Writing today a book that still has something to say about Shakespeare is hard on our days. This is the reason why one can consider this book outstanding. Nonetheless, I have read many recent books about Shakespeare and I consider that behind the interesting concept of social energy lies an excessively skeptic version of Shakespeare. I can agree that Shakespeare's preeminence in the canon is largely due to the circulation of social energy, but I think that many of the richness of Shakespeare is too reduced to this factor. The book is an excellent reading for anybody interested in Shakespeare but requires some balancing. My recommendations would be the heterodox book by Rene Girard and the passionate and excessive approach of Bloom. This triad gives an excellent approach to contemporary theses on Shakespeare with complete counterarguments that neutralize the radical points of view of the three authors.

Although Greenblatt as received a good deal attention for his interest in critical practice and for his coining of the terms "New Historicisim" and "cultural poetics," his real strengths ahev also ben doing close readings of literary and historical texts. In Shakespearean Negotiations, Greenblatt offers typically brilliant and engaging readings of some of Shakespeare's major plays. His book is of interest to a wide audience beyond an academic one. The man is an exceptionally gifted writer and storyteller. It's a pity that so few other literary and cultural critics even come close to matching him. Perhaps only Stephen Orgel and Stanley Fish have equally brilliant prose styles and analytical powers.

Published over a decade ago, this book has become not only a classic in Shakespearean study but also the exemplary of the "new historicism." Even nowadays it does not lose its refleshing power, and never fails to stimulate controversies (e.g. the issue of subversion and containment) that still continues well into the new millenium. Greenblatt has been criticized for homogenizing the history and sacrificing the complexity of the text (for an alternative model of new historicism, one can refer to Louis Montrose's articles and his book "The Purpose of Playing: Shakespeare and the Cultural Politics of Elizabethan Theatre"), but still he has successfully made a strong case for his major argument, namely that Shakespeare, far from a single-handed isolated individual genius coming from nowhere, heavily drew upon the cultural resources and "social energy" circulating among various domains beyond the boundaries of theatre and literature. Greenblatt is very deft in reconstructing the historical and ideological context that enriches the Shakespearen play. Time and again readers feel that the historical anecdote Greenblatt talks about even eclipses the play itself with its magic power of invoking wonder, which might make even those sympathetic readers like Frank Kermode complain that the part on Shakespeare in this book is less interesting than the part on history. But isn't this refocusing of interest not exactly part of demystifying the notion of genius and his sacred writing in order to appreciate Shakespeare more as a negotiator in the marketplace who purchases and exchanges symbolically? The last chapter on "Tempest" is especially highly recommended for its skillful intermingling of the issues of ruling strategy by means of inciting anxiety, colonial (counter)history, the space of theatre and finally the institutionalisation of literature.

Authors Jay Scarfone and William Stillman have written a gorgeous new book celebrating the all-time film classic "The Wizard of Oz." Over the past few years it seemed that fans of the film had learned just about everything there was to learn about the making of "Oz" What a complete surprise and joyful discovery I made when peering into the cover of their newest book "The Wizardry of Oz." There are dozens and dozens of eye-popping pictures, relating the making of MGM's "Oz" through the eyes of the unsung heroes behind the scenes. Technicolor still-shots and blueprints galore fill the happy pages of one of the best books ever written about a film. How wonderful it is to get a fresh take on "Oz", not only through the pictures, but the text as well. Scarfone and Stillman give their readers information in a clear, consise format that leaves one wanting more. That said, not much is left out of the book. Believe this, coming from the ultimate "Oz" fan: you will learn facts about the film that were once thought to have disappeared forever. Now they return. And so, generations from now, future "Oz" fans and everyone else alike will have this information at their fingertips. How poignant it is to be able to thank those who went uncredited sixty- years ago. The book includes the most complete cast/credit list ever assembled for "The Wizard of Oz." Bravo! "The Wizardry of Oz", like the film itself, is a classic... Now and forever! Pick up a copy and enjoy one more trip back to a time when Hollywood was at its most creative and optimistic. With "The Wizardry of Oz", Scarfone and Stillman have become the true creative keepers of the "Oz" magic.

Just when you thought you'd read everything there was to know about the 1939 classic film, "The Wizard of Oz," Jay Scarfone and Bill Stillman come up with a volume like this. The behind-the-scenes production drawings and notes and photographs are just incredible. These two men know their stuff, and it all comes together so well in this book. I cannot recommend it enough.

From the moment I opened the book to the first page, I knew this was a gem! I won't give much away, but the photos are fantastic!This book is for anyone who loves the movie, but also, for the individual who is interested in the behind-the-scenes magic that was involved in the 1939 production. The contents of the book are somewhat similar to "The official 50th anniversary pictorial history of the wizard of oz" which was published in 1989. Although the "50th anniversary" edition is no longer in print and difficult to find, this book will defintely capture the heart of Oz fans around the world and carry on the magic of one of the most beloved stories well into this new millenium.

This was the first book I ever read cover to cover. It is an adventure/fantasy type story. Very enjoyable for the young ones.

I came across this book when I was about 12 yrs. old at the local public library and was loathe to return it when finished. Although the story is about boys, the book explores social and literary territory more traditionally reserved for "stories for girls". "The Hero from Otherwhere" is the story of 2 boys who are opposites in nature and interests. One is a bookish poet, the other an athletic sciene enthusiast. After a schoolyard fight, they find themselves magically tranported to an endangered world. There, friends or not, they must find a way to make their opposing natures work together or perish along with the world they were summoned to protect. As a young teenager, I found the book a relatively easy read and a "ripping good yarn". As an adult, I can say that while it was all that, it also fired my imagination. It inspired me to think about books and themes in ways I never had before. It was a story that encouraged me to looked under its surface without condescending to me. Previously, I had read Jay Williams' "Danny Dunn" series of science novels for boys. If Williams served his apprenticeship with Danny Dunn, it is with The Hero from Otherwhere that he leaves his mark as a journeyman.

If you loved Harry Potter and if your kids love Harry Potter, than this is the book for you. It is like a Mark Twain novel - you should read it more than once in your life time. The story is full of magic and mystery and this reader feels would make a great family film. Wake-up Hollywood!

Contending for the faith "handed down" to us from the prophets, The Prophet, and the apostles to us, is the theme of this book, but without being contentious.

This flowed out of Seminary experience of editors to refute scholarly attempts to undo the handed down truth of Scriptures.

My ambivalence with this well written work is that it tends to fluctuate with on one hand suggest that the church must take the world of thought back through apologetics, and on the other hand, refute through apologetics attempts within the "visible" church the faith of our fathers.

I'm all in support of the latter, given the analogy in St. Paul of likening false teaching to yeast and its quick spread and dough dominance if left undealt with. To this I concur and endorse these enthusiastic apologists of the first class.

However, to suggest that the culture dominated by secular, deceived thinking can be countered with apologetics is naive and unbiblical to this reviewers way of confession. However, to be sure we cannot nor must be be discouraged to continue apologetics to the unbelieving world, but our sites must only be as "a minfield" clearing exercise that the Gospel might be heard in its purity. Prophecy predicts what we are seeing, both in and outside the visible church, e.g. 2 Tim. 4 and those who refuse to follow true doctrine and find and establish false teachers who tickle their ears. This has always been in the church of Christ and world, but we who are of the body of Christ are to be aware of this, test the spirits and develop discernment through constant time in God's Word (Heb. 5). When all the dust settles on theological debate within the visible church, true confession of the faith handed down can be the only practice that counts!

Thus, I commend this excellent collection of concise, precise apologetics with this mild comment. There is much here to chew on, pass on, e.g. "Christian apologetics that's worthy of the name is a call to martyrdom--perhaps not a martyrdom where we spill our blood (although this too may be required) but a martyrdom where we witness to the truth without being concerned about our careers, political correctness, the current fashion or toeing the party line." "Indeed, we have permitted the collective thought of the world to be controlled by ideas that prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything but a harmless delusion. It needs to be emphasized that we, the Christians, the church of Jesus Christ, have done this." "One we thoroughly understand a false idea, we need no longer be intimidated by it." "The Christian apologist is a contender for the faith, not merely a seeker after truth."

(...) What about this book? I read it and enjoyed its several essays. Although I am in no position to review its conclusions on the several domains (critique of naturalism, authority of scripture, virgin birth, the incarnation, design in science, etc), I tend to agree with the main conclusions. I also favour the return of apologetics to theology courses, as long as it is done with intellectual rigour. The entire point of the book seems to be that the premisse you start with really makes a difference on the way you deal with the main tenets of the christian faith. The main alternatives are:

1. Nobody created Nature. Nature developed intelligent beeings by pure chance (random mutation and natural selection). Our lives have no meaning. Some may try to find meaning for life, some may not. Some my even try to destroy life. Why not? Since there is no meaning, there is also no absolute moral and ethical norms. Madre Teresa and Osama Bin Laden are just a bunch of selfish genes trying to survive. Genocide may be considered a normal and legitimate strategy of gene survival, as Charles Darwin and many evolutionists acknowleged. Who can blame them for that? Even if it is the result of pure chance, our intelligence is suficiently powerful and reliable to be the measure of all knowledge. You can trust your selfish genes for that. You can also enjoy a free lunch and relax while you listen to a just-so story.

2. God may have created Nature, and let it develop into intelligent beeings by pure chance. God did not create Man in his image. He simply may have accepted the results of the evolutionary process with fair play. In fact we don't know that. There is no evidence of God whatsoever. If he exists, that's the philosophers and theologians problem. Let them speculate. In the real world (if there is one), objective science sees no place for God and no fingerprints of its presence. Faith is purely subjective and precarious. Knowledge is totally objective and reliable. They never meet in the real world. Here again you can trust your selfish genes for that. Here too, you can enjoy a free lunch while you listen to a just-so story.

3. God created man in his image. Subjective reason and objective matter have their own foundation in the Absolute Logos. Both are the product of intelligent design. Probabilities theory, design theory, complexity theory and information theory allow us to make a design inference scientifically beyond reasonable doubt. There is no free lunch here. There are no just-so stories. The complex specified information that structures matter also makes it intelligible and renders both possible and meaningful objective knowledge by our subjective reasons. You can trust the Word that became flesh and lived among us, for that. He is the source of all intelligence, all information, all matter, all life, all love, all freedom. He became flesh so that flesh can know the Word. He did it in a way that respects our freedom to accept or reject. If we accept him and his revelation as the foundation of all truth, instead of trusting our own "naturalistic-bunch-of-particles-reason", things start making sense. It even promotes the progress of mankind. Remember that all data shows that those countries mostly influenced by the genuinely christian revelation (the Inquisition, or the Index Librorum Prohibitorum have no place in that), tend enjoy stable democracies, economic progress, human rights protection and the rule of law.

This approach helped the authors of the essays that make this book make sense of problems that are complicated only for naturalism. I advise its reading.

While the discipline of apologetics has fallen into disuse and disfavor among mainline scholars who have subscribed to a more pluralistic philosophy, this intrepid group of Princeton alumni battle to keep that old apologetic spirit, so integral to "Old Princeton", alive and well. They succeed admirably. Many issues are tackled in this book, especially naturalism and the effect it has had on biblical and theological studies. The book reads like a conservative theological journal, and, believe me, I would be thrilled to see more books from this group on the market. Every person preparing to enter seminary or study religion in a college setting should read this book and keep it handy for research purposes. Although some subjects could have been developed further (the chapter on universalism ended much too soon), all in all it is an outstanding resource.

Like the other reviewers, I read this book as a kid in 1959. Unlike them, I cannot recommend it. Although the characters are likeable, the story is crippled by the fact that the author is almost entirely clueless about computers. Of course in the Fifties, unlike now, this was true of most people, so the author's ignorance is understandable--but the many conceptual errors in the plot really hurt the storyline, and are likely to make young modern-day readers cringe with embarrassment--or simply discard the book, unfinished.

I loved this book as a kid. It is a bit corny, but the message it relays about experiential and constructive learning is consistent with educational theory of the 90's. Knowledge is often best attained when the student (at whatever age) helps to construct it themselves rather than having it handed to them to memorize. Kids don't have to know this to enjoy the book! Highly recommended for grade school readers or students in instructional technology...

I read this ages ago as a kid. Oh, how I wished the homework machine were real!

I loved the Danny Dunn series of books. Every trip to the local library was filled with anticipation of a new, fantastic adventure. Great stuff.

It is a beautifully illustrated book. I have little against the book per se. And yet, there are other books out there that have more depth which deserve more stars than this particular book. "The Boy Who Wouldn't Go To Bed" is another beautifully illustrated bedtime book that features a train. Books by Ruth Krauss/Maurice Sendak, Charlotte Zolotow ("Where the Wind Blows" and "The Sleepy Book" are really wonderful night time books), John Burningham (like "Hey! Get Off Our Train" features a train) and a number of other authors and illustrators have written time-tested books that are worthy of the most number of stars available.

This book is beautifully illustrated and a perfect bedtime book (for obvious reasons). I like the way it presents the idea that you have to go to sleep to get to tomorrow. Quite lovely all around and a nice gift.

My 2 year old loves this book as much as I do! It is a classic tale of a child who doesn't want to sleep and the mother who coaxes him to bed. The drawings are striking, with details (of animals, trains, balloons and such) that keep everyone interested. The rhymes are fun to read and are perfectly paced for a bedtime story. After repeated (almost nightly) readings, I still enjoy reading it.

When rating Shakespeare, I always rate his works as compared to other Shakespearean works; otherwise, the consistently high marks wouldn't be very informative. For instance, if this were to be rated against the general run of literature extant, it would certainly rate five stars. Even by the standard I'm using, it's close.

Like "Hamlet", this is a tragedy that still manages to have some very funny lines; as in "Hamlet", this is generally due to characters either pretending to be crazy, or truly being crazy, so it's something of a dark humor, but humorous it still is. Lear's jester has some great lines doing what only a jester could get away with (and what the reader wants to do): telling the King that he's an idiot when he's done something ignorant beyond belief. Edgar, son of Gloucester, banished by his father for supposed treason, plays the part of a mad beggar to save his life, and when Lear, honestly crazy from grief, meets up with him, their conversations rival anything in Hamlet for manic nonsense that still manages to make a certain warped and poigniant sense.

It's a shame that the language has changed so much since Shakespeare's time, so that the masses are unable to enjoy and appreciate his wit; his plays were not written to be enjoyed only by the literati; they were intended to entertain and, yes, enlighten the masses as well as the educated; his plots seem to be right in line with either modern romantic comedies (in his comedies) or modern soap operas (in his tragedies). Modern audiences would love him, if only they could understand him; unfortunately, when one "modernizes" the language in a Shakespearean play, what one is left with is no longer Shakespeare, but simply a modern adaptation. Which, if done well, is not without value, but is still far short of the original.

This star-rating system has one important flaw: you have to rank books only in relation to its peers, its genre. So you must put five stars in a great light-humor book, as compared to other ones of those. Well, I am giving this book four stars in relation to other Shakespeare's works and similar great books.

Of course, it's all in the writing. Shakespeare has this genius to come up with magnificent, superb sentences as well as wise utterings even if the plot is not that good.

This is the case with Lear. I would read it again only to recreate the pleasure of simply reading it, but quite frankly the story is very strange. It is hard to call it a tragedy when you foolishly bring it about on yourself. Here, Lear stupidly and unnecessarily divides his kingdom among his three daughters, at least two of them spectacularly treacherous and mean, and then behaves exactly in the way that will make them mad and give them an excuse to dispose of him. What follows is, of course, a mess, with people showing their worst, except for poor Edgar, who suffers a lot while being innocent.

Don't get me wrong: the play is excellent and the literary quality of Shakespeare is well beyond praise. If you have never read him, do it and you'll see that people do not praise him only because everybody else does, but because he was truly good.

The plot is well known: Lear divides the kingdom, then puts up a stupid contest to see which one of his daughters expresses more love for him, and when Cordelia refuses to play the game, a set of horrible treasons and violent acts begins, until in the end bad guys die and good guys get some prize, at a terrible cost.

As a reading experience, it's one of the strongest you may find, and the plot is just an excuse for great writing.

One of literature's classic dysfunctional families shows itself in King Lear by William Shakespeare. King Lear implicity trusts his three daughters, Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia, but when the third wishes to marry for love rather than money, he banishes her. The two elder ones never felt Lear as a father; they simply did his bidding in an attempt to win his favor to get the kingdom upon his death. Cordelia, on the other hand, always cared for him, but tried to be honest, doing what she felt was right. As Lear realizes this through one betrayal after another, he loses his kingdom -- and what's more, his sanity...

The New Folger Library edition has to be among the best representations of Shakespeare I've seen. The text is printed as it should be on the right page of each two-page set, while footnotes, translations, and explanations are on the left page. Also, many drawings and illustrations from other period books help the reader to understand exactly what is meant with each word and hidden between each line.

I read 'Echoes in the Darkness' and absolutely loved it, and was convinced of Jay Smith and Bill Bradfield's guilt and involvement in Susan Reinert's (and her children's) murders. But this book made me think twice. A lot of new information has come to light and this book explores those other theories, witnesses, and (yes, it's true) facts that never came to light. I am not 100% convinced of Jay Smith's innocence, because the whole situation is rather bizarre, to say the least, but this book put some doubts into my head. I find it appalling that police cover-ups and dishonesty can tarnish a trial and skew the entire outcome . . . I mean, maybe Smith WAS intricately involved, but we may never know the whole truth. And a few over-zealous policemen or investigators really did fabricate some things. It is a sad commentary on the American justice system. All in all, it was a good book, and you really can't know the whole story until you read both 'Echoes' and this book. My only major complaint is that the author (Costopoulos) was a little wordy, a little annoying, and VERY high on himself. Generally, I just don't think he is a very good writer. I was not interested in his physical descriptions, or what he was wearing, or what the other lawyers were wearing, or what color their hair was. I don't care that Costopoulos was compared to Burt Reynolds. I don't care that everyone looked up to Costopoulos and he was well-respected in his community. That doesn't add to the story. He is obviously QUITE proud of himself and his ability to boss people around. But what do you expect?? He's a lawyer!

I READ THE BOOK ECHOES IN THE DARKNESS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES IN 1997. ON OR ABOUT SEPT.1979 I HAD AN EXPERIENCED AT A LOCATION NOT TO BE DISCUSSED ONLINE. AT THIS LOCATION THERE IS A SQUARE AND DRIVEWAY, WHICH COULD BE THE SQUARE AND LINE VINCE VALATIS CLAIMS BRADFIELD DREW. THE DRIVEWAY GOES TO A POND. ALSO DISCUSSED IN BOTH BOOKS IS SLAG.THERE IS ALSO A CLOSED STEEL FACTORY NEXT TO THE SQUARE AND INDUSTURIAL WASTE MOST LIKLY SLAG. I GAVE THIS INFORMATION TO THE PA. STATE POLICE PRIOR TO THE REOPENING OF THE INVESTAGATION. I DISCUSSED OTHER THINGS WITH THE STATE POLICE ABOUT EVENTS AT THIS LOCATION. I HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD IF THE INFORMATION I GAVE THEM DOES HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE CASE. I BELIEVE JAY SMITH IS GUILTY. I beleive we will never know the truth. All involved are sworn to secrecy. Maybe One of those involved will break down and come forward. Note: I beleive Jay Smith may be protecting someone. If this location and conversation I had with someone there has nothing to do with the crime, Than all I can say is what a coincidance and many of them.
04/11/03
This location is
2522 State Road
Bensalem Township
Bucks County, Pa.
There is now a building on the (ground which was in the shape of a Square.) There was never any earth disturbance where this building is. There were some digs in the area one to the left of the driveway going to the pond, the other about 120 ft. straight in the woods above the pond.

What a brilliant book! William Costopoulos tells the story of his lonely battle to free a man from death row, a man put there by hearsay, payoffs, hysteria, and criminal acts by state police and prosecutors. Wambaugh's book about the main line murders of Susan Reinert and her two young children was a great story, but this book is the truth! As usual, non-fiction trumps even good storytelling. The writing is sophisticated, and Mr. C. is clearly the finest example of what a criminal defense lawyer should aspire to be. Thank God he persisted, freed Jay Smith, and in the process got Pennsylvania law changed so that defendants in death penalty cases who are convicted due to perjury and prosecutorial misconduct, are freed without retrial. What an accomplishment! Read this book. It's important.

This book may be an adaquate study guide for preparing for Exam 70-068, but I don't think it's an excellent one. You'd need use Exam Cram or Transcender exams to get an idea of how the questions would look like in the real test because the Exam Questions at the end of each chapter in this book are too weak and too few.

The contents are not very well organized and some errors are presented in an authorative tone that they are not easy to spot if you don't try it out. Try its comments on the "Forcibly disconnnect remote users ..." option in Account Policy.

I read Sybex (stay away from them) and Dennis Maione's books on Server and Workstation as supplements to Microsoft ILT. Maione's books are an excellent source for a comprehensive knowledge of NT (not just for the sake of passing the test). Though suffering from the same type of Exam Questions, they are very insightful and tell more about "why" rather than "just-do-this-and-don't-ask-why" (which is the impression I got from the labs in MS MOC). In contrast, the chapter on network monitoring in this book is just like repeating what Microsoft says in its Training Kit on the subject (and without the sample exercises in Training Kit). The author's lack of insights, or unwillingness to share them, on the subject are shown in the absence of those Exam Tip and Warning boxes in the margin. However, at least, this is the only study guide I used that covers the subject, which is not a favorite of the real exam but is something that you could be tested on. I had a question on analyzing a sample frame in the real exam.

One reason I use the study guides is to see what insights an author can share with you drawing on his/her experience and expertise and to obtain a perspective different from Microsoft. I don't benefit much this way from this book, although it does cover what you need to study for the exam.

Just finished prepping for the NT Server 4.0 Exam using this book as the main study guide. Very well laid out with good use of text/colors, very typical of the New Riders Next Generation Study guides. Exam covers a VERY broad range of info and the book does a good job of covering it all. The author is very knowledgable and brings his practical experience to the book. My only complaint is the low number of study questions in each chapter. Recommend adding the Exam Cram book for those study questions. Also would not recommend the MS Press study kits, they are not worth the $$$ (unless you need the 30 day eval. software) and it helps to have a non-Microsoft point of view...

This book is well written, making it easy to read and understand. The content layout is also well done, making it easy to see exactly what is required to know for each exam objective. There is some small detailed information missing but I found that the practice tests identified this information to you anyway, so overall the content is adequate (the Sybex books I'm using, also have information missing). I did notice questions in the real exam relating to previous exams, so I would recommend doing the subjects in the following order: Networking Essentials, NT Workstation4, NT Server4, NT Server4:Enterprise. I found the practice exams to be an invaluable aid for studying for the exam and they are similar to the real exam. I used the Sybex books for my elective subjects, and found them to be very poorly written. The Sybex books were not easy to read and understand and the content was layed out in a poor way, making them hard to identify information for each exam objective.

This play can be read as anti-semitic. In fact, it's pretty hard to defend it from such charges. Shylock is a pretty rotten character and the fact that he is jewish is difficult to overlook (particularly since the other characters mention it on pretty much EVERY page). However, I think it is important to mention that the "heroes" of this play do not necessarily have to be interpreted as heroes. They are by no means perfect and there are many subtle (and some not-so-subtle) instances within the text in which their biases against ANYONE unlike them is illustrated. If one reads the play this way, then Shylock becomes more of a tragic figure rather than an absolutely heartless villain. I don't know. My feelings about this are mixed. There are a few funny parts of this play and the language is, as always, beautiful. The theme of putting a price on human beings is one which has been explored numerous times since. Overall, it is enjoyable, but perhaps not so much so as some of the other comedies. Do not read this play without having read a few others by Shakespeare first. It is an excellent play, but not his best and not his most enjoyable either.

After reading most of the other reviews here, I am fully aware that most of the reviewers didn't read carefully enough (or watch carefully enough if they saw the play.) Now, I'm not saying its not open for different interpretations, but there is one thing I would really like to get straight.

I read MoV for a Bar Mitzvah project on Anti-Semitism. Naturally, my sympathies went to Shylock. However, even if i were Christian, i still would've favored Shylock. What many people believe is that Shylock is a cold hearted ruthless person and only wanted to get back at Antonio because Antonio was a Christian.

Not true. Shylock specifically says something along the lines off, "Why should I lend money to you? You spit on me, and call me a Jewish dog!" I'm not saying that Shylock was a good guy, but I am saying that he is not the villain.

In fact, the "Merchant of Venice," in this story is actually Shylock, not Antonio, contrary to popular belief. My thoughts on the story was that Shylock requested a pound of Antonio's flesh because he did not trust Antonio. Who would trust someone that spat on him? The fact is, Antonio doesn't pay him back in the end.

Now, there's always something else we have to put into consideration. Would the judge had given the "spill one ounce of Christian blood" verdict at the end if Shylock were not a Jew?

This is the mark of a great play. A play that really gets you thinking. But I encourage you, I beg of you, that when you read it or see it, please do not hold Shylock up to being a cold hearted villain. Hold Antonio up to that image. (joking, of course, Antonio's not a bad guy, he's just not a good guy.)

This is a wonderful play - and unless you have seen it or read it you don't know it at all. That's because everything the popular culture tells us about this play is false (for example; how many of you think this play is about a merchant named Shylock? ;-)

The Merchant of Venice is a lively and happy morality tale. Good triumphs over bad - charity over greed - love over hate.
There is fine comedy. Portia is one of Shakespeare's greatest women (and he ennobled women more than any playwright in history). There are moments of empathy and pain with all the major characters. There is great humanity and earthiness in this play. These things are what elevate Shakespeare over any other playwright in English history.

Plays should be seen - not read. I recommend you see this play (if you can find a theater with the courage and skill to do it). But if it is not playing in your area this season - buy the book and read it.