This guide provides excellent pre-retirement planning suggestions. Has traps, obstacles and helpers outlined for quick review and advice. Has a number of "tools" in the form of worksheets to assist in planning for both before and after retirement events. Presents a number of post-retirement ideas with several suggestions of how to manage and/or increase your income in retirement. Authors are somewhat short on information for the mid 50's retiree concerning how to access 401k and IRA funds without penalty between 55 and 59 1/2. No info on what forms are needed and where they are available, or what needs to be filed and where. Has one slight reference in the appendix on how to accomplish withdrawals without penalty. Having read a number of retirement planning books available on the bookshelf, I found this volume excels in providing useful information not found in similar guide books.

Although this book deals with many aspects of retirement and retirement planning, what distinguishes it from the dozens of similar books I have read is a truly outstanding calculator for determining how much money will be available then and how much needs to be saved or invested to eliminate any shortfall. It includes pensions, social security, and savings and investments. It factors in life expectancy, income sources that will automatically increase with inflation and those that won't, savings and investment growth rates, withdrawl rates that must increase with inflation(which--unbelievably--some calculators don't consider). It allows for early retirement (that is, it doesn't factor in social security until it's available). Similarly, it allows for staggered commencement of retirement income sources (for example, a pension that starts at age 65 while you may start social security at age 62). I've not found another calculator that does ALL of these things! I couldn't recommend it more highly.

This guide really lays out, step by step, how to think and act to plan your retirement. I found this a surprisingly quick read, comprehensive, easy to understand and specific -- from spending, lifestyle, insurance, investing issues. The book makes a great gift for friends or parents because too many of us are not paying attention to the easy "Action Items" that each chapter ends with. Highly recommended!

Felix Holt occupies a middle-tier in the critical estimation of Eliot's novels. It is often disparaged as the "political novel," or alternatively "the one where the legal subplot is way too complicated."

At first, this seems unfair. The early introduction of Mrs. Transome is a showstopper, heroine Esther Lyon fascinates, and the detailed evocation of 19th century rural politics is through Eliot's narrative magic made riveting.

But things do go awry in the second half. A big problem is Felix himself: an idealization of a political view rather than a detailed character, the reader loves him rather less than Eliot seems to intend. The legal schenanigans are intriguing, but the tortuous plot machinations through which Felix comes to be imprisoned are near ridiculous. And finally, Esther experiences her moral conversion rather too quickly and tidily, coming to seem just a sketch for Gwendolyn Harleth in the later Daniel Deronda. Indeed, by book's end the most compelling plot thread standing is that of the unfortunate Mrs. Transome.

But to say a book isn't as good as Daniel Deronda isn't much of a criticism. For all its faults, Felix Holt is filled with excellent characters, a strong story, and unparalled insight into both 19th century England and the more universal collisions of morality and politics.

This is my 4th novel by George Eliot (after "Adam Bede", "Middlemarch" and "The Mill on the Floss") and it has become my favourite along with "Middlemarch". "Felix Holt" is so marvelously written and gave me many hours of reading pleasure - I can't understand why it's not as highly acclaimed or well-known as Eliot's other novels.

If you're a fan of Victorian literature, then you mustn't miss this brilliant work. The story's set in the 1830s and is 1/3 focused on politics (i.e. a fascinating insight into the electioneering process and the fight for a Parliamentary seat between the Torys and the Radicals), 1/3 on family and sensational issues (e.g. illegitimacy, dispute over who has the legitimate claim on the wealthy estates of the Transome family and plenty of blackmail, manipulation and betrayals) and 1/3 devoted to a love triangle.

George Eliot wrote so eloquently and beautifully that many times I find myself re-reading a particular phrase in order to saviour its beautiful words. Each chapter also starts with either a beautiful poem or some well-chosen lines from Shakespeare/the Classics. Here's a favourite of mine from Chapter 45 (a poem by Eliot):

"We may not make this world a paradise
By walking it together with clasped hands
And eyes that meeting feed a double strength.
We must be only joined by pains divine,
Of spirits blent in mutual memories".

I confess that above all, it is the suspense over the touching love story that kept me turning the pages very quickly. The hero is Felix Holt, a passionate, idealistic young man who studies medicine but chooses to quit midway and forgo a comfortable future as a doctor in favour of leading the more righteous life (in his opinion) of an ordinary, poor workingman because of his scorn for wealth and its corrupting powers. Felix is described as honest, brusque, generous and highly intelligent. He's got "wild hair", dresses simple and to his own liking e.g. not wearing a cravat "like all the other gentlemen", and sometimes looks like a "barbarian". He patronizes no one and is rather unpopular in the town of Treby Magna where the story takes place. His political views are Radical (i.e. more severe than the Liberals) but his main concerns are for the well-being of the working class and especially the future of their children. (Read the excellent "Address to Working Men by Felix Holt" which comes after the Epilogue). Felix's good intentions land him in great trouble with the law later on when a massive riot breaks out among the drunk working class directly after the election and Felix is wrongly accused of being the leader of the mob.

Early on in the novel, Felix is introduced to the heroine, Esther Lyon (the beautiful daughter of a poor chapel minister) whose vanity and high-bred manner he scorns. He rebukes and lectures her constantly in that straight-forward and honest manner of his because he cares to improve her views on what are truly the important things in life. Esther dislikes him utterly at first... she cannot understand why Felix doesn't admire her beauty and graceful manners like other young men do. Esther is vain and proud (at least, initially) and has always dreamed of leading a better life, with fineries and beautiful clothes and servants to do her bidding. And Felix Holt is definitely not her idea of a lover! But Esther is not unkind or ungenerous - she loves her father dearly and treats everyone well. Gradually, she begins to see the true nature of Felix's character and noble aims, and holds him in great esteem, despite his outward looks and manners. But Felix has declared never to marry and if he were ever to fall in love, he would just "bear it and not marry" (preferring to "wed poverty"). Later in the novel, Esther is courted by the rich and handsome Harold Transome whose initial reason for wooing her is to save his family estates. But he doesn't count on falling in love with her subsequently.

Who does Esther ends up with finally: Felix or Harold? But take it from me that the romantic scenes between Felix and Esther are the most passionate and heart-wrenching I've ever come across in a classic literature - with many kisses and hugs amidst pure longing and despair, and scenes filled with beautifully spoken words of affection which brought tears to my eyes.

For many, many reasons, "Felix Holt" makes for a most brilliant read. I urge you not to miss it.

Some might say nothing can equal Middlemarch as Eliot's greatest work but I think that even if Felix Holt doesn't rank alongside it in literature, it should be given at least an equal status.

The novel deals with provincial politics in nineteenth century England through the mouthpiece of one of the best male protagonists ever drwan in literature by a female writer. As in all her books, Eliot is sharp in her details, the satire is poignant and she doesn't miss out on humor. Feminism takes a different turn here, with telling criticisms on the way females were brought up at that time and in many third world countries, still are brought up.

Eliot is never bitter, never hopeless, yet always realistic and idealistic with this difference: she doesn't let it get out of control. Fear not: mawkish is the last thing this book is. Some details might seem to be superfluous but it adds up to showing the literary prowess of this great woman, and is very helpful in letting you understand the real stuff going on at that time. A good, very well-written socio-political novel, that depicts the atmosphere of its time with more accuracy than many other books I've read.

Eliot does have the most amazing ability to get into her characters' minds. although this book is an all rounder in the sense that it comments on most social issues, the two main intimate themes of the books are personal to the central character, Felix, the most "alive" hero of nineteenth century literature: his politics and his love interest, in herself a very compelling and subtly drwan character.

Worth reading for all Eliot, Dickens, and Hardy fans. Will definitely give you two or three new opinions: even if the time period is different, much of the philosophy of the book is still very relevant.

I've read Wordsworth my whole life, and my hunched posture, bland disposition, and general resentment of other people's successes are testament to what happens when one gives oneself- like a prom queen- to the WORDSWORTHer. Johnstone does admirable work here, giving us the dirt on the man and the truth about his years in Hollywood. Who knew that Wordsworth was a spy, or that he was the basis of the famous spy vrs spy strip? Johnson's fine research helped me appreciate that strip much more than i had.

Excellent book! I liked the textual innuendo here, that our most bucolic and turgid of romantic poets was indeed a spy, mostly in the house of love, macking on Dorothea, his sister later of Oz fame, as well as many French Aristocrats and poetesses. This book displays brilliant research and impressive critical girth. The tale of Johnson provides a rich and yeasty reading of Wordsworth's "Prelude" as a love poem to Coleridge, what Johnson calls the foreplay to romanticism itself. Read this book for the rich critical ideas and the saucy details about how, where, and how often the poet hides himself.

dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot. dogsnot.

Newspaper stories about the oil spill created the impression that the cause of the accident was simply that the captain was drunk. This book shows that the real situation was far more complex. The captain was definitely not drunk. He did have a few drinks, which is against regulations. Even after all the analysis it is not clear what exactly went wrong. The fact that the captain had a few drinks was not the only breach of regulations. None of the officers had a six-hour off duty time in the twelve-hour period before departure. The ship was single hulled instead of double hulled as was foreseen when the oil terminal was built. When Congress granted permission to build the pipeline and the terminal one of the conditions was that there would be a state-of-the-art contingency plan for oil spills. There was nothing of the sort. A Vessel Traffic Services station was supposed to monitor the movement of the ships through the strait. Due to cost cutting measures the station was unable to monitor the movement of the ship. A major cause of inefficiency in the clean up was the lack of clarity about who was in charge, the Coast Guard or Exxon. It is not just the captain that acted irresponsibly, so did all parties concerned. This is described in one part of the book. The second part of the book describes the impact of the oil spill and especially of the clean up on the communities affected. Each of the communities split in the middle. Half of the members took the position of trying to squeeze as much money out of Exxon as possible whilst the other half did not want to have anything to do with Exxon. Exxon did not succeed in engaging the communities in a positive way. The third part describes the nature in Alaska. These descriptions are wonderful and make you want to go there. These three parts are interwoven. The advantage is that the reader gets a three dimensional understanding of what happened: the responsibility for the disaster and the clean up, the impact on different members of the community and the impact on nature. The author places the ultimate responsibility on the consumer. He writes, " the American population prefers to live in a fog and is willing to accept almost anything in return for the opportunity to keep its gas tanks topped up" (with cheap gas). The combination of corporations maximising short-term profits and consumers closing their eyes to the consequences of their behaviour makes one worried. There must be a better way.

Out of the Channel should be required reading for anyone who thinks environmentally ... not just environmentalists, but students, political and economic theorists, and most of all, writers. I had the good fortune to learn a great deal about writing from John Keeble, and reading his book is an education all by itself. As a rigorous study of the physical and human impact of the Exxon Valdez disaster, Out of the Channel is a comprehensive anatomy, a text that does not shirk any of the heavy load its vast subject demands. Without taking the easy route of righteous anger, Keeble explores every nuance of the oil spill, and he follows that tenacious blot of Prudhoe Bay crude as it seeps out of the tangible world and into the minds and spirits of the permanent and temporary inhabitants of Prince William Sound. This tenth anniversary edition, with the expanded coverage allowed by the perspective of time, is a gift that should not be overlooked.

John Keeble, whose writing focuses on the issues facing the American Northwest, paints a memorable picture of the Exxon Valdez oilspill and its aftermath. Asked by the Greenwich Village Voice to write an article on the spill, he travels to Alaska and observes first-hand the efforts made to restore the land and the wildlife. However, the more he observes the more he is haunted by two observations: 1) that the size of the oil companies, and the entangled relationship between the companies and the government, is enormously greater than we have suspected, and 2) that the vast amounts of money poured into the clean-up effort causes many to view that money as their goal. His investigations into the clean-up follow a theme he develops in his other works: that the intrusion of a company or government upon the land inevitably causes exploitation; and those who live in that land must invariably suffer the consequences. Torn between the desires to make money, to clear the oil, and to downplay the scope of the incident, the people involved with clean-up waste a good deal of their effort. The more damage Keeble assesses, the more in tune he becomes with the suffering of the people and animals truly hurt, and ultimately, the reader, too, feels the chill that shakes the author at each new discovery.

Although this was a good book in itself, it covered too much of the French and Indian War to just have a title of Fort William Henry and the "Massacre". The book was interesting up to the point of the siege and massacre then it became very vague. It lacked details to the point of disappointment. It did not say what specific Indian tribes did most of the massacre, nor did it have a thorough account of actually what was happening! It told about some injured being killed in the fort , then it jumped to militia killed on the road to Ft Edward, then to the English officers dining with the French officers and chasing away Indians from their personal effects. In addition the author downplayed the massacre! Every time the word was used it was in quotation marks,making it seem the massacre was overplayed. But if 10 people are massacred instead of 200 does that make a difference? The book did inform the reader about the Canadien slave trade which was going on between them and some tribes, which other books clearly never bring up. Many English suffered because of it. It also made it clear that because of the French's terms at Ft. William Henry, many Indians then refused to help the French in the future. Sealing their fate in the French and Indian War.

The title of this perceptive book tells the gist of Professor Steele's investigation into the seige and subsequent murder or kidnapping of prisoners after the British garrison surrendered to Montcalm in 1757. In essence, the English prisoners were betrayed by the French by letting their Indian allies seek scalps, prisoners and plunder after being given parole to march to a British force on the Hudson. On a larger scale, the French betrayed the Indians by not allowing them to take what Indians assumed were rightfully theirs as a part of 18th century warfare: prisoners to replace tribal members killed in combat, plunder of European materials, and scalps. Steele asserts that the losses suffered by the British garrison were smaller than previously claimed (including a number of men who were forced to travel home with Indians from the Great Lakes)and that the incident was not the bloodbath of popular legend. The men taken to the Lakes kept turning up for years afterward. Many of the scalps taken were from the corpses in the fort's cemetery-the Indians who took these scalps therefore brought smallpox back home with them and might have inadvertently destroyed whole tribes. Steele tries to count the men killed during the "massacre" and I think he is successful in his enumeration. He does not overlook the wounded who were murdered in their beds, the man boiled and eaten by his captors, and the soldiers knocked out of line and killed because they resisted being plundered. I agree that Montcalm was not complicit in directing the massacre, but set up the conditions that caused it to happen.

The Massacre lives on in popular imagination, but so does the Boston Massacre, certainly one of the most non-massacres in American history.

On a personal note, my 7th generation great-grandfather Bernardus Bratt commanded the New York troops at Fort William Henry in the summer of 1756 and came out as a company commander in Sir William Johnson's regiment after the 1757 massacre.

Well-written and well-documented modern accounts of the French and Indian War are few and far between. Steele's book should remain the final word for some time to come.

Steele presents the reader with a masterful treatment of the events surrounding the "massacre" so familiar to viewers of the latest cinematic incarnation of Cooper's "The Last of the Mohicans." As a teacher, I can tell you it's a bit of a surprise for students to find out that Colonel Munro survived Magua's knife. Steele puts the events in historical and cultural context. A fine piece of work, one which should be of interest to a broader audience than the book will probably get.

The physics is fine but this is an autobiography. What kind of a man is Wheeler? I got the impression he spent as much time avoiding offending anybody important as he did on physics. He sounds like an amiable sycophant.

Having noticed over the years that Prof. John Archibald Wheeler's name turns up in an amazing variety of physics-related articles and anecdotes, I was particularly primed to read his autobiography. The book doesn't follow a simple from-birth chronology, but rather begins with Wheeler teaching at Princeton and volunteering to meet the ship carrying his mentor, Niels Bohr, at a New York City dock in January of 1939. From that pivotal moment at the brink of World War II, Wheeler fills out his story by reaching back to childhood and forward to his long career in teaching, research, and national service. We learn of his brother Joe, whose body lay in a foxhole on an Italian hillside until it was reduced to bones. Wheeler reminds us that if the Manhattan Project had geared up one year earlier, the lives of his brother and many others might have been spared.

Wheeler's remarkable character pervades the book and helps make it unique and interesting. In a profession legendary for strong intellects and egos, he has achieved and maintained a pomposity coefficient of zero. His judgments of other people are unfailingly generous, but also astute enough to be interesting and revealing. He provides candid firsthand impressions of legendary figures such as Bohr, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Teller, Ulam, Heisenberg, Fermi, Szilard and Feynman . We also learn about many less well-known colleagues, friends and students whom he finds memorable for various reasons. In contrast to the eminent-scientist stereotype, Wheeler has always enjoyed teaching undergraduates and is genuinely interested in the problems and aspirations of the young people entrusted to his care.

Like the brilliant George Gamow, Wheeler has a talent for explaining difficult concepts and illustrating them with whimsically inventive diagrams. The book's autobiographical threads are interwoven with a rich tapestry of subtle but plainly-spoken physical insights on dozens of topics, some arcane enough to leave even the author slightly bemused. I believe anyone interested in physics will find a personal revelation or two among Wheeler's lucid, informal scientific explanations. There are touches of Gamowesque humor too, such as his theory that the fates somehow conspired to entangle him with a string of Hungarian emigres.

The title concepts of the book -- Geons, Black Holes and Quantum Foam -- were all named by Wheeler himself. He began his career at the minute scale of particle physics, moved on to the grand sweep of relativistic cosmology, and finally circled back to the hyperminuteness of quantum foam. Of course there is nothing really disjointed about such a journey, since connections among the nested scales of nature constitute one of the grand unifying themes of physics.

During his tenure at Princeton university, John Archibald Wheeler has served as the mentor to such outstanding physicists as Richard P. Feynman, Kip Thorne and Hugh Everett. He was also great friends with such individuals as Albert Einstein & Niels Bohr. In short, his contributions to physics have been indispensable.

This present work of his traces his life, a life that is (as the cover says) one of science. However, one of the nice facets of this book is that it goes beyond just the laboratory & reveals the personal life of this great man. We learn of the moving death of his brother in WWII, his worries and concerns over nuclear war (as well as the grapples with his conscience that he endured over the invention of the hydrogen bomb) and many other aspects of his life. He also tells stories of some of his most memorable students; not all of these were necessarily his most gifted pupils. Above all, Wheeler reveals a genuine human passion that has characterized his approach to science over the greater part of this century. One of the best biographies of a scientist I have ever read.

My earlier review stated that "Colonial Spanish America" needed an index. Now that I've seen a hardcover edition, it appears that it DOES have a pretty decent index, but the paperback I own does not--most likely an isolated defective copy.

This book is a fine addition to the impressive Scholarly Resources series on Latin America. It is an unusually stimulating & effective collection of sources & readings on Spanish American history. A major innovation is that it acknowledges the value of non-literary sources, & includes a number of visual & artistic primary documents with full explication. The range & quality of documentary materials is quite good, though inclusion of (undeniably insightful) secondary sources may confuse some students. There are two flaws, one general & the other specific to this work. 1) It is poorly supplied with reference aids; index, good maps & unified bibliography are missed. 2) What about Portugese America, namely Brazil? Since its most appropriate use is in Latin American history courses, even a terrific book on SPANISH America reinforces U.S. neglect of the major country in LATIN America, & leaves professors scrambling to fill the gap. (Apart from this the book deserves a 5-star rating.) Since Bradford Burns's "Documentary History of Brazil" is not readily available, the best complement is Robert Conrad's "Children of God's Fire: A Documentary History of Slavery in Brazil," also a superb collection, but the lack of symmetry will be apparent. Nevertheless, I look forward to assigning Mills & Taylor when I teach on Colonial Latin America. It deserves wide exposure.

This is an excellent collection of documents, but then I am biased since I've been a student of Ken Mills... The editorial introductions situate each document historically and culturally. Very useful for beginning students, undergraduate or graduate.

The book to accompany the movie. There's nothing new here, really, although one can take the screenplay and check it against the play to find out the changes that were made to the text.

Branagh says in the foreword that having the American actors was his idea. Perhaps. I had heard a rumor that he had included them for a wider U.S. distribution. In any case, it's worth noting that the Americans, with the possible exception of Denzel Washington, just can't hold a candle to even the meanest bit parts played by the British. I still think Keaton was way too "Beetlejuice" for Dogberry, although the explanation for his interpretation herein gave me new insight into it. If you're a Branagh admirer as I am, you shouldn't pass this book up.

I just can't say enough good things about this book. The pictures are fabulous--I'd pay the price of the book for them alone! And for those curious about stage production and screenplays, this book is a MUST HAVE! Much Ado is definitely my favorite play by Shakespeare. Kenneth Branagh's movie version is the most fun version of Much Ado I've ever seen, and this book captures Branagh's magic. You will not be disappointed!

This film is Branagh's best ever. Easy to follow with excellent acting. Great casting of both English and American actors.

Shakespeare's Othello is an interesting and dramatic tragedy. If you like imagery and irony, you will like Othello. Shakespeare uses the power of imagery skillfully to develop themes throughout the play. For example, recurring animal imagery is used to sharpen the contrast between people and beasts, showing how Iago and Othello begin to act more like beasts than human beings. Irony also adds much to the plot of Othello to make it interesting and exciting for the reader. Much of the irony used is dramatic irony because the reader knows of Iago's plot, while the characters in the play have no idea what is about to unfold. The relationship between men and women in Othello is another aspect of the play that makes it interesting to read. Iago's wife Emilia, for example, is very cynical towards men, probably from years of living with Iago. Othello and Desdemona's relationship is also intriguing. In the beginning of the play, Othello and Desdemona are seemingly deeply in love with each other. Othello, however, is rather easily convinced that his wife is cheating on him and becomes angry to the point where he cannot forgive Desdemona. He decides to kill her. As she is being murdered, Desdemona tries to protect her husband's innocence in her own murder. Another interesting aspect of the play which makes it stand out from other Shakespearean plays is the race of the main character. Othello is black and a Moor, or Muslim. This fact brings up issues to be explored in the play. Shakespeare shows the characters being separated not only by status and rank but also by their place of origin and their religion. Overall, Shakespeare's Othello is dramatic, well-written, and thoroughly explores how evil a human being can become.

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.

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.

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.