Webster University Books

It was well written and entertaining. While the ending was happy, I was a bit disappointed. I had expected Jerusha to, I don't know, do or be something with the education she got. Instead she became a little "copy" of her provider. She was more original at the beginning than at the end...

Daddy long legs is one of the best books for girls. Jerusha Abbott writes letters to a anonymous benefactor who has paid for her to go to college. Written beautifully the story will make you curious and anxious as the story unfolds. It has an unexpected twist at the end that will intrigue you.

I read Daddy Long Legs ages ago as a young teenager in a wonderful translation into my mother tongue, Greek. When I asked the daughter of a friend of mine - a gifted young girl who reads avidly and attends the American College in Athens if she had read it I was surprised to hear that she did not even know about it.
I have ordered it and read it again in English before giving it to her and have again enjoyed it enormously.
Of course it is very romantic and unrealistic and describes the American 'elite'- in terms of finances and intellect, very favourably but it has enormous freshness, is full of joy for life and is written with such humour that makes one forget everything else. It also manages in a very gentle way to speak about certain ideals difficult to find in the 21st century....
As it was meant to be a gift I chose the more expensive hard back and was very disappointed to see that the drawings that accompanied the text in the version I had read in the past and which were adding so much to the overall enjoyment and fun were missing. Why?
I shall try to search amongst the various editions if there is one that has them alongside the text.

Personally, I love this book. I am not really here to tell you about it, but to point out that although it was said near the top of this page that this book is for people grades 9 and up, I first read it in fifth grade and enjoyed it very much even then. This was probably due to the fact that I had an abnormally high reading level (in at least the tenth or eleventh grade range at that point), but I felt that I should put my two cents in and there you have them.

I'm sure that you'll enjoy this book very much.

I read this book when I was about 15 years old. I loved the humor and the coming of age of Judy Abbott. The mystery of "Daddy Long Legs" kept one guessing until the end.

Its a good book, far from the best, but it covers all the issues a paratrooper had to deal with, both physically and mentally. Combat is not the main focus in this book, but rather the entire situation he was in.

This book is the best autobiography written by a member of the "Band of Brothers." If you have seen the mini-series, then you are undoubtedly familiar with David Kenyon Webster, the Harvard English-lit major who could have probably been an officer or at minimum, a clerk but who chose to join the Paratroopers so he could fight the war first hand and write about it.

What is great about this book, as opposed to the others written by the members of this famed unit is the fact that it was still written during his youth without a lifetime of, well, life to diminish the memories. He speaks frankly about what he felt and admits to the fear, boredom and camaraderie from fighting in war.

When reading, one will notice several differences between his experiences and what was on the Band of Brothers mini-series and one that comes to mind was in the mini-series when a bunch of troopers crossed a river to get a prisoner. In the movie, Webster was there but in the book, he states that he didn't go (mainly because he didn't volunteer to do it!)

He speaks frankly and honestly about this disdain for officers (how Generals don't know how to speak on an enlisted-man's level and how they associate their speeches to football) and even mentions how Nixon was kind of bragging about going to Yale but he kept his mouth shut but could have told him that he went to Harvard.

I would rate this book up there with the other "must read" from an airborne's perspective, that being Curahee by Donald Burgett--a book also written soon after the war's end.

Please get this book immediately--you will not regret it.

I was interested in this book because it was written long before the fanfare and pop culture status that Easy Company gained from the Band of Brothers movies. This book gives a fresh and down to earth view of what it must have been like to be a member of the 506 PIR. It is a great first person account of life on the front and really conveys the turmoil that Weber experienced. If you are looking for a story about the 506th that is far and apart from the contempory accounts, this is a book for you.

A first hand account of WWII, its strains, its successes, its miseries, its eventual triumphs. A plea against the horrors of wars.

I've read Band of Brothers, and I have the HBO series on DVD. Both excellent pieces of work. I've read Beyond Band of Brothers by Dick Winters, and also Brothers in Battle/Best of Friends by Guarnere and Heffron - both books are fascinating, in different ways. Winters fleshed out details of events I'd become familiar with, but his relatively impersonal style left me often wishing for more, while the Guarnere and Heffron memoir had the immediacy and personality of spoken recollections transcribed.

I'm sure none of the men in Easy Company could have possibly imagined that 60 years down the track their names and deeds would be known to millions, and that many of them would be celebrities, writing best-selling memoirs, and travelling the lecture circuit.

It's fascinating to have all of these different eye-witness accounts of the same shocking events.

David Kenyon Webster wrote his memoirs long ago, and was never able to attract a publisher in his lifetime. Reading them now, I think I understand why. I can easily imagine his account seemed too blunt and unvarnished for the audience of the time.

His writing seems very fresh and 'contemporary' - it's full of revelations and admissions that seem typical of a current-day author, whereas Winters, Guarnere, and Heffron all reflect the values and attitudes of men of that era. I have tremendous respect for all of these men, and I've been thoroughly engrossed reading all of the accounts of Easy Company, but Webster seems to have the clearest eye for, and ability to recall, important detail. He simply is the best at taking you deeper into the locations we have become familiar with via the Stephen Ambrose book, and the HBO series.

He wasn't the best leader, or the best killer, or the most unflinching freedom-fighter, but for mine, he is the best story-teller in this amazing group of men. It's a real pity he didn't live to enjoy some recognition of this work.

John Webster will probably never be as popular as William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, or even Cliff Marlowe. Nevertheless, his writing is quite impressive. His plays came out about the time Shakespeare was putting out his final plays. As the play begins, we meet Bosola. While he is a murderer, he offers several intersting passages, and he is not quite a 2d villain. Bosola expresses his dislike for Duke Ferdinand and his brother the Cardinal. This opinion is shared by the Duchess's eventual husband Antonio. This allows Webster to prepare the villains of this story. The wicked Ferdinand expresses his wish for his sister (the Duchess) not to marry. Eventually, we will learn that he wants control over her estates. (How unheard of! Especially today!) He asks Bosola to spy on the Duchess. Bosola is a bit hesitant, but he proceeds. Well, the Duchess against her wicked brother's request marries Antonio secretly. Some time passes, and Bosola suspects that the Duchess is pregnant. While Antonio suspects the foul play of Bosola, he is basically a loving, but not so able man. Ferdinand of course finds out that his request has been disregarded. Interestingly, the cardinal comes off a little better when his cautious side contrasts with Ferdinand's rages. Onto Act 3. The Duchess and Antonio now have children. While Ferdinand knows the Duchess has married, he does NOT know Antonio is the husband. The poor Duchess makes the mistake of appealing to Bosola for help, and of course all is found out. Antonio is banished to Ancona. The parting between Antonio and the Duchess is quite sad. But all is not lost. Antonio flees to Milan and they may still be together. Sadly, hope disappears as the Duchess is arrested. Ferdinand orders Bosola to murder her, and while Bosola does hesitate, he performs the cruel murder of the Duchess. It is interesting that Bosola's evil deeds are often accompanied by hesitation and regret, as well as some interesting passages on the harsh truths of the human condition. But Webster does not stop here. Ferdinand's cruelty gives way to insanity and he taunts Bosola for carrying out his orders. Onto the final act. Poor Antonio (not knowing his wife is dead) has heard of Ferdinand's insanity. He thinks perhaps he can reconcile with the Cardinal. Soon we see that the cardinal is not quite an accomplished psychopath. With Ferdinand gone, he sinks further and further into panic trying to cover the bloody mess. In a well done scene, fragments of Antonio's echo foreshadow his downfall. Bosola accidentally kills Antonio and is filled with regret. The final scene begins with the cardinal giving a passage on fear of damnation. In a brutal massacre, Bosola, Ferdinand, and the Cardinal all die. The play ends with a restoration to order by the son of Antonio and the Duchess, but like Shakespeare's "King Lear," it doesn't take away the sadness of the play. Overall, it's a good play that combines an interesting variety of villains, romance, tragedy, suspense, horror, and dark comedy.

John Webster's play "The Duchess of Malfi" is a violent play that presents a dark, disturbing portrait of the human condition. According to the introductory note in the Dover edition, the play was first presented in 1613 or 1614.

The title character is a widow with two brothers: Ferdinand and the Cardinal. In the play's opening act, the brothers try to persuade their sister not to seek a new husband. Her resistance to their wishes sets in motion a chain of secrecy, plotting, and violence.

The relationship between Ferdinand and the Duchess is probably one of the most unsettling brother-sister relationships in literature. The play is full of both onstage killings and great lines. The title character is one of stage history's intriguing female characters; she is a woman whose desires lead her to defy familial pressure. Another fascinating and complex character is Bosola, who early in the play is enlisted to act as a spy. Overall, a compelling and well-written tragedy.

This is a review of the New Mermaids edition of The Duchess of Malfi by John Webster. Elisabeth M. Brennan edits this edition (ISBN: 0393900665.) I mention this incase it is cross-posted under some other editor's edition.

I bought this after reading snippets of it in other books. I do not recall having to learn this in school. Only now do I intend to read "The White Devil" in anticipation of it being encountered in other works.

Well what do you know? This animal is based on a true story of the Duchess of Amalfi. Evidentially there were several books written on this and he picked one for the outline of the play.

This edition is almost as good as taking a class in its self. The introduction gives you a back ground and the basic story that the play was based on. You get some information on John Webster and some of his other plays. There is even a further Reading List. There are even notes on the text and how to read the notes for the different versions of the play its self. By the time you get to the play you are well prepared to read it.

The play its self has stanzas, line numbers and notes to help you through the difficulty of understanding what the words mean in context. It is almost like reading a bible. You soon pickup speed and then actually get intrigued in the writing and story.

Now I desperately want some local theater to present "The duchess of Malfi"

I do not feel Webster's "Duchess of Malfi" quite matches his "The White Devil." Nevertheless, it is still an excellent play. Only Webster could combine this much violence and beauty so well! Webster starts the play well when Antonio and Delio make comments on questionable characters. (Bosola and the Cardinal) Bosola is drawn well as the hired hand reluctant to join the demonic Ferdinand. 2.5 is captivating when Ferdinand explodes with fury upon discovering that the Duchess has married. The cardinal shows an interesting foil to Ferdinand when he tries to encourage caution. The fury exchanged between Ferdinand and the Duchess in 3.2 is memorable. Bosola offers a striking passage on politicians in 3.2. The tragic ceremony in 3.4 is sorrowful and yet beautiful. The parting of Antonio and the Duchess in 3.5 is very lamentable. 4.1 allows us to see that Ferdinand is not only evil, but demented as well. This paves the way for his final insanity. Bosola's hesitation to carry out the murder is well constructed. Ferdinand's final torture of the Duchess reminds us that he is not simply cruel, but psychotic as well. The Duchess is memorable when she faces her death with dignity. Webster DOES NOT stop here! Ferdinand actually taunts the hired killer and this paves the way for the final act. 5.3 is a scene that not even Marlowe or Shakespeare ever used. Fragments of Antonio's own echo foreshadow his death. Bosola's accidental murder of Antonio and his remorse pave the way for the final massacre! Even here, Webster keeps his efforts up. The cardinal's passage on fear of damnation keeps us in chills. Bosola's death and passage of remorse is a fitting end for this excellent work. My only complaint about this play is that the Cardinal could have been more complex.

Of the "popular" editions of this play that by John Russell Brown (Revels Student Editions) and Elizabeth Brennan (New Mermaids) are both useful, though it must be said that no edition as yet does adequate justice to Webster's compexity - notably his presentation of Ferdinand. The play is both a tour de force and profoundly searching. It is perhaps the first major feminist play in England, with the Duchess presented as an outstandingly noble even if fallible character, the victim of her two evil "partriarchal" brothers. Of these, her twin brother Ferdinand is among the most intelligently conceived characters to appear on the Jacobean stage. Unknowingly (i.e. in his "unconscious") he is incestuously in love with his sister. Unable to cope with this "taboo" feeling, he tries to "repress" it unsuccessfully, and finally his ... "libido" comes to express itself in a violent wish to destroy her if he cannot ... own her, and he ends up believing himself to be a wolf, attempting to dig up her grave after he has had her killed. Obviously, then, this is a very Freudian work - anticipating Freud's insights brilliantly by some four centuries, and without lapsing into Freud's extravagantly improbable claims about such matters as the Oedipus complex. It is the working of the unconcious, as a reservoir of what we do not understand and cannot control, which is quite central in this play, and Ferdinand's ... confusion is potently contrasted with his sister's openminded, acknowledged and generous ... health. An outstanding play, recommended as among the best of its time (comparable in quality and interest to e.g. *Othello* or *The Changeling*). - Joost Daalder, Professor of English, Flinders University, South Australia

Peterson has to be the top historian in Early American Republic history and this book proves it. You would not think that one book on these three giants could do them justice, but this one does it magnificently. Peterson incorporates the lives and careers of these three men to illustrate the plights and problems of Early America, issues that were facing the nation, the factionalism which shaped the way the issues were tackle, and the manner in which disputes in policy matters had to be resolved. During this time span in American history, you could read the biographies of four individuals and have a good understanding of what happened during that time span and these are three of them, with John Quincy Adams being the 4th.

In the first half of the 19th century, American politics was dominated by the Congress, with only one really strong president (Andrew Jackson) in the era between Jefferson and Lincoln. Perhaps the largest figures in this period were the so-called "Great Triumvirate" of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun. Serving in both houses of Congress, various presidential cabinets and (in Calhoun's case), the Vice Presidency, these three were the architects of the era. Only the Presidency itself would elude their ambitions.

All three were born at roughly the same time, entered Congress around the same time and died within a couple years of each other. They represented the three regions of antebellum America: Webster was in the North, Clay the West and Calhoun the South. They were often at odds with each other, even when they were in agreement on a subject.

Webster was probably the least significant of the three. Known for his oratory and intellect, he led primarily by example. His constant financial problems put him in some ethically dubious situations. Calhoun was renowned for his integrity but - although he never lived to see it - provided a lot of the theoretical basis for the secession movement that eventually resulted in the Civil War. Clay was probably the most blatantly ambitious of the three, but also the best deal-maker. Among his many accomplishments (often shared with others) were the Treaty of Ghent, the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. Some of these may have be problematic to modern eyes, but these Compromises helped delay the Civil War. Although this may have not been Clay's design, the delay allowed the North to develop enough resources to win the war, which may have not been possible a decade earlier.

This book actually serves as three parallel biographies that occasionally intertwine. While generally interesting and informative, it is also a somewhat ponderous read. In addition, while the book does a good job at looking at the three as individuals, it is sometimes lacking in describing them as a trio. For better works about this era and its participants, I recommend Robert Remini, who has written biographies of Clay and Webster along with Andrew Jackson. Despite the flaws in this work, it is still at least a solid four stars for the information it does present, so you can't go too wrong reading it if the subject matter interests you.

The Great Triumvirate paints a rich picture of the political life in the early 1800's. The lives of Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster would shape the course of politics during the first half of the 1800's. These men would pick up where the founding fathers left off and define what it would mean to be American. They represented their sections of the countries but each would bow to the political realties of the time. In the end they were so good at representing their sections that their efforts to achieve the presidency would be met with failure. Henry Clay "the great compromiser" was a tyrant of the Senate and his political domination was impressive in preventing an outbreak of the civil war. While from the South Calhoun was an astute political observer who worked to preserve the institution of slavery. Daniel Webster as the fiery orator from the North was the consummate constitutionalist who the abolitionists hoped to have on their side. These three would "rule" the United States through their congressional domination like the triumvirates of Rome. The interaction between the three was not as great as I expected and more often than not they were working at cross purposes. The political pandering that grows out of this time period (especially with regard to Calhoun) sets the stage for the political discourse that we see emerging in the United States today. The election of 1848 painted here bears remarkable parallels to the 2008 presidential election that is shaping up. For those who want an understanding of our political history this is an essential book to read. These three men defined the next evolution in American government and this is the best book to show how they worked against and with each other to achieve the union.

~The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun~ is a powerful biography, of not one but three prominent U.S. Senators. Henry Clay (1777-1852) of Kentucky, John C. Calhoun (1782-1850) of South Carolina who was also the 7th Vice President, and Daniel Webster (1782-1852) of Massachusetts. As a result of their mutual antagonisms, they became known to historians as the Great Triumvirate. Clay, a consummate "warhawk," stood out for his achievements at spearheading legislation, assembling sponsors, and garnering compromises. Calhoun once a youthful nationalist, stood out for his steadfast stance in favor of states' rights and his acute logical sense. Webster was renowned as the vivacious orator who spoke stirring speeches of nationalist sentiment.

All of these men greatly influenced their era. The author Merill Peterson brings to life the great contests and debates of their time. The Triumvirate figured prominently in those debates whether it was the feud over the American system, the nature of the Union, or the Missouri Compromise dealing with slavery, their influence could be seen and heard. All of their tense contests in the U.S. Senate were in the backdrop of the Jacksonian era, which was a time of bombastic oratory in Congress and tense passion for democracy and the common man felt in the American heartland. All of these men in the Triumvirate fancied themselves as champions of the people no doubt.

The great controversies of the time were animated by the respective positions of Calhoun, Clay and Webster. Issues over internal improvements, tariffs, slavery, and the destiny of the burgeoning American empire figured prominently in the political discourse of the triumvirate. All of these men saw themselves as great statesmen and men of principle. Both Clay and Webster were in the hip-pocket of the Second Bank of the United States, which was sorely detested by Andrew Jackson who decried it as a "monster." Clay was once a Jeffersonian states' rights champion, but frequently oscillated back and forth as a National Republican in favor of federally-sponsored internal improvements. Webster's hypocrisy is manifest in his days before the Hartford Convention and his 1850 Capon Springs speech, where he essentially affirmed that the adherents of the compact view of the Union were right.

Jackson stampeded Clay's legislative agenda. Subsequently, Clay's feuding with Jackson compelled him to advocate abolition of the Presidential veto power. Calhoun's solicitude for the Constitution compelled him to defend the veto power all the same. Both Clay and Calhoun were detested by Jackson, and the mutual antagonisms seethed beneath the surface amidst the battles over tariff policy and nullification.

Calhoun was said by Randolph to speak in "axioms" when the logic of his thought was much admired and praised. Calhoun spent his twilight years in the wake of the nullification controversy writing what he hoped would be his most enduring contribution to American political science, the Disquisition and the Discourse, which was the definitive defense of the Jeffersonian states' rights interpretation of the Constitution.

All things considered, this is a masterful look at antebellum America during the height of the Jacksonian era. Merrill Peterson has put together a wonderful book. Another great author on the antebellum era is a scholar from the University of Virginia Michael Holt. The Jacksonian era was a time of great controversy in America, and marked the rise of the machine-ridden politics following Van Buren's ascendancy. It was arguably more democratic, but prone to more demagoguery, so there were certainly trade-offs. In the good old days, prominent U.S. Senators keyed more prominently in the history of the Republic than did some Presidents. Of the Great Triumvirate -- Calhoun, Clay and Webster -- their names were heard on the lips of school teachers by children throughout the land.

Peterson tells the history of early American politics through the intertwined lives of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun. He highlights several major trends in the country, illustrated by these politicians--the increasing opportunity for non-elites to rise to prominence in national politics, the change of the burning issue of the day from the tariff to slavery, and the increasing discipline and organization of political parties.

The story is compelling as he tells the lives of these men and their continued interactions in crisp prose that is guaranteed to improve your vocabulary. His descriptions of the personalities, portraiture, and oratorical styles of the men are fascinating.

One question looms over the tale--if these were the three of the four most powerful politicians between Jefferson and Lincoln (Jackson would be the fourth), why did none of them get elected president? Peterson answers the question by referring to their individual characters and to their public perceptions. His last chapter and epilogue also contain an insightful discussion of the impact of each of the men on the looming Civil War and history's vindication or indictment of each for their roles (or lack thereof) in contributing to it.

This book is not an easy read, which is why I would have given this book a 4 1/2, if possible (yes, I'm stingy with 5's). Another possible drawback is the limited discussion of the formation of the Whig party, in which all three played at least something of a role.

I'm not against this book, and I think it's pretty good. It's good for your first step of studying the SAT! Also it's good enough to get you a decent score, but if you want to get a high score like 2300+ or 2250, I suggest you read other books also and start studying in your Freshman year instead of Sophmore or Junior year. But scoring 2300 is pretty tough, and by just reading this book is obviously not gonna get you that high. If you're still in Middle School, buy some SAT Vocabulary books and start memorizing. There's lots and lots of words to learn, and you won't get far once you start your High School years because you're going to get a lot more busy!

I was very pleased with this book. It provided very thorough review and gave me a great deal of confidence for a test that was very nerve-racking. I felt more and more confident as I took the practice test and used the worksheets for my problem areas. I was very pleasantly surprised by my SAT score, and I have this book to thank.

Excellent work.

Summary:
This is an excellent book, if you have sufficient time and energy to plow through it.

There is an enormous amount of practice problems for all subject areas and question types. Also, every practice problem has a concise explanation. Most effectively, there is a comprehensive review of math, grammar, writing, and other applicable areas. If you need to review a particular area before taking the SAT, then this book is probably for you.

However, if you do not need a comprehensive review of the subject areas on the SAT, you may conclude that this book is not for you. It is very long (about 900 pages), and not that easy to read. It reads more like a textbook instead of a friendly, compact strategy book.

Also, there are only 5 tests provided in the book, but each is very close in kind to the real SAT.

Finally, my only complaint is that the authors state that it is not possible to devise strategies or "tricks" that maximize students' effort. I disagree as do my students whose scores have increased on ALL three sections (Black states on his plog that his students' CR scores dipped on the June SAT). I hope the reader will not view this statement as arrogant, rather as evidence refuting statements made in McGraw-Hill's SAT prep book.

This book as well as more than 20 other SAT prep books are reviewed and ranked on CEEAE dot org. Every book review has a direct link to its Amazon page, so you can read the reviews, view the rankings and then purchase your selections from Amazon.

This book really deserves more recognition than it has. None of my friends had ever seen this book, but I saw the reviews here and decided to get it anyway. I looked through it and simply didn't have enough time to study for the SATs as much as I would have liked, but I think if I were to do it all again, the number one thing I would have changed in my studying would have been to go through this entire book, maybe even twice. I got a 2160, which is okay, but really if I took the time to study the word list (which surpasses any other prep book BY FAR), I'm pretty sure my CR score would have gone up.

If you are a sophomore and are about to be a junior, or a junior who is getting prepared to take the SAT senior year, I recommend doing this entire book over the summer. Then the first month of school go through this book again and get all those vocab words in your head. I didn't study any vocab and I regret it. Everyone I talked to said that because the 2400 SAT doesn't have analogies, vocab wasn't as essential. I think vocab is still important for fill in the blank sections obviously, but also for the passage-reading sections. If you don't know a word in a sentence it really affects you and you just guess on the meaning, which you shouldn't be doing. The vocab list is definitely the highlight of this book.

Another great part of this book is the math section. It teaches you how to do all those math problems by thinking rather than memorizing. My math score went up about 60 points after doing about half of the math section in this book. Again, if I had more time to thoroughly go through this book I think my score would have gone up, and that goes for everyone willing to put the time into it.

This book is thick, and may be a bit much for people who are less serious about the SAT, but if you set up a strict schedule, and study this book, I'm sure it would help. I only went through a little vocab and half the math and even that helped me a lot. I didn't look at the Writing section quite as much so I don't have much to say about that, but the other sections would more than make up for it if it wasn't that good. So, get this book if you are willing to put in some serious hours. Don't get lazy!

If you want to know why this book is so much better than the other thick SAT books out there, just go to your bookstore and leaf through them all. What's obvious right off the bat is that the McGraw-Hill book is for students who actually want to learn the stuff on the SAT and not just a few quick tricks. Take the practice tests here (what everyone says ius true-they are tougher than the real thing), and then use the detailed answer key to point you to the lessons you need to review. The lessons in this books are very clear and WAY more thorough than the Princeton Review or Kaplan books. It has a great set of flashcards and the best vocab list of any book. But don't take my word for it. Go to your library or bookstore to compare, then buy it here ('cause it's cheaper). I used this book with the College Board "Official SAT Guide" for the October SAT, and my scores improved by 290 points overall. You can do it too without a $1400 Kaplan class!

A group of plays, of which this was a member, won first prize in Athens. Philoctetes had been left marooned on an island several years earlier (because of his disease) under orders of Agamemnon and Menelaus. But, the two kings later discover that Troy cannot be conquered without Philoctetes and his bow, a bow given to him by Heracles. Odysseus and Neoptolemus (the son of the late Achilles) arrive at the island to persuade or trick Philoctetes to return with them. Neoptolemus wants to be noble in his actions; yet, his commander, Odysseus, wants to use guile. At the end, a deus-ex-machina device is used to resolve the conflict. The play has excellent characterization, a good plot, and steady movement.

I'm working with a Croatian director to find a translation of PHILOCTETES to perform in America. Since his English is good enough for commuication, but not up to poetic standards, I've had to do my research. This seems to be the most performable, direct AND poetic translation currently available. Better than Grene, even.
Brian Jones
Associate Professor of Theater
Indiana University of PA

Good Greek tragedy. I especially find interesting the controversy behind the happy ending.

"Philoctetes" takes place near the climax of the Trojan War. The title character has the great bow of Hercules, given by the demi-god on his pyre to Philoctetes's father. A member of the Achaean expedition that sailed to Troy, Philoctetes was making an altar on an island along the way when he was bitten by a snake. His cries of pain were so great that he was abandoned by his shipments, under the orders of Odysseus, and marooned on the deserted island of Lemnos. Alone and crippled, Philoctetes used the great bow to survive for the ten years the Achaeans have been fighting against Troy. During that time his hatred against the Achaeans in general, and Odysseus in particular, has grown.

Meanwhile, back at Troy, Odysseus and the other Achaean chieftains have learned from an oracle that Troy will fall only with the help of Philoctetes and his bow (a juicy tidbit it certainly would have been nice to have known eight or nine years earlier). Odysseus and Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, are sent to bring Philoctetes and his bow back to the war. Of course, Odysseus dare not show himself to Philoctetes and sends Neoptolemus to do the dirty work. Neoptolemus gains the confidences of the crippled man by lying about taking him home. During one of his agonizing spasms of pain, Philoctetes gives his bow to Neoptolemus. Regretting having lied to this helpless cripple, Philoctetes returns the bow and admits all, begging him to come to Troy of his own free will. Philoctetes refuses and when Odysseus shows his face and threatens to use force to achieve their goal, he finds himself facing a very angry archer.

In "Philoctetes" Sophocles clearly deals with the balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of society. But this is also a play about citizenship and the need for the idealism of youth to be give way to the responsibilities of adulthood. In fact, this lesson is learned both by Philoctetes, who is taught by the shade of Hercules who appears to resolve the tenses conclusion, and Neoptolemus, who finds his duties at odds with his idealized conception of heroism based upon his father. Although this is a lesser known myth and play, "Philoctetes" does raise some issues worth considering in the classroom by contemporary students.

"Philoctetes" is similar to other plays by Sophocles, which deal with the conflict between the individual and society, although this is a rare instance where Odysseus appears in good light in one of his plays; usually he is presented as a corrupter of innocence (remember, the Greeks considered the hero of Homer's epic poem to be more of a pirate than a true hero), but here he is but a spokesperson for the interests of the state. Final Note: We know of lost plays about "Philoctetes" written by both Aeschylus and Euripides. Certainly it would have been interesting to have these to compare and contrast with this play by Sophocles, just as we have with the "Electra" tragedies.

This is a de rigeur read for those facing up to a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Ms. Webster tackles the problems of having MS with a searing intelligence and in depth analysis based on her own personal experiences. Her thoughts struck a chord with my own experiences and gave me a lot of help in coming to terms with my own diagnosis. She addresses not only the personal experience of having MS but also widens the scope to include its effects of the people around the MS diagnosee and how society in general view people with the disease. She doesn't dodge any of the difficult issues and writes in a clear and easy to read manner. I cannot applaud her efforts highly enough.

In the late 1960s, twenty-three year old Barbara Webster began to experience problems with walking, with speech, with fatigue, and a host of other problems. When examining doctors and neurologists could find no explanation for her problem, Ms. Webster began experiencing hostility from people who believed that her problems were psychosomatic problems brought on by stress and poor choices, if not mere malingering.

Then, some fifteen years later, she found a new doctor who correctly diagnosed her problem, Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Now that she had a diagnosis, she still had a problem. Working through her disease, she found that the people around her complicated her journey. This book is a narrative of her journey, and it was a rocky road indeed. She experienced hostility, indifference, disapproval, pity and many other emotions, and all of these from strangers, friends, family and even lovers.

I must admit to feeling inadequate to write this review. Ms. Webster did not intend this book to be a "how to" for others, but merely the story of her experiences. For her, anything that got in the way of the acceptance of her disease, with all its changes to her self-image, was an obstacle in her path. Certainly religion was no help. ("For me, religion is a means to avoid seeing clearly and to shelter oneself from reality. It seems to me that religion is often used as a cover for, even a promotion of, hypocritical and dishonest behavior.")

This is the story of one woman's confrontation and acceptance of a reality that includes having a chronic disease and being disabled in the United States. My wife, with her recent diagnosis of MS, did not find much in common with Ms. Webster's views, but then again MS is a highly individual disease, striking no two people in the same way. For myself, I found this book enlightening and thought provoking.

Really interesting book. I originally bought this just as a guide to learn more about the folks that live in our back yard like the opossums, raccoons, skunks and others who frequent our bird feeding areas. But there's so much more in here. I had no idea we had so many different moles, voles, woodland rats and mice, for example. Also animals that I didn't realize were here like weasels, fox squirrels, minks, and others. Bats are covered here too which was a treat. For each animal there's a color photo, a description of the animal, distribution and abundance, a map of its range, habitat, and natural history. I was especially interested when I first opened the book and flipped to porcupines - I knew they had all been killed off in VA but there's a neat description of them as well as info on the occasional sighting that has occurred. Really a great book - I'm so glad to have found it.

It's a hardcover, so not the most comfortable field guide to throw in a backpack, but I don't have any other complaints about this book.

Animal profiles are accompanied by excellent color photographs, basic statistics about each animal (distribution, habitat, abundance, etc.), and a shaded map outlining just where each animal's distribution is. Entries for each animal are detailed enough, but don't seem to go on so long that a person would lose interest.

One more gripe: pictures of the animals feet, so that pawprints could be identified easily, would have been a welcome inclusion here. The Simon and Schuster's Guide To Mammals, by Boitani, is an inexpensive book that includes this feature. It might be a helpful second book to get on the topic.

It's an exciting book for young naturalists, too, who will likely get stirred up just by seeing some of the photos (star-nosed mole, northern flying squirrel, big brown bat, etc.).

Essays on conservation, the region, and tips on observation precede the main body of the book. The essays are short and well-written. They should be helpful to anyone who wants to scout out some mammals in the Carolinas, Virginia, or Maryland.

ken32

This book is good reading for someone trying to learn about Roman legions without getting swamped. It's detailed enough but not to much to overwhelm and there is a Latin glossary in the back.

Webster's book is considered a leading source on the topic, and it should be noted that it is not for beginners. That said, it ought also be noted that it is not for the advanced student, either: those of us who have studied the Roman army in some detail will not find many new takes on the sources we have, except for a very interesting discussion of the Etruscan influence on Roman warfare, which I personally enjoyed a lot. As it stands, this book is a definite middle ground: excellent in its own right, but not adequately targeted to either audience. For a student of the Classics who has some background with Roman history this book will indeed be invaluable, but for graduate students and professionals it does not contribute anything radically new, no matter how elegant and stimulating as Webster's treatment may be.

I loved this book!I think this book was great because it had so much information.

Since I was interetsed in ancient military and Roman history I picke dup this title. Not a good place to begin if you are new to Roman history due to the highly detailed mannner of this book's layout. I strongly recommend that before tackling this book you start out with the idiots guide to the Roman Empire. That way you'll at least have some background. Well about this book:gives a detailed account of how the Roman army performed their daily rituals, camp formations, battle tactics, etc. But overall well worth the Amazon.com price and well worth your time.

Graham Webster's book is considered to be one of those definitive works on the Roman Army. It is most definitely that, but as previously noted it isn't for the beginner and/or the casual reader. Professor Webster writes the book with the eye of an archeologist. The chapters are very specific and dedicated to such topics as the soldiers clothes, armor, weapons, religious practices, the layout of their camps and forts, their daily rituals, tactics, organization in the field and in garrison. There are other chapters as well but this gives you a clear idea of what the book is about. It isn't an historical account of battles, campaigns, and politics. No this is a book about the institution itself. For those who are truly intruiged by Rome then this is the book for you. I've read it several times over the past five years and I never grow tired of it. For a nice companion book which covers the campaigns and politics read Hugh Elton or Lawrence Keppie.

Few works by John Webster have survived, but two - The Duchess of Malfi and The White Devil - have been staged frequently in recent decades. Many readers may remember the young John Webster as a darkly comic figure in that delightful 1998 romantic comedy, Shakespeare in Love. In expressing his admiration to Shakespeare for his gruesome play, Titus Andronicus, the boy observes: "I like it when they cut heads off. And when the daughter was mutilated with knives". I laughed with those around me, as I had some inkling of John Webster's dark reputation, but I had not actually read, nor seen a performance of his plays.

Despite Webster's dark and dismal view of human nature, I found The White Devil to be considerably less gruesome than Titus Andronicus and definitely less shocking. There are some poisonings, stabbings, and stranglings, especially in the final act, but what makes Webster's play truly memorable is the continuous intrigue, deceit, and betrayals.

The White Devil has elements of a revenge play, but the motivations of the characters are more varied and complex. In her introduction to the New Mermaids edition, Christina Luckyj illustrates how Webster adapted to the stage an actual murderous event that occurred in Italy some years earlier. Paolo Giordano, Duke of Brachiano, and the beautiful Vittoria Corombona, as well as others in this play are not entirely fictional.

The second act presents the initial murders, the poisoning of Isabella, wife to Brachiano, and the killing of Camillo, husband to Vittoria, in two dumb shows representing conjurer's images of the actual murders. These silent displays are said to have a somewhat haunting impact on the stage.

Despite no evidence of involvement in Camillo's death, Vittoria is placed on trial for her adulterous affair, is found guilty, and confined to a house of convertites, a house of penitent whores. The murder of Camillo and Isabella goes unpunished, although some do suspect the Duke of Brachiano.

Brachiano's chief rival, Francisco De Medici, the Duke of Florence, quietly plots to have Brachiano and his followers killed. He cleverly tricks Brachiano into effecting the escape of Vittoria. The two are quickly married in a lavish ceremony. Soon thereafter Brachiano and Vittoria are excommunicated by the new Pope, the former Cardinal Monticelso, another long time rival of the Brachiano.

Plots and counterplots collide in act five resulting in the deaths of nearly all key characters. Most die loquaciously, expositing on their guilt and thoughts of divine punishment.

The White Devil does not offer the dramatic impact of a Shakespearean tragedy, nor the tight focus characteristic of most Elizabethan revenge plays. This play's fascination is the continuous intrigue and deception, the plots and counterplots, and the complex motivations of Webster's dark characters. Four stars to The White Devil.

For those of you who saw "Shakespeare In Love," you will probably remember John Webster as the 13 year old boy who was obsessed with blood and death. John Webster's plays came out about the time William Shakespeare was putting out his final plays. Hazelton Spencer says this of John Webster: "Even Webster's most lyrical verse is preoccupied with decay and death." But if we are willing to move past this, John Webster's writing is actually quite impressive. Act 1 begins with the banishment of Count Lodovico. Interestingly, Lodovico tells of the evil Bracciano. (Why not? It would seem people of an evil nature would know each other.) And through the testimony of his judges, we are introduced to the evil behind Lodovico. We later meet the diabolical Bracciano himself. He is having an affair with his friend Flamineo's sister Vittoria. Not surprisingly, Vittoria has a nightmare about a massacre. We later see that Cornelia (the mother of Vittoria and Flamineo) does not care for them. In Act 2, we meet the Cardinal. We are allowed to respect him in that he is no flatterer. Webster then shows us the division between the diabolical Bracciano and the at least moderately virtuous Francisco. (Francisco is of course angered that his sister Isabella is being mistreated by her husband Bracciano.) But Bracciano's untainted son Giovanni breaks the tension with some comic relief. With the use of magical images, Bracciano sees his murder plot against his wife Isabella and Vittoria's husband Camillo come to pass. But Lodovico sees the death of Isabella, and he will return before long. Onto Act 3. The Cardinal suspects that Vittoria had something to do with her husband's death. We know that it was not Vittoria's fault, but how sorry can we feel for her? If she was this intimate with the diabolical Bracciano, how ignorant could she have been (unless she was very obtuse) to the evil she submitted herself to? The Cardinal sentences Vittoria to life as a nun. During the trial, Flamineo is frightened that his part in aiding the affair will come out. And Lodovico makes his return. He loved Isabella (even though she would not submit to having an affair with him), and Lodovico will avenge her. (Perhaps Webster was trying to use contrast between Isabella and Vittoria to limit our sympathy to Vittoria.) Onto Act 4. The Cardinal informs Francisco of his sister's murder. Francisco of course wants revenge. While we have no real reason to dislike the Cardinal or see him as a bad person, it is interesting that the Cardinal has a book of criminals. Can we doubt for a moment that Lodovico is listed in it? (But like Shakespeare and Dickens, Webster is really skilled at creating fully 3d characters as opposed to Hollywood heroes and villains.) Isabella's ghost appears to Francisco. (Probably to make sure Francisco will not hesitate in his revenge.) Bracciano and Vittoria meet again, and while Vittoria is reluctant, she and Bracciano marry. Act 4 ends with the Cardinal becoming Pope. After rebuking Lodovico, the Cardinal approves of him joining in Fracisco's revenge. Perhaps here, Webster is pointing out a 'terrible truth' that Hollywood can't figure out. As people, we are not 100 % good or evil. And while the cardinal is a virtuous person, he agrees to the revenge on Bracciano even to the point of employing the evil Lodovico. And while we know Lodovico is evil, we probably will applaud him if he contributes to Bracciano's comeuppance. Onto Act 5. Bracciano and Vittoria marry. Disuised, Francisco finds his way into Bracciano's territory. Well, Fracisco and Lodovico succeed in killing Bracciano. But things are not quite over. Giovanni is sad over his father's death. Vittoria (Bracciano's widow) is in charge for the moment. And Flamineo thinks he can get some money out of his sister. (Why not? He aided her in her affair. Vittoria probably has access to money now.) Bracciano's ghost appears to Flamineo foreshadowing his downfall. Interestingly, in John Webster, ghosts appear to the people who were close to them as opposed to their enemies. The play ends in the massacre of Zanche, Flamineo, and Vittoria by Lodovico. (Undoubtedly, Francisco and Lodovico wanted them dead as well to avenge Isabella.) Giovanni to some extent restores orders and Lodovico tells Giovanni that Francisco was involved. Lodovico can be punished, But what can Giovanni do to his uncle Francisco? Francisco is also a duke. Overall, its a good play, but you do have to have a tolerance for brutal scenes as well as passages preoccupied with death.

After you read this, read The Duchess of Malfi, considered Webster's masterpiece. You cannot go wrong with the Revels editions of these plays.

For those of you familiar with my writing, you know I cherish the works of Marlowe, Shakespeare, Milton, Hawthorne, and Dickens. Well, I now have a 6th favorite. Lodovico is frighteningly demonic. 1st he participates in the murder of Isabella, then he participates in the revenge of Isabella! Poor Isabella is memorable as a picture of innocence. Vittoria is an interesting woman. She is not exactly a picture of innocence, but she does carry herself well, and she faces her death with as much dignity as possible. Webster also draws the dissension between Francisco and Bracciano well. Bracciano is captivating with all of his ambition. Francisco is memorable as the good and decent man prompted to fury by the death of his innocent sister. The harsh tones between Cornelia and her son Flamineo are dramatic. Bracciano's son Giovanni is well drawn. First he is an innocent young man, but his lines reveal his good character. Then we see him after he has lost both his parents. Finally, he flips the tables on everyone and restores order. Cardinal Monticelso is also captivating. He is a very careful character who probes the situations without losing his sense of reason. And we need not be surprised when this careful character is promoted to Pope Paul IV. What's left? Only striking images, only well constructed passages, only pure terror side by side with beauty etc. My only complaint about this play is that Webster combines 2 wonderful final touches that would be wonderful by themselves, but do not combine well (in my opinion). Lodovico's delight in his massacre does not (in my opinion) mix well with Giovanni's sudden rise to power and his sudden crush of the situation. In my opinion what makes Edward III's restoration to order in Marlowe's "Edward II" so dramatic is the pure terror the 17 year old king instills in his enemies. At this point, I would like to thank all of you who found my reviews helpful.

For those of you who read my reviews and use them to try to understand literature, I owe you an apology. I made a slight error in my review of this, and I will correct it now. For those of you who know me, I cherish the writings of Marlowe, Shakespeare, Milton, Hawthorne, and Dickens. I now have a 6th hero. The opening is quite captivating when through testimony we learn of Lodovico's evil. Webster also grabs our attention with the affair between Vittoria and Bracciano. Despite the questionable qualities of these 2 characters, they are easy to like. He also draws the division between the virtuous Francisco and the ambitious Bracciano well. Cornelia is memorable as the mother who despairs over the actions of her children Flamineo and Vittoria. Isabella is fine as a picture of innocence. The Cardinal is captivating as one of the most careful characters in the play,and we need not be surprised when he gets elected Pope. Bracciano's son Giovanni is drawn well. Through an early appearance, we get a look at his character. We then see him in mourning after he has lost both his parents. Finally, we see him restore order after the massacre has fully unleashed. Lodovico is fine as a picture of ambition. (The mistake I made was that I named Lodovico in the murder of Isabella. He was innocent of her murder. But it is possible to wonder if his affair with her 'Bracciano's wife' triggered Bracciano's affair with Vittoria. Ofcourse, the affair between Bracciano and Vittoria triggers the events of this play.) Webster also offers us horrifying and yet beautiful passages, chilling omens such as the ghosts of Isabella and Bracciano, and pure suspense. My only complaint about this is that Lodovico's delight in his massacre does not mix well with Giovanni's sudden rise to power and his restoration of order. In Marlowe's "Edward II," the 17 year old Edward III fills his enemies with pure terror when he gains control of the situation. Once again, I apologize for my error, and I wish to thank all of you who found my reviews helpful.