I won't bother to review Dante's "Divine Comedy". The fact that it has withstood the test of time, and its depicitions of heaven and hell have become ingrained into our mythology, reveal far more than anything I could say.

This translation, however, was simply too difficult to read. It was too full of "thees" and "thous", and quite frankly did not flow at all. Reading it was a real struggle for me. The annotation and Canto introductions, however, were very helpful, and gave me a better picture of what Dante was saying than the actual text itself. The book also has the advantage of being compact (all three parts in one average-sized book), and reasonably priced.

However, I would recommend searching for a translation written in a more modern style, so that Dante's message isn't obscured in a linguistic haze. What he said was too important to be lost in a struggle with the langauge.

Whether you care to join the scholarly debate over whether Dante's soaring masterpiece is medieval or renaissance literature, this trilogy is well worth the time and effort anyone cares to invest. Make no mistake - this account of the journey of a soul through Hell, Purgatory and Heaven is very demanding reading, no matter how well translated and how many helpful notes are provided (I first "discovered" Dante in high school and remain faithful to the Ciardi translation). Dante can be read on so many levels that it constantly challenges the reader, yet the rewards are great. Dante the poet and the protagonist is a medieval Christian who is also embracing the masters of classical antiquity, such as his first guide, Virgil. He is a Florentine who bitterly resents the people who contributed to his exile from his beloved city-state. He is a political theorist who embraces a sort of world order far beyond the nations and petty principalities of his day. He is a devout believer who abhors the corruption of the late medieval Church. He is a writer who constructs a masterpeice of structure. He is a romantic who pines for his ultimate guide Beatrice. But ultimately, Dante is a passionate believer who chronicles the allegory of his soul's journey from sin (The Inferno) to repentance (Purgatory) to salvation (Paradise). Don't make the all-too-frequent mistake of reading only the most entertaining Inferno. A third of Dante is fascinating but the entire Divine Comedy is an inspiration.

This review is of the John Ciardi translation - apparently Amazon links it in to all versions? Different translations will suit different tastes.

This classic translation of Dante's trilogy remains one of the best. It nicely preserves the musicality of the original by retaining the "terza rima" rhyme scheme throughout. This may seem like a narrow point but it makes this a satisfying read for one who enjoys rhyme. Terza rima is an ABA, BCB, CDC... arrangement of triplets where the first and third lines rhyme and the middle line's rhyme becomes the first of the next triplet - simple but not sing-song. Over a poem of this length it helps to weave an amazing fabric of rhyme and story.

In the original Italian, a language with only a handful of primary word endings, such an approach was not the central challenge of a poetic work - Dante gets credit for the vision and scope. The challenge for translators is whether to preserve the content or the rhyme more closely; the English language is not comfortably suited for such relentless rhyming. Ciardi has, nevertheless, done a wonderful job of this. As to the other element, I've been told that the "story" is a tad "creative" at times. Perhaps Dante would object a few times if he reread this translation, but I found Ciardi's telling well crafted.

This edition combines all three parts of the "Comedy" in a nice, clothbound package. You might end up owning other translations of Dante (I have three), but you should certainly own this one.

It's too bad that over the course of X-Men history, Jean Grey has died and been resurrected so many times that she's become something of a comic-industry in-joke. It's to the detriment of one's perception of the depth of the original story. She remains possibly the most complex of X-Men characters, and her dark history is chronicled in this well-written collection that tells what is considered the best storyline in X-Men's history.

My one gripe is with the artwork. Yes, it's dated, but there's a much more important issue here -- why is it that they used only one page to illustrated the climactic sacrifice? In this one scene is incorporated the fate of the whole team of X-Men (whether they will be killed by the Imperial Guard), the ultimate fate of the love between Phoenix and Cyclops, Phoenix' final decision (her humanity, or her power?), and the fate of the universe. Even the defeat of Colossus at the hands of Gladiator received more panels. The scant amount of space devoted to this devastating ending is a matter of storytelling, and the age of the comic doesn't excuse it from a fault on this level.

Other than that, it's one of the most effective orchestrations of the huge cast in the X-Men series. Most of the time, storylines in comic books like this revolve around the appearance of some anticipated character or another. Here it's driven by emotion and story development, and the Dark Phoenix/Phoenix character remains fascinating, driven less by malevolence than hunger and arrogance. One occasion where a lowbrow cultural form like the comic book has produced something worthy of deeper consideration beyond that of simple entertainment.

In the Dark Phoenix Saga, Chris Claremont and John Byre, firing on all cylinders, create the greatest comics story ever. It is a story that fits logically in the greatest run by an artist/writer team in a comic series ever (chronicled in the Essential X-Men Vol.2 graphic novel), but one that also stands so well on its own.

In a story where so many things are done right, it stands out because it is a primarily a story about conflict. There is conflict on virtually every page. Not just shot-em up, video game violence, but internal, character-driven conflict.

There is conflict between Prof. X and Cyclops over leadership of the X-men; between the fiery Wolverine and the control-freak Prof. X; Jean Grey struggles to control her dark side; Cyclops tries to mold the fiercly independent members of the X-men into a tight-knit team; Jean & Scott try to maintain their relationship thru the mounting chaos....

The X-men, the ultimate ousiders, rely on each other time and again and yet, their most powerful member turns on them and then saves them - repeatedly.

The X-men have a truly worthy opponent in the Hellfire Culb.

Obstacle after obstacle is overcome before the truly life and death battle at the climax. The escalation of tension is evere bit as gripping as when I read the original comics as a kid. Its lost none of the magic or mystery. There is none of the letdown so often felt when we re-visit the source of our nostalgia.

There have been a half dozen stories that were much more revolutionary than the Dark Phoenix Saga - from the death of Gwen Stacey in Spider-Man, to The Dark Knight, the Watchmen and Crisis on Infinite Earths over at DC. Yet, for my money, Dark Phoenix is better - not for its novelty or originality or life-like art, but because its that good.

It is up to each X fan to decide if subsequent events have diluted the power of the Dark Phoenix saga, but it is still the one story that everyone who really wants to know the X-Men must be familiar with.

Seemingly by a miracle, Jean Grey's life was recently saved by psychic melding with an elemental force called the Phoenix. Unfortunately, a price soon becomes apparent. At first in small ways, it starts to become obvious that the Phoenix has started to change Jean, wheather for good or ill not immediately apparent. As the obscene Hellfire Club - which makes Magneto look like a boy scout - tries to find a way to make use of Jean, it slowly becomes evident that the power of the Phoenix is becoming beyond her control. This time, not even her teammates - not even Scott - may be able to save her.

This story is still powerful, and younger readers should be aware that, at the time, it sent shockwaves through the comic reading world because nothing like the tragic resolution had ever been done before. It was grim indeed.

There is, however, a light at the end of the tunnel. As the remaining X-Men grieve, a young girl hesitantly arrives at Xavier's to begin schooling - a girl who had a peripheral involvement in the Phoenix events. She's Kitty Pryde, who will eventually become the love of Colossus' life, like a foster daughter to Storm and like a little sister to Nightcrawler.

Newer fans will be surprised in particular by the beginning of Kurt and Kitty's friendship. "I don't think the little Fraulein likes me", Kurt notes to himself during the calm before the storm. The matter is dropped in the whirlwind of events, but it will come back to haunt them both. The truth is that Kitty, in spite of her best efforts to hide it, WAS a bit frightened by Kurt for quite some time. It would take alot of mental conditioning on her part and patience and sensitivity on his before she became his fiercely adoring Katzchen.

It's Christmas and I've just purchased Mac OS X Unleashed.

The thing weighs a ton (1,464 pages!) but is one of the best computer books I've bought. The guys who wrote it are obviously Unix heads but they are also very much in love with the Mac as well so it's got a good feel when reading it.

A long time Mac user I've just started to dig into the Unix side of things, attributes, permissions, owners, mounting volumes as directories, etc... it's actually quite interesting.

If you're going to delve into Mac OS X beyond clicking around in the GUI this is the book to invest in.

I'm currently formatting my "man" pages

Here is a brief summary of some of the Unix topics covered:

Unix file management basics
Command line software installation and troubleshooting
File system operations including permissions and groups
Process management including pipes
Command line applications (Lynx, telnet, FTP, rlogin, ssh, pine, emacs, lpr, etc.)
Environment and shell variables
Installing and using XFree86
The section on Network Administration has good fundamentals on AppleScript, Perl, PHP, MySQL, as well as intermediate and advanced level tips on how to work the the all-important NetInfo database.

Some of the best OS X info includes printer and font management, especially how to install and configure LPR printers, which can be something of a black art, or so I am told. Personally, I would not know an LPR printer if I tripped over one in the hallway.

The last sections are devoted to learning the Unix applications included in OS X: the Apache web server, Sendmail, WebDAV, PHP. There is also a smattering of info on CGI programming. While both Apache and Sendmail have thousand-page tomes devoted to them, Ray and Ray provide enough detail for the Mac-centric OS X user to get a feel for the power of the Apache web server and the Sendmail application. While anyone can turn on Apache in the System Preferences, Apple provides virtually NO guidance or instructions. Unleashed will at least provide you with a good grounding in Apache basics. Ray and Ray discuss proper care and feeding of FTP sites is provided as well.

I generally do not like book reviews to be mere recitations of the various subjects covered. But I felt it important to show how much valuable information is contained in this one book! But raw information is of no use if it is not intelligently presented. The authors' writing style is crisp and to the point, and the example provided are relevant to real-world Macintosh computing. Too-small screen shots are my only objection to the production values. If publishers could figure out how to use paper that weighs less without sacrificing durability, then I would be even happier. This book is ponderous enough that it is difficult to hold in your lap to read. I had to lay it flat on a table to manage it.

Beginners should NOT waste their time and money on Mac OS X Unleashed. Buy Mac OS X: The Missing Manual. instead. But for those who want to learn about Mac OS X-oriented Unix, warts and all, this book should be at the top of your list.

Just be careful to watch your posture when you pick it up.

MacMice Rating: 5 out of 5

------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Weeks
http://www.mymac.com/weeks/unleashed_8.26.02.shtml

"Mac OS X Unleashed" is a terrific book, emphasizing the powerful Unix underpinnings of Apple's new operating system. The book provides a thorough tour of OS X (up to date with 10.1), especially the arcane world of Unix networking administration, with chapters on important topics like NetInfo, installing a Samba server, and detecting and preventing hacker attacks.

The authors Ray bring decades of Unix system administration experience as well as a deep love of the Mac, and they have written an outstanding book bridging the two worlds, introducing Mac users to scores of useful Unix-based tools included in OS X or available on the Web. The book is broad and deep (and at more than 1400 pages, heavy) and is an essential reference to getting the most from Mac OS X. I highly recommend it for technically proficient Mac users.

"Vanity Fair" is Thackeray's masterpiece and on a par with the best of Dickens' work. Alternating deftly between tragedy and comedy, it is a story rich in character development and historical accuracy. The famous pre-Waterloo ball given by the Duchess of Richmond is described in detail and is one of the highlights of the book. Becky Sharp is certainly a model for all the other treacherous femme fatales that follow her in literature, particularly Scarlett O'Hara. "Vanity Fair" is undoubtedly one of the great works of the 1900's and it has surely stood the test of time. It may be "A Novel Without a Hero" but its characters are real flesh and blood human beings.

William Makepeace Thackeray subtitled "Vanity Fair", his masterful comic novel, "A Novel Without a Hero". But while this big, baggy eight-hundred page monstrosity of comic characters and situations may lack a hero, it has two of the most memorable characters in English literature: Amelia Sedley and Becky Sharp. The contrapuntal, shifting fortunes of these two women drive the narrative of this big book, painting, along the way, a brilliant satirical portrait of English and European society at the time of the Napoleonic wars.

We first meet Amelia and Becky in the opening pages of the novel, leaving Miss Pinkerton's School for the wider world of fortune, love and marriage. Amelia Sedley, the naive, sheltered daughter of a rich London merchant whose fortunes will dramatically change over the course of her life, "was a dear little creature; and a great mercy it is, both in life and in novels, which (the latter especially) abound in villains of the most sombre sort, that we are to have for a constant companion so guileless and good-natured a person." In contrast, Becky Sharp, the impoverished orphan of an artist and a French opera singer of dubious repute, was a calculating, amoral social climber. "Miss Rebecca was not, then, in the least kind or placable . . . but she had the dismal precocity of poverty."

From the opening pages, Thackeray captures the reader's interest in these two characters and carries the reader through marriages, births, deaths, poverty, misfortune, social climbing . . . even the Battle of Waterloo! While Amelia and Becky wind like a long, contrasting thread from the beginning to the end of this story, there are also plots and subplots, intrigues and authorial asides, and one character after another, all of this literary invention keeping the reader incessantly preoccupied and enthralled. Reading "Vanity Fair" is the furthest thing from "killing time" (as the dusty, misguided literary critic F. R. Leavis once said); it is, rather, the epitome of the nineteenth century English comic novel, a masterpiece in every sense of the word.

I once read that "Vanity Fair" had been classified as one of the "most boring classics" by a group of English professors, who hopefully have all been fired, as they can NOT have had any appreciation for the incisive use of the English language, the witty skewering of Victorian society, the rollicking plot, or the unforgettable characters. Becky Sharpe isn't likeable -- but in the end, you have to admire her insatiability and efficiency. Amelia and Dobbin live out the stereotypical storybook romance -- but Thackeray dares to show how the story usually ends. This is one of the few books that had me consistently laughing aloud; virtually every page has a stinging comment or revealing moment that catches the attention. Although it's a "classic" (think leather-bound dusty volumes with edifying quotes from the latin), this is as vital, insightful, and "modern" a novel as you could hope to read. (And for the record, I think comparing Thackeray and Austen is like comparing Stephen King and Alice Walker -- they're writing at the same time, but the similarities end there!)

It is certainly one of the three best books about Marilyn. As for the other two, one is Maurice Zolotow's book that was published while she was alive (many libraries have it) and Anthony Summers' paperback "Goddess" that's still in print after 13 years.

Mr. Wolfe fits together many pieces of the puzzle, such as the bizarre role Patricia Newcomb has played in covering up the murder for 35 years. As late as the 1990s, when elder statesman Ted Kennedy had given up running for president, Patricia helped Donald Spoto write a wimpy book that tried to exonerate the Kennedys in the murder. Wolfe takes it apart very well. It is clear that Patricia, who now handles publicity for Barbra Streisand, never will divulge the truth unless a good district attorney puts her under oath.

May I please liberate us Marilyn fans from the book review format here and ask a question? Someone please post a "book review" to explain the following. Mr. Wolfe goes on for many pages about Eunice Murray, Ralph Greenson, Henry Weinstein and Walter Bernstein all belonging to the Communist Party. It's the one part of the mystery I don't get. Did these people's party memberships make them pro-Kennedy, anti-Kennedy or some shades in between? All right then, forget Weinstein and Bernstein, who were busy making silly film comedies that few people watch today. Why would Murray and Greenson, who spent so much time spying on Marilyn, do that for the sake of the Communist Party?

Also, Mr. Wolfe neglects to explain something about the day of the murder. Did Dr. Greenson push that needle into her chest with the intent to kill her? Maybe he was unaware of the drug that Bobby Kennedy and intelligence agent James Hamilton had given her a short time earlier. Maybe Dr. Greenson was trying to resuscitate Marilyn, and his needle hit the wrong place. We don't read about him using needles in other parts of this book or in any other Marilyn book. Maybe he was your typical 1960s psychoanalyst who spent 99 percent of his practice talking with patients and giving them pills, which they voluntarily swallowed. So the cause of Marilyn's death could be the homicidal dose given by RFK and Mr. Hamilton complicated by the clumsy resuscitation effort of Greenson. Mr. Wolfe doesn't explain how or if Greenson allied himself with the Kennedys before the moment of death. All we get is an alliance that started immediately after the death. True, an LAPD officer stopped their car for speeding as they sped away from Marilyn's house that night.

But that still makes it possible that Greenson accidentally finished her off, totally unaware of Bobby, and *then* Bobby approached him to say, "It's not your fault, doc, you just help us cover it up, please. The public is too stupid to understand your diagnosis of her mental state, so we'll make Mrs. Murray look like a kindly bespectacled old lady with no connection to show business or politics. Reporters aren't going to ask her about us Kennedys, J. Edgar Hoover, the telephone company records, Frank Sinatra, etc. Let Mrs. Murray and the coroner handle everything. They'll bore the Dickens out of everyone and the reporters will go away after a few days."

That's exactly what happened. Robert Slatzer and two newspaper people did some digging in 1962 (Florabel Muir and Joe Hyams, both based in New York), but no one published anything then.

Can anyone shed light on these issues of the Communist connection and Dr. Greenson's motive? The odds are great that never again will we get a book that addresses these issues. Future books on Marilyn will focus on her movies. Norman Jeffries, Eunice Murray and Ralph Greenson are all dead. Patricia Newcomb is still a professional liar, now doing damage control for Barbra Streisand. (Patricia doesn't want Bahh - bra to make a fool of herself over Vice President Lieberman.)

So, in the absence of another book on the Marilyn murder, and in the absence of a magazine or television piece, could someone please explain what the Communist memberships of Eunice Murray and Ralph Greenson have to do with Marilyn's death? And what was he doing with that needle as the Schaefer ambulance crew watched helplessly? Please post a "book review" with your thoughts. Thank you. If you haven't read the book, please do so. You can order it via the Web.

Even before I read this I was convinced that Bobby and JFK had something to do with Marilyn's Death. This book just help to bring the rest of the general public or at least, the fans who have read it, closer to the truth. The truth that Marilyn didn't commit suicide. This book really went into a lot of detail to show that it couldn't have been suicide. It went into too much detail also, of things that didn't pertain to marilyn or her death, that was the only thing I didn't like about it. Who cares about arthur miller's problems? I read enough about him in the other most recent Marilyn bio, if you could call it that. This book gave you alot of facts, some that shocked me greatly. The Cal-Neva weekend was gut wrenching to read. I feel that us true fans know that marilyn isn't a suicide victim, but a victim of murder. cold-blooded murder.. I never had much respect for the Kennedys before but after reading this, I find them repulsive. If they didn't want to her know about all those political things going on, and their plans, why did they tell her? What makes me truly ill, is there will never be justice done for marilyn. maybe by me and other fans that believe the same thing. But the Kennedys did a really good job at getting rid of evidence, and covering up so well that there is no way it could ever be proved. I am glad that this book was written, it was well written and it has helped me find some answers about MM's untimely death. thank you, donald wolfe!

I've always been somewhat ambivalent about the conspiracy theories surrounding Marilyn's death & have vacillated between the foul play line & that she took an accidental overdose. I read Anthony Summers' "Goddess" when it was first published & was certainly of the conviction that there was indeed foul play. Having just read the first part of this book & skipped to the end missing out the biographical element of the middle section, I am yet again convinced that at best there was one huge cover-up to protect RFK and at worst that he actually had a direct hand in the deed or was at least present when the fatal barbiturate dose was adminstered. Earlier books I've read have all indeed questioned the validity of Marilyn's bedroom being the scene of death, no water present, the body lying in an unusual position, no evidence of convulsions or vomit which is usually the case with overdoses etc etc etc

It is certainly difficult to refute the evidence presented in this book & the various testimonies that have only just come to light, ie those of Norman Jeffries (this I had never read about before & I've read numerous MM biogs) and of the ambulence driver James Hall. The events that the author concludes took place that night are totally plausible, but what is surprising is the fact that this disparate group of people present when MM died all conspired over the years & colluded in this cover up. The numerous versions of the suicide theory are all fatally flawed & key witnesses such as Eunice Murray the housekeeper have constantly changed their stories over the years - lending them no crediblity whatsoever. However, it is unfortunate that we will never ever know for sure as RFK, Ralph Greenson & Peter Lawford all took their secrets to the grave with them.

This is indeed a compelling read, although sometimes I found I was so bombarded with facts that it was a little difficult to absorb.

If you're an MM fan, then read this book & Anthony Summers'"Goddess".

In contrast to some of the other editions of the complete works of Shakespeare, this book really is value for money. All plays (and poems, etcetera) are printed in a lavishly, pleasing way, very easy to the eye (one of the biggest drawbacks of some editions is that they use a very small font to keep the number of pages to a minimum). As others have commented, not much can and should be commented on the works themselves, they have stood the test of time, and the (normal) spelling that is used in this edition makes each reading an enjoyable experience. All the plays are given a brief (and somewhat succinct) introduction, which is, at best, okay. The strange things, in this book, are, for example, the order of the plays, the way King Lear is printed in two versions (that differ only in small details), and the inclusion of fragments that are attributed to Shakespeare (a bit controversial to say the least). Still, if you want to buy a good, thorough, and well-researched edition of the complete works of Shakespeare, you will not go far wrong with this book.

Pretty much any edition of Shakespeare deserves 5 stars for content. I think the question most people must have is "Which edition?"

I purchased "The Complete Pelican Shakespeare" because I wanted a relatively portable, high-quality book featuring text that benefits from modern scholarship (including brief notes and glossary). I wanted an edition to read and to treasure.

I should say that I didn't need extensive commentary with the text (as in the Arden paperbacks). That bulks it up considerably, can be had in other places, and can be left behind once one has read a play once or twice.

While I'm no Shakespearean scholar myself, this edition seems to meet the editorial criteria quite well. The text appears to benefit from modern, authoritative editorship, the introductions are brief but useful, and archaic terms and phrases are defined on the page where they occur.

The binding is high quality, as is the paper.

This is the most portable of the modern hard-cover editions I've found, with the possible exception of the Oxford edition, which is thicker, but smaller in the other two dimensions. I decided against the Oxford because the binding is of lesser quality and Oxford has a relatively idiosyncratic editorial policy with which I don't entirely agree.

Sadly, this is still a pretty big book, just small enough for a good-sized person to hold up and read in bed, and too much for an airplane or trip to the park. I wish someone would make a truly portable version! There is no reason that the entire thing couldn't be compressed into the space of a smallish bible (for those with the eyes for it!).

This weighty tome brings together authoritative versions of the complete works of Shakespeare. The excellent and informative introduction provides the historical context for the plays, the author and the folios. It also explains well how the plays tended to evolve with re-writes and performances. I have not read all of the plays and sonnets, but of the Shakespeare works Henry V and Hamlet, for example, provide high drama with stories that are compelling and language that is unique, beautiful and powerful. While the Taming of the Shrew and a Midsummers Night Dream provide humor, and other plays provide tragedy and pathos. A thousand phrases from these great plays and sonnets have probably carried into modern usuage. Shakespeare is best enjoyed first as a play by fine actors, such as those of the Royal Shakespeare company, that can give life to the often archaic and unfamiliar words, phrases and language constructs that come late 1500s. Once you have been captivated by a good live performance, reading the text becomes a joy and the strange language an exquisit pleasure. Some movies based on Shakespeare are more interesting than others (Kenneth Branagh has been quite successful, while Mel Gibson and Sir Lawrence Olivier were less so to my mind) but a live theater performance is far better and the written word is probably a close second. If you are interested in Shakespeare then this is a wonderful book - the only one you need really. If you have children then you really should get this and encourage them to read it. I have started reading selected passages with my 5 year old son and he loves it, he is absolutely enthralled with the language -- be bold, try it.

This superb play by Shakespeare somehow reminded me of Antigona, the first play which directly examined the always complex interplay and usual confrontation between political reason and moral reason. This play is an excellent account of the immediately previous and subsequent days of Julius Caesar's assasination by Brutus, his best friend, and other conspirators. Brutus is persuaded by the resentful Cassius that Caesar has betrayed Rome by abandoning the Republic and turning to Dictatorship. Brutus gets to be convinced that, in order to save the Republic, Caesar must be killed. This puts him in a great dilemma, for he loves Caesar and he's his closest friend. Here we see in an acute form the way in which political power gets in conflict with morality and feelings. Friendship, power and betrayal are the basic subjects of this excellent piece of work.

This was the first play performed at the Globe Theatre. For that reason alone, this play deserves special attention. But the characters, the language, and this interesting situation represent Shakespeare's finest efforts. Cassius is ruthless with a malicious attitude. But he honestly fears what Caesar will do if he is crowned. Brutus is a good and honest man. He contemplates joining Cassius to kill Caesar despite the fact that Caesar loves him as a friend. (In history as well, Caesar was notably kind to Brutus.) But yet he too fears that if Caesar is crowned, Rome will bleed. Mark Antony is convincing as Caesar's loyal aid who SEEMS insignificant at first. But after Caesar is killed, he emerges as the most powerful and intelligent character in the play. What makes this play so phenomenal is that we can easily understand and sympathize with any of these major characters. (Even though they are on opposite sides.) What's left? Only chilling omens like the Soothsayer, the storm, the ghost of Caesar, etc. Only memorable passages like Mark Antony's famous 'honorable' speech. If you like this play, I suggest the B & W version where James Mason does Brutus, John Gielgud does Cassius, and Marlon Brando does Mark Antony.

This is certainly one of Shakespeare's greatest works. Every individual character has been perfectly planned before the play was written, and each has his/her own unique characteristics. The plot is well-known, but Shakespeare adds the themes of betrayal, love, and distrust into the mix, making it a nonforgetable story. This is definately a masterpiece to be reread over and over again. LONG LIVE JULIUS CAESAR! GO SM!! WE ARE HIS #1 FANS!!!

As a play, "Othello" encompasses many things but more than anything else it is a study of pure evil. Although Othello is an accomplished professional soldier and a hero of sorts, he is also a minority and an outcast in many ways. As a Black man and a Moor (which means he's a Moslem), Othello has at least two qualities, which make him stand out in the Elizabethan world. He is also married to a Caucasian woman named Desdemona, which creates an undercurrent of hostility as evidenced by the derogatory remark "the ram hath topped the ewe".

Othello's problems begin when he promotes one of his soldiers, Michael Cassio as his lieutenant. This arouses the jealousy and hatred of one of his other soldiers, Iago who hatches a plot to destroy Othello and Michael Cassio. When Cassio injures an opponent in a fight he is rebuked, punished, and subsequently ignored by Othello who must discipline him and teach him a lesson. Iago convinces Desdemona to intervene on Cassio's behalf and then begins to convince Othello that Desdemona is in love with Cassio.

This is actually one of the most difficult Shakespeare plays to watch because the audience sees the plot begin to unfold and is tormented by Othello's gradual decent into Iago's trap. As with other Shakespeare plays, the critical components of this one are revealed by language. When Othello is eventually convinced of Cassio's treachery, he condemns him and promotes Iago in his place. When Othello tells Iago that he has made him his lieutenant, Iago responds with the chilling line, "I am thine forever". To Othello this is a simple affirmation of loyalty, but to the audience, this phrase contains a double meaning. With these words, Iago indicates that the promotion does not provide him with sufficient satisfaction and that he will continue to torment and destroy Othello. It is his murderous intentions, not his loyal service that will be with Othello forever.

Iago's promotion provides him with closer proximity to Othello and provides him with more of his victim's trust. From here Iago is easily able to persuade Othello of Desdemona's purported infidelity. Soon Othello begins to confront Desdemona who naturally protests her innocence. In another revealing statement, Othello demands that Desdemona give him "the ocular proof". Like Iago's earlier statement, this one contains a double meaning that is not apparent to the recipient but that is very clear to the audience who understands the true origin of Othello's jealousy. Othello's jealousy is an invisible enemy and it is also based on events that never took place. How can Desdemona give Othello visual evidence of her innocence if her guilt is predicated on accusations that have no true shape or form? She can't. Othello is asking Desdemona to do the impossible, which means that her subsequent murder is only a matter of course.

I know that to a lot of young people this play must seem dreadfully boring and meaningless. One thing you can keep in mind is that the audience in Shakespeare's time did not have the benefit of cool things such as movies, and videos. The downside of this is that Shakespeare's plays are not visually stimulating to an audience accustomed to today's entertainment media. But the upside is that since Shakespeare had to tell a complex story with simple tools, he relied heavily on an imaginative use of language and symbols. Think of what it meant to an all White audience in a very prejudiced time to have a Black man at the center of a play. That character really stood out-almost like an island. He was vulnerable and exposed to attitudes that he could not perceive directly but which he must have sensed in some way.

Shakespeare set this play in two locations, Italy and Cypress. To an Elizabethan audience, Italy represented an exotic place that was the crossroads of many different civilizations. It was the one place where a Black man could conceivably hold a position of authority. Remember that Othello is a mercenary leader. He doesn't command a standing army and doesn't belong to any country. He is referred to as "the Moor" which means he could be from any part of the Arab world from Southern Spain to Indonesia. He has no institutional or national identity but is almost referred to as a phenomenon. (For all the criticism he has received in this department, Shakespeare was extrordinarlily attuned to racism and in this sense he was well ahead of his time.) Othello's subsequent commission as the Military Governor of Cypress dispatches him to an even more remote and isolated location. The man who stands out like an island is sent to an island. His exposure and vulnerability are doubled just as a jealous and murderous psychopath decides to destroy him.

Iago is probably the only one of Shakespeare's villains who is evil in a clinical sense rather than a human one. In Kind Lear, Edmund the bastard hatches a murderous plot out of jealousy that is similar to Iago's. But unlike Iago, he expresses remorse and attempts some form of restitution at the end of the play. In the Histories, characters like Richard III behave in a murderous fashion, but within the extreme, political environment in which they operate, we can understand their motives even if we don't agree with them. Iago, however, is a different animal. His motives are understandable up to the point in which he destroys Michael Cassio but then they spin off into an inexplicable orbit of their own. Some have suggested that Iago is sexually attracted to Othello, which (if its true) adds another meaning to the phrase "I am thine forever". But even if we buy the argument that Iago is a murderous homosexual, this still doesn't explain why he must destroy Othello. Oscar Wilde once wrote very beautifully of the destructive impact a person can willfully or unwittingly have on a lover ("for each man kills the things he loves") but this is not born out in the play. Instead, Shakespeare introduces us to a new literary character-a person motivated by inexplicable evil that is an entity in itself. One of the great ironies of this play is that Othello is a character of tragically visible proportions while Iago is one with lethally invisible ones.

Jealousy is perhaps the ugliest of emotions, an acid that corrodes the heart, a poison with which man harms his fellow man. Fortunately for us, Shakespeare specializes in ugly emotions, writing plays that exhibit man at his most shameful so we can elevate ourselves above the depths of human folly and watch the carnage with pleasure and awe.

In "Othello," the "green-eyed monster" has afflicted Iago, a Venetian military officer, and the grand irony of the play is that he intentionally infects his commanding general, Othello, with it precisely by warning him against it (Act 3, Scene 3). Iago has two grievances against Othello: He was passed over for promotion to lieutenant in favor of the inexperienced Cassio, and he can't understand why the Senator's lily-white daughter Desdemona would fall for the black Moor. Not one to roll with the punches, he decides to take revenge, using his obsequious sidekick Roderigo and his ingenuous wife Emilia as gears in his transmission of hatred.

The scheme Iago develops is clever in its design to destroy Othello and Cassio and cruel in its inclusion of the innocent Desdemona. He arranges (the normally temperate) Cassio to be caught by Othello in a drunken brawl and discharged from his office, and using a handkerchief that Othello had given Desdemona as a gift, he creates the incriminating illusion that she and Cassio are having an affair. Othello falls for it all, and the tragedy of the play is not that he acts on his jealous impulses but that he discovers his error after it's too late.

It is a characteristic of Shakespeare that his villains are much more interesting and entertaining than his heroes; Iago is proof of this. He's the only character in the play who does any real thinking; the others are practically his puppets, responding unknowingly but obediently to his every little pull of a string. In this respect, this is Iago's play, but Othello claims the title because he -- his nobility -- is the target.

Othello relects the true meaning of a tragedy both in its content and its structure.Tragedy is 'a story of exceptional calamity produced by human actions, leading to the death of a man in high estate.'The downfall of Othello is caused by his own actions, rather than by his character, or rather the two work in unison to create the stage for his downfall.
This is what captured my attention when I read this play.It is very profound to realize the fact that Shakespeare uses Iago to set this stage on which Othello is a mere player.
I love the character of Iago. His total confidence, the superiority that he feels when psychoanalysing human nature, his rational thinking and intellectualism sways the reader to think: 'Wow, this is a compelling and sophisticated man we're dealing with here!'
However, my admiration of Iago does not in anyway undermine my love of Othello. His poetic and calm demeanor makes the reader feel the pity and terror for him when he falls from grace (catharsis). Yet, we are made to understand that the reason why he is made to appear a gullible and ignorant fool to some readers is that he does not have any knowledge of a delicate, domesticated life. Venetian women were foreign to him. This tragic flaw in Othello added to the circumstances used by Iago to destroy him.
The meaning, and hence the tragedy of the play is conveyed through the use of Shakespeare's language, style, literary devices and imagery. Without these dramatic effects, readers would never be able to enjoy the play as much, although the dialogue is at times difficult to decipher.
I thoroughly enjoyed Othello and it is my hope that more people find it enticing as I have. I would be delighted to contribute more of my reviews to that effect.

One of the things you can assume when you write about Shakespeare--given the hundreds of thousands of pages that have already been written about him in countless books, essays, theses and term papers--is that whatever you say will have been said before, and then denounced, defended , revised and denounced again, ad infinitum. So I'm certain I'm not breaking any new ground here. King Lear, though many, including David Denby (see Orrin's review of Great Books) and Harold Bloom consider it the pinnacle of English Literature, has just never done much for me. I appreciate the power of the basic plot--an aging King divides his realm among his ungrateful children with disastrous results--which has resurfaced in works as varied as Jane Smiley's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, A Thousand Acres (see Orrin's review), and Akira Kurosawa's last great film, Ran. But I've always found the play to be too busy, the characters to be too unsympathetic, the speeches to be unmemorable and the tragedy to be too shallow. By shallow, I mean that by the time we meet Lear he is already a petulant old man, we have to accept his greatness from the word of others. Then his first action in the play, the division of the kingdom, is so boneheaded and his reaction to Cordelia so selfishly blind, that we're unwilling to credit their word.

Then there's the fact that Shakespeare essentially uses the action of the play as a springboard for an examination of madness. The play was written during the period when Shakespeare was experimenting with obscure meanings anyway; add in the demented babble of several of the central characters, including Lear, and you've got a drama whose language is just about impossible to follow. Plus you've got seemingly random occurrences like the disappearance of the Fool and Edgar's pretending to help his father commit suicide. I am as enamored of the Bard as anyone, but it's just too much work for an author to ask of his audience trying to figure out what the heck they are all saying and what their actions are supposed to convey. So I long ago gave up trying to decipher the whole thing and I simply group it with the series of non-tragic tragedies (along with MacBeth, Hamlet, Julius Caesar), which I think taken together can be considered to make a unified political statement about the importance of the regular transfer of power in a state. Think about it for a moment; there's no real tragedy in what happens to Caesar, MacBeth, Hamlet or Lear; they've all proven themselves unfit for rule. Nor are the fates of those who usurp power from Caesar, Hamlet and Lear at all tragic, with the possible exception of Brutus, they pretty much get what they have coming to them. Instead, the real tragedy lies in the bloody chain of events that each illegitimate claiming of power unleashes. The implied message of these works, when considered as a unified whole, is that deviance from the orderly transfer of power leads to disaster for all concerned. (Of particular significance to this analysis in regards to King Lear is the fact that it was written in 1605, the year of the Gunpowder Plot.)

In fact, looking at Lear from this perspective offers some potential insight into several aspects of the play that have always bothered me. For instance, take the rapidity with which Lear slides into insanity. This transition has never made much sense to me. But now suppose that Lear is insane before the action of the play begins and that the clearest expression of his loss of reason is his decision to shatter his own kingdom. Seen in this light, there is no precipitous decline into madness; the very act of splitting up the central authority of his throne, of transferring power improperly, is shown to be a sign of craziness.

Next, consider the significance of Edgar's pretense of insanity and of Lear's genuine dementia. What is the possible meaning of their wanderings and their reduction to the status of common fools, stripped of luxury and station? And what does it tell us that it is after they are so reduced that Lear's reason (i.e. his fitness to rule) is restored and that Edgar ultimately takes the throne. It is probably too much to impute this meaning to Shakespeare, but the text will certainly bear the interpretation that they are made fit to rule by gaining an understanding of the lives of common folk. This is too democratic a reading for the time, but I like it, and it is emblematic of Shakespeare's genius that his plays will withstand even such idiosyncratic interpretations.

To me, the real saving grace of the play lies not in the portrayal of the fathers, Lear and Gloucester, nor of the daughters, but rather in that of the sons. First, Edmund, who ranks with Richard III and Iago in sheer joyous malevolence. Second, Edgar, whose ultimate ascent to the throne makes all that has gone before worthwhile. He strikes me as one of the truly heroic characters in all of Shakespeare, as exemplified by his loyalty to his father and to the King. I've said I don't consider the play to be particularly tragic; in good part this is because it seems the nation is better off with Edgar on the throne than with Lear or one of his vile daughters.

Even a disappointing, and often bewildering, tragedy by Shakespeare is better than the best of many other authors (though I'd not say the same of his comedies.) So of course I recommend it, but I don't think as highly of it as do many of the critics.

GRADE : B-

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.

"Nothing will come of nothing" the fatal line Lear utters to Cordelia sums up the entire play. The wizened king believes he is urging Cordelia not to refrain from expressing her love for him when in fact he is unwittingly prompting her to use the same insincere flattery as her sisters. When Cordelia refuses to acquiesce to Lear's wishes, he banishes her from the kingdom and divides it among her nefarious sisters Goneril and Reagan. In doing this Lear accepts their empty flattery instead of Cordelia's austere profession of paternal love. Goneril and Reagan quickly betray Lear and then turn against each other. Thus Lear's preference for empty flattery (nothing) destroys his authority and embroils his kingdom in civil strife (generates nothing).

This theme runs like a thread through other parts of the play. Gloucester's blindness toward the nature of his sons results in his literal blindness later in the play. Metaphorical blindness generates physical blindness (nothing comes of nothing). Similarly, after Edgar is banished he avoids further harm by shedding his identity and disguising himself as a vagrant. In the new order of things eliminating one's status results in no harm (another version of nothing coming from nothing).

The motif of nothing coming from nothing has psychological and political ramifications for the play. From a psychological point of view Lear fails to realize that the type of adulating love he wants from Cordelia no longer exists because Cordelia is no longer a child. Her refusal to flatter Lear is, in a sense, an act of adolescent rebellion. Lear's failure to recognize the fact that Cordelia still loves him but not with the totality of a child proves to be his undoing. From a political point of view the fact that Lear divides his kingdom on the basis of protocol (who is the most flattering) instead of reality (whose words can he really trust) also proves to be his undoing. The fact that Lear sees what he wants to see instead of what he should see is the fulcrum of destruction throughout the play.

It is interesting to note that "King Lear" was staged barely one generation after England endured a bitter war of succession (The War of the Roses). The sight of Lear proclaiming his intention to divide his kingdom must have shocked contemporary audiences in the same manner that a play about appeasing fascists might disturb us today.

William James's approach to the varieties of religious experience shows such an incredible understanding and willingness to believe. And compassion. Having had many religious experiences myself, It was the first book I read that seriously studied these mysteries. Making them a whole lot less mysterious to me. James brings in powerful and beautiful excerpts, and quotes for case studies, and shows the reader the spiritual progression of the soul as it moves from Oneness, the Mystical and 'happy soul', through to the Compassionate and 'sick soul' to the martyr, prophet and saint. Anyone who has felt the tug of the Divine Will and the Spirit of Unity will find this book a treasure.

You will not draw the nectar out of this book unless you are aware (the earlier the better) of James' premise that the stronghold of religion lies in individuality. These lectures are not a study of "religion" nor even a study of religious "experiences" in toto, but a study of "individual" religious experience. Singular. It sounds narrow only until you add the other word of the title... "varieties."

Why such an emphasis upon the individual? Because, as James states, the pivot around which the religious life revolves "is the interest of the individual in his private personal destiny." All proper "religion" by such a definition must consist in an individual experiencing connection with that which he considers to be the higher power(s). In fact, at one point James states that "prayer is real religion." And further, "Wherever this interior prayer is lacking, there is no religion; wherever, on the other hand, this prayer rises and stirs the soul, even in the absence of forms or of doctrines, we have living religion." A thought-provoking principle.

You will never appease your hunger by staring at a menu. You have to actually open your mouth and "experience" the eating of some food. Similarly, we can only learn about religious experience by recounting the experiences of those who've done some profound religious eating (so to say). This is James' method. He renounces the ambition to be coercive in his arguments (this is not an apologetic work) and simply focuses on "rehabilitating the element of feeling in religion and subordinating its intellectual part." He does this by the examination of diverse case histories.

And he uses the "extremer examples" because these yield the profounder information. He called these types "theopathic" characters; those who tend to display excess of devotion. His reasoning is thus: "To learn the secrets of any science, we go to expert specialists, even though they may be eccentric persons, and not to commonplace pupils. We combine what they tell us with the rest of our wisdom, and form our final judgment independently."

Concerning this "final judgment" I found the following principle in the lecture entitled "Mysticism" to be particular liberating. As regards the extremely theopathic: "No authority emanates from them which should make it a duty for those who stand outside of them to accept their revelations uncritically." A good word to hide in your heart against the next time some well-intentioned saint feels that their eccentricities should be yours.

To be honest, I found the lecture entitled "Philosophy" to be fairly technical and daunting, but such criticism I charge to my own lack of knowledge in this area rather than to any deficiency in the book itself. Upon closing its covers, I was a satiated bee. The book is total nectar.

Coming from an essentially secular upbringing, I thought religion was something I should learn about as part of a well-rounded liberal arts education. This book helped me to see that religion might also have something to say to me personally (as did Thomas Merton's "Seven Storey Mountain").

"Varieties" is a wonderfully written exploration of the psychology of individual religious experience--whether within or without organized religion--by one of America's greatest philosophers and psychologists. It includes lots of interesting case studies and lots of insight. Major topics: conversion, saintliness, mysticism, and James's illuminating distinction between "healthy-minded" religion and that of the "sick soul." Fun fact: the panicky, melancholic "Frenchman" near the end of the "Sick Soul" section is actually William James. Also noteworthy: this book was an important influence on "Bill W.," co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous.

(Another book I highly recommend on the psychology of religion: Gerald May's "Will and Spirit: A Contemplative Psychology.")