Mansfield University Books

McGee's writing style makes this academic work a joy rather than a chore, to read from beginning to end. Not only does she make a number of noteworthy points, she uses a ton of textual evidence to back up her statements and (and this was the clincher for me) she doesn't just look at Virginia Woolf and Katherine Mansfield, but also Edith Wharton, Zora Neale Hurston, Kate Chopin and others. Highly recommended for scholars in the field and laypersons who enjoy the Modernists.

This particular version of Nicccolo Machievelli's "The Prince" was incredibly easy to read. There was no rubbing my noggin wondering what he was saying. Nope it was as clear as day and the way that he described retaining power is still the same today as it was in his day. Albeit a little less bloody.

Without a doubt, Nicolo Machiavelli has to be the most dissembling, evil man I've ever read. Though he covers it well in his constantly changing subjects and demeanor I would have not wanted to be around him in the 16th century. I would have never trusted him not to ensnare me in one of his plots!

Heard THE PRINCE by Niccolo Machiavelli, one of those books
that I've always meant to read . . . but just never got around to do so.

Now I finally had the opportunity (as a result of being able to listen to it
while driving) and am glad I did--particularly because of its relevance
to what's currently happening in politics . . . also, as a result, I now
have a better understanding of the term Machievellianism . . . or
that any means, however unscrupulous, can justifiably be used
in achieving political power.

Though originally written in the 16th century, THE PRINCE is still
remarkably up to date . . . the examples used by Machiavelli
feel like they come from today's headlines . . . also, they pertain
to many situations wherein power is utilized--both in business
and in the political arena.

There were many quotes that got me thinking; among them:
* Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know
how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.

* We have not seen great things done in our time except by those
who have been considered mean; the rest have failed.

And this final one:
* If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because
they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound
to observe it with them. Nor will thee ever be wanting to a prince
legitimate reasons to excuse this nonobservance.

I found it interesting to learn that Machievelli wrote this book
after he was fired as Secretary to the Second Chancery of the
Signoria . . . methinks that had he been around now, Tim Russert
and/or other political commentators could well be out of job.

Machiavelli's "The Prince" is a guide of morality-void techniques for acquiring and maintaining political power and ultimately, political fortune. Written nearly 500 years ago, this blueprint for tyranny is just as relevant today. As his compass, Machiavelli uses history, both ancient and contemporary. In 500 years, no one has proven him wrong. Here's a flavor for you innocents out there: "For, in truth, there is no sure way of holding other than by destroying, and whoever becomes master of a City accustomed to live in freedom and does not destroy it, may reckon on being destoyed by it". War is Machiavelli's wet dream: "A Prince, therefore, should have no care or thought but for war, and for the regulations and training it requires, and should apply himself exclusively to this as his peculiar province; for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules". Espousing the virtues of the noble lie, Machiavelli follows up with, "men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes". And with this quote, I now challenge anyone to dispute the Machiavellian nature of the American Corporate State as written about in Don't Weep for Me, America: How Democracy in America Became the Prince (While We Slept). All the parallels are brought to light, always through the eyes of George Orwell. Get informed. Your city (country) is being destroyed...

A young colleague of mine recently said `management is easy'. I smiled enigmatically and considered buying him a copy of `The Prince' but I fear it would be wasted. I am now on my third copy of this book which, alas, I can only read in English. The George Bull translation (as reprinted in 1995) is the version I currently refer to.

I first read this book when studying economic history at high school in the second half of the last century. I was intrigued by Machiavelli's advice even though I had little understanding of the Florentine Republic. I next read the book when looking more generally at political models and at Renaissance history. Since then, I've always had a copy: it is as relevant to understanding the art and practice of management as it is to a broader understanding of the models and processes of governance. It also provides some valuable contextual setting for those interested in the Medici.

So why is `The Prince' still relevant? What can we learn from a treatise that was dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici (1492 - 1519) but not published until 1532, some five years after Machiavelli himself was dead?

Specific settings and circumstances may change: general human psychology and motivation does not. There is politics involved in all management. The chasm between management theory and practice is occupied by politics (in all senses) and complicated by the affairs, aspirations and expedient alliances of people.

Jennifer Cameron-Smith

... Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America still accurately describes political and social America, and has turned out to be prophetic of modern problems. This book, along with Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers, remain the key to understanding American constitutional theory and political culture. Get 'em both!

I marveled at Alexis de Tocqueville's trenchant insights into what made (makes) American Democracy what it is. Indeed, I think Tocqueville knew more about us than we do (partly a benefit of being a foreigner). But it's not just observations on American Democracy that we get in this indispensable book, but useful analysis between the democratic revolutions and societies in Tocqueville's native France and other countries, and the incessant contrasts the author makes between aristocratic and democratic societies. Tocqueville lived in a time in which the old orders of society (mainly aristocratic) were dissipating and hence his careful examination of the promises and problems that democracies posed for this country and others for his day and for the future.

I can't possibly begin to touch on every issue Tocqueville discusses in this book, but I'll try to mention a few. For Tocqueville, America offered a unique opportunity for democracy to grow and flourish. He discusses the advantages of geographic location, the Puritan settlers in New England, the townships that developed, the formation of the states and the eventual Union formally established by the U.S. Constitution written in 1787. In addition to the external factors that evinced a democratic society, he gave careful attention to the interests, beliefs, habits and mores that united Americans North and South, East and West (though there were some obvious economic and social differences between these geographic segments).

America did not possess a ruling class, and Tocqueville discusses what he called the equality of conditions that he saw in this county. Americans believed they were equal to each other, especially in regards to their ability to obtain wealth and prosperity. The people also viewed themselves as sovereign; they had representative leaders, but ultimately those leaders were and remain accountable to the people. Tocqueville is not hesitant to point out some bad sides to democracy, or at least potentially bad tendencies that could develop. Such topics as the tyranny of the majority, individual impotence in the face of democracy's dependence on the force of the public as a single body, lack of greater intellectual pursuits and accomplishments (though he admits this is a result of our busy lives and our desire to find quick answers and solutions). He seems to be most disappointed with the mediocrity that he sees as resulting when all things seem equal. The dangers of tyranny and despotism also linger.

Tocqueville saw signs of potential future conflict, especially considering the presence of slavery. He envisioned a war between the races as very possible. He also discussed the effects of white settlement and their interaction with the Native Americans as well. His judgement seemed to be that the Native Americans were doomed once the white settlers arrived and started moving west. In addition to conflicts among people, he saw the growing concentration of power as almost inevitable. Our history has especially proven the growth of our national government. And there are so many other observations Tocqueville discusses on the future of democracy not only in this country, but for any democratic society. He had his fears and hopes.

There are so many things I'm leaving out, but I was truly impressed with this man's astute observations on our form of government and our society in general and what some of the positive and negative sides to democracy were (and are). There are topics touched on that will cause you to immediately grasp how applicable they are to life today. A must read.

This is one of the few real classics on American Politics, the knowledge of which is essential to every politically-active citizen (which, indeed, should be every single one of them). It is so often quoted and referred to, and yet so often out of context, that one really needs to have read it in order to understand whether even modern arguments that touch upon its themes are legitimate. And that's not to speak of the great style with which Tocqueville discusses such the two forms he envisions emerging out of an uncontrolled democracy--the classical tyranny of the majority, and the soft tyranny of the bureaucracy upon an atomized society (the second being also treated by Mill in his On Liberty). For the last factor alone, this book warrants a reading, although, some of its chapters are indeed very dry.

The five stars, however, are owed also in great part to this particular version of the book. The paper, ink, and design are of superb quality, for one. The long introduction goes to great lengths to introduce the reader to Tocqueville as a person, as a writer, and to the greater structure behind the very book (something every single introduction ought to do as well as this one). The index is quite extensive, and I have found just about everything I've sought through it. Most important is the translation that this edition offers--it should by all means be considered the standard one, much as Crawley's for Thucydides' Peloponnesian War. No other book will try harder to explain to you why it uses the word mores, and what it means in the Tocquevillian context.

This is a classic treatise by a French aristocrat who comprehensively examines the underpinnings of American democatic institutions. Including the rights and powers provided by the Consitution, forms of governments, and concepts of freedom and equality. In this book he also analyzes the influence of democratic values on intellectual movements, customs and political society. This treatise was originally written in 1835.

This 170-year-old book by a young French aristocrat remains one of the most frequently quoted analyses of what Toqueville famously calls America's "habits of the heart."

If you're interested in reading Toqueville for yourself and not through the eyes of some commentator, what version should you get?

Instead of this one, I recommend the Library of America edition. First, the translation by Arthur Goldhammer is smoother and more comprehensible, without informality or paraphrase. Second, the Goldhammer translation is not burdened by political leanings or excessively scholarly apparatus. Third--and not unimportant--the Library of America volume is smaller and easier to hold and provides a more pleasant reading experience.

Paul N. Van de Water

It is important to note that Niccolo Machiavelli's most important work is this. He actually advocates for a tripartite government with checks and balances, like our own US gov't before Montesquieu and Locke. no mean feat! obviously, there was more to this theorist than "the end justifies the means." Morality was of importance to him after all. No doubt, this is a classic of political thought. It marks the end, for better or worse, of the Middle Ages conformity and a bold forging ahead toward the modern political horizons. Look it over!

This is an exceptionally difficult and probably misguided translation of a great work. The translator Harvey Mansfield has attempted to follow in the (important) tradition of literal translations for philosophically rich works (a la Allan Bloom's excellent Republic). The intended result is that the English reader can follow the argument very closely by following the words closely. This is useful for key Machiavellian concepts like "virtu," but Mansfield actually attempted to render every single word in the entire text by a single English word - for example, the Italian word "cosa," which means "thing" but also "matter", "affair", "what," or "which", is rendered by the word "thing" everywhere - which produces terrible, almost unreadable English. When an Italian says "Cosa facio?" he doesn't mean "Thing I do?", he means "What am I doing?" But the translator literally writes "thing I do" in this book. If you want to actually read Machiavelli, who was a fine writer and not stilted like this, try another translation. Mansfield has a very devoted following because of the work he has done for the Great Books at Harvard University, and I suspect that some of the good reviews here are more because of his popularity as a person than because the reviewers really believe this translation captures Machiavelli.

No one who wants to have a fair outlook of the whole political reflexions of Machiavelli, might get it without reading "Discourses.." (Discorsi...). There the reader will find another kind of Machiavelli. Not The Prince's, but another thinker. Deeper and broader, the main topic rather than how to get the power (as along The Prince), is now how to stabilize it. Livy's work is just a motive for Machiavelli's analizes. So, the frequent reference to ancient Greek or Roman history, serves as comparative model regarding the actual Italian and the lager European exuberant political universe. Instead the prince needed to unify Italy and set it free from foreing powers, the central figure is a republic capable to keep liberty alive and a "virtuosa" social life, in terms of participation in the power exercise. Most of the conclusions keep still today a wise validity. That's why after "Discourses..." (albeit it seems The Prince was written in the middle of the former's one composition years) one can talk rightly about a "republican" Machiavelli. If he was not father, at least he was uncle (a bright one) of the since many years called "protective republicanism". In few words: the book put in evidence his very scope and stature. Doubtless, "Discourses..." show us another kind of Machiavelli. Different from the often known one. But still more, different than the ignored one (although ignorance never has been and impediment for many people to speak improperly about "Machiavelli", "machiavellism" and "machiavellic".)

There are two mean reasons to read Machiavelli:
Firstly, Machiavelli gives in his books a deep insight in political and psychological principals. Some comment on how these principals are - at times - conflicting. This I find Machiavelli's main strength: he shows that choices need to be made, that there isn't an unconditional best choice, but that the best choice is dependent upon circumstances (he tries to give insight in the circumstances) and that the worst is not to choose (consistently).
For instance: when one conquers a city, one can subject it's inhabitants by being making them love you, or fear you. Which one chooses is also dependent on whether you attack a new city, or a city previously under your control, if one wants to make an example out of them (and what kind), etc. Most important however is that one must choice between making your subjects love you or hate you (you can't torture a person and then try to win his love).
Secondly, it is worth reading Machiavelli because of his literary abilities. He writes with charm, ease and lack of difficult words, he gives interesting and innovative illustrations, he has written two books that are real pageturners but that also give a new and deeper insight in society (so new that their books are still read today, and not just by literary scholars).

The general applicability of the principal used above, can be seen at relations (most couples stay together because of love, but some because they fear retribution by their partner), at parent/child level (parents either making their children obey because of fear of punishment, or by giving them a sense of responsibility and trust), at companies (a manager can motivate employees by either making them fear for losing their jobs, or by making them share company ideals and values) and at governmental level (Saddam ruled Iraq by fear, while a real democracy must be run by love - or at least lack of fear - for their leader).
At all the previous examples one can see that both situations can work, but the greatest mistake is not to make a consistent choice. It would be as great a mistake for Osama Bin Laden to try and win American love for the Islam by sending planes in the Twin Towers, as for Bush to try and win Iraqi love for democracy and justice by making a policy out of torturing unconvicted Iraqi's (and violating other civil rights). (Hopefully there will be an inquiry that will convince Iraqi's that the torture in the Abu Graib prison wasn't government policy, so that the faith in America, democracy and justice will be restored).

Niccolo Machiavelli, (1469-1527), writes the greatest treatise on keeping a republic vibrant by comparing Rome to republican Venice. Machiavelli has gained an unwarranted notorious reputation for his "evil" treatise on political thinking and acting through his authorship of "The Prince". "The Prince" received more notoriety than his politically erudite work "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy" in which Machiavelli espouses his belief that the Roman Republic was the best and most virtuous form of government to emulate. His breadth and understanding of Roman history is remarkable. Machiavelli's love of his country Florence, and the proud political work as a minor government administrator and ambassador Machiavelli performed during its years as a republic show through in this work. It was on his many ambassadorial trips to the French, Papal, and Italian courts that he learned to observe political leaders and their governmental institutions which formed the basis of his political theories in his many writings. My favorite quote from Machiavelli is; "It's better to act and repent then not to act and regret".

Modern philosophers starting with Machiavelli reject the classical view of politics as undemocratic and elitist. Only wealthy men of leisure would have time to develop the virtues and character necessary to rule. Machiavelli believed that man by nature was selfish and driven by ambition. Machiavelli is not interested in character formation and moral appeal but in building the right kind of institutions to govern society. Laws and justice would protect men from power hungry rulers. Modern philosophy is an out growth of the revolution that takes place in the natural sciences during the Enlightenment. The purpose of science is the conquest of nature man is in control of human life. Philosophers from Machiavelli on become sectarian. "Everything good is due to man's labor rather than to nature's gift."

As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I found this to be an indispensable book to continue one's journey into political philosophy and history of Europe.

This was the book 10 years ago that introduced me to the fact there was more out there beyond the Little House books written by my favorite author and her daughter. After reading her "Missouri Ruralist" writings, it puts the theories of Laura not really writing the Little House books to rest. It also introduced me to the thrilling storytelling of Rose; so much so, I broke my cardinal "no lending of Little House books" rule to disasterous results. I'm glad to finally have a replacement.

Rose's interview with her father drives me nuts! You will find yourself wishing, after reading this and other snippets on "the man of the place" that Laura and Rose would have spent more time writing about him.

I loved the short stories by Rose Wilder Lane, (especially "Innocence") and Laura's pieces are also touching & well-written -- definitely recommended for the die-hard Ingalls-Wilder fan and for anyone interested in good short stories. Rose Wilder Lane will really impress those people who haven't read anything by her before.

This 'Sampler' is an absolute treat! I have completely enjoyed myself reading the stories in this book, the true and the fiction.

This was my first taste of Rose's work and she is an excellent writer and as we already know, Laura is as well! My favorites are ~ 'Let's Visit Mrs. Wilder'; 'How Laura Got Even'; 'Grandpas' Fiddle I & II'; 'It Depends On How You Look At It'; 'The Sunflower' and 'Object, Matrimony.'

An extra treat are the many photos and the commentary by William Anderson. I seem to have a neverending curiosity about Laura and her entire family. This book was very enjoyable because I learned about Laura's life after what she covered in her children's books.

I am acquiring quite a wonderful collection of Laura Ingalls Wilder books and this one shines brightly! Worth every penny.

For those of us that are interested in life beyond the original "Little House" series, this is a great book to own/read. I think that it captures the character of Laura and Rose because the stories and articles are by their own hand.

I really enjoyed the photos throughout this book because while Garth Williams' representation of the Ingalls family is lovely, it is nice to see what they really looked like. Even though they are in black and white you can imagine Pa's eyes twinkling.

Rose and Laura have very different styles, but both styles are very good. I especially liked Laura's articles because they paint a picture of farm life. The sections range in length so if you one have a few moments of reading time here and there it isn't necessary to worry about reading it in one sitting (though you may want to!).

Other things I recommend are the Little House series (of course!), and the series about Rose that was published recently (it has its slow parts but it was written by someone close to the family so there is a lot of accuracy). If you want to read more of Laura and Rose's writing this book is the perfect solution even considering the high price.

A Little House Sampler is the perfect title for this book. It gives you a sample of both Laura Ingalls Wilder and Rose Wilder Lane's interesting lives. Rose gives us a look into her and her parents lives after The First Four Years. Grandpa's Fiddle and Grandpa's Fiddle II was very interesting. I really enjoyed that story. Rose's story about the Faces in the Window is a perfect ghost story to tell around a campfire. Laura's stories about remodeling the kitchen and the dining room was great reading. She had a real decorating flair with the colors she chose. Laura wrote for Almanzo too. His stories about moving the spring shows us his story telling ability plus he was a very smart man. The pictures show his fine carpentry work. What a talented family! I mostly enjoy Rose's stories that describe her family life. I found her fiction work good reading but I thought she did her best writing when she wrote about her family. This book is a must for Laura Ingalls Wilder and Rose Wilder Lane collectors!

Among Austen devotees, Pride and Prejudice is usually regarded as being her best work, but I admit that I think a little differently. While of course P&P is one of the great works of literature and certainly deserves its place in the Western canon, I am inclined to think that Mansfield Park, which in my mind is rivalled only by Persuasion, is just as deserving of that title.

There are quite a few people that seem to think that Fanny and Edmund are much too dull to make a good hero and heroine, but I would beg to differ. Fanny is to me a very real character and not as woodenly perfect as she is sometimes made out to be- she can become angry, jealous and even occasionally depressed and the fact that she does not have the freedom to vent these negative emotions doesn't mean that she doesn't have the capacity or wish to. I have also heard it said that she doesn't have the courage to stand up for herself, but I would point out that she did so at the time that it was really important, even though it would have been much easier to go along with what her relations felt was best instead.

Edmund also should be given the credit that he deserves- it is true that he spends much of the novel under the delusion of his love interest being what she really never was, but when he finally understands it, his anger at himself for not recognising it sooner and his strong desire to make amends for it was enough to make me immediately forgive him for his past mistakes.

Many of the other characters also deserve some notice as well- Fanny's brother William is one of my very favorites in any Austen novel, and her horrible aunt Mrs. Norris is arguably one of her cruelest villains. Really, I can't think of any weak links- every character is deliniated in a strinking and lifelike way, and none seem to be one-dimensional, even when they are minor and not integral to the main story.

In closing, I would point out that while a reader in the mood for something "light, bright and sparkling" might not really appreciate Mansfield Park as much, anyone in need of a good, solid and fascinating novel should not pass it up.

Mansfield Park has it all. Of course it has Austin's dexterous English, but it also has the social commentary of class and gender which we also expect from her. It has all the feel of a retrospective, and it is remarkable in the extreme that Austin saw her own world with eyes so very like our own. If the quintessence of the creative writer's craft is the development and maintenance of tension, then this is the quintessential Austin novel, and possibly her best. We ache for Fanny when she is transported from her home as a young girl and fails to find either comfort or happiness in the manor house of her aunt and uncle. We are as edgy as the characters themselves as they mount a home theatrical production which places in relief each of their deficiencies, and foretells the guileless decency of our young protagonist. Our nerves are as knotted as hers when the scheming and fabulously wealthy Crawford stalks her, brandishing matrimony as a weapon. And even as we are turning the final dozen pages, the faulty judgment of Fanny's love interest, her cousin Edmond, instills lingering doubts as to whether a satisfying outcome is achievable. Let me provide a preview of Austin's delicious language and the underlying tension it conveys: "The evening passed with external smoothness, though almost every mind was ruffled, and the music which Sir Thomas called for from his daughters helped to conceal the want of real harmony." And here Austin portrays the controlling male mindset in dealing with their female marionettes: "In thus sending her away, Sir Thomas perhaps might not be thinking merely of her health...he might mean to recommend her as a wife by showing her persuadableness." And just how depraved is Mr. Crawford? "Curiosity and vanity were both engaged, and the temptation of immediate pleasure was too strong for a mind unused to make any sacrifice to right...he could not bear to be thrown off by the woman whose smiles had been so wholly at his command; he must exert himself to subdue so proud a display of resentment; it was anger on Fanny's account [for rebuffing him]; he must get the better of it, and make Mrs. Rushworth Maria Bertram [her maiden name] again in her treatment of himself." In Mansfield Park, we have pure evil in a position of commanding power, pitted against a powerless angel. And one by one, the angel's natural allies line up against her. There are a hundred paths to disaster, and only one to the sweetest victory.

After having read (and loved) Jane Austen's more famous novels EMMA and PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, I found MANSFIELD PARK a true delight. Fanny Price is taken in by her wealthy aunt and uncle as charity to her more lowly-married mother, and is raised with her cousins with the idea she needs refinement and education to become as good a woman as her lesser social standing will allow. Fanny is nervous and self-effacing, struggling with her new situation until her cousin Edmund makes her feel more at home. Gradually, she feels like a part of the family, although the nagging sense of unworthiness always asserts itself. As cousins marry and suitors appear, as scandals arise and emotions become known, Fanny finds herself in the equivalent of a Victorian soap opera.

Fanny is undoubtedly one of Austen's less assertive characters, although she does mature into a woman who knows what she wants and will accept no less. I loved Fanny and her honesty, the little girl who fears the stars in her eyes and still manages to grow up into a respectable - and respected - woman. Her complexities are subtle and understated, making the reader work at times to understand her motivation, although anyone who has felt like an outcast even once, or anyone who respects honesty, will identify with her. In true Austen fashion, the observations are witty, with pointed social analysis and cynicism dressed up in sly humor. Fanny's aunts in particular are skewered, but no one, not even Fanny, is spared.

Readers picking up this novel for the sheer delight of it will find it difficult to put down, as its language is accessible and free-flowing. Students and book club members who must pay closer attention to themes and other literary issues may want to consider the role social standing and money play; the evolution of Fanny's character (and whether she is sympathetic); the techniques Austen uses to evoke humor; and the courtship protocol for Victorian England and how the characters both work within, and violate, the social rules.

I highly recommend this book for teenagers and adults alike, especially those whose literary tastes run toward the classics.

The protagonist of Mansfield Park, Fanny Price, was one very near and dear Jane Austen's heart, but did not win a great deal of favor with the reading public. Fanny seemingly emulates the standards of moral feminine behavior for the time period, and unlike other Austen heroines, is not obviously spunky. However, her spunk is evident in her intelligence and unwillingness to sacrifice her principles in any circumstance, even circumstances that would elevate her into high society. I can see why Mansfield Park was Austen's favorite novel. There is an illusion of decorum on the surface, like all her work, but the undercurrent in this particular work is much darker than her other novels. The West Indian slave trade, sexual jealousy, infidelity, and the question of human worth all pervade the novel and instill the reader with the sense of discomfort that Fanny feels throughout. My only critique is the ending, a rather cursory tying up of the intricate story that does not match the complexity of the novel's body. A first rate novel, though, for those who want to take the time to unravel Austen's meaning and give Fanny Price a deeper look.

Jane Austen describes Mansfield park to have happened in the first two decades of 1800's. The uniqueness in the novel is the fact that Jane remains consistently and continuously truthful to the story. The story is about Fanny Price, the heroine, who happens to be Lord & Lady Bertram's niece. Fanny's parents are on the lower end of the economy, and therefore Fanny gets taken in by her uncle and aunt at the age of 10. Over the years of Fanny's stay at Mansfield Estate, she becomes more open, intellectual, virtuous and graceful. She grows into a beautiful woman who is genuinely liked by everybody. Like any great story, Mansfield Park has a good guy (Edmund & Sir Thomas Bertram), a bad guy (Mrs. Norris), the temptress (Mary Crawford) and the trickster (Henry Crawford).

Over the years, Fanny falls in love with Edmund (her first cousin) who reminds her of the comfort she received by her biological brother - William. Whether or not Fanny and Edmund will end up together is the constant question that keeps the novel engaging. In terms of the love complex of the novel, it is more like an open-ended square than a triangle. Henry loves Fanny, who loves Edmund, who loves Mary Crawford. Other than the obvious incestuous implication in Fanny affection towards Edmund and Edmund's obsession w/ Fanny's disposition - the novel is socially very truthful to the materialism of then England. Jane throws in a harsh comparison between Fanny's mother and aunt's households towards the last part of the novel when Fanny returns to her family for a few months. Jane also draws contrasts between Mansfield and London cultures by showing changes in personalities of Mary & Henry Crawford.

Fanny practices about Edmund, what Jane says in Emma - "If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more."

This is the ultimate botanical sourcebook for Steens and surrounding areas of Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada. Finally a single book covering this area, which as the author points out, contains plants at their geographic limit from several different floristic regions of the West. I was pleased to see a key included. So many popular field guides have forgone keys and only include select species. This key includes every species known from Steens and adjacent areas. If you have ever found yourself frustrated because the plant at hand isn't in your book, this is for you.

For the most part, the organization of the book is good. I was disappointed to see monocots and dicots lumped together in one alphabetic section. The author's intent was to make use easier for the amateur, but I found it frustrating. The black and white illustrations are well done. I found the color plates disappointing. Because of the quality of the paper, the ink has soaked in, obscuring detail and toning down contrast. However, it is easy to overlook this short-coming because of the wealth of information in one convenient source.

This is a great guide to the plants of Steens mountains, very detailed. If you are only casually interested in the plants of this area, be forewarned that this is not a picture book, but rather a key with excellent descriptions.

This is the most comprehensive field guide of any sort that I have ever seen! It's perfectly designed to help one identify any unknown plant in the Steens. Having been to the Steens Mountains I've witnessed the great diversity of the flora and the detail put into this guide for each individual specimen is most impressive!

Mansfield Park is the story of Fanny Price, who at ten years old is taken away from her indigent family to live with her rich cousins, the Bertrams of Mansfield Park. Both Fanny's uncle, Sir Thomas Bertram, and her Aunt Norris, his sister-in-law, want the distinction of rank preserved between Fanny and her richer cousins. Consequently, Fanny suffers under the tyranny of her Aunt Norris and the neglect of most everyone else at Mansfield Park. The only real exception is her cousin Edmund, who, as Fanny grows older, becomes both friend and counselor to her. The monotony of Mansfield Park is upset when brother and sister, Henry and Mary Crawford, visit their sister at the parsonage of Mansfield. Henry Crawford toys with the affections of Fanny's cousins, Maria and Julia, while Mary Crawford earnestly seeks the affections of Edmund. Fanny quietly observes all.

Mansfield Park is a complex and sometimes disturbing novel, and its conclusion has a tendency to feel less than satisfactory. Jane Austen contrasts the very moral Fanny Price and her cousin Edmund Bertram with the very charming but amoral Mary Crawford and her brother Henry Crawford. While doing this, Jane Austen never actually tells her readers what to think about her characters. She presents their thoughts, words, and actions in an almost unbiased manner and leaves judgment up to the reader. The novel is definitely food for thought, and every time I read it, I find myself feeling differently about both it and its characters than I did the time before. I appreciate both the storyline and its thought-provoking complexity.

The Oxford Illustrated edition of Mansfield Park contains a copy of the play Lovers' Vows referred to in the novel, which is such a treat. After reading both the novel and the play, one cannot help but be struck by the parallels between the two. I recommend this edition to anyone curious about the controversial play in the novel.

I love Jane Austen and would actually give this book 4 1/2 stars. It's a little slow in parts but like all of her characters, I loved getting to know Fanny Price. Fannie is a quiet girl who is sent to live with her wealthy uncle. She has a very kind heart and is very patient with her Aunt Norris who loves to "put her in her place". She is often reminding her that she is in a different class than her cousins that she is so fortunate to live with. It is wonderful to watch as Fannie grows into a young woman, how she learns to speak her mind and not allow others to manipulate her as they once did. It is definitely one of my very favorite books.

Since Edward Said wrote his foolish piece on Mansfield Park it has become de rigeur to attach agendas that reflect the intramural (ie bogus) leftism of the academy to novels (sorry texts) Even so this effort to do so in Mansfield Park is particularly outlandish. In fact the question "What is Mansfield Park about" is less interesting than the question "what is it like to read Mansfield Park" To answer that question one has to explore the LANGUAGE of the novel and see where it leads. The plot of Mansfield Park is off-putting--the verbal architecture of the novel is unsurpassed. Trust me--delight in the language, the layers of irony in a sentence or scene. Ignore current opinion which is both intellectually lazy as well as dishonest. Jane Austen made her feelings clear about the slave trade in EMMA. That A "political" intereprative industry should have grown up about this book testifies to the reigning stupidities of English Studies-- well an English Professor has got to make a living.

i'm not as in love with this story as i was about Pride and Prejudice, but it's still austen and it's still an excellent read.

In MANSFIELD PARK, Jane Austen expands her sphere of moral vision. In her earlier novels, she focused on the relationships between marriage partners that were framed in a comedic context of how the typical English society of the late 18th century might complicate the likelihood of a series of happy marriages. In this novel, however, she abandons the world of light and trifling romantic comedy for one in which she shows the unpleasant underside of the genteel society that was so noticeably lacking in say, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. This dark underside includes a number of troubling aspects, all of which are antithetical to the world of light comedy.

First, Austen relentlessly considers the impact of the lack of moral values as a result of inadequate education of children. The patriarch of the Bertram family, Sir Thomas, dearly loves his four children but he has given them a profligate style of life without teaching them how to live that life without being corrupted by its debilitating disadvantage of conspicuous consumption. Second, for the first time in her writing career, Austen boldly places the theme of good versus evil squarely on the interaction of several of her characters. The virtuous Edmund, who is as priestly as the collar that he wears on his neck, is tempted by the lascivious charms of the amoral Mary, who sees in Edmund only a fleeting diversion. Further, Austen places London itself as a den of urban iniquity, the source of the theatrical evil that threatens the pastoral innocence of Mansfield Park. Third, she calls into question some basic paradoxes about the nature of character itself. Are peoples' characters fixed at birth or are they molded by environment? And when character is fixed, is it capable of change, and if so, by what, by whom, and to what extant? These latter questions come into play mostly in the person of Fanny, the outcast relative of the Bertram family who loves Edmund. She is presented as impossibly virtuous, but in the face of her open defiance to marry the rich Henry Crawford, she is labeled as an ingrate and worse. No one in that group perceives her virtue, but the readers certainly do. From where does this virtue spring? It cannot be genetic since several others of her family are woefully deficient in virtue. It cannot be solely the result of environment since, except for the equally virtuous Edmund, the others treat her as uniformly unwanted and unloved.

The answers to the above questions are raised, but only partially answered. Part of the problem in seeking answers to such eternal questions as love versus honor, duty versus obedience, and heredity versus environment in a novel is that this is a novel, and for Austen, a didactic one at that. Since she chooses to use a number of flat characters to represent allegorical archetypes of good and evil, their responses to their encounters cannot convey the full spectrum of thought that a more fully fleshed person might. Further the many plots--the love affair between Fanny and Edmund, the plots of the Bertram sisters, and the interweaving of the many strands of plot between the Bertram children--combine to cause the reader to zero in on these many threads rather than ponder their potentially more universal significances. What is lacking in MANSFIELD PARK is a pleasing balance and harmony among the many snipped strands of plot and theme which cry out for a splicing that does not occur even at the happy marriage of Edmund and Fanny. This imbalance, combined with Austen's atypical use of realism and pressing social concerns, and her lack of a truly engaging heroine along the lines of Elizabeth Bennett, make MANSFIELD PARK a dutiful slog rather than a joyous read.

This is the only easily available book about the history of the instrument, with nice chapters dealing with the history of the recorder and coments about the repertoire. so, if you love the recorder, it is a must buy.
My only complain is that they should include a chapter with systematic and more detailed description and analysis of all Telemann and Hendel sonatas. A non academic chapter about the instruments available in the market, with photos of the various sizes would enlarge the number of readers interested in the book.

Any recorder player will enjoy and learn from this book.

I have been playing the alto recorder for a year now. This book taught me a great deal about the instrument. What's even better,
the book carefully introduces the repertory and where to find and read about it.I am delighted to learn that I will never run out of material to play.

The book is written with care, verve, and love. However, the reader is assumed to have considerable knowledge, to know without explanation, for instance, the implications of wide windways and bores, and narrow windways (p178). The history of the 20th century recorder revival, of great interest to contemporary enthusiasts, is brushed off twice, as "described and discussed in several publications." Fine, then why not this one? This should have been dealt with more carefully. The illustrations are very poorly reproduced. I am still suffering from eyestrain from trying to find the recorder in Plate 27.

Overall, though, this is a book any recorder player will want.

I came at this book with an interest in Mansfield (and to a lesser extent Woolf) and was tired of the countless studies (chapters and essays) comapring the two. Needless to say, then, I approached this study with trepidation and assumed I would not think much of it. But what a surprise! Smith has done a terrific job with her research and has produced a study that towers over the others I've seen. The study smells of sweat and hard work. I put it alongside Sidney Janet Kaplan's and Patricia Dunbar's studies of Mansfield. It is one of the best.

I came at this book from the Mansfield camp and a little exhausted by all of the stale comparisons between Mansfield and Woolf. However, Smith's work is full of well-researched and thoughtful analysis. It's an amazing study--particularly of Mansfield, I think--and one that belongs on the same shelf as Kaplan's KM & THE ORIGINS OF MODERNIST FICTION and Dunbar's RADICAL MANSFIELD. Essential reading for Mansfield scholars and fans alike.