One of the funniest books I've ever read, Kotzwinkles telling of the story almost has you believing that a bear could actually pull all this off! The hero of the story is a bear who one day finds a book manuscript hidden in the back woods of Maine, reads it and thinks its such a wonderful story that he takes (steals) it to New York city with the idea of selling it. After adopting an alias (Hal Jam), he peddles the book around the NY publishing world and meets many quirky and self absorbed people on his way to eventually becoming world famous. Throughout the story he vacillates back and forth between wanting to remain in the comfortable but strange and "hard to figure out" world of man - with its unlimited quantities of sweets and women; and wanting to return to his beloved forest where life is so much simpler. The plot is very much like the movie "Being There", except with a slapstick slant. Everyone that the bear meets reads deep and profound meaning into Hal's brooding silences and short, out of context statements. It kept me laughing out loud for two straight days, I can't remember the last time a book did that to me!

There's so much truth about the publishing world in this drop-dead-funny satire that it's a wonder the publishing world ever published it!
Outrageous premise of a man who writes The Great American Novel, loses the manuscript in the woods, and becomes so depressed that he goes into hibernation and becomes beast-like. The flip side of the equation, the part that makes this book a dangerous one to read in bed beside a sleeping mate, is that the manuscript is found by a bear who manages to sell it on a trip to New York. The bear is courted by NY's best and finest celebs, and he impresses reviewers, agents, and editors with his hyper-intelligent and deeply moving monosyllabic grunts and one-word responses to interview questions.
But the parts that'll make your trying-to-sleep spouse want to kill you are the love scenes between the bear and the object of his affection, a 'fur-bearing woman,' (a lady who doesn't shave her legs).
Don't miss it. Buy two, and give one to your favorite quirky friend.

The Bear Went Over the Mountain is not only hilarious it is also a great commentary on our society. If only more books this funny existed!

First off, I must admit that I thoroughly enjoyed Part I and absolutely adored Henry V. Having said that, I found Part II to be enjoyable, yet perhaps leaving something to be desired - like more action. Falstaff and Prince Hal both come off as somewhat disingenuous and calculating Machiavellian individuals. Disappointingly, Falstaff speaks poorly of Prince Hal while unwittingly in his midst. Conversely, The Prince of Wales prematurely takes the crown before his King Henry IV's death as well as disassociating himself with Falstaff after he is crowned King. These instances, along with others throughout the play, show the self-serving tendencies of both characters.

However, we can proudly witness the maturation of the young King from wild & dissolute young Prince Hal into one of the most revered monarchs in English history, King Henry V. Part II remains an intriguing play due to its paradoxical nature, yet unfortunately rarely acted out today. Now that I have read Henry IV(I&II) for the first time, I gladly move on to one of my personal favorites, Henry V. I recommend both parts(Folger editions) for all Shakespeare enthusiasts - they have given me greater insight into the young Henry V - when he was more concerned with downing a pint of ale rather than downing the French at Agincourt.

2 Magnificent Quotes from Henry IV Part II -
"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." - King Henry IV
"He hath eaten me out of house and home." - Mistress Quickly

henry iv is misnamed since the play isn't really about king henry but about his son, prince hal, and his enemies, especially henry percy (aka 'hotspur') who is a rival to hal. hotspur is one of the leaders of the rebellion against the king and, at a tender age, is already an accomplished soldier. his story provides the drama of the play. hal, on the other hand, has fallen out of favor with the king, and is whiling away his days in the company of dissolute company, led by sir john falstaff, one of shakespeare's great characters. his adventures with sir john provide the comic relief. fortunately for the king, hal sheds his prodigal ways in time to save his father and his crown in the battle at shrewsbury, where, coincidentally, hal meets and slays his rival, hotspur.

this is one of shakespeare's best plays. the story of the rebellion is intriguing, and the adventures of hal and falstaff are laugh-out-loud hilarious. the culmination of the two stories in the final battle scene is wonderful. this is a fitting sequel to richard ii.

note that there are some historical inaccuracies and even outright inventions in this play. foremost is the character of falstaff who is pure invention (and genius). the story of hal's adventures stems from his reputation, enhanced by legend, as a playboy. falstaff was the perfect foil for a carousing prince. the biggest inaccuracy is hotspur's age. he was actually of the generation of henry iv, and not as young as he's depicted in the play. shakespeare made him younger to enhance, maybe even create, the rivalry with hal. there are other inaccuracies here, but better for the reader to consult 'shakespeare's kings', an excellent book by saccio that explains the history of the period and the discrepancies in the play.

The lengthy title for the 1598 printing was "The History of Henrie the Fourth, With the Battell at Shrewsburie, between the King and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henrie Hotspur of the North, with the humorous conceits of Sir John Falstaffe".

Surprisingly, Hal, Prince of Wales, (later Henry V) was not even mentioned in this verbose title although many would consider him to be the central character. This play is clearly the dramatization of a struggle for a kingdom, but it is equally the story of Hal's wild and reckless youthful adventures with Falstaff and other disreputable companions.

Shakespeare did not write his plays about English kings in chronological order, but these plays do have a historical unity. It is helpful (but not essential) to read the tetralogy Richard II, Henry IV Part 1 and 2, and Henry V in chronological order. Whatever route you take, I highly recommend buying a companion copy of Peter Saccio's "Shakespeare's English Kings", an engaging look at how Shakespeare revised history to achieve dramatic effect.

A wide selection of Henry IV editions are available, including older editions in used bookstores. I am familiar with a few and have personal favorites:

The New Folger Library Shakespeare is my first choice among the inexpensive editions of Henry IV. "New" replaces the prior version in use for 35 years. It uses "facing page" format with scene summaries, explanations for rare and archaic words and expressions, and Elizabethan drawings located on the left page; the Henry IV text is on the right. I particularly liked the section on "Reading Shakespeare's Language in Henry IV" and Alexander Legget's literary analysis (save this until you have read the play). The fascinating article "Historical Background: Sir John Falstaff and Sir John Oldcastle" adds a religious dimension to the play that I had not previously noted.

The Bedford Shakespeare Series provides an excellent study text (edited by Barbara Hodgdon) titled "The First Part of King Henry the Fourth". It is a little more expensive, is about 400 pages, and provides a broad range of source and context documentation. It would be excellent for an upper level course in Shakespeare. The context documentation is fascinating and informative; it ranges from the Holinshed Chronicles to Elizabethan writing on Civic Order to detailed cultural studies of London's diverse populous. Other chapters address the OldCastle controversy and the "Education of a Prince".

I also like the Norton Critical edition (edited by James Sanderson), "Henry the Fourth, Part 1", particularly for its extensive collection of literary criticism. The essays are divided into two parts: 1) the theme, characters, structure, and style of the play and 2) a wide variety of interpretation directed toward that roguish character, Sir John Falstaff.

For nearly a century the science of forensics has grown from a barely understood art to a marvel of modern science. From development of finger printing in the early 1900's, to DNA gene matching of today, forensic pathology and anthropology have blossomed into the law's best weapons against criminals that stalk our world. In 'Dead Men Do Tell Tales' we enter the world of Dr. William Maples, PhD of the C A Pound Human Identification Center in Gainesville, Florida-an often brutal and ghoulish realm of dismembered corpses, hastily torched cremains of hapless victims or those dumped in septic tanks to rot and putrify in the other detritus of man's remains. Dr. Maples' own study is the field of forensic anthropology-the study of the human skeleton, and this man's expertise in that field has cemented my interest in amateur study of forensics.

Told in the first person, Maples comes across as brilliant and personable, if a little supremely confident in his own abilities as an investigator. And like Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time', isn't afraid to admit when he has erred. Where the book shines, aside from its plethora of information, is in the presentation of that information-Maples never uses terms that he doesn't explain, knowing full well that the book is going to be read more by laymen like me than a peer within the profession. So do not expect detailed treatises on anatomy, pathology or pages of chemical breakdowns. Instead, Maples presents an easy to understand work that is surprising in its level of detail, and a credit to himself and his co-author, Michael Browning, for making it understandable.

Though it is a book on anthropology, one cannot write about one subject without at least touch on the pathology end, since the two are intimately related. After explaining his own origins from his birth in Dallas, Texas, his schooling and odd jobs he held in order to pay for his college-mostly that of riding shot gun in an ambulance while working for a mortuary as they sped from accident to accident, trying to scoop business away from competing funeral homes. He majored in English, but took a course on anthropology on a lark at the suggestion of his university counsellor. In so doing he met Tom McKern, who impressed Maples with his skill as a teacher, mentoring himself to the older professor.

Past the first chapter we enter Maples' job, past his trapping baboons in Africa in 1960s to his eventual relocation as Gainesville and the C A Pound offices there. Florida, he describes, is a living organism with highways making up its arterial system, and a place where criminals, like blood cells, pass through, dumping their often mutilated cargo of human debris. In many ways I believe he softened the blow in his descriptions of finding the body of man in a septic tank where it had been for over a decade or that of three murdered drug dealers near a golf course who had been executed by fellow criminals then unceremoniously tossed into a pit to be buried. Mere words cannot describe these gruesome atrocities, but he makes it clear that while it doesn't bother him anymore, it does turn even the hardest cop green with nausea.

His affinity with tools, since they are so often used as murder weapons, has led him to collect quite an assortment of hatchets, crow bars, hammers, saws-and could often be found in the hardware department at Sears looking at tools, trying to find the right one that matches the damaged bone. His expertise in this field enabled him to study John Merrick's remains-the Elephant Man of the 19th century, and even to Russia where he examined the skeletonized remains of Tsar Nicholas and his family, almost seventy years after they were murdered by Bolsheviks during the 1917 revolution. All of this experience-almost forty years before his death in 1999, has set Maples in his ways. He possesses a strong, passionate belief that there is true evil in the world, and that somehow the world is better off without certain murderers around. Though this is tempered by his own research into the most humane ways to execute someone.

'Dead Men Do Tell Tales' is a fascinating, enjoyable read-captivating in its insights in forensic pathology and anthropology in a language that everyone can understand. It gives the novice reader in the field a general understanding of the chemical changes our bodies go through as they decompose, the organs and other bodily system are rendered down in the earth-by insects and animals, and how evidence is gleaned off bones-chisel marks, bullet holes, little nicks and scratches that can tell the investigator what tool was used, and a little insight from Maples' point of view of the people who used them. It is a fascinating, engrossing book that anyone with a reasonably strong stomach should be able to enjoy. A fitting testimony to a highly skilled man who is sadly no longer with us. Thank you, Dr. Maples.

This is an outstanding book -IF- you can stomach reading about things like insect larvae implanted in human decay. Dr. William Maples (1937-97) was a forensic anthropologist who examined bone and tissue samples to determine a person's age, gender, if they'd given birth, cause of death, etc. Imagine testifying at a murder trial while the killer stares at you. Dr. Maples did, knowing that if the jury acquitted the killer might seek revenge. When historians questioned whether angry slaveholders had secretly poisoned President Zachary Taylor in 1850, they called in Dr. Maples for the answer. Maples also investigated the bones of Russia's murdered Czar Nicholas II and family, in part to determine if their Bolshevik executioners might have spared young Anastasia and Alexei. This book has many such authentic tales.

Maples and co-author Michael Browning wrote personable, easy prose that never loses the reader in jargon. DEAD MEN DO TELL TALES is an excellent read for the non-squeamish.

I have always enjoyed reading and hearing about the ways in which a crime is solved and this book told extremely technical and medical information in a way in which anyone can understand. Besides that, the subject matter itself was fascinating and enriching. Dr. Maples is one of the most amazing forensic anthropologists. He has worked on cases ranging from the family of Tsar Nicholas II in Russia to that of President Zachary Taylor. This man is highly respected in and outside of his field. I was captivated from the moment I read the first chapter and I read all 283 pages in 3 days. I couldn't put it down. In fact, why do you think I'm here? I'm looking for more books on this subject because Dr. Maples made it so interesting. There are a couple of instances which some would find stomach-turning, but not many. I would highly recommend this book for anyone interested in this type of matter.

A reviewer once described Dragonlance Chronicles as "Something to read after Tolkien." I couldn't have said it better myself - Weis and Hickman's work is THE classic of the fantasy genre next to Mr. Tolkien himself.

The story begins with the reunion of lifelong friends 5 years to the day after their last meeting. The world of Krynn is in a time of relative peace, the Cataclysm War having recently ended. Each companion meets back at the The Inn of The Last Home with stories to tell, treasures to boast of, and memories to relect on. But it is not long before the cozy ambiance is sharply pierced as the party is sucked into a plot of good versus evil that will change their lives forever...

Dragonlance may sound like a typical fantasy book, but that is because it DEFINED the fantasy genre over 15 years ago. It set the standard for the grumpy dwarf, the confused leader, and the sexy barmaid; countless writers have tried and failed to emulate the formula quite so well. I have personally read the trilogy three time and am still thirsty for more. In fact, Dragonlance is a much more readable book than The Lord of The Rings. The action is non-stop and each character has his own unique personality and traits. The massive length of Chronicles may seem daunting but to me it is one of the few books that justifies it. My only regret having been an illiterate 1-year-old when the first book, Dragons of Auntumn Twighlight, came out in 1984.

Concerning this annotated version specifically, Weis and Hickman do a decent job of rekindling the magic of Dragonlance. There are plenty of interesting comments on the page borders in the beginning and the end but toward the middle, the authors seem to lose steam. Also, BE WARNED, there are actually blaten spoilers within the authors' comments. I guess they assume all their readers are returners but for those who want to get into Dragonlance for the first time, reading this edition will be hazardous.

Dragonlance: The Annotated Chronicles by Margret Weis and Tracy Hickman is a fantasy classic packaged with a beutiful dust jacket and a handsome hardback binding. No price is too high for this amazing work, so please, come into the Dragonlance world.

The fantasy classic is back, and now it is even better. For those who haven't read it before, this is the perfect volume to get into the dragonlance series.

The main portion of the books are concerned with a band of adventurers at the coming of the Dark Queen. Surprisingly, these heroes are not infallible and have an amazing depth for "good" characters in fantasy novels.

The plot is an intricate tangle of people and places, as varied as those in our world. Weis and Hickman do a masterful job of creating a fantasy world, coming close to the complexity and color in Tolkien's LOTR novels.

Alone, these books are stunning. The annotations, however, make this book a masterpiece. They are funny, informative, and interesting. Weis and Hickman give you there side of the story, and their exposition seem to make the characters more real.

As you can tell from the length of the book, though, Weis and Hickman are unfortuantely quite long-winded. For those who need a quick read with a clean and concise storyline, choose another book. But for those who enjoyed the gradual building of LOTR over 3 books, I will guarantee that you will not be able to put this book down.

A great read-I thoroughly reccomend it.

I hadn't read the Chronicles in several years before picking this up, and I was pleased to find that my fond memories of the books that began the Dragonlance saga weren't simply nostalgia. This is a strong story, set in a believable world with unforgettable characters who seem to me like long-lost friends.

This new edition of the Chronicles adds a great deal of commentary from the authors and from other members of the Dragonlance design team. Their annotations add a new depth to the novels, expanding on bits of backstory that were only hinted at in the original text, explaining where they got their inspiration for certain characters and events, providing insight into all aspects of the writing experience. Many of these notes are very interesting, and some are hilarious. My favorite was Weis and Hickman's little argument about Elistan at the beginning of the second book, which I won't spoil for you!

A bit of advice, though, to anyone new to Dragonlance. Be a little wary of the annotations if you've never read the books before, as they will sometimes reveal things that happen later in the story, and nothing's worse than having a book spoiled for you. It's probably better to read through without reading the annotations first.

Now, if only they'd come out with an Annotated Legends...

(EDIT: 21 Feb 2003) For those interested, the Annotated Legends is, in fact, in progress, and is scheduled to be released sometime around September - October [...]. I certainly can't wait!

Giving Walt Whitman only five stars out of five does him an injustice. Walt Whitman is perhaps the finest American poet ever as well as the most quintessentially American poet. His poetry never dates itself. It is as contemporary as if he just wrote it last week. Walt Whitman's poems overflow with life and energy, pulsate with excitement, and contain deep though simply-told truths that rival those of any wise man in history. Much maligned during life and after for the eroticism of his writing, he never let his inhibitions hold back his writing and thus it sparkles with honesty. Walt Whitman was also a great patriot, who loved America in a way modern Americans would do well to emulate. He sought it out on its own terms and recorded what he saw in his poetry. His war poems, written during the American Civil War, are some of the best war poems existing in literature. Whitman knew his subject, having spent much time caring for the wounded soldiers in the hospitals and visiting battlefields. His poems create vivid pictures, richly textured, as real as you read them as if you were seeing the scene yourself. And the dialog he carries on with the reader makes the reader feel that Whitman, if he were still alive, would like nothing more than to sit down and discuss life. He is one of the few poets who manages to establish a rapport with his reader, to anticipate his reader's reactions and talk to each one through the poem. Walt Whitman should be read by any and every literate American. 'Leaves of Grass' will change anyone who dares to read it.

Walt Whitman is the father of free verse and his main work, Leaves of Grass, is perhaps one of the greatest works by an American poet ever written.

He was born on Long Island and grew up in Brooklyn. Being a native of Brooklyn myself I feel a deep connection to him. When I read his work I am instantly transported into his universe, a universe which is the domain of every man. For Walt Whitman was possibly the greatest democrat who ever lived.

In his great poem, Song of Myself, his opening lines are: "I celebrate myself, and what I assume you shall assume, for every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you." This is not only good old American horse sense, it's good science. For everything comes forth from that great source of life the sun, and none can be better for it, only different.

Walt was a born visionary. And I surmise that he must have had quite a few mystical experiences before he set out to write his great poems. You can really get a sense of his mystical connection when you read poems like When I Heard The Learned Astronomer or even in Song of Myself when he proclaims: "There was never any more inception than there is now, nor any more youth or age than there is now; and will never be any more perfection than there is now, nor any more heaven or hell than there is now." Notice the emphasis on the word now. Mystics through the ages have said that God is beyond time, that God is the eternal presence, and that he exists in a timeless eternity sometimes referred to as the eternal now. I believe that's what Walt Whitman is telling us.

I could go on and on singing the praises of Walt Whitman. His work is inexhaustable and profound and wise beyond measure. But there are innumerable books written about him. However, I believe to catch the essence of the man you have to read his poems. And if you let him in he will lead you to yourself and you will see the world through fresh eyes .... and you will see how the perennial grass covers only the outer layer of this our miraculous universe.

I carry a copy of Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass with me where ever I go. I think that it is America's great religious book; it contains just about everything one would need to know to live a good life.

Whitman published many different editions of this book. The one I carry is the 1892 "death-bed" eddition, which contains virtually all the poetry he ever published. However I also own the "first" edition, published in 1855. In this version the poems are published without titles, so that each poem stands on its own, without any images guiding the reader before hand. I recommend either edition - or both!

"Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once." - Caesar

Just one of the many brilliant quotes from this powerful and enduring tragedy, which happens to be amongst my very favorite Shakespeare. How could anyone not enjoy Marc Antony swaying the weak-minded and feeble-minded plebians with his vibrant and rousing speech? Julius Caesar is unquestionably quintessential Shakespeare, a monumental work that perhaps is surpassed only by Hamlet and rivaled by Othello, Macbeth, Romeo & Juliet, & King Lear.

Julius Caesar teaches us about the dangers and pitfalls of ambition, jealousy, power, as well as the sacrifice for the greater good - even if it is another's life. Amongst the bood-thirsty traiotors, only Brutus genuinely believes in the assassination of Caesar for the greater good of the Republic. Julius Caesar galvanizes the brain and awakens the spirit from within with scenes such as when Marc Antony proclaims, "Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war."
Countless amounts of quotes and passages throughout the play rank among my favorite Shakespeare. Needless to say, this book should be on the bookshelf of any and all with any semblance of intellect and enough cultivation to appreciate such superb literature.

The modern perspective following the text enlightens and should be read by anyone seeking more knowledge about this amazing tragedy and time in history. An irrepressible 5 stars.

Julius Caesar is probably one of the better plays written by Shakespeare. This play if full of intrigue, action, betrayal, and emotion. This play is not very long (5 acts), which makes it a quick and exciting read. The characters are built nicely, and what is nice about this version of the book, is that it is easy to read, and any words that may be unfamiliar are defined on the opposite page, making it easy to look them up, and understand Shakespeare's difficult writing style. This is definately a play worth checking out. It's a fun read, and with plenty of helpful tools built in to help along the way.

Shakespeare gives a whole new face to history, transforming Caesar's assassination into a conspiracy, in which the conspirators have some reluctancy to join in. Brutus, for example, is deeply tormented, as Caesar is his friend and trusts him, but he is manipulated by Cassius, who makes Brutus believe that his duty to the people of Rome should be greater than friendship, and that the Romans want Caesar dead. The book is an exploration into the human psyche, and changing characters. I find it interesting that, though the play is called "Julius Caesar", its central character is Brutus, who has to deal with the guilt of betrayal versus what he feels is a duty to the people versus his love of Caesar. Intense, breathtaking, dramatic.

A mysterious photograph. A disappearing company. A man with two identities. All this and more in the book, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. This book includes puzzling mysteries such as The Case of Identity, in which a husband suddenly disappears, and A Scandal in Bohemia, in which a king tries to steal a photo, but needs Sherlock Holmes' help. This book is suitable for all people ages 10 to adult. It's puzzling and complex, yet adventuresome and amusing, able to catch all readers' eyes. Unfortunately, the book does have some boring parts, but its captivating stories and perplexing mysteries more than make up for this. Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes team up together once again and form what may be one of the best detective book yet, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.

This is a faithful reprinting of the greatest mystery book(s) ever written. It is well written, powerful, captivating, and puts the Hardy Boys to shame. Holmes solves mysteries in a believable (if difficult) fashion that never fails to grip someone from start to finish. The stories are so well written, in fact, that when Sherlock Holmes "died" fans responded by rioting in the streets of London. The Queen insisted that Conan Doyle bring back his famous character, and so here he is. While we might not be willing to riot in the streets if Holmes died today, we can still feel loyalty towards the famous character, and the legacy that Conan Doyle left behind in these books.

My book review was on The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, written by
A. Conan Doyle. This was a fantastic book and I advise people who like mysteries or crimes to read this book. The book was written in First person point of view because you feel like your there as the narrator describes the situation there in.

This book is broken up into 3 stories the first one is the red headed league, the 2nd is the adventures of the speckled band, and 3rd is the adventures of the copper breach. They are all great mysteries and Mr. Holmes tries to solve each one of them. Sherlock Holmes is a extraordinary detective he is observant of everything. Like in the book he says quote' I see u came by a cart. Yes sir, but how did u know that Mr. Holmes replies I see the mud splattered on your arm in seven places only carts through mud up like that and you have taken a train to get to your cart for I see the train pass in your pocket.' So as you can see Mr. Holmes is a sneaky detective he is also a static character he never changes thorough out the book. The first part of the story is probably one of the best parts but after all it has to be to draw the readers attention. the 2nd story is a great storie and takes a lot of thinking but it isn't as good as the first one, but the last one Is the best one to rap up the book.

This book is a fabulous book to read it makes you more careful of your surroundings and makes you look at people more than you usually. do this book is a wonderful book and I recommend it to all readers. Thank you for your time and I hope you will read this book.

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.

'As you like it' is one of those Shakespearean plays that is considered 'great' by critics, but never really found true popular acclaim, perhaps due to the absence of charismatic characters (the romantic hero is particularly wet) or compelling dilemmas.

It shares many features with the great comedies - the notion of the forest as a magic or transformative space away from tyrannical society ('A Midsummer night's dream'); the theme of unrequited love and gender switching from 'Twelfth night'; the exiled Duke and his playful daughter from 'The Tempest'. But these comparisons only point to 'AYLI''s comparative failure (as a reading experience anyway) - it lacks the magical sense of play of the first; the yearning melancholy of the second; or the elegiac complexity of the third.

It starts off brilliantly with a first act dominated by tyrants: an heir who neglects his younger brother, and a Duke who resents the popularity of his exiled brother's daughter (Rosalind). there is an eccentric wrestling sequence in which a callow youth (Orlando) overthrows a giant. Then the good characters are exiled to Arden searching for relatives and loved ones.

Theoretically, this should be good fun, and you can see why post-modernist critics enjoy it, with its courtiers arriving to civilise the forest in the language of contemporary explorers, and the gender fluidity and role-play; but, in truth, plot is minimal, with tiresomely pedantic 'wit' to the fore, especially when the melancholy scholar-courtier Jacques and Fool Touchstone are around, with the latter's travesties of classical learning presumably hilarious if you're an expert on Theocritus and the like.

As an English pastoral, 'AYLI' doesn't approach Sidney's 'Arcadia' - maybe it soars on stage. (Latham's Arden edition is as frustrating as ever, with scholarly cavilling creating a stumbling read, and an introduction which characteristically neuters everything that makes Shakespeare so exciting and challenging)

Anyone with a working knowledge of Shakespeare's plays knows that As You Like It is a light, airy comedy. It is clearly not one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. As You Like It is more obscure than famous. Even amongst the comedies it comes nowhere close to the popularity of plays such as A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Tempest, or Twelfth Night. That said, it is a treasure in its own right. This is so, if for nothing else, because it contains one of the greatest pictures of a woman to be found in Shakespeare's works, excluding the Sonnets.

Ah, sweet Rosalind. In her are encapsulated so many ideas about the nature of woman. She is first pictured in a rather faux-Petrarchan manner. This quickly fades as an intelligent woman comes to the fore. While the intelligence remains, she is also torn by the savage winds of romantic love. Rosalind, in all her complexity and self-contradiction, is a truly modern female character.

Most of the women in Shakespeare's tragedies and historical plays are either window dressing (as in Julius Caesar) or woefully one-sided (Ophelia, Lady Macbeth). This is not the case with Rosalind. Rather than being marginalized, she is the focus of a good chunk of the play. Instead of being static and [standard], she is a complex evolving character.

When Rosalind first appears, she outwardly looks much like any other lady of the court. She is a stunning beauty. She is much praised for her virtue. Both of these elements factor in the Duke's decision to banish or [do away with] her.

Rosalind falls in love immediately upon seeing Orlando. In this way she at first seems to back up a typically courtly idea of "love at first sight." Also, she initially seems quite unattainable to Orlando. These are echoes of Petrarchan notions that proclaim love to be a painful thing. This dynamic is stood on its head following her banishment.

Rosalind begins to question the certainty of Orlando's affection. She criticizes his doggerel when she finds it nailed to a tree. Rather than wilting like some medieval flower, she puts into effect a plan. She seeks to test the validity of her pretty-boy's love. In the guise of a boy herself, she questions the deceived Orlando about his love.

Yet Rosalind is not always so assured. Her steadfastness is not cut and dried. Composed in his presence, Rosalind melts the second Orlando goes away. She starts spouting romantic drivel worthy of Judith Krantz. Even her best friend Celia seems to tire of her love talk. This hesitating, yet consuming passion is thrown into stark relief with her crystal clear dealings with the unwanted advances of the shepherdess Phebe.

Rosalind contradicts herself in taking the side of Silvius in his pursuit of Phebe. She seeks to help Silvius win the love of Phebe because of his endearing constancy. Yet the whole reason she tests Orlando is the supposed inconstancy of men's affections.

This idea of Male inconstancy has made its way down to the present day. Men are seen, in many circles, as basically incapable of fidelity. Though a contradiction to her treatment of Silvius' cause, Rosalind's knowing subscription to pessimistic views on the constancy of a man's love places her on the same playing field as many modern women.

Rosalind takes charge of her own fate. Until and even during Shakespeare's own time women largely were at the mercy of the men around them. This is satirized in Rosalind's assuming the appearance of a man. Yet she had taken charge of her life even before taking on the dress and likeness of a man. She gives her token to Orlando. She decides to go to the Forest. She makes the choice of appearing like a man to ensure her safety and the safety of Celia.

Rosalind finally finds balance and happiness when she comes to love not as a test or game, but as an equal partnership. Shakespeare is clearly critiquing the contemporary notions of love in his day. His play also condemns society's underestimation and marginalization of women. However, the Bard's main point is more profound.

As You Like It makes it clear that the world is never picture perfect, even when there are fairy-tale endings. Men and women both fail. Love is the most important thing. With love all things are possible.

"As You Like It" is bar none, one of Shakespeare's VERY best works. It is probably the most poetic of the comedies and contains perhaps as many famous quotations as any other of his plays. Rosalind is perhaps his greatest female character and this work, along with the equally (or even more) brilliant "Midsummer Night's Dream," is the best example of Shakespeare's theme of the "dream world" vs. the "real" world. This play, especially the scenes in the forest, is a celebration of language and the power of the freedom of the imagination. It consequently can be read as a criticism of the "real world," here represented by Duke Ferdinand's court. Like many of the other comedies, Shakespeare is mocking the "ideal" which many in his society would have praised. Though this play deals with some pretty dark themes (which of his plays doesn't?) it is a light-hearted and fully enjoyable read!