Bloom Books

I have read many versions of this book, and this has got to be the best translation by far. However, I find the story lacking in several points. One, there is no concrete story line, Don Quioxte and his "squire" Sancho, seem to wander about the countryside aimlessly. I know many people that have really loved this book, however I was happy to see the end. The best part of the story is the many short stories within the main story told by traveler the wandering knight meets during his journey. Overall, I thought that this book was worth reading only to add to your bank of knowledge to works of Miguel de Cervantes. If you do wish to do that, then this the best translation I have seen.

It is no wonder that this book is considered such a classic (hey, look at the incredibly high number of people who have read it!) Cervantes, whose personal life was an odd story in itself, has managed a tale that reaches for the hero in all of us in a manner that is most hilarious, human, and heartfelt.

It follows the adventures of an aging man who believes himself to be a medieval knight and his faithful, ever-patient servant. Convinced that the world around him is a heck a lot more exciting than it really is, the self-proclaimed Don Quixote makes quite a name for himself.

It's a delightfully random story that will appeal mostly to comedians who still like a healthy dose of meaing and emotion--because, be warned, it is not all pure comedy. There is plenty of layers that keep this as the powerful classic it is. There is less of one concrete plot and more of intertwining stories--indeed, it is definitely a character-driven novel.

It's funny, it's adventurous, and it has old guys trying to dule with windmills. Plus plenty of unexpected heart.

"Don Quixote' is, of course, one of the world's great classics. Cervantes depiction of the elderly knight, swimming with visions of chivalric grandeur, is poignant. The old man [mad or just senile?] is so certain of himself that he is able to convince the simpleton, Sancho Panza, of his glorious mission. Riding on his noble mount, the nag Rocinante, Quixote sets out to right the wrongs of the world. But a chivalric warrior is nothing without a virtuous lady fair, who he finds in the form of the not-so-beauteous barmaid, Dulcinea.

The rest is nobility and self-righteous confusion. The old man battles with notable lack of success against evil giants in the guise of windmills. No matter. Quixote may be battered and bruised but his honor remains intact...at least until reality catches up with him.

To a certain degree, I have used the senile Quixote's confused chivalry in the consruction of my main character, Don Rodrigo de la Pena, in my novels of Conquest of Mexico, "Skull Rack" and "Hummingbird God". De la Pena, is, in his own way, a younger and more lethal version of the great knight which leaves the women in del la Pena's life, completely bewildered.

Ron Braithwaite

This is the best translation I've read! I've tried a few other translations and they're all so dry and really don't do justice to Cervantes' humor, but this book absolutely does! If you're going to buy Don Quixote, buy this one for sure!

'Don Quixote' is largely considered to be a satire on the popular chivalric ballads of Cervantes' day, but don't be fooled. This novel is no satire on chivalry, itself. Indeed, through the trials of Quixote and Sancho Panza, Cervantes is perhaps the greatest promoter of chivalric ideas that the West has ever known. No other protagonist so thoroughly embodies the ideals of heroism, romantic love, friendship, honor, discretion, trust, virtue, and adventure than does Don Quixote. It just so happens that he is insane, but the author is able to look beyond that. So too should the reader.

The knight's sallies are absolutely delightful and, it must be credited, alone prove Cervantes' genius in writing. The dialogue between Quixote and Sancho is excellent comedy, creating a duo that has gone unsurpassed in originality and endearment for five centuries. "Is it possible that Your Worship can be so thick skulled and brainless as to not perceive the truth of what I allege?" Classic.

But these adventures, hilarious as they may be, give us frame for a storehouse chivalric truisms, the like of which can be found in no other work of fiction. A sampling would include: "An author had better be applauded by the few that are wise than laughed at by the many that are foolish;" "Anyone who has been a good squire will never be a bad governor;" "There is a wide difference between flying and retreating; valor which is not founded on the base of discretion is termed temerity or rashness;" and "Whenever virtue shines in an emanant degree, she always meets with persecution."

The reader cannot help but to love such regal assuredness, such profound idealism. Ironically, Quixote's insanity never really contradicts his optimism and in fact vindicates it. It is commentary on the human condition that only the insane person can actually accomplish something virtuous. And after all the delusions are expired and all the fallacies uncovered, Don Quixote actually has accomplished everything he set out to achieve if only because he was noble enough to strive for it.

A note must be made on the translations. While much of the verbiage is straightforward, there are several repeated phrases that are different between the major translations, Quixote's moniker being one of the most important. In every translation I have seen, the name has been different--"The Knight of the Rueful Countenance," "The Knight of the Mournful Countenance," and "The Knight of the Sorrowful Face" are all used for the same phrase. I enjoyed the "Rueful Countenance" and found it to be well-suited for the style of the novel though I have not read other translations.

In the end, though, you cannot go wrong. 'Don Quixote' is a pure joy to read and we are fortunate to have the ability to do so.

4 1/2 stars, really, but we can't do that. This is the original 1855 version. Whitman added to the collection throughout his life, ending up with an overstuffed and very uneven "deathbed" version, which is better known. There are some good poems in it which aren't in the original, such as When Lilacs Last in the Door-yard Bloom'd, but there's a lot of pretty weak stuff, too. The 1855 has a small number of pretty consistently excellent poems which are highly original and loosely but definitely connected. Reading it is a very different experience from wading through the bloated, inconsistent final version - there's something Whitmanesque (i.e., at it's best) about the original collection as a unit. Malcolm Cowley's introduction is also a bit wild and wooly (written in the late 60s or early 70s), but interesting and enlightening.

Choosing the fullest, most complete version of Whitman's text, before the final editing of the deathbed edition, but following the additions made after the Civil War, the Norton Critical is a must have for students of poetry, or literature, and of nature. The wild, ecstatic hunger for the world, the ravishment of the senses, as Norman Mailer put it (though not about Whitman), the mysticism of the flesh, Whitman is, arguably, the most accomplished poet of American letters.

A must read for poets, students, and pagans (Whitman as spirit of the Green Man himself!).

At least as available for the Kindle, this is not the 1855 edition. It seems to be the final edition, which is of course great, but not what I intended to get based on the product description posted. Also, the foreward and afterward mentioned in the description are missing. I don't expect the moon for a low price, but I do expect to get what I pay for.

I bought this and returned it. There must be someone out there with the right voice and reading skills to bring us Whitman's words and rhythms. Ms. Gibson's soprano sing-song doesn't make it.

There seems to be some confusion, both in the editorial reviews and the customer reviews, about what edition is being referred to in this listing. the first editorial review correctly discusses the first edition as shorter and "less bloated" than the deathbed edition. however, the rest of the reviews seem to discuss either edition indiscriminately.

the two are effectively different books. the cover shown is of the first edition including an illuminating essay by malcolm cowley--that's certainly the edition I prefer, and I hope thats what you would get if you ordered this.

I had a friend once tell me that he had just read this play and had decided it was overrated. From that point on, I never considered anything he had to say very important. He had pretty much revealed his inner workings and I saw him for the ignoramus he is. I have read this play numerous times, seen play versions with Ralph Richardson and Jack Lemmon playing James Tyrone. It's a beautiful play, a funny play, a play that works one over, and leaves one feeling totally satisfied. If you never really understood the idea of catharsis, watch or read this play. I don't see the play as having flaws, although a well-known dramaturg once told me he thought the play needed cutting. Personally, I think the play needs nothing. Cutting would turn it into another play, not the magnificent work it is. The "fat," as for as I'm concerned, is as important to it as duck fat is to a delicious confit. Still, there must be those who could like to turn it into a two-act, so the audience can get home by 10:00 to watch reruns of "The Golden Girls." If it were cut, the play would not be able to work its magic of making one feel that one has been through a long evening with the characters. These idiot editors would trim a Haiku if you let them. This play is just about as good as it gets in the modern theater we are taught to love.

Eugene O'Neill's classic play, "Long Day's Journey into Night," is an autobiographical work that makes you feel immense pity for his family life. It's a great read, and wonderful to analyze! Just don't think that this will be a playful romp through the theater. O'Neill tackles a lot of heavy issues in this play and it can be difficult to read.

Starting in the 1600s, America was known as the place to make it big, where one could make a decent and happy living if one just worked hard. Whether contrasted to the chaos of Revolutionary France, the abject urban poverty of Dickens' England, the abject rural poverty of Ireland, the militarization of German society or the civil strife of Russia; America was heaven on Earth, a place where one could live the life they wanted. This image gradually wore away by the early 1900's, and this disillusionment was captured in work after work of American literature. The Great Gatsby unveiled the decay of the super-rich, The Grapes of Wrath showed the pitfalls of the rural farmer, Sinclair's "The Jungle" revealed the horrors of industrialized society, and To Kill a Mockingbird forced us to confront the horror of Jim Crowe laws. But no work so fully and so subtly attacked the everyday failings and desperation of middle class America until this short classic by Eugene O'Neill. This story has no true protagonist or antagonist. Instead, it examines one middle-class family, the Tyrones, over the course of one day. The Tyrones live in their own house, and are financially independent. The parents are middle-aged. The husband is past his prime earning years, and his wife, Mary, is addicted to snuff. One son is an alcoholic womanizer, and the other is frail and probably a nervous wreck. Nobody is in danger of starvation or eviction, but the family as a whole has problems, with depression probably being universal. Everyone has personal failings that weigh on their souls, and each day is a struggle to get through without damaging relationships with each other. Hence the title of the book, a long day's journey into night. Night probably means death here, as noone in the family is going to die soon. The journey is the time they have to spend with each other and put up with each other. This fate, this tragedy probably afflicts more people around the world than any other, and that is to have to live with your failings and those of your loved ones. This book was published at the end of O'Neill's career, and is supposed to represent his family. Regardless of its intention, this is a great book, and of the few American classics that anyone around the world can understand.

I have written reviews of some of Eugene O'Neill's other plays elsewhere in this space. I have noted there that Iceman Cometh is my favorite for a variety of reasons, some of them political. Journey, however, may be O'Neill best play and not only because it is somewhat autobiographical. The trials and tribulations of a dysfunctional family that is ultimately clueless about solutions to what ails each of the four characters (father, mother and two very unlike sons)is very much the stuff of modern drama. The intervention of the gods would seem out of place here.

In O'Neill hands the tensions, misunderstandings and illusions presented are recognizable to today's audiences, even those who may themselves be troubled about finding solutions to some very disturbing problems. Althought this is a difficult play to read (and more difficult to watch performed)virtually everyone I know who has read and/or watch it has survived to the end. And was glad of it. That will tell as much as anything else that I could add that we are dealing with a master work of American literature. Enough said.

I recently re-read "Long Day's Journey into Night" on a vacation flight and was surprised to find how well it stood up in my second reading.

The first time I read the play was when I was in my late teens and I could easily relate to melancholia of Edmund.

With age and time, I am less melancholic and perhaps less Edmund-like but "Long Day's Journey into Night" is a wonderful play. The most personal (autobiographical) of O'Neill's work: it also is his most universal work.

On every page, the American Dream/nightmare comes through with a brilliance perhaps not equaled elsewhere.

If a professional or quality amateur production of this work is not readily available to you, I highly recommend you pick up a copy. Enjoy!

Ok - it's Shakespeare: points awarded. But I found myself loving the word play immensely. I was scratching notes in the columns - started my own word count when I found patterns... and then (as this was read for school) went head-first into the analytical essay to be written. Oddly - the instructor now has us working on a research paper which asks, "Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare?"
And a NOTE: I always wait to read any prologues or introductions AFTER I've read a text. I don't want the "authoritative voice" in the intro influencing my take on the book. But I do read them AFTER. This intro by Russell Fraser has to be the most inane blather I've found yet. It directly cops lines out of the play. And Fraser just makes himself giddy by musically rearranging words and paragraphs to no particular point - it is the sound of ones insides turning themselves out. As Goneril put it - "Good sir, to th' purpose."

If you have already carefully read the play, and seen various presentations, this ancient BBC radio recording may prove an adequate and refreshing version. There are jarring interludes of Stravinsky-inspired music which may now seem anachronistic or otherwise out of place, rather than tragically atmospheric, but you may find as well redeeming qualities within this recording.

For one we do not find the monotone reedy Guiness voice familiar from his films, but a broad spectrumed and robust rendition of the mighty (and tragic) character of Lear. I find nevertheless the voicings of the Fool unfortunately most often nearly indistinguishable from the young gentlemen, and the voicings of the royal women barely distinguishable one from the other, even Cordelia. Although this may seem a prerequisite for any radio presentation in which only aural cues are possible, anyone reading along, for instance in the venerable and traditional and reliable King Lear (Arden Shakespeare) edition, or intimately familiar with this ancient fable may be able to distinguish well who speaks when. Otherwise it can grow incomprehensibly, dismayingly, even discouragingly confusing.

Thus you may find here an adequate aural presentation of this play. You may also wish to hear the great Paul Scofield as King Lear (Naxos AudioBooks). Audio recordings by Gielgud, etc. are also available, but this serves as a good place to start and not too greatly eviscerated, even if our eyes are plucked out and we must hear only, nosing our way to Dover. Certainly an excellent tragedy to revisit as we find a mad old man approaching the throne and a woman in the waiting.

This paperback is a handy edition of Shakespeare's great play, useful for students on all levels. The critical essays in the back are helpful, though one or two more recent ones could have been included.

The only thing which mars this otherwise excellent Bantam Doubleday Dell Audio Publishing Renaissance Theatre Company King Lear with Sir John Gielgud (in around 1993), Dame Judith (formerly Judi) Dench, Bob Hoskins, Kenneth Brannagh, DEREK JACOBI, etc. is that following the academic fashion of that moment, it is First Folio only.

It is NOT abridged as indicated on the amazon product page. It is First Folio only. Otherwise it is overwhelming and excellent and demanding of repeated listenings.

For this reason alone the best recording we have available is the Caedmon recording King Lear in the Quarto or conflated version with the earlier Paul Scofield. Notice this is not the later Naxos Scofield recording King Lear (Naxos AudioBooks), which is most lamentably like this Gielgud, First Folio only.

The producers of these late recordings by Scofield and Gielgud wasted their final talent and experience doing a then currently academically correct First Folio-only recording. In the 36 page booklet which accompanies this Gielgud recording, the long experienced Fool, Michael Williams mentions politely that his best lines are cut. THe first brotherly banter between Edmund and Edgar (with the greatest joke in Shakespeare: "Since when are you a sectary astronomical?" Edgar's only joke) is lost, severely marring the play, as well as the enacting of a trial for the sisters in the straw hut: "I mistook you for a joint stool!" The Fool's best line: cut!

Basically the brochure enclosed reports no more than the fact this is First Folio only, and pages of bios of the actors and director with reflections on their performance. Cornwall at the time of this recording was presenting the part of Lear and wonders at Gielgud saying HIS lines. Also in the brochure are some overwrought black and white photos of earnest looking actors, and a few refreshing comments by Bob Hoskins and the Fool. Derek Jacobi has no comment.

I got two copies of this recording when I discovered my first purchase had no brochure. This head-shot brochure is not necessary for appreciation of the recording, but now I happily have a copy for the home and for the truck, without danger of the precautioned and unwanted FBI interference for illegal copying. May God bless amazon.com!

What a cast! Derek Jacobi (he of I, Claudius, of the saintly medical Brother Cadfael: Monk's Hook, The Leper of St. Giles, The Sanctuary Sparrow, One Corpse Too Many and of the mobster Duke in Mr. Alex Cox's Revengers Tragedy) presents an interesting if brief King of France, for once with a French accent which nevertheless occasionally slips into a Bela Lugosi imitation.

Bob Hoskins, best known here only for Who Framed Roger Rabbit, presents an interestingly husky Oswald, normally played as a weak courtier, here with a fresh take altogether, very effectively. It is worth hearing him, if only for his native cockney, but moreso for his excellent presentation of the otherwise despicable Oswald.

Dame Judith Dench is strong of course as Goneril, and strives to flesh out her evil role, as she describes in the brochure. Dench may be remembered from Macbeth / McKellen, Dench (Thames Shakespeare Collection) and Shakespeare in Love (Miramax Collector's Series), William Shakespeare's Hamlet (Two-Disc Special Edition) by Kenneth Branagh, etc., etc., etc.

Kenneth Branagh is well known for his numerous films of Shakespeare, as well as Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN (1994) - WIDESCREEN VERSION! - Rare Original DVD release! - Branagh, De Niro and Woody Allen's Celebrity in which he plays Mr. Allen.

Sir John Gielgud, the magnificent, the greatest, is unfortunately, tragically, perhaps only known here for 10 as Dudley Moore's butler. He may also be seen in William Shakespear's Julius Caesar The Shaw Collection (Pygmalion / The Millionairess / Arms and the Man / The Devil's Disciple / Mrs. Warren's Profession / Heartbreak House), etc. Please read his Gielgud: An Actor and His Time: A Memoir.

In the Scofield recordings we hear the usual weary Paul Scofield playing King Lear.

Here we hear Lear, Lear alone, LEar entirely, as Gielgud IS Lear, in all his fullness.

If only the script enjoyed all of ITS fullness, with the First Quarto, and not just the First Folio version which had been censored for the royal censors of its day, excluding therefore the Fool's jokes about a monopoly on foolishness, as King James corruptly passed out monopolies to his favorites. If only the producers had taken Sir John for all he had done for sixty years upon the stage, and turned him loose, and not straitjacketed by First Folio-ness.

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.

Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray

Vanity Fair is an amusing, engaging, and critical look at status in society. One of the great novels of 19th century. I highly recommend it!

It's only now that I notice the subtitle "novel without a hero", and that is what struck me most about this novel- the lack of heroes. Indeed, just about all of the characters are flawed in some way, but I beg to differ that there is no hero. Surely the good and honest Major Dobbin qualifies. He may be gawky and awkward, but that makes him so much more endearing than the stereotypical Prince Charming type, or reformed rascal that we might expect to see in a typical contemporary Victorian novel.

In some ways, Vanity Fair is a typical Victorian novel. There are lots of characters that can be difficult to keep track of, it is kind of soap-opera-ish, and as it covers a long period of time, it is very long, tending to drag in the middle. However, the action really picks up in the last couple hundred pages, so it is well worth it to keep reading.

Another winning quality of Vanity Fair is the narration. It is a hyperbole and parody of the typical Victorian narration. Not only is the narrator an omniscent, third-person who passes judgements, but he is a wisecracking and exaggerated one as well.

I think Thackeray also deserves a lot of credit for not making the story predictable. I honestly didn't know quite how the story would wrap up, and as it neared the end I could tell that it wasn't going the way of a Hollywood movie plot (thankfully!).

When I read the summary of Vanity Fair, I was led to believe that it was all about Becky Sharp and that it was her story alone. Although you could argue in the end, it really is all about Becky and how she manipulates people, the characters of Amelia and Dobbin are too well-developed and interesting to play second fiddle to the scheming Becky.

In summary, Vanity Fair has more depth, wit, and honesty than your typical Victorian novel, so I highly recommend it!

Thackeray's "Vanity Fair" is at once a fascinating glimpse into the aristocratic Europe of the early 1800's while also serving as a masterful critique of the modern human drama. While it takes some time for the story to really pull you in, you can expect a rather enjoyable ride once it does. Thackeray does a good job of developing the characters and their personalities, and you will often find yourself thinking "I know people like this." In short, "Vanity Fair" is a 200-year-old story which, if anything, has only increased in relevance.

Greed, gold-digging and deception sit at the heart of "Vanity Fair." It's no joke that it's subtitled "a novel without a hero" -- William Makepeace Thackeray mercilessly skewered the pretentions and flaws of the upper class all throughout it. The result is a gloriously witty social satire.

It opens with two young women departing from a ladies' academy: dull, sweet Amelia (rich) and fiery sharp-witted Rebecca (poor). Becky Sharp is a relentless social climber, and her first effort to rise "above her station" is by trying to get Amelia's brother to marry her -- an effort thwarted by Amelia's fiancee. So instead she gets married to another family's second son, Rawdon Crawley.

Unfortunately, both young couples quickly get disinherited and George is killed. But Becky is determined to live the good life she has worked and married for -- she obtains jewels and money from admiring gentlemen, disrupting her marriage. But a little thing like a tarnished reputation isn't enough to keep Becky down...

"Vanity Fair" is actually a lot more complex than that, with dozens of little subplots and complicated character relationships. Reading it a few times is necessary to really absorb all of it, since it is not just a look at the two women in the middle of the book, but at the upper (and sometimes lower) social strata of the nineteenth century.

The main flaw of the book is perhaps that it sprawls too much -- there's always a lot of stuff going on, not to mention a huge cast of characters, and Thackeray sometimes drops the ball when it comes to the supporting characters and their little plots. It takes a lot of patience to absorb all of this. However... it's worth it.

Like most nineteenth-century writers, Thackeray had a very dense, formal writing style -- but once you get used to it, his writing becomes insanely funny. Witticisms and quips litter the pages, even if you don't pick them all up at once. At first Thackeray seems incredibly cynical (Becky's little schemes almost always pay off), but taken as a social satire, it's easier to understand why he was so cynical about the society of the time.

Becky Sharp is the quintessential anti-heroine -- she's very greedy and cold, yet she's also so smart and determined that it's hard not to have a grudging liking for her. Certainly life hasn't been fair for her. Next to Becky, a goody-goody character like Amelia is pretty boring, and even the unsubtle George can't measure up to Becky.

To sum up "Vanity Fair": think a period soap opera with a heavy dose of social commentary. In other words, it doesn't get much better than this, Thackeray's masterpiece.

Greed, gold-digging and deception sit at the heart of "Vanity Fair." It's no joke that it's subtitled "a novel without a hero" -- William Makepeace Thackeray mercilessly skewered the pretentions and flaws of the upper class all throughout it. The result is a gloriously witty social satire.

It opens with two young women departing from a ladies' academy: dull, sweet Amelia (rich) and fiery sharp-witted Rebecca (poor). Becky Sharp is a relentless social climber, and her first effort to rise "above her station" is by trying to get Amelia's brother to marry her -- an effort thwarted by Amelia's fiancee. So instead she gets married to another family's second son, Rawdon Crawley.

Unfortunately, both young couples quickly get disinherited and George is killed. But Becky is determined to live the good life she has worked and married for -- she obtains jewels and money from admiring gentlemen, disrupting her marriage. But a little thing like a tarnished reputation isn't enough to keep Becky down...

"Vanity Fair" is actually a lot more complex than that, with dozens of little subplots and complicated character relationships. Reading it a few times is necessary to really absorb all of it, since it is not just a look at the two women in the middle of the book, but at the upper (and sometimes lower) social strata of the nineteenth century.

The main flaw of the book is perhaps that it sprawls too much -- there's always a lot of stuff going on, not to mention a huge cast of characters, and Thackeray sometimes drops the ball when it comes to the supporting characters and their little plots. It takes a lot of patience to absorb all of this. However... it's worth it.

Like most nineteenth-century writers, Thackeray had a very dense, formal writing style -- but once you get used to it, his writing becomes insanely funny. Witticisms and quips litter the pages, even if you don't pick them all up at once. At first Thackeray seems incredibly cynical (Becky's little schemes almost always pay off), but taken as a social satire, it's easier to understand why he was so cynical about the society of the time.

Becky Sharp is the quintessential anti-heroine -- she's very greedy and cold, yet she's also so smart and determined that it's hard not to have a grudging liking for her. Certainly life hasn't been fair for her. Next to Becky, a goody-goody character like Amelia is pretty boring, and even the unsubtle George can't measure up to Becky.

To sum up "Vanity Fair": think a period soap opera with a heavy dose of social commentary. In other words, it doesn't get much better than this, Thackeray's masterpiece.

I bought two sets. Sent one to my 29 year old daughter in New Mexico and one home to my 24 year old son. They both have enjoyed listening to the set. Well worth the money that I paid for it.

Last summer we listened to this series in the car, by borrowing them one by one from the libary. Come Christmas time we decided to buy the set. Both the adults and kids (ages 5&7) enjoyed listening. The readers do a great job, giving differant voices to the characters. We did borrow one book in the "radio style" format. We found the radio style confusing and not as pleasent to listen to.

I ordered this for my middle schooler who has a Learning Disability that prevents her from reading quickly and she has to read and test on many books a quarter to keep her grades up. The teacher said that I could suppliment with books on tape/cd. I love the Chronicles of Narnia myself and thought that she might like them too. She loves them. She would have never been able to get through one of the books by herself but she listens to them without my prompting. That is great.
One thing about this purchase was that in the picture it looked to me like it came with a set of books but it does not. I am not saying that the product was misrepresented I just didn't pay close enough attention. I had a set of books at home anyway so it was no problem.

I didn't expect to like these books; I don't care for fantasy. But these were more than that. I read them to my children years ago, and by the third book, I was hooked, too. We each have different favorites in the series.

C.S. Lewis does an excellent job in turning Biblical truths into epic, mythical stories. A danger of these books is that the stories are so engaging, you might read them instead of the Bible. I'm sure that wasn't Lewis' intention; rather it was to turn children onto Christianity with his understanding of it.

I would definitely recommend this collection for families. The collection is one of my 10 favorite children's books of all time.

Courtesy of CK2S Kwips and Kritiques

I've wanted to reread the entire Chronicles of Narnia series, back to back, for a long time and just never got around to it. When I found it in audio as a boxed set, I had to have it and it gave me the excuse I needed to revisit my childhood for a little while.

In The Magician's Nephew, we discover the origins of the wonderful land of Narnia and how Aslan the Lion brought it into being. Digory is a young boy tricked by his magician uncle into travelling to another world, where he must rescue his friend Polly who Uncle Andrew trapped there. Thus begins a grand new adventure for Polly and Digory, not all of which is enjoyable, as they jump through various worlds and see the birth of Narnia. Digory knows he caused most of the problems and will not quit until he fixes his mistakes.

It's been so many years since I read any of this series, I can't remember if I read The Magician's Nephew before or not. What a delightful story! Here we have the prequel to one of the most beloved children's books of all time. I enjoyed my foray through worlds with Digory and Polly and especially enjoyed being there when Aslan creates Narnia. I also liked getting to see the origin of the witch and how the division of good and evil in Narnia began.

In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy Pevency are sent to live with a reclusive professor to protect them during the war. A game of hide and seek leads to a whole new world when the children discover a wooden wardrobe that is a door to Narnia. The game grows serious when they learn they are the answer to a prophecy about two sons of Adam and two daughters of Eve bringing peace to the land.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is definitely the most popular book in the series and probably every single person of the past few generations has at least heard the name. This is the story that drew me into the world of Narnia and as such, it will always hold a little corner of my heart with the memories of meeting Aslan, the centaurs, the fauns, all the talking animals, and of course the infamous Pevency children.

In The Horse and His Boy, Shasta is a young orphan taken in as a baby by a fisherman and raised to work the fishing boat. When Shasta finds out his master is going to sell him to someone new, he decides to escape. While trying to figure out what to do, he discovers the horse belonging to the man wanting to buy Shasta is a talking horse from Narnia who also wants to be free. So they run away and early in their journey bump into a young girl Aravis who is also running away with Winn, her own talking horse from Narnia. Aravis and Shasta decide to journey together and find themselves in a whole mess of adventures that lead them to bump into King Edmund, Queen Susan and Queen Lucy and even the great Aslan himself.

The Horse and His Boy is first and foremost a quest novel, at least in my opinion. Here we have young Shasta who escapes his dreary life to go on the adventure of a lifetime, where he finds out there is such more to him than he ever realized. Aravis too, is trying to get away from her fears and she finds the strength to do so with Shasta at her side. She also has a tendency to speak her mind with n fear of consequences, which gets her into trouble on more than one occasion. I loved the horses, who added so much personality to the story, and experience some adventures of their own.

Centuries after Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy left Narnia they are unexpectedly called back from their world. There is a usurper ruling in Narnia and the true king, Prince Caspian calls for aid in defeating his uncle the phony king, so he can take his rightful place on the throne.

Much has changed in Narnia since the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve disappeared. Centuries have passed in Narnia though only a little more than a year in Earth time is gone, and Prince Caspian needs their help to bring Narnia back to the way it is meant to be. I especially liked meeting one of my favorite characters, Reepecheep, in this installment of the saga. Anotehr part of this story I loved was seeing the reactions of High King Peter and his family when they realize Narnia is nothing like they remember it. Their friends are gone and their castles in ruins, but we also get to see them overcome their shock to once more step into the roles prophesized to belong to them. They've all grown up a bit and this has quite an impact on their reactions to their beloved Narnia.

Lucy and Edmund are sucked into a painting, with their cousin Eustace in tow, while visiting Eustace's family. They end up in Narnia on The Voyage of Dawn Treader, King Caspian's ship. Caspian is on a journey to the east and The End of the World in the hopes of finding several knights sent out seven years ago by Caspian's uncle, and they hope to finally reach Aslan's country.

The Voyage of Dawn Treader is actually much slower paced then the majority of the books in this series and as a result seems to take an awfully long time for the adventures to begin. Eustace is a spoiled little rich boy who finds everything he believes challenged on this sea voyage. He has to rise above his faults to become the boy he is meant to be. Anotehr nice touch is we see how much Caspian has grown up since he won the throne of Narnia from his uncle. He is destined to be a great king and here we really see this side of his personality.

Eustace Scrubbs (cousin to the Pevency children) has had a complete personality change after his first experience in Narnia. While trying to help a young girl, Jill, being bullied, they run off through a door in the stone wall and end up in the far east of the world, Aslan's country in Narnia. They have been summoned by Aslan to assist King Caspian in finding his long lost son, missing for 10 years. While on their journey they have four signs to follow that Aslan gave them and manage to mess up three of them. They get into scrape after scrape as they search for Prince Rillian and discover The Silver Chair.

Eustace is back in Narnia, quite by accident, and he has changed so much since his last experience. But then, who wouldn't be changed after what he had to go through in the previous story? We also get to visit with Caspian one last time, in the twilight of his life as king. I have loved Caspian since we met him in his first story so while I was pleased to see he had such a wonderfully blessed life, I was a little heartbroken to see him so close to the end, in agony over the disappearance of his son. I had a hard time deciding what I thought of Rillian initially, but he grew on my after a while, especially once I understood the curse he suffered.

When Shift the ape and Puzzle his donkey friend find a lion skin in the water, the ape decides it would be a great idea to dress Puzzle up in the lion skin and tell everyone Aslan has returned. When Shift gets greedy and makes a deal with the Callormens to sell the talking animals into slavery and cut down all of the dryad's trees, the real Aslan sends Eustace and Jill back to Narnia to help the king put an end to Shift's schemes with The Last Battle.

Patrick Stewart narrates this one and he does a fantastic job. He had me cracking up as he brayed like a donkey and barked like a dog, among other little bits he had to perform. The Last Battle starts a little slowly, as Shift and Puzzle put their plan into motion. But once the scheme starts to work, the pace picks up as we fly down the road into battle preparations and the final war.

For years I've heard about The Chronicles of Narnia as being a Christian allegory and the many references to similarities between Narnia beliefs and Christian beliefs. I also know there are many people who spend significant amounts of time studying the books for these Christian references. When I was little, all those hidden meanings were way over my head and the books were just adventure stories. Now that I'm older and wiser (or like to think I am anyhow), I can view the series with new eyes and pick up on many of the references. The allegorical nature of the series is most evident in The Magician's Nephew (the creation story) and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (the rising, crucifixion, and rising again of Jesus Christ) and The Last Battle (the Second Coming of Christ). The Voyage of Dawn Treader also struck me after I looked back on it, as reminding me of Noah and the Ark in some ways.

I loved the opportunity to read Chronicles of Narnia once more and enjoyed the fact that it is now so much more to me than just a fantasy saga.

© Kelley A. Hartsell, January 2008. All rights reserved.

I read The Green Book when I was in the 5th grade, and I loved it! It has been 7 years since then, and the book has inpsired me, particularly one of the parts of it. I've been a writer since I could talk, and I've always loved writing. I love reading as well, but it's not nearly as broad as writing. In the scene where Sarah and Joe find out that Patti only brought a blank book and picked on her for it, I could relate to Patti. I would rather be able to broaden my mind by making up my own stories, and then being able to look back on it and remember stuff.

It reminds me of in The Diary of Anne Frank, where her father says to her after he gives her the diary, "There are no locks, no bolts that anyone can put on your mind." These two books together inspired me, because if there was ever a time when I had to leave my home, I would want to have something to write in, to be able to express my emotions.

Overall, I think this book was amazing, and I defiantely recommend it to anyone between the ages of 8 and 11 to read it. It's truly inspirational.

I use this in my 3rd grade classroom as a read aloud. The kids love it!

This is my definate favorite book ever! The plot is great. I love reading thing about the future because It all seem so cool, except for the part where the earth dies. But the space ship that lasted 4 years! Awsome! Well, my point is, it is a great book with many different exciting and good writing. I think it is a real page turner. And I love it. And I am almost over the age of reading this book, but I still read it anyways.

This has got to be one of my favorite children's books, and I've read thousands. Highly original. Beautifully woven story. The ending is exquisite, one of the best you will ever read. I suggest you read this aloud as a family.

I read this book as a child, 15 to 20 years ago. I don't remember exactly how old I was. I remembered it vividly all those years, though. The imagery stuck with me, and the emotions of the story. It was one of the books that got me started at an early age on science fiction. The main character faces trials and strangeness, and ends up giving hope to her entire community, born from her fearlessness and determination. This is one of those stories that haunted me, and eventually I'll have to get a copy of my own, since I only had it for a week from the public library.

I really enjoyed Lucifer Principle, I finished the book quite quickly and found it very accessible, not the case at all with "Global Brain". I must confess I am not the most scientifically inclined person out there, a casual observer at best so that is why I am not bashing this book completely. A rather boring read and I just about finished half of it before I put it down for good realizing I wasnt really sure what the past 100 pages were about. This is just to serve as a heads up to people out there expecting the same thing as Lucifer Principle, not the case. Just a heads up. I will eventually finish this book however

This book was hard to put down. It filled many gaps in my understanding of how we got to the mess we are (always) in from a historical viewpoint. The author was very thought provoking and accompanied his ideas with a lot of references.
It was fun to read, maybe a little difficult in places.
Recommended for thinking people.

I am a medical professional who thinks of hallucinations as breaks from reality. I am skimming Howard's book and so far it looks like New Age mysticism. My memory recalls a line from Frank Zappa, " Who('re) you jiving with that cosmic debris".

I felt compelled to give this 1 star because there was no zero. Apparently I have'nt been let into Howard's "reality as a shared hallucination". You see, with a scientific background, I notice a great deal of confabulation in Howard's work.

I am an objectivist (physical reality is what it is whether I believe it or not). I do believe we coevolve within our environment. Interaction is part of the nature of reality and that complexity and emergence are just beginning to be understood.

On the other hand, scientists (we are all to varying degrees keen observers and inductionists) (Klein refers to our thinking as Recognition Primed Decision Making referential to stored memories) theorize about (physical) reality through the scientific use of observation and verification/falsification by experimentation, leading to further hypothesizing and model building and testing by further mathematical calculation (sometimes) and further experimentation. Not to mention the occasional seridipitous discovery. Consider that conceptualization the next time you believe (in defiance of the Laws of physics) that you can sqeeze between those "atoms" that make up a brick wall. I am decidedly not a Husserlian phenomenologist, nor am I a Logical Positivist subjectivist.

So far, I am continuing to read the Global Brain while making margin notes. I see a muddling of definitions ie. the difference between objective reality and subjective perception. Or the confused definition of reality and memory when Howard should be speaking of the remembered present as defined by Edelman in describing consciousness. The map is not the territory as Bateson would say.

There may be valuable information in this book but so far it seems a contrivance of conflated metaphors.

But I suppose Howard Bloom might say I have missed "his" point. To which I might reply "Get real, Howard". Or is it that you will be my guru guide through this reality you call a hallucination.

I found Global Brain interesting in concept. It is a good read especially if you have a "scientific" mind.

My only criticism to Bloom's book is his last three chapters which I feel he should have left out. He is a Sociology professor, not a Scientist, so when he stuck his political agenda in at the end I did not appreciate it. He also made some ridiculous comments that I found offensive like people from Orange County have not traveled (I lived in OC and know many in OC and all of us have widely traveled the World), he does this to make a demeaning point. He also makes statements about Males in the South having higher testerone so they kill each other more...... he tied this to church going.....he also ties Timothy McVeigh into right wing Christianity when McVeigh NEVER claimed to have bombed in the name of Christianity, he was a radical libertarian... basically Bloom is a liberal Atheist which is OK but beware of this when reading his book as that is its final message. Without the above I would have given it four stars.

Otherwise it is thought provoking.

BTW - Howard, spiny lobsters don't have claws, you were thinking about Maine lobsters in your book although I got the point.

I bought and read this book to keep a commitment to a friend. That's the only reason I didn't trash it after the first couple of chapters.
The author appears to have encountered a great many ideas without ever understanding any one of them. A careful reading will reveal that the author's objective is to massage the egos of the rich and famous in order to keep his (bragged about) access to their company. It will also weary your brain with passionately argued self-serving nonsense.
I suggest you don't bother.

The translation is superb! The notes are outstanding! Get this book if you want the most out of the Republic!

Just a note to correct two reviewers who praise Alan Bloom's translation of The Republic on this page. This edition was translated by Francis M. Cornford, a classics scholar at Cambridge University in the 20th century, not by Prof. Bloom. While I'm sure Alan Bloom's translation is deservedly praised by the two reviewers, their reviews should be removed and placed on the review page for the correct edition.

The main arguments of The Republic are so well known that they hardly need restatement in this review. The central issues in this book are of great importance, but one should also take note of the side issues that Plato raises in political theory and philosophy.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this book is its coverage of issues in theoretical politics. The Republic covers so much ground in Political Theory and Political Philosophy that it is hard to see any other great thinker as completely original. Plato hinted at or mentioned ideas in politics later developed by Rousseau, Marx, Nietche, Hayek... All political theorists should cite Plato, because he thought of practically everything of importance in political theory.

Personally, I find Rousseau more interesting as a pure political philosopher, but that is not saying much. Rousseau was an absolute genius. Plato had brilliant insights in political philosophy, and he anticipated important elements of Rousseau's work anyway.

The Republic does have an Achilles heel: economics (or political economy). The problem here is not so much that he was wrong about economics, but rather than he passed over this subject. Much of what Plato wrote about his ideal Republic is hard to defend in light of economic theory. Some might think me unfair for criticizing Plato by modern standards, but general economic laws were neither different nor unintelligible in Plato's time. Furthermore, Aristotle had a few insights that fit with what we now know as economics. How could someone as brilliant as Plato not see the issues in his book from "the economic point of view"? After all, key elements of modern economics boil down to common sense. Furthermore, there are subtleties to modern economics that raise serious problems with his idea of rule by a philosopher-king.

The lack of economic reasoning in The Republic does not really detract much from its greatness. Given the situation in the ancient world, it was only natural that great thinkers would focus on politics, and pass over economics. Economic issues did not really become apparent until the first wave of Globalozation began, so Plato should have focused on politics instead. That being said, Plato's Republic stands as THE most important book of Political Theory ever written.

This edition of The Republic is important because it includes Alan Blooms interpretive essay. Bloom makes you think more deeply about Plato. This book is a must-have for anyone with serious interest in political or interdisciplinary academic interests.

Bloom's essay is possibly the best commentary on Plato I've read. An overly simple summary is that he suggests many of Socrates' proposals were intentionally preposterous, with the aim of leading his interlocutors to grasp that no truly legitimate political system is possible, and that the best course for individuals is to tend their souls, necessarily within a polity, going along with its requirements as necessary, but avoiding involvement in it as much as possible. He also suggests that much of what Socrates says is not a definite political program, but directed to the particular characters of his interlocutors (Glaucon and Adeimantus) to lead them towards philosophy and away from their particular weaknesses (as Socrates saw them).

Bloom makes a very good case for this interpretation, which I've grossly oversimplified (and left important parts out). There'll never be an end to the debate, but this essay is one to be reckoned with by anyone interested in the Republic. Regarding the translation, it's very precise; someone with a little knowledge of Greek can often see the Greek through the English. This makes for less flowing language; with a lesser dialogue such as the Euthyphro I prefer a more literary translation, but it seems appropriate for such an important work. As for the Republic itself:

In the West, at least, this is the touchstone of all political philosophy, and Plato pretty much covered all the issues people have been fighting and arguing about since people started wondering how societies should be organized and governed. It's easy to say that Plato's ideal state is nutty beyond imagination, but that misses the point. He asked the questions that really matter, and just about all of them, and considered them deeply and carefully, and then came up with his nutty system. (It's for us to ponder what he meant us to consider carefully, to accept, to reject, and what was humor).

We live in a largely unquestioning age - maybe virtually everyone has. But it's hard for, say, a modern American to read Plato's assessment of the relative merits and demerits of different political systems and come away with the kind of mindless idolization of "democracy" with which we're inundated by politicians and the media. It's easy to say Plato's system is goofy, but do you ever hear anyone in America publicly saying, "Democracy has a lot of serious weaknesses, one of them being its tendency to develop a pitifully dumbed-down culture." Or, "Elites provide some real benefits to society, as does an aristocratic element." Could these ideas have some merit? Well, we never even get that far since they're too blasphemous for our society (even though they're partially built into our Constitution).

It's funny how open-minded we consider our modern selves, but when's the last time you heard a serious, thoughtful critique of modern liberal democracy (as opposed to a silly neo-Marxist rant)? Plato had the courage, the detachment, and the brilliance to give his honest assessments of the various systems (honest but not straightforward, with much irony, overstatement, paradox, intentional contradiction and crucial matter between the lines), to compare them and then judge them. His purpose, at least apparently, had little to do with an agenda other than asking a question - what might constitute good government? And not only good, but the best? Those questions require asking and answering questions about human nature and the nature of social relationships.

Plato asks so well and considers so well, and so comprehensively, that his ideal system (regardless of whether he was even very serious about it) isn't the issue. What is good government? What is virtue? Was there genuine legitimacy in the founding of any existing states? Is truly legitimate government possible in this world? And, depending on the answers, how should we live? Plato doesn't provide the answers, at least not overtly. The significance, I think, is that he gets us to consider all the important questions he considers, many of which we otherwise probably wouldn't have considered, and among other things to then uncover our unexamined assumptions and prejudices and reassess them.

Thank you Dr. Bloom,
i'll simply say i've never enjoyed reading the Republic that much. It's indeed the best literal translation for such a great work, and i encourage everyone to have it.

Transaction went smoothly and got the item quicky in the condition promised. Would purchase again.

after i ordered this book, the distributors let me know instantly that they no longer had the book on shelf, and instantly refunded my account. speedy service is one thing, but keeping the customer informed is another...thanks

One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well.
~Virginia Woolf,A Room of One's Own

Virginia Woolf's very intense A Room Of One's Own, is actually a long essay she wrote "with ardour and conviction" on the the topic of women and fiction, that she prepared when asked to speak about this subject at women's colleges. A Room of One's Own was published in 1929, when young women were still discouraged from attending college (due to genuine fear that a good education would make a women unfit for marriage and motherhood), and although it's not angry in tone the essay reflects a society in which severe limitations were put on women and their achievements. Virginia Woolf speaks about the creative process that lead to her talks, of her notebook in which she recorded a multitude of ideas, thoughts, and mental meanderings, and writes about the train of thought that led to her conclusion, that "a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction". In A Room of One's Own (not a simple matter), and demonstrates and expresses the complexity of her thought in her trademark stream-of-consciousness writing. Defying conventions of the time, she talks about the actual food served at the luncheon party, of the soles and partridges and potatoes, and of the importance of food to the artist in a more general sense. She discusses numerous things in this full, layered essay of her thoughts, among them a sense of loss due to the war which began in August of 1914, that changed the underlying current of life--previously filled with music and poetry, with romance--and of the special difficulties women artists face (still relevant today!). Her message is simple (though the means is not), that women must have money (a fixed income) and a room of their own (privacy) in order to have the freedom to create, luxuries that men may take for granted. She imagines Shakespeare's "sister", equal in talent and genius, but because of her sex, never writes a word, never expresses her genius, never lives to old age because she takes her own life in quiet desperation. Her essay is meant to encourage young women, to inspire them to create, as she's sympathetic to their plight. In A Room of One's Own,Virginia Woolf wants the limitations removed, and for women to have the same intellectual freedom that men have had for centuries, so that they, too, may express their genius.

(This is a passage slightly modified from my blog about books, Suko's Notebook, suko95.blogspot.com, which I invite you to visit.)

I found it tedious to read in spite of the high literary reputation and ability of Virginia Woolf. There must be something lacking in me.

Edward Cook

Virginia Woolf in her best form - personal but not self-centred, concentrated and ready to fight for what she believes is right. This long essay gives her views on the position of women in literature but offers also an overview of their role through centuries - from the imaginary Shakespeare's sister to her contemporaries. A must read for all readers regardless of sex!