads his books won't be disappointed.
Eleanor C.Roby

We used this guide, along with the Triple A guide on Provence and the Cote d'Azure. The Lonely Planet guide was by far the most relevant and contained most of the practacilities the traveler needs. Some of the facts and features were a little different than the author stated, and it could have been quite a bit more thorough regarding the practacilities of driving. Historical and cultural information was both well done and interesting. Definitely 4* and possibly 4 1/2 *.

Once again, Lonely Planets demonstrates why so many travelers rely on its books. This book had exactly the information we needed: markets, hotels, bed/breakfasts, highlights, commentary.

We spent 5-days driving through Southern France and found the book to provide almost everything we needed to get around and plan our itinerary.

The book is organized very well and topics could be referenced very quickly. It may not have all the depth of others, but it does have enough content to inform. And the clarity of the writing and structure more than make up for it.

I really liked this little, spiral bound book. First of all, the cover is built so that it will prop the book up at an angle that allows you to see the pages while you "work" on the baby. While this book doesn't go into extreme depth on subjects, it gives step-by-step guides to normal baby care. The pictures are wonderful and there are lots of them, so you'll know what they're talking about in the instructions. I really liked it!

William Durant is just a pedant who cannot appreciate a hero's greatness. Don't buy or read his books unless you are a useless pedantic fool like him with no hot blood in your vein.

Generally, the series of books written by Will and Ariel Durant is an enormous project, which the authors produced in a workman-like manner. Yes, they are pedants, and the works have a kind of lets-hurry-along flavor; a lets-get-it-all-in aura.

The Durants are Anglophiles, and it shows here. Too much Wellington, and too many British viewpoints, which were in the 19th Century and are to this day stacked against Napoleon, in particular, and the French, in general.

Reading this book, one gets the feeling, that the authors can hardly wait to get to the part about the Battle of Waterloo.

Anyone interested in Napoleon -- the man, and his works -- can find more comprehensive studies by other authors.

The Durant's writing style can sometimes be confusing to the uninitiated. They tend to string long sentences together with semicolins; using pronouns to the point of confusion for the reader.

There is a lot of information here, but this is not a great book. It is a very broad, shallow history giving only a mild flavor, not a real taste of the "Frenchness" of the Age of Napoleon. Francophiles and fans of the Emperor should look elsewhere.

Yes, this book presents an Anglo perspective of Napoleon and his time in Europe. Still, the work of the Durans is fantastic as it captures historical elements from sources as diverse as visual arts, philosophy, literature as well as the customs of the time. The work is also rich in research and references, presenting numerous scripts from Napoleon himself and his subordinates.

After reading this book, I was encouraged to buy the whole collection the Durans produced and I am very happy to have done so.

The ease and the smoothness of Somerset Maugham's style make reading this book enjoyable. However the story itself is just OK, nothing extraordinary. However keeping in mind that it's a preWWII novel, there are some intelligent political remarks and astute psychological analysis of the charachters

Although this may not be the masterpiece of 20th literature, I have to admit that it was a very absorbing read. As we follow Charly, the well-bred perfect English gentlemen, through his week long vacation in Paris, we become ensnared in the life story of the prostitute he befriends and her web of friends and acquaintances. The story itself is interesting in its own right, but what really makes the narrative flow is how Maugham lets us peer into the psyches of various characters, all from different social strata. My personal favorite was Berger, Lydia's husband who despite his rogue behavior was one of the more memorable (and even likable) characters. Simon, Charly's friend was drawn perhaps a bit too extremely, but Maugham does use that to some effect. In any case, a fun read and a good story.

This may not be Maugham's greatest work, but it is effective and well told. Charley, a young, benevolent, middle-class Englishman goes on holiday to Paris at Christmas-time. There, with a sardonic childhood friend, he undergoes a rite of passage common to youths of earlier eras: a visit to a brothel, here an expensive one (the Sèrail) where he meets Lydia, a Russian prostitute who works there ostensibly to help her convict husband, but, she confesses to him, where she is actually expiating the sin of murder committed by her husband through selling her body to despised and despising men. She has had a difficult life: impoverished childhood, early marriage to a charming youth who hides his criminal activities from her until committing a murder for which he is sentenced to Cayenne. Lydia, aware of his malevolent side, nonetheless has always loved and always will love this man and here Maugham convincingly portrays the irrationality, pain, and depth of love. After spending several days dining, dancing, visiting the Louvre, sharing a bedroom but never bed, Charley and Lydia part, he to his comfortable home and job in England, she back to the Sèrail. Yet after returning to familiar surroundings he notices that all is not as it was: he has been changed by this "holiday" and, as he reflects, the bottom has dropped out of his world.
Maugham was deprecated, perhaps due to jealousy of his success, by some literati of his day. Yet he did have a good control of language, solid descriptive skills, and a definite talent for narrative, all evident in "Christmas Holiday", making it a book that rings true and remains with one afterward.

As a student reading this book for a class focusing on the French Revolution I found it too dense for someone who has no previous knowledge of the revolution. Doyle packs A LOT of information into these 425 pages. He does not place emphasis on any particular people or events which makes understanding specific turning points difficult. However, I can imagine this book would be ideal for one who already has a thorough understanding of the French Revolution and is simply looking for a new perspective.

The main problem in understanding this book is the enormous number of people and factions involved. The index is vital. Unlike the previous reviewer, I wish the author had insulted my intelligence by assuming I did not know anything; some of the most key events and players are treated lightly, apparently because they are so well known by... everyone other than me. Still, seems solid and is readable, if not gripping.

The Oxford History of the French Revolution, written by William Doyle, is easily the best narrative survey of the French Revolution out there today. Its a long and dense work to be sure, but given the length and complexity of the French Revolution (as well as the events that preceded it and immediately followed it) and Doyle's book is remarkably concise, while still covering all of the important events, personages, developments and issues in ample detail. In truth, it's really quite stunning that a history of just a few hundred pages is able to address not just internal politics, but matters of religion, diplomacy, ideology, economics, society, and war-- and to do so in a manner that flows smoothly and clearly. Some folks, of course, may whine about the book still being very dense or complex... but that's the way the French Revolution is-- and there's just no getting around that if you actually want to tell the whole story. The fact is that the Revolution isa remarkably tangled series of events and can't simply be reduced to a simple easy-to-follow story. That's that's why it actually forms its own subfield within the field of modern European history-- it's that big and and that complex. In sum, Doyle's book is an outstanding work of narrative history that covers its subject thoroughly-- although those looking for more detail on particulars will of course want to consult other works. Very highly recommended as an insightful to those interested in a good solid account of the French Revolution and a reference book even for scholars.