this, my first novel by henry james, was recommended to me by a trusted friend privy to my affection for the work of austen, the brontes, wharton, bowen and hall. i must admit to having had reservations about a victorian novel with a female protragonist written by a man, but was pleasantly surprised to find that james had depicted the female perspective, in isabel archer, with notable aplomb. i was a little disappointed that, in spite of the book's length, i felt there was a huge leap from the first half of the book, which firmly establishes the young miss archer as a woman intent to never marry and the second half, which finds her rather abruptly married to the third of three men who have made the appeal to her. still, this is a classic work of literature that deserves all the praise it has received. it is far more dense than works by the aforementioned authors and, as such, makes awful subway reading--unless, of course, your train breaks down and there are no crying children or blaring boom boxes in your car.

The best thing about 19th century novels is that they take so long to unwind, you know that you are guaranteed a long and satisfying trip into a story. I initially bought this book after seeing the Jane Campion film, (which I actually wasn't too crazy about)but I always think it's a good idea to read the source material. After a few false starts (warning: one needs to devote all their attention to James in order to enjoy him)I finally got into this book, and couldn't put it down. From the great settings of the novel, to the variety of fascinating characters (the liberated Henrietta Stackpole, the sinister Madame Merle, the beloved Ralph Touchett, Ralph's eccentric mother, the flighty Countess Gemini, the deadly Gilbert Osmond, and of course, Isabel Archer herself... James gives characters great names as well) "Portrait" is a great novel not only of self discovery, but self deception. How many of us in this world have liked to have thought ourselevs as free to make our own chocies, and were excited by a future full of "possibility" only to allow something (or usually someone) to get in our way and make us realize just how quickly we can lose our freedom and be in a cage that we need to get out of. (Pardon my bad grammar.) Those of you looking fora Jane Austen type ending, this may not be the book for you, but I think this book is more of a spiritual cousin to Austen than we may think. It all comes down to making choices, and teh effects of those decisions. Throw off any reservations that you may have because this book was written over a century ago, it's as fresh, funny, tragic and riveting today as it was then. (And hey, buy the film soundtrack which perfectly captures the mood of the story for accompaniment..that was a plug!)

The novel Portrait of a Lady is a beautiful. It starts out with a girl named Isabel Archer who goes with her Aunt Touchett to England. Isabel is portrayed beautifully by James in the novel as a curious, independent, intelligent lady. She arrives in isolated Gardencourt where she meets her uncle and her cousin, Ralph Touchett. Soon, she is proposed to by Lord Warburten portrayed as a polite, wealthy, radical gentleman but rejects him because her curiousity expects another, better suiter. Caspar Goodward, her other lover, fallows her to England and is determined to marry her. The two men come in even further in the novel when intrigue and scandel take place. Isabel travels all through Europe but is eventually entrapped and decieved. Drama and intrigue take the stage then. By that time it may sound like some domb soup opera, but really he refines the situations and makes them realistic but still dramatic unlike most stupid soaps. Some parts may seem long and dull because he explains himself so explicitly with huge paragraphs about one subject but it's worth it when your finished. The characters are done superbly with wonderful description. There is much irony, too, but if you immiedietly think irony is funny like some people its not in this novel. Its as a whole a serious novel. The ending is very well done if you think about it. Though,it may seem odd it is as a whole witty and crafty.

"Fffftt!" Cupid's arrow, once again, pierces the hearts of two unsuspecting people. Causing two people to fall in love, Cupid is known for his matchmaking. Similarly, Cupid is portrayed through Jane Austen's Emma. The protagonist, Emma, tries to find her best friend, Harriet, a husband. Emma is a well thought out, insightful novel. Despite the time gap between the time that Austen composed this novel and present day, the reader can still relate with characters. By developing a setting for Emma, Austen uses a realistic setting. For example, in the village of Highbury, class rank, reputation, and family background are major factors in marriage arrangements, which was a harsh reality during those times. Austen also develops Emma really well through her actions and decisions. Because Emma is a life-like character, she too makes mistakes. In addition, Emma also chooses to make decisions that make readers love and despise her. Creating unique love triangles, they contribute to the interesting and complex plot. For instance, Harriet has affections for Mr. Elton, however Mr. Elton has feelings for Emma, and Emma is trying to set up Harriet and Mr. Elton together. Using symbols, Austen is able to help readers recognize affections between characters. Showing his love for Emma, Mr. Elton keeps Emma's portrait of Harriet and makes a riddle for Emma and Harriet. However, Emma interprets Mr. Elton keeping the portrait and the riddle as his love for Harriet, but in fact symbolizes feelings for Emma. Also, Austen's themes are well carried out in arrogance and self-deception, and marriage. Thinking she's a perfect matchmaker, Emma is constantly proud of herself and her setups. However, she is unable to realize that marriage can't be playing around with. Ultimately, Emma was a very good book because of its great setting, characters, plot, symbols, and themes.

The divison of opinion on this page is interesting but probably not surprising. Emma is a book for serious readers and if you go in expecting an easy-to-read page turner, then stick to Danielle Steele. (It is beyond depressing that two people who wrote reviews were somehow of the amazingly ignorant opinion that Jane Austen ripped off Alicia Silverstone's Clueless.....Rather difficult seeing as she was alive in the early 1800's .....hmmm.) Emma takes patience but it's a rewarding read, with all the complications, misunderstandings andbanality of your average soap opera yet shining with Austen's trademark subtle wit and mordant intelligence which has made this novel a classic.Books do require a little more time, effort and thinking than sitting mindlessly in front of Alicia Silverstone, but what you take away from the experience is a much wider understanding.

Jane Austen said of Emma Woodhouse (in a letter) that she had written a novel with a heroine "whom no one would like but myself". Indeed the first sentence (another sterling first sentence by Austen. How does she do it?) paints a picture that is easily understood as a spoilt little rich girl:

"Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever and rich, with a comfortable house and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her."

At the same time we have to disagree with Miss Austen. Readers have fallen in love with Emma (both novel and heroine) since the novel was published, and with good reason

Ronald Blythe states in his introduction to the 1966 Penguin Classics edition of "Emma" that it is "the climax of Jane Austen's genius and the Parthenon of fiction." I do not dispute it for a second. This novel is my favourite work from my favourite author.

The book has a plot so timeless than even translating it to modern day Hollywood and casting Alicia Silverstone in the lead still gets you a hit movie, Clueless. OK, it's obvious from the first chapter who is destined to marry Emma but our dashing hero, Mr Knightley, is still the only person who ever criticises Emma, indeed he spends a large part of his time in the novel telling either Emma or her friends about her flaws.

Austen wrote to her niece Anna (writing a novel at the time) that "Three or four families in a country village is the very thing to work on" and stayed close to this for most of her own works. Yet at the same time, in a letter to her brother Edward (another incipient novelist) she played down her concerns as "the little bit (two inches wide) of ivory on which I work with so fine a brush, as to produce little effect, after much labour." 'Emma' is certainly the novel on the smallest piece of ivory with the finest brush, yet it pokes as much fun and wields as savage a knife on the social conventions of Austen's England as any other novelist of the time.

Austen was capable of writing novels with genuine popular appeal at the same time as she flouted the conventions of fiction. 'Emma' is a marvellous example, an easily read, enjoyable novel with a heroine who is in charge of her own destiny and who marries for no other reason than she loves a good, strong man.

Everyone deserves to read a novel this good. Just because teenage girls will adore this novel and swoon over Mr Knightley doesn't mean the rest of us should be stopped from this marvellous read. I enjoy Austen immensely and this is my favourite. I probably read it once or twice a year.

When you come to choosing the edition I once again find myself recommending the Penguin Classics edition for its Introduction. This time it is Fiona Stafford who does such a good job (though I think the '66 edition Introduction by Ronald Blythe was a fraction better.)

This book was decent in my opinion. I wouldn't recommend it to younger ages to read. I didn't like the face that the writer skipped around characters, although the book was call "The Watcher" it wasn't just based on one person, it hardly even talked about her or also known as the watcher, it mostly talked about another character in the book called Evan. Other than that I liked the fact that the author wrote it so that it seemed real, he used real life innocents that could really accrue. This book made you feel like you were reading something that really happened even thought it was fiction. I definitely recommend this book to the older readers because of the language used in it.

This book is one of the best books I've ever read written by James Howe. The author describes the characters in great detail. It tells how you can't judge a person by their appearance.It's like the saying you can't judge a book by its cover. The author explains how the watcher judges Evan and Callie's family saying that they have a perfect family, but really the parents were maybe going to get a divorce. The author also explained how the watcher was depressed and was abused. This book was one of my favorites and I recomend it.

This book was one of the best books I have ever read. It helped me and others to understand that everything in life is not what it appears to be. In this book, for instance, Evan and Callie's family looked like a perfect family, but Jeff and Karen were thinking about getting a divorce. The Watcher also looked like a pretty normal girl , but at her father abused her at home. This book is a very descriptive book. James Howe makes it a lot easier to understand the characters life from their point of view. The way he described the Watcher showed her lack of self-esstem and how lonely she was. I hope that everyone that reads this book will enjoy it as much has I did.

Yes, it's a great novel. Yes the language is rich, the story is subtle, and the psychology is complex. And yet, I didn't like it.

Of course, who am I to review Henry James? Granted, I read more books and watch less television than most of my peers, but still I think I might be too "late Twentieth Century" for this book. Maybe despite my strict avoidance of video games I just can't help detesting the millipede pace of this book. I've never had much affinity for drawing room conversations to begin with, and unlike my father I don't believe that wit must be meted out in tortuous sentences.

But it isn't my background or personal prejudices that make me recoil from "Wings of the Dove". There is something about the deliberate quality of Henry James that bothers me. He knows perfectly well what he's doing with his fat succulent sentences. He won't feed you a meal of lean pork and vegetables. He'll serve you tons of tiny truffles and oil-oozing, crispy skinned duck.

To read "Wings of the Dove" is like encountering a cookbook that decided to include as much of the delicious fatty foods as possible. Of course its a rare meal and quite wonderful in its way. But some how, it made me a little nauseous at the end.

First things first, it is a very nice novel, but very hard to follow. Personally speaking, sometimes I couldn't get very exactly what Henry James was trying to say, but I could understand the situation as a whole and be able to move on.

As everybody knows, Hery James is not an easy writer. His appeal is very difficult and complex although it doesn't read very old-fashioned. The story is very interesting and timeless, because it deals with passion, money and betrayal. The books follows Kate Croy and her beloved Merton Densher when then both get involved - in different degrees and with different interests- with the beautiful rich and sick American heiress Milly Theale.

Most of the time, the book kept me wondering what would come next and its result and the grand finale. But, that doesn't mean I was fully understand its words. As I said, I was just feeling what was going on. As a result, i don't think I was able to get all the complexity of Henry James. Maybe, if I read this book again in the futures, it will be clearer.

There is a film version of this novel made in 1997, and starring Helena Bonham Carter, Allison Elliot and Linus Roach, directed by Iain Softley. Carter is amazing as always! Kate is a bit different from the book, she is not only a manipulative soul, but, actually, she is a woman trying to find happiness. One character says of Kate, "There's something going on behind those beautiful lashes", and that's true for most female leads created by James. Watching this movie helped me a lot, after finishing reading the novel.

I've carried on a love-hate affair with The Wings of the Dove for more than 20 years. In that period of time, I started the novel (the same beautiful little Signet paperback edition) at LEAST 15 times and could never get past page 30 or so. But it kept nagging at me to read it. Last summer, I plowed through its dense prose thicket, and I felt as though I were peering through a glass darkly. Several times I felt like tossing it aside. I've studied Enlish and literature all my life and yet I had one heckuva time with those daunting banks of prose. But I'm glad I read it. It's masterful. Worth all the effort. Those scintillating scenes in Venice. Nothing like them! I just read The Golden Bowl, another difficult but rewarding book. There are astonishing scenes in it, like when the husband of the busy-body watches her in a pensive mood as if she were in the middle of a lake, coming closer. It's just an extraordinary scene! I love early James too, like that perfect jewel of a book, Washington Square. Sometimes, great as the late books are, I really do think they lose something of the wonderful clarity James achieved earlier. There are still a few scenes in Wings and Bowl, for instance, in which I have NO IDEA what James was trying to express. Talk about super subtle! But do make the effort, folks, they're incredible books.

This book by Henry James is as different as can be from his longer works, but it has its own charm. The charactization is quite complex for a novella. It's just unfortunate that Catherine is so unredeemably staid. I realize that quite a few women chose to live a life alone in those days, but she seemed quite plodding to me. She does develop into a spinster that seems to enjoy that state. And Morris is quite the cad, but we the readers are never in any doubt as to that. The doctor father is another story, He's so right-minded that it's difficult to imagine anyone could be that stubborn. And the widowed aunt is a treasure - silly, manipulative and oh so romantic. This novella is written like a play since there are only four main characters, and most of the action takes place in the house on Washington Square. I really think this book looks deceptively simple, but it is not as simple as it appears. I enjoyed the story.

"Everyone likes Washington Square. Even the denigerators of Henry James." This short novel combines the deeply insightful character analysis almost exclusive to Henry James, without all of his often difficult and tiresome prose style. The plot seems simple enough: Catherine, our strikingly three-dimensional protagonist, is faced with a difficult decision. Should she follow the advice of her sentimental aunt and marry Morris, the poor, jobless, seemingly benevolent lover? Or should she listen to her cold, intellectual father, to whom she is completely devoted, and examine Morris' admittedly questionable motives for wanting to marry Catherine, an heiress? James' depth of analysis of his characters psychology is unparalleled throughout American literature, and this too-often forgotten classic should appeal to most of us. "Washington Square" is one of James' earlier works, but it does not lack the brilliant psychological observations and social critique of his later novels. However, for those who find his sometimes laborious and complex prose style a bit tiring, "Washington Square" is a breath of fresh air. I recomend this book to anyone who enjoys American literature.

Henry James's novel looks almost alarmingly simple: A young woman must choose between the love of a father and the love of a young man. Surely, the notion is too slender to sustain a whole book. How can he pull it off? Yet James manages a number of surprises. The simplicity is a ruse. Chief among the surprises is the character of Catherine Sloper, James's protagonist. James immediately tells us she is stupid. How dare he? Who wants to read about such a creature? Perhaps because readers naturally empathize with the defenseless, our sympathies sweep to her; no one should deserve the opprobrium of this narrator. And we are not wrong. Catherine is simple, but she is gifted with dignity, honesty, and the ability to endure. Her position is morally superior, even if her father is correct; her paramour is a bounty hunter, and nothing more. Yet that is among the other surprises in store, since James uses his omniscient narrator selectively, keeping Townsend's heart obscured for nearly 3/4ths of the book. The story still fascinates us, because it is essentially about money. Gaining wealth and status we have not earned is an American obsession. Perhaps it is the American dream. And while eschewing it will not make us happy--there is no happiness in Washington Square, only the kind of humor that would be cruel if it were not so funny--it will finally allow us to maintain our dignity "for life, as it were."

Jane Austen is definitely one of the greatest novelists of the world. I've read Pride and Prejudice &Emma and loved them both. However, I was disappointed with Sense and Sensibility. The story of two sisters altogether different from each other could be an interesting plot ... if it had Austen's usual style. Austen is famous for her keeping her balance between too romantic and too realistic. This time her style is much too romantic and by no means both feet on the ground. The sensible sister Elinor is really a charachter to fall in love with ,but the incredibly romantic sister Marienne has driven me nuts by talking foolishly throughout the book. Still , a good experience and worth reading.

Anyone who gives this book a bad review has no class. Jane Austen is one of the most celebrated writers in history. You just have to get past the fancy words. Beneath that is a classic and romantic story. Sense and Sensibility is the best romance novel I have ever read. I would recommend watching the movie first, though, if your Old English vocabulary isn't very strong.

I have read all of Jane Austen's novels at least once, and"Sense and Sensibility" is, at the moment, my favorite,because it was the last one I read. Jane Austen is - and always willbe - my absolute favorite writer. I love the way she can take just an average person and reveal the hero or heroine inside.

This is just what she does with Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. The central theme of this novel is not the love between a boy and a girl; it is about the love between two sisters and how they come to a better understanding of each other when they are forced to endure similar situations and handle them in completely different manners.

When each sister, through dissimilar circumstances, discovers that the happiness she had believed she would find in marriage is not to be, it at first appears that Elinor is rather cold and heartless - more worried about propriety than feelings - and that Marianne is more in touch with her emotions and would rather express her grief than take into account how her display will affect those who love her...

As for the relationship between the sisters, at the beginning, Marianne seems to pity Elinor for her lack of esteem for art and poetry, and she believes that Edward is not worthy of her. Elinor, while seeing the youthful faults of her sister, always keeps a sense of humour and does everything out of love for her and the rest of the family. In the middle, Marianne believes that no one has ever suffered as she, and continues to pity Elinor for her inadequacies...

This is a wonderful and deeply moving novel that should be read more than once to be thoroughly understood and appreciated.

Like all devoted lovers of Jane Austen, I have long pondered why she chose to write this, of all books, at time she was experiencing the intoxicating success of Pride and Prejudice.

The protagonist is a loathesome little priss. Austen herself says so in her letters. Fanny Price is neurotic and oversensitive where Austen's other heroines are brash and healthy. Even Austen's own family found the ending as odd and disappointing as do subsequent generations of readers.

So there's a puzzle to be solved here. The answer may lie in the fact that this book was written when, after a lifetime of obscurity, Austen found herself, briefly, a huge success. As is so often the case with writers, the success of her earlier book may have given her the courage to decided write about something that REALLY mattered to her--and what that was was her own very complex feelings about the intensely sexual appeal of a morally unworthy person.

This topic, the charm of the scoundrel, is one that flirts through all her other books, usually in a side plot. However, the constraints of Austen's day made it impossible for her to write the story of a woman who falls for a scoundrel with a sympathetic viewpoint character.

So what I think Austen may have decided to do was to write this story using Edmund--a male--as the sympathetic character who experiences the devastating sexual love of someone unworthy. Then, through a strange slight of hand, she gives us a decoy protagonist--Fanny Price, who if she is anything, is really the judgemental, punishing Joy Defeating inner voice--the inner voice that probably kept Jane from indulging her own very obvious interest in scoundrels in real life!

In defense of this theory, consider these points:

1. Jane herself loved family theatricals. Fanny's horror of them and of the flirting that took place is the sort of thing she made fun of in others. Jane also loved her cousin, Eliza, a married woman of the scoundrelly type, who flirted outrageously with Jane's brother Henry when Jane was young--very much like Mary Crawford. The fact is, and this bleeds through the book continuously, Austen doesn't at all like Fanny Price!

To make it more complex, Fanny's relationship with Henry Crawford is an echo of the Edmund-Mary theme, but Austen makes Henry so appealing that few readers have forgiven Austen for not letting Fanny liven up a little and marry him! No. Austen is trying to make a case for resisting temptation, but in this book she most egregiously fails.

2. Austen is famous for never showing us a scene or dialogue which she hadn't personally observed in real life, hence the off-stage proposals in her other books.

Does this not make it all the more curious that the final scene between Edmund and Mary Crawford in which he suffers his final disillusionment and realizes the depths of her moral decay comes to us with some very convincing dialogue? Is it possible that Jane lived out just such a scene herself? That she too was forced by her inner knowlege of what was right to turn away from a sexually appealing scoundrel of her own?

3. Fanny gets Edmund in the end, but it is a joyless ending for most readers because it is so clear that he is in love with Mary. Can it be that Austen here was suggesting the grim fate that awaits those who do turn away from temptations--a lifetime of listening to that dull, upstanding, morally correct but oh so joyless voice of reason?

We'll never know. Cassandra Austen burnt several years' worth of her sister's letters--letters written in the years before she prematurely donned her spinster's cap and gave up all thoughts of finding love herself. Her secrets whatever they were, were kept within the family.

But one has to wonder about what was really going on inside the curious teenaged girl who loved Samual Richardson's rape saga and wrote the sexually explicit oddity that comes to us as Lady Susan. Perhaps in Mansfield Park we get a dim echo of the trauma that turned the joyous outrageous rebel who penned Pride and Prejudice in her late teens into the staid, sad woman when she was dying wrote Persuasion--a novel about a recaptured young love.

So with that in mind, why not go and have another look at Mansfield Park!

Jane Austen is one of the best storytellers I have had the pleasure of reading. My favorite aspect of Austen's writing is her characterization; She acquaints the reader with her characters through the most ingenious and subtle techniques. My favorite denizen of Mansfield Park is the irritating and repulsive Mrs. Norris, who is a preeminent example of masterful characterization. For an illuminating artistic look at this novel read Vladimir Nabokov's wonderful and incomparable "Lectures on Literature", which includes a detailed study of "Mansfield Park"---don't miss it, it's a real treat.

While I have enjoyed other books by Austen, this one is unique among them in that the plot structure is, for the most part, quite complicated; and, what singles "Mansfield Park" out artistically is its style, as opposed to its story. Some passages are exceptional; for example, the scene where the main characters stroll about Sotherton Court approximates the scene at the county fair in Flaubert's "Madame Bovary" in its complexity, orchestration, and execution. Parts of "Mansfield Park" are simply exquisite.

Unfortunately, the denouement is something like a train wreck. The last 1/3-1/4 of the book is stylistically dull, though structurally sound, and the last twenty or so pages read like Cliff Notes. The ending should have been much longer in order to resolve the various, complicated elements of the plot with the stylistic grace of the first 2/3s of the novel. The uneven execution sets "Mansfield Park" a step below the best of Austen's (approximate) contemporaries (Flaubert and Dickens, for example), but "Mansfield Park" still makes the short list of my favorite novels.

I must admit that the first half of this book is somewhat slow and at times quite difficult to hold attention to. I understand that the setting, personalities, and situations must be established in the first half. Even so, the story is a gem well worth reading. It has quite a different feel from the other Jane Austen books and the characters stick to your mind as people you will never forget. A few characters are quite tragic yet do not deserve sympathy, which provides an interest in the reader's mind. Fanny Price, the main character of the book, is an admirable and intelligent person whom I would not mind modeling myself after. This is a GREAT book, so don't miss your chance to read it.

The last page of this book made up for any feelings of boredom I experienced before. Mr. Chips has enjoyed a 63-year history at Brookfield School for Boys in England. He was married briefly for a year to a young woman who died, and no one remembers her. It's like he has always been a confirmed old bachelor.

Mr. Chips is easily the prototype for Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society. You can see a much-loved teacher with his own complexities shining through this character. The last page made me cry, it was just so touching. Read this book -- it is a classic and worth much more than the few hours it takes to read it.

James Hilton's work sometimes shows its age from the vantage point of sixty five years later. In the case of Lost Horizon, the story becomes a set piece, lost in its 1930s era assumptions. Random Harvest is rarely read, as its voice also seems better suited to BBC makeover dramas than poignant reading. Hilton's simple, sentimental story about an English school teacher, Goodbye, Mr. Chips, remains as unabashedly accessible as it must have been when it was written.

The story recaps the professional life of a devoted teacher. But Mr. Chipping is not the "to the ramparts" crusader we see in our current movies of the week. Unlike Hard Times or the sloganeering of our current political debates, Goodbye, Mr. Chips is not a call for wholesale reform of an educational system. Instead, Hilton uses the Chipping character as a metaphor for the value of education in giving the student that most elusive of the commodities of civilization, a sense of proportion.

The novel's style is magazine fiction in the best sense of the phrase. The story is propelled jauntily along, through flashbacks and ironic anecdote. Although the author's approach may be said to be sentimental, the construction of the plot and the direct yet subtle way in which the themes are driven home are quite appealing. Hilton wrote at the time that "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" was written in a single burst, with little need for revision (a work of "inspiration"). The book does indeed read as though the author understood the potential in his story from the opening paragraph onward.

Mr. Chips' schoolbound world is not a "real world" in many ways, and yet the novel retains a sense of warmth and reality that many schoolboy days books cannot sustain. Hilton squeezes into a brief novella gentle wit, a mild love story, and shrewd observations about the importance of a sense of permanence. In some ways, Mr. Chipping is a metaphor for the survival of English middle-class life in the wake of the first world war. We might also view Hilton's creation of Mr. Chipping in the late 1930s as an attempt to preserve the English middle-class sense of proportion and the rightness of things for a generation under the shadow of the impending war against fascism. Whether we take Goodbye, Mr. Chips as an extended metaphor, or merely as a crackling good read, we are drawn again and again to its quiet, direct story and simple message. In a time when we are rediscovering the virtues of simplicity, perhaps it is time we rediscovered the value of educators who pass our values through the generations. This English novel retains its relevance to contemporary people worldwide. Hilton's simplest novel may well be considered his best one. I highly recommend this slim volume.

This short, sentimental composite portrait tugs at my heart with each reread, even though it was never my privilege to have a teacher like Chips. An instant "classic" when it first appeared in book form in America in 1934 (after serialization in the Atlantic Monthly), this unpretentious tale about a mild-mannered teacher charms us by its very simplicity of style and honesty of emotion. We snatch glimpses into the unremarkable life and becalmed career of a Master at a gracefully moldering English boys' school--and even into his more distinguished retirement.

We celebrate Mr. Chipping's gradual metamorphosis from indifferent disciplinarian, average teacher, gentle eccentric, confirmed bachelor, glowing husband, fusty Acting Head--ultimately to achieve social distinction and honor: becoming a beloved institution in his own right. For despite decades of academic obscurity, Chips emerges as the representative of what is right and good about Brookfield. He becomes a living symbol of harmony between ancient ritual and "modern" methods and ideals.

World events beyond the hallowed walls seek to touch and reshape the lives in this secluded school, which witnesses the ceaseless stream of future new boys, waring Masters and Heads. Yet all their strivings take back seat to the gentle dodderings of a witty, childless graybeard in a shabby robe, who prides himself on being the father of thousands of boys. This book is a light-hearted tale which will bring both tears and joy to readers of all ages.

Although The Double Helix by James D. Watson is not the most riveting-can't-put-it-down book, it does offer a fascinating first-hand account of the events leading up to one of the most impacting scientific discoveries ever. Its manifestation of the unique existence of a scientist exposes what type of competitions, manipulation, and discovery exist in the science arena.

The introduction of other key figures who played prominent and influential roles in the discovery of the DNA structure is at the very least, enlightening. The network of knowledge necessary to ensure there are no foibles in a key discovery is something that the general public may have never taken into account. Also, it evinces the professional barriers that exist between the genders. The back story of Rosalind "Rosie" Franklin is fascinating as it examines the "glass ceiling" and what type of personality a woman needs to adopt in order to survive in a male dominated field. The end of the end of the book-where Watson realizes her seemingly callous attitude emanates from her essential need to incorporate survival methods is refreshing. The science terms are difficult to follow if one does not have previous scientific background, but there is enough universality imbedded into the story to keep a reader's attention.

Another aspect that proves to be surprising is the fact that scientists are not without their weak fields-just because they excel in chemistry does not mean they are equally capable in biology. Reading of how Watson and Crick were unsuccessful on several occasions somehow made them human-like they were mortals rather than some higher power intellectuals. Somehow, there seems to be an idea or stigma attached to scientists that suggest they are always brilliant and do not make mistakes. This book sheds that concept.

Watson and Crick needed to do research, work hard, and learn from their mistakes in order to accomplish their objective. They even needed help from their friends. They beat out a great scientist in Linus and won the "DNA Race." Their discovery has changed the world, and this book depicts them in a humble role-two guys doing their job.

I think the Double helix is a wonderful and entertaining book to read. The great scientist James D. Watson clearly describes about the discovery of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) structure, which can be consider to be the greatest discoveries in the millennium. The author is very detailed in explaining how, when and where the discovery took place. He emphasizes on the role of recreation and day dreaming in the context of everyday life in sparking fresh insights towards possible connections. He also explains his motivations of research and his ambitions in getting a noble prize. I think Watson's style is very personable as he includes a lot of stories about his life such as personal vanities, annoying mannerisms and even his formal dinning parties. I think this book is fun to read and can be shared among children as to motivate them in expanding their ideas.

_________________________________________________________________

When "The Double Helix" came out in 1968, as a geneticist I naturally read it. And it has stuck far more firmly for me than any of the many other books I've read over the years about genetics.

Why do I remember this book so well? I've wondered. The answer is right in the first sentence of "The Double Helix" that reads: "I have never seen Francis Crick in a modest mood."

In his account of how the structure of DNA was discovered, Jim Watson doesn't try to tell the story from a disinterested point of view. This is my version, he says, and I'm not going to touch it up to cover the warts and other blemishes. Yes, for instance, Watson and Crick were patently and terribly unfair and unjust toward Rosalind Franklin but Jim doesn't deny it. He makes it plenty clear.

Most writing in and about science is well varnished. But varnish gives a gloss and it's not easy to hold onto. Jim Watson forgot the varnish, on purpose. Watson's brashness (and Crick's conceit) season this narrative in a memorable way, a way I can't easily forget, even if I wanted to.

This is first-rate personal science writing. Five stars, for sure, or more. It's about one of the most important discoveries in the history of science. I hope you'll enjoy (and remember) "The Double Helix" too.

Oliver Stone, meet your nemesis, Gerald Posner.

As the director of "JFK" may well know, Posner has made his reputation debunking fashionable conspiracy theories. His previous book "Case Closed" proved definitively that, Stone's fanciful drivel aside, lone lunatic Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy, aided only by chance and a U.S. Marine's sharpshooting skill.

Not one to shy from controversy, Posner now turns his attention to another 60s hero laid low tragically young by another assassin's bullet. Conspiracy theories about MLK's death have long been fashionable among the African American community; of late even King's family have bought into the notion that James Earl Ray was innocent. Posner once again sifts through the facts and speculation and concludes that Ray was the lone assassin.

In reviewing the case, Posner brings to light a surprisingly complete picture of the assassin's life. Ray grew up in a dirt poor family of criminals and cut his teeth on petty crimes before settling into his life's calling as a robber. His increasing tendency toward violence and continued brushed with the law finally resulted in a long prison sentence. Ray escaped prison and set his sights on one more criminal goal, one guaranteed to make him a hero amongst the underworld--the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Posner takes the reader through the events of that terrible day in 1968, weaving a masterful tragedy made more tragic by those unwilling to lay the blame for this hideous crime where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of James Earl Ray.

Posner delivers yet again, and in so doing shines the light of truth on an incident almost submerged in the murk of paranoia and denial. I only hope that Coretta Scott King and the rest of her family take time to read this book. While nothing can dim their sorrow, they could at least gain some measure of comfort in knowing that King's murderer was brought to justice.

After more than 30 years the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and possible conspiracy still weigh heavily on our collective national consciousness. Enter journalist Gerald Posner and his book, Killing the Dream: James Earl Ray and the Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. published by Random House. Posner, author of the controversial best seller Case Closed which found Lee Harvey Oswald to be the lone assassin of JFK, sets out to close the book on the King case as well. Readers familiar with Case Closed will recognize the layout, style, and conclusions in Posner's new book, although he does leave the door to conspiracy open this time around. Another similarity is Posner's ability to gain access to information. In Case Closed, he was able to study of the files of Edward Wagmann, an attorney for Clay Shaw. This time around, Posner and his wife were the first researchers to examine the archives of George McMillan, who gained the trust of the Ray family during research for his book, The Making of an Assassin. ...

So does the book "close the case" on the assassination of Martin Luther King? As in Case Closed, conspiracy theorists should find plenty of material in the book that can be disputed. One such issue is Ray's purchase of expensive camera equipment, which Posner contends that he planned to use in a porn venture. His source for the porn statement is Ray's brother, Jerry, who is hardly a Gibraltar of truth.

Aside from a few issues that may never be resolved, Posner has done an admirable job of showing motive, means, and opportunity for James Earl Ray to kill Dr. King. He has demonstrated again his ability to find new information and gain access to sources that others can not. This book will probably not do much to help Posner vacate the title of "The man conspiracy buffs love to hate". It will, if readers keep an open mind, answer the question, "Who killed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?"

I haven't ever given a lot of thought to James Earl Ray as Martin Luther King's lone assassin, despite the press that has been given to it over the past few months. I assumed, like many others, that the truth about his death was locked up in some government vault somewhere. Only in the future, would we know the truth.

I saw Mr. Posner on one of the early morning talk shows, and found him to be one of the most articulate and straightforward guests I had seen in a while, who offered some thought provoking views on the current conspiracy theories relating to King's death. I was so intrigued by this short interview that I purchased the book. I was not disappointed. I soon learned that the truth about the King Assassination was complex, but available to those who had an open mind.

Posner's clear, efficient writing style, and straight ahead delivery of the facts, as he has discovered them, were facinating. What I appreciated most about his work was the balanced and objective manner in which the facts in this case were presented. In an era when conspiracy theories abound, it is refreshing to read something where rational thought, common sense and exemplary research are found on every page.

I think Posner has done our country a valuable service by setting the record straight on such an important social issue.

Not only has this book contributed to clarifying history, once started, I couldn't set it down.

Bill Cronin