William King Books

I purchased this book for a communication class that I took this summer. The information in the book was good but it is written like a medical journal and put me to sleep. It took me a long time to get through the material. If you have a hard time concentrating and staying awake while reading, good luck to you.

My students like this book, and so do I. I particularly like the concrete planning strategies, which can be helpful to anyone struggling to manage conflict. This book is one that I use to teach, but it changes my own behaviors along the way.

This book is for anyone wanting to know how to communicate in a more effective manner with a loved one or a friend. The book gives the reader various scenerarios and lays the ground work for the evolution of your being. It is very easy to read. It is not boring. The authors have done a good job by writing this book.

I received this in a timely fashion, and the book was in great shape.

This book is excellent. Written by people of two perspectives, it is a great source of guidance, insight, and information. I found the assignments provocative, stimulating, and at times, confrontive.
I've done a considerable amount of this kind of work and learned many new things. One of my better book purchases of the year!

It is a truism of any review of any edition of Shakespeare to proclaim that what follows is not a review of Shakespeare's writing but of the edition that presents that writing; yet I will rather spend the first few paragraphs discussing the general perspectives of my experience with the play, very shortly, I warrant you, and after that proceed to the review itself that which I hope is what will be of use to those buyers who know the worth of "Lear" and are hoping to find a worthy edition. This is, after all, the main reason you read these user-submitted reviews: to know whether to buy the Penguin, the Folger, the Oxford or the Arden. Yet, the truth be told, I have found out that no matter how great an edition you will find, with Shakespeare one edition is rarely enough. If there were another edition I would recommend, that would be the New Cambridge edition.

"King Lear" remains, on a personal level, the most disturbing play I know, even surpassing "Othello" and the cruel machinations of Iago, because in "Lear" there is no single character as decisively in charge of what is happening as Iago is in his play (to the extent that we are able to call "Othello" his play); this world has been emptied out of itself, and whilst I refuse to see this as a nihilistic play (godless, perhaps, yet not nihilistic) perhaps the cruellest idea is that there is not an evil mind scheming in the background that makes Lear fall, but rather his own fallacious disbelief concerning the nefariousness not only around the world but also on a domestic level. Of course we have Edmund scheming in the subplot that is interwoven with the main story-arch later, but if we only read "Lear" as Lear's Fall - yet Shakespeare is too celerious a thinker to be thus constrained - then it is painfully obvious that Lear is not subject to anything else than his own miscalculation. In fact, Lear is much like what Timon is in Shakespeare's "Timon of Athens", as he too expected to find goodness in others because of his goodness unto those others. Ironically Shakespeare has Cordelia offering the only blissful act of goodness, and she is of course the antithetical agent when compared to her sisters: whereas Lear expects goodness from those who "love" him, he receives only coldness, and whereas he offers coldness to Cordelia (whose reply is, no matter how I spin it and no matter her honest heart, very egrecious concerning the formal pattern at play in the scene) it is Cordelia who, as her sisters, offers back to him the exact opposite, yet naturally her role is reversed in relation to those of her sisters'.

But that is that about the impressions the play continues to evoke, amongst other things, in this particular reader. Let us now move to the question that bothers people who browse through these reviews in the first place. Is this a good edition of "King Lear"? I can offer the most frivolous stock-phrase there is when I answer that "yes and no". I would say that this third edition of Arden Shakespeare's "King Lear", edited by R. A. Foakes, is a good and useful conflated version. The introduction, although it is almost Bloomian in its pomp at times, is otherwise very helpful especially in the textual issues I am implying to all along. For those who are not aware, there are basically two versions of "Lear", that of the 1608 Quarto and that of the 1623 Folio. The Folio text was for a long time the only available version until the Quarto was rediscovered. The problem is not only that it would be shorter similarly as the bad quarto of "Hamlet" from 1603 is an abridged version in comparison to the 1605 Quarto or the 1623 Folio text, the problem is that there are passages that are exclusive to either version. This is why some editions, most notably the Norton Shakespeare, edited by Stephen Greenblatt et al., goes further by providing not only the 1608 and 1623 texts but a conflated version, as well. Or rather, most editions give either Q or F.

But even if you are looking for a version of "Lear" that would give both versions I would not dismiss this as an outright impossibility even if Foakes offers a conflated edition. This is because I find his editorial methods quite useful, as the edition was first published in 1997, quite in the middle of the heated debate whether to give a separate form to the two versions. In fact, Arden did just that with their third edition "Hamlet" almost ten years later when Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor (eds.) prepared the standard Arden edition based on the 1605 Quarto (Q2) and then published a separate volume that included the 1603 Q1 and 1623 Folio texts. The Arden 2nd series editor Harold Jenkins, on the other hand, offered us a conflated text in 1982. I know I would have bought two editions had they done the same thing with "Lear": a conflated text like this and another volume with both Q and F separately, but I can understand that many people could care less and, especially if they are new to Shakespeare, could not even comprehend why they would be offered three texts of the same play instead of just one.

What makes Foakes' editorial methods as useful as I proclaim them to be is that even though he conflates, he points it out very clearly in the text. In fact, I would buy this edition for that characteristic alone, as Foakes gives in the text information whether the passages are common in both versions or "Q only" or "F only". He does this by offering, in superscript, either the letter "Q" or the letter "F" that encircle the words that are exclusive only to either edition. This is actually very useful, but in no way am I arguing that this could somehow replace individual editions, as there will be editorial choices made especially when we start assigning lines to characters that are in conflict in the two source editions.

This brings us to the present question of annotations. I am partial to the whole idea of very extensive annotation, because on one hand I like to read a play with minimal guidance because naturally stopping to read the bottom of the page breaks the rhythm you get yourself into. But on the other it is exactly the scholarly annotations that Arden gives that I look forward to when I have specific questions in mind whilst reading the play. There are four basic principles a good edition, to my mind, should generally follow: understanding the way productions were performed on the Elizabethan stage has become an essential requirement of any edition; difficult obsolete words should be glossed; nuances/puns exposed; textual variants discussed. What I gather from Foakes' annotation is that he fulfills the first and fourth categories very well. There are many instances where he discusses the ways certain scenes have been played and how the text provided can affect those changes, as well as many editorial practices that do not follow either Q nor F (neither have a scene-break after 2.2 where Edgar enters, yet most modern editions do, and Foakes treats it both as a continuous scene and an individual one by placing the so-called "2.3" scene-numbers in square-brackets from null upward, while prevailing the 2.2 scene numbering).

Foakes glosses well, but whilst his glosses offer insight to the play's thematic language (clothing, sight) and also refer nicely from one point in the play to another, he does not trace these themes as well as I would have liked. This is the only serious drawback that bothers, yet an indepedently attentive reader is worth more than a hundred glosses. By this I do not mean that he glosses far less than what to expect from a scholarly edition such as the Arden; this is nowhere comparable to the work Foakes did, for example, with the New Cambridge Edition of "A Midsummer Night's Dream ", whose strength is in the minimalism of the glosses and the unobtrusiveness; Ardens we buy for the abundance. The glosses here rarely inhabit less than half the page. And Foakes gives as an appendix discussion about the Q/F differences in 3.1 and 5.3, and he also discusses the ending in his Introduction. Thus you do get textual criticism that should be sufficiently useful for many.

The great general editorial principle of the third series in the Arden catalogue is that no longer are the Act divisions so prominent as in the second editions; throughout the third series we have a continuous text with act and scene changes marked in square brackets. And we do get full names in the headings for who is speaking instead of the abbreviations of the second editions.

In short, what is my advice? My advice is not to be content with only a single edition, and consider the Ardens not so expensive that this would be an impossibility; that is, if you do not want the hardback, which you can occasionally get at a reasonable price in the Marketplace. But if you need one edition, and do not shriek at the thought of a conflated edition, this is a very nice edition to have. Yet if you are a student who has to have an edition yet are not into Shakespeare that much, perhaps then the New Cambridge edition is sufficent. Pragmatically at least it is more convenient in the classroom where you perhaps have to browse the play and search for that certain passage. It annotates less, which is both its strength and weakness against an edition like Arden's. If you know that you will not need all the footnotes, then you will not need the Arden. The Folger is an obvious edition for students and for the most part its glosses are simply not enough. Arden is an edition that is studious. If you consider, as I do, both Shakespeare and finding that great Shakespearean edition a life-long quest, and are interested, as I am, in the textual problems in Shakespeare, then this edition is a worthy purchase.

Perhaps one of the best of Shakespeare's plays, King Lear is worth a good read. I was introduced to the ARDEN series by a class that required us all to be on the same page as it were, so I was at first weary to use them. Like all editions put out (Penguin, Folger, Barnes and Noble, Arden, etc) They all have valuable notes and references, introductions and essays on various subjects on the content, form and history of the play you are about to read. So half this book is taken up by the introdcution and history. Every Arden starts with the same couple of chapters on Shakpespeare. The editor, R.A. Foakes has a very in depth and interseting introduction to the text of LEAR which is worth a read, but of course, in my opinion, after you have read the play and tried to understand it for yourself.

I personally prefer the way the Folger series of shakespeare is set up with text on one page and the notes for it are directly opposite the page you are reading, making note referencing while you read easy. Arden tends to give you notes on variations between the quarto and folio which is good, but when I'm reading a play I could care less about textual variations or how editors have fussed with changing one word to make sense of a thought. However interesting it sometimes is, I don't like looking down to read a note on a passage and its all about the textual variation, but will not explain the thought further.

Final thought: Great Resource for reading LEAR, not the best for READING LEAR, especially for the first time.

This is a conflated edition of King Lear, with Foakes combining the two original sources. When the chips are down -- that is, when one cannot have both versions -- he tends to opt for the later (Folio) one. This is especially so in the last scene where this choice produces a somewhat less bleak ending.

On each page of the play's text about half the space is taken up with notes. These can, by and large, be ignored if you want to enjoy the play, but can be highly useful if something puzzles you. They cover a variety of matters, such as the meaning of now obscure word, interpretation when it is not clear what word is actually meant, choices where the two originals have difference words, often explaining the choice, possible stage direction or ways of staging the play and so on. They are usually well done, though possibly excessive.

A long essay introducing the play explains the editor's approach, comments on some critical issues, and comments on various stagings of the play. These are informative and often stimulating, with Foakes not being stridently attached to any one interpretation. There is available elsewhere an incredibly large amount of comment on all aspects of King Lear and how to interpret it, most of which Foakes wisely ignores. The play is the thing, and one of the advantages of reading it (as opposed to atending a production) is that one can contemplate the different interpretations and emphases that are possible. To a large extent Foakes sets this up, and then lets the reader proceed, rather than forcing a particular version, as happens (often very badly when directors want to demonstrate their originality) inevitably with a staged -- or filmed or audio -- production.

This is a terrific play, and the characterization is remarkable. It's considered a masterpiece, and for good reason.

But there is still one small comment I would like to make. Read the play. Then ask yourself who on Earth the character Goneril was. Um, she was the Queen of England. Not the wife of the King. The Queen. Albany was her consort.

Lear was no longer the King. Regan was not the Queen. Cordelia was not the Queen. Goneril was. And had a Man with her attitude about power been the ruler, no one would think it strange.

Yes, Lear is a tragic character, and it sure is tragic when he holds his beloved but dead Cordelia and asks if she is still alive. But Goneril is a tragic character too, and it is tragic when, upon getting clobbered in a battle, she decides to kill herself. And when asked how the battle is going, right before she dies, she replies, "Not so hot."

The Arden edition of King Lear (I believe this one is in its third printing) is a combination of both the Quarto and the Folio editions of the play. Of course, when you end up with a conflated edition (one that is made up of both) you are left at the mercy of the editor but, for my money, R.A. Foakes does an excellent job of integrating the manuscripts and often points out in the notes which and why certain choices were made.

Other people have summarized the plot of King Lear here at amazon.com so I won't engage in that sort of review. I will concentrate instead on the particular edition and why I think it's among the best and then I will point out some things to look for in the play, things that I believe deserve close attention, things that will add to your enjoyment of the play.

First of all the Arden edition - the book is basically divided into two major parts: the essays and the play. The play occupies the top half of each page, while the editorial notes and "translations" are found on the bottom. So, for example, when King Lear first lets us know about "divesting" his kingdom, Foakes tells us that this word is important because it sets an important pattern regarding clothes throughout the play.

Sometimes the observations are incisive and surprisingly good, sometimes not as good. For example, when Lear starts talking about "By all the operation of the orbs / From whom we do exist, and cease to be", Foakes points out that the orbs are the planets (during Shakespeare's lifetime, the alignments of the planets was important - the word "disaster" actually means stars out of alignment - the kind of worldview that held the earth as the center of the universe was the worldview that Shakespeare inherited and lived in). But Foakes fails to mention that the orbs are also our EYES and in their full operation, opening your eyes can make one "exist" (as in we see them) and closing your eyes can make one "cease to be" (as in you don't see them). Furthermore, the orbs can be seen as being the eyes of God and us existing in them. Bishop Berkely's philosophy relied heavily on the idea that everything exists because God perceives it.

Anyway, just realize that the greatest of notes are nowhere near as good as the greatest of care and attention when reading. Especially when reading the greatest writer that ever lived.

Now onto some things I believe everyone should pay attention to. The word "love" appears in the play more than any other word of meaning (obviously I'm excluding words like "the" in the search). Now if you combine language that are related to eyes (sight, orbs, look, see, etc) you will also notice a great preponderance of these words. The same thing will happen if you combine the other senses (touch, feeling, smell, etc). Why is this of any import? Well, if you're going to write about something, you're going to have to use words. If something is important, you're going to want to drive that point home so you will be using some words more than others. This is an indication that the play you're reading is going to be about those things. So "love", "seeing", "nature", "clothes" and animals such as "dog, snake, wolf, etc" are words that appear a lot and are important.

Sometime Shakespeare is so goddamn clever that you could spend a lifetime and not catch everything. For example, it wasn't until my 2nd reading of the play that I noticed he tells Kent
"Our potency made good, take thy reward.
Five days we do allot thee, for provision
To shield thee from diseases of the world;
And on the sixth to turn thy hated back
Upon our kingdom: if, on the tenth day following,
Thy banish'd trunk be found in our dominions,
The moment is thy death. Away! by Jupiter,
This shall not be revoked."

Notice the word "provision". The root of the word is pro-vision. It means to look ahead. Later on in the play Kent reappears, in disguise! Is Shakespeare having fun with us or am I reading too much into what could be an unintended use of the word? Let me put it this way - if I'm going to find morsels like this one, Shakespeare gets the credit.

The words relating to seeing and feeling are especially important if you take tragedy to be an epistemological problem. If the tragic figure is one that denies a kind of knowledge (Lear and Gloucester certainly do this) then one can deny it by not seeing or feeling, hence the words that relate to the acquisition of knowledge through empirical means. Notice in the above verses that Kent will be told to re-appear, but he can only reappear in disguise. Lear has already denied his love and devotion. Kent must reappear as something else to allow Lear to "love him" again.

Lastly, pay close attention to Shakespeare's doubling and mirroring. This is a favorite thing of his to do. I remember that the first time I read "Measure for Measure" I noticed doubling and mirroring on every page. Then I read it again and noticed these things every 5 lines. Then I read it again and started noticing them with ever increasing frequency! In King Lear the mirroring is much more subtle and even more rewarding. Notice how Goneril ends up "confusing" Gloucester with Lear when she tells him to "smell" his "way to Dover". From that moment on Gloucester and Lear become doubles and possibly even more and the reader becomes a party to the confusion.

Reading Shakespeare is a mind blowing experience and King Lear is probably his greatest play (and that's saying something considering he also wrote "Hamlet", "Othello" and "Macbeth").

Shakespeare wrote this play towards the end of his playwright's career. He had two daughters, one of which was a bit of an embarrassment to him. It's fun to hypothesize whether retiring was on his mind and if it was his own intent

"To shake all cares and business from our age;
Conferring them on younger strengths, while we
Unburthen'd crawl toward death."

I cannot leave a review of King Lear without mentioning some important essays on it. A few years back philosopher Stanley Cavell wrote a review called "The Avoidance of Love". His reading of King Lear is revolutionary beyond belief. No student or lover of Shakespeare's plays should be without it. The essay has been combined with other Cavell essays on other Shakespearian plays and is available in the book "Disowning Knowledge". Amazon has it. It will blow your mind. Also, A.C. Bradley wrote a famous essay on King Lear that should be read as well.

P.S. check out the cool and artistic cover which features a tree trunk splitting into three branches. Is it an allegory for the play? By golly, I think it is. That's Arden for you - quality cover to cover :)

An insider's view of growing up with the greatest comedian of all time. It doesn't get better than this, kids. You can practically smell Uncle Miltie's cigar.

'My Father, Uncle Miltie' presents the story of growing up as legendary comedian Milton Berle's son. MFUM tells the behind the scene details of Milton's somewhat private life, a life full of gambling, women and mild hatred toward his son. MFUM provides anecdotes never before made public, and makes one think of how much Berle's private and public life were vastly different. I recommend this book to any fan of Berle who wants to catch a deep glimpse of his character behind the curtain, and off the television screen. One might me a bit amazed...as I was.

This book was a lot better than I thought it was going to be. I was afraid it would be a real "Mommie Dearest" hatchet job on poor old Milton, but although there were certainly some problems in their relationship, Bill has the honesty to point out that it was his fault as much as his father's. It would be interesting to know how (or if) their relationship was affected by this book - did they speak at all after it was published? (By the way - my sympathies, Bill. It's tough to lose a parent but especially so when you were on the outs with him.)

I have always heard that comedians by nature are truly serious people, and basically an unhappy group. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that Milton Berle treated people, especially his son Bill, so obusively. MFUM humanizes the great TV star and, in fact, I pitied my idol after reading this book. I'm sure that Bill Berle would have much preferred a "real father" from a modest background rather than a superstar ogre such as Uncle Miltie. MFUM was an informative, interesting, well written book, and while it shattered my image of Milton Berle, I found it quite enjoyable.

I've thoroughly enjoyed the time I spent with this easy to read work. The book is rich in the interesting history of one of the world's most beloved entertainers, penned by someone that could only be a loving son. Both funny and tragic, it held my attention through the honesty without scandal. An unexpected ending certainly reminds us we're all equals! Thanks, Bill!

A combination of "Romeo and Juliet," "Much Ado About Nothing," "As You Like It," and "King Lear?" Well somehow, Shakespeare made it work. Like "Romeo and Juliet" we have a protagonist (Imogen) who falls under her father's rages because she will not marry who he wants her to. Like "Much Ado About Nothing," we have a villain (Iachimo) who tries to convince a man (Posthumus) that the woman he loves is full of infidelity. Like "As You Like It," we have exiled people who praise life in the wilderness and a woman who disguises herself as a man to search for her family in the wilderness. Like "King Lear," we have a king who's rages and miscaculated judgement lead to disastorous consequences. What else is there? Only beautiful language, multiple plots, an evil queen who tries to undermind the king, an action filled war, suspense, a dream with visions of Pagan gods, and a beautiful scene of reconciliation at the end. While this is certainly one of Shakespeare's longer plays, it is well worth the time.

This is probably one of the most outdated and misleading of the Arden editions. Nosworthy really doesn't like the play and dismisses it as an experiment leading up to _The Tempest_. Even his editing of the text is affected by his reading of the play. Only scholars who know something about Shakespeare should venture here.

"Cymbeline" is my favourite Shakespeare play. It's also probably his loopiest. It has three plots, managing to drag in a banishment, a murder, a wicked queen, a moment of almost sheer pornography, a full-on battle between the Romans and the British, a spunky heroine, her jealous but not-really-all-that-bad husband, some fantastic poetry and Jupiter himself descending out of heaven on an eagle to tell the husband to pull his finger out and get looking for his wife. Finally, just when your head is spinning with all the cross-purposes and dangling resolutions, Shakespeare pulls it all together with shameless neatness and everybody lives happily ever after. Except for the wicked queen, and her son, who had his head cut off in Act 4.

"Cymbeline" is, then, completely nuts, but it manages also to be very moving. Quentin Tarantino once described his method as "placing genre characters in real-life situations" - Shakespeare pulls off the far more rewarding trick of placing realistic characters in genre situations. Kicking off with one of the most brazen bits of expository dialogue he ever created, not even bothering to give the two lords who have to explain the back story an ounce of personality, Shakespeare quickly recovers full control and races through his long, complex and deeply implausible narrative at a headlong pace. The play is outrageously theatrical, and yet intensely observed. Imogen's reaction on reading her husband's false accusation of her infidelity is a riveting mixture of hurt and anger; she goes through as much tragedy as a Juliet, yet is less inclined to buckle and snap under the pressure. When she wakes up next to a headless body that she believes to be her husband, her aria of grief is one of the finest WS ever wrote. No less impressive is her plucky determination to get on with her life, rather than follow her hubby into the grave.

Posthumus, the hubby in question, is made of less attractive stuff, but when he comes to believe that Imogen is dead, as he ordered (this play is full of people getting things wrong and suffering for it), he rejects his earlier jealousy and starts to redeem himself a tad. There's a vicious misogyny near the heart of this play, as Shakespeare biographer Park Honan observed, kept in balance by a hatred of violence against women. The oafish prince Cloten, who lusts after Imogen, is a truly repellent piece of work, without even the intelligence of Iago or the horrified panic of Macbeth; his plan to kill Posthumus and rape Imogen before her husband's body is just about as squalid and vindictive as we expect of this louse, and when a long-lost son of the king (don't even _ask_) lops Cloten's head off, there are cheers all round.

Shakespeare sends himself up all through "Cymbeline". I wonder if the almost ludicrously informative opening exposition scene isn't a bit of a gag on his part, but when a tired and angry Posthumus breaks into rhyming couplets, then catches himself and observes "You have put me into rhyme", we know that Shakespeare is having us on a little. Likewise, the final scene, when all is resolved, goes totally over the top in its piling-on "But-what-of-such-and-such?" and "My-Lord-I-forgot-to-mention" moments.

Yet the moments of terror and pity are deep enough to make the jokiness feel truly earned. When Imogen is laid to rest and her adoptive brothers recite "Fear no more the heat o' the sun" over her body, it's as affecting as any moment in the canon. That she isn't actually dead, we don't find out until a few moments later, but it's still a great moment.

Playful, confusing, enigmatic, funny and shot through with a frightening darkness, this is another top job by the Stratford boy. Well done.

Cymbeline was a British king in Roman times ( Augustus Caesar's time).
Devices used in the Play:
1) a woman plays a man/ boy role ( several of his plays : As You Like it,
Twelfth Night))
2) a deception by a villain to lie the virtue of a Lady ( Much Ado about
Nothing)
3) Princes kidnapped and brought up as common men ( I don't know if he
uses this in other plays)
4) poison that causes a coma ( Romeo and Juliet)
5) a Prince who is a vile fool ( used in his historical plays)
6) a Queen who is a plotter and evil ( Macbeth)
7) a Prince who kills another Prince and it redeemed by his hidden
identity
8) a Prince sentenced to hang by mistake
9) a King who condemns his daughter wrongly ( King Lear)
One wonders how much of this is historical fact and how much pure fiction.
With all this scheming in the plot , it should be a very successful
play.
It is a total flop!
What it comes out is seeming unreal and contrived.
You get that happy ending feel that is so much in his comedies
but it has a very false feeling to it.
That's probably why Cymbeline isn't performed much.
If he hadn't gone for all these at once it might have worked, but the
result is that you see the playwright as ....
If anyone wants to take the air out of a Shakespeare pedant,
this is the play to do it with! He makes Shaw and Eugene O'neil l
look good. He even make Rogers and Hammerstein and Gilbert and
Sullivan look better, ha, ha...
This play is not Shakespeare's finest hour!

Cymbeline is one of Shakespeare's least performed and least read plays. You do not stumble on it, you work your way through Shakespeare's opus and finally get there. The historical context is the war between Britain and the Roman Empire, and the action is hot and heavy, requiring five acts and twenty-seven scenes. Perhaps it is this complexity of plot that retarded Shakespeare's character development. Fewer lines have entered our lexicon from this play than most. Two exceptions are "the tongue is sharper than the sword," and to have "a bellyful of fighting." It is an excellent tragedy, however, combining elements of King Lear and elements of Othello. In its mystic elements it also resembles The Tempest.

The core of the plot is the bet between Posthumous, the king's son, and Iachimo, who wagers ten thousand ducats that he can seduce Posthumous' wife, Imogen. Posthumous, in turn, wagers a ring that Imogen has given him that Iachimo will not succeed. Initially, we amused by the idea, but upon further reflection, it is clear that the gambit cannot have a happy ending. Either the seduction is successful, breaking up the marriage, or it isn't, in which case Iachimo will certainly claim that he has secuced Imogen, simply to win the ring. In the process he sets himself the Iago-like task of converting love to hate.

The play is also full of classic Shakespearean gadgetry, including a potion that causes a trance resembling death, mystical soothsayers, the intervention of gods, women disguised as men, and a historical tableau which would have been familiar to Shakespeare's audience. It is a quintessential Shakespearean play, comprising nearly all of the classical elements of tragedy. If the plot could have been pruned, and the characters given more of the dimensionality that we expect from Shakespeare, Cymbeline would stand on a higher pedestal.

The Folger Shakespeare Library's annotated edition is excellent. It provides just the right notation on the page facing the text, and can be studied or ignored to suit the reader's purpose.

To have the four great tragedies together raises the question of what the essence, the real heart of Shakespearean tragedy is.
In Aristotle's definition of Greek tragedy the overweening pride of the hero(hubris) and tragic fault( hamartia ) lead to his eventual destruction. The audience watching this is in the course of this purged of pity and fear.
In Shakespearean tragedy there is as in Aristotle a hero who is larger than the ordinary man. The hero too has a great flaw and comes to a destructive end. But the doubt and hesitancy of dreaming Hamlet, the great ambition for kingship of Macbeth, the blind filial love of Lear seem more emotionally complex than that of the Greek heroes. And the language in which the story of their respective downfalls is told is too more rich, complex, and ambivalent than that of the clearer Greek earlier model.
And this in such a way that the Shakespearean tragic heroes each seem to be in themselves a kind of supreme human essence, a manifestation of character at its greatest level of intensity.
Shakespeare's greatest heroes are individuals who become in some sense the ' type' of themselves, and live in our minds as models of humanity in its extreme essence.
'Greatness is all'

this is a great book for shakespeare fans. it was the first time i read shakespeare outside of class, and it was very interesting. i didn't like the prefaces much, i didn't have the patience to read them. i felt they were very of long, and harder to read and understand than the actual shakespeare. they actual plays-not stories, just to clarify- are wonderful. it would be a great book to read if you are taking a literature class and want to get a head start or if you want to expand your vocabulary. you can even relate the problems of those times to the problems of today. the plays were very fun to read once you got into them; shakespeare is just as great as he is said to be.

An integral part to any Shakespeare work is the presence of footnotes! This book has a glossary, but it does not do any good because there is not sign in the actual text itself that one can look up specific words in the glossary. While the plays themselves are very enjoyable, do not purchase this edition unless you feel very confident about your ability to read Shakespearean language.

this is an excellent 'cheap' edition of the great tragedies. besides being edited by david bevington, considered one of the foremost shakespeare scholars, the bantam edition also includes introductory essays for each play AND the source material that shakespeare used - ie, the actual short stories or plays that the bard drew on to the write his plays. wonderful stuff and a great way to get into shakespeare.

Hamlet
This play, of course, is perhaps the best known in all of English literature. Taking it's inspiration from lesser plays and tales of the same name, Shakespeare crafted the characters, dialogue and plot into a timeless tale of betrayal, the quest for justice, and ultimately a hollow victory. This play, in short, is a downer.

I will speak daggers to her, but use none.

Of course, it really thrilled the audiences, who, lacking the primetime violence of today, enjoyed seeing the blood, the gore, the violence, the swordplay. Those with a more subtle bent were very satisfied with the wonderful dialogues, full of double and self-reflexive meanings. So many of the monologues have become common parlance in our language.

A hit, a very palpable hit.

The 'on one foot' synopsis: Hamlet, prince of Denmark, is suspicious that his step-father killed his father and usurped the throne and his mother's bedchamber; he plots to get revenge; in the meantime his love-interest Ophelia dies; in a duel to the death at the end the mother dies, the step-father dies, the duel contender dies, and Hamlet dies. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

The rest is silence.

Othello
Rude I am in speech,
And little blessed with the soft phrase of peace

Surely Shakespeare was not speaking of himself here. Even his poorly-spoken characters cannot help to have an elegance and subtlety all their own. Othello is another tragedy, this one driven by jealousy. The exact cause of the jealousy can vary; Iago can be jealous of Othello, of his love for Desdemona, of Desdemona herself, or several other possibilities. The emphasis often lies in the performance, and Shakespeare's play is written broadly enough to allow for any of these to be correct interpretations.

But men are men; the best sometimes forget.

Othello satisfied the need for violence, for passion, and for intrigue. 'On one foot', Iago, servant and friend of Othello, who also hates Othello, plants the seeds of suspicion that Desdemona has been unfaithful, leading Othello down a treacherous path that leads in his ultimate murder of Desdemona.

Take note, take note, O world!
To be direct and honest is not safe.

During one performance in the American Old West, an audience member became so entranced and enraged with the actor's portrayal of Iago that he took out his pistol and shot him. The tombstone of the actor reads 'Here lies the greatest actor'.

Lear
The prince of darkness is a gentleman.

This most difficult of Shakespeare plays, both for performing and for studying, is one of the true masterpieces of English (or any) literature, and yet is underperformed and underappreciated due to the power of its complexity and of its tragedy. Indeed, often the tragedy at the end has been softened by having Cordelia survive victorious. Beware these kinds of performances--they not Shakespeare's intent, however much we wish.

Lear begins with folly, and ends in tragedy, while treachery and evil seems to creep like a vine choking off first this person, then that. The fool is the only wise one; the insane are the only protected, and the nobles increasingly lose nobility of intent and action as the events progress. Gloucester and Lear are both deceived by wicked children turned against their better offspring; all ends in tragedy for most of the lot.

Lear addresses sibling rivalries, parent/child relationships, poverty and insanity, and any number of other readily accessible issues, but all interwoven so tightly that they cannot be unravelled easily, yet all the while the world for the characters are unravelling thread by thread before our very eyes. Lear points out the folly of human planning and agency. Lear was banned from performance, actually, during 1788-1820 when George III was considered insane, and the connexion between stage and royalty would be too blurred for official comfort.

Howl, howl, howl, howl! O! you are men of stones!

Macbeth
The witches, the blood-stained hands, the play whose name must not be mentioned in a theatre lest bad luck befall the actor or production. Macbeth is all of these, and more. Loosely based upon a real historical character, the tragedy here is one of ambition.

Fair is foul, and foul is fair:
Hover through the fog and filthy air

Did Macbeth really see the ghost of Banquo at the banquet, or was it indigestion because of the haggis? Macbeth can be played with or without a conscience, which makes for differing character development, but both options are available in Shakespeare's flexible playwriting.

Hear it not, Duncan; for it is a knell
That summons thee to heaven or to hell

Macbeth is driven by his ambition, but also by the ambition of his wife, Lady Macbeth, as treacherous a villain in many respects as any male character in Shakespeare. Macbeth has an overgrown sense of invincibility, convinced by prophecies that his course will be successful, and ordinarily it is (until it all goes awry); it is a successful struggle to the throne, but never secure, and in the end, all is lost.

Macbeth may be the bloodiest of Shakespeare's plays, a thrill for Elizabethan audiences, and a wonder to behold as the scenes get ever more desperate and darker.

This edition
There are so many editions of Shakespeare available, and many have merits. This particular volume of the four major tragic plays provides commentary by David Bevington which is insightful and accessible; it also gives photographs of performances and stagings by the New York Shakespeare Festivals, modernised spelling and concordance listings of major passages. Not short by any means (nearly 1000 pages), this will nonetheless give a good study to the plays, with visual aids, and supportive material, all in one volume.

Ive been reading the horus heresy books and i have the space wolf army in 40k and when a friend told me about the space wolf books i had to read them so when i found the omnibus i had to get it the book starts out before Rangar became a space wolf and then takes you though the changes that he gose though becomeing a space wolf. if you are like me and love the space wolfs then this book is for you i love it read it if you want to know how the space wolf are made in to one of the most effective fighting forces know.

All i can say is read the omni-bus,the books are very good,i like the authors way of still keeping the space marines human,and not just some godlike human tanks,im looking forward to more books.

The Space Wolf Omnibus is just short of 800 pages of poorly executed sci-fi action set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe. The author's style (or lack thereof) is rudimentary, particularly evident and offsetting in the first novel, which at times is so clumsily and laughably written that reading it becomes an unpleasant effort. Every action of the main characters is preceded by arrays of superlatives, as King struggles to competently convey the sense of scale and "authentically" depict Space Marines. There is very little character development, aside from the predictable pattern of the protagonist progressing from a naive youngling to a weathered veteran of a thousand battles.

It's not all bad, though. King somehow manages to create likable characters the reader may eventually grow to care about. The dialog is often amusing, and the omnibus does get progressively better toward the end. Two and a half stars for this mess - one for the setting and one and a half for the effort. I did try to like it. Recommended to w40k geeks like myself and no one else.

This is the best book I have ever read if you like Warhammer 40K than this is a must have. But even if you have never played or read a Warhammer book before this is probably the best one to start out with. It tells you how space marines become space marines and how the universe is viewed through the eyes of humans in the 41st millennium. Also you do not need to know alot about the Warhammer history to understand this book. This book is a great read and I recommend it to everyone.

William King's Space Wolf novels have helped shape the world of WH40K. This omnibus collection contains the first three (of five) and would serve as an excellent place for WH40K first-timers to get an introduction to the world and setting. Through reading of the ascension of Ragnar Blackmane and by witnessing his trials and battles throughout the Imperium, much can be learned about space marines and the WH40K universe.

The first book of this omnibus edition, Space Wolf (Warhammer 40,000: Space Wolf), chronicles the rise of Ragnar. From a young member of a small islander tribe of Fenris to the glory of an ultimate warrior of the Imperium, this is a tale of growing and learning. Because Ragnar is devoid of any knowledge about the universe and proceeds to learn and observe, this book serves as an excellent introductory book to the WH40K world. Principally, this first book serves as an introduction to Ragnar and the Space Wolves, and nothing much more. Almost like a primer for the next books in the series.

The second book, Ragnar's Claw (Space Wolves), tells of Ragnar's first adventure off-world of Fenris. He and his claw are sent to assist an inquisitor on a mission to collect an ancient artifact and save a hive city from a deadly plague. Their mission takes them through vast distances to fight orks, genestealers, and daemons in a multitude of different environments. The character of Ragnar is further developed, with him being critically wounded only to be revived with a new fear of mortality. There is an undercurrent of uneasiness throughout the book that is only explained in the last couple of chapters as the heroes discover the true puppeteer of their mission.

The third book of the trilogy, Grey Hunter (Space Wolves), is my personal favorite. It has a much more epic feel with a heavy involvement by many Imperial forces, including a battalion of Titans. The planet of Garm, an industrial world that has special ties to the Space Wolves and houses a Shrine to Russ, has entered a civil war in which the forces of Chaos seem on the verge or bringing about the resurrection of the Thousand Sons Chaos Marines. Nearly the whole Space Wolf chapter is mobilized for an immense invasion of the shrine world -where they find great adversity. The action and suspense of this final novel is the most intense of the three and caps off this omnibus edition in grand fashion.

The fighting scenes and descriptions of the Space Wolf Space Marines are excellent, and as Ragnar discovers the vastness of the Imperium the reader develops a better understanding too. Perhaps the best aspect of this book is the sheer epic feel. The multitude of enemies Ragnar encounters and the vast spaces he travels make this stand out as an excellent resource for those wishing to learn more about the WH40K world. The only complaints I have with these stories arise from the writing of King. He tends to over-use descriptive words and phrases, creating a very repetitive feel to some of the scenes. Overall, a must have for any WH40K fan and highly recommended for any fan of Sci-Fi.

William Beger's "Verdi with a Vengeance" is a triumph of music writing: accessible, informed and passionate. For the newcomer to the breadth of works by the great composer, this guide is a godsend, as Mr. Berger lays out the history of each opera, the story behind its plot and, most important, what makes each one special. He doesn't preach, but his enthusiasm makes a reader -- and a potential listener -- hungry to hear and see the works he so vividly describes. Mr. Berger is a master of the telling detail: he lets you know what to look and listen for in particular arias, and how these moments affect the drama. "Verdi with a Vengeance" should also delight Verdi aficionados, since Mr. Berger is so familiar with all aspects of the composer's art, his research is so deep, that he reveals new aspects of the operas (and the Requiem). His prose is free of musicological jargon, though conversant with the language of music. Mr. Berger can describe economically the emotion music can convey, and he can give a sense of the intellect behind the notes. He is a writer of wit and nuance, masterfully evoking a mise-en-scene within an opera or limning the characteristics of hammy singers. This is a book both to be savored at length and dipped into for fresh insights before attending any performance of Verdi. It is a rare book that manages to be learned as well as breezy, humorous and deeply felt.

Viva Verdi! William Berger provides a useful guide to all of the Verdi operas from the obscure "Oberto" to the classic comedic masterpiece "Falstaff" which closed the operatic master's oeuvre.
Berger's book is similar to the treatment he earlier applied to Richard Wagner in his " Wagner Without Fear." This means:
a. Succinct but on target plot summaries of all Verdi's operas including the Verdi Requium.
b. Brief chapters on the staging of Verdi's operas; Verdi's works on CD and outstanding books on the Busseto genius for anyone wanting to know more about the King of Italian lyrical opera.
Berger's work is worthwhile reading for the operatic novice or the veteran opera fan who wants to brush up on the labyrinthal plot of "Il Trovotore" or explore how Verdi's music has been used as soundtrack for motion pictures.
Berger's book on Verdi is a treat for everyone enjoying opera who also relishes good writing done with wit, charm and panache! I eagerly await a similar guide on Puccini which I have learned is in the works from the pen of Berger! Highly recommended!

This short guide to Verdi's life and works is in indispensable gem for anyone wanting to learn more about Italy's greatest operatic composer! Berger gives a succincly informative sketch of the complex composer's life. He adds chapters on Verdi books, CD'S, Videos, staging of Verdi operas and a helpful glossary of operatic terms.
The most helpful and longest part of the book deals with a brief synopsis of each opera in the Verdian canon from the obscure "Oberto" to the Master's final comic masterpiece "Falstaff." Berger lists the characters of each opera, makes witty comments on the big arias and scenes in each opera and also provides historical information on the production of each opera.
I had earlier read Berger's excellent "Wagner Without Fear" and was so impressed with his writing that I eagerly turned to Berger's guide to Verdi. I understand he is now working on a similar guide to the life and operas of Puccini which will be received by this reviewer with gratitude.
If you are a novice to operatic enjoyment or a seasoned Verdian
this work will be a delight. I highly recommend it for your consideration!

Unlike another reviewer, what I really like about "Verdi with a Vengeance" is that it discusses ALL of Verdi's operas, even the early and/or less frequently performed operas. I especially like the "what to listen for" aspects, and also that it is informal and personal. I also like his discussion of different recordings and what he likes about them. I am a real Verdi-phile, and I love this little book. Only four stars because it's little and the discussions are brief. I could read a BIG book about Verdi.

This book is similar in format to the author's "Wagner Without Fear". Like the Wagner book, it provides a lot of information in terms of biography, plot summary, musical overview, and selected recordings. Although a very good book, it is not quite up to the Wagner book in that it discusses many more operas (27 including the Requiem) than the Wagner book did (10) in roughly the same space. The plot summaries are still very good, though often there is not quite the same level of detail and (especially) commentary there was in the Wagner book. As a result, the book is more a (very good) set of plot summaries than its predecessors. In fairness to the author, this may be approrpriate is that Verdi is a generally more accessible composer who often needs less in the way of commentary to be a appreciated. It definitely is a good resource, though a reader interested in Verdi may find himself or herself going outside of the book more than they would if they were reading the Wagner book.

Mr Larsen certainly knows his stuff, this is a brilliant book - very well researched and easy to read. Packed full of historically correct information that gives a definite atmosphere of being right there as it happens.

This book would be extremely useful to anyone studying this period of English and/or French history, without them having to suffer the boredom of dry bare facts.

The authentic feel of this book only hints at the deep research author Merlin Douglas Larsen must have done into the life and times of Count Guy of Ponthieu, who writes his memoirs in the year 1100. Now, as all students know, the Norman conquest of England culminated in 1066 with the Battle of Hastings, where William the Conqueror struck Harold in the eye with a lance and won the battle.

The elder military nobleman tells how he became intangled in the Norman invasions. The book is written as a tale told, so the action is all from Count Guy's point of view and reads almost as a diary. This, plus the well-researched background give this book the feel that it was written on parchment and really just unearthed underneath the altar of some abbey to be translated for scholars to argue over.

But memoir-like tone aside, the book is packed with action, battles and political maneuvering. It will probably appeal to men a bit more than women, since this is a book about war and not a romantic-style historical drama. Readers who like such books as "Pillars of the Earth" will probably enjoy "Jackals in Iron."

"Excellent storytelling. And excellent history. The heroes and villains...come alive for the reader. Their customs, power struggles, machinations, and alliances are all examined and fully explained. And when William the Conqueror arrives on the scene, he proves to be a formidable antihero who makes a worthy spiritual antagonist for Guy.

"In Larsen's book, personal history and public history are so intertwined that Jackals in Iron is not only a historical fiction, it becomes a study in storytelling as history. Recording of all kind pops up in the book. In one scene, Brother Turold, a dwarf, records a battle at the behest of a lord to some seamstresses who embroidered a tapestry which depicted a scene "the way Bishop Odo said William wanted the story of Harold's death portrayed. In another scene, in a discussion about perjury, witnesses, and moot discussions, one character tells another, "It would be pointless to examine minutia about every knight who might have struck a blow in battle." To which another character replies, "Not pointless at all. When do we decide that the truth is not to be pursued, and is to be replaced by hyperbole?"

Set in England in 1100 A.D., a generation after the Norman Conquest, Jackals In Iron is a historical novel of oppression, survival, and vengeance. A dramatic saga, firmly rooted in history and events, of one man's struggle against an irresistible force. Author Merlin Douglas Larsen has deftly crafted an engaging saga of pivotal battles and strange alliances against a meticulously presented historical background. Superbly written, Jackals In Iron is one of those novels that is a riveting read from cover to cover. This is the stuff of which Hollywood movies and television mini-series are made!

Larsen's Jackals in Iron is a "must read" for the avid history buff and for those who have a hankering for distinguished story-telling at it's best. In impressive rich detail, every turn of the page expounds the history of the Norman incursion of England amongst other notable battles, chronicling the lives and actions of heroes, miscreants and citizens caught in the middle of life-altering movements of nations.

At the outset of the novel (1100 A.D.), we become acquainted with the principal character - Count Guy of Ponthieu - a "worldly hardened warrior" advanced in age and held in high esteem by his comrades. Along with his youthful wife Estelle, the Count is invited on a sojourn to the abbey of Saint-Evroult, to recount his life experiences, scribed for posterity by the monks residing there. As he relates his past in detail (the atrocities committed during war, the conquests, the family conflicts, and the inner battles, etc.) to the eager party of copyists, we are treated to a retroactive narrative. We become deeply entrenched in the Count's read-worthy experiences, and consequences of his past decisions.

The reader is also generously provided with a glossary of terms, as well as lineage flow charts and maps, which I personally found very helpful in better understanding certain details of the story. They also added much the richness of the read. Without a doubt, the extensive detail and research that must have gone into penning such a novel will astound even the most picky of history aficionados.

Larsen unquestionably deserves the sincerest of kudos for this masterpiece. Jackals in Iron is highly recommended for those who prefer a more `meatier' read that is most enjoyable

I'm taking genetics this semester and it's gotta be one of the hardest classes I've ever taken. The professor assigns us a lot of the problems out of the book, and I don't understand how to approach them all. The solutions manual shows some really good ways to approach genetics problems and has really helped me. I recommend it, though get it used from someone else if you can to save a few bucks. If you do the reading and work the problems and check your answers with the solutions manual, you'll understand genetics a lot better.

A good buy--it really goes into detail with hard problems and is quite helpful to have!

It's not like I really really wanted my textbook (nobody wants to study that desperately). Thanks guys! Now I can start procrastinating without worrying about not having the book as backup the night before the test! Haha.

Actually, the structure of this textbook is very well organized. The example problems are thorough and the explanations are equally well-thought-out. Combined with a reasonable lecture/prof, I think the text material is very simple and appropriate- just enough pictures and diagrams to get you by at 3AM after a few eye-burning games of DDR or whatever.

The solutions manual is excellent. The Interactive CD that comes with it is one of the best I have ever used. I wish that more interactive genetics was contained on the CD or even possibly a tutorial of the information contained within the Genetics book.

This study guide works through each end-of-chapter question step by step and really helps to solve many complex problems associated with genetic analysis. Also the interactive CD Rom that accompanies the solutions manual is great for visusalizing complex processes.

The play's appeal is disturbing. The self-proclaimed "naked villain", the murderer who knows neither pity nor regret, the conniving and lying viper is by far the most interesting character of the play. Richard's main merit is having Shakespeare speak for him. By virtue of spending more time on stage than any other character, Richard commands disproportionate attention from Shakespeare and enjoys the good fortune of Shakespearean language. From "the winter of our discontent" to "my kingdom for a horse", almost all memorable expressions are Richard's. For all his macabre plots, he is playful with language. He puns (as when he is treating "naught" as "naughty" in response to Brakenbury who is leading Clarence to the Tower). He cleverly finishes Margaret's long diatribe against him with a single "Margaret", sending the volley of her curse right back at her. He shows the widest range of emotion, from self-assured wisecracking to rambling rage.

For all his scheming evil, Richard has some remarkably attractive qualities. He can be disarmingly honest with himself and with the audience: he is surprised that Anne may see in him a "marv'los proper man" (he sees no such thing), he is fully aware that his "all not equals Edward's moiety" and that he "most plays the devil". Such self-reflection adds another dimension to Richard and compares favorably with simple self-involvement of some 20th century villains - certain heads of Communist and Nazi states. He is anything but a coward: at the end of the line, unhorsed, he continues to fight Richmond and despises Catesby's suggestion to withdraw.

The unquestionable evil that finds ways of being attractive creates an unsettling tension and sense of imbalance. Perhaps this is one of the qualities of great literature: it unobtrusively stirs up the embers of the reader's soul using its only poker - art.

I received my book quickly and in great condition. I had no problems buying this book from here. :)

The book is sold at a bargain price, but the font is too small for easy reading, and the paper is of poor quality.

This is the greatest of Shakespeare's plays.

The hunchbacked and ruthless title villain is what all villains have ascribed to be and yet can never attain.

"Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of York."

With those famous words begineth the play and the introduction of the character who spake them: Richard III. In the great opening monologue, he reveals his plots and his bitterness toward the world that looked away from his ugliness in disgust.
He stabs at the world and looks to the crown as his ultimate prize.

This play contains my favorite Shakespearian quote: when Richard says:

"A Horse! A Horse!
My kingdom for a horse!"

Oh yes, the perfect villain. Caligula, Nero, Commodus, Ivan the Terrible, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Vlad the Impaler...

It may not be Hamlet, but Richard III is still one of the finest works of literature ever created, in any medium. It's a classic piece of Shakespearian (and therefore, literary) character development, full of irony, wordplay, nuance, tension, imagery, and jaw-dropping poetic virtuosity. Shakespeare's Richard III is simply one of the most hypnotic and effectively portrayed characters of all time- he's a calculating, ruthless, cooly charismatic megalomaniac with bitter past and a knack for heroic feats of rhetoric. He's the quintessential antihero, a thoroughly despicable human being who is nonetheless incredibly fun to root for. Witnessing his swift, ruthless rise to power is a sheer visceral rush, and his monologues are deftly conceived works that drip with side poetry, cutting humor, and an almost charming sort of egotism. Reading or watching the play, one feels like they're the wicked king's confidante and co-conspirator, being allowed the unique privilege of peering into the amoral genius' twisted soul. The experience is exciting and cathartic. Of course, there's more to this play than one great character- the plot (which offers a seething glimpse of a chaotic post civil war England) is complex and engrossing, and sees Shakespeare hurling satirical darts at the corruption and pretensions of the nation's leaders. By allowing Richard to succeed by appealing to the greed, lust, and folly of those around him, Shakespeare sends a powerful warning about the cyclical nature and bottomless pitfalls of political villainy and oppression. At the same time, he paints a grim portrait of the ultimate outcomes of greed, egotism, selfishness, vengeance, and megalomania that still rings true to this day (and will probably do so until our species is extinct). Classic.