Sachs Books

I just bought this book for my son, and he loves it! The book includes a cool little hacky sack, which was perfect for him because he's a first-time hacky-sacker. He learned all sorts of tricks and techniques, which he is always thrilled to showcase for his friends (who are very impressed!). Several of his friends are experienced hacky-sackers, and they, too, learned tons of new tricks from this great little book!

The illustrations are great, too! Overall, this is an awesome little book. I definitely recommend it to all!

As a fan of Marilyn Sachs ever since she published the rare "Amy Moves In", I couldn't help but buy it when I found it in a used bookstore.

The story starts out simple: 11-year-old Molly gets news that her sister Beth is visiting, and although there is a lengthy description of why Molly lives with her aunt and uncle (who she calls Mom and Dad), we find out that Molly and Beth were in a car accident and their parents were killed.

Then, things get complicated. Beth isn't the happy-go-lucky, nice 13-year-old that Molly expects. Although Molly predicts Beth has a figure, that's it for what Molly thinks. Beth is actually hostile, mean, and just about the rudest person Molly has ever met. And for the first time in her life, Molly wants to kill her sister, or at least give her a good fight.

One day, Beth comes and starts babbling to Molly exactly what happened in the car eight years before. Molly, who's fed up with Beth, tells Beth to shut up, but Beth is either delirious with the accident scene or she's just not going to listen. Nevertheless, Beth keeps talking, and finally Molly wrestles Beth to the floor, and the girls wrestle, slap, and bite each other in the fury. Unfortunately for Molly, Beth has to leave then, but Molly knows she wants to slap Beth again before she leaves. But Beth babbles on at dinner, nevertheless, and Molly never gets around to fighting Beth again... although she did find out What Her Sister Remembered.

To me, the best mysteries can be viewed more as novels than as puzzles to be solved. Donna Leon successfully crosses into this high ground of mystery writing with Wilful Behaviour.

In fact, such a successful novel can be read independently of the other books in a series. Wilful Behaviour also meets that test.

Do you like a book with memorable characters? Wilful Behaviour delivers both with characters that you meet in the novel and those who are described by other characters.

Do you like an intricate plot where all the pieces fit together in multiple dimensions? Wilful Behaviour once again is a good book in terms of this quality.

Do you like novels that reflect other novels, rewarding the well-read? Donna Leon delivers here as well.

Although I have always liked this series, Wilful Behaviour breaks out above the clouds in terms of being much better than the earlier offerings in the series.

In the story, Professoressa Paola Brunetti is approached by one of her better students, Claudia Leonardo, about a legal question that the student hopes Professor Brunetti's husband, Commissario Guido Brunetti, can answer. Guido resists providing any information without receiving more details. He meets Claudia and finds that her question relates back to the difficult days of World War II while Italy was part of the Axis powers. Not knowing much about those days, Guido begins to exercise his curiosity and learns about many hidden crimes from those days.

All of this becomes not so academic after Claudia is murdered, and many new questions are presented. In the process of investigating Claudia's murder, Brunetti learns about new levels of deception and depravity that some employ to achieve their selfish ends.

I have read a number of novels that relate to those days in World War II in Italy, and I found this one to be one of the very best.

Enjoy!

Yoga Walk by Laura Sachs is the only CD I need to listen to during the day because it effortlessly enhances my feeling of well-being. I highly recommend it.

The moment I got into "The Bone Collector" was the same time that I began to fall in love with one of the most admirable ficton characters of all time. Scene after scene, I was constantly attracted to the bond between Lincoln Rhyme and Amelia Sachs.

In Jeffery Deaver's bestselling series debut, enter Lincoln Rhyme, a former NYPD detective with an alluring charm and a vehement expertise in criminology. Having to deal with the constant bedridden seizures, he is on a hair's breadth of becoming a "vegetable." Such a prospect lingering on his mind convinces him that committing suicide is the right way to go.

Rhyme's life is forever changed when he meets Amelia Sachs, a rookie street cop with no forensic background. Together, they come to solve the case of "Unsub (Unknown Subject) 823," a killer playing a rather cat-and-mouse chase. Each and every one of his clues leads Rhyme and Sachs to New York's dark past.

I cannot explain how incredible the suspense is in this book. There was not one scene I could not read without finding out who the killer was. Deaver also does a phoenomenal job in creating imagery of the Big Apple. The effort that he puts into this book makes me want to read another Lincoln Rhyme novel.

This book is exceptional. It is well written with characters that are true to life. The plot is absolutely engaging. I really like that there was a glossary of terms for those of us who are forensically challenged. I found it difficult to do anything until I knew 'who did it'.

Good job Mr. Deaver. You have a fan for life.

The Rhyme Killers would be a great book to read after the Bone Collector.
It too has the great suspense you love to find in a mystery.

Lincoln Rhyme has been retired, ever since a falling beam at a crime scene, left him a quadriplegic. Now, Lincoln is bed ridden, with his only human contact being a man named Thom. He dreams of killing him self, when some thing new, to occupy his time.

A serial killer, called the Bone Colector, is terrorizing the city of New York. With every person he kills, he leaves behind evidence that will lead to the next victim. Unfortunetly, this is only half the work, and Rhyme needs some one to do the crime scene for him.

Enter Amelia Sachs. Sachs is a model turned cop, who has several problems of her own. At first, she, like most people, is able to see past Rhyme's physical handicap, and be disgusted by his personality. But, Lincoln and Amelia will have to work together, to defeat a man who knows every one of Lincoln's tricks, and whose final victim, is Lincoln.

Notable Charecters Introduced: Lincoln Rhyme, Amelia Sachs, Thom Lastname, Lon Sellitto, The Bone Collector.

Warning: Once you read this novel, you will be hooked. I devoured every other Lincoln Rhyme novel after reading the Bone Collector. The only problem I have discovered is that Mr. Deaver cannot write fast enough.

To anyone who enjoys a deliciously complicated character base along with amazing plot twists, you have found yourself a winner. I find myself wishing I could meet the people in this novel. You will too. I dare you to pick up a copy today, I promise you will be glad you did.

Not my normal type of book. But I was at my aunts and she did not have many books to choose from. Once I started I could not put it down. The story was good, a detective book. With clues from earlier chapters you can try and solve the crime your self.

Agatha Christie is one of, if not the, most prolific mystery authors to date. With a handful of captivating protagonists, ingenious plot devices, and unusual settings and cases, she managed to single-handedly establish the core of the mystery genre. And this book that I am about to review is one of her most famous works.

When Hercule Poirot boards the Orient Express he has no idea that he is about to descend into one of the most baffling cases of his career. After he makes eye-contact with a passenger by the name of Ratchett, he knows immediately that this man is no good, possibly even downright evil. With his sentiments echoed by everyone on board, it is not so much a surprise when Ratchett comes to him with an interesting proposition. He is being targeted for death by a private enemy and would like to enlist the detective's help in the detection of the culprit. M. Poirot refuses the case and thinks no more of it until the unfortunate Mr. Ratchett is found murdered. But as the case progresses, it comes to light that the circumstances are not so unfortunate as "Ratchett" was most certainly the despicable man everyone thought him. Armed with the knowledge that the murderer must still be on the train and the certainty that all the passengers are more than happy to see Ratchett dead, Hercule Poirot must sift through a handful of clues to track down a murderer.

I myself love the work of Agatha Christie, although some might find her stories a bit dated and outlandish. Sometimes the leaps of logic are a bit hard to follow, but that's what makes Detective Poirot such a formidable crime-solver. And the ending is superb. A must read for anyone who wants to acquaint themselves with classic mystery!

Originally published in 1933, this story has some historical references that will be of interest to historians, but fortunately have only minor relevance to the main track of the plot. These references are to ethnic and national personalities and biases as well as the British dominance of India and Iraq.
In this case, M. Poirot is traveling on the Orient Express, the train that connects Western Europe with the Balkans, Turkey and the Middle East. He boards in Syria along with a cosmopolitan group of fellow passengers. Since the group contains such a variety of people the comment is made at the time that it us unusual for so many nationalities to be aboard the train in the winter season.
A murder is committed, and the odd point is that the man was stabbed 12 times. Given the nature of the wounds, it appears that some of them were caused by a man and the others by a woman. Since the train has been stopped by a severe snowstorm, the murder had to be committed by someone in the same sleeping car.
M. Poirot is called on to solve the case and as he interviews all possible perpetrators, he finds that everyone has an alibi, each person has others that can vouch for their innocence. Therefore, after the first pass through the interviews of the 12 people, the only conclusion is that it is impossible for any of them to have murdered the man. However, M. Poirot is able to determine that the victim was a vicious criminal who had kidnapped and murdered a young girl. Although it was known that he committed that crime and no doubt other similar ones, the kidnapper was able to escape from the clutches of the law.
While this knowledge does not help pin down the murderer, when told of the victim's true nature, all twelve of the people express joy at his death. Some express it more emphatically than others. After a second round of questioning, M. Poirot starts extracting additional facts and of course he is led to the path of identifying the killer(s).
This is Agatha Christie at her best, the story at first leads to an impossible end, although the path there deposits many clues to the solution. Once M. Poirot starts the second round of questioning, the clues begin to pop up rather quickly and the structure of the murder plot becomes evident.

In her autobiography, Dame Agatha wrote that when she journeyed on the orient express, nothing more exciting happened than that she had to kill a few bed bugs. The journey, however, provided ideas for one of her most ingenious and tightly-plotted books.
So brilliant is the construction that she manages to have Poirot concoct two possible explanations of what happened and who did it - each involving a dozen suspects. Expect to find Poirot present on almost every page, a wide range of characters who "talk up" well in the requisite interviews, some humour, and a resolution that bypasses the need for justice to be done.
Only one film adaptation of this book has been attempted so far. It premiered during Dame Agatha's final year and she pronounced herself well-satisfied with it. More satisfying to me has been listening to David Suchet's reading of the book. Adopting and switching between perhaps twenty different accents, male and female, while reserving a clearly recognizable narrative voice, he easily feeds my imagination with travellers, a train, and a tale.
In the 1930s, writers of detective fiction still retained the earlier convention of including, towards the end, a survey of who might have committed the crime, considering motive, opportunity, alibi, etc. This happens here. I registered a falling off of interest while this occurred; otherwise I was a willing and vastly entertained captive.

I read this book on a long train ride and I enjoyed it. I find it very odd that this was the first book I ever figured out the ending to though. (the other odd part is that the second book I figured out was Murder of Rodger Ackroyd but the rest of the books I couldn't figure out) So my point is, I don't know if it's easy to figure out or if I just had a lucky guess, but either way it's worth the read. The setting and characters were interesting and for a lot of the book I was sitting there reading reasons that changed my suspects and then changed them back. This is defiantly one of better Christies books. Not my favorite but still very good. It really zips along.

My 15 year old brother-in-law enjoyed reading this book with me. I enjoyed it myself!!

Good book about growing up and some of the great stories you're expect from your grandfather. Could have used less information on the beatings headmasters used to give students.

So says Roald Dahl in the introduction to his autobiogrophy,BOY. The book is a collection of his childhood memories, from the magical summers in Norway to the dreary days at St.Peters boarding school. As in all of Dahl's works the characters are quirky and memorable,but more fascinating here because they really existed. The auther recounts the adventures of his childhood with tenderness and dry humor.

BOY,TALES OF CHILDHOOD is a terrific book, much more interesting than the average autobiography!

RATING:A

This hilarious book from Roald Dahl that tells about the funny things that he had done throughout his life. People who enjoy other books Dahl wrote will laugh on this one. For instance, Roald and his friends put a dead rat into a jar of Gobstoppers. IF you read the book, you should read more of Roald Dahl's adventures. I will recommend this book to people who like nonfiction and funny stories because it has both great and funny story.

I'm a Dahl fan, a writer for both adults and children. I think the key to his success as writer for children is that he doesn't think children are stupid or don't understand what they see. From my own experience, and now as a father, I know that children see, hear, think and make conclusions with their experiences.

This book is a collection of sketches of Dahl's school years. It makes you understand many of the stories that appear in his books: he was born in a well-to-do family, and enjoyed always a high living standard even in the depression years. He attended exclusive british public schools, etc. Then he found a good job at BP.

The book is full of family love, anecdotes about a child's view point (adenoidectomy, the mouse plot, etc) which will make you smile or even laugh aloud. Some of those, together with the fact that his mother saved all his letters and family fotos and mementoes, which sprinkle the book, makes it a delightful read.

It's true that some of the chapters are sombre, because for us it's shocking to know that children were so abused (beaten with a cane and deprived of affection, or bullied by older thugs who made them fag), but Dahl succeeds in making us loathe that supposedly elitistic education system. He doesn't make it sound as "the good old days, they had some bad things but not all..." In that sense, it's much better than "Tom Brown Shooldays" or Kipling's "Stalky and Co".

But all in all, he brings us the sense of a fantastic childhood, surrounded by family love, affection, and well being. I grew up in a partly similar context (the lack of affection in education, but not the beatings or the comfort)and it serves me to try to be a better father, more intent into giving my children nice emotional and intelectual experiences.

Enjoy!

Cheapest price I could find and I looked through several sites. The book is in great condition. It took took a long time to get to me. Longer than most other books I ordered at the same time.

The story is set in southern Mexico in the early 20th century. The protagonist is a beaten-down catholic priest who drinks too much and fathered an illegimate daughter. He is torn by the reality of his sin and the product of that sin, a beautiful little girl. He is a wanted man and tries to fulfill his calling as he hides from the law. At that time in parts of Mexico the church was being persecuted by the government and religion was outlawed. Churches were razed and priests were forced to renounce their faith and take wives or face the firing squad. The book is not about theology and doesn't glorify the church.

It is a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a very human being caught up in circumstances he can't control and trying to do the right thing in impossible situations. He struggles daily with doubts about his effectiveness and his very reason for continuing to resist. The author shows the humanity of the fugitive priest as well as his persecutors. The priest, although protesting that he is a coward, follows the hard path of righteousness as he comes to see it and triumphs in the end.

I found it fascinating.

Graham Greene probably is one of the most intriguing writers to me. I can't say I like the story itself, but his ability to write such complex matters as sin, martyrdom, frailty, politics, and many more and weave them so coherently with interesting characters is just amazing. Just think of the name whiskey priest! The poetry in his prose and insightful reflections is beautiful as well.

(4.5 stars) Graham Greene's most elaborate and personal examination of the good life--and the role of the Catholic church in teaching what the good life is--revolves around an unnamed "whiskey priest" in Mexico in the 1930s. Religious persecution is rife as secular rulers, wanting to bring about social change, blame the church for the country's ills. When the novel opens, the church, its priests, and all its symbols have been banned for the past eight years from a state near Veracruz. Priests have been expelled, murdered, or forced to renounce their callings. The whiskey priest, however, has stayed, bringing whatever solace he can to the poor who need him, while at the same time finding solace himself in the bottle.

Constantly on the move, the priest suffers agonizing conflicts. His sense of guilt for the past includes a brief romantic interlude which has produced a child, and though he recognizes that he is often weak, selfish, and fearful, he still tries to bring comfort to the faithful. Pursued by a police lieutenant who believes that justice for all can only occur if the church is destroyed, and by a mestizo, who is seeking the substantial reward for turning him in, the desperate priest finally decides to escape to a nearby state in which religion is not banned so that the police will stop killing hostages taken in the villages he has visited.

The police pursuit of the priest is paralleled by their pursuit of a "gringo" murderer, a man so base that he thinks nothing of murdering children, yet the priest even sees value in this man's life, and when the gringo, the mestizo, the lieutenant, and the priest finally come together, Greene's philosophical and religious analysis reaches its climax. For all their faults, the priest is often heroic, the murdering gringo still has a soul worth saving, the mestizo (a Judas figure) offers the priest a better chance to see God, and the lieutenant eventually sees the priest as a human, not simply as a symbol.

Greene's novel is beautifully constructed--intricate, filled with symbols and parallels, yet often sensitive and moving. Though the action moves through an almost unremittingly bleak landscape and the sense of dread is positively palpable throughout, the novel eventually reveals the "power" and the "glory" of faith. In this sense, the novel is as much a philosophical and religious tract--specifically an examination of the Catholic faith--as it is a human story. While some may find the novel dogmatic and the priest's agonized self-examination sometimes tedious, others will find the novel uplifting and inspiring. n Mary Whipple

The Third Man
Our Man in Havana: An Entertainment (Twentieth Century Classics)
The Human Factor (Everyman's Library Classics)

Like Mr. Attenborough, Graham Green has roamed the world. His interests were not primarily plants and animals, but representatives of the human species, often those profoundly flawed. His novels are set in Vietnam, Sierra Leone, Haiti, Cuba, Mexico, and more. His characters play out their drama against these exotic backgrounds, the expatriates and the natives, and almost certainly it is an interaction between these groups that is a dynamo which drives the novel forward. I used to think that "The Quiet American," set in Vietnam, was his finest, but after re-reading "The Power and the Glory," I would rank them equally.

It is pre-World War II Mexico, anti-clerical forces are reigning, and therefore the agents of the Catholic Church are outside the law, often literally hunted, and if caught, executed. The two principal characters are reflected in each noun of the title, a police lieutenant who vows to bring in the last functioning priest in the province. This is the principal thread of dynamic tension that unifies the novel. There is a similar thread within the hunted priest himself. He is considered a "whiskey priest," with a fondness for brandy, and he has a daughter. Does he really want to escape his pursers, or does he believe his capture would be just punishment for his sins? It is a many-faceted issue that is used to explore his character.

Graham also populates his novel with numerous minor characters, mainly part of the human detritus that has washed up in this developmental backwater. There is an American dentist, barely surviving with his antique tools; a steamship captain, his wife and their precocious daughter; and a German-American couple who have opted for Mexico instead of submitting to conscription during WW I. There are also the natives, a "half-cast" who haunts the priest, and a touchingly stubborn Indian woman with her dead infant.

In reading Greene, and particularly such a novel on the Catholic Church, it is important to reflect that according to his biographers, Greene himself was both Catholic, and profoundly flawed. Along with the works of Carlos Fuentes, this is a quintessential book on Mexico, and therefore a vital read for all Americans in particular.

944-page two-part near-classic is undone by its weak ending, but still stands as a masterpiece of literature. Considered a "first novel", DQ plays on themes of meaning, faith, and madness with great humor.

Cervantes wrote the book in two parts separated by a five-year hiatus (1605 and 1610) during which another author wrote a poorly-received second part, which Cervantes attacks repeatedly in his own followup.

As long as it is, the translation while "unabridged" does not translate all of the original Spanish. Part of the Oxford World's Classics" series, this translation is the famous Jarvis translation from 1742, which was long considered the classic translation. While modern language scholarship has revealed its inexactness, the Oxford version uses it because it best captures the feel if not the word-for-word meaning of the translation, and end notes identify where Jarvis has veered from the original to maintain rhymes, jokes, and puns.

I love the story but have never been able to finish the book. I listened to this on a road trip to California and found it very enjoyable. They did cut a major section, but I guess that is what you contend with in an abridged version.

The translation is perfect except, as the translator has noted, on the poems found through out the book. The book itself is just plain beautiful, the author, Cervantes, is a master of prose and creativity, not to mention he has a great sense of humor. In my opinion, he is not too far off from Shakespeare. A+

'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.

Don Quixote well deserves its place in the pantheon of world classics. For me, it's the ultimate desert island book. It is simply an indescribable jewel, full of fun, hilarity, adventure, beauty, wisdom, social commentary, tragedy, and entertainment. And I believe that J.M. Cohen's translation is the best there is. He obviously had a love for the material and left us a beautifully rendered work. The encomium in his Times obituary was on the mark when it said that he was "the translator of foreign prose classics for our times."

"The Republic" is Plato's classical utopia, and perhaps one of the most controversial political texts ever written. It's so absurd that some people deny that Plato really meant it! Strange Aristotle never noticed. And yet, those who believe that "The Republic" shouldn't be taken literally probably have a point. Plato himself didn't take "The Republic" absolutely literally either.

"The Republic" describes a hierarchical caste society ruled by a militarized, collectivist elite. The elite itself is divided into different segments, the highest echelon being that of the philosopher-kings, enlightened thinkers who contemplate the heavenly world of Platonic forms, and precisely for that reason are fit to rule society as well. Below the philosopher-kings stand the Guardians, essentially the military caste. Famously, both the philosophers and Guardians live under conditions of total communism. They own no private property, are reared together, and hence don't know their parents or siblings. Strictly speaking, there are philosopher-queens as well, and also female soldiers, since the elite has gender equality (a point that has puzzled modern feminists). Below the elite groups stand merchants, artisans and farmers, but no slaves. The castes are (almost) hereditary, eugenics are used to ensure the fitness of the elite groups, and the population are induced to believe in fantastic, religious myths. The myths are noble lies welding this strange society together. Did I leave something out? Oh, and the poets are banished from the city! In other words, the ideal society described in "The Republic" looks like a curious blend of Sparta, Egypt and India (at least the two former societies would have been known to Plato).

So where do we go from here? The most moderate interpretation is that although Plato did regard "The Republic" as the best society, he didn't really believe that such a society was possible. It was a deliberate utopia. This raises a lot of intriguing questions, such as how Plato imagined the best *possible* society to look like, or what function "The Republic" was supposed to have. The first question is to some extent answered in "The Laws" and the Seventh Epistle, where Plato advocates a mixed constitution. What the answer to the second question might be, I honestly don't know. Perhaps nobody does. A wild guess: the point of Plato's utopia was to explore certain ideas without hindrance, throw certain concepts into as sharp relief as possible, in other words, do exactly what modern utopian novels do, in contrast to political utopias meant to be taken seriously.

I think that Plato clearly saw both the dilemma of democracy, and the dilemmas of tyranny and oligarchy, what we would simply call "dictatorship". Plato saw his teacher Socrates being persecuted by the regime of the Thirty Tyrants, but he also saw him being executed by the demos. The twin dilemmas of both dictatorship and democracy were starkly visible in the life of Socrates. The perennial problem of democracy is: what happens if the people vote the wrong way? (In Athens, the problem was even more pronounced, since many positions were filled by lot!) The perennial problem of dictatorship: how do we stop a ruler from becoming a tyrant, if the people can't even vote? Plato's solution to the problem was to balance the demos and the elite by a mixed constitution. In "The Laws" he took Sparta and the Cretan city-states as his concrete models, but he might just as well have harkened back to the days of Solon, or made use of the systems in Carthage or Republican Rome.

Plato's concrete solutions aren't ours, of course. Even the Athenian democracy he criticized was a far cry from our modern conceptions of democracy. From our vantage point, a mixed constitution on a Spartan or Cretan model actually looks even worse than the Athenian system. Note also the irony that "The Laws" lack the "socialist" and "feminist" traits of the Platonic utopia. Also, there is slavery in Magnesia, the name given by Plato to his realistic Cretan city-state, while there doesn't seem to be any slaves in "The Republic". And yet, despite the obvious differences between Plato's time and ours, the dilemma is still with us! Modern democracies attempt to solve it by combining universal suffrage with a division of powers, by a federal structure, or by a strong constitution guaranteeing basic human rights, a constitution that cannot be changed, at least not by a simple majority. Our methods may be different from the Platonic ones, but we are still trying to solve the same dilemma as he experienced in the aftermath of the Peloponessian War.

It could further be argued that no clever constitutional solution is possible in the long run, if the citizens loose their sense of civic duty. And it further seems that civic duty is possible only in a relatively small state, without too large income or property differentials between the citizens. Indeed, even Plato's moderate city-state in "The Laws" insists on the citizens having roughly equal amounts of landed property, property that can be neither bought nor sold. Of course, our concept of citizenship is much broader than the Platonic one: women and even resident aliens are citizens, and there are no slaves. Yet, Plato's general point seems to be correct.

So far, I have only touched on those points in "The Republic" and "The Laws" that could be creatively developed without offending our modern sensibilities too much. But, of course, "The Republic" also deals with other issues, more disturbing ones to our liberal ears. Are people really born equal? Are there innate differences between individuals? Is it always permissible for the rulers to tell the truth? Do societies need myths and noble lies? Ironically, Plato also asked questions that should disturb some conservatives: Given that innate differences are individual rather than sex-related, does this mean that the sexes are equal? And what's so good about private property and foreign trade anyway?

Perhaps that's the main function played by "The Republic". It's a work of provocation, a work meant to shock us into boldly questioning our preconceptions, a work that's the very opposite of a noble lie. Pace Popper, "The Republic" might actually be Plato's most Socratic work!

[This isn't really a review of this particular edition, but a general comment on Plato's dialogue, and its relation to some other works, but placing it here felt like the most natural option.]

This version of the Republic (translated by Tom Griffith) is pleasant and readable; it definitely has its moments and would probably be a good way to first encounter the dialogue. But do not use it for serious study, since the translation can be quite free and sometimes confusing. For instance, the word usually translated as "advantageous" (sumpheron) in Thrasymachus's argument is rendered as "good for." This is a nice attempt to capture the meaning in a natural way - but I personally wouldn't play around with the word "good" in a translation of the Republic.

Of course, Plato's work is nothing short of timeless. However, I recently found a hard-paperback version of this book that I would have liked to have more than this flimsy paperback format.

Grube is the most accurate and faithful translator of Plato. Unlike most other translators, in particular the horrendous Allan Bloom, Grube was both a first rate Greek scholar and had no ax to grind. You are always in good hands with one of his translations.

Most people know this book by title, not by content. I must admit reading this book is not for the faint at heart. Rhetorics will be thrown in your face as if it is common language and some sense of historical background on the Greeks may help as well.

But this shouldn't hold you back from reading this classic piece, all 450 pages of it. It is not so much the result of all thinking, but the process of thinking itself which makes this a great book. Known as one of the greatest Greek philosiphers of all-time you can get a taste of his way of thinking and the time he was living in.

If you have any interest in history and philosophy you'll love this book.