When rating Shakespeare, I am rating it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistent 4-5 stars wouldn't tell you much. So if you want to know how this book rates against the general selection of books in the world, I suppose it might rate four stars; it certainly rates three. The language, as usual in Shakespeare, is beautiful. Still, it's far from Shakespeare's best.

For one thing, this is one of those cases, not uncommon in Shakespeare's comedies, in which the play has suffered a great deal by the changes in the language since Shakespeare's time; it loses a great deal of the humor inherent in a play when the reader needs to keep checking the footnotes to see what's happening, and this play, particularly the first half of it, virtually can't be read without constant reference to the notes; even with them, there's frequently a question as to what's being said. At least in the edition that I read (the Dover Thrift edition) the notes frequently admit that there's some question as to the meaning of the lines, and there is mention of different changes in them in different folios.

But beyond this, as an overweight, balding, middle-aged libertine, I object to the concept that Falstaff is ridiculous just because he is in fact unwilling to concede that it is impossible that a woman could want him. Granted, he's NOT particularly attractive, but that has more to do with his greed, his callousness, and his perfect willingness to use people for his own ends, to say nothing of his utter lack of subtlety.

Is it truly so funny that an older, overweight man might attempt to find a dalliance? So funny that the very fact that he does so leaves him open to being played for the fool? Remember, it isn't as though he refused to take "no" for an answer; he never GOT a "no". He was consistently led on, only to be tormented for his audacity. Nor is he making passes at a nubile young girl; the target of his amorous approaches is clearly herself middle-aged; after all, she is the MOTHER of a nubile young marriageable girl. And given the fact that she is married to an obnoxious, possessive, bullying and suspicious husband, it is not at all unreasonable for Falstaff to think that she might be unhappy enough in her marriage to accept a dalliance with someone else.

If laughing at fat old men who have the audacity not to spend the last twenty years of their lives with sufficient dignity to make it seem as if they were dead already is your idea of a good time, you should love this play. I'll pass.

i've just finished reading/watching all of shakespeare's comedies and mww is one of the funnier ones. it is a lighthearted look at marital jealousy and features one of shakespeare's great fools, falstaff (of henry iv fame). the out-and-out funniest shakepearean play is still "taming of the shrew", imho, but mwv runs well ahead of the laggards, and certainly well ahead of such better known plays as "twelfth night" and "as you like it".

Shakespeare, considering he wrote this little gem of a comedy in a mere 14 days for the Virgin Queen, pulls off a play that proves both witty and fun. Unequivocally, The Merry Wives of Windsor makes for a more enjoyable play if seen live. Nonetheless, reading it is the 2nd best thing.

Sir John Falstaff is once again such a fool - but a lovable and hilarious one at that. Having read Henry V - where Falstaff ostensibly had met his end - I was pleased to see him so alive(pardon the pun) in this short, albeit clever play. It is no surprise that The Merry Wives of Windsor enjoyed such a long and successful stage run during Shakespeare's day and continues to be one of his most popularly staged plays. Recommended as a fun break from the more serious and murderous Shakespearean tragedies.

"Why, then the world's mine oyster,
Which I with sword will open." - Pistol

Do not expect to read much about Kaiser Wilhelm II in this book. The title is quite misleading---it is about the era of Wilhelm, but few details about him are included here, esp. his role in WWI.

Professor John Röhl of the University of Sussex has written extensively on Wilhelmine Germany, including his collection of essay entitled The Kaiser and his Court: Wilhelm II and the Government of Germany (1994). Röhl asserts that Wilhelm has for many years "been marginalized by professional German historians," who viewed the Kaiser as one "who played no part in shaping the policies of the Kaiserrreich." Other scholars have depicted him as "an aggressive autocrat who must bear a large degree of responsibility for plunging Old Europe into war and catastrophe." (xi) Regarding Wilhelm and the Great War, Röhl implies that his influence was negligible. The Kaiser was never a "full-scale" autocrat, and while he perhaps "dreamed of establishing absolute rule for himself...it remained no more than a dream." Röhl contends that this was particularly true in terms of military power, of which the emperor had very little. (3) However, Röhl shows that the Kaiser was not uninvolved in Germany's diplomatic and military decision-making process, notably at the start of the war. He cites Wilhelm's influence in the rejection of Britain's generous peace proposal in 1912, a move supported by his chancellor, Bethmann Hollweg, and one which might have forestalled war altogether. (6)
For Röhl, the Kaiser's involvement in the Great War was heavily influenced by his personality. Wilhelm "never matured," and was seen as a child-like figure at army headquarters. This trait was coupled with a "notorious overestimation of his own abilities, and a refusal to accept constructive criticism. To emphasize the emperor's requirement that he be at center stage at all times, Röhl repeats the apposite bon mot that Wilhelm "insisted on being the stag at every hunt, the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral." (11-13) These qualities did little to endear himself to senior military officers and worked to push the Kaiser to the sidelines of decision making as the war intensified. Röhl holds that Wilhelm's public and private antics brought much scorn down upon himself and the German monarchy as a whole. He opines that
the history of the last hundred years," he opines, "has shown that a monarchy in a modern state can only hope to survive if it restricts itself firmly to its purely representational functions and avoids making any political comment and exerting any influence. That Wilhelm II did precisely the opposite is a matter of embarrassing record. (104)

Röhl concludes that Wilhelm's role in the formation of Germany policies was not insignificant before the war, particularly with regard to the turn-of-the-century naval armaments race with Great Britain, and in the domestic arena-though he was "vulnerable to manipulation by his generals and his military entourage." (166) By late 1914, Röhl declares, Wilhelm's influence began to wane, though the awareness by military leaders of which plans, people or policies the emperor would and would not support acted as "a blocking mechanism," a fact which indicates that the Kaiser could not be completely ignored. (116) Indeed, Röhl reminds his readers that "not a single appointment to an official position, and no political measure, could be undertaken without the express consent of the Kaiser." (117)

This book is a very interesting look into the theory and practice of government under Wilhelm II - particularly in those years of "personal rule" after the dismissal of Bismarck from the chancellorship. The book is essentially a collection of essays devoted to various issues involving the Kaiser and his government. So while it is not structured like a conventional history of this era, or a biography of the Kaiser, an abundance of historical and biographical information is presented.

I enjoyed this book very much - it is very well-written and was a pleasure to read. I think anyone interested in this period of German/European history will find reading this book well worth the effort.

The Two Noble Kinsmen was only partially written by Shakespeare. The primary author was John Fletcher, and Shakespeare seems to have been doing a rewrite more than a collaboration. As a result, you get two different styles of narration and development in the same story. The underlying tale follows very closely on the famous Knight's Tale from Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. As a result, you get a three way perspective on Shakespeare that is not available elsewhere -- what his co-author did, what Chaucer did, and how Shakespeare handled similar problems in other plays.

Where the Knight's Tale was primarily a story about chivalry, love, and spirituality, The Two Noble Kinsmen is very much about psychology and human emotions. Like other plays that Shakespeare wrote, this one shows how conflicting emotions create problems when we cannot master ourselves. In this case, the two loving cousins, Palamon and Arcite, fall out over having been overwhelmed by love for the appearance of Emilia, Duke Theseus's sister. The play explores many ways that their fatal passion for Emilia might be quenched or diverted into more useful paths. The dilemma can only be resolved by the removal of one of them. This places Emilia in an awkward situation where she will wed one, but at the cost of the life of the other. She finds them both attractive, and is deeply uncomfortable with their mutual passion for her. In a parallel subplot, the jailer's daughter similarly falls in love with Palamon, putting her father's life and her own in jeopardy. Overcome with unrequited love, she becomes mad from realizing what she has done. Only by entering into her delusions is she able to reach out to others.

What most impressed me from reading this play is how much better Shakespeare was as a writer than either Chaucer or Fletcher. You can tell the parts that Shakespeare wrote because the language is so compact, so powerful, and so filled with relevant imagery. The tension is unremitting and makes you squirm.

By contrast, the Knight's Tale is one of the dullest stories you could possibly hope to read and admire for its virtuosity without experiencing much enjoyment. Although the same plot is developed, few emotions will be aroused in you. When Fletcher is writing in this play, the development is slow, the content lacks much emotion, and you find yourself reaching for a blue pencil to strike major sections as unnecessary.

In fact, this play would not be worth reading except for the exquisite development of the dilemmas that are created for Emilia. Her pain will be your pain, and you will want to escape from it as much as she does. In these sections, you will find some of Shakespeare's greatest writing.

I also was moved by the way several scenes explored the duality of cousinly friendship and affection occurring at the same time that lethal passions of love and jealousy are loose.

Although this play will probably not be among your 50 favorites, you will probably find that it will sharpen your appetite for and appreciation of Shakespeare's best works.

I also listened to Arkangel recording, and recommend it. The performances are fine, the voices are easy to distinguish, the music is magnificent, the singing adds to the mood nicely, and you will find your engagement in the play's action powerfully increased over reading the play.

When do you lose control over your emotions? What does it cost you? How could you regain control before harm is done?

May you find peaceful, positive solutions to all of your dilemmas!

I will be the first to admit this is not the "best" or the "greatest" play written by the bard, but it is still very worthy of his name, and incredibly beautiful! Kinsmen is a romance in the style of Shakespeare's other late plays, Pericles, Cymbeline, The Winter's Tale, and The Tempest (my favorite). In many ways it reflects his earlier works, namely A Midsummer Night's Dream, Hamlet, and The Tempest. It tells a wonderfully romantic story of two good friends who fall for the same girl (I know, sounds familiar, but trust me, it's a different take on the setup) in Athens. The poetry in it is lovely, the characters very well developed, and the plot is incredible. Many people haven't heard of this play as Shakespeare cowrote it with Fletcher, but belive me, it is still wonderful. Highly recomended.

The Arkangel Shakespeare series being issued by Penguin Audio is now halfway through the plays and the surprise is that was given preference to the remaining more familiar works. Co-authored by Shakespeare and Fletcher, this play remains an odd man out for several reasons. Based fairly closely on the "Knight's Tale" from Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales," it tells of two cousins, who just after swearing eternal friendship in one of Duke Theseus' prisons immediately fall in love with the same woman, Emilia, and become bitter rivals for her affections. One of them, Arcite, is exiled but returns in disguise; the other, Palamon, escapes with the help of the Jailer's Daughter, who goes mad for love of him; and...well, see for yourself. Of the play's 23 scenes, 7 and part of an 8th are attributed to Shakespeare, a 9th doubtfully so, and the rest to John Fletcher, who was probably handed over to Shakespeare to learn the ropes as it were. The Shakespeare parts are easy to spot: they are nearly impossible to understand without a heavily annotated copy of the text open before you! Even more so than in his late plays like "Cymberline" and "Winter's Tale," the syntax is so complex, the thoughts so condensed, that one might (and has) compared his writing with the late Beethoven String Quartets. As one of the scholars quoted in the excellent Signet Classic paperback edition of this play comments, the play is most unShakespearean in that none of the characters change over the course of the play. And I should add the subplot of the Daughter's madness is never integrated into the main plot. One scene, in fact, is devoted entirely to the description of some minor characters and might have been influenced by a similar and much longer sequence in "Seven Against Thebes." In short, do not play this for a casual listen; but be prepared to be challenged. Look especially for echoes of the earlier all-Shakespearean plays. The nuptials of Theseus and Hippolyta recall the opening scenes of "A Midsummer Night's Dream," the main plot that of "Two Gentlemen of Verona," the Daughter's madness of Ophelia, and so on. As for the actual recording, it would be difficult to better it! The voices of the two kinsmen (Johnathan Firth and Nigel Cooke) are easily distinguishable, Theseus (Geoffrey Whitehead) sounds advanced in years and noble, Emila (Helen Schlesinger) mature and alert, Hippolyta (Adjoa Andoh) vocally of African origins as perhaps befits the character, and all the rest as understandable as the text allows and "into" their roles. Thank you, Penguin, for this noble entry in a series that is getting better and better.

This book is the single most thorough anesthesia book available for veterinary medicine. It covers specifics for almost every single species, including exotics and zoo species. It is quite wordy and not a brief reference if you just want a "quick fix" answer, but the explanations are excellent and this is THE resource to reach for with anesthesia questions...

Too detailed for the lay reader or the clinician looking for quick recommendations.

Excellent review coverage of pain, analgesia, monitoring, and anesthesia in general.

Detailed coverage of agent classes and anesthetic considerations by species.

I have many anesthesia books (both veterinary and human) on my shelf - but none better.

The Eye - Principles and Applications, was found to be an essential tool. Forrester aims (and succeeds) to inform in detail everything a first year university student needs to know about the eye. This is the beauty of the book: It doesn't skim over anything. When you're looking for a book to give more than a general overview, but don't need the complexity a post-graduate may, a book such as this is perfect. The only valid criticism may be that the included diagrams were erratic: some were perfectly presented, but others, whilst correct, were sometimes confusing, especially for students. Overall, a useful book for research and reference.

This book was pretty good. It is about the basics on four wheeling like how to ride and where to ride

I thoroughly enjoyed paging through these fascinating letters; for any student of the Unconsious, this collection offers exciting material. At times, some material can seem superfluous. Perhaps a little editorial massaging could have arranged the letters in such a way as to make accessing the kernels and nuggets of Freudian and Jungian thought a little easier for students and amateurs interested in quick quotes and primary reference material. But overall, the editors did a fantastic job--this book is a "dream." Interpret it as you wish.

If you are a "fan" of the fantasy books by Tolkien, C.S.Lewis, Charles Williams or Chesterton, then this is a book worth reading. It is a collection of essays by various authorities in literature, myth and theology. A couple of the contributors were acquainted with either Tolkien or Lewis. The central thesis running through this collection of essays is that mythic symbols found in folk-tales and religious rituals, all express a common, fundamental human yearning for healing and a return to a "lost paradise". The essayists draw on insights from religious phenomenology, Jungian analysis, Christian theology and literary interpretation to tease out the potent mythic symbols found in the writings of Tolkien, Lewis, Chesterton and Williams. Lewis, Williams and Tolkien were associated with one another as drinking partners in an informal literary club known as The Inklings. The essayists "test" their thesis about the power of myth to reveal our search for meaning through the novels of the Inklings. The essayists take us a step further to consider the Christian world-view that informed and shaped the writings of Tolkien, Lewis, Williams and Chesterton. Although a couple of the essays are slightly "dated", any one interested in fantasy literature would find the thesis very absorbing. It should be useful not merely to students of english literature but also to the general reader who might like to know more about the backdrop to The Lord of the Rings, Narnia, etc. Certainly a book to add to your list for reading if you enjoyed the novels!

This is a collection of essays which document the many reasons the Three Gorges Dam should not be built, the lose of arable land, the dislocation of millions of people, the loss of 5,000 years of art and architecture, etc. Author Dai Qing, an outspoken opponent of the dam since the beginning, is to be highy commended for speaking out while others cower in silence. To put it in Western terms, it is David taking on Goliath, times 10.

There are a lot of detailed figures and facts in some of the essays. They're easily skimmed. But read this book if the subject matters to you and particularly if you're planning to take a cruise through the Three Gorges or have already taken it. While on the cruise, one is told only of the glory and power of the dam, which is to say, given the party line, but one should know the lie behind the line and the potential tragedy that awaits, the tragedy of the River Dragon coming again.

John Pellam works as a freelance location scout in the movie industry. His latest job has taken him to the supposedly sleepy town of Maddox, Missouri. He unknowingly bumps into a hired killer minutes before a hit takes place. Also caught up in the murder is a policeman who is shot and wounded. Both the cop and the killer remember Pellam and want to find him, though for obviously very different reasons.

Because a policeman was injured the local police department is very keen that Pellam comes forward as a witness and they become very aggressive when he claims that he didn’t see anything. The killer has assumed that he left behind a witness to his crime, and so takes it upon himself to eliminate the danger.

This early Jeffery Deaver provides a nice little thriller with a few surprises thron in, yet there is nothing that really grabs you and distinguishes it from the many other books in the genre.

i've been enjoying these early thrillers from Deaver a lot. (especially his RUNE series) this one is no exception. Its not exactly high-brow, but its a fast, entertaining read, as all his early thrillers have so far been. They have good plots, which are not very complex, and are easy to get your head around, they are also full of twists, as is the norm with Deaver.

however, this one is a tiny bit disappoinging, because the cahracters are not as fleshed out as he is capable of.

but, the writing is very good once again, the plot sustains interest, its a quick and enjoyable read, and is reccomended to all fans of Jeffery Deaver.

This book just sucks you in on the life of Pellam, a scout for a film company. He was a witness to a shooting that he wishes he never witnessed.