Shakespeare Books

What a beautiful collection of music from the movie, "The Merchant of Venice". It is the first CD I listen to each time I get into my car. Every track is unbelievably moving, from the Jewish songs to the mid-evil voices and strings. Some are haunting and others, uplifting...always leaves me wanting more of the same.This music is great for meditation or will calm you in rush hour traffic. The lyrics are exceptional and are written by John milton, William Shakespeare, Edgar Allan Poe, Luys de Narvaez and Clara Sanabras.

While watching the movie on HBO, I was entranced by the musical score and ordered both the video and the soundtrack. Very evocative. It has become one of my favorites.

The solo voice pieces by Andreas Scholl and Hayley Westenra are excellent. Selection #15, "Bridal Ballad", is the one that stands out. The CD price is a bargain.

I am really picky about film scores. A lot of film scores I hear are loud, bombastic, and over the top. My favorite film score of all time has to be Jocelyn Pook's compositions for the 2004 film adaptation of Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice". Her orchestral compositions really reflects the time period the film takes place in. For me, the gorgeous film score was what made the film so engaging for me. The meldoies were never loud or bombastic like you would hear in John Williams' or Hans Zimmer's work. Andreas Scholl's operatic vocals added a nice touch to Jocelyn Pook's music. Originally I thought Andreas was a she and not a he. His voice is very high for a man and I mean that in a positive way. My favorite track on the album is "Bridal Ballad" with Hayley Westenra. This was my first introduction to Hayley. I must say I was quite impressed. She has a lovely voice that is rarely heard in singers around her age. I wish Britney Spears could sing like that, much less sing like a human and less like a chipmunk.Anyways, I really feel that Jocelyn captured the Shakespeare era that the story was takes place with her music. I hope to hear more from her in the near future.

Composer Jocelyn Pook bridges the gap between Renaissance and modern day to create a soundtrack for Michael Radford's film version of the Shakespeare play "The Merchant of Venice." Her moody, delicate score is decidedly mellow, evoking gentility and laced with quiet longing. Real Renaissance dances intertwine with lilting original compositions played by chamber orchestra and harp, with period texts mixed in too, lightly sung in countertenor and boychoir voices. Near Eastern motifs also wend their way through the music in the form of Hebrew songs, sultry oud (lute) and shimmering kanun (an Arabic psaltery). The result is a pensive, winsome, consistently elegant soundscape that is just lovely to listen to. Featured musicians include Pook herself on viola, Pamela Thorby playing a delightfully pure, straigh-toned recorder, Siobhan Armstrong on harp, Harvey Brough on psaltery, Elizabeth Kenny on theorbo (archlute), Jon Banks on qanun, and singers Andreas Scholl, Hayley Westenra, Ben Crawley, Uri Yehuda and Robert Prizeman's Libera boy's choir. Compare with Pook's other albums, such as "Untold Things" and "Flood." Try also the work of composer Anne Dudley, and any of the real Renaissance music put out by the Dorian label.

It seems like reading would require no specific techniques, that they would come naturally to one and go without saying, even when the task is more specified, as in the reading of plays. But Ball breaks down this seemingly natural sense into its component elements and explains them in easily digestible, well-paced segments, and to examine these elements does much in the way of re-learning and thus refining and fine-tuning one's seemingly natural reading skill. This skill can be taken and applied in various ways (as Ball describes in the introduction), some of which are immeasurably improved by the complex understanding that posessing these refined elements provides; the reading a play to produce it, for example, or the writing of one yourself can be tremendously improved if one is constantly aware of what they are doing, why they're doing it, and what about their actions are correct, lacking, unnecessary or obtrusive. Without having a defined sense of the tools contained within this book, these tasks would be much more difficult, complicated, vague and roundabout, thus slowing, weakening or perhaps ruining the final product. Pair this skill set with application to texts such as plays, which are made all the more difficult by the fact that the playwright thinks in terms more of making their production work when produced for an audience and less of making their script read and be easily graspable completely on the page, and this manual becomes immeasurably more useful on a basic and elemental level.

This book would serve a Script Analysis class very well. I plan to use it for mine in the fall. It also is reader friendly enough to serve an actor/director/designer wanting a different perspective, perhaps, on a script; or could be a different way of explaining what we were generally taught as undergrads.

I have read a lot of books on the subjects of writing and acting. This book contains almost every important point in the tens of thousands of pages I have read when it comes to structure. If you are a writer you have to own this book! There is no wasted space in it. No actor or director on the planet should live without it either. You can read it in a day, but you'll read it again and again.

This book may have been primarily written for directors and writers, but it is a great tool for actors to get to real active meanings in a script.

I agreee wholeheartedly with those below. But Mr Ball is not merely a theorist, he supplies a chapter in which he takes us on a brief journey backward through Hamlet for a distance, and through this method shows how single and specific Hamlet's action is. I can't approach a script now without setting up my dominoes and charting it backward. It seemes foolish not to.

Poignant, powerful stories. Beautifully written with a distinctive and important design. This book's not to be missed--by you, your friends, your business colleagues. Bravo!

Within his book A Leader Becomes A Leader, Kevin Sheehan delightfully illustrates the essence of true leadership. He poignantly definies a diverse group of past and present leaders; while exploring their life events and characteristics of greatness. Encourage your friends, family and coworkers to read this motivational book!

The author does a phenomenal job of breaking the topic down into small manageable and inspiring readings; also covers a great cross-section of leaders and the characteristics that made them successful. I ordered a dozen copies as executive and motivational gifts.

J. Kevin Sheehan presents a celebration of what's possible in his biographical snapshots of great leaders. By focusing on the unique character traits of outstanding leaders the author transforms the mysteries of leadership into something very real. He answers the question "what made them great?" in an extremely concise and inspirational style. Great as a corporate gift or graduation present. My children have used it for school projects and I have found inspiration for my own business. No home or school library should be without this most valuable tool.

What I love most about "A Leader Becomes A Leader" is it's timeless simplicity. I can take this book (turn off the television) and spend quality time with a young child, parent, teacher, grandparent or peer and connect on a visual, thoughtful and emotional level. These inspiring stories remain simple, true and steadfast in their messages of perseverance (and are told with grace). A thoughtful journey through and towards what is really important in life. A great exploration on human potential. This must be shared!

Wow, thought I was the only adult fan of Shakespeare who watches the plays and then runs home to read what insights Goddard has into 'em -- guess not, from these reviews.

Each chapter -- essay -- is like an evening by the fireside with a scholarly, opinionated friend interested in exploring ideas rather than summarizing a plot or proving his erudition.

Special applause to Goddard's essay (Vol.1) on Henry V: his quite negative take on Henry's character -- for which, as he points out, all the evidence is right there in the text -- made the play much more subtle and so more interesting for me.

Volume one (brown cover) has many of the histories and tragedies; Volume two (blue cover) has everything else. I recommend them both, but if you're looking just for Goddard's essay on one particular play, choose the "look inside the book" option for viewing the cover -- it lists the plays covered inside.

There's not much praise I can add to that offered by earlier reviewers. Goddard is, for me, one of the premier Shakespeare critics -- up there with Johnson, Coleridge, Bradley, and Frye. I much prefer his work to that of the two popularist contemporary critics, Bloom and Garber. Goddard lacks, thankfully, the self-aggrandizement of Bloom and Garber; his criticism is insightful and brilliant while remaining extremely accessible and enjoyable to read.

The two volumes of The Meaning of Shakespeare should be on the reading table (don't let them linger on the shelves) of every reader who respects and wants to enjoy Shakespeare.

This is Goddard on the play he considers Shakespeare's greatest: " The predestined end of unmastered human passion is the suicide of the species. That is the gospel according to 'King Lear'. The murder- suicide of Regan- Goneril is an example.But it is more than a picture of chaos and impending doom.What is the remedy for chaos? it asks. What can avert the doom?The characters who have mastered their passions give us a glimpse of the answer to these questions And Shakespeare through them, gives us more than a glimpse. But that is the culmination of the play and should come last."
The 'readings' given here of the work of Shakespare are informed, and insightful.

I don't know much about Shakespeare, but I know great writing when I read it. This book is an absolute pleasure to read (with volume 2). The author has great insight into human nature and brings his insights to his understanding of Shakespeare. The book makes me want to dive into Shakespeare myself!

Barbara

I once knew a young man who thought Polonius was a wise and noble character. He had taken Polonius's advice, such as "brevity is the soul of wit," at face value without noticing the irony that Polonius is not brief himself, and is in fact a meddling old fool. Reading Goddard makes me feel like that young man; he shows that Shakespeare's subtle irony is far more extensive than most theater-goers and readers realize. For example, whereas conventional wisdom holds Henry V to be Shakespeare's ideal king, Goddard interprets Henry V as the portrait of a hypocritical strongman.

If Goddard has a fault, he is too contemptuous of the theater. He sees the audience as an unthinking mob that laps up surface effects. His Shakespeare gave the groundlings the cheap thrills they crave so he could make money, but used irony to tell a poetic truth that was sometimes the opposite of what is seen on the stage. I think Shakespeare loved the theater more than Goddard did. Without the brilliant drama and comedy, his plays would be read as much as "The Rape of Lucrece," which is to say, only by scholars and devotees of Renaissance poetry. Even so, Goddard's insights are a revelation. After reading this book, you will have a greater appreciation of Shakespeare's artistic integrity.

The Hunting of the Snark is a whacky piece of poetical silliness by Lewis Caroll. Complete nonsense, no-one knows what a Snark is, or why Snark hunters hunt it, or why anyone would want to become a Snark hunter to start with. Anyway, the poem is definitely amusing at times with some of the humour he slips in.

The Hunting of the Snark seems to be a very, very short imitation of The Canterbury Tales. The first chapter (titled a fit) introduces all of the occupations of all the different people going on a journey. However, instead of going on a general pilgrimage and telling tales along the way, their trip is very specific to hunting.

The Baker actually attempts to tell a story, but the Bellman (who leads the group) says there's no time for storytelling. They have to catch the Snark before nightfall.

Along with the Bellman and Baker, a Banker, a Bonnet-maker, a Butcher, a Boots, a Billiard-maker, a Barrister, a Broker, and a Beaver tag along to hunt for the Snark. The Beaver is afraid of getting cut by the Butcher, so he puts on a dagger-proof coat and talks to the Banker about buying an insurance policy.

The Beaver is involved in a hilarious scene with the Butcher later, when the two attempt to compute sums. But perhaps the funniest scene of the entire book is in the Barrister's dream when the Snark declares sentence on a pig, only to find out the pig has been dead long before the trial even began.

I'd highly recommend this short poem for Carroll fans, even though it's not big enough to contain but a small portion of what's to be found in the Alice books.

I have read a great deal of nonsense in the past, but this was by far the best nonsense that I have ever read. There is no point, no meaning, no sense, and no boringness. It is a delightful poem (which is well written and very fun to read aloud) about a crew on a ship hunting a snark. The crew includes a captain who only rings a bell, a beaver, a cook who only cooks beavers (the beaver and the cook did not get along well), a man afraid that the snark would turn into a boojum and make him disappear, etc. As you can tell, this makes for an insanely silly poem. The subtitle is rather fitting, as my sides were definitely hurting from laughter when I was done. Well done Mr. Carroll.

Overall grade: A+

Nonsense poems can easily miss the mark
Yet, this masterpiece has that spark.

"How do you kill a _____?", you ask
To find the answer was the hunters' task.

"What was their fate?", you wonder
Did they ever catch their elusive plunder?

A paragon of haunting Carollian lore
Be in no doubt that you'll finish wanting more.

This poem is just great!

First, this one of the most delightful pieces of writing that ever appeared in (more or less) English. It succeeds as a sustained exercise in illogic. I am sure that only a mathematical logician like Dodgson could possibly have pulled it off - only someone with such deep understanding of reason could master unreason so completely.

Second, Martin Gardner's commentary adds depth and background to the reading. Gardner explains terms that are now obsolete, but also adds his own analysis and a rich history of the Snark phenomenon. It should be no surprise that Gardner is still best known as the long-time editor of Scientific American's column on Mathematical Games, a mathematician himself.

I can't add much to the scholarship or praise that already surrounds this incredible poem. I would like to point out, however, that most non-native English speakers are unfamiliar with this poem. Many of them have only ever seen the serious side of the English language, and have never seen English at play. I consider this short work to be the ideal introduction to the very best of English-language nonsense.

//wiredweird

Most reviewers focus on the issue of religion - Shylock as a Jew - but fail to look past the issues of faith and consider the discussion of business ethics in "The Merchant of Venice".

I won't go into the racism and religions arguments because I have nothing new to say on those subjects, and they have been done to death by everyone from high school freshmen to PhD candidates.

As much as any other theme, greed and impact of greed on business are themes that don't get the consideration in this play. In the era of the collapse of the "Sub-Prime Lending Market" and all the related scams, scandals, and tragedies, and Enron, and the impending collapse of several commodities markets, the theme of greed is more relevant than ever. "Oh my daughter, oh my ducats" has a familiar ring as realtors wring their hands that their properties can only be sold at a loss due to their own thoughtless avarice. As Shylock demanded the pound of flesh he was owned, mortgage firms foreclosing on properties where the buyer was encouraged to lie on the application has familiar feel to it.

"Merchant of Venice" has comedy, and has several other themes, but greed is the least discussed, and has the air of the elephant at a cocktail party that everyone is too polite to mention. The play was written in a time when people would fund military ships in order to share in the loot and salvage the ship brought back. From this play alone, you could make the case that Shakespeare was the first Socialist, the first person to openly question the business ethics and practices of his time. By setting the play in Venice and making the personification of Greed a Jew, he gently deflects the audience to the real statement he's trying to make.

Aside from the possible political message, this is quite a play. The characters are lively and timeless as all the best of the Bard, and the themes of romance, wayward children, and justice are as timely and thought provoking now as when they were written.

Excellent and complex play with as much drama and social criticism as comedy.

E.M. Van Court

_Merchant_ is a hard play to swallow -- brilliantly written and scathing in content. One worries about the futures of all the characters, most of whom are so flawed as to inspire only pity for their respective beloveds. The deus ex machina ending, in which Portia conjures happiness all around out of thin air -- except, of course, for Shylock, is merely bewildering.

Yet _Merchant_ should not be forgotten. One gets the impression that Shakespeare *wanted* his audience to be uncomfortable with some of the horrible prejudices depicted, and one definitely feels challenged. In addition, the extent to which we have moved on from the anti-Semitism so apparently cavalierly brandished in this 'comedy' leaves us with the responsibility to remember and be aware of prejudices that could be recalled to life, given the wrong stimuli.

I bought my Kindle edition for a "Shakespeare Sundae" dessert + reading, and was very pleased with its formatting and readability. The price is right, too.

It's one of Shakespeare's best. I thought the Folger Folio people were a little full of themselves. I mean 3 different reviews of their projects (which are formidable) is a little excessive.

One cannot read Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice without realizing the significance that religion takes in the play, specifically the portrayal of the Jewish and Christian characters. When we first encounter the play's principal Jew, Shylock, we can only feel resentment towards him for the way he carries himself and conducts his business. Then, when first exposed to the play's principal Christian characters--Antonio, Bassanio, and Portia--the audience likely feels sympathetic towards them because of their unfortunate run-ins with the villainous Shylock. But I wonder if this is a truly accurate reading of the play. It appears that critics are divided on whether Shakespeare was further advancing anti-Semitism existent at the time by depicting Shylock in denigrating stereotypes throughout the play or whether he was actually condemning anti-Semitic behavior by turning Shylock into a sympathetic figure by the play's end. It is my contention that Shakespeare is merely reflecting societal norms at the time as he indicts religion altogether.

Though we cannot forget Shylock's appeal to humanity in his "Hath not a Jew eyes" speech, nor Portia's appeal for mercy at the court trial, there is far too much evidence of misdeeds and hypocrisy by all of these characters to think Shakespeare is "picking sides" in this battle of religions. Shylock's greed and need for revenge are certainly damning portrayals of his faith given how religious he claims to be. But given the "holier-than-thou" attitude's of Venice's Christians and their hypocritical actions to the contrary of their religion, it is clear to me Shakespeare has a major problem with Christians who "talk the talk" but do not "walk the walk." I will discuss the villainous representation of Shylock, then analyze the hypocrisy of the play's primary Christian characters and will question if these Christians embody the righteous example of which they speak.

The portrayal of Shylock is paramount throughout the play, mainly because we are torn between disliking him for his cruelty on one hand and empathizing with him because of the abuse he suffers on the other. When Shylock enters the play in the Act 1, Bassanio is trying to get a loan from him using Antonio's credit because he needs a large sum of money so he can appropriately woo Portia. There is certainly no denying Shylock's passion for accumulating wealth. The other characters frequently comment on Shylock's greed throughout the play, and he even tells his daughter that he dreams about moneybags. Shylock suffers ridicule from the Christian community because he charges high interest rates on loans, but also because he is a Jew, comparable to a dog or the devil in their eyes. As Shylock considers the loan, he seems more interested in having Antonio bound to him than with the loan itself, and we soon learn of Antonio and Shylock's mutual resentment. Shylock is hesitant to help Antonio out because Antonio has hurt his own business dealings in the past by lending money at no charge, but also because he is a Christian. The evidence of Shylock's greed continues to mount. In Act 2, Solanio describes "the dog Jew" running through the streets of Venice and crying more earnestly for his lost ducats than for his lost daughter (who has ended their relationship, married a Christian and converted to Christianity, further enraging her estranged father).

Beginning in Act 3 and continuing into the first parts of Act 4, Shylock repeats statements like "I will have my bond"--the dubious "pound of flesh" from Antonio's body. Shylock's repetitions of his claim turn into a death chant of sorts for Antonio since he is now unable repay the loan. When asked what he plans to do with Antonio's piece of flesh since it's obviously worthless to him Shylock replies, "To bait fish withal...if it will feed nothing else it will feed my revenge" (Act 3, Scene 1, lines 45-46). We can now see Shylock eagerly awaiting his chance to kill Antonio and get his symbolic revenge on all the town's Christians, whom he despises.

Despite Portia's famed speech at the dramatic trial in Act 4, in which she lectures about Christian goodness and "the quality of mercy," Shylock refuses to show Antonio mercy. He claims he "craves the law" (Scene 1, line 203) and will not be merciful and forgiving to Antonio, and no one can change his mind. All of these incidents are constant reinforcements of Shylock's bitterness and cold-heartedness, which has been shown throughout the play, and which are clearly not in line with the virtuous nature of Judaism.

Of course we know that there is an unexpected change of events about to happen to Shylock. Instead of having his bond, we find that Shylock's bond with Antonio is impossible to recover since he may not shed a drop of Antonio's Christian blood in the process. Portia then orders Shylock's property seized and "mercifully" allows him to convert to Christianity rather being executed for attempting to take the life of a fellow Venetian, seemingly "delivering" him from his Jewishness. But up until Shylock's sentencing, we might be somewhat content with the depictions of the evil Jew and the righteous Christians. But as we examine Act 4 (and the entire play) more closely, we are forced to recognize that perhaps Shylock is actually a victim of the hypocritical Christian society in which he lives. Being able to read this play in a post-Holocaust and post-Civil Rights Movement world, we cannot help but have some empathy towards Shylock for the way he is treated, though clearly he is not a very virtuous man in his own right.

To analyze Christian hypocrisy in this play, it is necessary to go back to Portia's dramatic speech given at the trial, discussed previously. Portia preaches about the blessings of showing mercy, almost playing the role of a preacher. But if we retrace her steps back to Act 1, we hear Portia confessing to Christian hypocrisy. "Portia alludes to the familiar commonplace of the breach between Christian precept and practice" (Hassel, 117). This assertion comes from the following passage spoken by Portia:

"If to do were as easy as to know what were good to do, chapels had been churches, and poor men's cottages princes' palaces. It is a good divine that follows his own instructions. I can easier teach twenty that were good to be done than to be one of the twenty to follow mine own teaching" (Act 1, Scene 2, lines 11-15).

The primary Christian characters of this play are representative of the people living at the time. Antonio, the merchant of Venice himself, has a great reputation among his fellow Christians who see him as a righteous and self-sacrificing citizen and friend. His bigotry towards Jews is not frowned upon because all of the others share his belief. Behind Shylock's back, Antonio ridicules him as a moneylender, but then enters into a loan agreement with him anyway. Antonio shows no mercy to Shylock when Portia pronounces his sentence. If Antonio were a genuine Christian, would he not have humbly accepted his acquittal then tried to reconcile his differences with Shylock? Instead, Antonio agrees to take half of Shylock's possessions without objection, thus eliminating his main business rival. These actions (along with Antonio's berating of Shylock) are not of Christian compassion and mercy but of selfishness and religious hypocrisy.

Now I briefly turn to Bassanio. Bassanio is portrayed as a bit of a playboy--squandering all he has, refusing to work and willing to beg for financial assistance. He is more than willing to marry Portia for financial gain. He certainly has a tendency toward materialism and consumption, which are not Christian values. Although Bassanio does not really victimize Shylock in the same way the others do, his lifestyle does tarnish the religious credibility of the Christian community.

Now I turn to Portia, who embodies this hypocritical Christian nature and does not practice what she preaches. We are clued in to her racism as she complains about one of her suitors for marriage, the dark-skinned Prince from Morocco. Portia makes the comment "If he have the condition of a saint and the complexion of a devil, I had rather he should shrive me than wive me" (Act 1, Scene 2, line 33). "Portia knows it is a sin to be a mocker, but she mocks her suitors anyway" (Hassel, 114). Portia instead settles for the gold-digging Bassanio.

Although Portia's "quality of mercy" speech sounds like a wonderful description of Christian values, it is really an ironic display of Christian talking points versus actual practice. As I mentioned earlier, Portia's words do not correlate with her deeds. She tricks Shylock in this scene, first by disguising her character, then by turning the perceived law against him, leaving him a shell of his former self while enriching her friends. Shylock's life is completely ruined and she makes an even bigger mockery of his religion. Portia appears spiteful, not compassionate, and certainly does not come off as a merciful Christian.

Though Shakespeare is a tough read for me, I think I finally came to an understanding about what this play was really trying to convey. At first glance, you find yourself hating Shylock and admiring Antonio, Bassanio, and Portia. Later, you find yourself empathizing with Shylock because of the hypocrisy of the Christian characters. While the critics have argued it both ways, I truly feel that Shakespeare is merely commenting on society as he then saw it, which turns out to be a strong indictment of both religions--or at least how their virtues are carried out by their followers.

What exactly was Shakespeare attempting with The Merchant of Venice? Was Shakespeare anti-Semitic? Does the play promote anti-Semitism? What was Shakespeare's purpose in writing such a work?

As the play opens, the eponymous Antonio's dearest friend Bassanio laments his need of cash in order to seek the hand of Portia, the heiress of a noble Venetian family. Antonio is depressed, but it is only as the play progresses that we come to guess the reason for his depression: the marriage of this dear friend will, as such events always do, change the nature of their friendship and make it less intimate. As Antonio shows no other romantic interest in the play, and is alone and lonely, this depression possibly suggests that Antonio is homosexual.

But how would the cash enable Bassanio to engage in this pursuit? In fact we never learn precisely why the money is needed. There seems to be some kind of wealth or social class requirement for playing the game whose prize is Portia's hand and Bassanio needs to purchase the trappings that would, meretriciously, enable him to appear a member of the aristocracy.

As a successful merchant, Antonio is in a position to provide his friend with the desired funds. He doesn't have the cash on hand, however, as his wealth is tied up in his trading fleet at sea. But this fleet provides collateral, and the Jewish moneylender Shylock has access to the ready cash from his own store and from that of his friend and fellow Jew and moneylender, Tubal. But why should Shylock entertain a request from Antonio, a Christian who has reviled him and spat on him in the most public space in Venice for being a Jew, a public humiliation of the most egregious sort, as well as sadistically maligned him in a number of other ways, and now touts his moral superiority by noting that he lends to his own friends without interest. Responding to Antonio's sneering arrogance, Shylock offers to lend the money at no interest -- but demands an awful penalty should the borrower default -- the famous pound of flesh. And why should he not, in the unlikely event of Antonio's default, revenge himself?

Meanwhile, Antonio's and Bassanio's friends help their friend Lorenzo assist his lover Jessica, Shylock's daughter, in running away from her father's home, which she does, stealing a substantial sum in jewelry, including Shylock's most treasured possession, his late wife's gift to him.

Bassanio passes the test of the three boxes and wins the beautiful Portia's hand.

Antonio's ships are reported lost at sea and, defaulting, he is subject to the exulting Shylock's revenge. Shylock proceeds to have the default ajudicated, but the judge fails to appear. Portia arrives, dressed as the out-of-town judge whose fairness and erudition are well-known, and proceeds to play the unsuspecting Shylock with all of Antonio's contempt, to the delight of the vindictive Jew-hater Gratiano, depriving Shylock of his revenge. The "court" relieves Shylock of half his wealth and requires him to convert to Christianity. Antonio, who defaults, pays no penalty, and in the end his ships all complete their voyages to his substantial gain.

In this play, Shakespeare both mirrors the Jew-hatred of his contemporary society and, interestingly, portrays the implicitly parallel society of Venice and its Christian characters with an undeniable condemnation hidden beneath a scrim of identification: the sneering supercilious Antonio who claims the mantle of the generous Christian; the deceiver Bassanio, who borrows a lot of money with which to appear wealthy in order to deceive his future wife; the gratuitously vicious racist, Gratiano; Shylock's daughter and future Christian Jessica, who steals from her father his most intimate keepsake; the angelic aristocrat Portia who mendaciously assumes the identity of a trusted judge and turns the law on its head for the benefit of her husband's best friend and engages in some sadistic Jew-savaging herself to the delight of all the non-Jews present (and apparently Shakespeare imagined that the audience would enjoy it as well).

Shakespeare appears to be playing both sides of the coin here, both playing to popular Jew-hating, and creating a plot which not only exposes the amorality of the Christians but also depicts Shylock as a sometimes truly sympathetic character.

The play's structure is very familiar and guaranteed to please. Evil character plots to destroy innocent protagonist, but with the help of friends the evil character is outsmarted or outmaneuvered and gets his comeuppance, while the good people live happily ever after. Shakespeare though has created a curious drama indeed. The good folks are really quite distasteful characters, though Shakespeare puts beautiful words in their mouths. And the "villain" is in fact much more than an evil stereotype. Shylock is no paragon of decency, but he is the most fully realized human being in the play and commands the careful reader's or auditor's sympathy.

Shakespeare portrayed the Christian Venetians as corrupt characters while on the surface presenting them as the sympathetic actors in a more or less conventional drama of good Christians and bad Jews. A recent book bringing together current research on the life of Shakespeare notes that the most likely identity of the "Dark Lady" to whom Shakespeare wrote a number of passionate sonnets was a Jewish woman. This book (Shakespeare, by Michael Wood) notes that Shakespeare worked in a part of London in which he must have seen Jews frequently. Wood also notes that this play was written quickly at the time of Shakespeare's liaison with the Dark Lady. Interestingly, while Shakespeare was certainly aware that he was portraying the Christian characters as corrupt, he was also treating them, as the "good guys". He was playing a very strange game, both sympathizing with the Jew Shylock, contemning, in a less than explicit manner, the Christian characters, and at the same time portraying Shylock as the evil Jew and the Christians as the beneficent characters he expected his audience to identify with.

The case can be made that, far from producing an anti-Semitic play, Shakespeare wrote a play that, while pandering to the anti-Semitic prejudices of his audience, condemns the hypocritical ethically-compromised Jew-haters of Venice, and, by extension, London.

The Arkangel Shakespeare is one of the best investments I've ever made. Both the dramatic and technical quality of the recordings are excellent. Buy the collection yourself and discover why listening to Shakespeare is so much more rewarding than merely reading Shakespeare.

It's great to listen to each of these cds with lots of well-known artists. I have now listened to 36 and loved each. If you're a Shakespeare fan, this is a must!

I can't say enough about this collection. This is an absolutely astounding collection of all of Shakespeare's play, uncut and unabridged, performed by some of England's most talented actors an actresses, as some of the other descriptions and reviews speak of.

What I have found invaluably rewarding as a Shakespeare devotee and as a actor is to follow along to Shakespeare's text while listening to these incredible recordings. I did this for a Shakespeare course in college. We'd be assigned a play to read within a week, and within 2 hours, I'd have it all read, while hearing it performed on these amazing recordings. To hear Shakespeare's words spoken as they would have been originally heard nearly 400 years allows for a greater understanding of the composition and the rhythm of the dialogue and verse. It simply does not get any better than this.

I'd highly recommend this collection. The producers of the Arkangel Shakespeare have obviously taken great care in preserving the text of the play and by employing the best of classically trained actors, the greatest works of English literature, filled with characters and words will blossom in your mind's eye. I cannot imagine any library being complete without this collection, and it is nothing short of a delight to have for your own personal library.

Do not hesitate to consider purchasing this collection for your public or collegiate library, or for yourself. It is a hallmark in the canon of comtemporary presentations of Shakespeare's complete works.

This was my Christmas present this year, and I can't stop looking at it. It's almost overwhelming to decide which play to grab and listen to in the car on my drive to work. These are wonderful productions with clear, crisp sound and excellent actors. The classical training is obvious, and many will recognize the names of actors, espcially fans of BBC television. Ciaran Hinds as Antony in Antony and Cleopatra is wonderful. He's also in The Winter's Tale. For any fan of Shakespeare this is a terrific investment. For teachers of British literature it is also a wonderful classroom resource.

This is a gorgeous production that is indeed a treasure. I listen with a Creative Zen Vision player and every word is delicious. I have enjoyed the first seven plays, thru Hamlet, and every nuance, every word, every inflection, pause, sound, background music theme and all the audio panorama makes every minute an absolute delight. I am now in a quandary about whether to continue listening thru the series or begin again to search among the endless audio treasures for gems I might have missed. This Arkangle series is a gift from the gods and worth many times its price. This kind of talent, dedication and flawless performance beggars description.

If you are new to serging, this book is an excellent introduction to the topic. It covers all the basics very clearly and is well illustrated. Beginners can't go wrong here; experienced serger users will want something more advanced.

This books picks up where the instruction manual leaves off. I recently purchased a serger and this book helped me to familiarize myself with the machine, different types of threads and the various types of stitches that can be made with a serger. The photos and clearly written instructions in each chapter made me very comfortable with my machine. The author provides the right amount of detail to guide you step-by-step without becoming overwhelmed. I highly recommend this book to beginners, but it's also a good resource for the more advanced.

Although I've sewn since I was a teenager, I'm new to serging. This is the ideal starter book. Its explanations are clear, as are its trouble-shooting tips, & it's logically organized. It will be sitting next to my serger for some time to come.

This handbook has great color photos, and much helpful advice. I am, however, frustrated by a sentence concerning the handling of knits that begins at the bottom of page 108 yet has no end at the top of 109.

I am a beginner and my teacher used this book in my surger class-she told me to buy it and read it like a college text book, complete with highlighting passages. I did and WOW. I refer to it often-the photos are detailed and directions complete and easy to follow and understand. A lot of shortcuts are included as well. I highly recommend this book for all ages of surgers!

This is the grand finale of the Africa books for the Owens'. I have read all with great appreciataion for what they have done over many years, but I felt that this book was the best of all. It is the culmination of more maturity and experience of their programs and writing. I would recommend it to anyone with any interest in conservation. It is also glimpse into the human spirit when confronted with the difficult task of orchestrating the survival of both man and animal harmoniously. These are two awesome people doing great work.

I had read the owen's two previous books and really loved them. I found this one and thought well, I already know what they did so this will just be review. Well, was I wrong. It is a great book and kept me enthralled till the end. They have such a practical approach to getting the local population involved, and they have had such sucess. Anyone would love this book. It is so possitive that it just tickles your heart, and such a love story. To think they have done all this together. Wow. I gave it a 5 and would have given it 10 if I could. jeannie Clarke

Life in the harshest of places....Africa in the wildest wildness. If you love animals of planet earth, this is a book to read, weep and rejoice.

Written so that you feel you are looking over their shoulders as they see and work in Africa. A bit of mystery, a cautionary tale and an inspirational love story. The book describes the obstacles they faced and the gile, resourcefulness, courage and passion they bring to their work and lives. A worthy follow-on to Cry of the Kalahari and Eye of the Elephant.

This book tells of Mark and Delia Owens' work with the animals and humans in the Luangwa Valley of Zambia. Poachers have decimated the animal population (particularly the elephants), and the Owens work toward animal repopulation and human education. They follow a good business plan in reeducating the Zambians. Those relying on poaching for a living must be taught alternative means of support, and the Owens are very creative in this regard. Their self sacrifice during 23 years of residence is amazing!

Kenneth Burke was a restless thinker ever-alert to what makes Shakespeare's plays work. Scott L. Newstok, with admirable bravura in a profession that tends to undervalue the editing of collections, recognized the importance of committing himself to the painstaking project of recovering Burke's writings on Shakespeare. The result is a treasure-trove both of some landmark essays in his career (most notably the 1951 Hudson Review piece on Othello), and also of the bric-a-brac of intellectual history scattered throughout Burke's work from the 1920s through the 1980s. Newstok unearths and reproduces sections that Burke crossed out from a lecture, thus offering windows onto his compositional process. Among other works never fully revised for publication, he edits and annotates the typescript of Burke's response to a graduate student's paper on Troilus and Cressida. As importantly, Newstok gathers what appears to be every excerpt from Burke's lifetime of writing that mentions Shakespeare. The process of obtaining permissions alone is staggering, but it is a further tribute to Newstok' s professional integrity and passion for the project that he gained full cooperation from the Burke estate and the endorsement of surviving family members.
The volume begins with a cogent survey of the key issues and terms (including a glance at Aristotle, "Burke's classical mentor") that played a generative role in Burke's Shakespeare criticism. He ends with suitably terse yet remarkably helpful notes; for example, indicting where precisely in Coleridge's Biographia Literaria we can find the reference to which Burke alludes in passing. Newstok gives sufficient identifying tags of dramatists, writers, philosophers, and artists whom Burke assumed his audience knew, and covers in detail the original settings of the works discussed and, when applicable, where they were printed previously.
This much having been said, the larger question still looms: Do we need so much--indeed all--of Burke's Shakespeare criticism gathered in one place? The answer this volume convincingly urges is: yes. The Editor's Introduction establishes the impressive influence Burke has had on a number of critics and dramatists, as well as on important movements in literary scholarship and dramatic criticism. The claim of kinship to Burke's work is wide and diverse, ranging from Edward Said to Angus Fletcher. In a long note Newstok gives an initial roll call of upward of fifty Renaissance literary scholars who have profitably engaged Burke's work. He goes on to point out that Northrop Frye annexed Burke as one of his antecedents in "the archetypal approach," and Harold Bloom called Burke "my heroic precursor." And yet it is often through indirection that debts to Burke's ideas are acknowledged. Buried in a footnote, for example, Stephen Greenblatt tellingly relates: "As so often happens, I discovered that Burke's brilliant sketch had anticipated the shape of much of my argument."
In part this reluctance to give Burke pride of place in one's own scholarly work is the result of the unmistakably Burkean tone and trajectory of thought to be found in his often idiosyncratic approach. Unlike literary critics who develop systems that others dutifully can follow, Burke does not leave a coherent methodology, notwithstanding his "Pentadic analysis" and his, at times, deeply moving readings of Shakespearean scenes. Rather readers receive insights--the kinds that he left for a general audience rather than a coterie of the initiated. Although he "appreciated the favorable attention from academia," finally he was more concerned with inspiring "others to join his ecstatic readings of Shakespeare, and gain contact with the energy at the heart of Shakespeare's plays."
One example illustrates just how useful having access to these essays can be, especially in a properly edited edition. Recently when teaching Timon of Athens to undergraduates, I turned to Burke's typical mode of beginning an investigation as presented in Newstok's book. It supplied just the heuristic jump-start required: "First, let's force ourselves to decide exactly what Timon of Athens is about." Written originally as the introduction to an edition of Timon, Burke intelligently recounted the main strokes of the play, act by act. He then treated the main characters in turn and examined their function in the drama: "Apemantus serves to keep the play from falling simply into contrasted halves." He also considered relations among the sexes, showing how women in this play function "only in a supernumerary capacity." That there are only courtesans and no mothers, sisters, or wives, fits well with Burke's judgment on Timon as "an almost brutally end-of-the-line character, his life coming to a close in rabid talk of total human rot." The one moment of pity, supplied by the faithful retainer Flavius, is a touch that Burke sees as "quite Shakespearean, at least in the sense that a Shakespearean tragedy has a scene that softens the audience with tears of pity just before the final outbreak of victimage." He compares Flavius speech instructively to Desdemona's willow song, a connection discussed at greater length in Chapter Six, Burke's landmark essay on Othello (another reason why it is good to have all of these essays collected in one volume). When all is said and done, Burke is a reliable and subtle expositor of Shakespeare's plays.
The second part of this essay turns to consider the nature of Timon as a dramaturgic invention. With all of the rigor shown in his Rhetoric of Religion (1961), Burke explores "invective," "lamentation," and "praise" seen as "the three freedoms." Fortunately Newstok restores paragraphs apparently excised by Burke's editor, Francis Ferguson. These are instructive paragraphs indeed, as they make clear why these three are linked and how they help explain the ineluctable humane movement charted out in Timon of Athens. Granting the disputation of authorship, Burke makes a solid case for Timon's "radicalism"--in its usual, literal, and etymological senses--and concludes that, although it "is not pretty," it is "extremely thorough."
Likewise Burke is thorough and radical in his approach to the plays as a whole. He covers all of the chief topical issues and he seeks to dig to the root of things that often remain undetected by virtue of alluring speeches and the fast-paced sweep of a drama's action. Consequently this is a book that should be placed next to The Riverside Shakespeare on one's bookshelf. As a teacher I anticipate returning to it often, especially when sorting out what should go into an introductory lecture on a given play. And it is for this same reason that people outside the academy will want to have ready access to Burke as well: he gets to the bottom of things.

An iconoclastic American intellectual, the late Kenneth Burke (1897-1993) was an exceptional and prolific literary critic whose writings and commentaries were respected -- even by those who occasionally disagreed with either his assumptions and conclusions. In the pages of "Kenneth Burke On Shakespeare", academician Scott L. Newstok (Assistant Professor of English, Gustavus Adolphus College, and Andrew W. Mellon Post-Doctoral Fellow at Yale University) has gathered together under one cover all of Burke's Shakespeare literary criticism (including previously unpublished notes and lectures) that had such wide-spread influence on his contemporaries. Drawn from a profusion of sources, including literary magazines, academic journals, Newstok has accomplished a truly impressive task of research and recovery. The result is a compendium of analytical commentaries on Shakespearean dramas and comedies. Enhanced with the inclusion of an appendix (Additional References to Shakespeare in Burke's Writings), extensive notes, and 'Index of Works by Shakespeare', and a general index, "Kenneth Burke On Shakespeare" is a welcome and enthusiastically recommended addition to academic library Shakespearean Studies reference collections and supplemental reading lists.

The most valuable aspect of Scott L. Newstok's recent "Kenneth Burke on Shakespeare" is his inclusion of a talk, delivered by Burke, entitled "Introduction: Shakespeare Was What?," which serves as a useful primer to Burke's system of reading Shakespeare. As the lecture establishes, Burke is ultimately concerned with what literature does (i.e. how it functions). Accordingly, Shakespeare is, in Burke's mind, an artist who "spontaneously knew how to translate some typical tension or conflict of his society into terms of variously interrelated personalities." As Burke explains, Shakespeare's ability "was to let that whole complexity act itself out, by endowing each personality with the appropriate ideas, attitudes, actions, situations, relationships, and fatality" (18). Shakespeare, above all other dramatists, constructs plays in which his characters' engagements with each other constitute the play's movement while dictating meaning to its audience. And Burke, perhaps above all other critics, articulates the anatomy of these engagements for us.

Without a doubt, Burke scholars will find Newstok's compilation of additional references to Shakespeare invaluable. While the sections that Newstok provides can't possibly offer full context, the well-versed Burkean will certainly have the texts in question (A Grammar of Motives, Attitudes Toward History, and so on) at hand. An impressive piece of scholarship, Kenneth Burke on Shakespeare will prove to be an essential work for a variety of audiences, including Shakespearians and Burkeans.

This work gathers together all of Kenneth Burke's writing on Shakespeare, thirteen major essays and a host of notes and remarks scattered throughout his writings. It contains an introduction by its editor,Scott L. Newstok which explains his own work on the volume, and Burke's general approach to Shakespeare criticism. The book also contains on its back cover laudatory words from among others Harold Bloom and Stephan Greenblat, that is from among the most distinguished literary critics working today.
Burke is an original in his approach to Shakespeare. He focuses often on the opening of the play, and is very concerned with the effect of the play on the audience. He again and again shows how Shakespeare is master playwright creating the effect he wants the work to have on the audience. For Burke whose basic view of drama derives from Aristotle 'action' plays the central role.'Character' is if not subordinated then not given the central place in his analysis as it has in the work of arguably the greatest Shakespearean critic of all A.C. Bradley.
While understanding Burke's brilliance and originality I have never been a strong fan of his writing. I have always found it somewhat difficult and academic. His learning is vast and he makes sudden shifts in his discourse which I find hard to follow. I too find often that the kinds of dramatic questions, the questions relating to how the dramatist achieved the effects he did, are not those which primarily concern me.
However the volume as scholarly collection and edition of Burke's work is comprehensive and carefully referenced. It is a real contribution to Burke scholarship and should be made good use of by all those who take interest in his scholarship.

All of Kenneth Burke's writings on Shakespeare have been assembled in one place in this book, and even a compendium of brief mentions of Shakespeare, through the assiduous efforts of Scott Newstok. And what a treasure trove it is. As an undergraduate, I remember working my way diligently through Burke's A Rhetoric of Motives and A Grammar of Motives and being dazzled by the breadth and depth of this man's thinking. I thought I might have to dust off these volumes in order to approach this collection, but I did not find that necessary. The work stands solidly on its own, touching on Burke's dramatistic analytical approach, but not requiring any special knowledge beyond the scope of the essays themselves. Burke is quirky, and though he has a definite critical system, he is not essentially systematic. These essays range widely, both individually and as a collection. For the Shakespeare scholar, each one is a gem worthy of contemplation; for the neophyte or undergrad, this is a fine book to read piecemeal, on a "need-to-know basis."

From a scholarly perspective, I am most struck by the prescient sensibility of Burke's thinking. His work seems to percolate up through the current generation of literary critics, largely latent and unacknowledged, but there for the perceptive reader to discern. In places a Marxist perspective emerges, as in brief discussions of the enclosure acts, calling to mind H. R. Coursen's The Leasing Out of England: Shakespeare's Second Henriad. Yet Burke is no doctrinaire Marxist. Elsewhere, insightful psychological approaches both to characters and to the audience's experience of the play emerge. But there is no Procrustean psychological deformation of the works. Most markedly, Burke seems to anticipate many of the new-historical perspectives so prevalent today. In Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World and James Shapiro's A Year in the Life of Shakespeare: 1599, I hear echoes of Burke. Though best known as a rhetorical analyst, the scope of Burke's critical project is made clear in his work on Shakespeare.

For anyone who finds the previous paragraph "inside baseball," do not lose hope. This book is ideal for the beginning and intermediate Shakespeare student as well. Burke's treatment of Julius Caesar, Othello, Hamlet, Macbeth, and King Lear will provide any student of the Bard's tragedies with fresh perspectives and unique insights into Shakepeare's tragic vision. The essay on Caesar is especially illustrative of the uniqueness of the Burkean approach. In the essay, "Antony in Behalf of the Play," Burke gives a meta-dramatic view of the play through the persona of Marc Antony, exploring the motives of the characters, the playwright, the audience within the play (the crowd), and the audience of the play. "Psychology and Form," the essay on Hamlet, ranges far and wide, offering insight into Burke's extensive knowledge and synoptic approach to literature. Here, he develops a theory of the development and resolution of psychological expectations in an audience and compares this to the listener's expectation of resolution in music (the condition to which all art aspires, as Walter Pater memorably put it).

Burke is a great thinker and a gifted writer. This book does an invaluable service by assembling all of his writing on the greatest writer in English in one place. This is a book that will be treasured by the expert and can teach the student to treasure Shakespeare's work. It is highly recommended.