Play Groups Books

If you are a teacher, I would look into buying another audio version of Romeo and Juliet. I have been using it as a tool to get the students to hear professional actors and to then ask them to use the same skills those professional actors use (inflection, emphasis, etc.) The problem is it is VERY difficult to hear...to the point that you have to sit 3 feet away to hear it at times. This simply does not work for a classroom.

The notes that John Andrews gives on all the Everyman Shakespeare editions that he edits are fabulous. I think his editions are the most user friendly for any actor, student, director and teacher. Some publishing house should get Mr. Andrews to do all the plays.

Poor Romeo.

Watching Romeo meander his way through the play is like tailgating a drunk driver. At any moment he could crash, and in the end he overcorrects his assumptions by swallowing the poison, and in some ways his death must be a relief to his troubled mind.

Romeo's status in the story changes with nearly every scene, whether by his own doing or by an external entity. However, his circumstance reflects in almost every case his willingness to succumb to his passions. From his love of Rosalind to his love for Juliet to his exile, he is a bundle of nerves. Taking a time out would slow the pace, and instead Shakespeare quickens it by transplanting Romeo's moment of joy with Juliet with a moment of action and consequence: the death of Mercutio.

Giving Romeo the chance to be happy might damage his character. A great tragedy yet today. What makes it great is that the basic storyline pulls everyone in, and once the story captures, we can start to appreciate the minor characters, like Capulet and the Nurse.

What a boring love story - I wasn't impressed. Bizarre plot, long tedious read.

Caution Scalawags: May Cause Pulmonary Failure!, July 29, 2004
Reviewer: Professor Emeritus Percy Q. Johnstone (Darkest India) - See all my
reviews
Yes dear reader, it is I, Professor Emeritus Johnstone. As you may have
divined, as Professor Emeritus of American Literature, I am well versed with
dramatic writings from our sister nation, England. Now, many of you are
unfamiliar with the work, as William Shakespeare is relatively unknown in
the bumpkin-ridden land you call "The Colonies". However, you
lucky few will discover a goldmine of quotes such as "Alack, Alack,
Alack" and other favorites. But I, Professor Emeritus Johnstone,
diverge. Yes yes. For those of you who wish to pursue the god-given purpose
of the most noble art of teaching American Literature, you must be familiar
with the works of Shakespeare. As you are stupid, and not a professor, like
I, Professor Emeritus Johnstone, you undoubtedly do not understand, but no
matter. The story of "Romeo and Juliet" is simple. it opens in a
court yard in Venice where the political rebels, Pyramus and Thisbe are
plotting to overthrow the evil fascist government (oh how I, Professor
Emeritus Johnstone know that feeling. I confess, dear reader, that once I,
Professor Emeritus Johnstone, lived in America until government stooges
exiled me to darkest India for poliical subterfuge. Suberfuge! Bah!). Alas,
Lord Capulet's men break into the meeting and arrest poor Pyramus and
Thisbe, casting them into the darkest dungeon. Ah, but fortune smiles on our
two heroes, for in the cell next to them are the "Star-burned
lovers" Romeo and Juliet, who were imprisoned for plotting to overthrow
the evil Capulet. Together, they escape the prison, kill all the
fascist-swine guards, and blow up the prison, bringing us, dear reader,
rather neatly to the end of Act I.
Act II opens in Lord Montague's (Lord Capulet's chief of security) hall,
where he has just made posters offering 5000 marks for the heads of the four
rebels. Enter the villain (mustache and all) Tybalt (cousin to Count Paris)
the bounty-hunter. Tybalt, in a scene that moved even I, Professor Emeritus
Johnstone, gives a heartrending "soliliquy" in which he mourns on
he pain of killing those whose politico agendas you support. Thus ends Act
II. In Act III, we find...ROMEO WORKING FOR LORD CAPULET! He has become a
traitorous lap-dog to the very system he despises (oh reader, how I,
Professor Emeritus Johnstone, know this feeling!). Pyramus and his rebel
army storm the palace, and in the final scene, Pyramus kills his traitorous
lover, Romeo, driving a dagger through his jugular...only to find out that
Romeo was a spy. Pyramus then jumps out the highest tower in penance to end
the play.
Genius. Every potential collegiate scamp should read this edition, for it
has a preface by one of the greatest scholars of our age...none other than
I, Professor Emeritus Johnstone.
Hark, I hear my Biddy calling me to gruel and morning prayers. As Hamlet
said, "Adieu Fair Readers!"

Bitterly,
--Professor Emeritus Percy Q. Johnstone

Fences is a fantastic play by August Wilson. It expresses very real emotions and language, and it is an enjoyable read.

My daughter had to read this book as an English class assignment and at times would ask for my input- I had never read any of August Wilson's work -I read the book so that I'd be able to discuss the book with her. I'm really glad I did but a bit sad that I'd just gotten around to Mr. Wilson's work. I enjoyed this book and will make it a point to read others.

The play by August Wilson is about a family life filled with happiness, sad and selfish moments. I chose the book named Fences because this book let me learn a lot on how relationships change between married couples and parents to sons. In the play, a man name Troy Maxson is the household of the family. He wants his son to play basketball in the college and he puts lot of hope on him, but one day he changes his mind about the dream. He thinks his son will not able to go to college; they always have fought on something. Troy always talks to his friend On Friday night. He wants to let people know he is the leader and can do anything he want. One time he has done something that makes his family hate him so mach because he destroy the family. Do you want to know what happen? Go to find out more and you can discuss with me. No one cares about him any more even his best friend. My family always had argument on something that cause us to get bad temper, no one in the house was happy about what was going on. People see each other everyday, but then their relationship will change, either good or bad, depending on how you see the situation. I always hear arguments in my house that makes me feel sad; I don't know what to do. The only thing I do is pretend nothing happen. Troy and his son have argues on something, then they change to not talk anymore and his son never come to see him anymore. So different people have different feeling on their emotion.

This book was okay. the pages were yellowing and some lines were highlighted, but it was as expected.

Interesting play. Good for a summer-reading assignment. I enjoyed the plot but it did end up being a bit depressing.

First, the content -- Ibsen's play is as powerful and -- perhaps surprisingly -- as relevant as ever in today's supposedly more gender-equalized culture. Nora Helmer's predicament as a woman who faces the seemingly impossible choice between self-development and family is treated in a masterful way by Ibsen, who in the process manages to work in connections between bourgeois domestic culture, money, and spirituality.

But this edition is very functional -- no notes and a brief intro only. I have to say that I was a bit shocked because the new copy I ordered looked like it had been pulled out from the bottom of some old craters because it even had the faint impression of a sole on it!

A Doll's House is an outstanding play that brings up many topics into question, topics such as gender roles, love in marriage, and self fulfillment vs. family duties and responsibility. I think that Nora's and Torvald's characters are excellently drawn out to show the extremes of what could go wrong in a seemingly normal and happy home in 19th century Europe. Gender roles, even though they have changed drastically over the century, have roots from the beginning of time that stick throughout the years. Roots such as that women are more likely to stay at home and men are more likely to be the ones to work; even though these days women and men are legally and socially equal. Nora's actions in the play were courageous and good intentioned, even though they went against her husband's wishes. I really liked how she was created to be so naive that she did not realize that she had no life of her own, but despite that naivete, she still understood that something was missing. Torvald, on the other hand, knew perfectly well that Nora was not living life as people should, but out of his selfishness, he let things be as they were; he enjoyed life that way. What I liked most about this play was Nora's decision to live and to learn and be her own person, even though that meant huge sacrifice on her part and that of her family's. Was she selfish in doing what she did? That question is hard to answer. Should one live for themselves or is that right gone once they have children? Usually, I would say that a mother's duty to her children comes before anything, even her own needs; but what made Nora's situation so difficult was that she was a child herself, she never had the choice to live her life, once she had the chance it's good that she took advantage of it. The play was definetely worth the time spent reading it.

This was quite an entertaining play! Very nice - I like it! In all seriousness, it's a fascinating story that revolves around the ideas of gender roles and the negativity that is associated with creating such distinctions in society. `Tis a well constructed (translated) piece, despite originating in Norway.

The characters within speak frequently and frankly, constantly interacting with one another. The simplicity with which this play is written is used to convey a broad message about how society is harsh towards those who do not live up to their associated gender roles. For example, Krogstad is seen by the other characters as a scroungy rogue, minus the charm, associated with being a divorced father of two.

While it may not be the sort of drama that can draw a sleazy crowd with a brief tagline or an action packed trailer, it entices it audience with realistically portrayed characters in a convincing setting with an invigorating premise. Oh, and it speaks for universal human efficacy.

Ibsen's best known play about the strictures imposed on women by society. It may be from a hundred years ago, but the plight of Nora and her world is a cautionary tale about life now.

Nora is simple and yet there is a complexity about her. Her naiveté is both her charm and her undoing. Torvald, her husband, is prominent and she is to be showy--a living doll. Nora is to be a mirror that reflects her husband beautifully.

The plot concerns financial woes in the marriage--and secrets kept and broken--in these, the story is not unlike most stressful marriages.

We can speculate about what Nora could or should have done but the die is cast.

This play is good for helping younger readers understand that assumptions about roles in marriage are still there, and have to be understood and discussed in order to help a marriage thrive.

If you have a place where you can read this aloud, try it. Plays were meant to be spoken. The translation is superb.

Wow. No matter how many times I read this play, it just keeps moving me. It always has something new in it, something brilliant and thought provoking. It's so crazy to my mind that this play was written in 1879 by a man. I mean, this is a serious slap in the face to a lot of the marriage conventions of that time period. I realize that to someone raised in today's culture, it's really nothing but we live in a completely different world. The Victorians took marriage very seriously. It was so shocking that the lead actress in Germany refused to play the part of Nora, unless Ibsen changed the ending

Maybe it's my preggo brain, but I did not realize that this was a picture book with no words. I never would have purchased a picture book for my 2 1/2 year old. The pictures themselves are okay, but some words would have been nice.

My DD is 2 1/2 an I am expecting a baby in August. This book is a great conversation starter. I am planning to breastfeed, and it tastefully shows the baby nursing, something which DD has been curious about on the rare occasion she sees someone nursing a baby. If you are against BF, this book may not be for you. I've taught my DD that babies can drink from their mommy or a bottle. In addition to the nursing, it shows the older sibling involved with "helping" in different ways after the new baby comes home, and closes with the older child having story time with Mommy and Daddy after the baby has been laid down to sleep, showing that they are still special and very loved just like the new baby.

The pictures are colorful, and I like that the kids are fairly gender neutral, so if we have a daughter when or baby-to-be is older, we can read this book to our son the same we we are reading it to our daughter.

DD loves talking about the pictures, and talking about her new baby brother, who is not even born yet.

Quite frankly, if you have to have text to be able to talk about the pictures with your child, don't buy this book. This was obviously designed for parents who want to help teach their toddlers to observe things visually, think about what they are seeing, and then communicate that to those who are "reading" with them.

Not to thrilled with this purchase. No words and there is a breastfeeding mom on a couple of pages. Fine but, not what we were looking for to introduce our 2 year old to a new child.

Pros:
1) Presents attachment parenting perspectives - mother breastfeeding, father invovled (cooking dinner for nursing Mom and sibling), involved grandparents, baby-wearing by the father, etc.
2) Presents the arrival of the baby as a happy event for the family and older sibling. Other books deal a lot with the sibling being jealous or angry about the new baby and all the things the baby can't do yet. This book avoids those topics so it's perfect if your child is happy or neutral about the new baby. Why introduce those concepts if they don't apply to your child?

Cons:
1) This book has no words - only pictures. While I like the notion of being able to present the "story" in your own way to your child, it would be nice if there were some words for when your tired...ha ha. Maybe just neutral things describing the pictures or something.
2) The pictures in the book are very cluttered and, in my opinion, too busy for a small child. My son (just 2) is a little distracted by all the other stuff in the pictures (toys, et) and sort of hardly notices the baby in the pictures.
3) Oddly, the Mom in the book often is seen headless...lol. Sounds strange, but often only her arms or body are pictured. Kinda strange. Same is true for his version of the book about pregnancy. Just headless Mom with a big bump! Not a big deal though. Just an oddity.
4) The book presents a grandma and grandpa. If your child doesn't have both a grandma and a grandpa (death or divorce), this is a tough one to explain around - this also came up for us in their version of the pregnancy book. Also the grandparents are quite elderly and look nothing like what my child thinks of when he thinks of his grandma.

All in all, it's a fine book. We use it and it has it's place. I love the goal of the book - attachment parenting approach - letting parents present the idea of the baby to the child in their own way. I just think it could have been executed a little better.

This is a cute book, but with no text. It's great for talking about new baby with siblings. There are some new books out called "Baby Brother" and "Baby Sister" which are good for getting them ready for a new baby. "The New Baby" has a great story and is great to read to them. Now "The New Baby" comes in a sticker book also. It depends on what is more important to you.

As mentioned on my review of the Norton Critical Edition of "Othello," I purchased the two versions together so I could put together an online version of the play for a project my professor has been working on for some time now. Personally, I like this version better than the Norton one because it keeps the British spellings, but for the purpose of the project the spellings are being made into the American spelling. Overall, it's a good edition and, as with the Norton edition, came at the suggestion of my professor.

I have my degree in English... I like reading and teaching with this version as "help" not as a substitution. It gives a clearer understanding to Shakespeare for people who have difficulty with it.

I have never intently read Shakespeare before, but enough people told me that I needed to read "Othello" that I decided to break down and buy a copy. Everything about Shakespeare I find intimidating, so with much trepidation did I buy this critical edition of "Othello". Needless to say, this work is AMAZING. Not only does Dr. Honigmann give notes along the way to help the reader interpret what the characters are saying, but he also provides an extensive introduction outlining Shakespeare's sources, some possible motives, and some character criticism. He also provides one of Shakespeare's main sources, a short story written by Giraldi Cinthio, and in this short story he provides notes that link it directly to the text of "Othello". I am completely sold on "The Arden Shakespeare" series, and will continue to use it in the future. A definite buy!

Forty-plus years ago, when I first started reading Shakespeare, I liked the Signet Classic editions.

They were cheap and handy, and the play texts were just about right for a beginner: clear, with an indication of variant and disputed readings without overwhelming the play; a simple, convenient way of glossing the hard words; and useful short explications of some of the allusions.

Recently, preparing to go see a production of "Othello," I picked up the Signet Classic version to re-read, and I did something I had not done in my student days: I read the supporting material.

The background to the original staging and Renaissance playcraft was unexceptionable, but when I got to the "new dramatic criticism," I was appalled.

Not all of it was new. Of three essays, two dated from 1956 and 1960 and no doubt were part of the first issue in 1963. These were tedious and obvious, just the sort of thing that took all the enjoyment out of studying Shakespeare in school.

The third, dated 1980, had been added to pander to current campus fads -- not something you need when reading a Jacobean text. The editors got a three-fer: an essay by Madelon Sprengnether that coughed up psychoanalysis, feminism and PoMo French-Belgian trendiness in a convenient but indigestible hairball.

It's hard to imagine that still in 1980, people were taking Freud seriously and disgusting to see Shakespeare subjected to Belgian Nazis. Of the feminism, all I can say is that sometimes a sword is just a sword.

I have read a fair amount of Shakespeare criticism and liked little of it. But until Sprengnether, none of it disgusted me.

The copy I picked up second-hand dated from 1986. No doubt in the two decades since, more "new criticism" has been added to keep up with the dumbing down of the campuses. To 21st century students, here's some advice. You will be better off doing what I used to do: Stick by the big fish and let his remoras tag along unheeded.

Though I am not a particular fan of Shakespearian work, I instantly fell in love wioth Othello. This play is one of the greatest things ever written. Never has a playwright combined love, extreme decpeption, jealousy, anger, and fear in a play like Shakespeare has in Othello.

Even if you are not a fan of Shakespeare, I highlky recommend this play.

If you do not wish to read the play then I would recommend going out and renting or buying the movie "O" with Josh Hartnet, Julia Stiles, and Mikih Phifer. I would rent/but the 2 disc version because the second disc includes the original silent version of "Othello" from the 1920s.

This is a really entertaining book, a mystery told by a master storyteller, with beautiful langauge but never a false step in the telling of a good story. Barry Unsworth offers us a mystery from the 14th century full of modern conceptions integrated into the narrative. We get a tale of child molestation and murder mixed with the social and class structure of the middle ages. Unsworth knows that modern readers will quickly follow the strucuture of the modern murder mystery and will try to get one step ahead of the narrator. He plays this to his advantage in a murder with twists and turns of plot that reveal much about the religious and social order of 14th Century England. One interesting aspect to the story was the concept of a group of actors radically changing the direction of theater by producing a play about a recent murder in a town instead of the typical morality plays. And yet this tale of a murder is in fact a morality play, since it explores the facts and beliefs about the murder in an attempt to reconcil different accounts and details that make the murder less tidy that those in power would wish. Unsworth is extremely skillful as a wordsmith, his prose is effortless and vivid and flowing. It is so nice to read a smart page-turner. It makes you wish to read more of Unsworth's work.

I wasn't sure about this book in the beginning, but I love historical mysteries, so I tried it out. The narrator, Nicholas Barber, is a former priest who walked away from his place and joined a group of travelling players--remarkable for a time when you were born to a social station and stayed there all your life. That is, in fact, a recurring theme--being trapped in a role, escaping from it, choosing the part you play in your own life.
The mystery, which centers around the murder of a young boy, is interesting--true mystery lovers will probably figure out the ending long before the narrator does. But the surrounding story of Nicholas's development as a person and of the accused goat girl was interesting enough to keep me reading. Overall, it was a satisfying book.

The major selling point of this novel is that it has a very interesting and engrossing storyline. Neither does the author digress into inconsequential sideplots nor does he use the book as an excuse to show off his vocabulary i.e. no boring lifeless descriptions of the scenery or alleged insights into how the human mind works. This focus implies that it's possible to read the book in just one sitting without noticibly perturbing your daily routine.

The plot is set in England in the middle ages and is about a drama troupe that goes from town to town performing plays. Apparently, in those times the only kind of plays they performed were the ones that were based on stories from the bible. Competition in the shape of some other more complelling form of entertainment forces our troupe, when they enter a town, to adapt. While there, in that town, there is much controversy about the murder of a young boy in very mysterious circumstances. The debonair leader of the troupe, despite opposition from other troupe members who are troubled by this break from tradition, decides to 'play the murder'! To say more would be to give away too much but suffice it to say that the troupe's performance has unexpected ramifications.

This story was set in the medieval times in the fourteenth century. A priest named, Nicholas Barber, was caught during a death incident. The death was upon a crew member of a group preparing a play. Witnessing the death of this member, the priest was forced to take his place, to prepare a performance of their lives. There are many characters in this story. The main characters were, the priest as the narrator and his fellow performance members who went through a journey of performing arts, yet entering a dark world of intrigue that may prove their undoing. Some characters are gifted and talented and that we may connect those talents in our lives or finding a character that may represents you the most. This book may be suitable for mature or talented readers because the words were put together with talent. Many medieval dictions and can be read like a poem at the same time. In conclusion, this book was written with rare talents and be read by mature readers.

Barry Unsworth's short novel "Morality Play" (1995) is a murder-mystery set in 14th century England, but it is much more. It is a story that explores the changing boundaries between the medieval and the modern and that illuminates the power of drama to help people understand their experiences.

The narrator of the book is a 23-year old priest, Nicholas Barber, who becomes restless with his calling, runs away, has a brief affair with a married woman, and meets a group of itinerant players who are burying one of their number. Nicholas joins the troupe which heads to a small village where they decide to make a play of the fresh murder of a 12-year old boy, Thomas Wells, in the community. A young deaf and dumb woman is being held for the murder. The troupe is compelled to perform their play for the local baron, Sir Richard de Guise (in a scene that reminded me of Hamlet's performance for Claudius). They come closer to the truth of the murder than they realize.

There are vivid pictures in this book of English medieval life, of corrupt monks and priests, plagues, dusty towns, jousting, knights, the life of wandering actors and performers called joungleurs, and much else. And the mystery itself is abosrbing. Nevertheless, in my reading I found these features of the book secondary.

I found "Morality Play" most intriguing in the character development of Nicholas and in the attendant picture of a rising modernity. Nicholas is dissatisfied in his budding life as a cleric and ultimately decides that the life of a clergyman is not for him. "The impulse to run away had not been folly but the wisdom of the heart," (p. 206) he concludes. There is a turn to secularization in Nicholas's story, and to finding and following one's own star in life.

Many other features of the novel illustrate the move to and nature of the modern temprament. The players initially object to performing a play based upon the murder of young Thomas Wells in part because the story is not biblically-based and the meaning of it in the divine plan is not revealed (unlike, say, the Fall, or the story of Cain and Abel.) But as a member of the troupe observes, "Men can give meanings to things. That is no sin because our meanings are only for the time, they can be changed." (pp.74-75)

The troupe decides to perform its story of Thomas Wells to make money, a distinctively modern motivation. The members of the troupe investigate the circumstances surrounding the murder, and their play suggests how art and science are means of approaching the truth. Ultimately the murder is solved by an investigator sent by the King, and the story has something to say about the relationship between a rising central government and medieval feudalism. Finally, a young woman of easy virtue, Margaret, has been accompaning the troupe as the mistress of one of the players. She also does a great deal of value for the troupe and contributes towards preparation of the play about Thomas Wells. Yet, the troupe does not consider her as one of their number due to her gender. She becomes highly angry with this and leaves the players to make her way on her own.

Thus, I think this book has a great deal to say about the growth of secularism and the rise of views of personal growth and personal identity, naturalism in art, strong civil government, gender issues, and other matters that move the story forward from the medieval time in which it is set. The "Play of Thomas Wells" is itself a drama that tells a story of our modern world and of the factors which have led to its development.

Robin Friedman

Of course Shakespeare's TEMPEST is an enchanting--and enchanted--play, but my comments here concern the DOVER THRIFT EDITION of the play. Dover is to be commended for making texts such as these affordable for readers on a budget. However, students and teachers alike should note that the Dover edition does not supply line numbers. Students who are considering this text for a class and may have to write about it will not be able to cite specific line numbers as is convention (Act.scene.lines; e.g., 3.1.34-47). Professors and teachers should also be aware of this limitation and weigh it against the affordability of this text.

I have my degree in English... I like reading and teaching with this version as "help" not as a substitution. It gives a clearer understanding to Shakespeare for people who have difficulty with it.

I bought this copy admittedly because the magical artwork on the cover drew me towards this edition. I admit that it is shallow but I am very glad I ended up picking this one because it contains a wealth of information that is so perfect for helping students understand the context, background, themes and ideas contained within this beautifully written play.

Shakespeare is always difficult for us young people, but I can easily promise anyone that this edition does a fine job of explaining the play and it definately helps the reader to gain a better understanding of the play so you are prepared to go into an exam and write about it for two hours with the conviction that you will yield good results.

The Tempest is rightly regarded as being one of the Bard's greatest works, containing some of his deepest thoughts on the nature of power and the relationship between rational man as controller of nature, and the animal man always to be at the mercy of the passions both of himself, others, and the world around him. In fact, this play could be thought of as representing Shakespeare's final and definitive statement on topics that he had explored throughout his cannon. But profound as the philosophy is, and despite the beauty of the poetry and the many magical elements contained within the play, the fact is that as far as the average attention lacking teenager is concerned, not a lot happens. This is why this Cambridge schools edition scores over most others. It is almost entirely activity focused, the expressed aim being to 'bring the play to life'. With at least one suggested activity beside each page of Shakespeare's text (as well as a decent amount of background notes and interpretation), every teacher armed with this book should be able to enthuse his charges with the very real relevance of this play to the world which we have bequeathed them.

I recently re-read THE TEMPEST prior to attending The Colorado Shakespeare Festival's performance of this play under the summer stars here in Boulder. Shakespeare (1564-1616) produced this emotionally-moving, poetic romance at the end of his career, in 1611, and published it in the First Folio in 1623. In fact, it was his last play.

It tells the story of Prospero, the exiled duke of Milan, and his beautiful daughter, Miranda, who have been stranded for twelve years on a desert island with two servants, the airy sprite Ariel (who Prospero rescued from being imprisonment in a tree) and the savage Caliban. Upon learning that his usurping brother Antonio is sailing near the island with the Neopolitan King Alonso's party, he uses his magic powers to conjure a sea storm that not only leaves the ship and its passengers wrecked on the island, but which also sparks a courtship between his daughter and the king's son, Ferdinand. The survivors of the wreck are separated into several groups, believing one another dead. Three subplots then alternate through the play. In one, Caliban befriends two drunken crew members, whom he believes to have come from the moon, and drunkenly attempts to raise is own rebellion against Prospero. In another, Prospero works to establish the romantic relationship between Ferdinand and Miranda. In the third subplot, Ariel thwarts a murder plot at Prospero's command.

The shipwrecked passengers are eventually reunited by island spirits to discover the marriage of Miranda and Ferdinand. In the end, as its title suggests, THE TEMPEST is as much about the opening scene's violent storm, as the journey that brought Prospero to the island and the psychological storm--"the sea change"--leading him to quit his magic and his remote island to return to Milan.

G. Merritt

As Harold Bloom says, this has become an unplayable play after the Holocaust. This is only an additional reason why one should read it. The play is fantastic and gives us one of Shakespeare's most memorable characters: Shylock. Whether you see him as villain or victim, Shylock is unforgettable. As is his speech defending the Jewish.

Anti-festive character who is Shylock on this play sacrificed unjustly. Shylock is a character who is legally invoking his rights as a money-lender among the community which experiencing transition from agriculture society to capitalistic society. Moroever, the character Portia's defending Bassanio as an disguised attorney is unreasonable in some ways and speech is crude, indeed.
In my opinion, to reach the axiomatically righteous conclusion, we should reverse pur point of view toward the 'Justice'. It is a transformation of way of our thinking. Therefore, I recommend rhis masterpiece for someone who aspire to ponder about our human being's viewpoint.

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE can be described as a tragedy only if one follows the modern definition of "tragedy" and not the Greek. The genre of tragedy in which Shakespeare wrote required that all of the players, or at least all of the main players, die at the end, à la ROMEO AND JULIET, JULIUS CAESAR, MACBETH, and HAMLET. In fact, MERCHANT OF VENICE can only be described as a tragedy if Shylock is seen as the main character and not Antonio. (Note, in the list of players at the beginning of the play, only Antonio is called a "merchant of Venice".) In sum, THE MERCHANT OF VENICE can only be described as a tragedy if it is completely removed from its historical context.

Shakespeare intended that the actions taken by Antonio, by Shylock, by Bassanio, and even by Portia be seen as comically extreme. Antonio goes to the lengths of seeking help from a man he despises to help a man he loves. Shylock demands nothing but justice, even when the demands of the agreement he made is met and even doubled. Everywhere in this play is there action taken to the extreme.

Only a refusal to acknowledge the historical context would be blind to the comedy. There are stage plays, television shows, and screenplays aplenty which follow the example set forth in MERCHANT OF VENICE, showing how comical people can be when their actions are taken to the extreme. If MERCHANT OF VENICE can be view in THIS context, then the comedy shines through.

As a writer, I find it comical that anyone would use MERCHANT OF VENICE to point the finger of "racism" at Shakespeare. Part of a writer's challenge is to present convincingly views even he or she disagrees with. The best writer would try to dismantle and disprove the very beliefs he or she holds dear. That Shakespeare has often been judged a racist based on his portrayal of Shylock serves only as testimony to the continuing success of this play. Shylock's speech, complimented by another reviewer, is ample proof that Shakespeare's own views are well hid. Shylock's speech demonstrates magnificently that Shakespeare was able to get inside the head of any man (or woman) in his stories and write the words which that man would speak, faithfully render the thoughts which that man would think, have that man act as only that man would act, and all of it be believable. Simply put, unless you knew beforehand a writer's views on any subject, it would be difficult to find the needle of truth in his or her haystack of fiction if that writer has done their job well, and in this case Shakespeare was damned near flawless!

It is true that the movie, starring Al Pacino, does not present this play as a comedy, but that hardly detracts from its excellence. It shows, in fact, that MERCHANT OF VENICE plays well as both a drama and a comedy. In our age, however, given the importance of religious tolerance, I'll admit that it is probably best played as a drama.

As for the Pelican series of Shakespeare's plays, they are an excellent resource for anyone wanting to read and study the Bard's work. I've several volumes in this series and hope to eventually own them all. Each volume contains two identical essays, "The Theatrical World" (which provides a good understanding of the historical context, as well as an idea of just how much we know about Shakespeare as an individual) and "The Texts of Shakespeare" (which gives more historical context and also discusses some of the difficulties which editors have experienced in presenting these plays in print to modern audiences). There is then an introduction to each play, which is best left unread until afterwards if you aren't familiar with the play. The footnotes are few, but well-chosen, and do help in understanding words and phrases whose meanings have changed over the centuries.

Shylock is the only sympathetic character in the play. Modernity has altered the villain in "The Merchant of Venice" from Shylock to the entire cast of characters EXCEPT for Shylock. Any sense of comedy in the play died for those with a sense of religious tolerance, and Shylock comes off as merely oppressed. I found Act 5 almost nauseating after the forced conversion. That, coupled with the happy racism makes a perversion of decency and happy endings. This play is a tragedy. The recent movie version done starring Al Pacino turned it into a tragedy, and amazingly, a play written as a comedy seems to work very well as a tragedy.

Antonio gladly spits upon Shylock and calls him a dog, but stunningly, when Antonio finds himself in a financial pinch he goes to Shylock for money. More brash is Antonio's promise to act the same in the future: "I am as like to call thee so again, / To spet on thee again, to spurn thee, too." (1.3.127-28) From this point on, sympathy for Antonio is paralyzed in a modern reader's mind, from reminders of past images, from slavery and anti-Semitism, where the dehumanizing of a group of people is accepted by a society. The entire text afterward reads like an indictment of humanity, as if Shakespeare is making the Elizabethans laugh at their own behavior.

In perhaps the best argument in Shylock's defense in the trial, he point out the fact that those who speak of mercy own slaves. "What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong? / You have among you many a purchased slave." (4.1.89-90) Shylock, as fanatical as he is over the pound of flesh, is asking for only a pound of a man, when the slaveholders own the entire person. The play is littered with prejudiced remarks that clearly show how animalistic Shylock was to them.

Every conversation involving Shylock has ridicule from the Christians, without remorse or a feeling of comedy. The Christian children are taught to mock Shylock, they run after him in the street. The merchants spit on him, the Duke reviles him, his daughter renounces her religion and robs him.

Still an amazing story, with a few of the best on mercy and prejudice ever written.

The New Folger Library of Shakespeare's Tragedies and Comedies are among the best pocket editions available for the student and the journeyman lover of the Bard.

Before the actual text of the play which is wisely presented on the right hand page with explanatory notes (metaphors, allusions, similes, etc.) facing on the left hand page (words and phrases are defined by scholars based on their usage during Shakespeare's time; if scholars are inconclusive as to meaning, the word `uncertain' is used to connote this disagreement), the usual `Reading Shakespeare's Language', `Shakespeare's Life', `Shakespeare's Theatre', `Publication of Shakespeare's Plays' and `Introduction to the Text' introduce the reader to the Shakespearean world. Following the text, an essay by Alexander Leggatt follows illuminating `The Merchant of Venice' for the modern reader. In addition, an eleven page `Further Reading' list pinpoints books and essays on topics like the play itself, Shakespeare, the time in which he lived and the Globe Theatre. Rounding out the vital information is a three page "Key to Famous Lines and Phrases" complete with speaker and verse notation.

As far as the play itself, I will keep my remarks limited, saying only that for the modern audience, Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" borders on the provocative. All with politically correct upbringing or today's cultural sensitivity training cannot help but focus on the reigning prejudice of the early Medieval and Renaissance time period, namely the exclusion of Jews from all forms of normal life since mainstream thought withheld that this race was primarily responsible for Christ's crucifixion.

Indeed, today's reader will pose the question as to whether or not this play should be deemed more tragedy than comedy and must remember that as a comedy, "The Merchant of Venice" focuses on marriage, couples (Bassanio/Portia, Lorenzo/Jessica, Gratiano/Nerissa) and their emotional and financial interrelationships and uses sly humor and innuendo to poke fun at Venice's societal `outsiders'(Shylock, Morocco, Aragorn and in a lesser sense Antonio) who do not form a Shakespearean couple per se. Looked at from this perspective, the character of Shylock becomes simply the play's foremost societal outcast, in spite of the famous speech where he asks seemingly so poignantly, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"

Bottom line: Shakespeare is Shakespeare. If your modern sensibilities are offended by Shakespeare's treatment of Shylock the Jew, the Prince of Morocco and the Prince of Aragorn and question the unhappy and solitary Antonio's intense feelings for Bassanio, simply keep in mind that the world at that time looked at such things differently. Within the definition of comedy, this play with its multitude of lovely speeches and images works well indeed. The New Folger Library edition simply makes the play more easily accessible and understood on the various levels of language and scholarship. I recommend this series wholeheartedly.

Diana F. Von Behren
"reneofc"

Part of Wilson's century long tetra-cycle about African-Americans in Pittsburgh, this play is set in 1937. The effects of slavery are still palpable within the Charles family over 70 years after the Civil War.

Berniece Charles (age 35) and her younger brother Boy Willie (30) spar over whether or not to sell their greatest family heirloom: a piano that was traded for their great grandmother and grandfather. Berniece wants to keep the piano, which has the images of long-dead family members carved in it by her great-grandfather. Boy Willie desires to sell the piano so that he can use the money to buy the land their family worked on ages ago down south. As the play moves along, we learn about the history of the Charles family and we watch the current generation debates over the decisions of their forbearers.

Wilson won his second Pulitzer for this play in 1990 (which was written in 1987). It's not as good as Fences, his 1985 Pulitzer winner, but it's still a very good play with a number of great lines.

Wining Boy on the life of a piano player: "Now, the first three or four years of that is fun. You can't get enough whiskey and you can't get enough women and you don't never get tired of playing that piano. But that only last so long. You look up one day and you hate the whiskey, and you hate the women, and you hate the piano. But that's all you got." (pg. 41)

Berniece to Boy Willie about their parents: "You always talking about your daddy but you ain't never stopped to look at what his foolishness cost your mama."

This play is indeed a classic in African-American literature. Every high school and college student of every race should be encouraged to read and discuss the brilliant family dynamics that the play so skillfully portrays. The text is so well written that the reader has a vivid sense that they are actually watching, rather than reading the play.

Winner of the 1990 Pulitzer Prize for Drama, August Wilson's sensitive story of a family's struggle to reconcile the past with the present centers around the carved piano which dominates the living room of Doaker Charles and his niece Berniece. The legs of the piano are carved with faces of their slave ancestors, carvings made by a distant relation who was owned by the Sutter family and working on their farm in Mississippi before Emancipation. Berniece's brother Boy Willie, recently released from a prison farm and penitentiary, has come to Pittsburgh with his friend Lymon, determined to sell this ancient piano in which he claims half-ownership. His arguments with Berniece conjure up the ghost of Sutter, who calls out Boy Willie's name.

The struggle of Boy Willie and Berniece over possession of the piano gradually broadens as they reveal the past, incorporating vivid pictures of the family's tenuous survival from slavery to the present. A dozen or more of the white men who have been most abusive over the generations have met their deaths by "falling" into wells, crimes of revenge attributed to the Ghosts of the Yellow Dog. These ghosts are supposedly the ghosts of five black men burned to death in a boxcar by Sutter after his carved piano, the one in Berniece's living room, was stolen. The most recent Mr. Sutter "fell" into a well and died three weeks ago, and Berniece believes that Boy Willie may have had a hand in his death.

The play's success rests on the well-developed family relationships and their interactions on stage, as they reflect the legacy of slavery and its aftermath. Berniece wants the piano because the blood of her family has been worked into its wood--it represents her heritage. She and Doaker have learned a whole new culture of survival through their move to the city, but they do not want to forget the past. Boy Willie, by contrast, wants to sell the piano in order to buy land for his future, remarking, "I got to mark my passing on the road. Just like you write on a tree, 'Boy Willie was here.'" He, however, still focuses on vengeance--righting past wrongs. The tension between these viewpoints provides the drama and, in a powerful concluding scene, conveys the message of this play, ultimately a "piano lesson." Mary Whipple

This book by August Wilson is a good description of the Black movement to the North in the early 20th century. It correctly shows the ins and outs of a black family life in America before emancipation years and the value placed on providing a better life in the North than was afforded earlier in generations down South. All this while sticking together and not loosing family values.

Bernice does not forget the pride the strong will along with the sense of propriety she had learned from her ancestors. Boy Willie reflects his inherited traits as well, but has that impatient irresponsibility like every kid. He is like his father in the sense that he has a strong will to own something that he could call his own that he could never do before. For Boy Charles this was the piano, but for Boy Willie it was a place called Sutters land, this is were his ancestors had worked on while the whites had control.

Each character has its own way of showing the great variety of skills and talents which the slaves were capable of when they were brought to America. Even though these masters tried to take away these skill and talents they were incapable of taking away these gods given talents to the African Americans. This is a great book and I recommend it not only to African Americans but to all races. It is a great book to read and has many morals. I recommend this book to everyone because I have enjoyed it greatly.

August Wilson is the greatest American playwright. Not the greatest living American playwright, but the greatest, period. His best plays stand comparison with the best work of Eugene O'Neill, Arthur Miller, and Tennessee Williams. No American playwright has produced such a consistent body of work, and no American playwright has attempted a cycle with the scope and ambition of his series of plays. Wilson's subject is the Great Migration, the story of the African-Americans who emigrated from the southern states to the cities of the industrial North and their slow construction of satisfactory lives in the difficult and changing world of 20th century America. Wilson has written 10 plays on this subject, one for each decade of the 20th century, amounting to a fictional history of African-Americans in the urban North. This is, however, history from below. Wilson's heroes are garbagemen, short-order cooks, day laborers, self-taught musicians, and street vendors. One of his great gifts is his ability to use common speech in a way that is consistently interesting, frequently eloquent, and often powerful. He gives poetic voice to people usually regarded as inarticulate and invests ordinary struggles with real but not exaggerated significance. The African-Americans of Wilson's plays are a doubly uprooted people. Uprooted initially by the grievous trauma of slavery that sundered their connection with their native traditions, the emigrants fleeing the Jim Crow south and its brutal racism are uprooted also from their homes, families, and the traditions developed in the aftermath of slavery.
Wilson's overall story is the reconstruction of African-American identity and family life in the cities of the North over the course of the 20th century. Wilson's plays often feature protagonists whose sense of identity and families have been damaged greatly by the oppressions of racism and the atomizing effects of the industrial economy of the North. Over the course of the cycle, Wilson shows characters re-establishing a sense of connection with their ancestors, even back to Africa, and gradually developing the family ties to sustain them. Wilson repeatedly uses supernatural elements in his work, particularly as a device to advance his theme of the importance of developing a sense of historic connection with ancestors, including those originally abducted from Africa. This could easily be hokey, but his matter of fact use of these elements is very effective. Another recurring theme is the importance of music, particularly the Blues tradition developed by African-American musicians, which he sees as a vital and creative force in African-American life, often carrying truths across generations. Some of the most affecting parts of Wilson's work are his demonstrations of the direct and indirect destructive effects of American racism on family life. Even more powerful are those scenes in which his characters overcome these obstacles to reaffirm family connections.
Not all of Wilson's plays are outstanding, but all are at least very good. Readers will differ on their favorites. In my opinion, Joe Turner's Come and Gone, Fences, and Ma Rainey's Black Bottom are outstanding. The rest vary from excellent (The Piano Lession) to the very good. Cumulatively, they are a really impressive achievement. Mention must be made of the fact that Wilson has been aided by outstanding collaborators. Wilson's plays usually go through a series of versions before the final version emerges. Wilson has had the benefit of working with unusually talented directors, notably the gifted Lloyd Richards, who was responsible in large measure for recognizing Wilson's talent. Wilson has benefited also from the existence of a whole generation of remarkably talented African-American actors. These people made it possible for Wilson to realize his vision. We have all been the beneficiaries of the work of Wilson and his collaborators.

One of the classics, what else can I say? Sure, a bit melodramatic, but this is Shakespear after all.

This is a tragic play of a man who has the skill and the determination to rule the world, but instead he brings himself to ruin through capitulation to desires of the flesh. Antony's love for Cleopatra is so self-destructive that he in the end has to turn to suicide to escape his downward spiral. It's not an easy play to read, but it is an important one.

Not one of Shakespeare's more memorable works, there are some pluses to this play and relatively few minuses, but neither the pluses nor the minuses are anything that stands out. It is nice to have yet another play told in Shakespeare's beautiful language, and enjoyable to see a love story that centers on people old enough to no longer be in the first blush of youth, even if they ARE still young enough to be beautiful and virile. On the other hand, I'd have liked to see these more mature lovers BEHAVING somewhat more maturely, instead of being just as frivolous, headstrong, and foolish as the kids in "Romeo And Juliet", and there really aren't any lines from this play that come immediately to mind as having entered the "Quotes Hall Of Fame", as so many lines from Shakespeare's plays have. Nothing on the order of "A horse! My Kingdom for a horse!" or "Alas, poor Yorick; I knew him well." or "To be or not to be, that is the question", or so many others.

If you enjoy Shakespearean plays, you'll probably enjoy this one. But there's no real reason for anyone but a completist to read this.

A great deal of argument has been in the air during the last couple of decades over Shakespeare's rendering of the famous history of Cleopatra , the once upon a time queen of Egypt and her so- called wanton nature and habits that brought her in relation with two Roman military leaders namely ,Mark Antony and Julius Caesar .
From a purely feminist perspective, Cleopatra has been the butt of male-oriented chauvinistic attack and criticism that deemed her a `sexual glutton and `as old as sin itself `. In a male-dominated world like the one we live, woman's beauty is her scourge. No body blames the customer of the prostitute; people are always after the prostitute ,because she is a woman but the male her customer goes unpunished, he has the privilege to enjoy every thing without the least censure. Cleopatra as a matter of fact, is more sinned against than sinning; she was the victim of male-oriented criticism which saw in her an apt image of the `Other `, so why not projecting centuries-long and long-nursed grudge on her as a symbol of women ,of course not as a mother, a sister or even a wife but as a mistress who takes delight in wrecking peaceful house-holds and disrupting the coziness of family life. She is an Amazon woman or a man-eater with lewd insatiable passion that does not stop at any thing to satisfy her sexual urge
Shakespeare seems to subscribe to the above-mentioned misconceptions about Cleopatra; his is a woman , ready to do any and everything cost what it may to live in the mood of love. She shuns the business of the state and neglects her duties as a queen of a strategic country. According to Shakespeare's distorted image of history, Cleopatra's bent for sex and desire makes her interweave a web to enmesh even her arch enemies. Shakespeare does not seem to believe that true faithful love knows no boundaries. Cleopatra's love for Antony and Julius Caesar could have been true love that could have bridged gaps of difference and enmity between Egypt and Rome if not looked upon from the wrong end of perspective.
Further more, if this kind of love has been, in the eyes of those of us -the hapless romantically inclined lovers- who believe only in platonic love, sensual and momentary, the child of momentary sexual infatuation, why do we always blame the woman? - Cleopatra in this case - why do we not fix an equal share of the blame on Caesar and Antony? . In our eyes, male as they are, Cleopatra is "the belly dancer sans merci" whose magical web can not be helped and works with even the most powerful of men in the world. In the eyes of male-hegemony, woman is an object to be loved but never capable of love

I recently re-read ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA prior to attending The Colorado Shakespeare Festival's performance of the ambitious play under the summer stars here in Boulder. Drawn from Sir Thomas North's 1579 English version of Plutarch's Lives, William Shakespeare (1564-1616) produced this romantic tragedy late in his career, around 1607, and published it in the First Folio in 1623. It tells the story of a doomed romance between two charismatic lovers, Roman military leader, Marc Antony, and the captivating Queen of Egypt (and former mistress of Julius Caesar), Cleopatra. When his wife, Fulvia unexpectedly dies, Antony is summoned from Egypt to Rome to mend a political rift with Octavius by marrying his recently widowed sister, Octavia. Of course, this news enrages passionate Cleopatra. She vents her anger on the messenger, but is quick to realize that Octavia is no real rival to her when it comes to beauty. However, Antony soon follows his heart back to Cleopatra's arms, abandoning his new wife in Athens. This leads to war, when Octavius declares war on Egypt. After Octavius eventually defeats Antony at Alexandria, Cleopatra sends a false report of her suicide, which prompts Antony to wound himself mortally. Antony dies in his lover's arms, and rather than submit to Roman rule under the new Caesar (Octavius), the heart-broken Cleopatra asks to have a poisonous snake delivered to her in a basket of figs. In the end, ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA is as much about new sparks re-igniting the flames of love as new political forces supplanting old political regimes. It is a play that reminds me that it is perhaps better to re-read and understand Shakespeare than to devour one bestseller after the next.

G. Merritt